*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Tony_Ramos]

Chuck & Robert:

Considering the Wachowski's purposeful injection of contemporary politics into the source material, your objections are puzzling, but shall be respected.

The main theme of the movie was freedom. The conflict inherent to the plot stemmed from politics and how it stymies freedom.

For me, the most poetic moment in the movie was when Natalie stepped into the rain, intercut with "V," arms outstretched, defiantly crying for freedom.

It was so important what *wasn't* said in that scene. V had earlier said that what kept him alive wasn't only revenge, but through Valerie Plame (prisonmate) he realized the love for freedom that unites us all, and the silent indignation when it is disrespected.

 

[Joel C]

I have a question about the little girl with big glasses... we see her shot, which causes a riot, but she's in a mask at the end... So was that supposed to be Finch's vision of what "could" happen (when she was shot?). Because she was clearly dead.

I didn't like that she popped back up, as it seemed like an error, but otherwise, I thought the movie turned out pretty well, though I'm glad I read the comic first.

I was really glad the whole Valerie sub-plot was left intact, including her line about integrity being in that final inch, and they could take everything from her but that one inch.

 

[JeremyErwin]

Tony,
What contemporary political elements are in the movie?
The graphic novel, published in 1988, takes place in 1997. Larkhill was set up in 1993.

The movie, I believe, dates Larkhill to 2015.

So, to movie's politics are the politics of ten to fifteen years in the future (and mostly involve an entity called Norsefire. The novel had the comparative advantage of including a nuclear war in 1988, but the movie, relying on biological weaponry, can't rely on such a drastic turn of events.

The dystopias are fictional-- at most an extrapolation of the worst case scenario.

It's like thinking Prison Break insults republicans because the (evil) vice president is, IIRC. nominally "republican." The important thing isn't her party, it's that she's evil. Probably adopted her affiliations for expediency...

Now, if you see the torture and the violence depicted in this movie as unfair distortions of somehow legitimate policies, and are uncomfortable as a result, well, then, you need to identify whether it's your imagination, or your conscience...

 

[Tony_Ramos]

Just to answer some above posters' questions:



Actually, I found the depictions of torture and oppression to be quite accurate representations...of China, Iraq, Iran, etc.

 

[Ken Chan]

I had the book lying around the house for a while, and finally read it a few weeks ago. The movie, while clearly simplified and changed, was actually pretty faithful. Better than LXG. And more important, a much better movie than LXG. I liked it a lot.

Extrapolation certainly, but hardly a worst-case scenario. A worst-case would be unrecoverable.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

I didn't see them as contemporary. They upgraded the war, and used some ties, but nothing more involved than that which could be used as a framework. The political framework of the government was not representative of any major political party in power in any major First World country. It was an extreme, taken to extremes, to prove a point. Any serious connection to current events would have to be made by the viewer, and would lead to a discussion far beyond the point of the film. Political discussions inevitably devolve into partisan corners and pointless bickering, because such conversations (like religion, the other taboo topic) are deeply personal, and woefully inadequate over the faceless and anonymous internet.

Why I loved the film is that it points out that an imbalance in the system (of human interaction), which is ALWAYS dynamic...the system is never settled...will find a way to correct itself. Too much freedom (the opposite of V) leads to anarchy and chaos, and forces the people to find a viable social contract to prevent the excesses from destroying innocent lives. But that's not what the film is about. V is about the pendulum on the other side...too little freedom, too much control...and the effects on the human psyche and soul. As before, an opposite reaction occurs, and humanity finds a way. I found the film hopeful. It certainly keeps to the philosophical underpinnings of the Matrix trilogy. I loved that the film celebrated the individual, through art, through expression, through outrage.

As for Evey, this might be an extreme thought, but he gave her the greatest gift he could. He freed her from all societal constraints, and gave her the ability to live within herself, without fear. You could argue that might be the greatest expression of love possible. But only a crazy person could do it

 

[Jeremiah]

My most simpleton view, I don't give a sht what government or political view was being shown, I just liked the damn film. V was great, made you think, made you laugh.

 

[Robert Anthony]

This will confuse me to the end of my days, but:

Discussion threads: Don't need to use the spoiler box
Review threads: Need to use the spoiler box


Correct?

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Correct. Discussion assumes you've seen the film. Review does not.

So...go.

 

[Patrick Sun]

As long as the spoilers are about the film in question (and not spoilers of another film all together), then no spoilers needed in the discussion thread, and spoilers are needed in the review thread.

So...uh...anyone come across stills of Natalie in her school girl outfit yet?

 

[Lance_R]

Saw the movie this weekend with my wife, we both enjoyed it. She was totally surprised by the movie because the trailers had her thinking the movie was completely different.
We would both give it 3/5.
Good movie with a good story line, not all action and SFX. Some of the dialogue was a bit long but the move makes it work.
V was great, not many actors have the balls to act an entire movie behind a mask, and even fewer could have made it work.
Portman was fantastic, she really held the movie together. Look forward to seeing it again on DVD. I hope Moore changes his mind, I would like to hear and audio commentary by him.


