Note that, according to the article, the climax of the film features the destruction of Parliment. In the comic, that's V's first public act.

This might seem like nitpicking, but it's not. Given V's guise as a reborn Guy Fawkes, it makes sense for him to announce his presence by destroying Parliment. I fear that this change is indicative of how little the Wachowskis understand their source material. (Moore complained that their comprehension of England, as shown in the script, was nonexistant. This would be another pointer to that, if they don't even understand Guy Fawkes.)

Of course, the article could be wrong.

Agreed. Setting the destruction of Parliament at the climax is a lot like doing a film that draws on the tropes and memes of the American Revolution and culminates with the dumping of tea into Boston Harbor. Certainly, it could be good, but the authors need to be aware they have put the historical begining of the Revolution at the end of their story, and need to have done so for a reason, and not just because dumping the tea in the harbor is the big set piece and the audience won't have anywhere to go after that.

The comparison doesn't hold, Jason (and not just because you're comparing a film adaptation of history to a film adaptation of a fictional text). Causally speaking, there's no reason not to blow up, say, 10 Downing Street at the beginning of the V film and Parliament at the end of it. (And hello to all our friends from MI6 who are now following this site.) It's just a matter of switching which landmark gets blown up when, and it doesn't affect the underlying chain of events the way your Boston Tea Party example would.

And Kevin, I think it is nitpicking. I take your point about the semiotic impact of blowing up Parliament (hello again) but that impact might be just as great in the last position as it is in the first. It's a position of emphasis either way. In a way, I've always wondered why Moore didn't save Parliament for last; that would be the culmination of V's Fawkes impersonation, to do what the original couldn't.

The change probably is an example of how little the Wachowskis understand England and the source material, but honestly, it's the least significant one I've seen yet. Earlier rumors suggested the film wasn't even going to have the same setting, that it might occur in some sort of Nazis-won-the-war alternate history, which would of course completely blunt the message of one of the Western democracies turning to fascism all on its own.

Now we know the movie apparently won't blunt the comic's message, won't stint from destroying the landmarks of democracy in a time of hypersensitivity to any criticisms of our supposedly democratic institutions. We know, if the article is accurate, that it is set pretty much in the world of the comic (slightly updated from Moore's highly inaccurate 1982 apocalypse), that it now has a good actor as V, that it doesn't reveal his face, and that it doesn't shy away from V's treatment of Evey (to judge by the Portman picture) or from questioning V's actions. It is now possible, in a way that it didn't look possible before, that we're going to get a fairly faithful adaptation.

And you're worried about when they blow up which landmark?

I predict the movie will be disappointing. It's a very depressing story essentially about whether you'd like to blow your brains out with a fascist gun or a communist one. While some may object to that summation, V for Vendetta does not uphold any democratic values or any other that is worthwhile. For that alone, any faithful adaption is going to tell a story that basically sucks.

V For Vendetta is essentially the equivalent of a provocative short story that stays in your head, but ultimately unsatisfying. If it's simply one story in a collection of better stories, one has a better opinion of it than if it was the best story in a sad collection or was a stand alone one. Thus, in the Alan Moore canon, V is an interesting tale. If that's all you read, it's vastly disappointing.

Furthermore, while the Wachowski brothers hit a grand slam with the original Matrix, both sequels were disappointing. Now that they're given much inferior material, I doubt they will surpass it.

Some may object to your summation, Chris, but only because it's dead wrong.

For V's politics see Book 1 Chapter 5, "Versions," or Book 2 Chapter 4, "A Vocational Viewpoint" (and notice who's included among the string of embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics), or Book 3 Chapters 1 and 2, "Vox Populi" and "Verwirrung," and Chapter 12, "The Volcano."

But that's just V. For the book's moral center see Book 2 Chapter 11, "Valerie," and for its political center see Book 2 Chapter 12, "The Verdict," especially page 2 ("Then there's nothing left to threaten with, is there?"). These lessons may not be pleasant but they are eminently worthwhile.

And if you really think the material of V for Vendetta is inferior to that gnostic clambake called The Matrix (and mind you, I say this as someone who loved The Invisibles), well, to each his own.

This is a story in which a dozy, passive populace wakes up and rises against its government oppressors - and then, in the name of freedom, blows up Parliament.

