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

[Holadem]

Some issues:

What could have been a great moment was spoiled by the unnecessary hand-holding in the form of the intercut with V standing in the fire. The moment would have been far more powerful had we been trusted to make the connection ourselves. Frustrating really.

Also, by the time V decided to give a history lesson to the cops (how the Powers That Be manipulated the people into a totalitarian regime), the audience, and even the characters (Rea) had already put the pieces together from the numerous hints, making that one bit of exposition very redundant. Worse, it undermines the fact that V is always several steps ahead of everyone, including the audience.

Subtlety issues, really.

--
H

 

[Spero D]

Just came from a screening and really liked the film. People were clapping at the end.

 

[Cory S.]

Holadem,

I don't really think this film was even going for subtle. I mean, it pretty much wears it's message on it's sleeve right to the very end.

Although, I do agree somewhat about the Evey scene in the rain being intercut with V's flashback. Not really neccessary but it didn't bother me too much.

 

[Cory S.]

Holadem,

I don't really think this film was even going for subtle. I mean, it pretty much wears it's message on it's sleeve right to the very end.

Although, I do agree with you somewhat about the Evey scene in the rain being intercut with V's flashback. Not really neccessary but it didn't bother me too much.

 

[Holadem]

Cory,

I know the movie lays it on pretty thick, and have no problem with the message or it's heavy handed delivery, as long as there is progress in the story: The useless exposition scene I question is the point where the narrative ground to a halt because no new information was coming through, it was an illustrated rehash of everything the audience already knew at some level. But perhaps I feel that way because it somewhat jives with my sensibilities.

I think this movie is headed for a Fight-Club-like cult status, one only need to check out the rave reviews on imdb. It's a good, refreshingly new movie, but it's not the second coming internet geeks will inevitably make it out to be.

--
H

 

[Cory S.]

Holadem,

Definitely agree that it's not the second coming of cinema. Still, in this cinema environment we find ourselves in, it's refreshing to see such a film that has ambition.

 

[Paul_Sjordal]

Quentin, as much as I appreciate your analysis, there already is a "at what price freedom" element in the movie in the form of dead BTC employees and the torture of Evey.

Believe me, I'm as liberal as they come, but V is anything but a hero; he is a monster and a madman. He happens to remove a greater evil and in that he acheives something good, but if you insist on seeing him as a one-dimensional "good guy," then you're missing the point being made by both Moore and the Wachowski brothers. Good writers make the audience ask uncomfortable questions, and I'm troubled that you and others find these quesions so easy.

 

[Quentin]

I never claimed V was one dimensional or good. I think I claimed he is both mad and a monster.

::goes back and reads own posts::

Yep, that's what I did.

 

[Simon Massey]

Moore may have done this in his graphic novel. I have no idea. The Wachowski brothers have given the audience the opportunity to avoid asking uncomfortable questions by not making V more of a monster. Did the BTC employees die because of him ? Indirectly, but its easy for an audience to blame the actual shooters. Did Evey get tortured by V ? Yes but she seems to get over it and makes it easy for the audience to forgive V. For all the talk before this film came out about how controversial it would be, it seems to me the filmmakers didn't follow through in respect of V's character.

 

[Cory S.]

No matter how you slice it, the torture of Evey makes V a madman. Seriously, this is what he had to do to make her see that the world is false?

And yes, by the end, she forgives him because she finally understand. But, in the beginning, she's just as furious as the audience should be after we discover it was V that put her through her ordeal. And after that, she calls V out on his agenda which he knows that she's right.

Eventhough V's ultimate goal was a good one, his ways of getting there is the troubling aspect. He masked his personal vendetta amongst his quest to free the minds and hearts of the people.

 

[Quentin]

The only controversy surrounding the film was that the terrorist blows up recognizable landmarks.

The film actually sticks pretty close to V's character from the novel. The difference between the two is in tone - the film is more hopeful, while the novel is more angry and rebellious...and it never makes anyone ask any uncomfortable questions.

I agree that there is an "at what price freedom" element in the film. But, it is not the THEME. It is not the overall TONE of the film. As I've stated, the tone of the film is hopeful.

Yes, V is a madman. Yes, he kills people (innocent or not). But, he is also the hero. He never kills anyone accidentally, he is berated and hurt by Evey's "monster" comment when he acts like one, but he gains forgiveness and 'sets her free'. He makes the ultimate sacrifice at the end.

Clearly, you couldn't have him purposefully killing innocents. He would no longer be the hero. So, that is out as a possibility (and it never happens in the novel either).

IF you had him accidentally killing innocents (as Simon wanted) one of two things would have HAD to take place:

1) V blows it off and adds to the body count. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" could be his justification. Unfortunately, this doesn't make an audience ask uncomfortable moral questions - it makes them hate V. Can't do that...he's the hero. I don't remember if that happens in the novel or not. But, the novel is neither as cinematic nor as hopeful as the film.

2) He stops and he pays attention to the innocent dead. This does a couple things. For starters, it brings him to the conclusion that he is a monster far too early. If he realizes he is a monster before he tortures Evey, he never does it. You have no movie.

Also, it DOES force the audience to ask uncomfortable moral questions, but that isn't what the movie wants to do or should do! (my argument all along, and my only point of contention with Simon) The movie wants to have a message of hope. The only moral grey area is supposed to be V's methods and even he learns his lesson. The rest of the film is clear cut good vs. evil and that adds to the drama. This film is not and did not want to be morally ambiguous! It's a fantasy! It's THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO.

