Max Riffner
The Parlor
My weblog work journal. »Archives »Links
It Isn't About Us, It Is About You
I saw a sneak preview of V For Vendetta
No spoilers here, I promise.
However, it wasn’t the film’s minor changes that made it an utter disappointment. No, it was the major changes to the themes. It became about democracy, about power to the people (while taking subtle jabs at the Bush administration) and uniting against a totalitarian regime. This theme is not a bad one to carry, mind you, and truthfully in most democratic societies it is a comforting one. Especially given the nature of the current geo-political scene.
No, going back to the book, the theme wasn’t about democracy versus totalitarianism. It is about anarchy (individuality) versus fascism. Both of these ideas are clearly defined in the book; fascism is explained as being about strength in unity (according to the original Roman philosophy, symbolized by a bundle of twigs – break one but the bundle is still strong). This is not dissimilar to the principles of democracy that the movie shows – uniting against a common cause. Unfortunately it boils the movie down thematically to “us” versus “them.” In the book, V’s view of anarchy makes this confrontation about “you” versus “them.”
This is an important distinction. This isn’t anarchy – “woo hoo, smoke the banana peels for the Revolution, baby.” This is, as posed in the book, about you. You are the ones responsible for your actions. You are the ones who elected this government, and you are the ones who keep them there. You are not trapped in your shitty job. You are keeping yourself there. You can do whatever you like. You can stay where you are at, or you can change, but you have that choice.
V comes to this realization in himself. Evey discovers it through her ordeal. Finch discovers it in taking LSD at Larkhill as a way to get into V’s mind (which is perhaps the most anarchist moment in the book – drugs as mind expansion rather than for recreation – and it is even more subversive when a figure of authority like Finch does it). Those who do not get it, V does not appreciate. When he addresses the people of London, his words are venomous. He will open the doors, and help show the way, but he leaves it up to the people…
...which of course means everything goes straight to hell. We’re talking about a populace which wipes their nose goblins on the wall of the bathroom stall when there is toilet paper within easy grasp.
V does not enjoy chaos. Far from it. V wants order, but he wants voluntary order through personal responsibility, which is the central idea of V’s anarchy. That means you are responsible for yourself to act appropriately. In essence, that means you don’t need a government in the land of Do-As-You-Please (to take a phrase out of the book).
Now, coming from a democratic society, this idea of anarchy, of having no government, chills me to the bone. I’m not kidding. That is some scary shit to work through right there. And that is what makes the book so wonderful. Anarchy is not something I ever would have thought about, and here it is presented in a way that really subverts everything you’ve ever been taught.
Do you see the difference? Both works have basically the same plot hitching its horses up to different themes, by which I can only assume because democracy is an easier pill to swallow. It has become “edutainment” (groan). Begrudgingly, I overheard high schoolers who were praising the movie, and in this, at least, I can see some good out of it. It is a different movie, and had you known nothing about the book, I think it is enjoyable enough. Furthermore, I know and have spoken to many people in their 20s who have never read 1984 and will probably think a bit more about their government now (speaking of, whomever cast John Hurt, touché). Additionally, the book has lost none of its power; it is the same work sitting on my bookshelf, untouched and unchanged from its original tone and format.
Nonetheless, I don’t want easy-to-swallow pills. Ever. Neither should you.
Still the saddest moment for me was the character of V. Both works say V represents an idea, but in the movie, V became a man with reservations and redemptive qualities in the face of love. In the book, V was completely an idea, and ideas are relentless, bullet proof, uncaring and unfeeling. V’s actions weren’t really about revenge, no, it was about clearing a path for him to operate. Killing his tormentors was a bonus in his mind I believe. He played his part in his vaudeville show to the end. I think that becoming an idea as presented in the book is perhaps the scariest notion of all.
