*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread - Page 3

What year is this film supposed to take place in? It kinda bothered me. It seemed like nearly all of the technology was available now, like the TVs (JVCs, I believe) and the flat panel computer monitors (they even said Dell on them!), but Vallerie said that she was taken in 2015. The phones were stylized, but didn't look like they were phones 9-10 years in the future. The timeline is probably the only thing that really bothered me about the film. Oh, and Ben Miles. I kept expecting the rest of the cast of Coupling to pop up somewhere. Poor guy

Loved the film, will probably be seeing it a second time this week. Only a few minor complaints, mostly the rain scene.

Yeah, what bothered me with the product placement is that America is supposed to be a war zone and blown to hell, and yet we see still see American products like Dell and Pepsi in use.

Richard,
Creedy was not in charge, but as the head of secret police, had it in his means to "touch" the High Chancellor. V knew this, and knew the type of man Creedy was, and simply used that to his advantage.

The skit was a bit odd, but I think Dietrich (the producer) simply didn't understand the change in operation of the government. He assumed the standard response to a mild needling. They were cracking down and he was oblivious. In all likelihood, the needling occured in the past and the government allowed it, because it made them seem less harsh. It's a fine line to walk, but they moved the line without telling anybody. A mild weakness, I agree.

For me, this was not an improvement on the book. The book is flawed, the first act were most of the vengeance takes place, is particularly pulpy, and shows it's episodic origins from I think 2000AD

It was in part 2 and 3 of the book that it became more than it's origins, and it was in this part of the film that it started to loose it's charms. I had no problem with the shuffling of events, and the illimination of the party overflow plot, as I understand that they streamlined the film to concentrate on V and Evey. IIRC, V pretty much dissapears from the novel for all of act 2 (the Evey shacked up with the fingerman/ rouge elements take over subplot), after his TV message and shutting down the security cameras so that the people of England could have a real sense of freedom.

The masks were a purly cinematic device, which just cheapened the whole ending, especially with the stuff leading up to it being surprisingly literal. I think this is probably why Alan Moore reffered to the script as juvinile, and had his name taken off of it. This is also were it started to stray mostly from the novel.

I didn't mind the rain scene, as it was a way to show the dynamic of V/Evey in the book: V a figure of vengeance burn of fire, Evey, a figure of love cleansed in the rain.

I too thought Evey should of been more desperate, like in the book, she came of as too strong, which didn't allow for teh dichotimy of the proson scene to have as much power. In the book, she ends up in the prison after failing an assassination attempt on (I think) McCready, wheich allows for an already broken figure to than go through the horro and trauma that V than lays on her in the prison sequence. It's more pathetic that way, and makes her acceptance of death more powerful. Still, a minor quible, with my big nit pick being the masks and the crowd scene, not for logistical reasons, but for the lazy cinematic reason.

I too would love for an Alan Moore commentary, as based on his interview, the man can talk. I'm not holding my breath though.

Dell and Pepsi both have operations in the UK.

Now that I think about it, it does seem a little dated for 2020. Still, you can't really expect any improvements in industrial design if the creative classes have all been sent to Larkhill.

I didn't have a problem with the special effects at all. If we were pounded over the head with them that would be one thing but we weren't IMO.

I didn't think they took anything away from the film at all.

Jeremy kind of hit the nail on a part of it but I think the reason technology and styles wouldn't change that much in 15 years is that things like convenience items (like phones and computers and televisions) probably went on hiatus for a while due to all the fun dealing with Norsefire and the plague. It is really hard to get up a good ad campaign for the newest Dell or soft drink when a good hunk of the population is dying or a horrid disease or is being hauled away as terrorists, homosexuals or dissidents. I think things would go into a stasis for a while, at least in commonly used household items like phones, computers and televisions.

I think the bigger point is that this is just a slight skip ahead of us, not some distant, dark future. If it looks too alien I think the concepts they are getting across get muddied a bit. Battlestar Galactica has this problem with some fans, too. The show is obviously involving a high-tech culture but they still use pencils, corded phones and paper...when they should be using Hyperpencils, phones that fit in one's nostril and paper with the corners cut off. I think keeping it as contemporary as possible gives the movie some weight. I think it is pretty consistent with the comic, too.

He explained that fairly well in the movie, I thought. He figured it'd be the same as it had been before, they'd get a "slap on the wrist" - get fined and told sharply not to do that kind of stuff again. He assumed that since he had such a popular show and was a celebrity that they wouldn't punish him very harshly.

So Natalie gets her head shaved, leaves V's place to live on her own for a few weeks, and returns with the same crewcut? Did she think, "Sucks losing my long curly locks but this Sinead O'Connor look is pretty rocking."


But JVC seemed to have locked up the TV monitor market.

I was thinking about that too... and yeah, I figured the answer was something like that. I assumed she felt that the new haircut was part of her "new me".

One of my disappointments with the film ( I havent read the graphic novel ) was how V was written. I felt the film's impact would have been far greater and far more challenging had V actually been responsible for the deaths of innocent people in his efforts. That to me would have raised far more interesting questions to the audience than him blowing up buildings with no apparent injuries caused.

Is this a change from the novel or is it the same ?

The film doesn't come out and say it...but isn't he responsible? As the detective clearly showed, not every member of "The Party" or the system is a villain. Certainly there is collateral damage. But the film does not explicitly state that. It shows him killing cops as well as fingermen.

I do think it should have been more explicit. It offers a "get out of jail free" card if the audience wants it.

True. I think my problem was that the only people he killed were those who tried to kill him. To actually see that V was still willing to continue even if it meant civilians were killed would have been better for the film. It had to be more than him simply saying he would (Though I dont remember him doing this either).

