Alan Moore Vs. The Mass Media: The Success of “V for Vendetta”
No one embodies the modern rivalry of the artist versus the producers more than comic book artist Alan Moore. The common perception of Alan Moore’s feud with mass media is usually as an aggressive hate-fueled crusade against “selling out” in an effort to save the independence and vision of the artist. This is seemingly more obvious by the fact that not only does Moore take his name off any adaptations of his work, but he also refuses to even watch any of the adaptations. Even Moore himself is aware of this perception, humorously voicing himself on The Simpsons going on a parody rant against big publishing companies and studios.
The image of this feud is, however, a bit misconstrued, and Alan Moore has admitted his problems with mass media has less to do with the conception of the artist versus the exploitative market and has more to do with he personal objections to adapting his work specifically. He even admits that he initially allowed his work to be adapted solely for the money. His hatred for the adaptations of his personal work stems from the fact that he has read the scripts for the adaptations and believes they fundamentally change the nature and message of the story. He believes because the adaptations have changed so significantly from the source material they have corrupted his original vision and, therefore, he should not put his name on them, as they are not his.
There is truth in Moore’s opinion, as the most successful adaptation of his work, V for Vendetta, was heavily “Hollywoodized” and adapted for a more general audience with many of the story points and depictions of his characters heavily altered. The movie, however, was successful and has supporters of its own, many looking to the political messages presented by the film as its strong point. So the question becomes if this movie was successful, does that mean Moore is correct in his disdain for the changes to his material?
The first majorly successful adaptation of Moore’s work was 2005’s V for Vendetta, adapted from Alan Moore’s 1980’s comic series of the same name. The major changes of the movie stem less from the story points, which are all fundamentally still there, but rather the characterization and depiction of its characters as well as its criticisms towards the government. Moore’s V for Vendetta, was at the time, made as a criticism of Margret Thatcher’s English Parliament yet manages to stay relevant by also being a mediation of the opposing natures anarchism and fascism and experiments to see what would happen when these two extremes met. The protagonist V is depicted as a morally corrupt terrorist who brutally kills in order to promote his vision of an anarchist state and is almost inhuman in his movement and actions while the antagonistic fascists are portrayed as evil but incredibly flawed humans who have minds and opinions of their own. The message of the book is much more human, showing what extreme ideologies people will turn to in order to feel safe and criticizing the harm in relying on an overbearing government.
The movie, however, takes a much different approach. The movie has less to do with comparing political extremes to criticize overbearing governments and more to do with directly criticizing the Bush-era American government. V in the story is portrayed in the more traditionally heroic role of a freedom fighter whose actions are justified in the name of liberty, with no mention of anarchy or creation of an anarchic state anywhere in the film. V is also portrayed as more human in the movie, having a wider range of emotions and even falling in love with his protégé, Evie. In contrast, the fascists are much more traditionally evil, being portrayed as villainous bureaucrats with little to no humanizing qualities. There are also much more references to American politics of the early 2000s, with talks of terrorism, Fox News-like talk shows, and a main villain who bares more than a passing resemblance to Dick Cheney. All of these changes take out much of the nuance and moral questioning that Alan Moore intentionally made the basis of his book and were made to make the movie more appealing to a mainstream movie-going audience.
At first glance, the “Hollywoodization” of the story seems to fundamentally undermine Alan Moore’s vision. It seems like the typical story of the big studios undercutting the artist’s vision in order to commodify the initial piece of art, with the movie being a financial and critical success. However, the immediate cultural impact of the movie was much more tangible than the impact of the book. A few years after the movie came out, the Occupy Wall Street Movement used imagery from V for Vendetta, such as V’s iconic Guy Fawkes mask, in their protests. Because the popular movie addressed the modern American government that contributed to the economic inequality protesters and made the message more appealing to the general public, the imagery used by the Occupy Wall Street Movement was much more powerful and thought-provoking than it would have been had those changes not been made. Furthermore, the imagery has also been used by the hacker group Anonymous in order to signify their opposition to government agencies. Again, the mass popularity and appeal of the movie allow the political message associated with this imagery to be much more widely understood and politically influential to the larger public.
In this instance, the impact the Alan Moore intended for his work to have was achieved by “selling out” and “Hollywoodizing” the piece. While there were aspects of the story undermined by the movie adaptation, such as the ethical debate of anarchy versus fascism, the political impact of the piece in the criticism of big government was far more widespread and influential than the book. While I must admit that I personally enjoy the book far more than I enjoy the movie, I must disagree with Moore’s denouncement of the adaptation all together. In this specific case, the purpose of the art was enhanced by the commercialization of the piece rather than undermined as Moore insists, and, therefore, even if significantly different from the source material, the movie adaptation must not be overlooked as mere exploitation of an artist’s vision.