Everyone who I saw the film with enjoyed it. I believe their tastes are neither ridiculous nor unseemly, so if this post has made you not want to watch the movie, I would still go see it. I myself admit that it is not a bad experience, as far as movie making goes. What I hope for is that you challenge yourselves to read the book. You can buy it here.
I don’t think I want comments on this one. I’ve heard the arguments for the changes: it wasn’t relevant, it was an older work, you can’t adapt directly from comics to screen. I believe that the age and the idea of anarchy are still relevant since it is unexplored in film in general, and sorry, but may I introduce you to Frank Miller? He did a comic and a movie named Sin City, you may have heard of it.
No, I only know what I think, and that is sort of fitting in the Land of Do-As-You-Please, wouldn’t you agree?
UPDATE: I am opening up comments for some derranged reason because people have said they want to respond to this. Don’t expect me to respond, and don’t expect to be taken seriously if you haven’t read the book. I’m not kidding; I will berate you or delete your comment unless you come correct. Since this is about comparing the book to the film, do your goddamn homework before bringing your lip in here. If this just turns stupid, comments are gone. Got it?
Good. Now that that is out of the way…
Watch. After all that, there will be one comment.
UPDATE 2: Alan Moore interview at The Beat – good reading. Also confirms a theory of mine, that V is actually for Villain.
I apologise. I was refering to the interview on the blog link you posted. The most other interesting thing I found as commentary was the V for Vendetta Annotations by Madelyn Boudreaux. It is an actual graduate level research paper on the book. I’d hyper link it but you have hyperlinks blocked.
I just wanted to chime in and say a couple of things.
First, I can totally understand why Alan Moore is pissed off. If I had written something with a central political message, and I felt that someone had subverted the message into something else, then the entire tone of the work would have been changed. It’s like hearing Bruce Springsteen’s Born In The USA at sporting events being used as some big Pro-American anthem. Everyone who sings along, is kind of missing the point.
That said, I didn’t find the movie to be very pro-democracy either. I guess the end could be seen that way, but to me it seemed to simply say “Stand up for what you believe, even if that might get you killed.” Because as they stated, you can kill a man, but you can’t kill an idea.
My final comment is that although the pro-anarchy message may have been changed, other incindiary elements did not. I know that you dismissively called the movie “edutainment” (which is not necessarily a bad thing, ask KRS-ONE), I found the way it presented terrorism in such a positive light to be very challenging. Terrorism within in one’s own government is a scary proposition, just ask the people of Oklahoma City. And yet there it was in widescreen, a movie promoting change through blowing up buildings. “Edutainment” or not, that’s a bold statement that should give audiences something to chew on.
Since our entire country is founded on terrorism, I’m guessing The Patriot didn’t edutain the masses enough…
I guess the end could be seen that way, but to me it seemed to simply say “Stand up for what you believe, even if that might get you killed.”
I find that hard to see through the muck of the movie version of V’s motivations. At first he claims it is about revenge, but then he clearly feels regret for seeking revenge. Then it becomes saving the country, but wait, we’re back to revenge again. So which is it? This is where keeping the same plot but changing the themes really makes it a mess. By adding these human and redemptive qualities to complete his Hollywood character, it ends up loosing its teeth. V becomes a liberal hero in essence.
Liberal isn’t a bad word here at all. I just don’t understand why the producers of this film felt they had to take something challenging and jam American politics into it. It feels condescending, as if to say that we can’t either handle anarchy, or they can’t make any money off of it (bow down to the Hollywood blockbuster machine). It has become good liberals versus evil neo-cons when the original work was evil fascists versus an evil anarchist with the people of London caught in the middle of moral ambiguity. Nobody won, no one was innocent (even Evey), and there was nothing left to believe in.
I’d hardly say our country is based or founded on terrorism in a comparison to modern terrorism. That is one of the most misguided statements I have heard.
Political and historical brush strokes that wide are what I see wrong with this movie. Over generalizations of right and wrong based on political slants from either side are dangerous when wrapped into edutainment. The trouble is the ignorant masses begin to think they are real, just pick your side. Forget reading a non-fiction history book. If the movie, song, or comic says so, and it fits my view of the world, it must be true!
