Alan Moore famously hates all film adaptations of his graphic novels, and refuses to have his name in the credits. His argument is, in essence, that it's impossible to adapt them: they were specifically written to exploit the features of the comic-book medium, and therefore another medium cannot possibly do them justice.
To a certain extent, I can see where he's coming from: the film version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example, was a complete travesty. However, I think he's missing the point.
All film adaptations of other media involve compromises and 're-imaginings', as they say in Hollywood. Books, plays, computer games (I'm prepared to admit I quite enjoyed the first Resident Evil film), even television shows - they all inevitably have elements that simply don't translate onto the big screen. As a result, I think you really need to look at an adaptation, of any kind, on its own merits, rather than judging it by comparison with the source material. Admittedly, I can't think of a film that I've preferred over the book it was based on (with the possible exception of Brokeback Mountain - if you haven't read the Annie Proulx short story on which it's based, I'd highly recommend it, but the film had, for me, more emotional impact), but, equally, I've never read a 'book of the movie' that was anything other than utter drivel. V for Vendetta is a great comic and, pace Alan Moore, it's also a good movie - yes, the comic has more depth to it, but Hugo Weaving does a fantastic job acting with just his voice.
Which brings me to Watchmen. I was in two minds about whether to bother going to see it in the cinema (it didn't help that my main source of film information, Mark Kermode, was not impressed). But I was at a loose end and fancied getting out of the house, so off I went, and I have to say I wasn't very impressed either.
It's way too long, for a start - and apparently it's going to be even longer on the DVD version. And it's too violent - yes, yes, I know, it's supposed to be, but some bits really are quite deeply unpleasant (and I had to close my eyes at the bit with the axe in the head). The main problem, though (and I'm far from the first to say this) is that, perhaps ironically given Alan Moore's objections, it's actually far too faithful to the source material. I'm sure the fanboys are delighted at how much of the plot Snyder's managed to shoehorn in, but I'm no fanboy (well, obviously, but I'm not a fangirl either), and I found that his reverence towards the comic rather robbed it of life. There's too much going on, and far too often it felt more like 'and this is the frame on the top left of page 24' than anything else.
It's not all bad, though. It does better than V for Vendetta at capturing the depths and layers of the source material. Jackie Earl Haley does a great job as Rorschach. Some of the cinematography is fantastic - particularly certain shots that really echo the look of Dave Gibbons' illustrations. And the soundtrack, ranging from 99 Luftballons to Mozart's Requiem, is ace.
Overall? I quite enjoyed it, but I'm glad I went to the mid-afternoon showing - it wouldn't have been worth paying the full admission price. And, of course, it further confirmed the truth of the quote by JW Eagan (no, no idea who he is, or if he ever said anything else of interest): 'Never judge a book by its movie'.
To a certain extent, I can see where he's coming from: the film version of The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, for example, was a complete travesty. However, I think he's missing the point.
All film adaptations of other media involve compromises and 're-imaginings', as they say in Hollywood. Books, plays, computer games (I'm prepared to admit I quite enjoyed the first Resident Evil film), even television shows - they all inevitably have elements that simply don't translate onto the big screen. As a result, I think you really need to look at an adaptation, of any kind, on its own merits, rather than judging it by comparison with the source material. Admittedly, I can't think of a film that I've preferred over the book it was based on (with the possible exception of Brokeback Mountain - if you haven't read the Annie Proulx short story on which it's based, I'd highly recommend it, but the film had, for me, more emotional impact), but, equally, I've never read a 'book of the movie' that was anything other than utter drivel. V for Vendetta is a great comic and, pace Alan Moore, it's also a good movie - yes, the comic has more depth to it, but Hugo Weaving does a fantastic job acting with just his voice.
Which brings me to Watchmen. I was in two minds about whether to bother going to see it in the cinema (it didn't help that my main source of film information, Mark Kermode, was not impressed). But I was at a loose end and fancied getting out of the house, so off I went, and I have to say I wasn't very impressed either.
It's way too long, for a start - and apparently it's going to be even longer on the DVD version. And it's too violent - yes, yes, I know, it's supposed to be, but some bits really are quite deeply unpleasant (and I had to close my eyes at the bit with the axe in the head). The main problem, though (and I'm far from the first to say this) is that, perhaps ironically given Alan Moore's objections, it's actually far too faithful to the source material. I'm sure the fanboys are delighted at how much of the plot Snyder's managed to shoehorn in, but I'm no fanboy (well, obviously, but I'm not a fangirl either), and I found that his reverence towards the comic rather robbed it of life. There's too much going on, and far too often it felt more like 'and this is the frame on the top left of page 24' than anything else.
It's not all bad, though. It does better than V for Vendetta at capturing the depths and layers of the source material. Jackie Earl Haley does a great job as Rorschach. Some of the cinematography is fantastic - particularly certain shots that really echo the look of Dave Gibbons' illustrations. And the soundtrack, ranging from 99 Luftballons to Mozart's Requiem, is ace.
Overall? I quite enjoyed it, but I'm glad I went to the mid-afternoon showing - it wouldn't have been worth paying the full admission price. And, of course, it further confirmed the truth of the quote by JW Eagan (no, no idea who he is, or if he ever said anything else of interest): 'Never judge a book by its movie'.
No comments:
Post a Comment