I saw two movies this week, Nochnoi Dozor, in English �Night Watch,� and of course, V for Vendetta.
You can look at the official American Night Watch site , or even watch a super-condensed version of the entire movie, if you�d like. I think of it as a combination of Harry Potter on heroine, Underworld with the suck turned way down, and a sequel to an alternate version of The Lord of the Rings set a thousand years later, but in which the War of the Ring had ended in a stalemate. Pretty compelling, no?
As a guy who�s bloody obsessed with adaptation, between media, between cultures and languages, whatever, this film is fascinating. It�s the first of three movies based on a wildly popular trilogy of horror/fantasy novels in Russia. I�ve now seen two versions of the movie, one somewhat cheap exported version, acquired via das infobahn and possibly a fan sub, and the official American version, released under the auspices of Fox Searchlight. The American version is a much better translation, both in terms of the subtitles themselves, and in terms of adapting this very Russian movie for English speakers.
Subtitles, much as I�m quite comfortable with them, are always a little awkward. They force your eyes up and down across the screen, they keep you from seeing key visual elements, and you don�t get the same sense of tone from the actors. I realise it�s cinematic heresy to say so, but I�ll take a good dub over subtitles any day. The reality is that that I get very little sense of the actor�s inflections from a language like Russian, or for that matter Japanese or Cantonese, all of which are very far removed from the rhythms of English. Even in a French or Italian movie, I lose a lot. The trouble is that there are very few good dubs out there to choose from, and a lot of good subtitled films, so the choice is usually for the higher quality option, rather than the preferred medium.
Night Watch solves that problem by integrating the subtitles into the film, making them part of the visual experience, rather than simply layering them on top of that experience. I�d post caps from the film here, but I don�t want to be sued by Fox and I don�t have the right version to cap from. Also, I�m not sure how. But as an example, in several scenes, characters speak through rasping throats as a result of injury or fatigue or emotional strain. Their subtitles flicker and pulse, giving an impression that they�re not quite strong enough to stay on screen. The special psychic lure of the vampires in the film show up in blood-red letters that then wisp away like blood in water. The technique is very much like a comicbook in which the visual and the textual start to blend into each other, creating a combined effect based on tension as much as co-operation. Has no one ever thought of doing this in a movie before?
The second film was V for Vendetta, Alan Moore�s series that, thematically, was all about the Thatcher government�s persecution of foreigners, people of colour, and specifically homosexuals in the UK in the 80s. There�s an odd history, here. Moore himself just recently severed all ties to the films that have been based on his work, stating in several places (including to his agents) that in the event that film rights have already passed from his hands, he wants his name taken off of the films and his share of the profits divided amongst the other artists. That�s why the film�s credits say it�s based on �the graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd.� The writer�s name is curious by its absence, which might be the Wachowskis� way of acknowledging Moore without naming him. Just a guess.
At first blush, Moore�s decision might seem petulant or just plain dumb, considering the money involved, but it�s important to remember two things. First, the two films we�ve seen based on his books so far, From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen have been shit. I know, as a good critic, I�m not supposed to make that claim, but just this once I�m going to speak as a fan and say they were cinematic abortions sent naked and undeveloped into the world with very little desire to actually use what made the originals work. Moore has every reason to believe that his books are just unfilmable, and he apparently said as much to Terry Gilliam who, for a short time, was involved with creating a Watchmen film. (Gilliam, by the way, is just as happy to have washed his hands of the project since he didn�t think it was filmable either and maybe, here�s a radical thought, should just be left in its original medium.)
Second, Moore doesn�t actually retain the rights to the work that�s been made into films. Both V and Watchmen (the latter of which is a perpetually �forthcoming release�) are owned by DC Comics. I�m not certain about From Hell, since it�s published by Eddie Campbell�s label, but bounced around between publishers during its original tenure. The point, though, is that he no longer has any control over who makes a lot of his books into movies because he doesn�t retain the rights, so the money, while nice, isn�t exactly the �buy your dad a house� sums that it�s assumed to be. Moore is probably the most prolific and skilled comics writer we�ve ever seen, but he�s not sitting pretty on a money bin full of cash (and he�s not living with a bisexual witch coven, either. That myth is based on his three-way �marriage� with his ex-wife and their mutual girlfriend). So when you break it down, Moore�s decision to turn his back on cinema entirely isn�t as unreasonable as it initially sounds.
However, I have always hoped, in the back of my mind, that when a good movie is made from one of his books, it might convince him to embrace film as a medium in which he, of all people, could have a really good time. I do agree that most of his comics are unfilmable. Watchmen, as Gilliam suggests, might work as a big-budget mini-series for television; twelve one-hour episodes could conceivably contain the labyrinthine plot of the books. Something like Promethea just wouldn�t work in any other medium; the tarot card issue could only be rendered in comics. My hope, though, is that Moore might, at some point, consider writing film scripts, so that the message is appropriate to the medium.
Which is a very long-winded way of saying that the artistic success of V for Vendetta, the film, should be at least less of a kick in the nads for Moore than his other two films. It�s a genuinely good movie, and a very timely one, at that. It�s far enough removed from current events in the US and the UK that it can�t be read as straight allegory, but the underlying themes are applicable and powerful. Moore himself, in a recent interview with the BBC, said that he doesn�t object to the idea of adaptation. He just wishes they�d actually adapt the books, bring something new to them, but also make them, you know, good. Though the film version of V isn�t perfect, by any means, it�s a good, solid film. Moore, and for that matter Warren Ellis who recently bashed the film in Bad Signal, should both at least see it before criticising it.
Posted by orion at March 21, 2006 1:48 PM