Kath and I went to a wholly unadavertised 10 PM showing of "V for Vendetta" last night that we stumbled over looking for an early morning showing on Moviefone.com. Maybe 20 people there. Comments with some spoiler aspects follow:
The first question, naturally, is fealty to the book by David Lloyd (I understand Alan Moore also had something to do with it, but he had his name removed from the credits.) Well, it's not "Sin City," a film so obsessively faithful to the source material that it might have been directed by Adrian Monk. And it features the types of cinematic flourishes and additions that looks spiffy on film and make little sense from a literary point of view (how the hell did he have the resources to manufacture and ship a couple thousand "V" masks to the citizenry?) And yes, aspects of the end have changed. Then again, one must consider that a Hollywood which had no trouble giving "The Scarlet Letter" a happy ending would have had no compunction in saying, "Is there any reason this can't be set in a futuristic America and he wants to blow up the Capitol building instead of Parliament?" So on that basis, the story itself got off pretty lightly.
And while I'm thinking about it, while modern fans howl about decompressed storytelling, let's keep in mind that Moore's "1984 meets Phantom of the Opera" tale unfolded--how best to put it--in a fairly leisurely fashion. (As if "Watchmen" wasn't about twice as long as it needed to be.) The 2 hour, 20 minute film version is powerful in its relatively brevity, and its script hits enough of Moore's high points that one feels the moviemakers sufficiently "got it" that the movie evokes the feel and spirit of the original. The acting is uniformly top notch, although it does strike me a little odd that apparently they couldn't find a single actress in Britain to play the lead and required Natalie Portman to put on a Brit accent (which, by the way, she more than capably does. This is easily the best performance I've seen her give.) And one cannot overlook the compelling performance by Hugo Weaving as "V," not an easy feat in a non-moving mask (especially when one considers that, to make emotional moments work, Sam Raimi feels the need to divest Spider-Man of his mask at least once a reel.)
Overall, a well-made, comepelling film that should be experienced on the big screen. And particularly pertient to today's environment where discussion of a government keeping its citizenry in line through fear has unmistakeable resonance.
However, I'm wondering if the film is going to get slammed because some will perceive it as glorifying, or at least justifying, terrorism. Will V, hiding away in his Shadow Gallery while planning his acts of destruction and murder, be liked to bin Laden entrenched in a bunker somewhere scheming to destroy hubs of industry? Will the producers of the film be accused of siding with terrorists and tacitly endorsing their activities? I'll be interested to see.
PAD
Posted by Peter David at March 17, 2006 07:08 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commentingPAD, it's already happened; Newsweek, among others, has said that the filmmakers made a mistake in making V too heroic, to the point where the movie seems to condone terrorism.
I never got that from the book and I seriously doubt that the buildings he blows up are supposed to be full of innocent people. One can argue over the definition of terrorist but I would no more put V in that category than I would Von Stauffenberg and the other members of the July 20 Plot.
The movie seems to be getting better reviews here than in England, which is perhaps to be expected.
Do you really find Moore's work in general to be leisurely paced? I rather enjoy series that take their time getting to the end (so long as the ride is an enjoyable one). Admittedly, this would be difficult to pull off in an established Marvel or DC title. I think that FALLEN ANGEL is one of your finest works for just that reason; you were able to let the mystery unfold at your own discretion.
"Do you really find Moore's work in general to be leisurely paced? I rather enjoy series that take their time getting to the end (so long as the ride is an enjoyable one). Admittedly, this would be difficult to pull off in an established Marvel or DC title. I think that FALLEN ANGEL is one of your finest works for just that reason; you were able to let the mystery unfold at your own discretion."
I think if those series were first hitting now, you'd hear bitching from some quarters over the pacing, yeah. If "Watchmen" were just hitting now, you'd probably see endless crabbing about all the pirate sequences, for instance, as being there merely to fill out the series to twelve issues. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Moore's pace. I'm saying that tastes have changed to such a degree that there would be complaints about it now where there were none back then.
And for every fan such as you who appreciated the pacing of the original run of "Fallen Angel," there was one (or more) who said, "It's been two issues and we still don't know the Angel's background; I'm out of here.")
PAD
I'm very much looking forward to seeing it, probably later today.
But for those who "Ooohh" and "Aaaaahhhh" Weaving's performance because he expresses character so well from behind an expressionless mask, I have four words.
Darth Vader and C3P0.
They did pretty well, too with just body language and voice tones. Perhaps not quite as wide a range as V's (haven't seen it so I can't say for certain) but this isn't quite as unique as some would seem to make it out to be. If one adds the rider of "central, leading character", then that's another story. But even so ...
However, I'm wondering if the film is going to get slammed because some will perceive it as glorifying, or at least justifying, terrorism. Will V, hiding away in his Shadow Gallery while planning his acts of destruction and murder, be liked to bin Laden entrenched in a bunker somewhere scheming to destroy hubs of industry? Will the producers of the film be accused of siding with terrorists and tacitly endorsing their activities? I'll be interested to see.
Well, here's a prelude of things to come courtesy of John Podhoretz, movie critic of the Weekly Standard:
THINK OF V for Vendetta, the new movie written and produced by the brothers who made the Matrix pictures, as an Atlas Shrugged for leftist lunatics.
Ayn Rand's 1957 novel portrayed a dystopic future in which every paranoid libertarian fear of evil statism was fulfilled. V for Vendetta is set in a dystopic future as imagined by Noam Chomsky, Harold Pinter, dailykos.com, and Michael Moore--a future in which we learn that the "war on terror" was a plot hatched by evil right-wing politicians who used weapons of mass destruction against their own people to create the conditions for a homophobic, theocratic, totalitarian regime in which the only happy people are those who get paid off by a pharmaceutical manufacturer.
In Atlas Shrugged, the message of liberation is delivered by a faceless figure named John Galt, who commandeers the nation's airwaves to deliver a speech proposing a nationwide strike against the state. The John Galt of V for Vendetta is a man wearing a mask bearing the likeness of Guy Fawkes, the instigator of the early 17th-century plot to blow up the House of Commons. The masked man, known only as V, takes over the British airwaves in 2020 and promises to blow up Parliament.
And just like Atlas Shrugged, V for Vendetta is an exercise in didactic propaganda in the guise of an adventure story meant to appeal to teenage boys and their narcissistic fantasies about being at the very center of the universe. Both works prominently feature a cool, beautiful, and skinny chick who throws in her lot with the nerds. In Atlas Shrugged, it's the railroad manager Dagny Taggart who joins with Galt. In V for Vendetta, the beauteous waif Natalie Portman plays Eevy, who throws in her lot with V and falls for him even though he wears a ludicrous wig, minces about like the Olympic skater Johnny Weir, hands out flowers like Ferdinand the Bull, and is horribly burned.
Speaking for any adolescent male who feels self-conscious about his skin, V tells Eevy that she needn't see his scars, because the face under his mask doesn't represent the real him. V can go anywhere undetected and do anything, but oh, how lonely he is, sitting alone in his basement lair watching The Count of Monte Cristo and listening to music all by himself on his old jukebox, wearing his mask even in solitude. V for Vendetta began its journey to the screen as a comic book, and V is the ultimate comic-book protagonist--the Superhero loser.
Atlas Shrugged is a primer in Rand's own ludicrous Objectivist philosophy, complete with the full text of Galt's broadcast speech, which runs longer and is far less interesting than a Fidel Castro stemwinder. V for Vendetta is a two-hour alternative history lesson of the past four-and-a-half years. There was no terrorist threat to Britain, America, or the world. Rather, the threat was entirely the result of a plot hatched by a "deeply religious politician of the Conservative party" whose security chief uses prisoners at an Abu Ghraib-like facility as guinea pigs in a biological warfare experiment he then unleashes on the people of England. A hundred thousand die, "terrorists" are rounded up, and the "deeply religious politician" is elected dictator by a desperate populace that has allowed itself to be seduced into making decisions from unwarranted fear.
"There is something wrong in this country," V tells the people of Britain in his speech. But he doesn't just blame the government. Like John Galt, he blames the people: "If you are looking for the reason, you need only look into a mirror. Fear got the best of you."
If you believe that the entire edifice of the war on terror is built on lies and more lies, then V for Vendetta is for you. Its admirers, like the critic James Wolcott, are throwing around terms like "subversive" and "daring" to describe this film, for which a corporation called Time Warner ponied up more than $100 million and whose ideology is shared by the vast majority of those who make up the cultural community in the West, from the most recent Nobel literature laureate to Michael Moore, bestselling author and Oscar-winning director of the smash hit Fahrenheit 9/11.
It might have been subversive had V's erotic leanings mirrored those of the movie's co-screenwriter Larry Wachowski, who left his wife four years ago to become a preoperative transsexual named "Laurenca" living under the domination of a professional sadist named Mistress Ilsa Strix, to whom (according to Rolling Stone) he has transferred most of his possessions. But then, nobody would go see the film.
At this point, the only genuinely subversive Hollywood movie about the war on terror would be one in which Osama bin Laden is the villain, George W. Bush and Tony Blair are the heroes, and al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein are in cahoots.
In all this frothing, it's that last clause in the last paragraph that makes me chuckle.
That and he feels the need to invoke the name of Michael Moore twice.
And, the typical conservative wingnut need to potray anything against his orthodoxy as vaguely homosexual.
Oh, and the the utterly ad hominum attack against Larry Wachoski.
I can't wait to see it tonight.
British comics have a long history of making it fairly clear that the protagonists of these types of stories (V for Vendetta, Judge Dredd, etc.) are not necessarily people to be admired. It's something Americans (or at least Hollywood) seem to have a problem with. I suspect it's because we don't do irony as well as the Brits.
The pacing of "V" (the comic) may have been slow. But those weren't the empty pages of decompressed storytelling.
Remember, each chapter was about 8 pages. Not much may have happened in any given chapter, but no space was wasted.
More importantly, the plot may have moved slowly. But there was plenty of character development going on. Alan Moore's work has always been like that. That's what makes him so good.
--
I can only hope that the "V" film isn't going to try tying the story to current events.
It will certainly be the cause of lots of political and philosophical discussions. I hope that they dont try to shackle it to a particular issue. It would take the timelessness out of this story, and constrain such discussion to only current events.
Let V be V, and not an editorial cartoon.
I can't wait to see V, although with the infrequency with which I attend movies in the theatre, I probably will wait. With a 4-year-old and a pregnant wife, I don't get to the movies often. In 2005 I only went four or five times, and that includes trips to see Robots and Madagascar. However, I did manage to sneak in Batman and Star Wars III.
I'm happy to hear the story wasn't butchered as much as LoEG which hovered around the barely-watchable mark. V is such an engrossing tale that it deserved to be respected on that level.
Maybe I can work it into my schedule next week.
I think that review is appalling in its homophobic bias and quite telling in its political prejudices, where the present American and British administrations are to be revered as heroes, no questions asked, no criticisms raised, end of story, don't even talk about it. And the shot at Larry Wachowski is bizarre; what Mr. Wachowski does with his own life is his own business and wholly irrelevant to the artistic merit of the film.
Anyway. I don't think V is a hero -- he is a terrorist. He kills lots of people; the buildings he destroys are undoubtedly full of clerical staff and office cleaners and people whom we might call innocent because they're not fascist murderers, merely the janitors and paper pushers. But we could just as easily feel they are not innocent as they are most certainly assisting in perpetuating the facism of their government. V is a force of nature; he is anarchism rising against an overbearing dictatorial force drunk on its own power and paranoia; he's not a villain exactly, because any oppressed people will fight for their freedom and there could be people a lot worse than V fighting his war. V, at the very least, is not interested in causing as much collateral damage as possible, a distinction between him and most terrorists. He directs his attacks specifically upon the government and isn't engaging in mass slaughter. It doesn't make him a hero, of course, but it has to be argued that V did not start this war, and has fought as best he can.
I haven't seen the movie yet. Really looking forward to it.
"More importantly, the plot may have moved slowly. But there was plenty of character development going on. Alan Moore's work has always been like that. That's what makes him so good."
