*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread

V is absolutely insane and more than a little obsessed with his vengeance fantasy...UNTIL Evey calls him a monster.

That's why he lets HER send the train in. That part of his revolution is hers and the people's, and he finally gets it.

While they did take out some of the humanizing elements from the officials, I think Stephen Rea's inspector becomes the humane official enough to communicate the message.

I may go see this again tonight.

I second Hugo's performance. It really is fantastic, and he brings the character (and it's a hard character) alive.

Of course V is a bit insane...more than a bit. I don't think the film did enough to do justice to him in terms of how special he was. His intellect, his control, his forethought. It was alluded to, but never really given weight.

They did remove one of my favorite bits from the Graphic Novel:

Warning Spoiler! Click to show
But that's minor. I will see it again before my review It definitely deserves a second viewing. Very, very well made film. I can't wait for the discussion to get going

"Hey, look! Bullet time with a knife! We're so clever!"


Other than that I thought the movie was really good, and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten more negative publicity from the American media.

Aw, c'mon, Blake. If you're going to make that complaint, wouldn't it be better to complain about the bullet-time raindrop?

Speaking of anarchy, check this out about that star of the film, Natalie Portman:

http://www.devilducky.com/media/42822/

I had no idea!

I'm suprised nobody mentioned the nearly endless Phantom of the Opera bits that play throughout this movie. I will say they were the only things thatpulled me out of the movie.

Loved it, but it could have been 15 minutes shorter.

I may see this again next week.

Brent

Wow, I never knew all that about Natalie Portman. Surprising, esp. with her being a harvard grad and all.

Highly entertaining film that uses the thriller genre as a vehicle to communicate ideas to an audience. I particularly liked the two characters, and the relationship between them.

I was struck by how 'sincere' this movie is; Not unlike earlier films such as 12 Angry Men and Gentleman's Agreement or Best Years of our Lives, the film does not hesitate to present its message directly to the audience, on the topmost layer of the film, without irony or cynicism. It's kind of refreshing, films like this. Magnolia is another contemporary example.

It was also a nice change of pace to see a movie with such verbose dialogue. Great fun to listen to. Oh, and Stephen Rea is a COMPLETE badass.

Regards,
Nathan

I'm really torn on thid. The first 2/3 were pretty great and entertaining, aand surprisingly close to the book. It was the post


Warning Spoiler! Click to show

Everything that happened past this sequence just got more and more retarded, and funnilly enough, strayed more from the book as I remember it. Evey was more of a victim in the book, which made the whole story more powerful.

Also, Chuck's previously spoilered comment of a part missing from the book is a good example of what I thought was missing from the movie, and that was the poetry of it. I seem to recall that V, in the book is often referanced as

Warning Spoiler! Click to show

As a movie, I don't expect a litteral translation, as it's impossible, but it was dissapointing to see it run down like it did after the first 2 thirds or so where so gripping. And even if I had not read the original book, I don't think any film/director could convincingly pull off the
Warning Spoiler! Click to show

Yet I liked the movie. The message as I see it is important, I just wish that the whole film was a little truer to it's beginings.



Agreed! After watching it, I couldn't help but wonder why Stephen Rea wasn't in every movie! Which is saying something considering how great Hugo was.

Good film.
The masks were certainly cinematic, but in the book, the same thing was accomplished by shutting off the camera system. (Moore had this really daffy idea,, where the government of britain would spend billions of pounds to cover the whole of britain with surveillance cameras. Yeah, right!. Like that would ever happen. I suppose that the masks were one way at ridding the screenplay of that most problematic plot point).

Any comparisons that can be made against present governments are in the eye of the beholder...

Also, I'm afraid that 'V', despite his claim to appreciate art, cares not a whit about Original Aspect Ratio.

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.

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.

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...

Just to answer some above posters' questions:



Hey Joel. The girl at the end is not the only resurrection: she stands next to the lesbian from the prison and some other dead characters. It is symbolic, they have not returned to life. Their masks represent their unity (hence Natalie's line: "he was my brother, my sister, my neighbor, my friend... etc).


I find no mention of "America's war" and "war on terrorism" within the graphic novel. Note that they were added for the movie only.



I agree, there is no specific political ideology expressed in the movie. I am talking about political theory: the movie evokes John Locke's Social Contract theory. It asks what powers we are willing to sacrifice to gov't for safety, WONDERFUL questions.



Who's insulted? I loved the movie. It reminds us how important freedom is. We are not reminded often enough.



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

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.

Maybe there was another way to free Evey from her fear; maybe not. In the book, she even ends up thanking him for it. I forget if she explicitly says so in the movie.

The best part is that they kept Valerie's note very close to the original. It's the soul of the story. Did they actually show her surname as Plame, as Tony suggests in #41? If someone watches it again, check those movie posters. In the book, it appears that her name is Valerie Page.

There are shots of several dead people: the girl, Deitrich, Valerie and her girlfriend, maybe even Evey's parents. I would guess the idea is that V represents everyone, but there may have been some other intention for those shots.

Yeah, funny about that.

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

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

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.

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?

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

So...go.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Ditto.

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.

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.

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

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?