More thoughts on V For Vendetta

[jducoeur]

Having thought about it overnight now, I think I've pinpointed why the primary change from the graphic novel to the movie bugs me. This is an expansion of one of my points from last night, and necessarily wanders more deeply into spoiler land.

Alan Moore's curse has always been that his stories get adapted by people who don't get them. LXG is a famous disaster, and as far as I can tell From Hell is more inspired by than based on the graphic novel. V For Vendetta is a much closer adaptation -- deeply faithful in many respects and not far off in most. And yet, it changes the message of the original in an unfortunate way, and that change is driven by the changes to the most cryptic character in both stories: the Leader.

It's the single element that the Wachowski Brothers changed most strikingly -- enough so that it has to be deliberate. Let's describe what we get in both stories. Let me emphasize that this is going to be spoilers for both stories, albeit only of one element of each.

In the graphic novel, the Leader is Adam Susan. He isn't exactly the stereotypical dictator -- neither big nor especially loud, shy and a bit withdrawn. He spends most of his time in front of the Fate computer, which monitors everything going on in the country and advises on what's going to happen next. He is a strong hand when necessary, but he is more threatening than violent. V spends a good deal of time carefully destroying him on a very personal level, and it's one of the creepier sections of the book.

In the movie, he is replaced by High Chancellor Adam Sutler. Note that this is, AFAIK, the only character whose name gets changed in the story. I suspect that's because they wanted to avoid confusions from having a male main character named "Susan", but it's somehow apt, because he's also the character who has changed the most. Sutler is the abusively loud dictator, always berating his underlings. He's actually more cryptic in the movie than in the book, never appearing in the flesh until the end of the story whereas in the book he is a significant character. (Really, what we see of Sutler may be similar to what his underlings see of Susan. But by not seeing the man beneath, our impression of him is vastly different.)

The big difference, though, is motivation, and that affects everything that this story is about. In the graphic novel, Susan is a man who has done what he believes is necessary. The country was sliding into chaos -- indeed, as far as we can tell, the world had been practically ending -- so he stepped in and took power. It is quite clear that he believes that order is the only bulwark against disaster, and he is willing to accept any amount of pain that that order inflicts on his society as necessary. In the end, Susan is killed less because of his direct actions than because of what he stands for: the symbol of this society that is so functional on the surface and so broken beneath.

In the movie, Sutler is a simpler villain, who created the disaster in order to take power. Indeed, the movie is heavily about the discovery of him engineering it. He's a true monster, kept at arm's length because we don't want to see him humanized. His killing is the putting down of a figure who is almost pathetic in his whimpering evil.

That single character change alters the story fundamentally. The graphic novel is about the way that society can eat itself when fear becomes its purpose. In the graphic novel, the bad guys arose because the people were so desperately hungry for security that they threw away their freedom for it. Susan stepped into the breach and acted as the force of security, but you always get the feeling that this was a "someone had to do it" moment in his eyes. He views himself as the instrument of Fate, to a considerable degree. The movie, by constrast, is about how a villain can take power by imposing fear deliberately. Adam Sutler is utterly cynical, whereas Adam Susan was utterly (indeed, frighteningly) sincere.

I'm pretty sure that the Wachovskis made the change quite intentionally, as a commetary on modern American politics, and that's understandable -- it's the easy Michael Moore view, of how the US has been taking over by power-hungry madmen. And that's a worthwhile story to tell. But it's frankly less apt than the original story would have been, of how a society in fear often demands a dictator, begging for their rights to be abrogated for a little false safety. The movie talks about how a few bad man can abuse a country; the book is about how a country can destroy itself through fear.

There's a key scene in both stories, in which V goes on the air and tells the populace that this is, ultimately, all their fault. It's preserved from the original into the movie. And yet, it rings hollower in the movie than in the book -- in the movie, the people are guilty merely of naivete, whereas in the book they are more actively complicit. That change makes the movie easier to accept, and permits a happier and more pat ending. But by making it less unsettling, it fails to tell the story that is mostly going unspoken today. And that's unfortunate, because it's a story that people need to hear...

Comments

[new-man.livejournal.com]

I thought the ironically named "Sutler" (who was anything but subtler than Susan) and his "Architects of Fear" plot were drawn from other Alan Moore sources (Watchmen) and from persistent rumours that GWB new about the WTC attacks and deliberately did nothing to prevent them, so that we could be drawn into a war (and that this wasn't the first time America had used this strategy. There's a strong contention that Roosevelt knew about the dawn attack on Pearl harbor).