Yeah, well...you just described the first three parts of "The Other," and the mantra I kept hearing was, "Screw character development; the plot's too slow." Granted,I'm not Alan Moore (not enough hair, for one thing), but still...
"But for those who "Ooohh" and "Aaaaahhhh" Weaving's performance because he expresses character so well from behind an expressionless mask, I have four words.
Darth Vader and C3P0."
One was a villain who didn't require audience empathy (and, notably, didn't really get it until Luke removed his helmet) and the other was comedy relief. And neither was the central protagonist.
PAD
"Anyway. I don't think V is a hero -- he is a terrorist. He kills lots of people; the buildings he destroys are undoubtedly full of clerical staff and office cleaners and people whom we might call innocent because they're not fascist murderers, merely the janitors and paper pushers. But we could just as easily feel they are not innocent as they are most certainly assisting in perpetuating the facism of their government."
Substitute Luke for V, and the Death Star as the target, and you have the same situation in Star Wars. Or are we to assume that all of the thousands of beings killed when Luke used the Force were all evil?
Terrorist is a historic label. It's unpopular to say, but the American Colonials were terrorists, in a way. They didn't target civilians, but they did engage in acts of destruction against the state. Only the fact that they were able to prevail made them heroes. Had they lost, they'd have been tried as criminals, and executed.
"Or are we to assume that all of the thousands of beings killed when Luke used the Force were all evil?"
I'm reminded of the exchange in "True Lies," where Jamie Lee Curtis has discovered her husband, Arhh-nuld, is actually a superspy. He's under the influence of truth serum, and she says, "Have you killed people?" And he replies, "Yes, but they were all bad."
PAD
"More importantly, the plot may have moved slowly. But there was plenty of character development going on. Alan Moore's work has always been like that. That's what makes him so good."Yeah, well...you just described the first three parts of "The Other," and the mantra I kept hearing was, "Screw character development; the plot's too slow." Granted,I'm not Alan Moore (not enough hair, for one thing), but still...
On the flip side, I felt the sudden introduction of the new costume immediately afterwards was a bit too quickly handled. Especially since it also means new powers, and a new status quo.
Don't forget (as Dante and Brodie famously pointed out) the non-Empire contract workers on the second Death Star...
In all this frothing, it's that last clause in the last paragraph that makes me chuckle.That and he feels the need to invoke the name of Michael Moore twice....
...Oh, and the the utterly ad hominum attack against Larry Wachoski.
I can't wait to see it tonight.
Does Podhoretz have any axes to grind that he didn't bring up in his review?
If you are working on something called THE DEATH STAR, and it's only puprose is to blow up planets, it's a little hard to complain that you are just a low level flunky. I'm sure somebody was a dishwasher at Auschwitz but I wouldn't feel bad if the Allies had killed them in a bombing raid.
I have one question before I decide whether to watch this film.
At any point, does the audience see V's face?
Part of the point of "V" was that it wasn't really important who V was, or what he had done or been to wind up in Larkhill in the first place - whether he was black, gay, Jewish, or what - what was important was what he did afterward.
And no, he wasn't a "hero" - as you may recall, V devoted himself to anarchy because he felt justice had betrayed him. He had no trouble killing anyone who got in his way. The only plus was that he didn't enjoy the murders, and he always killed people in the quickest, least painful way possible (well, except the bishop, but he was a special case...).
I am mildly disappointed to hear that the tone of V's broadcast was apparently made a little less sardonic in this version - I enjoyed the fact that he had delivered it in the tone of a performance review, threatening that unless humanity started doing its job better, it would have to be "let go".
No, "V"'s face is never seen. The closest we come is, as per the original book, a heavily shadowed view of his severely burned body as he emerges from the fire. But they were wise enough to avoid the classic horror film reveal (and I wouldn't be a bit surprised if there were studio notes demanding to know why there wasn't one.)
PAD
so, last thursday I went to see the stage version of 1984 here in LA, directed by Tim Robbins.
sitting there (and having never read the book) I was astounded by the references that come from it, like V or that episodeof the Next Generation, "There are FOUR lights!!!"
it sort of made me think that V takes place in the same universe. like the story in V is on its way to 1984. after the ministry deals with its terrorist it decides to take even harsher control of its citizenry.
just pointing it out.
Tim Robbins did a fantastic job of directing BTW.
"although it does strike me a little odd that apparently they couldn't find a single actress in Britain to play the lead and required Natalie Portman to put on a Brit accent"
And Hugo Weaving is Australian, so neither of the leads is actually a Brit. Well, at least they did the accents. That's better than what the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy movie did. Waaaaay too many Americans in that movie.
I think the American with a British accent thing is done to get Americans into the theatre. I think almost every movie has production people saying that they need a big star or nobody will watch it. With films set outside America, they probably go one step further and say that it has to have a big American star, too.
"If you are working on something called THE DEATH STAR, and it's only puprose is to blow up planets, it's a little hard to complain that you are just a low level flunky. I'm sure somebody was a dishwasher at Auschwitz but I wouldn't feel bad if the Allies had killed them in a bombing raid."
Now extend that to every riveteer that's ever worked on a battleship or an aircraft carrier.
I loved the comic and I am looking forward to the film.
And I hope this gets played in the following countries:
Cuba
Iran
North Korea
Myanmar
China
Syria
Saudi Arabia
Venezuela
Now extend that to every riveteer that's ever worked on a battleship or an aircraft carrier.
Well, at some point the reductum becomes ad absurdum. I've got no grudge with the bricklayer who built a wall in Auschwitz; he would have had little idea as to what would eventually go on behind that wall. But if you're a cafeteria worker on the DEATH STAR and you hear that you are going to Alderaan, what do you think the mission is? Delivering vaccines? I'm just saying...
I know PAD wasn't saying he thought Alan Moore's story was too slow, but that today's readers would. I'm not so sure. There's a difference between decompressed stories and slowly developing plotlines.
PAD's issues of "The Other" were the only good ones precisely because they did have character. I don't mind good character development over plot. Fallen Angel is full of character development. McKeever's Mary Jane is a great book exploring characters and not plot. At times, Bendis does a noce job with the Peter and Mary Jane characters in Ultimate Spider-Man. Other times it is six issues of a thin plot going nowhere.
I was reading the "Hollywood" arc of Ultimate Spider-Man and somehow missed an issue. The problem was, I didn't notice. I found it in a trade and saw that absolutely nothing happened in that missing issue. No plot progression, no character development. The story worked fine without it. Decompressed stories in comics lately are really spreading out panels, using many splash pages for a more cinematic effect, which comes off very empty. In each 8-page installment of V for Vendetta, Alan Moore has more story and development than in whole arcs of some titles. Bendis gets a lot of criticism, not because he isn't a good writer or that his stories are too long, but because he tells so little story in each installment that I feel like I wasted money on an issue where nothing happens. The last New Avengers that I read had Tony Stark for a few pages and not a single other Avenger in it. But he spent something like six pages showing someone crashlanding on earth. That's an awful lot of wasted space for $2.99.
I think an audience today would be just fine with V or Watchmen because things do actually happen. It's more in the vein of Lost that way. (Some will complain, but some will complain about anything.) I am rereading V and it is a dense, thought-provoking graphic novel. I am captivated by the stories, the characters, and the themes. Reading Moore's epics is one of the great joys of reading.
But Bill, it's not like the cafeteria worker really has any choice in the matter. He's probably a contractor, just trying to make a living.
And while the conversation does lean toward the ridiculous, I only bring it up to counter the "glorifying terrorists is wrong" dicussion. I'm sure, when the Imperial grunts and supporters gather around, they don't mention Luke in glowing terms. More like "criminal" and "evil." It's all perspective. If any of the political support for the Empire that was shown in Episode III has continued, then the Rebellion is most likely seen as a terrorist organization but at least some portion of the population.
I read the Watchmen in the late 90s. After a couple of issues I started skipping all the stuff with the pirates. I just didn't care.
I think that people sometimes look a little too hard for things. There are definitely some stories that are padding out for the Trade. However, I think people sometimes say that even when it isn't true. Sometimes the slow moment or the character building moment really is necessary for setting up the next part.
The funny thing is, I don't think this is a new phenomena *at all*. 20 years ago when I was 10, I would buy a Spidey comic and be quite upset that only a few pages were spent on the fights. I would get really upset about all the time spent on what I thought of as "soap opera stuff". Today I call "soap opera stuff" character development, and I can look back and see that MJ revealing that she knows Peter's secret identity really is more important that the fight with Puma. So my tastes have changed, and some of the things that people call padding are the primary reasons that I'm reading the comic.
"Does Podhoretz have any axes to grind that he didn't bring up in his review?"
IMO Podhoertz's review loses all credibility when he cites Micael Moore twice (?) and NEVER mentions Allen Moore.
If you're going to criticize the story of the film, shouldn't you at least do a little research and find out who wrote it?
I loved the casting in this film (though I have to disagree about Portman. Her accent was off too many times that it was hard not to notice.
I lked Rea as the rumpled Detective and it's always great to see Stephen Fry in a film. (I wish he'd do a guest star on "House" some day.)
I especially liked the casting of John Hurt as the 1984esque Chancellor, harkening back to his turn as Winston Smith in the 1984 version of... "Nineteen Eighty-four".
Well, the main thing to remember when comparing Death Star to battleships, submarines, etc. is that those are military vehicles/targets. The people working on them know they are on a battle station and they come with the appropriate risks. Now, are they there voluntarily or are they conscripts of the Empire? Good subjects for a debate, but meaningless when Luke destroys the Death Star - they were on a military vessel.
Now, if Luke had traveled to Coruscant and destroyed the Imperial Palace, replete with diplomats, clerical workers, cooks and servants, who were in a civilian area trying to make a living, then he would be a terrorist. Like V. Parliament is a civilian target. And, as others have pointed out, V is not a hero to be admired in the original novel.
Also, back to PAD's original comments, yeah, there are people clamoring that this is an indictment of the Bush Administration. To which I say, if you think that the totalitarian fascist regime depicted in this movie reminds you of the Bush Administration, I think that says more about you than it does about the Wachowski Brothers or Alan Moore.
-Joe
You know what I love about this film? Conservatives in the media are setting themselves up to look so stupid (more so then usual) over this. I've already seen many of the national ones and the local radio goon talking about how "liberal" Hollywood is trotting out this film to attack Bush and to "glorify" terrorists. There is an easy way to shut them down and make them look really stupid. I did this with a couple of the local newspaper guys at the Capitol the other day and had so much fun.
1) Ask them if they've ever read the book or if they've seen the film. Most will have to admit that they haven't.
2) Point out that the bad guys in the film version are molded in the vein of Hitler, Stalin and others of that nature and that the country that they run is very much the type of police state that conservatives criticize other countries for having. Point out that this government is the type that pulls people off of the street and makes them disappear forever for "offenses" such as criticizing or questioning government policy and has agents that will rape women before killing them in the name of "justice".
3) Point out that V is a lone voice against that government who is trying to wage a war by himself to both wake up the people to the freedoms they can have and to undermine the tyranny of the Stalinist style leaders.
4) Discuss the nature of the issues in the film and book and how vile the film/book's government is as well as the principals that V stands for.
5) Point out that the Republicans and Conservatives in America must really have a bad self-image issue if a film like this can come out and the first thing that they do is identify themselves with the film's government and its movement and see it as an attack on their beliefs and the leader of their party. Point out that, when they say that that is not the case, it is conservatives making that claim I the media while most other "liberal" media reviews seem to see the Hitler/Stalin links rather then claiming that it's all about Bush and Cheney.
6) Keep the conversation going in the direction of the "self identifying with the Hitler/Stalin like bad guys" track whenever they try to claim that the film is attacking conservatives.
It took about 20 minutes before a mini lunchroom full of people who didn't care one way or the other before we started talking were on my side of the debate and thought that the two newspaper guys were acting like really extreme wingnut twits.
Try it around the office. Try it with your local radio wingnuts. It's soooo much fun to make them short their little circuits over the issue. You'll love it. ;p
Now, I'm out the door so my wife and I can go see the film. Later.
Hey Peter I just picked up Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man #6. And I got to say I've got a little nit to pick with you.
The Piledriver is an illeagle manauver in Lucha-Libre dang-it!
