V For Vendetta

So I should write something about V For Vendetta, if only to say how much I disagree with Peter Bradshaw’s review.

The graphic novel that the film is based on is one of my favourites, so I’m probably a bit biased and you should bear that in mind when reading my comments. Having said that, I should point out that the film isn’t that closely based on the comic. Oh the basic shape of the story is there, but a lot of changes have been made. Most of these are simplifications which were probably necessary to get the story down to just over two hours. The author, Alan Moore, removed his name from the project apparently on the basis of the damage that Hollywood had done to two of his previous works (From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen). This is a shame as this is by far the best adaptation of one of Moore’s stories and it looks very strange to see the credit “Based on the graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd” at the end of the film.

There were four points at which I thought that Hollywood spoilt the story.

• Natalie Portman’s accent. I hear she worked very hard with a dialogue coach to get her English accent right. So why did she keep moving into South African? Surely it would have been cheaper to just employ an English actress.
• Brits do not eat a breakfast called “eggy in a basket”. Why would the writers even think that we do?
• Most of the underground scenes took place in The Strand station. The Strand station was absorbed into Charing Cross station decades ago. Why not keep it in Victoria like in the book.
• Right at the end of the film, Stephen Rea pronounces “lever” to rhyme with “never”. That’s just wrong.

Minor quibbles tho’ all in all.

Oh, one more annoying change. In the book the last explosion destroys Downing St. That’s because there’s a tube line that runs (nearly) under Downing St. In the film the last explosion destroys the Houses of Parliament. There’s no tube line that runs anywhere near there (certainly not one that passes through “The Strand”).

It’s interesting to see how the politics in the story resonate with the current situation. When the book was originally written we were in the middle of the Thatcher nightmare and Moore’s vision of the not-too-distant future was based on that. But under New Labour the future looks even more convincing. I liked Nik’s point that a fascist government is no longer seen as a good enough reason for the audience to be against the government, they have to have been responsible for a biological attack on their own country as well.

One important point that the book and the film both make is that your definition of a terrorist depends on your beliefs and what the terrorist is fighting for. We’re obviously sympathetic towards V and support his campaign against Norsefire – and yet he’s using exactly the same tactics as the terrorists that we’re currently at “at war” with. When Moore wrote the book the terrorists of the day were the IRA and V’s actions were a terrible escalation of theirs. These days, V’s actions don’t seem at all unlikely or unrealistic.

So anyway, I recommend that you ignore the critics and go and see the film in order to make your own mind up. At the very least, it’ll give you something to think about.

England prevails.