Lance

 

[Robert Anthony]

Now, here's a criticism I'm sure is going to come up at some point: A lot of us, concerning the adaptation, are going to be coming from the standpoint that the book was nigh-flawless, and the movies mistakes will come from it's divergence in plot-threads and themes as it was adapted for film.

Anyone think that the movie actually CLEANED UP and HONED the message and underlying ideas the book laid out? I love Moore and his work, but V for Vendetta was definitely a pretty cluttered, self-indulgent and maybe thematically IMMATURE piece of work, the latter Moore himself has charged the piece with. By only vaguely touching on the concept of Anarchy vs Fascism in the movie, has the movie IMPROVED on the messiness of the source? Does the piece now have more focus and punch and relevant MEANING to the reader when stripped from the aimlessness inherent in the mildly pro-anarchy point of view Moore espoused in the graphic novel?

I dont' actually have an answer, but I think it's a decent question.

 

[Phil Florian]

Post Edited By Administrator, Please Don't Post Again

Anyway, I do need to see it again as when I see most genre movies based on other sources (comics, books, other movies, etc.) I tend to look at what was changed, what stayed the same, and so on. For this movie I was both delighted and very frustrated with the changes. The changes I liked that seemed to mix story ideas from the original but used them in new ways. As an example, I liked the Stephen Fry character (Dietrich) a lot (I love Fry in all things, actually). He was different than the original book (he and Evey were involved sexually and not platonically and he wasn't talk show host in the book, if I recall) but his part was well done and it hit the emotional points well. I also didn't mind the killing of the "Bollock's" girl (with big glasses) as she was a iconic character from the comic, was given a beefier role and was the cause of the population's turn against the Fingermen. This happened in a different way in the comic but it resonated well here. I liked Evey's betrayal with the priest...this wasn't where it happened in the book but it worked out well.

Stuff I didn't like were the new crowd scene (wha?) at the end, the fact that Portman didn't become V, that it was Creedy and not Finch that killed V, and that Portman's character wasn't as desperate as the original version. Evey in the comic was arrested for her first fumbling attempts at prostitution because she wasn't able to make ends meet. This Evey was just out past curfew. She had a job, was interested in a guy and wasn't that bad off. I wasn't sure what that change was all about. I didn't like the burned version of V, as noted above. The comic made multiple references to V being beautiful and unique. We also never knew if V was a he or she, if I recall. It was also too bad that they didn't explain WHY Larkhill blew up and how he was responsible for it.

The mailing of the masks was the biggest groaner for me. V in the comic did amazing things but as they noted it was with mostly over-the-counter things (in his poisons) and his arcane abilities with explosives (to make and use). He was also tapped into a proto-version of the Internet in Moore's original vision (odd that that was missing in this when we actually have an internet). The masks seemed to stretch an already heightened reality to breaking point.

Still worthwhile. It will be interesting to see how long it runs.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I was distracted a bit by the actor (Ben Miles) playing Dascomb because I kept going "that's Patrick from Coupling, the UK version."

I'm going to re-read the graphic novel, and then catch another showing later to see how it all plays out for me. I didn't want to re-read the graphic novel first, and then spend the first viewing going back and forth in my mind as to the changes, so I decided to try and judge the adaptation on its own terms with a mostly fresh outlook, even though I had some precursory knowledge of the basic outline of the graphic novel.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Some of you are crossing the line in regard to injecting politics into this film discussion. Please, stop with current political references or mentioning of any political parties. Thank you.





Crawdaddy

 

[ThomasC]

Ditto.

 

[Cory S.]

Robert,

After having re-read the graphic novel after seeing the film, you make a good argument to question whether this film is an improvement over the graphic novel.

I'll have to reread the graphic novel and see the film again on the same day to make that case...but it's definitely a question worth asking...

I will say that the film version, as of right now, has much more punch than the graphic novel.

 

[Mike.P]

Liked it even more the 2nd time around. The 1 thing is the cheesey "look what we can do" special effects that are done at times, and the rather amaturish cut between Evey's emergence in the raindrops and V's emergence from the fire.

We get it, they are symbolically linked to one another. Don't need the cuts, thank you.

Still, this is my early favorite of the year, and may earn a spot as one of my favorite movies of all time.

Tempted to order V for Vendetta and The Watchmen, now.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

If you haven't read them...you really should. I'll be rereading V this week myself. I don't know how much the film deviated, and I'm glad of that.

I didn't mind the mailing of the masks. I didn't give it a second thought. The guy had twenty years to get ready...and he only spent ten of them clearing the Underground tracks He could tap into official channels within England. Perhaps he could in Taiwan as well

 

[Richard Kim]

Saw the film over the weekend, I thought it was pretty impressive, much like Sin City was last year.

Having never read the comic, I have a few questions regarding the plot:

What was with late night TV host guy doing the Benny Hill skit making fun of the chancellor? Surely he would have known such an act was sure to get his ass beat and hauled away to the concentration camp?

Also, I take it that the Chancellor guy played by John Hurt was essentially just a figurehead, and that Creedy was the real power behind the throne?