I ordered a beat-up copy on either Amazon or ebay months ago, intending to read it before I saw the movie, and since I didn't get around to reading yet, I started today. I'm around Chapter 4 or so, and even though it's a worn copy, I'm really liking it. Even though this is the third movie based on an Alan Moore story that Moore has disowned, I'm looking forward to seeing how the movie has adapted the material. Already I can see that Evey will be a girl in her 20's instead of a 16-year old, but since it's Natalie Portman, I'm willing to go with that.
I haven't read any part of this thread yet, because of spoilers, but can someone tell me how is it that Moore presumably sells the rights to his properties and then disowns them? Doesn't he have the ability to stipulate conditions regarding input into the films when he sells the rights?
It was only after he was sued for supposedly ripping of THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN at the studios request that he totally soured on movies. I believe he has said that any future efforts will be immune from adaptation
For an interesting view of the Star Wars saga, check out the work of Cheeseburger Brown:
http://mfdh.ca/starwars/darth-vader/
(Sorry, I've no idea how to do links in HTML.)
I strongly advise downloading and reading sequentially - I don't think you'll be sorry...
The 'Valerie' part of the story is/are some of the best scenes I've seen in a movie in a fair while. Real emotional whallop to them.
Portman's accent...decent to tose of us who live in the UK, rather than wholly brilliant.
"Portman's accent...decent to tose of us who live in the UK, rather than wholly brilliant."
Honestly? "Decent" is better than I'd expect.
Big Fish was a great movie that was a little hard to take sometimes because of the bad accents. "Cold Mountain" was just painful, I mean literally painful to listen to because of the horrible accents.
OK, saw it.
Wow. They managed not to screw it up. Who'd a thunk it? Not only that, but I honestly think I liked it better than the Moore version and I liked that one a LOT. Yes, there were changes made in the ending, but I honestly think they worked better. Less - to my mind - wholly unnecessary 'filler'. I was a little surprised at what they did with Finch, though it really isn't that much different than in the comic, if one really thinks about it. Jus how it was expressed cinematographically.
>(how the hell did he have the resources to manufacture and ship a couple thousand "V" masks to the citizenry?
By V's own admission, it took him at LEAST ten years to prepare his big finale. Given his obvious intellect and skills, I can easily see him preparing those masks over several years, using funds appropriated from ther Party or other questionable sources. The police/army were not looking out for these things before V made his debut relatively recently, story-wise. He might just have needed to ship sealed boxes by then at which point no one might have been in a position to put two and two together. They were also concerned with V in London, and maybe his trying to leave London. It makes sense they wouldn't have been as attentive to what was coming INTO London.
>The closest we come is, as per the original book, a heavily shadowed view of his severely burned body as he emerges from the fire.
I thought about that and wonder if one reason he wears the mask is that a face burned possibly beyond recognition would be more scary to James Q Public than it would be charismatic. And, given that the latter is what V would likely wish to inspire ...
> "Cold Mountain" was just painful, I mean literally painful to listen to because of the horrible accents.
Not just in the movies. One of the only false notes in an otherwise solid WW II first person game - CALL OF DUTY 2 - occurs in a couple of places where Russian soldiers suddenly develop suspiciously Irish-sounding accents.
"I know PAD wasn't saying he thought Alan Moore's story was too slow, but that today's readers would. I'm not so sure. There's a difference between decompressed stories and slowly developing plotlines."
I don't think a lot of readers distinguish.
"The Piledriver is an illeagle manauver in Lucha-Libre dang-it!"
Y'know, there's only so much research I'm going to put into something. And at least I can spell "illegal" and "maneuver," so there, nyaah.
PAD
Just got back from the movie and....Wow. Much better then I thought they would do with it. The story fit quite well into the two plus hour run time and most of the high spots of the book were hit bang on. I even thought that a few of the characters' story arcs worked better in the movie's Cliff Notes version of the story. I think that Gordon came out much better in the film then in the comic book version. Did miss the psycho with the blade and the ice queen though.
The only three points that I had any real issues with (not counting what the theater volume did to my ears half way through the film) were where the musical score in a few areas didn't seem to fit the scenes that they were accompanying, I missed the monkey bit and sarky dialogue from the book's TV takeover scene (minor quibble) and I can see more then a few people getting confused by the last 60 seconds of the film. *****BIG SPOILER SENTENCE FOLLOWS***** There were lots of people at the showing I was at that were "what the hell?"ing as many of the people removing their V masks at the film's end were dead people. I don't think that they got that it was kinda symbolic with what was being said at the same time. I thought it was a nice touch but a little strange none the less.
Overall, I think it was awesome.
I enjoyed the movie, but can't say I loved it.
It's not the action movie "by the makers of the Matrix" that it's being sold as -- and that's fine, but it does get awfully talky at parts (a blown speaker in the cineplex didn't help, cuz you couldn't understand some of the talky).
Even more than "why isn't his face revealed?" there has to be the studio wonk saying, "Can we have a happy mask for when he's happy, and a sad mask for when he's sad?"
*** SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER ***
The big reveal for me is that although his speeches and his results make him a freedom fighter, his true MOTIVE is entirely a personal vendetta (hence the name) in the mode of his model, Edmund Dantes, The Count of Monte Cristo. The difference between V and ED, though, is that V *knows* that his revenge will bring nothing good for him.
Bill Mulligan: It was only after he was sued for supposedly ripping of THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN at the studios request that he totally soured on movies. I believe he has said that any future efforts will be immune from adaptation
Luigi Novi: But what about From Hell? That came before LoEG, and he disowned that one too. Why did he do that? And why would being sued over LoEG cause him to disown a movie based on a series he wrote in 1982?
And who was the person who supposedly wrote the material which Moore ripped off for LoEG?
All The talk about the Death Star reminded me of this exchange written by Kevin Smith in the original film, "Clerks":
Randal: So they build another Death Star, right?
Dante: Yeah.
Randal: Now the first one they built was completed and fully operational before the Rebels destroyed it.
Dante: Luke blew it up. Give credit where it's due.
Randal:And the second one was still being built when they blew it up.
Dante: Compliments of Lando Calrissian.
Randal: Something just never sat right with me the second time they destroyed it. I could never put my finger on it-something just wasn't right.
Dante: And you figured it out?
Randal: Well, the thing is, the first Death Star was manned by the Imperial army-storm troopers, dignitaries- the only people onboard were Imperials.
Dante: Basically.
Randal: So when they blew it up, no prob. Evil is punished.
Dante: And the second time around...?
Randal: The second time around, it wasn't even finished yet. They were still under construction.
Dante: So?
Randal: A construction job of that magnitude would require a helluva lot more manpower than the Imperial army had to offer. I'll bet there were independent contractors working on that thing: plumbers, aluminum siders, roofers.
Dante: Not just Imperials, is what you're getting at.
Randal: Exactly. In order to get it built quickly and quietly they'd hire anybody who could do the job. Do you think the average storm trooper knows how to install a toilet main? All they know is killing and white uniforms.
Dante: All right, so even if independent contractors are working on the Death Star, why are you uneasy with its destruction?
Randal: All those innocent contractors hired to do a job were killed- casualties of a war they had nothing to do with. (notices Dante's confusion) All right, look-you're a roofer, and some juicy government contract comes your way; you got the wife and kids and the two-story in suburbia-this is a government contract, which means all sorts of benefits. All of a sudden these left-wing militants blast you with lasers and wipe out everyone within a three-mile radius. You didn't ask for that. You have no personal politics. You're just trying to scrape out a living.
(The Blue-Collar Man (Thomas Burke) joins them.)
Blue-Collar Man: Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt, but what were you talking about?
Randal: The ending of Return of the Jedi.
Dante: My friend is trying to convince me that any contractors working on the uncompleted Death Star were innocent victims when the space station was destroyed by the rebels.
Blue-Collar Man: Well, I'm a contractor myself. I'm a roofer... (digs into pocket and produces business card) Dunn and Reddy Home Improvements. And speaking as a roofer, I can say that a roofer's personal politics come heavily into play when choosing jobs.
Randal: Like when?
Blue-Collar Man: Three months ago I was offered a job up in the hills. A beautiful house with tons of property. It was a simple reshingling job, but I was told that if it was finished within a day, my price would be doubled. Then I realized whose house it was.
Dante: Whose house was it?
Blue-Collar Man: Dominick Bambino's.
Randal: "Babyface" Bambino? The gangster?
Blue-Collar Man: The same. The money was right, but the risk was too big. I knew who he was, and based on that, I passed the job on to a friend of mine.
Dante: Based on personal politics.
Blue-Collar Man: Right. And that week, the Foresci family put a hit on Babyface's house. My friend was shot and killed. He wasn't even finished shingling.
Randal: No way!
Blue-Collar Man: (paying for coffee) I'm alive because I knew there were risks involved taking on that particular client. My friend wasn't so lucky. (pauses to reflect) You know, any contractor willing to work on that Death Star knew the risks. If they were killed, it was their own fault. A roofer listens to this... (taps his heart) not his wallet.
Interesting comments on V for Vendetta. I am hoping to see it tonight. Personally I am hoping the movie is not to faithful to the book. I read the book for the first time last month and frankly I was bored for most of it and I am a fan of the so-called king of "decompressed storytelling", Bendis. It was just a lot of dead pages that may have had lots of words but many did nothing to advance the story or the characters.
It often times had reminded me of turn of the century literature where the writer was clearly being paid by the word. Just like those literature books, with V the book, you have to sift through a lot of garbage to get to the core themes and moments that make you go "oh yeah! thats why its a classic."
"Conservatives in the media are setting themselves up to look so stupid (more so then usual) over this. I've already seen many of the national ones and the local radio goon talking about how "liberal" Hollywood is trotting out this film to attack Bush and to 'glorify' terrorists. There is an easy way to shut them down and make them look really stupid."
Good luck with that; you've already lost your typical neoconservative Bush apologist after step #2. Easier instead to just say, "So, you're admitting the Bush Administration is no different from the fascist government in the movie, eh?"
--R.J.
Luigi Novi: But what about From Hell?... snip
This might be some good reading.
It's an article on ComicsPriceGuide.com (via the NYT) regarding Alan Moore's works and the subsequent adaptations: Link.
Larry Cohen, the guy behind some great shlock classics like IT'S ALIVE and Q was the one who claimed that Moore was hired by the studio to rip off a treatment that he had submitted. The studio eventually paid to make the suit go away, which Moore took as a personal affront. I don't think he was happy with FROM HELL--neither was I for that matter--but the League experience, complete with deposition by lawyers apparently left scars. The disrespect given to him by Joel Silver over V didn't help. It's too bad, because V looks like something worthy.
(Cohen's claim, btw, looks totally bogus to me. Some of the elements of his idea were in the movie but not the comic--Tom Sawyer, for example. At any rate, this is not the first time this idea has been done--Phillip Jose Farmer with TARZAN ALIVE and ODC SAVAGE: HIS APOCALYPITIC LIFE spring to mind as well as a fine book I remember from years ago that teamed Sherlock Holmes and Professor Challenger as they helped fight the War of the Worlds.).
shortie review: awesome movie, so-so adaptation. Its pretty telling that some of the movie's most powerful moments are the direct translations from the graphic novel.
basically, if the comic is dark, cerebral, and anarchistic, the movie is loud, bombastic, and pissed off. Moore, in an interview on MTV.com (may post later, kinda drunk now), called the film a "impotent liberal Hollywood fantasy". May be kind of close.
Not to say the movie isn't good, hardly, it kicks ass. Its great. Hell, its worth it for about 900 different reasons. (one of the higher ones is seeing the performance of V. The way Weaving manages to emote, robbed of his facial ticks and behind the mask, through just body language is stunning. If there was any justice in the world, motherfucker would get an Oscar)
But, yeah, go see. Just, if you love the comic, keep your preconcived notions at the door
spoilers!!!- the ending kind of ticked me off, and here’s why: the synchronistic beauty of Evey becoming V in the graphic novel (he spent the whole book training her to become the new V), as opposed to *everybody* becoming V in the last 5 minutes of the movie ... I say the ending of the book works better. I think the story is more powerful of only Evey inherits the V persona at the end, as opposed to the entire country becoming V at the end.
