V: the Mask.
Mar. 28th, 2006 04:57 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
scottopicOk, the detritus out of the way before I hit the deeper points.
Semi-spoilers, but only very general, contained within. I’ve posted them as white on white so you can highlight them to see them.
Yes, there was some divergence from the graphic novel. Some of this was obvious for time, translation to the screen and reinterpretation by the filmmakers.
I will state here that I find any mad assertion of authenticity is as silly as insisting on authenticity from a local Tex-Mex restaurant. Who cares?
Did you like the damn taquitos or not?
Not all of it worked. Parts that I liked were left out, too – the speech to the citizens of London left out the employer-employee metaphor I appreciated.
Drug references were removed. Even aspects of V’s final philosophy were changed (however slightly), in some ways I liked better, others I preferred from the novel.
So yes – if you’re looking to go the angle on differences from the book, in and of themselves, do reinforce them with why this makes for a problem. There are problems – elaborate on them!
“Not like the book” – ya know, literalism? Earth in five days? I’ll throw one out there – while I’m ever so glad they didn’t go all Hollywood and show his face, I think they revealed too much detail all the same.
And on Alan Moore:
I acknowledge his influence on the comic medium and the direction of graphics novels. It’s undeniable. He’s a vivid storyteller, a visionary and has put forth some brilliant ideas.
But when it comes to my taste, I’ve specifically loved two of his works: From Hell and V. Watchmen was incredibly important, yes, and I’ve enjoyed various bits from many things he’s produced, but he’s not my patron saint of comics or any other corner of the arts. When I hear him disavowing a piece of his work, it sometimes sounds more like a play for safety – the movie sucks, so he doesn’t want his name attached to it, sure – or just playing it safe in case it does. Some interviews make it seem like that his pristine vision has varied some, or business disagreements have tainted his view on the art.
All of these things are within his right, of course, but it doesn’t impact my critique of the film in a significant way. I think, ultimately, he’s just being a prima donna.
To place too much value on these points is to care so very much about the mask. Don't get me wrong - there is a mask, and it merits viewing, discussing and evaluating...but there's the man, and the idea.
Semi-spoilers, but only very general, contained within. I’ve posted them as white on white so you can highlight them to see them.
Yes, there was some divergence from the graphic novel. Some of this was obvious for time, translation to the screen and reinterpretation by the filmmakers.
I will state here that I find any mad assertion of authenticity is as silly as insisting on authenticity from a local Tex-Mex restaurant. Who cares?
Did you like the damn taquitos or not?
Not all of it worked. Parts that I liked were left out, too – the speech to the citizens of London left out the employer-employee metaphor I appreciated.
Drug references were removed. Even aspects of V’s final philosophy were changed (however slightly), in some ways I liked better, others I preferred from the novel.
So yes – if you’re looking to go the angle on differences from the book, in and of themselves, do reinforce them with why this makes for a problem. There are problems – elaborate on them!
“Not like the book” – ya know, literalism? Earth in five days? I’ll throw one out there – while I’m ever so glad they didn’t go all Hollywood and show his face, I think they revealed too much detail all the same.
And on Alan Moore:
I acknowledge his influence on the comic medium and the direction of graphics novels. It’s undeniable. He’s a vivid storyteller, a visionary and has put forth some brilliant ideas.
But when it comes to my taste, I’ve specifically loved two of his works: From Hell and V. Watchmen was incredibly important, yes, and I’ve enjoyed various bits from many things he’s produced, but he’s not my patron saint of comics or any other corner of the arts. When I hear him disavowing a piece of his work, it sometimes sounds more like a play for safety – the movie sucks, so he doesn’t want his name attached to it, sure – or just playing it safe in case it does. Some interviews make it seem like that his pristine vision has varied some, or business disagreements have tainted his view on the art.
All of these things are within his right, of course, but it doesn’t impact my critique of the film in a significant way. I think, ultimately, he’s just being a prima donna.
"Behind this mask is a man, and behind this man is an idea. And ideas are bulletproof."
To place too much value on these points is to care so very much about the mask. Don't get me wrong - there is a mask, and it merits viewing, discussing and evaluating...but there's the man, and the idea.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-29 02:51 pm (UTC)Despite the person to whom you're responding, if you liked the Invisibles, The Filth may be up your alley.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-30 06:36 am (UTC)Love Grant.