Its about a month old, but Infoshop News has an interview with Alan Moore up where they discuss such things as anarchistic politics and his take on the V for Vendetta movie:
What had originally been a straightforward battle of ideas between anarchy and fascism had been turned into a kind of ham-fisted parable of 9-11 and the war against terror, in which the words anarchy and fascism appear nowhere. I mean, at the time I was thinking: look, if they wanted to protest about George Bush and the way that American society is going since 9-11—which would completely understandable—then why don’t they do what I did back in the 1980s when I didn’t like the way that England was going under Margaret Thatcher, which is to do a story in my own country, that was clearly about events that were happening right then in my own country, and kind of make it obvious that that’s what you’re talking about. It struck me that for Hollywood to make V for Vendetta, it was a way for thwarted and impotent American liberals to feel that they were making some kind of statement about how pissed off they were with the current situation without really risking anything. It’s all set in England, which I think that probably, in most American eyes, is kind of a fairytale kingdom where we still perhaps still have giants. It doesn’t really exist; it might as well be in the Land of Oz for most Americans. So you can get set your political parable in this fantasy environment called England, and then you can vent your spleen against George Bush and the neo- conservatives. Those were my feelings, and I must admit those are completely based upon not having seen the film even once, but having read a certain amount of the screenplay. That was enough.
Hat tip: Flog!
September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
The funny thing is that I watched and enjoyed this movie, but it felt like an evolution of the characters and concepts in the graphic novel, NOT an adaption. Moore is exactly right here and while at the time, the “evolution of the characters and concepts” didn’t bother me, his “If that’s what you’re going to do, why not make your own up and be original like I did?” is a very good question.
September 20th, 2007 at 9:54 am
Also, do you mean to tell me that they DON’T still have giants in England? What a gyp!
September 20th, 2007 at 10:19 am
Wordy mcword to Alan Moore. I was just astounded at how the movie missed the entire point of the book in favor of taking jabs at the administration. I’m all for taking jabs at the administration, but not necessarily at the expense of gutting such a great book. Oy.
September 20th, 2007 at 1:47 pm
I read the novel first. I liked it, but I had significant problems with it. When I saw the movie I liked it much better, it seemed to fix all the things I didn’t like.
I actually thought the book was much more ham-fisted than the movie. The book had a hero who wanted Anarchy, but he had no idea how to create it, so he created chaos instead and told his protege to finish the job for him. In the movie V’s mission was to inspire the masses to stand up for themselves. The movie actually felt like it had an ending to me, while the book didn’t.
September 20th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
That’s because V wasn’t the hero.
//\Oo/\\
September 20th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
I enjoyed the film more than I thought I would but I did feel that alot of the points of the book were betrayed. The whole thing with V saying “Evey, I love you!” really appalled me and cheapened their relationship. And the message at movie’s end was a bit on the nose and unsubtle.
September 20th, 2007 at 5:34 pm
“A bit”?