"Good luck with that; you've already lost your typical neoconservative Bush apologist after step #2. Easier instead to just say, "So, you're admitting the Bush Administration is no different from the fascist government in the movie, eh?""
Yeah, but they're not the ones that I'm really making the argument for. The exchange that I had with the newspaper guys was in a small break area with other people around. These two were talking about how this movie was this big attack on Bush and how Hollywood had made a terrorist the hero with people in earshot who really didn't know better. Our little mini debate made them look dumb and had more then a few people sitting around adding their two cents in after they heard what the basic concept really was VS what they had been hearing up until then.
It's the same with the local radio wingnuts. The argument isn't really meant for them. It's for their listeners. That's the other reason that you can't just shoot for the kill shot you would go for. It's the sure way to get hung up on and blown off as just another rabid, Bush hating nutcase. You're out of the conversation and they get to keep banging their misinforming drum to a bunch of people who may not know better and who might actually go see and like the film if they didn't pass it by because they thought that it was just a hate filled, anti-American, anti-Bush and pro-terrist Hollywood lefty screed.
Plus it's more fun to make them look stupid in front of others in the slow burn way then it is to just tick them off.
Best. Movie. Ever.
ALthough the best part of the movie came at the end when the credits started to roll and I stood up and applauded in a theater packed with comic book geeks and teenagers (not that the two are mutually exclusive.) The fat guy in front of me started applauding thinking it was the whole theater and then realized it was just one fat guy behind him applauding and promptly stopped. A poignant ending to a great movie.
Remember, in the comic, V had the resources to build a supercomputer, so the mask thing probably isn't too far off.
I mentioned to a friend that they changed the ending in regards to Evey, and he said it was probably beacause "Saw" had a similar ending.
I really enjoyed the movie. It wasn't perfect but enjoyable. I admit that I was a little disturbed by how moving the destruction of Parliament was. Sort of felt guilty about that. I was struck by how much imagery is in the film and realized that most of it comes from the comic. Then I realized how rarely movies use that type of metaphor and imagery. A shame, really. The movie is well-worth seeing.
Does the movie make parallels to Bush? Yes, it does. They added some touches that were intentionally reminiscent of current events and which were not in the graphic novel. Instead of blindfolds, they use black hoods (Abu Ghraib), America is led down the path of destruction by the war they started (U.S. isn't even mentioned in the comic), the Chancellor is a religious conservative, when the government wants to convince the people that it is still needed the media starts talking about epidemics like the avian flu that they need to be protected from, and the Voice of Fate is replaced by a Rush Limbaugh-like character complete with drug problem. That's not to say the the entire movie is a bash on Bush and the GOP, but to say that there are no parallels is false. Of course, as someone else posted, the comparisons to Hitler and Stalin and the like are much more prominent.
Does the movie make parallels to Bush? Yes, it does.
I don't think they had a choice but to make such parallels, because the timeline of the story was moved forward. Thus, they had to reference the events of today (such as the Iraq war and avian flu).
However, that said, people are going to draw parallels regardless.
This was written ~20 years ago, when the Cold War was still the big attention-getter of the day. And while I've not read V for Vendetta, from what I've heard, this movie gets the jist of what Moore was writing. Which is what's important.
If Moore was dragged into a court case where he was accused of writing his graphic novel based on the LXG movie, where it was the other way around, I can only imagine what kind of idiocy this movie is going to prompt.
StarWolf posted:
"But for those who "Ooohh" and "Aaaaahhhh" Weaving's performance because he expresses character so well from behind an expressionless mask, I have four words.
Darth Vader and C3P0.
They did pretty well, too with just body language and voice tones. Perhaps not quite as wide a range as V's (haven't seen it so I can't say for certain) but this isn't quite as unique as some would seem to make it out to be. If one adds the rider of "central, leading character", then that's another story. But even so ...
Um, just a note of correction, but of those two characters, the only one that can rightly be compared to Hugo Weaving's "V" would be Anthony Daniels' portrayal of C-3P0. Darth Vader was performed by TWO different actors, David Prowse as the "body" and James Earl Jones as the "voice". (This only considers the original trilogy, which actually had a third actor, Bob Anderson, who did most of Prowse's fight scenes in Empire and Jedi, but doesn't include Hayden Christensen's brief dress-up in the Vader costume at the end of Sith.) Having never heard Prowse's own voice (at least not where I'm aware that it was Prowse speaking), I can't say whether Vader would've been quite as memorably "portrayed".
Just to clarify, my preceding comment begins at "Um, just a note of correction,".
(To adapt from a wise man, "rackin' frackin' HTML tags".)
Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I've wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
Thanks
Prowse wasn't even always aware of what the lines would be--at the end of EMPIRE he was not saying "No, I am your father." but rather ""Obi-Wan killed your father".
It's true. If you have X-Ray vision, you can see that his lips don't match the dialogue.
I've met Prowse at several conventions (He seemed very fond of my wife and who could blame him?). He has a very nice English voice. I suppose they could have altered it in post to make it appropriate but Jones was by far the better choice. Prowse isn't too happy about it though, and judging from the fact that he never seems to be in any of the cast reunion photos or had a cameo in eps 1-3 I gues there is some bad blood between him and Lucas.
Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
I'd never heard of it.
I did read a comment about it that says on the 4th, British schoolchildren burn effigies of Fawkes, which is one of those things I shake my head at.
I haven't seen "V" yet, so I can't comment on it. However, I do have to disagree with your statement about tastes changing and not supporting a leisurely storytelling pace.
When I was a kid, a mini-series lasted 3, 4 issues tops. Now we never see anything less than 5 issues. And in monthly titles the only time we see a self-contained story is as filler before the 6-12 issue story arc to come (written with an eye towards the eventual trade paperback collection).
Of course, much of that is due, I think, to the fact that the art often gets in the way of the actual story; we get page after page of pretty pictures that do nothing to advance the plot. So really, even though it's taking twice as long to tell the story, there's the same amount of story as in the 3-4 issue story arcs of my youth.
So in that respect it's not so much a leisurely pace as an overdependence on art.
Still, there are some "modern" writers who take their time telling a story. Consider the relatively recent "What if..?" stories. In "What if Jessica Jones Had Joined The Avengers?" it took Bendis 10 pages to get past the framing sequence and actually ask the titular question.
And given that Bendis seems to write bloddy everything these days, it would seem a leisurely pace is still palatable to today's readers.
Just an off the cuff thought...
Paraphrasing Roger Ebert's quote from North:
"I hated, hated, hated, hated, hated, hated this movie. Every insipid minute."
The Wachowskis had a story written from an author living under a conservative government rife with scandal. Readers could read the story and connect the dots.
Seeing that, they decided that this story was just a little too subtle. Maybe some people wouldn't "get it." So let's add tons of references to modern day events just to make sure everyone knows we are talking about Bush. Childish and stupid.
Bush is a terrible President in my eyes. He's inching closer every day to worst President of all time, though he's still got to pass a few. And even I thought this was a simplistic, cartoonish rant. Evey's boss with his hidden homosexuality, his Koran, and his flag with the Nazi swastika mixed in with the British/American flags and stating "Coalition of the Willing" was the biggest eye-rolling moment I've had since reading about Liberality for All.
They had a beautiful, smart, exciting story that would have spoke to the audience if they had filmed it accurately. It would have had the same points, without having been hit on the head with them repeatedly for two hours. Instead they decided to make it a hamfisted rant against the Bush Administration.
F--- them. Worst experience I've had watching a movie in years. I'm glad Alan Moore took his name of it.
>Remember, in the comic, V had the resources to build a supercomputer, so the mask thing probably isn't too far off.
Uh, he did? As I remember it he didn't build the Fate computer, he hacked into it. I admit I may have blinked and missed it.
>Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
We learned about it in history class in Canada.
"Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?"
"I'd never heard of it.
I did read a comment about it that says on the 4th, British schoolchildren burn effigies of Fawkes, which is one of those things I shake my head at."
C'mon, guys, you're on the internet---Google that b---h. I didn't even use Google. I just typed Guy Fawkes in my address bar and hit enter and found this site.
It gives all the basics on its front page. T
I just Googled Guy Fawkes and Google showed 781,000 possibilities.
C'mon, guys, you're on the internet
What's your point?
I didn't know who Fawkes was. So what?
I still wouldn't know, nor particularly care, if not for this movie.
Maybe I'd have to be British to understand or something.
I mean, ok, I'm reading the Wikipedia article about this fellow, and it's intersting to see the etymology of the word 'guy'.
But beyond that, I don't have an opinion one way or the other about the fellow and his actions, nor about the time in which he lived (such as whether his plot was a 'noble' one).
Having never heard Prowse's own voice (at least not where I'm aware that it was Prowse speaking), I can't say whether Vader would've been quite as memorably "portrayed".
I have, though not in person. Prowse has a few speaking roles in his career; the ones I remember are a prison guard in "A Clockwork Orange" and as an android in the old "Tomorrow People" series in the mid-'70s.
His voice is not a good fit for Vader -- which is not a black mark against him by any means, but it's the truth.
TWL
Hell, most of my education predates the 'Net by a considerable margin, but I not only had heard of Guy Fawkes, I knew the rhyme!
Perhaps I'm just a bit more broadly-read than most...
IGuy -
So let's add tons of references to modern day events just to make sure everyone knows we are talking about Bush. (snip) Instead they decided to make it a hamfisted rant against the Bush Administration.
Say, Jerry C, maybe you should have a chat with IGuy here...
"Say, Jerry C, maybe you should have a chat with IGuy here."
Don't be ridiculous. I said in the very post you seem not to have read that I don't like Bush in the least. I think he's a terrible President. Horrible. Coming closer and closer to worst President of all time every day it seems. Everything he has touched has been a disaster from the Iraq War to a horrible economy to negligence in the aftermath of Katrina, cutting important government progams because he, a Republican, is not even capable of being fiscally responsible.
That's not the point. The point is the moviemakers took a parable ALREADY about a conservative soceity and made it more hammy and more stupid.
I have read the book many times. I LOVE the book. That's why I'm so disappointed in this POS movie.
And it WAS an attack on the Bush Administration or at least conservative America. Sorry, but it was. The Abu Gharib hoods in the detention center. The repeated mention of Muslims and the Qu'ran. The repeated mention of homosexuals. The "Coalition of the Willing" poster. That's not exactly subtle criticism guys. And that's the POINT I'm trying to make. They could have made a movie based on the story and intelligent people could have connected the dots. Instead they chose to spoon-feed the audience, and the result sucked.
And I think it makes people with liberal views look bad, just like crazy stuff like Liberality for All makes Conservatives look stupid. It's as if somebody took V for Vendetta and made it a Christian movie where the dystopia is a world where the terrorists took over because Democrats let them and the government performed abortions on people at random and forced everyone to be gay. It's simplistic and stupid and an insult to a complicated and smart work that already serves as a subtle criticism of conservative politics.
And before I saw the movie, I was thinking the exact same thing.
Conservatives are going nuts over something written in the 1980's about a facist government, it's going to be fun to watch them play the persecuted card.
And then I go to the movie and find out that those idiots changed the story to actually give them something to complain about it because they don't have enough respect for the movie-going audience to realize that we are smart enough to get the point of the movie without hitting us over the head.
> Prowse has a few speaking roles in his career;
> the ones I remember are a prison guard in "A
> Clockwork Orange"
No, in that movie, he's the old man's 'houseboy' that carries him, in wheelchair, down a few stairs.
After seeing the movie, my totally subjective opinion is that it was better than the book.
When I read the book, I felt that the Anarchy stuff kind of went nowhere and the ending was weak. The movie feels much better for not having it.
The makers of the movie didn't make it about Bush. They made it about Augustus Caesar, Bush, Hitler, Thatcher, and others. I think even Alan Moore doesn't understand quite how timeless this story really is.
And it WAS an attack on the Bush Administration or at least conservative America.
So... you'd prefer that it be Communists instead of Nazi stuff, nukes instead of plagues... ?
They took material that was written in ~1986 and updated it for 2006. That's all there is to it.
