V on film

I’ll warn you right from the start this posting has some potential spoilers in it, especially if you are not familiar with the original graphic novel or would rather see the film with no prior knowledge. Okay, still with me? Good. Short version of this would be “I loved this film.” Naturally I intend to expand a little on that! To set it in context before we get to the movie I should say that the original V For Vendetta is not only one of my favourite graphic novels but one of my favourite books of all time – and I read a lot of books, so it has plenty of competition. When I say I’ve lost count how many times I have re-read it over the years I don’t mean that as a simple turn of phrase but literally; it is a work I have been drawn back to again and again, always finding something new in the writing and the art and always (perhaps sadly) a new event in the real world of today that V had already addressed.

Naturally the graphic novel and the film are not the same creature, at least outwardly. The book is rather big – a fact which surprised the interviewer from the BBC’s Radio Café who talked to me about V for last week’s radio show – and as such parts of the story and characters may need to be adapted, altered, merged or dropped altogether. So we lose some of the rich background and story-arcs Alan and Dave had in the book – we don’t have the BBC reports from the resistance army in Scotland for example, using Irn Bru bottles full of petrol against the fascist regime or the criminal underground arc – but while those added depth to the grim world of V in the book they are a luxury which would have burdened the film, slowing the pace.

Principally I am of the opinion that the main changes have been made to facilitate bringing the thrust of the original story to a different medium and also to update the story, make it more contemporary. The original, brilliant though it is, does have a distinct 1980s feel to it, although, like Orwell’s 1984 (which is also cleverly paid homage to by having John Hurt as the leader on a giant screen, Big Brother style which is amusing considering he played Winston Smith in the film version of 1984), the questions it raises stand outside of any one historical period. In fact it is chilling how much V fits into our post 9-11 War-on-Terror world; events of the last few years inspired me to re-read V yet again and it seems the film-makers too approached it in this fashion: changes, where they have been made, are very much in the spirit of the book for the most part.

As Claude Lalumière noted in his excellent review over on Locus Online, the film, like the book, is not afraid to deal in shades of gray – it has a central hero who may be fighting a corrupt, fascist regime but he uses (perhaps even enjoys using) violent means; he is a dark hero to some and a terrorist to others while those in the ruling party are not all evil (the detective Finch for example is a good man in a bad time); others think they can make good come of questionable acts (Delia’s medical research in the camps, which would make V into the figure he becomes). Many critics thought V would be controversial in today’s climate because the central character can be seen as a terrorist and that the film’s delayed release was less to do with technical production reasons and more to do with the horrendous bombings in London last summer being too recent.

In the end the film actually incorporates – very bravely I thought – these recent events into the narrative, with news footage of an attack on London’s transport network and the closing of the tube system as one of the first acts the nascent Norsefire party makes, supposedly for the safety of all citizens. And the detention camps, the illegal procedures, mass arrests without trial, vilifying immigrants, the censorship – they too are all carried out for the greater good and the safety of all (the CCTV cameras, as in the book, carry little ‘for your safety’ signs, a nice touch). The film now, as the book did then, warns the ordinary voter against allowing governments to use fear as a way of levering more power unto themselves and of abandoning personal responsibility in favour of hiding like terrified children and allowing a stronger authority figure to make those decisions on our behalf.

In a Britain and America with the detention of suspects without trial and claims of WMDs to justify war this is tantamount to implicating the very audience itself, saying to them this is the sort of thing that can happen if you let it. It was a very brave aspect of the book and equally brave I think for a film and I admire it for taking that stance. This makes the film more than entertainment with a slight relevance to contemporary events, it makes the film – and the book – a cautionary tale that, like 1984, is one which can be uncomfortable but needs to be aired.

Its not all fascist doom and repression though – there are lighter touches such as V engineering a delivery of replica Guy Fawkes masks to the broadcasting station who assume it is for a new big number for the show; Hugo Weaving delivers an opening monologue which carries alliteration using the letter V to ridiculously impressive lengths while Stephen Fry plays a very different but very good version of Gordon, the man Evey turns to from help when she leaves the Shadow Gallery; Fry’s TV presenter even introduces a Benny Hill romp into the proceedings at one point. As Claude noted in his review, it is a shame Alan Moore removed his name from it after his argument with the film-makers and DC Comics, because this really is far more faithful to his original vision than you would expect from a big budget Hollywoodmovie. Fan of the book? Then this adaptation is unmissable for you. Never read the book? Then this film is unmissable for you. And then you should go and read the book. Oh and next time some ill-informed person loftily declares to you that comics are "kid's stuff" hit them with a copy of V.