My First Graphic Novel
Surprise! V for Vendetta. Loved the movie, couldn't get enough. Contrary to popular wisdom, I'd say the movie was pretty faithful to the book. And forgive me for saying but...I liked the movie better. **Struck by lightning** A lot of the minor changes that would have offended the purists, I think, were either necessary for cutting down the cheese/cliche factor, or they just streamlined the narrative, which otherwise might have drowned out the themes.
Biggest differences are Evey Hammond, the Leader, and Creedy. I'm most undecided about Evey. In the graphic novel she goes from being frightened ingenue and damsel-in-distress to educated apprentice. In the movie, her only crime in the beginning is complacency and conventionality - and because of this she resists V, in a way that MIGHT make me prefer the naive Evey of the book - and in the end she becomes an anarchist, but kind of because she has no choice. Jury's still out. One the one hand I don't care for damsels in the distress, but on the other hand that Evey has more agency in her transformation.
LOVED what the movie changed about the Leader and Creedy. I guess this is where people saw the parallel with the Bush regime: the single-minded ideologue leader who is really just a puppet for his sociopathically efficient second-in-command. Even so, I think the movie translated the important part of their relationship well, namely that the second is willing to do all the necessary dirty work, and the leader is stable only insofar as his second is willing not to upstage him.
And finally I come to V himself. I recall reading that Alan Moore rejected the movie because he thought it lost the theme of anarchy, the real ambiguity in V's character when we're deciding whether he is a hero or a maniac. I would again disagree. It's true that the movie's V is more idealistic and less philosophical, but the graphic novel's V also has a lot of compassion and love, so I don't think it's misleading to portray V as a kind of romantic. In any case, the main point, as I understand it, is to explore the meanings of government and the social contract, which the movie does well. It also faithfully translates the theme of ideas, symbols, and art as the sustenance of the human spirit, the only things that really matter and that allow ordinary humans to achieve superhuman deeds.
(Whew. This is turning into a treatise.)
Obviously my newest experience with the graphic novel (besides the cheese, that is, hehe) is the visual stimulus. I gotta say, I'm very impressed with it. It really expands the possibilities of the story, sets the mood so pithily, and conveys a lot of intangibles. This particular graphic novel is quite cinematic, with extensive use of voice-over that permits a somewhat violent juxtaposition of scenes, which is jarring at the same time that makes perfect, symmetrical sense. The quotations (esp Shakespeare) are employed to similar effect. One particularly memorable one is when V goes to kill the bishop; he arrives when the bishop is indulging in temptation and sin, and says, "Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste." It works on the levels of V being an unexpected visitor, and of course, the devil.
Biggest differences are Evey Hammond, the Leader, and Creedy. I'm most undecided about Evey. In the graphic novel she goes from being frightened ingenue and damsel-in-distress to educated apprentice. In the movie, her only crime in the beginning is complacency and conventionality - and because of this she resists V, in a way that MIGHT make me prefer the naive Evey of the book - and in the end she becomes an anarchist, but kind of because she has no choice. Jury's still out. One the one hand I don't care for damsels in the distress, but on the other hand that Evey has more agency in her transformation.
LOVED what the movie changed about the Leader and Creedy. I guess this is where people saw the parallel with the Bush regime: the single-minded ideologue leader who is really just a puppet for his sociopathically efficient second-in-command. Even so, I think the movie translated the important part of their relationship well, namely that the second is willing to do all the necessary dirty work, and the leader is stable only insofar as his second is willing not to upstage him.
And finally I come to V himself. I recall reading that Alan Moore rejected the movie because he thought it lost the theme of anarchy, the real ambiguity in V's character when we're deciding whether he is a hero or a maniac. I would again disagree. It's true that the movie's V is more idealistic and less philosophical, but the graphic novel's V also has a lot of compassion and love, so I don't think it's misleading to portray V as a kind of romantic. In any case, the main point, as I understand it, is to explore the meanings of government and the social contract, which the movie does well. It also faithfully translates the theme of ideas, symbols, and art as the sustenance of the human spirit, the only things that really matter and that allow ordinary humans to achieve superhuman deeds.
(Whew. This is turning into a treatise.)
Obviously my newest experience with the graphic novel (besides the cheese, that is, hehe) is the visual stimulus. I gotta say, I'm very impressed with it. It really expands the possibilities of the story, sets the mood so pithily, and conveys a lot of intangibles. This particular graphic novel is quite cinematic, with extensive use of voice-over that permits a somewhat violent juxtaposition of scenes, which is jarring at the same time that makes perfect, symmetrical sense. The quotations (esp Shakespeare) are employed to similar effect. One particularly memorable one is when V goes to kill the bishop; he arrives when the bishop is indulging in temptation and sin, and says, "Please allow me to introduce myself. I'm a man of wealth and taste." It works on the levels of V being an unexpected visitor, and of course, the devil.
posted by Rex at 3:30 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home