Loyalty between a literary work and a derivative film is not a law: in the passage of media some things are inevitably lost and others modified, sometimes for reasons of rendering on the big screen, sometimes to make everything more ‘digestible’ to a wider audience. as happened in the case of V for Vendetta.
The film based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore in fact, it presents us with a character who, starting from his first and only appearance on the big screen, has not taken long to become a true symbol of the struggle for freedom among an audience of all walks of life. But it would have been the same with one more faithful transposition?
Most likely not: the V described by Alan Moore is in fact a decidedly less “right” character from a moral point of view, also capable of having no qualms aboutkill innocent people in order to achieve its goal; our also maintains with Evey (who in the comic is a sixteen-year-old prostitute) a relationship that often leads to abuse, not to mention that the ideal that the paper V hopes to achieve is anarchy, a concept that should not be confused with the more generic and socially acceptable “freedom” spoken of in the film.
The same fascists in government described by Moore, on the other hand, are in some cases decidedly more humane: the Chancellor Sutler of the comic is for example a shy and clumsy man who acts almost in good faith, sincerely believing in his ideals, thus presenting himself, in a certain sense, as a much more difficult villain to eliminate in cold blood, compared to his cinematic counterpart .
All these changes infuriated Alan Moore, who in fact asked to be excluded from the credits of V for Vendetta: and you, which of the two versions do you prefer? Let us know in the comments! One thing is certain: like it or not, the film with Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman now it has a life of its own and enjoys a reputation equal to, if not even superior to, that of the work from which it is based.