Actually, in the graphic novel, that angle you're looking for Simon is never in there.

You never see or hear of collateral damage in his quest for anarchy in the graphic novel.

He did cause the deaths of innocent people, but even so, wasn't it enough that he tortured the only person he cared about? I should say that's more than monstrous enough; he's no angel, and quite mad.

I think it was a practical decision, too. The police were looking for her and a shaved head is a decent and cheap to upkeep disguise. There was more internal changes that made her invisible to even her old friends but it helps that you don't look much like your ID!

No, actually, it would have ruined the film. He is a freedom fighter, and the reason he is fighting the government in power is because they casually kill and/or use and discard innocents to gain power.

If V willingly and carelessly killed innocents, then he would be no better than them. That is entirely against his principles and against the theme of the film.

He still is a monster, and mad with vengeance. But, the innocents he kills are, in his mind, like him - guilty by association with the government. He never kills 'true' innocents.

And so its easy for the audience to sympathise with him, relate to him and approve of his actions. We can cheer him on because he only kills bad guys.

Showing that the bombings he had done resulted in civilian deaths doesn't alter the reason he is fighting. It doesn't alter the theme of the film either or the abhorrent nature of the government in power. I'm not looking for him to actively be trying to kill innocent people, rather that his bombings resulted in innocent people being killed, however unintentional. The audience is forced to confront a far more interesting moral dilemma. In fact with all the build-up to the film being controversial, this is what I was half-expecting. Without it, I dont think the film is controversial at all other than the blatantly obvious parallels that an audience member might draw with our modern world. Yet, as has been pointed out, the films themes are universal and not new. So what exactly does the film offer that hasn't been presented before, other than allowing the audience to relate it to modern events ?

I totally disagree. He's an anarchist and a terrorist. How do you know he only killed "guilty" people? Fingermen, sure...but his actions caused a guy working at the TV station to get shot, maybe fatally. He also killed three cops, who were probably decent guys (like Finch) working their job because they believed in it, and had families at home.

Like Simon states, making him a freedom fighter is simplistic in that it makes this tale a simple good vs. evil action film. We get dozens of those a year.

Actually, his main motivation was personal: revenge. Notice that he assassinated all the people running the concentration camp (the military guy, the priest and the scientist) where he was imprisoned and tortured.

I was always under the impression that he killed those people to protect his identity. After all, it seemed that he killed them moments before the cops came in the door most of the time.

No, the fingermen killed the technician. And I find it hard to believe that any decent man would take on a job that regularly involved "wet jobs".

No, the cops did. Cops were there well ahead of the fingermen. They shot him specifically because he was wearing an outfit V MADE HIM PUT ON. Are you claiming V didn't know that would happen? The film continuously shows V as way ahead of the game. He led to the shooting of that employee. Directly and knowingly.

As for the second part, lumping in HRT, Special Forces, CIA ops, SWAT, and cops as having no decent people among their ranks is your choice. The film specifically goes out of it's way to show a PARTY MEMBER and cop as having a conscience and desire for the truth.

Exactly right, Chuck.

V's definitely way ahead of the game. Again, the greatest answer to everyone's question is what V did to Evey in the story. You can't get more sadistic than that...even if he felt he was doing right by Evey.

The graphic novel advocated anarchy-- not chaos, anarchy. The film, however, did not. Question: did this failure to incorporate the political content of Moores work result in a muddled, incoherent film?

Who said it has to offer anything that hasn't been presented before? I didn't claim it was the most original and/or best film I've ever seen. I just think it's a great movie.

Yes. Revenge against the government - who use and discard innocent people in their pursuit of power. As he was used, as Valerie Page was used.



In the book, he is an anarchist. In the movie, he is a freedom fighter. I believe this is the very reason Moore took his name off the film. He wrote a message of revolution and anarchy. The movie is a story of democratic freedom (power to the people).

I never said he only killed guilty people. I said he kills those HE believes are 'guilty'. Including anyone and everyone associated with the government. That includes everyone at BTN - they are all doing the work of the government. The film never shows him killing any true innocent (such as the little girl with the glasses), and never shows him feeling guilty over anything except what he did to Evey.

The film DOES show a cop as having a conscience. I'm not arguing or claiming that anyone V kills is guilty or bad. I'm claiming that HE believes they are. The film's POV and his POV are not always the same. And, since he is so ahead of the game and well planned, if there were innocent deaths and/or collateral damage of some sort, he would have to stop and deal with that crisis of conscience. Why? Because it is not part of his plan or part of the message of the film. It would be a different film with a different message about how innocents can and often do get caught in the fire of revolution.

Quentin,

In the film, yes, he is a freedom fighter. But, he's also out for personal revenge. His victims were connected someway with the government but they weren't higher ups...so to speak.

And that's the reason why his quest is a bit interesting. If he was solely a freedom fighter, he wouldn't have a vendetta. But, like the graphic novel, he does have a personal vendetta that just happens to be interconnected to his overall goal...hence the reason why it's not up to him to see how society evolves. He leaves that to Evey in the film and in the graphic novel...

Because of his personal vendetta, V ends up being part of the problem. Evey calls him on it.

Quentin,
Killers don't get to determine the innocence of their victims. That broad stroke allows lots of murderers to be called "freedom fighters". The roundabout logic basically says V could kill anyone, and still be a freedom fighter; or even worse, the act of being killed by V makes the offender guilty.

Cory is correct. V hands over the reins to Evey, because he recognizes his own vendetta (after having cleaned house, I might add) clouds his lofty speeches. He is no more after a democratic society than the Fascist government.

OK, I'll buy that explaination.