And let's be honest with ourselves here, some of the stuff that Moore mentions (such as what should be done about gays) is just as relevant and important now as it was 20 years ago.
On the subject of updating things, here's Marvelman in 1954:
http://toonopedia.com/marvlman.htm
and here he is after Alan Moore restarted him in 1982:
"The makers of the movie didn't make it about Bush. They made it about Augustus Caesar, Bush, Hitler, Thatcher, and others. I think even Alan Moore doesn't understand quite how timeless this story really is."
ALAN MOORE wrote a story that could be about all of those people. He did so by avoiding the type of things that the Wachowskis shoehorned in. This V for Vendetta will be forgotten in years because of that garbage.
"So... you'd prefer that it be Communists instead of Nazi stuff, nukes instead of plagues... ?
They took material that was written in ~1986 and updated it for 2006. That's all there is to it.
And let's be honest with ourselves here, some of the stuff that Moore mentions (such as what should be done about gays) is just as relevant and important now as it was 20 years ago."
Uh...what? I don't have a problem with them using plagues instead of nukes. I have a problem with them making a timeless parable that could be applied to Bush into a crappy hamfisted polemic against Bush. That scene with Evey's boss wasn't in Moore's story because it was unnecessay. It was added just to make sure we all "got" that it was about Bush.
And yes, discrimination against gays is bad and still exists. In the book, Moore dealt with that discrimination in a beautiful, poignant way that is still so relevant today that it was the best part of that terrible movie. He included homosexuals in the group of people being eliminated by not being the ideal. (Along with other races..where was that in this new story. Oh, right...it was gone. Seems the only people this government persecuted were gays, Muslims, and protestors. No...they didn't change it at all to fit current political themes).
What he didn't do was include a cheesy scene like the Evey's boss scene. He uses things like metaphor and allegory and subtlety, not spoonfeeding us what he wants us all to think about the current political situation. Which is why HIS work is timeless and this work is trash.
And again this is from a dyed-in-the-wool liberal.
"ALAN MOORE wrote a story that could be about all of those people. He did so by avoiding the type of things that the Wachowskis shoehorned in. This V for Vendetta will be forgotten in years because of that garbage."
Actually, Alan Moore has said that his version was specifically about the Thatcher administration.
I didn't really notice anything in the movie that didn't seem to fit. Can you tell me what you thought was shoehorned into the movie?
"Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?"
I know OF it. I know what he tried to do and why. But the story doesn't have any personal emotional resonance for me, if that's what you mean.
PAD
Actually, you did mention a couple of points, IGuy, so allow me to address those.
"Along with other races..where was that in this new story. Oh, right...it was gone"
It wasn't gone. Remember the scene where the female doctor is flashing back to the lab? They showed several races of people in the orange lab rat outfits, not just whites. Also, I believe the Valerie scene showed a black man being yanked out of bed as well.
"What he didn't do was include a cheesy scene like the Evey's boss scene. He uses things like metaphor and allegory and subtlety, not spoonfeeding us what he wants us all to think about the current political situation. Which is why HIS work is timeless and this work is trash."
I really don't see it as being that much of a Bush indicator. Sure, it mentions the Koran, but Bush has never talked about specifically targetting Muslims. Do we even know that Bush knows what a Koran is? I can see that this scene perhaps reiterated some things, but not significantly.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what your issue with that scene is.
And not all of Moore's book was subtle. I always felt that Evey becoming the new V at the end felt forced. I thought the ending of the movie worked better.
Posted by: MarcSimm at March 18, 2006 02:01 PM
Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I've wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
Thanks
I'm 22, from the U.S., and it only had slight relevance to me before reading V For Vendetta.
And that came from being a big John Lennon fan. At the end of his song "Remember," off of the wonderful Plastic Ono Band album, he sings the line, "Remember, remember the fifth of November," and then an explosion sounds. I must have first heard that about a decade ago.
That, of course, made me curious to figure out why anyone should specifically remember the fifth of November, so I looked it up and read about the whole Guy Fawkes story.
Slightly humorous aside: Prior to that, I believe I remember hearing someone mention the British having a holiday, maybe when I was 10 years old or so, and I thought they were saying "Guy Fox Day," so I thought it was a holiday set up to admire particularly attractive guys, which I thought was awfully mean and exclusive. I think I was with company that made me not want to inquire about it, so I just forgot about ever hearing the term until I rediscovered it thanks to the John Lennon song.
No, in that movie, he's the old man's 'houseboy' that carries him, in wheelchair, down a few stairs.
Whoops. Sorry about that. (Hey, at least I got the right movie.)
Oh, and to add another data point -- I knew of Guy Fawkes to a certain degree before reading VfV way back when, but wasn't hugely familiar with the story.
TWL
"Actually, Alan Moore has said that his version was specifically about the Thatcher administration."
I'm sure 1984 was written in response to something too. But 1984 can still be applied to things out of that time period because Moore did not date his movie with obvious swipes at Thatcher. He wasn't like "Geez, that bitch Thatcher..this is all her fault." Or put in constant and continuous references to the Falkland war. He actually has respect for his audience. Unlike the two guys who just ruined his work so they could rail against Bush in a more direct manner, rather than letting the story itself connect the dots.
"I didn't really notice anything in the movie that didn't seem to fit. Can you tell me what you thought was shoehorned into the movie?"
I have. Many times. I liked a few scenes. The ones taken directly from Moore's work. The others were f------ terrible.
"It wasn't gone. Remember the scene where the female doctor is flashing back to the lab? They showed several races of people in the orange lab rat outfits, not just whites. Also, I believe the Valerie scene showed a black man being yanked out of bed as well."
They NEVER mentioned it. If you had not read the book, you would have no idea there was supposed to be a racial element to their crimes. Instead, you would look at that guy as possibly gay or a Muslim or a protestor, the only people that they singled out as being taken from the government. If they had wanted to talk about the other races being taken they would have. They didn't. It distracts for their "point."
"I really don't see it as being that much of a Bush indicator. Sure, it mentions the Koran, but Bush has never talked about specifically targetting Muslims. Do we even know that Bush knows what a Koran is? I can see that this scene perhaps reiterated some things, but not significantly."
If you didn't tie that in with the whole war on terror, you're looking at it through blinders. Sorry. There was a distinct reason why they added the KORAN and made sure to talk about it a couple times. So us idiots in the audience can get it. If it wasn't directed at Bush, it was at his followers.
Dude, you guys are sounding like the people who say Fox News isn't biased. Just admit that they through in that Koran and extra homosexual stuff to tweak Bush and his followers. You know they did. And it was unnecessary since the book itself was written in response to a conservative government. We could have have connected the dots without the Bros. Wachowski leading us by the nose.
"And not all of Moore's book was subtle. I always felt that Evey becoming the new V at the end felt forced. I thought the ending of the movie worked better."
Yeah, the totality of London just deciding willy nilly that they are going to put on these masks and march on their government. (How did they know the soldiers wouldn't, you know, kill them. They didn't have any knowledge the chancellor or Cready had been killed). That's a lot more believeable than the person V has been training throughout the whole novel to accept his brand of thinking becoming the new V. Do you really think the Wachowski's ending is more subtle? Really?
But 1984 can still be applied to things out of that time period because Moore did not date his movie with obvious swipes at Thatcher.
Have you actually read the introduction Moore wrote for V For Vendetta? Where he specifically mentions Thatcher and what he believed would happen to the country, of some of the things that had already happened in the country?
Of course the whole thing swipes at conservatives in Britain (lead by Thatcher) and the notion that they would turn the country into the next Third Reich.
Dude, you guys are sounding like the people who say Fox News isn't biased.
Dude, you're sounding like the anti-Ann Coulter.
And I'm a liberal too, so I can only imagine what other liberals think of you right now.
Just admit that they through in that Koran and extra homosexual stuff to tweak Bush and his followers. You know they did. And it was unnecessary since the book itself was written in response to a conservative government. We could have have connected the dots without the Bros. Wachowski leading us by the nose.
I think it odd that one would complain about being "lead by the nose" regarding the government's take on homosexuals and Muslims in the movie, but then complain because we weren't as equally "lead by the nose" about its feelings on black people and other races. As was mentioned, other races were shown, shouldn't that have been enough for the viewer to "connect the dots" as you put it?
I think perhaps the reason a little more emphasis was put on homosexuals and Muslims being persecuted is not quite all because the movie wanted to point the finger at the Bush administration, but because it has more resonance with today's audience. I think a greater number of people in the Western world today throw much more hate in the direction of those two groups, gays and Muslims, than they do at black people. I don't see why the added relevance to a modern audience is a problem. Alan Moore's story was a projection of the future according to the time he was living in when he wrote the book. Well, there have been a few more developments in the world since he wrote the book (also, the real world having surpassed the "future" that the story was originally set in), so why shouldn't such a projection of the future be adjusted accordingly? And anyway, the book had equally as much emphasis on the persecution of gays as the movie did, and honestly I can't remember every detail well enough to remember how much it mentioned prejudice against Muslims, but I'd be surprised if it wasn't in there somewhere. Really though, I don't see how such commentary made on the social injustices towards either group could only be seen as an indictment of Bush rather than just on the condition of mistrust that so many people have toward those groups. I mean, V says, you know, "look in the mirror." It's an indictment of people's apathy to try to change their gov't. despite knowing that it does bloody awfully wrong things. Meh.
Yeah, the totality of London just deciding willy nilly that they are going to put on these masks and march on their government. (How did they know the soldiers wouldn't, you know, kill them. They didn't have any knowledge the chancellor or Cready had been killed).
I wouldn't call it "willy nilly." I mean, they had already been incited to riot when a police officer had shot a little girl wearing the V mask. They had been driven to act en masse before. And anyway, if I recall correctly, didn't the citizens of London storm their government in the comic as well, they just weren't wearing Guy Fawkes masks? It seems like being mailed a Guy Fawkes mask would provide a little more inspiration for many to act anyway, and accept the invitation to be present on the fifth of November.
"Have you actually read the introduction Moore wrote for V For Vendetta? Where he specifically mentions Thatcher and what he believed would happen to the country, of some of the things that had already happened in the country?"
In the INTRODUCTION. I've read it many times. More than you, I'm guessing. I would have had no problem with the Wachowski's talking about linking the story to George Bush in the commentary. They didn't need to change the story to hammer the political points home for everyone when the story itself can ALREADY be used to make the same points in a less stupid manner.
"Of course the whole thing swipes at conservatives in Britain (lead by Thatcher) and the notion that they would turn the country into the next Third Reich."
Well, he was making comparison's between Thatcher's government and the facist government. What he didn't do was introduce a bunch of topical shit in his story so it would become a relic of anti-Thatcher thought instead of a metaphor. The Wachowski's didn't.
"Dude, you're sounding like the anti-Ann Coulter.
And I'm a liberal too, so I can only imagine what other liberals think of you right now."
What does this even mean? I'm not a person that believe a complicated work should be reduced to "Nyah, nyah I hate the President." They could've let the work stand and let it make its points without adding their own bunk in there.
And I rally against conservatives all the time for this type of straw-man, stupid, hamfisted criticism. It would be pretty unethical of me to sit back and say "Ayn Rand is bad, but this POS is good."
"I think it odd that one would complain about being "lead by the nose" regarding the government's take on homosexuals and Muslims in the movie, but then complain because we weren't as equally "lead by the nose" about its feelings on black people and other races. As was mentioned, other races were shown, shouldn't that have been enough for the viewer to "connect the dots" as you put it?"
There have to be dots to connect of course. If you eliminate all mention of the facist desire to eliminate persons not conforming to the ideal out of the movie, how can you possibly expect someone to say "Hey, they're attacking black people." without telling them. In the reality that the movie showed us, that guy in the detention center was either gay, Muslim, or a protestor. The only way you could possibly make the race connection is if you read the book beforehand. Because the filmmakers eliminated it to make their point.
"I think perhaps the reason a little more emphasis was put on homosexuals and Muslims being persecuted is not quite all because the movie wanted to point the finger at the Bush administration, but because it has more resonance with today's audience. I think a greater number of people in the Western world today throw much more hate in the direction of those two groups, gays and Muslims, than they do at black people. I don't see why the added relevance to a modern audience is a problem."
