*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread - Page 4

That's from the novel. Evey has no intention of leading this new society, and neither did V. The terrorist plot was aimed not at seeking revenge for the atrocities at Larkhill, but by systematically eliminating the legitimacy of the government.

I believe it was Roger Ebert who lamented that it was a bit troubling to see so many London landmarks go up in flames.

But consider what these landmarks do for Norsefire. Over the past few centuries, Londoners have associated the palaces of Westminster with a democratic parliament, and the Old Bailey with age old legal traditions. When Norsefire takes over, the parliament is eviscerated; the age old legal traditions, junked. Norsefire keeps these buildings around because it likes to believe that it is the successor to a long line of legitimate British governments, when, in reality, its hardly more than a gang of thugs. Remove the buildings, and the government loses its props.

Even if the terrorist plot was aimed at systematically eliminating the legitimacy of the government, V's vendetta was still part of his problem. While V is an anarchist in the graphic novel, that doesn't excuse his vendetta, no matter how interconnected it is to the destruction of a fascist government and freedom to the public. It's still a personal vendetta for what they did to him.

He submits in the film as he does in the novel, only in the film is it more obvious....

It's also true that Evey technically wasn't going to lead the new revolution/society after the death of V. But, I think it's hinted at every strongly that she will continue his work in some form.

I don't really disagree with you guys much at all. Read my earlier posts. I agree he is nuts. I agree he gives the final choice to Evey because he recognizes himself as a monster and a part of the 'old ways'. I agree his lofty speeches are an excuse to disguise his vendetta.

And, I’m not trying to justify or philosophize or categorize what a killer or freedom fighter or terrorist is. Simon suggested he thought the movie would be better if V had killed innocents and had to deal with that. I submit that it would be a different movie. Why? Let’s use an easy example: Let’s say that the little girl in glasses is killed by some shrapnel from one of V’s bombs. The second the film shows that, it is clearly illustrating a message – innocents get caught in the crossfire and die. This is sort of an “at what price freedom” message. This is NOT the message of the film showing in theaters now. Had the film done that, it would have taken a different tack than it does, and I think it would have been worse for it. Additionally, had V seen the girl die, his character would have had to deal with it. And, instead of Evey forcing him to look in the mirror, he has to do it for different reasons.

Not concerning ourselves with the real world – the film clearly illustrates who is good and who is evil. V is on the fringe. But, V and the audience have no sympathy or guilt for the ones killed. Why? Because they are all connected to the evil government in some way. Whether they are recognizable (the Doctor) or faceless/nameless (the guy at BTN), V considers them guilty and so does the audience – because that is how they are presented. Fingermen are not portrayed as innocents…though, philosophically we can consider them as such. Yes, in the real world killers don’t get to determine the guilt or innocence of their victims. But, in a movie world, they are very carefully and purposefully selected. And, “V FOR VENDETTA” does not have V killing any “innocents”. If it did, it would be a very different movie.

As for his vendetta – yes, it is personal. BUT, it is also about bringing down the government that created the monsters he is out to kill (and created himself). He DOES go after the higher ups – his ultimate plan is to kill Cready and Sutler. It doesn’t GET any higher. And he IS interested in waking up society so that they don’t allow such monsters to ever again take hold. That’s why he blows up symbolic buildings and why he broadcasts his message.

It's 'hinted at' even more strongly in the novel.

Well, if you want to talk of innocents, you can look at The Doctor and Evey, in a way.

Given everything we learn about the Doctor in the film, we never really see her do injustice. She talks about with definite sorrow and ache, but is she one of the really bad people running the government and supressing the populace?

As for Evey, she quite innocent. But for V, and I think I agree with him here, complacency is not acceptable. Evey is self-aware about things but keeps her nose down. Does that give V the right to do what he did to her...just to make her SEE?

And thanks for the correction.

Sorry Quentin, my intention was to simply express the disappointment I had with the film, the direction it took with some of the characters, and what I was hoping from it.


I don't see how. All the other elements are there and it doesn't change the other message or points the film had. The only thing it does is alter the simplistic nature of the good vs evil battle to something a little more interesting.

We see her willingly experiment on and kill patients in order to find a cure for a disease that apparently the government unleased on its people. She also helped create a superhuman madman. She is the sweeter and gentler Dr. Mengele. It is more direct in the book, of course, but she is far from innocent. She is the only one who repents, though.

Evey did mention that one of her former co-workers did not recognize her in the grocery store with the new haircut, and that may have reinforced her decision to keep the aerodynamic haircut.

Perhaps V is partially responsible for the deaths of the girl and other innocents by flooding the streets of London with his masks. The result was a descent into minor anarchy, and surely more than one person died in the street as a result. I wish the film would have further explored the psyche of the ordinary people who were willing to risk their lives to join V's street mobs. (But then again, that isn't exactly necessary in the cartoon world.)

I'll definitely see this film again soon, hopefully at the IMAX. I feel that I missed something regarding "coincidences" during the second act, and maybe it'll be clearer this time. (V claims that there are no coincidences, and then shortly afterward the TV host 'coincidentally' served Evey the same egg on toast breakfast.)

Saw the movie again tonight, the Salt Flats poster clearly said Valerie Page, I was watching for it.

Just as good the second time, if not better. The first time through I was looking for differences with the book. Both times I saw it with someone who hadn't read the book, and both times they really enjoyed it.

I really liked it -- despite a less than stellar presentation at a normally terrific theater: The picture was seriously misframed, and the volume very low, I was really straining to hear the dialogue at times. I actually complained, nothing was done . I will be seeking out the manager next time.

About the movie, I thought I noticed some interesting visual motifs, like a fire/water, or repeated shots of Evey waking up. I will have to watch it again to see if they really amount to anything.

/ 4.

--
H

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

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yes it may well make them hate V and also make the audience ask uncomfortable questions about the extent to which civilian casualties are justifiable when trying to bring down a brutal dictatorial regime. Again this may lead an audience to consider modern events but it is a universal question really applicable to events throughout history. And by making the film with a hopeful ending, it makes this question more difficult to answer for an audience.


Agreed unless he realizes he is a monster but again considers that that he is still going to go through with his plans because he feel the alternative is worse.


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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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