V: The Film Vs. The Graphic Novel

Rating: 7/10 (2 April 2006)

To each film there is a welcome avenue for healthy debate. I very much encourage this debate; it means that a film is provoking an emotional or just a basic response from the viewer. Everyone is allowed to argue whichever point they find has merit. Whether they liked the movie or hated it is by all means their point to make. This film however, happens to be loosely based on a pre-existing work of fiction and though the film and the original graphic novel should be considered separate entities, it's important to at least recognize this dynamic. Alan Moore has a wide history of writing very far reaching and critically acclaimed graphic novels and novels alike, he has also garnered his share of criticism. I am by no means forcing you to admire Moore or even sympathize with him by writing this, I am only trying to redirect the mass to consider that for better or worse, the film is only one side to this idea of V. I will say this now, I liked the film, being a staunched supporter of the graphic novel notwithstanding. I thought the film was visually brilliant and culminated very well on screen. There are huge discrepancies between the films V and the novels V. I admired the film-V for his emotion and zest and at times his morbidly comedic disposition. Morally however, the film-V is almost an entirely different character then the GN-V. The films changes to V's character were understandable I must conceit (given the porting over to a film audience) but convey a completely different moral code. The GN-V is a far more convincing madman, in that he does not break down sobbing or fall in love with Evey. The GN-V is a far more politically charged lone wolf, preaching anarchy and forwarding his extremist agenda. The film-V does this in spades as well, don't get me wrong, but a lot of V's strength in the GN is sucked out of him for his film appearance. In both the film and the GN, V is a Romantic character: he transcends his dementia and retrieves a very valuable truth (that he would soon impart to Evey) and acts with a passion to his cause. We all know this though, and you don't need to read the GN and see the film to understand this, all I'm saying is this: If you watched the movie, you have a personal responsibility to read the GN. I say this because the film, though doing a swell job by and by, collectively kills the GN-V. I had this realization as soon as the credits rolled in the theater. The politically unforgiving and morally absolute GN-V has been replaced by a completely different V, one that is ruthless and intriguing to be sure, but entirely different from the one I fell in love with from the GN. Whether you like Alan Moore or not is irrelevant, since you can't compare these two pieces of expression in the same arena. I'm not saying the GN is better then the film or vice versa only that the architect of this character and intern the story needs to be considered fully. The biggest concern I had with the film had nothing to do with the content but the implications that the film offers this generation. Will people know this film was based on something? Will they know it's a completely different piece of work? Will they think V for Vendetta the film is V for Vendetta as a whole? To surmise, like the movie or hate the movie, that's not in question, but whether you like it or hate it, do it honestly. The film-V and the GN-V are two completely different dudes, and you can chose to like or hate them too, but I stress that they are morally and spiritually diverse.