Comics To Film: When It Doesn't Work

Much has been said about comics being adapted for film. And I'll definitely be adding to that right here. There are some adaptations that I have liked, and some that I don't. In any case, I'm always excited whenever a comic book is moved into different media, because you have an opportunity to enjoy the story again, told with different sets of tools and storytellers.

I'm one of those that don't mind that Superman's costume is slightly darker, or if the buckle is lower or if the X-men's costumes are all black. I might have a problem if Spiderman's costume was changed drastically because that's an integral part of who he is. Same with Superman. I have no problem with Wolverine not having his “spandex” costume because his costume is not essential to who he is. He can be in civvies and he'd still be Wolverine.

In terms of perpetually ongoing comics like Superman, Spiderman, X-men, Hulk, and the like, I'm more open to different kinds of interpretations, as it's something that has been practiced time and again in the comic books themselves. How many types of Supermans have we seen in his entire history? How many different types of histories, different types of looks, different types of stories about him have been there? And in comics, all of these different permutations of the character are widely accepted.

Then there's the several different Superman TV series and movies with whole different histories, looks and stories that give even more permutations of the same character.

What remains essentially the same is who Superman is. He is an alien from Krypton. He is adopted by human parents. He has superhuman powers which he uses to help mankind. He hides behind the secret identity of Clark Kent. He loves Lana and Lois. He is essentially a good man whose principles cannot be compromised. He is the embodiment of all that is good and he is an ideal because of it.

As long as you don't change that, anything is pretty much fair game. This is why I liked the Donner Supermans, and that is why I really liked Bryan Singer's Superman. That is why I liked Batman Begins and the Spiderman movies.

Although I tend to be more discriminating with adaptations of stand alone comics stories like Road to Perdition and Rocketeer, my approach to it is practically the same. As long as you capture the essence of the original material, and stay true to who the characters are, then you'll do allright.

I don't fully understand why filmmakers, obviously enamored enough of the material to adapt it to film, go ahead and changes the essence of the material. It's just incomprehensible to me.

They say the oft repeated excuses: This isn't a book! You can't adapt the comic book word for word. Film has a different set of rules, etc. etc.

Fine. We all GET that. Only an idiot would want to see a comic book word for word, frame for frame on film. This is not to say all those who liked Sin City are idiots, as I'd be one of them. Sin City has actually shown you CAN adapt a comic book word for word and frame for frame, make it work and be successful. But I wouldn't want adaptations as literal as that for every comic book. As long as the filmmakers get the essence of the material, and stay true to the characters, I would be fine with that.

And that is why From Hell and V for Vendetta are such films that didn't work for me as adaptations of Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's From Hell, and Alan Moore and David Lloyd's V for Vendetta. I haven't seen League of Extraordinary Gentlemen so I can't comment on that.

First, From Hell.

There have been numerous written and filmed works about Jack the Ripper. In comics, we have things like Grant Morrison's Doom Patrol, and Gotham by Gaslight with art by Mike Mignola. In TV and movies we have an assortment of things like The Case of the Whitechapel Vampire with Matt Frewer, The Ripper with Michael York, and amazingly enough, even “Wolf in the Fold”, an episode from the original series of Star Trek. Some of them are good, some are bad. I remember being very impressed with Gotham by Gaslight when I first read it, and I thought the Star Trek episode was... well... fascinating.

Most of them had one thing in common. They used the “whodunit” plot where you are made to guess who Jack the Ripper really is until his (or her) identity is revealed in the end. Along the way, you are given one or more “decoys” to fool you into thinking a certain character is Jack the Ripper.

What made Alan Moore and Eddie Campbell's From Hell unique with a capital U, was that they revealed who Jack the Ripper was right in the opening chapters with as little fanfare as possible. There's no “whodunit” plot, and there are no decoy characters that try to deceive you. The latter 90% of the book, after the matter-of-fact revelation of the ripper's identity, is spent on a meticulous investigation on who the ripper was and what made him tick. The book is pretty much Alan Moore putting together all that has been written and speculated about Jack the Ripper and throws in a few fanciful notions of his own. His research is staggering, and the imaginative way he puts together the seemingly monstrous amount of detail into one comprehensive and enjoyable whole was a colossal achievement.

