Anarchy in the U.K.

[saavedra77]

You know, despite everything that's going on in my real life at the moment, I'm just dying to get away and see V for Vendetta, this weekend:  

I recently re-read the Alan Moore book, and I was impressed by how well it held up--apart from some retrospective anachronisms and a bit of naiveté about the era of Reagan and Thatcher:  

The political paranoia borne of international crisis, the politicized media, the detention camps, V's intensely surveilled London--all seem surprisingly prescient, in light of recent experience (if admittedly more extreme).--Then again, these aren't entirely new things, are they? Moore was projecting a 1930s atmosphere of crisis and extremism onto the near future (hardly an original gesture, mind); arguably, the Western world has just come around to another period of crisis and extremism--although, certainly, nothing like the death spiral Europe was in back in the '30s. So, ironically, Moore played Cassandra most effectively when--like Walter Benjamin's (and Laurie Anderson's) angel--he was looking backward.

Regarding the film itself, I've been intrigued by the previews and screen captures I've seen, to date.  The imagery, and the plot details that I've been able to suss out, seem right on target.  (Interestingly, the Village Voice reviewer is aware of the Alan Moore novel, but describes plot elements that perfectly mirror the book as if they were inventions of the filmmakers ...)

Of course, the subject matter--authoritarianism, terrorism--is bound to be even more controversial now than it was in the '80s.  So this ends up being a particularly problematic story to tell, today.  But that doesn't rule out the attempt, in my opinion: everything depends upon how it's handled. 

There was a great deal of moral ambiguity in the source material, and (while it may be too much to hope of Hollywood), the filmmakers would have done well to pay attention to those themes. Also, there's an undeniable synergy with the themes the Warchowskis explored in The Matrix--which is another factor that's piqued my interest.

Also, I'm a thoroughgoing history geek, and I'm impressed that the film apparently goes to the trouble of explaining Guy Fawkes and the Gunpowder Plot to the non-Britons in the audience--again, as the Voice reviewer points out, looking backward to look forward.  I'll be even more impressed if they manage not to mangle the historical elements.

On the other hand, Alan Moore has dissociated himself with the project.  I don't follow celebrity (even comic book geek celebrity) gossip well enough to know why. 

Perhaps because he's been burned by Hollywood one too many times? After all, we've yet to see one of his stories satisfactorily adapted to the screen. (From Hell was competently done, but overly romanticized.) Or perhaps the story deviates from his intentions in ways of which I'm not yet aware. Or perhaps he's no longer comfortable with aspects of this story--which, granted, he started to write over twenty years ago.

In any case, I'm just too overwhelmingly curious not to go ...

Comments

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

If I have time later tonight, I'll comment about why Moore wants nothing to do with the film. For right now, I'll say you're right, but it's only about a third of the story.

I'm cautiously optimistic about the film with the proviso that I expect it to be "ok," rather than "lousy." ;-) Not looking for "great," or "captures the book," because that always ends in tears.

I'm not looking forward to the Guy Fawkes bits, if only because they'll inevitably get it wrong...but that's definitely just me....

[schmallturm.livejournal.com]

I don't plan on seeing the film. I feel like 5 years after Sept. 11, and a few months after terrorist attacks in London, they finally make a movie about terrorism... and it supports terrorism. The comic was cool when I was 18, but looking at it now it's kind of stupid and in really bad taste.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

But if there's one thing that neoconservatives and internationalist liberals agree on it's that authoritarian governments tend to be breeding grounds for terrorism--as such regimes close off all other avenues of dissent or resistance. As a Carnegie study put it, after September 11, "[n]eoconservative analysts in particular criticized autocratic Arab governments ... for spawning radical groups and stifling moderates (http://www.carnegieendowment.org/files/CP_52%20Hawthorne.pdf)." I think that it would be fallacious to argue that this is the only environment in which terrorism flourishes--Tim McVeigh wasn't living in a police state, although he evidently liked to believe he was--but I would concur that state violence (unless it's truly overwhelming) tends to spark violent resistance.

Of course, I don't agree with the neoconservatives formula for dealing with authoritarian states, but I think that the point about authoritarianism and violent resistance is well-taken.

I think that Moore's book is based on much the same premise. It should be remembered that the government V is fighting against is an out-and-out--indeed, self-described--"fascist" one in which a National Front-like organization has come to power. And the people V kills are regime figures, not innocent civilians on subways or in office towers. This makes V's violence a great deal more like the French Resistance than Al Qaeda terrorism.

Mind you, I don't share the naive view of either Moore's book or the film version of Fight Club that this kind of violence can be carried out "surgically," sans innocent civilian casualties. Consequently, (to adopt a Balkan analogy) I tend to prefer the Ibrahim Rugovas of the world to its KLAs ...

(Nor, incidentally, do I share the early Moore's anarchism--my antistatist streak runs in a much more old-fashioned liberal vein ...)