The graphic novel played on two fears of the time -- nuclear war and a fear of computers, both of which would have played as dated. We've seen what happens in the movies when machines gain too much power. They turn into HAL or SkyNet...or The Matrix. I don't think the Wachowski Brothers felt the need to return to that theme -- especially since (IMHO) it's a lesser theme in V.

[jducoeur]

Oh, I agree -- in particular, the Fate plot would have come across as implausible today. I think that years of dealing with Windows have largely killed peoples' fears of computers taking over the world. Like I said, I agree with most of the changes made for the movie, and while I mourn the loss of the deliciously creepy Fate/Susan subplot, I think it was an appropriate cut.

But the larger story the movie tells is one that's been told repeatedly in recent years: at this point, I think that *most* people who are able to hear to the possibility that we've been cynically manipulated into giving up our freedom have begun to listen to it, at least at some level. The story of the graphic novel is more disturbing, and one that is very rarely spoken -- that even when the people *want* to give up their freedom, it's still the wrong thing to do. At this point, I think that's a message that needs to be shouted from the rooftops, because I'm beginning to see it as the more serious long-term danger...

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

He views himself as the instrument of Fate

Nicely put :-)

There's a key scene in both stories, in which V goes on the air and tells the populace that this is, ultimately, all their fault. It's preserved from the original into the movie. And yet, it rings hollower in the movie than in the book

It certainly does, to the extent that I think "preserved" is an over-statement. The speech in the movie was a call for the people to revolt. The one in the book was an open threat, to both the government *and* the people.

[(Anonymous)]

What is all this talk of "graphic novel"? Is that simply another way of saying "hardcover comic book"?

That would be quite a fantastical stretch to lump a comic with a novel - unless you wish to dumb down novels.

- e.

[jducoeur]

Good lord -- how have you been in the graphics field for this long without coming across the term "graphic novel"? It essentially means a self-contained story told in comics form, generally in a bound collection. Like it or not, it's been the standard term within the publishing industry for decades.

And frankly, you're mistaking the medium for the message, which is a fairly naive mistake. Comics are simply a medium, which can be used for simple stories or deep ones. Yes, most comics are pablum -- so are most novels, including the vast majority of bestsellers. *Good* comics can be every bit as deep and complex as a serious novel.

V is an instructive case here: it's appeared in three forms. The movie is good, but a tad shallow. The "book" (the adaptation of the movie) is utterly wretched. The original graphic novel that it started as is *much* deeper than either of the other two: better-written, far more complex, and much subtler in its messages and themes. (And as long as any self-respecting novel, frankly -- this isn't a 20 minute read.) It's certainly better than 95% of all prose novels published today. It's worth noting that essentially all of the good bits of the movie -- both those strong in narrative power and in thematic message -- were taken directly from the graphic novel.

If you're actually interested in the subject (rather than simply interested in making snide remarks), find and read the book "Understanding Comics", which is a deep and fairly scholarly analysis of the medium...

[(Anonymous)]

Doing a little research, I see that Alan Moore asked for his name to be stricken from the credits for the film. I'm not quite certain why as of yet.

Perhaps I'll get this when it hits Netflix.

[jducoeur]

Part of it is probably Moore being pissy, which he is prone to. But I think much of it is the changing of the message. The politics of the graphic novel are fairly precisely targeted, and they are *not* the same as the politics of the movie -- similar, but different in some subtle key respects. That, more than anything else I see, seems like a reason that would annoy him enough to dissociate himself from it...

[(Anonymous)]

Actually, I am going to take a pass on this movie.

[dmnsqrl.livejournal.com]

I find this post very interesting and may myself put something up on my journal when I think more people will have seen the movie and are less likely to be spoiled.

I saw the movie last night with kr1mz0n_ghoti and although the viewing was plagued with enough technical difficulties that the 6 people watching were all given free passes to some future movie of our choice, the movie itself shown through. I have not as yet read the graphic novel but I am in the process of arranging to get my hands on it.

What I find most intriguing about this post is that I would say that my greatest disagreements with friends who have ideologies which lean more to the left than my own revolve around what seems to be the difference between the graphic novel and the movie. I think that what jducoeur gives as the relationship between leadership and populace in the graphic novel is a far more accurate picture of what is going on today.

There are those who want to paint what is going on today as a result of a few 'bad men' gaining power.... I suspect because that would be far easier to change. There is this assumption that if those people could sufficiently be proven to be 'bad men' that there would be a revolt and sanity would return. Reports come out proving that someone lied about something and in some quarters a collective breath is held waiting for the expected revolution to begin..... and it doesn't happen.