Yes! The right wing made up terrorism. There are no enemies in the world; we have just created them all. Everybody back to the rave, false alarm! This movie was co-opted for a left wing message, plain and simple… but it did not stop me from enjoying it. It just scares me that there were people that will see it and will drink the cool aid.
“The Patriot� is one of the most historically inaccurate films of all time. Nothing in it was really factual short of that there was an American Revolution. It is an example of a brush stroke from the far right.
I’d hardly say our country is based or founded on terrorism in a comparison to modern terrorism. That is one of the most misguided statements I have heard.
It may be apples and oranges, but the IRA brands themselves as freedom fighters.
I’d agree that it isn’t the same as modern terrorism though…
If the movie, song, or comic says so, and it fits my view of the world, it must be true!
This is so often what I hate about “edutainment,” because while it may be entertaining, it only ever reflects one point of view. So let’s call it what it really is: soapboxing. After reading V for Vendetta, you are left with more questions than answers, not a side to choose. I think that would have helped make it a much more challenging and daring film.
Terrorism: The threat or use of violence, often against the civilian population, to achieve political or social ends, to intimidate opponents, or to publicize grievances.
In the movie technically V wasn’t a terrorist, as much as maybe a serial killer. His major targets by the definiton of warfare were legitmate targets by a military standard. Communications centers, government institutions, and so on. He then singled out certain individuals for revenge. He never used his weapons against generic civilian targets or general unrelated mass populations. The average Joe was never threatened by “V”... (Just my crazy opinon)
Just thought I’d throw that on the fire.
Kenneth, I wholeheartedly disagree with your moral ambiguity. Terrorism involves the direct chosen targeting of civilians that have no military or strategic value.
Also there is plenty of impartial history books written out there, anyone that is telling you otherwise is selling nothing but blind discontent.
Tim, thanks for backing me up by saying that comparing terrorism today with the American Revolution is a bad analogy.
But I have to disagree with you on 2 points. The first is that V is clearly a terrorist. That’s what I thought was most challenging about the movie. I felt that the movie pretty pointedly showed V terrorizing the government by blowing up buildings and killing government officials. If that’s not terrorism, I don’t know what is. V for Vendetta is the most pro-terrorist film I have ever seen. And I think that brings up some very interesting questions on the part of the audience.
The second point is that you can argue terrorist vs. freedom fighter without being morally ambiguous. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. Ever hear the term “collateral damage?” That’s a term our government uses when it makes a target, so it can justify killing innocent civillians. I know it’s not the exact same thing, since the government is not specifically targeting civilians, but the goals and results are the same: defeat the enemy, even if innocents are lost. Even if you argue that the government at least tries to minimize civilian casualties, does that make it any less ambiguous?
And speaking about targeting civilians, what about the bombing of Dresden? The Allies had a policy in WWII called ‘area bombing,’ where entire towns were bombed into oblivion. Do you know that Germans called these bombings ‘terror bombings?’ What I’m saying is this, Dresden had no military or strategic value, it was was bombed to demoralize the German people. By your own defintion that’s an act of terrorism.
But we don’t call it terrorism. In fact, we don’t call it anything. WWII was a just war and we won. So we get to write the history books and we just pretend it never happened.
We like to pretend that we always act just and we never behave like terrorists, when we always have and we always will. War by definition is morally ambiguous. There’s no way around it.
My apologies for going on a bit of a rant, especially on someone else’s blog, but the movie really got me thinking about the topics of ‘is terrorism ever justified’ and ‘do the ends realy justify the means?’ To put it in context of what I’ve been talking about, does something like atrocity of the bombing of Dresden make our participation in WWII, by extension, any less just? These are not easy questions, and I find the answers to be ambiguous at best.