I have to wonder if I'm reading that line right. They change who blows up Parliament, not just when it happens? I can think of ways to read the sentence that make some sense, but I can't help but picture a Frankenstein style riot here. I'm hoping that it's just a misstatement by the author of the article.

I've with Marc. This article is the first indication that, contrary to rumor, they're not changing everything about the core of the book. That makes me optimistic.

It can still suck, of course. Sucking is easy.

Moving the destruction of Parliament from an announcement to a climax may or may not void the structure of the movie. I can think of at least one structure in which it improves V's identity with Guy Fawkes--if V fails to destory Parliament! If it's the climax of the movie, that means it's Evey destroying Parliament, not V.

Marc - you do realize I have read the book, don't you? V is a scumbag, and I base that on his actions.

I would think more of your comments if you hadn't read it. To say "It's a very depressing story essentially about whether you'd like to blow your brains out with a fascist gun or a communist one" is to either miss or willfully misinterpret every single thing the book tells us about V's beliefs. V includes fascists and communists in his display of the embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics, the very people he seeks to depose. If you're looking for a dismissive label to throw at the book in place of an argument, "anarchist" should not be too far out of reach.

And I had written sentiments to that effect in my last comments but I took them out on the assumption that they would be redundant since, you know, you've read the book and would already know that.

Like the book or not as you please, but at least represent it accurately.

Worthwhile lessons? Maybe. I like V, but I'm not sure it holds together as a coherent philosophy. It always struck me as very much a young man's book, inasmuch as anarchism is a philosophy for naive young men. Also, the certainty that people are "caged" and must be freed, either with or without their consent, which strikes me as an immature position to hold.

But of course the craft that book exhibits hides lots of flaws, philosphic or otherwise. Moore can talk a lot of shit when he has that caliber of artist to hide behind.

Dave:

V gives way to Evey because he knows that anarchy is not sustainable, doesn't he? Anarchy might be necessary to break the system down, but V must recognize that permanent anarchy doesn't work. He can't yield on anarchy, so he dies; classic tragic hero.

Dave, I agree with you about the maturity of V's anarchy, but V the comic always struck me as being more than just V the character. Even V the character is more than just his anarchy, as "Valerie" and "The Verdict" reveal the more universal lessons of resistance, shorn of any political philosophy or methodology, that drive him. (Awfully clever of Moore to divulge V's most sympathetic beliefs at the height of his most problematic action.)

The certainty that people are "caged" would also strike me as immature if there weren't so many people who are actually caged. In 1990 I could read V as an of allegory of rebellion, perfect for adolescent internalization; today it's impossible to pretend its relevance is merely allegorical.

Greg: I think you're making a pretty big assumption about Evey's goals as V, but I don't have the text at hand to confirm.

Marc: I would think that it would be even harder to view V's thoughts on people being "caged" sympathetically given the events of the day, particularily insofar as V is so certain of his beliefs that he is willing to kidnap and torture Evey to "free" her; not a long jump from there to "raising the village to save it" territory.

It has probably been a decade since I read V. I could be wrong about the significance of the succession. I do seem to recall that Evey's acquiescence to her role as the new V was pretty total, which cuts against my claim that the succession occurred so that she could be a different V.

V gives way to Evey because he knows that anarchy is not sustainable, doesn't he?

I've always felt that V gave way to Evey because he knows he's a broken tool. His actions are reprehensible, even if for good, and his methods can destroy, but he hopes Evey can create.

Stand firm, Greg. At the end of Book 2 Eve refuses to pluck a rose, a simple act that would prompt V to kill Ally Harper. In Book 3 Eve regularly questions V's pronouncements and tells him that she won't help with any killing (Chapter 5, "The Valediction"). In that same chapter V himself says "Anarchy wears two faces, both creator and destroyer," and acknowledges that he and his destructive tools will soon be useless; the funeral train he's preparing is for his explosives and his methodology as well as his body.

Eve becomes V but she doesn't kill. (It's not clear if there's even anyone in 10 Downing Street after Adam Susan's death.) Her first act is saving Dominic, a policeman and apparently the leader by default, from an angry anti-authoritarian mob, almost exactly the reverse of the first V's rescuing Evey from the Fingermen. So yes, I'd say it's clear she's going to be a very different V. And it's also clear that V knows this and is planning on it, as surely as he's planning on his own death. I agree with Kevin on this.

