V for Vendetta and Watchmen

  

          V for Vendetta was directed by James McTeigue and is based on the graphic novel of the same name, written by Alan Moore and drawn by David Lloyd. Watchmen was directed by Zack Snyder and is based on the graphic novel Watchmen, also written by Alan Moore and drawn by Dave Gibbons. What makes an adaptation good? Should it stay as true to the source material as possible, risking awkward translation and redundancy? Or should it take the basic premise of the original, put its own spin on it, and risk losing the heart and soul of what it is supposed to be based on? These two films showcase the possibilities, as well as the limitations of both approaches. Also, it gives me a reason to talk about comics. V for Vendetta is an action/thriller that takes many, many liberties with the source material. Watchmen is essentially the abridged version of the graphic novel and only makes one major change (which is too much of a spoiler to discuss here). Rather than summarize the novels myself, I'll let Alan Moore take it from here.

          The film version of Vendetta is certainly less intelligent and challenging than the novel. I don't mean that as an attack, but it's true and even the film's strongest supporters would be hard pressed to deny it. The moral ambiguity is almost completely lost, with V (our Guy Fawkes mask wearing protagonist) being a heroic freedom fighter and the authorities V fights being irredeemable monsters, and most of the plot has been cut out. This doesn't automatically make it bad, though. The cinematography in this movie is excellent and it is beautifully shot and edited all the way through. Ironically, it is also one of the more intelligent comic book movies out there (I don't know if that says more about the movie or Hollywood) and who doesn't love the scene where V first introduces himself?

          It may not be fair to begrudge this movie for the how different it is from the source material. Alan Moore's novel is so brilliant and so complex that any attempt to recreate it in a two to three hour film would be laughably doomed from the start. Then again, we all thought the same thing about Watchmen (many still do).

Spoiler Warning: Moore talks about a character's death from 3:22-3:56

          When I first heard Zack Snyder, the same man who directed 300, would be directing the Watchmen movie, I was very, very skeptical. For those of you who haven't seen 300, its most notable achievement is that it somehow manages to be homophobic and homoerotic at the same time. It's the Jungian thing, I guess. As entertaining as this is, it doesn't exactly engender much confidence in Snyder's ability to do a subtle deconstruction of the superhero genre. Turns out I wasn't being entirely fair to the guy. Snyder, if nothing else, at least knows how to put a comic in motion and the film sticks strictly to the source material (with the one aforementioned exception). Nearly every line of dialogue is a direct quote from the novel. Such adherence to the novel, however, isn't without its problems.

"The graphic novel 'Watchmen' is such a dark, densely layered and yes, cinematic work of art that it feels like you're immersed in a movie as you experience it. But the advantage of the book is you can pause and go back a few pages, or take a moment to consider the ramifications of the flashbacks (and the flashbacks within the flashbacks). You can take your time perusing the frames for small touches.
With a movie, it just washes over you. If you don't know these characters from the novel, you're going to have a hell of time keeping up with their multi-decade soap opera." - Richard Roeper

          Of course, whatever flaws this movie has, it certainly has its moments of greatness as well. Take the title sequence for example. You might be thinking that I'm really reaching for something positive to say about it if I have to look to the opening credits; not so. This sequence is brilliant, as it establishes the history of the first generation of superheroes, the rise and fall of superheroes, and the film's tone, all in under six minutes.

 

          As to the question asked in the first paragraph, there is no real answer and both approaches to adaptation have flaws and merits. Ultimately, it comes down to the quality of the individual work, as these these two love-or-hate films demonstrate.