Tim, thanks for backing me up by saying that comparing terrorism today with the American Revolution is a bad analogy.
My apologies. My point was buried a bit, but what I was trying to show was that many in Britain believed the American Revolutionaries were terrorists. Here is one source I found quickly, but I’ve read others. Kenneth was also on this track. Had England won the war, would it have been called a war, or would it have been a terrorist uprising?
Also, to believe that there weren’t atrocities against innocent colonists who supported England by Revolutionaries is foolhardy. Were they specifically targeted? That is hard to say. I’d like to hope that wasn’t the case.
Since no one discussing this is an expert in Revolutionary War history, and I know it, I suggest we get the fuck back on topic, yes?
Man, I’m in a bad mood… keep it civil in here please. The tone of some of these are getting a bit condescending.
Tim, going back to your second comment: Hyperlinks are not blocked but are enabled with Textile. Click on the Textile Help link on how to craft an href.
Bloodsport is on, so I’m in a better mood.
I’m taking the following quote out of a recent MTV interview with Alan Moore which demonstrates what this whole post is about:
It’s been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country. In my original story there had been a limited nuclear war, which had isolated Britain, caused a lot of chaos and a collapse of government, and a fascist totalitarian dictatorship had sprung up. Now, in the film, you’ve got a sinister group of right-wing figures — not fascists, but you know that they’re bad guys — and what they have done is manufactured a bio-terror weapon in secret, so that they can fake a massive terrorist incident to get everybody on their side, so that they can pursue their right-wing agenda. It’s a thwarted and frustrated and perhaps largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values [standing up] against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what “V for Vendetta� was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about [England]. The intent of the film is nothing like the intent of the book as I wrote it. And if the Wachowski brothers had felt moved to protest the way things were going in America, then wouldn’t it have been more direct to do what I’d done and set a risky political narrative sometime in the near future that was obviously talking about the things going on today?
George Clooney’s being attacked for making [“Good Night, and Good Luck�], but he still had the nerve to make it. Presumably it’s not illegal — not yet anyway — to express dissenting opinions in the land of free? So perhaps it would have been better for everybody if the Wachowski brothers had done something set in America, and instead of a hero who dresses up as Guy Fawkes, they could have had him dressed as Paul Revere. It could have worked.
Discuss.
It seems to me that entertainment is one of the most censored of all the forms of media. Newspapers/magazines can get away with blowing open big stories, pointing out wrong doings (Watergate, anyone?).
Entertainment, though, might be able to get a blow in every once in awhile (a muscian speaking out, or the inanely-misled ramblings of Michael Moore), but they’re quickly labelled as (lately) liberals, and as liars/dissenters/helping-the-terrorists.
So would a movie have fared any better?
I don’t think it would have, even if the Wachowski brothers had been brave enough to make such a statement. It would have been good for a couple of weeks, maybe even leading the box office for a weekend after the “political scandal” of it had gotten out, but then it would have been quickly swallowed up by the rest of the media trying to keep it quiet.
I understand the author being a bit perturbed by his work being so watered down, but it seems that this environment only lets in the weak themes.
(as an aside, it’d be really nice to have some more room in this textarea, Max).
as an aside, it’d be really nice to have some more room in this textarea, Max
My thoughts exactly.
I don’t agree with the rest of your statement however. The Wachowski brothers have made a political statement in this movie, they just chose force their square peg into the round hole of V for Vendetta. I have to agree completely with Moore’s observations on Clooney’s Good Night & Good Luck. It is relevant for the times, has a strong point of view, and is set in America.
It seems to me that entertainment is one of the most censored of all the forms of media. Newspapers/magazines can get away with blowing open big stories, pointing out wrong doings (Watergate, anyone?)
Entertainment isn’t anymore censored than the news media. We have the freedom of speech. The only censorship happening here is self-inflicted, most likely to make a marketable money-maker.
I was just trying to get my point across. Sorry if it came out that way.