So when I heard a movie about it is being made, I was skeptical. There was simply no way this comic book could ever be filmed. But I was ready to be surprised.

Although the staggering amount of facts, speculations, urban legends, hearsay and strange mathematics of fate are part and parcel of what From Hell was, I was even ready to forgo a lot of that because even I knew it would be impractical to jam all that in 2+ hour, even 3 hour film. As long as it remained true to the essence of the book and characters, it would be fine.

So the movie came and went and what did we get? A Whodunit, a decoy that tried to deceive you, a main protagonist (the investigator) who doesn't resemble the main protagonist in the book in any way. By itself, it's a good movie. I would go so far as to say that among the Jack the Ripper movies I've seen, this is by far the best. I'm sure those who didn't have a chance to read the book loved it. But this is not Alan Moore's From Hell, not even close. That's because it excised from the book what made it unique from all other ripper movies, making it just like any other ripper movie ever made, only technically better, but far less intelligent.

Why bother with Alan Moore's book at all? They could have made literally the same movie with the same story. All the had to do was change the title and they didn't have to pay Alan Moore (or in this case maybe Eddie Campbell) a cent because they removed practically everything unique that Alan Moore gave to this old Jack the Ripper story.

I can pretty much say the same thing for V for Vendetta, unfortunately.

The initial viewing can give you the impression that it was faithful to the book. And visually, it really is. V looks terrific. It's as if he leaped out of the comic book into film. My favorite bits in the comic book, Vermin and Valerie (chapter titles in the book) are very nicely executed and every bit as moving as when I first read them. To someone who has not read the book, this could come out as a very impressive film. And yes, I believe it is a good film on its own.

A lot of the faithfulness is skin deep I have to say, because looking at it much deeper, once again you realize you are looking at something that's different from what has been created by Alan Moore and David Lloyd.

Evey and V are the most important characters in this story. The story can still stand if certain other characters are different, and/or certain situations are removed/added and/or handled differently, as long as those two characters remain true to who they are. In this movie, their characters have been essentially changed.

Evey starts out in the book as very weak. So weak and degraded her character is that she seeks to offer sex in exchange for money to shadowy people in dark alleys. Her encounter with V begins a slow transformation of her character and spirit until at the very end she's strong and confident enough in body and mind to take on the job of V himself. This arc of transformation and redemption is at the very heart of what V for Vendetta is.

The movie “purifies” Evey by excising her weakness. She starts off the film already bearing a certain degree of confidence and strength. She has a job, and selling her body for money is the farthest thing from her mind. Instead, she's mugged and would have been raped, if not for V. The “transformation” she now makes at the hands of V loses some of its power because there was hardly any transformation to be made. She's only much better informed, and although she might be more strong, she was already strong to begin with.

I commend the filmmakers for not revealing who V is behind the mask. This is one of the most important points made in the book. It is not important who the person behind V is. It's what V represents that's important. And V is represented by the mask, and his work. To put a human face to it would destroy the character. I would have freaked if this had been another Whodunit.

And yet, even as the filmmakers sought not to destroy the character by not removing his mask, they destroyed his character anyway by making V, right at the very end, less of a symbol and less of a representation of anarchy and change by making him human. This happens when V actually professes “love” for Evey at the point of death. Love on a personal, human, level. This revelation is tantamount to removing the mask itself. V is supposed to be no longer human. He's a symbol. He is the Agent of Change. As soon as he put on that mask, he would never be, should never have been human again. For him to have shown that sign of humanity defeats the purpose of his anonymity, and subverts the “idea” V has supposed to have evolved into.

This inexplicable confusion of theme repeats itself when the crowd dons the V masks. Taken by itself, it's a remarkably moving scene. And from a certain perspective, one can interpret this as the “people” rising from their shackles and embracing V and what he stands for.

And yet, I can't help but feel that it's once again something superficial. If the “people” are truly rising from their shackles, and freeing themselves from oppression and are now raising their hands and voices to reclaim their independence, we should have seen their faces. A “people” once pacified, obedient and faceless among the crowd, now rises up and claim individuality for themselves. Showing their individual faces is a representation of the people once more taking control of their lives. Taking on V's mask for themselves make it seem like they're only trading one master for another. And that's not what V for Vendetta is about.