Now...is that the right choice? I thought so. I like the film a lot. Simon doesn't. He wanted it darker. He wanted it morally ambiguous. Would that work? Maybe...but, I contend you would have to change the end (can't really go for hopeful anymore...stick to morally ambiguous or don't, there is no middle ground), and you'd have to find a way to work around V's self-realization coming too early. I think it works perfectly as is.

 

[Simon Massey]

I should probably say that I didn't hate the film. There was actually a lot I like about it but having not read the novel, I think I went in with slightly different expectations about what I was going to get out of the film and ended up being disappointed. Perhaps I should read the novel as well to see what's different

 

[Sean Laughter]

Please understand I'm being cheeky Holadem, but this was a rather amusing post considering your love for "Crash" - particularly the last sentence.

I loved this film by the way - I turned to my friend afterwards and said, "That was rather cathartic." I've never read the comic, but I want to get a copy now and peruse it, though judging by what people have told me about it I can't really understand some complaints people have with the changes. It seems like it would be only natural to change the particulars of the backstory from the cold-war politics to a more modern day structure.

I've also seen many annoyed with Evey not putting the mask on like at the end of the book (apparently, again never read it). This seemed fine to me because in the movie I felt it was made rather clear that someone such as V wasn't really needed any longer.

As for V himself, he's definately unstable, but to go all out and call him a madman is something I'm not prepared to do - even given his torture of Evey. Though upon initial viewing I felt it odd that so little would come of it on her end, that she would then just leave after that (though I suppose it's the rational thing to do). I mean, in a way what he did was essential for her survival. If he hadn't captured her that night the authorities would have and if he had just let her go (which she inevitably would have demanded) she would have ended up captured again at some point.

I think that whole plot point is a very interesting moral debate about motives and what's necessary.

 

[CoreyII]

Chuck, isn't that what The Punisher and James Bond do? Yet these characters aren't subjected to the analysis that V for Vendetta is recieving. Not that analyzing the film is bad thing.

This film is definitely making for some very interesting discussions, but I'm curious, has anyone stopped and considered the fact that Batman is a terrorist.

The reason I say this is because with all the discussions of terrorism surrounding the film and in particular the main character; are certain themes more easily accepted (or un-noticed) when presented in a manner that is palatable to a given audience. Under the guise of super-heroics characters like The Punisher and Batman seem to get away with stuff that V is being called on the carpet for.

From what I've been reading in the posts, Batman seems to have some similarites to V. Couldn't the Batman be considered every bit as obsessive as V. And Evey seems to be V's Robin.

Just my three cents worth. Love to elaborate more but I have to get back to work.

 

[Sam Favate]

Saw this last night and thought it was great. I'm a fan of the book, and I thought this followed faithfully enough, with some updates for the 20-25 years that have passed. Overall, I thought it was terrific, and Portman and Weaving did a great job.

One complaint, not related to the movie: Movie theaters these days seem to present music and sound effects way up in the sound system, while dialogue is harder to hear. Very frustrating. Yet another reason to stay home and do the sound yourself.

 

[Andy Sheets]

I would say Batman isn't a terrorist because he doesn't deliberately target innocent people or use destructive means in order to achieve a political goal. He is, however, a vigilante, and would not be very popular at all in the real world.

V to me is less like Batman and more like "hero-villains" like Fantomas or the cruel and twisted male protagonists of gothic novels. In a roundabout way he might be helping to better his society but he is not a likable, well-adjusted human being

 

[Sam Favate]

There is no doubt in my mind that, if he existed in the real world, Batman would be considered a terrorist, especially in the times in which we live. The story that would be presented to the media and public would be that Batman operated outside the system, caused damage to personal property and underminded the system that existed -- and that is why he would be hunted. Batman's existence proves that the system doesn't work - or at least, doesn't work for everyone, especially the innocent. And those in power would hate him for it. Only a cop with good intentions and no political ambitions would think otherwise and support him.

There are similarities to V, but V is different. V wants to overthrow the government. Batman is just saying "the government can't or won't protect everyone, so you need me."
Batman is happy to operate outside the system. V wants a new system. But they both indicate the need for change, which is a universal theme in both their histories, going back to the late 1930s when Batman was created and the early 1980s when V was.

 

[Jose Martinez]

Totally loved the movie and plan to see it again but this time in IMAX. I'm really glad the director, James McTeague, made the right decision in replacing the original actor playing V with Hugo Weaving even though most of V's scenes were already filmed. It cost them a lot of money to do but it paid off in the end with Weaving's amazing performance.

 

[TheLongshot]

Just saw it today. I thought it was very well done. It is a bit of a givaway, tho, when you hear the "Agent Smith" voice when Evey was imprisioned, that it is V who is doing it. Also, it does feel like it is a bit of a stretch that he could carry it off by himself.

Jason

 

[EricW]

i just saw this movie today. i'm a fan of the book. i was surprised how much they followed it... these days anything that's a movie version, i take with a grain of salt (not in the quality, but by how much they actually use the reference material).

the only really big thing they changed was the environment - i mean in the book, the popualtion is almost like war-time martial law, everything was rationed and controlled, and people were seriously repressed. in the movie, people are eating, driving cars, watching big-screen tvs!!! the only type of every-day control exerted by the government is the curfews and a little censorship. it makes the juke-box scenes so much less romantic