Knowing how some of these arguements play out in real life, I wanted to nip it in the bud before it really blossomed. Everyone here has an extrememly strong point of view, which is good. That sometimes gets the better of all of us though…
This forum needs to be moved to the arena of max’s driveway with booze and cigars the first warm night over 50 degrees.
Only if you read the book first.
I haven’t read it, but now I want to.
But after this line:
“We’re talking about a populace which wipes their nose goblins on the wall of the bathroom stall when there is toilet paper within easy grasp.”
I have to say, some things really make me not miss sharing your dayjob :)
As this debate seems to coming to close (Thank God), I just thought that I’d sum up by saying that I think that the reason that I liked it was because I focused on what it had rather than what it didn’t. And to also say that I could totally understand why the author of the source material and fans of the source material would hate it.
But getting back to what it actually did have, and what I thought was good about it, I thought I’d share this interview with Natalie Portman on NPR.
This should be my last post on this particular thread, unless of course, someone can find a reason to disagree with me on this as well.
Or maybe I should just learn to keep my mouth shut…
I just thought that I’d sum up by saying that I think that the reason that I liked it was because I focused on what it had rather than what it didn’t.
I could respect the film for that if I didn’t think it failed in this regard also. In the reinterpretation of the book’s themes, I think it muddled everything into a mess.
Not to drag this all up again, but I read Steven Grant’s column today, and he had a review for V For Vendetta. I thought I’d share the bit that best articulates why I didn’t have a problem with the way it was adapted and why I didn’t see it as being “pro-democracy.”
“Saw V FOR VENDETTA the other day. Liked it fine, didn’t even mind the liberties it took with the graphic novel, since I never expected a purely faithful adaptation of it anyway. I know it has been excoriated in some quarters for betraying the anarchist principles behind the original work, but we are talking about a big budget Hollywood film, so there was no way those were ever going to blatantly be in there. In fact, a case could be made that the film promotes anarchy by omission: at no point does V recommend any form of government to replace what he’s bringing down, only saying that it’s up to the new era to follow its own path.”
Again, for the last time, Hollywood can do a faithful translation of comics, either directly with Sin City or in spirit with Batman Begins and Spider-Man. These filmmakers and their defendants keep hiding behind the old argument that you can’t faithfully adapt graphic novels to the screen and that is simply not true.
In fact, a case could be made that the film promotes anarchy by omission
I don’t agree at all with this statement, though I can see where he’s coming from. The film version of V is motivated almost strictly by revenge, a very personal goal. The graphic novel version of V is portrayed as killing his tormentors as a way to clear a path for him to operate on his true goals, namely bringing anarchy to England. Finch utters this statement very early in the book, when he discovers the journal, that now there is no one alive who can recognize or has any history with V, and that revenge was merely a bonus.
The film deals with V’s revenge almost exclusively. V gets his revenge in the first three chapters/installments, then proceeds with his plans for the last 3/4s of the graphic novel.
You can also browse through the Parlor archives.
Recent Articles
- April 27, 2010
- This Saturday is Free Comic Book Day
- January 11, 2010
- #CinematicShowdown
- December 4, 2009
- Guest Strip: The Loneliest Astronauts
- November 12, 2009
- Circling Back
- October 30, 2009
- I'm Still Here
Search
Get the Emails
Keep up to date with my email newsletter. Newsletters are sent at least quarterly.
Grab My Site Feed
Stay up to date with my Feed in your favorite newsreader!
See Who's Linking Here
Check out who is linking to me with my Technorati Profile.
Mar 16, 12:23 AM
The movie got to bugging me late night about its political message and I went to do some reading at 2:00 A.M.
After reading Alan Moore’s blog and some other writings of his about the book I agree with him and now understand what max has been ranting about. I think the movie was co-opted for a left wing message, not anything to do with anarchy.
I did enjoy the movie greatly, but its underlying political message almost struck me a naive leftism. But that is a rant for another blog.