Because the story was ALREADY relevant to a modern audience. Moore already included a story about a young gay woman who was persecuted. He didn't feel the need to throw in that scene with Evey's boss just to hammer that point home and make sure everybody got the point. The story was already relevant. Just like 1984 is relevant. It doesn't need TWEAKING to make sure it is more relevant so everybody knows that this is supposed to be attack.
The thing is, if the movie had been filmed from the comic, the goddamn thing could've been BETTER to use as a parable against the erosion of civil liberties and the horrors of prejudice. As it stands, they defiled the work so that they could make it a bit more obvious. F---'n weak.
"I wouldn't call it "willy nilly." I mean, they had already been incited to riot when a police officer had shot a little girl wearing the V mask. They had been driven to act en masse before. And anyway, if I recall correctly, didn't the citizens of London storm their government in the comic as well, they just weren't wearing Guy Fawkes masks? It seems like being mailed a Guy Fawkes mask would provide a little more inspiration for many to act anyway, and accept the invitation to be present on the fifth of November."
You think it is less contrived for Evey to be the new V than for thousands upon thousands of individuals to all put on funny masks and storm the streets because that little girl got killed?
Really?
For instance, look at Good Night and Good Luck.
What was that story about? Journalist's battling the paranoia created by the fear-monger, Joe McCarthy.
It's clearly meant to be relevant today. They expect the audience to look at it and say "Geez, that was a bad time...the journalists were right to stand up to him." And they can see it as a call to action to stand up against the tactics used by the right-wing blowhards.
Now if the Wachowski's wrote it I'd expect a clumsily-written scene where Edward R. Murrow tells everyone that they have to remain strong or else someday there will be a President that will use fear to justify anything he does, maybe even invading the Middle East! And then he'll use it to spread his form of conservatism, leading to discrimination against gays at the polls.
That would have seemed silly and out of place in GNAGL. It seems silly and out of place shoe-horned into V for Vendetta. The story's already relevant. No need to make it look and feel like a polemic.
RE: Significance of Guy Fawkes
Well, I've always appreciated the fact that Dumbledore's phoenix is apparently named after him. :)
I'm familiar with the story, but as an utter Yank, it doesn't fill me with the same emotional resonance that it would a proper Briton.
Just some stray thoughts:
The two things I've learned to appreciate about Guy Fawkes is a). The fact that some people believe the Fifth of November shouldn't be to celebrate the stopping of the Gunpowder Plot, but rather to celebrate the fact that someone tried to do what everyone had dreamed of doing, and 2). That a tour guide once referred to Guy Fawkes as "The only person to enter Parliament with honest intentions."
Iguy,
Dude, chill out. You read like someone who is damned and determined to see something in the symbolism whether it's there or not. Most of the things that you point out as "attacks on Bush" can be far more easily directed towards the much larger number of police states and dictators that have existed and exist now and were far more likely to be the models the writers used base the films dictators on. But what about the specific plot changes and their relation to Bush and the U.S. today? Just a few highlights.
Does V for Vendetta reference George W. Bush and the war on Iraq even if it never actually uses his name? Yeah. But that has less to do with the film makers hating GWB then it does in writing a script that isn't dated. V, the book, referenced events and political policies that had happened in the time just prior to the book's writing to serve as a jump off point to create the future England of V. The film did the same thing. It just made sense to throw out a few references to Iraq and the political events of the last six to ten years in order to create that same familiarity for viewers now that readers got in the 80's.
The idea of biological attacks also resonate now in the way that nuclear attacks did in the 80s. Did they have to change it because of that? No. But there are other reasons to change that story point beside modern fears VS 80s fears. There are a number of films out there from years ago that couldn't be remade today without changing the exact same plot point. Why? Because we now know today that you can't just rebuild a city just as good as before just a few years after it's been leveled by a modern nuke. The Day After could only be remade today if it wasn't about a nuke or it would have to be completely rewritten. Same deal here. A biological attack was a plot point that could be written in and work much better then a nuke device for both the story being told and the knowledge of modern day movie goers about such matters.
The film did the same thing with technology. The Voice became a TV personality for the movie (keeping in mind that most of the movie going public has never read the book and wouldn't pick up on that or any other change) because of the dated feel that The Voice of Fate would have as well as the difference between England in the 80s and America in the 2000s. We don't have a BBC radio that is as much of a daily part of our lives as the Brits did back then. 24 hour cable is more our deal and thus more a point of relation for viewers. Just because they changed it doesn't mean that they hate cable TV any more then the other changes were made just because they may or nay not hate Bush.
Was the change in Gordon needed? Yeah. Evey had to have that push that she had in the book. The Gordon of the movie was changed into a man she worked for, knew and respected. She learned a few more things about him that made her respect him a bit more and then she gets to see him removed from her life in the same way as her parents were. It was a tidy little bit done that fit both the run time of the film and the reduction in the cast of characters. The Gordon of the book had to establish a relationship with Evey, had ties to the criminal element that had been introduced early in the book and tied into the government and become Evey's lover before being killed at his own door. Then she had to work up the courage to get a gun, go out and find his killer and prepare to kill him when V grabs her. That entire set up was also tied to an exchange ("I won't kill for you, V") that didn't exist in the film and that was both part of scenes and lead to scenes that were dropped in the book to movie translation. The new character treatment worked very well for the convenience of the film. Was it a little heavy handed to both make him gay and give him a Koran, gay art pics and other items? Yeah. But that's become common in many movies of the nonpolitical nature as well. It's just the unfortunate nature of modern Hollywood losing the ability to do subtle or discrete.
Most of the basic themes and plot points in V came through the transition from book to film very well. Some of them were just dressed up a bit in modern clothing and given up to date references. That's just standard practice in just about any remake or any updating of older materials to a modern day setting (film or otherwise). Complaining about them makes as much sense as griping about their not using twenty plus year old cars, guns and gizmos in the modern setting remake of The Italian Job or bitching about a rebooted Batman origin that has him using a hand held computer to analyze a crime scene on his first case as Batman rather then whipping out magnifying lenses and tweezers.
Were there absolutely no swipes at Bush and company sprinkled throughout the film? No. They were there just as they were when Moore put the same swipes about the (for him) present day politicians, majority party and foreign policy actions of England in V when he wrote it (and I don't see you taking him to task for it). Again, it just kept the film from feeling dated and gave it a common point of reference for modern American audiences who might not be up on their English politics of the 80s.
You hate the film. Fine. But don't try and paint this silly picture of the out to get Bush Hollywood destroying a film by making it their personal screed.
People talking about slow-paced movies always remind me of the comments (relatively very few of the total posts) on Amazon and IMDB about Leone's "Once Upon a Time in the West" who complain bitterly (sometimes literately) about how it isn't as fast-paced as "Lethal Weapon".
Sometimes taking a leisurely pace is the right thing to do.
My wife, who hadn't read the original story, said after the film that she was glad to have seen it but she wasn't sure she'd really enjoyed it; she also said she'd been on the verge of walking out during the torture scenes and Gordon's takedown -- not because she was offended, but because the intensity was getting to be too much for her.
I actually rather regret having read the novelisation last month -- although i had read the original, it was long enough ago that some details had slipped my mind, and so i would have been surprised a couple of times that i wasn't if i hadn't remnded myself.
The novelisation includes scenes that i recall from the original that didn't make it into the film; apprently it was originally intended to include them, and they were cut, either rewrites or in the editing room. Be interesting to see if any "lost scenes" are included on the DVD.
I already talked about the biological angle. That doesn't bother me. What bothers me if the ham-fisted criticism of the Bush Administration that didn't need to be shoe-horned in. I've said that several times.
"The new character treatment worked very well for the convenience of the film. Was it a little heavy handed to both make him gay and give him a Koran, gay art pics and other items? Yeah. But that's become common in many movies of the nonpolitical nature as well. It's just the unfortunate nature of modern Hollywood losing the ability to do subtle or discrete."
Yeah, and I'm not happy for "V for Vendetta for Dummies." Sorry. Not when the book it is based on is a complex work without such hammy, cheesy scenes meant to lead us by the noses to the point.
"They were there just as they were when Moore put the same swipes about the (for him) present day politicians, majority party and foreign policy actions of England in V when he wrote it (and I don't see you taking him to task for it)."
Because he didn't do it like the Wachowski's did, did he? He told a complex story without the total lack of subtlety and cartoonish aspects.
Please don't compare this to mindless criticism about things like the lack of a computer. Please. This is about two authors who decided to use an existing story, and rather than letting it stand as a methaphor ALREADY critical of conservatives, they decided to inject their own clumsy topical criticism that wasn't needed.
Can I ask you a question? Would you have been happy with a story where the facist soceity came to be because Democrats ceded the country to terrorists and instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays, they eliminated the gay aspect and made it Christians and right wing activists? Or would you consider that childish, stupid and silly?
How about a version of Animal Farm which is Orwell's anti-communist metaphor with a bunch of stuff included to link it to the modern day left?
That's exactly what you are arguing for. Updating the point with obvious and cartoonish rhetoric when the metaphor can exist without it.
1984 is still relevant today though it was written very long ago. V for Vendetta is still relevant today though it was written in the eighties. It doesn't need updating to stupify it for the audience. As I said in the Good Night and Good Luck post...we should be able to connect the dots ourselves.
These changes weren't needed. The point was already there. I don't think making the movie a cartoon by adding this simplistic garbage as well as removing a lot of the moral ambiguity just shows this is a simplistic, retarded version of a good story.
That ticks me off. It ticks me off people are going to see this and think THAT is V for Vendetta. And it kind of bugs me that people familiar with the work are so accepting of this.
Trying to argue this from another way.
Have you ever seen Bill O'Reilly's show? If not, I understand. It's a terrible show.
But at the beginning of his show. He does this thing called "Talking Points." He takes a news story of the day and then he talks to the audience about it like they are three year olds and he is their dad. He sits there, while condescending notes appear near his head, and tells everyone what to think. I watched that and I thought...how do people like this guy? He condescends to them. He acts like his audience is a bunch of children.
There is no denying that Alan Moore's work is much more complex, morally ambiguous and much more subtle than what appeared on the screen. The Wachowskis decided not to film that and let the subtext of the work speak for itself. Rather they decided to take the Bill O'Reilly method and spoon-feed the audience what they decided we needed to hear.
There is already a point to V for Vendetta. Already a point about mistreatment of gays. Already a point about prejudice. Already a point about erosion of civil liberties. There was no need to spoonfeed us. We would have got the point without resorting to the caricatures that people like Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh have used for years against progressives.
I don't like the "Talking Points" version of V. Sorry. I don't like making complicated things "simple" to condescend to the audience.
And they did change it to a screed. Otherwise, they would have kept the simple fact that this was a very facist soceity that killed people based on race, sexuality, religion instead of making it about protestors, gays, and Muslims. Come on. That's about as subtle as a brick to the face.
"I actually rather regret having read the novelisation last month -- although i had read the original, it was long enough ago that some details had slipped my mind, and so i would have been surprised a couple of times that i wasn't if i hadn't remnded myself."
That's always an odd thing about adaptions. I actually stopped reading the Harry Potter books because I know I'm gonna see the movies anyway and I know I'll enjoy them better if the material isn't so fresh in my mind. Yeah, I'm probably a bad person for doing that, but it's true.
V for Vendetta worked out perfectly for me. I read it about 3 years ago. Even though I remember enough to compare the two, I don't remember it enough to compare it as I watch the movie. Often I wasn't even sure if a particular scene was in the book or not, so I was very quickly able to forget about the source and just experience it as a movie.
With things like the Lord of the Rings, Narnia, or Spider-Man movies, I'm so familiar with the source that I can't judge them on the first viewing. I have to watch them once, complain about all the changes, then watch them a second time to actually enjoy them in their own right.
First of all, this is Jam Packed with Spoilers. If you don’t know the VfV book, and are planning to read it (especially if you’ve seen the film and are disappointed), please move on.
