venerating versions of v for vendetta

After seeing V for Vendetta, I immediately went searching for the graphic novel where the movie adaptation took its inspiration. I waited a few weeks before I got one since copies were out of stock and were nowhere to be found in major bookstores in Metro Manila, possibly due to the movie hype.

The film gripped my heart, reminding me yet again on my crusade for genuine reform in the Philippines. V for Vendetta, while fictitious, conveyed messages to me where the words came alive. It was speaking to me through analogies and ideals--of freedom that can never be yours unless you take it for yourself, of breaking out of complacency and the status quo, of experiencing bondage under totalitarian systems, of choices and of revolution, and of ideas that were bulletproof. Probably the reason why I applauded the movie so much apart from knowing the Wachowski brothers' (the brilliant writers/directors of the Matrix Trilogy) hand in its production.

I was almost taken aback, although I was amused at some point, by the barrage script early on in the movie when the character V introduced himself. Instantly, I thought, it was going to be difficult for me to appreciate the story if V were to keep on talking cryptically the way he did throughout the entire film. For those of you who are intrigued by V's introduction, I managed to sequester that portion. Read it and see if you can understand it in one pass:

"Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose so let me simply add that it's my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V."

Well, it was more difficult listening to it. Trust me. Blame it on the Wachowski brothers' screenplay for attempting to pull-off something similar to Neo and the Architect's mind-boggling dialogue (remember that scene from Matrix Reloaded?). But despite that brief heart-stopping spell, I'd say the movie was still worth it. I won't mind seeing it again, or getting my hands on a DVD.

So what about the graphic novel? Was it any good, or was it definitely better than the film adaptation? Usually, we'd post that formulaic question whenever a book--or in this case, a graphic novel--precedes or inspires its film adaptation. And most of the time, we'd end up liking the book better probably because we imagined it quite better in our head compared to how the movie portrayed it; or the movie simply didn't quite measure up to our expectations of following the book truthfully, more so if we adored or worshipped the book to begin with.

I've read several books even before I've seen their movie versions: Frank Herbert's "Dune," J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings," L. Ron Hubbard's "Battlefield: Earth," or Robert Ludlum's "The Bourne Identity," to name a few. More often I'd hate the film, although there were some that did a good job in rendering the books. I'd say Peter Jackson's work on Tolkien's masterpiece on Middle-Earth was superb.

But come to think of it, there's really a difficulty in making the book and its film adaptation perfectly similar and accurate to the detail; probably even close to impossible. And this is true especially for my favorite genres, science fiction and fantasy, where the readers are given a lot of room for imagination.

Anyway, back to the graphic novel.

It was good in its own right. Being a comic book enthusiast in my teen years, I noticed the nuances that the authors, Alan Moore and David Lloyd, incorporated in V for Vendetta: they took out captions, sound effects, and thought bubbles, which could have otherwise helped readers get to know character traits easily or interpret the action that was happening. Instead, they wanted to tell the story through the pictures and dialogue; they wanted to rely heavily on what the drawings told the readers, which to me portrayed depth in their characters and required mature readership, in a way.

Having seen the film first, I realized later on that some details from the book were completely revised in the film and some even utterly omitted. V's introduction in the film, on the other hand, was nowhere to be found in the book. It is said that the Wachowski's reputation of obediently adhering to original source materials are praiseworthy. I don't know what became of this one though.

For what it's worth, I honestly liked V for Vendetta in both film and graphic novel versions. In fairness to its creators, the changes in detail that the Wachowski's incorporated were not palatable and as accurate as it should've been. Although I do find it necessary for film productions to improve on storyline and screenplay as adaptable for the silver screen, especially for action films; or else, the movie's just bound to flop at the box office.

I guess, for movie adaptations, they can never be more original than the source material. While comparison is truly unavoidable, the idea is that audiences for books and for films are whole different lots. Engaging novel readers are distinctly different from pleasing moviegoers--and more so for those who are in between.