I think that there will be far more success if some people come to see that the greater obstacle is not some group of 'bad men' with power, but a portion of the populace whose priorities and actions are closer to what it seems that of the populace in the graphic novel.... and so far that portion of the populace has not seen reason to believe the world that will result will be anything other than what they believe they desire.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Much of this dodges the question - could they have doen as good a job with the more subtle story in the 2 hours they have for a movie?

My answer is simple - very probably not. It would require a lot of screen time for the chancellor character. Time they simply didn't have to spare, IMHO. And it keeping that aspect similar would have made the movie weaker, what purpose would have been served?

[jducoeur]

I think you're confusing two points here. Could they have told the Susan story within their timeframe, as it was in the book? No. But they *could* have told the story of how a society demands fascism in the same span of time as they did the big St. Mary's subplot. It would be a different story, with different scenes, but it doesn't necessarily take all that much more time. Indeed, it doesn't really take all that much time in the graphic novel -- the *absence* of the St. Mary's plot would have left the matter much more ambiguous, and more thought-provoking. Turning Sutler into such an overt villain was a change that demanded a bunch of extra script time.

What is less clear is whether they could have made a *blockbuster* with such a disturbing message. Quite possibly not: society doesn't tend to like art that points out its own flaws too clearly. From that vantage point, they may have made the only movie that was practical for them to make. Which is forgiveable, but I still find it unfortunate...

[umbran.livejournal.com]

Well, first off, I don't think of the St. Mary's thing as a "subplot" in the film. It is, instead, exposition of backstory, something rather necessary to understand the current situation seen in the film.

Second, as far as I'm concerned, the movie did show a society demanding fascism. They made that quite clear to me - Sutler's views were known, and a whole new office was created and people voted him into it by overwhelming margin. The people requested him specifically because he'd make them safe, if only they'd give up their freedom. V makes that clear in his TV broadcast.

The difference is whether that demand comes all at once, as a response to a particular acute crisis (as seen in the film), or whether it comes slowly, in stages, as a slippery slope. I submit that the slippery slope version cannot be done satisfactorily in as little screen time. It requires a more broad presentation of the backstory, more snapshots at clearly different times to show the slide to fascism.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

St. Mary's was a "subplot" in the sense that it wasn't an essential part of the "V for Vendetta" story -- as clearly demonstrated by not being present in the graphic novel.

Interestingly, the graphic novel had remarkably little "exposition of backstory". The "current situaton" was simply shown, not explained in any great depth. V for Vendetta isn't about the slide into fascism, it's about the various available *responses* to fascism.

[umbran.livejournal.com]

"Not much" is, of course, relative. "Not much" in the graphic novel may still be "too much" to fit on the screen in the time alotted. Not having read it, I cannot fully comment. It may not have had St. Mary's, but I presume it had something else.

However, much of the criticism I see of the movie, in fact, the single largest point I've seen mentioned, in multiple forums, seems to be that they tweak the origin of the regime. If it is that bloody important that so many devotees find it a point of criticism, then I submit that it is important to the original that it be a slide. That means it needs to be displayed properly. And pacing-wise, that can take more time on screen than it does on a printed page, due to how the audience views time passing in the different media.

[jducoeur]

Hmm. I don't think that actually follows. The message in the original (in my interpretation, anyway -- all of this requires a big caveat to that effect) is that the reasons why the regime came to power *don't really matter* -- that the primary blame falls on the people for letting it happen. That message would seem to be weakened by *any* explanation that really goes into much detail. From that point of view, it's a useless distraction from the real point, which (I believe) is that this form of government, regardless of its origins or intent, is necessarily broken...

[jducoeur]

Without giving too much of the novel away: that backstory is entirely invented for the film, and has nothing to do with the graphic novel. The novel's background is actually quite a bit more apocalyptic, yet told in far *less* detail, and nonetheless works.

The principal difference comes in the message of blame. The movie very clearly blames Sutler and his cronies: they were bad people who manipulated the populace to soften them up so the cabal could take power. The book is much more ambiguous on that point -- while some of the fascists are simply greedy bastards, Susan himself is an *idealist*, and it's his fascist ideals that are impeached in the story.

Frankly, the more I think about the ending of the movie, the more I understand why Alan Moore got so pissed off about it, because the message it sends is so very different. I mean, the motto of the fascists is "Strength Through Unity. Unity Through Faith." That's precisely what the populace *does* exemplify at the end -- it just happens to be faith in V, not in Sutler. The result is that the movie gets a much more satisfying ending than the book, but winds up oddly weakening the anti-fascism message. It's rather easy to come out of the movie thinking that the only problem here is the evil leaders, whereas that motto *itself* is the problem in the book...