No offense to PAD, but Alan Moore happens to be my favorite writer. I was real excited for this project because I think that VfV is the most cinematic of his works. What PAD calls “leisurely pace” I call references to film noir, which was so thick in the book that the bombastic, over the top tone of the finished product completely turned me off. I especially found the musical score extremely distracting and could have done without it completely. In fact, I think VfV would work very well with no orchestral music.
Why cut out V building the explosive in his cell?
Why gut Stephen Rea’s character to such an extent but then leave him in? Why cut out the LSD trip but then make watered-down references to it that don’t make any sense? “I had a vision of the whole story”. Blech. I thought this was where the writing was absolutely the weakest.
Why cut out the (I thought) key scene of V talking to Justice? Certainly it should have been cheap.
Why have V watching movies on a widescreen tv rather than through a projector? Kind of clashes with his character/persona/style, don’t you think? And why not show scratchy vinyl in the juke?
Replacing “bullet time” with “knife time” was, I thought, dumb, forced, and completely unnecessary. Not to mention pretty boring. That whole bit could have been done in about 8 seconds and I daresay it would have come off as more impressive. To inject that in because it’s expected of the Wachowski’s strikes me as lacking artistic integrity. And if you’re more interested in making entertainment (for commercial purposes) rather than art (for communication/social purpose), that’s fine; stay away from V for Vendetta. Go make Codename: Spitfire the Movie.
Here’s my biggest beef and the ultimate deal breaker: To me, the great payoff of the story is when Evey puts on the mask and becomes the new V. Throughout that whole movie I kept thinking, “at least it’ll be cool when Evey puts on that mask and talks to the crowd.”
Nope. Instead they end the movie by blowing up Parliament. Which is the way the book began. Which doesn’t make any sense to me. There’s no other way to open V for Vendetta. It’s an essential part of the story. It’s not where the story should peak. If they weren’t willing to at least stick to that essential plot point, they ought not to have made VfV.
To be perfectly honest, I wouldn’t have wanted my name on it, either, and I find it very refreshing to see an artist that will stick to his artistic integrity and principles like that when Hollywood comes knocking with its wheelbarrows full of money. This is an example of why Alan Moore is one of my personal heroes.
A point about the nuclear holocaust vs. biological attacks:
The story, and the film, doesn't need either. Does the original Mad Max film make any reference to Nuclear weapons? No. Does it work as a post-apocalyptic vision? Yes. If memory serves, Johnny Mnemonic made no references to nuclear war. Bladerunner (the film, not the book) makes no reference to nuclear war that I can recall, though the premise of the book is that everyone's abandoning the planet because of one. I've never read the Postman, but I don't remember the film talking about nuclear weapons at all (not saying it was good, just saying I bought the initial premise of society collapsing).
Rather than replacing the Nuclear War with the Viral Threat, I think the thing to do would have been to make no reference to either. Also, don't mention the year. Since there's no futuristic technology required in the story (is there?), it's not even really required to acknowledge that it is the future. One could easily think of VfV as a nightmarish alternate reality like Watchmen or Batman: DK Returns. Or, you know, most zombie movies. Do we accept that Land of the Dead takes place years after the dead have started walking, and yet it's not exactly the Future? I did.
To get a little closer to the mark, what about Brazil? Is that supposed to take place in the future? I never thought so. And here the thematic content resonates very strongly with VfV, though the tone is entirely different. I think the Wachowski's and the director would have benefited greatly by following in Gilliam's footsteps.
Going back to Podhertz above:
"There is something wrong in this country," V tells the people of Britain in his speech. But he doesn't just blame the government. Like John Galt, he blames the people: "If you are looking for the reason, you need only look into a mirror. Fear got the best of you."
If Podhertz latched onto that line as a strike against the philosophy of the film. He'd be even more shocked at the comics version of V's broadcast as presented in the chapter titiled "A Vocational Viewpoint".
The implied threat against the people by V is one that is jarring.
He talks of how the people are also to blame for their leader's corruption.
"You could have stopped them. All you had to say was 'no.'
You have no spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company.
I will, however, be generous.
You will be granted two years to show me some improvement in your work. If at the end of that time you are still unwilling to make a go of it...
You're fired."
What would "V" do if in that time no improvement is shown?
It's uncertain. In fact the two years aren't up by the end of the story.
And unlike the film there's no "happy ending," merely a decent into chaos. How society reforms itself is uncertain. Which is why Evey is there to be a new V (albeit without the vendetta... perhaps a "V for Vigilance?")
I also found it funny (along with the LSD trip) that they cut out the communion scene with the priest. One of the most haunting and cool scenes in the entire graphic novel and they cut it out.
Easy targets only, no moral complexities here.
"And here the thematic content resonates very strongly with VfV, though the tone is entirely different. I think the Wachowski's and the director would have benefited greatly by following in Gilliam's footsteps."
They could've just watched Fight Club as well.
"I also found it funny (along with the LSD trip) that they cut out the communion scene with the priest. One of the most haunting and cool scenes in the entire graphic novel and they cut it out."
Sh*t. I forgot about that. It's been a few years since I've read it, actually.
Something else occurred to me as I was reading someone above referencing the "You're fired" line by V in the book.
In the book, V wasn't just eloquent and really radical and terribly interesting. He was also funny. In a great, dry, british way. Aside from the initial overwordy "V" introductory speech, I don't think he was funny in that movie at all.
They probably didn't think the funny aspect would've worked with the Beauty and the Beast love story they were trying to tell. Their V cried and pined for Evey. Where was that in the novel?
I find it interesting how angry V is making some people. The fact that it brings out such strong emotion is actually a win for a movie. That should be the goal of this type of film. Better then a see it and forget it five minutes later of most movies.
I saw the movie, and yeah saw it as a "anti-Bush" thing. I then saw how tragic that was. Instead we would have just said "oh reminds me of Nazi, Saddamn and all those other SOBs." Now of course, America has its own despot in the making so of course we automatically compare to what we know from recent history. The closest we had to that before Bush was McCarthy, Nixon, and Hoover.
to me V the book, and V the movie shows how often history repeats itself, how often humans tend to ignore our own history, and how often "saftey" takes priority over all else. Its probably why V the book may just pass the literature test, because it will become timeless because of humanities tendancies.
While I liked the movie, I agree with Iguy that the modern day parallels were a bit forced, and tended to pull me out of the story.
and I did have a problem with an angy mob bringing their children along.
"The fact that it brings out such strong emotion is actually a win for a movie. That should be the goal of this type of film".
In my case I'm angry because of how great the BOOK is, and how far short the film falls from that. Now, if you're arguing that the film is important because it's stirring up controversy...
Think about this-
There are people who will not watch this movie because of the somewhat specific topicality of the film. Let's say there's someone who won't go see Brokeback because of the well-publicized gay content of the film.
That's disgusting.
I don't like movies that glorify homosexuality.
Not for me.
Now, this person might go see V for Vendetta. It's supposed to be some sort of action movie, about a revolution or something. Got great reviews. And the Matrix was cool, so why not? Let us further suppose that this person might be swayed by the inherent poetry of Valerie's story.
Gee, I never thought of it that way.
It must be kind of tough for those people.
Why shouldn't they be able to vote?
The point is, controversy's a double-edged sword. And before someone wants to point out how far-out my example is, I'd like to point out that I was a more-or-less homophobic young man, due to my upbringing, until at age 12 or 13 I saw the movie Philadelphia.
Oops. Replace "vote" with "get married" in the above post, please. I am tired and ask for slack.
I've said that several times.
So we've noticed.
The thing is, the rest of us don't see it that way.
Iguy:Can I ask you a question? Would you have been happy with a story where the facist soceity came to be because Democrats ceded the country to terrorists and instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays, they eliminated the gay aspect and made it Christians and right wing activists? Or would you consider that childish, stupid and silly?
If that was happening in the real world, I for one would not find it silly or stupid. Where your analogy breaks down is that what is happening with the Bush administration IS happening.
Honestly, you have every right not to like the movie, but you are getting seriously annoying with your shouting that everyone else must agree with you. Take pride in being the sole wise man in the room if you have to, but move on, please.
"Can I ask you a question? Would you have been happy with a story where the facist soceity came to be because Democrats ceded the country to terrorists and instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays, they eliminated the gay aspect and made it Christians and right wing activists? Or would you consider that childish, stupid and silly?"
Actually I have seen and read stories with that concept and enjoyed them quite well when the stories internal logic holds up and I find the writing enjoyable. Kinda like V (the movie) did.
"...instead of rounding up war protestors, muslims and gays..."
The film showed protestors of any kind being rounded up. You're seeing it as rounding up protestors of the war and linking that to "I hate Bush" propaganda. Unfair vote counting.
Muslims were rounded up in Moore's work as well as the movie. Granted, they weren't presented as prominently but just goes with that "recent events" updating that you hate.
I seem to remember gays being a major theme in Moore's work as well. The entire section of Valerie's story in the film was the one of the closest moments the film got to doing a direct translation of any of Moore's writing. How has that been seen by reviewers? I've read several reviews that mention it as a pointless side plot about gay lovers that slowed the film down and was just included to slam Bush as anti-gay by the I Hate Bush crowd. No point in pointing out that that scene was written twenty plus years ago because those people are going to see what they want to see in the film. Much like you it seems.
Two of the three things you mention are featured just as much by Moore as in the movie. The Muslim issue isn't really shoved down peoples throats as much as you seem to want to believe.
The film did allow people to connect the dots on other things though. I have a black coworker who got the idea that blacks were rounded up and gotten rid of for reasons other then being gay or Muslim. How? There were no blacks at all that he saw in the cast or in the crowd shots and he caught the inference in Storm Saxon being a popular show (shown on TV when V stormed the TV tower). He also has never read the book and I didn't tell him much about it. I don't think that I ever mentioned Storm Saxon ("That dumb ass thing on TV" is what he called it before describing it to me).
He got it from just those two subtle hints. Maybe I should describe them as too subtle hints as you've railed that they weren't there and that the film makers weren't allowing audiences to connect all the dots on their own.
Only two references? Then the song "This Vicious Cabaret" didn't make the cut?
Sad, really - I was kind of looking forward to seeing V perform it...
Those were the two he picked up on. I'm sure that if we all sat down and made a list we could fill this blog with all the subtle dots to connect that the film actually has in it.
Haven't seen the movie as yet, but I did buy the trade paperback a few years ago. I remember liking it, overall, but it's been long enough that I don't recall all the details. Basically what stuck with me was Eevy wondering if V was her father; and the end, when Eevy welcomes What'shisname to her home.
I paged through it yesterday and this morning, and came across one small detail that would have annoyed me when I read it a few years back, and still annoys me today. The expression "All right" consists of _two_ words. It's disappointing that Alan Moore could've made such an elementary mistake.
And if it turns out he'd had it right in the first place, and some editor had gone in and changed the phrase to the incorrect "alright", I hope he gave said editor a piece of his mind.
Rick
"If that was happening in the real world, I for one would not find it silly or stupid. Where your analogy breaks down is that what is happening with the Bush administration IS happening.
Honestly, you have every right not to like the movie, but you are getting seriously annoying with your shouting that everyone else must agree with you. Take pride in being the sole wise man in the room if you have to, but move on, please."
The Bush Administration is rounding up gays and people who have copies of the Koran? Or is that maybe a cartoonish distortion that can be better served with a more subtle metaphor...one that actually existed in the original work.
I find people denying the obvious to be just as annoying as you find me.
"I've said that several times.
So we've noticed.
The thing is, the rest of us don't see it that way."
The rest of you don't see that I didn't say anything about biological attacks. Because that, of course, is what that quote is referring to.
"Actually I have seen and read stories with that concept and enjoyed them quite well when the stories internal logic holds up and I find the writing enjoyable. Kinda like V (the movie) did."
Would you like V or Animal Farm turned into that? That's kind of the question I asked. Because I find it insulting that the Wachowski's dumbed down a complex work in order to make a political statement that was ALREADY in the damn work but just not as obvious as they evidently wanted it.
"The film showed protestors of any kind being rounded up. You're seeing it as rounding up protestors of the war and linking that to "I hate Bush" propaganda. Unfair vote counting."