However, even under the circumstance of a fascist state, V for Vendetta portrays the protagonist's violence in ambivalent ways(spoilerish details cut for those unfamiliar with the novel): Remember that Evey--the character you can most easily identify with, and V's successor--refuses to participate in the violence. Also remember that V essentially lets the inspector (who's both horrified about V's assassination and bombing campaign and ambivalent about the regime) kill him, as if in atonement. The inspector is also, conspicuously, one of the novel's key survivors--one who walks away from both V and his former regime acquaintances.

In sum, I don't think it's fair to say that the book V for Vendetta "supports terrorism." Naturally, though, I can't speak to the movie, yet ...

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

Well, I tried to cut the spoilerish elements, but must have done something wrong ... My apologies to the uninitiated, but I just don't have the time or energy to try to re-post ...

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

I don't think you can cut-tag within a comment.

I find myself closer to your side of the argument than Schmallturm's, unsurprisingly. ;-) For what it's worth, Moore has commented in the past few years that he also now sees the "surgical strikes" thing as naive, but at the time he couldn't have conceived of what would be coming (both in the middle east and elsewhere).

Re: Why no Alan Moore

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

Actually, he wanted to be "Alan Smithee" before the Ws even started it...yeah, I'll fill in the blanks later. It's a complicated and multi-faceted issue, and I only have 45 minutes before I have to be somewhere...

[feyandstrange.livejournal.com]

My vague understanding is that Moore distances himself from all filmed versions of his works, but that there are some specifics about this one which have cheesed him more than usual. Dunno what.

[waysofseeing.livejournal.com]

This (http://comicbookresources.com/columns/index.cgi?column=litg&article=2153) is the best summary I've seen of why Alan Moore hates the movie.

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

I'm back. :-) And yeah, that was where the news broke. Things have happened since, but Rich got the gist of it. The best and most balanced version of the story is here (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/12/movies/12itzk.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), since, of course, Alan's side is not the only side. I'd also really recommend checking out this interview (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_1_the_alan_moore.html), which is actually part one of a huge discussion (I haven't gotten around to reading part two yet as it was just posted today) with Alan about his attitudes in general.

For what it's worth, I think he both has a point and overreacted. I do know Paul Levitz did make an attempt to smooth things over, which was (apparantly) rebuffed both by Silver and by Moore, but was certainly done in good faith by Paul. On the other hand, Joel Silver is an idiot and it really does sound like, no matter how faithful the movie is (and co-creator David Lloyd apparently loves it) it really is a dumbing down of the subject matter, so I can understand why Alan bashed the script publically, even after telling Larry W he wanted nothing to do with it.

The rights issue is a bit trickier. Yeah, Alan was sort of "tricked" out of the rights to "V" and "Watchmen," on the other hand, it makes sense to keep a book in print as long as it's selling, so I'm not entirely sure DC has the evil conspiratorial motives he assigns them. (And Watchmen almost wasn't his to begin with, if Moore's original pitch had gone through without a hitch.)

So yeah, it's complicated, and the "V" movie is only the tip of the iceberg. Sorry this is mainly links and commentary, but better late than never....

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

Here's the second half (http://www.comicon.com/thebeat/2006/03/a_for_alan_pt_2_the_further_ad.html) of that interview, which continued to be quite good. Among other things, Moore touches on whether V is a hero or not and how Moore views his actions. Which didn't surprise me, but might surprise others who just do a surface reading of the book.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting those links, Morgan--they were pretty illiminating. Some favorite quotes:

"[O]ver here in England we've got a good tradition of villains and sociopaths as heroes ..."

Also:

"Guy Fawkes was not a freedom fighter, he was a religious fanatic."

"I've got to say we are having a lot of strangely costumed bombers blowing up things in London at the moment and we're not happy about it."

[morganminstrel.livejournal.com]

Well, that's the reason I'm not too enthused over a prologue "teaching" people about Fawkes and the rest in the film.

If you're interested at all in the Gunpowder Plot, Antonia Fraser wrote a book whose name I've forgotten that's excellent...

By the way, do you still have my videotape?

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I think that what I know about the Gunpowder Plot primarily comes from Fraser.

&, yes, I do still have your tape. Since I'm finally looking at a weekend through which I don't have to work, I'm going to try to make it to the post office with it, tomorrow morning.

[saavedra77.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I knew I'd read that Fraser's book: Faith and Treason: The Story of the Gunpowder Plot (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0385471904/104-9230840-7770363?v=glance&n=283155). Oddly enough, I picked this up during that awful, willfully forgotten period when I was working at Media Play in Hadley. The copy I bought is a 1996 "uncorrected proof" (it was cheap, I was poor ...) that preceded the actual release date. I'll have to take a look at this one, again--refresh my memory about the whole thing. Although the conclusion I remember drawing from it was roughly what Moore said in the above quote.

BTW: I mailed your VHS back to you, this morning. Thanks very much for that, and sorry about the delay getting it back to you!