It's interesting how many of these criticisms are answered by even a cursory rereading of the story.

Dave, you're mixing categories. Of course V's torture of Evey is completely unsympathetic; that doesn't mean the truths he tries to impart to Evey (which Eric Finch also reaches pretty much independently) or the survival strategy Valerie gave to him are without worth or relevance.

Yes, but cursory readings are as difficult as close readings when the text isn't physically there to read. I know, I know: comment in haste, repent in leisure. Not that it'll stop me from rambling on some more here.

I still find the torture problematic. And since the moral turning point of the book revolves around that torture I find it harder to give it a pass to get to the revealed truths than are you, evidently. Let me try it a different way. My problem, perhaps badly stated up above in my first post, is not with the idea that people need to think for themselves and free themselves from self-imposed constraints. My problem is with the argument that people should be dragged against their consent into this freedom. I mean, Evey didn't ask to be tortured; V made that choice for her.

And it gets worse; the torture is retroactively justified with Evey thanking V for the experience. A worthwhile trade for the knowledge she gains. The horror of experience is used to illustrate, by constrast, the worth of the wisdom she's gained. Perhaps it's merely me, but I find that type of argument an expression of an adolescent morality, one terribly certain of the worth of its positions, and very similiar to the moral logic at play in any number of real-life foreign policy scenarios, none of which I'd guess Moore would approve of. Does this invalidate the whole of the book? No. Of course not. But it does weaken it.

I'm not suggesting anybody give the torture a pass, Dave; ignoring it would be as selective as ignoring Valerie or Eve's transformation into something better than V. The genius of V for Vendetta is that Moore doesn't allow us to separate these things, forces us to acknowledge the evil of V's actions along with the good they accomplish. The people praising the comic in this thread are saying its protagonist's actions are reprehensible. The problems you have with V's actions are valid - but the book flags those problems and actively courts this kind of discussion. That doesn't strike me as adolescent certitude.

That's my main point, the reading that fuels all of my comments here. A few lesser ones:

I don't think the horror of the torture is used to illustrate the worth of the wisdom. It's how she gains the wisdom, how she learns the government no longer has power over her. Eric Finch learns more or less the same lesson without the torture (albeit with plenty of mental self-flagellation), but its value isn't lessened.

I think, by V's own mad logic, Eve does consent to the ordeal; it happens in Book 1 when she asks to make a deal with him and gets hit with a quote from Faust. Of course, she has no idea what she's consenting to and by any sane standards isn't asking to be tortured; but V isn't sane and he's always tempting her into rash deals. (She isn't fooled the next time, when he offers to let her pluck Harper's rose.) He reminds her of this bargain in Book 2 just before he cuts her loose. The implication is that he didn't end the bargain after the Lilliman assassination, that the events of Book 2 all spiral out of her hasty choice to help V.

I agree that having Eve thank V afterwards (only two pages later and still looking like a concentration camp victim) is downright creepy. But then by Book 3 she's more mature and less inclined to put up with any more of his shit.

Marc: I'm staging a tactical retreat here, at least until I can drag my copy out of storage. In any event, like I said above, I like the book; the education of Evey sequence, though, has always (obviously) stuck in my craw. It may just be me; with a work that thematically knotty I suppose it inevitable that different readers will focus on different strands.

When do we get your close read of Midnight Children, by the way? Talk about thematically dense superhero books...

Were you the guy who suggested the Midnight's Children Conference as a highfalutin' literary Legion of Super-Heroes? I've been Googling for that comment but I can't find it anywhere...

I didn't make the LoSH comparison, though I did drag the book into an argument with Tim O'Neill about using fantasy to address real world concerns. I think you linked to that post, actually. Wish I had made the comparison, though.

If there's a Midnight's Children plan afoot, count me in. I think I've also mentioned Rushdie in talking about superheroes, metaphors, metonymy and whatnot, but I don't know enough about LoSH to have said anything there.

Since I'm highjacking the comments anyway, I'll just add that it's interesting to see I'm not the only one who has trouble carrying the plot and details of V. Somehow as soon as I've read it it slips away from me, and I have no idea why. I've been planning another rereading soon, and maybe I'll come back to this then.

Newsbit: V's been delayed until March 2006 because of the "post-production schedule" and not at all the London bombings, unh-unh.