Yeah because the footage of Evey's parents getting taken did not occur right after footage of the Iraq War and protests. Do you have an explanation for the Curfew Alert: Yellow? Or is that another thing that is just a crazy coincidence?
"seem to remember gays being a major theme in Moore's work as well. The entire section of Valerie's story in the film was the one of the closest moments the film got to doing a direct translation of any of Moore's writing. How has that been seen by reviewers? I've read several reviews that mention it as a pointless side plot about gay lovers that slowed the film down and was just included to slam Bush as anti-gay by the I Hate Bush crowd. No point in pointing out that that scene was written twenty plus years ago because those people are going to see what they want to see in the film. Much like you it seems."
I don't have a problem with the stuff written 20 years ago. I loved the Valerie scene. Best scene of the whole movie, probably because it was the only one not tainted by those two hacks. It made a point about gay prejudice in a time when gays were getting actively discriminated against in Britain. How did it do this? By weaving it into the storyline Moore had already created. He didn't try to directly link it to Thatcher politics. He let the story of Valerie speak as a metaphor for what was happening to gays in his country. Don't try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the damn novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity.
"Two of the three things you mention are featured just as much by Moore as in the movie. The Muslim issue isn't really shoved down peoples throats as much as you seem to want to believe."
Bull. The whole thing is a joke among my friends now. Where was Scott yesterday? Well, they were going to let him go, but when they found out he had a Koran they executed him. Please don't piss on me and tell me it's raining.
"He got it from just those two subtle hints. Maybe I should describe them as too subtle hints as you've railed that they weren't there and that the film makers weren't allowing audiences to connect all the dots on their own."
So I have a question? Why did they beat us over the head with the Muslim and gay stuff (via the Evey boss scene) when they let the other racist stuff go with a message so subtle it isn't even in the film. ("I saw a black guy in the camp" is hardly evidence that they included it any more than the dolls on Prospero's shelf indicate that they included that scene). Was it an accident? Did they feel the racial issues weren't important? Or perhaps they distracted from the sledgehammer of obviousness that the Wachowski's decided to wield?
I don't think that Iguy is trying to force everyone to agree with him so much as trying to clarify his point that he felt that the movie ruined the story through simplification and dumbing down, a point which several posters seemed not to get the first couple times around.
I don't want everyone to agree with me.
If you liked the movie with the political points, go ahead.
I thought it was cartoonish and silly and it ruined what could have been one of the greatest movies of all time had they kept to the story that Moore wrote.
"Only two references? Then the song "This Vicious Cabaret" didn't make the cut?
Sad, really - I was kind of looking forward to seeing V perform it..."
Not unless its in the background somewhere. V doesn't perform it anyway.
"Don't try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the damn novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity."
Never called you a conservative. Never said you hate the novel. You would really have had to read an entire novel between the lines to have gotten that.
All I said was that you seem to have seen what you wanted to see in a great deal of the movie in the same ways that several movie critics I've read have. You are, again, seeing what you want to see in something rather then what was actually there.
"He didn't try to directly link it to Thatcher politics. He let the story of Valerie speak as a metaphor for what was happening to gays in his country."
Strange..... Moore himself has pointed out in several interviews that the politics of Thatcher as well as the statements made by the more extreme wing of her party were exactly what he tied into his story to create his future England. Some of what you've read may come across as more subtle to you then it actually was because you didn't live there during that time period. I have a friend who was born and raised on the Isle of Mann and read the portion of the story that first got published there when it got published. I've asked him about it since this debate started and he says that a lot of it wasn't as subtle as you seem to believe it was.
That's not a slam on you by any means. I've done the same before and will again I'm sure. It's natural.
"Don't try to paint me as some conservative idiot that hates the novel. I love the damn novel. Which is why I hate that it was butchered into this monstrosity."
No, it really wasn't.
I think it wise to remember that novels are never "butchered into" anything. The novel is the novel, the movie is the movie. They are two separate works. Oftentimes, if they bear any resemblance, it's an accident.
Keep in mind "V for Vendetta" is alive and well and available on bookshelves to anyone who wants to read it.
PAD
Sorry about taking the comments the wrong way. I've had people tell me I'm reacting to a book written 20 years ago before, and I think that's silly because what I am arguing is the book 20 years ago is what should have been brought to the screen. If that's not what you're implying, my bad. I don't mean to come across as more heated than I actually am.
"All I said was that you seem to have seen what you wanted to see in a great deal of the movie in the same ways that several movie critics I've read have. You are, again, seeing what you want to see in something rather then what was actually there."
I think it is actually there. The Curfew Alert: Yellow was added as an obvious reference to the Terror Alerts. The Abu Gharib hoods did not exist anywhere in the comic, but they added them anyway. (I do give them some credit for not including a scene with a dog terrorizing a prisoner which I was absolutely sure was coming). The addition of the Muslim holy book as the main censored material. The addition of another gay character when Valerie said what was needed to be said in a much more powerful way. I would have preffered the story as originally presented. I would have gotten it. I think you would have to. And it would have made it seem less like a left-wing attack on the President, which really cheapens the work. Moore's work is very concerned with civil liberties, very concerned with the plight of the homosexual, very concerned with prejudice. It tells those things in a beautiful as opposed to a contrived way. Much like Orwell. 1984 is very relevant today. Politicans have taken to using Double Speak all the time. I still would not like to see a 1984 movie where they talked about how it all started with the terms "death tax" and "Clean Air Initiative". We get the picture without it. And if not, the work shouldn't pander because that just makes it propaganda or a polemic.
"Strange..... Moore himself has pointed out in several interviews that the politics of Thatcher as well as the statements made by the more extreme wing of her party were exactly what he tied into his story to create his future England. Some of what you've read may come across as more subtle to you then it actually was because you didn't live there during that time period. I have a friend who was born and raised on the Isle of Mann and read the portion of the story that first got published there when it got published. I've asked him about it since this debate started and he says that a lot of it wasn't as subtle as you seem to believe it was."
I disagree. The fascist part of the book was more directed at the National Front. I am with you as far as you say that Moore directed the book at the Thatcher government. But that doesn't mean he hammered that point home by making the book directly about Thatcher. For example, the Valerie scene. That is talking about the treatment of gays in Thatcher's conservative England. But he tells it within a story of a woman being persecuted in a fascist soceity, hell bent on destroying anyone that does not cling to their ideal. He doesn't come out and indict Thatcher. Instead, he tells the story about this persecuted woman in a soceity different from his own and in doing so, makes a statement on the treatment of gays.
As I said before, I would have no problem with the Wachowski's talking about Bush on their director's commentary, similar to how Moore talks about his work in the introduction and various interviews. What I disapprove of is them changing the story in order to make their points. Thatcher's England was a time marred in Christian overtones, conservative politics, problems for the poor, and Nationalism in a time of crisis. Telling the story as it exists would have been relevant enough, just as telling a story about McCarthyism is relevant now. There's no need to update it..at least not in the hammy way they did it.
The Bush Administration is rounding up gays and people who have copies of the Koran?
Well, for the bit about gays, apparently you need to reread the introduction from Moore again.
For the Koran, I think if you actually take a look at what's going on with Muslims in Europe today (Denmark, the rioting in France in particular), most would notice it for what it is: social commentary on things that also happen to exist outside the US.
The problem I really have with your arguments is that you seem to assume that the world revolves around the US, and thus this movie must be as well.
I hardly think that's the case, and there are plenty of examples to back that up (such as the ones I gave above).
The Curfew Alert: Yellow was added as an obvious reference to the Terror Alerts. The Abu Gharib hoods did not exist anywhere in the comic, but they added them anyway.
Again, merely taking what is being done now and including it in an update of the story isn't necessarily commentary on any particular thing (for you, that would be a supposed fascination with the Bush Administration on the part of the Wachowski bros).
For example, what if we found out that the British soldiers in Iraq were the first to use those black hoods? Would that change your view of them at all?
Still haven't seen it, trying to find the time this week. The movie did well at the box office and unless Larry the Cable Guy has a bigger following than I hope, it should still be number 1 or 2 next week.
I don't remember the novel’s bad guys being overtly Christian; I remember them as more like the Nazis, where the government itself is the religion. But I may have forgotten key scenes, it's been a while (If it's been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS?).
I'm pretty sure I'll like the movie a lot more than Iguy but he makes some good points. The emphasis on the poor treatment of Muslims kind of amuses me; I don't doubt that we may well see theocracies arise in Europe in our lifetimes but let's just say that I don't expect those theocracies to be at all upset with someone having a Koran.
"We will invite him again because the religion of Islam is one of tolerance. We will ask him if he has changed his mind. If so we will forgive him,"
A judge in Afghanistan who is considering the death penalty for a man whose crime is converting to Christianity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/4823874.stm
I saw the movie, and was very affected by it. The message was simple enough, moving enough, and presented with enough WOW factor that it will live on in the same place Princess Bride lives on.
The discussion afterwards with my friends, and some of the chatter here, make me realize why geeks so rarely turn into activists - we get so lost in the trappings of the interpretation and the catalog if missing scenes that we forget to consider the message of the movie.
The Abu Gharib hoods: Black hoods over heads are a Hollywood fave. They've been throwing them over heads on TV and in movies for years now. Again, something I've seen in Hollywood fiction and in real word fact for years before Abu Gharib, Iraq or even 9/11. I don't think of Abu Gharib or Bush when I see black hoods over heads. You do. Ok.
The Curfew Alert: Yellow: I'll give you that one. But it still comes off to me as taking something from today and throwing it into the mix in a slightly different form to give the film a feel of familiarity.
The addition of the Muslim holy book as the main censored material: ??????????????????????????? The film pointed out several songs by name, books, authors, films and even a few ideas that were censored and that could get you killed for owning.
I would have preffered the story as originally presented: Yeah, most of us would have. I would have loved quite a few book to screens to have been more faithful to the source material then they were. Hollywood often doesn't work that way. Knowing that going in and knowing that I can still enjoy the source material whenever I care to walk to the living room bookshelf means I tend to look at the movie for what it is rather then solely what the source material was.
The addition of another gay character: I said above that that was a bit of an overdo. I also said, and still stand by, the changes to the charecter work very well for the film and it's needs. I liked the new Gordon quite a bit. My wife liked him more then the books. You hated him. To each his own.
You and I are going to continue to disagree on the Thatcher and politics then/Bush and politics now debate. I see them using recent events and politics for the film V the same way Moore used the then recent events in his V in the early 80s. It didn't screw it up for me. It did for you. I find that I like both versions equally well for their different styles and approaches on the subjects.
Bush does take a few lumps in the film. No question about it. I just don't see as much of the hammer over the head aspect as you. You may well see those things that way because of your life experiences. My life experiences allow me to see other things in those items and subjects rather then seeing Bush and only Bush first and foremost in every reference point and bit of symbolism in the film.
Hey, you and I are not going to see eye to eye on this and I think it's just fine that we can agree to disagree. I like the film and you don't. I'm quite happy to just part this debate and topic with you as respectful opposition. That way we can save our energy for later to gang up on someone else when we agree with each other and they are foolish enough to disagree with us.
;p
"If it's been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS"
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel's) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
Keep in mind "V for Vendetta" is alive and well and available on bookshelves to anyone who wants to read it.
Which was the only good thing I saw coming out of what Verhofen did to Starship Troopers - he got several people to read the novel who might not have originally.
One hopes the V For Vendetta movie will do the same thing for the TPB...
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel's) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
I cannot argue with such an insightful commentary.
(And for the record, I LOVED both Micronots and Rom, Spacenight. What's not to love? I only wish I knew where my old Micronot toys were.)
IGuy, while I agree with your feelings, I think some of your specific beefs are a little far out.
Complaining about yellow alerts? I think that was a pretty subtle reference to something modern.
I admit that I thought the appearance of the Koran was way overkill. Also I thought it weird and unnecessary that Gordon have a "secret stash" of goodies when V already has that.
Abu Gharib hoods? Dude, it's a black hood. Whipping a black hood off a prisoner has a much better impact than a blindfold. The Iraq War didn't copyright black hoods. Remember when Tom Cruise had one in Mission Impossible? Or the Black September group? Haven't black hoods been worn for thousands of years, since the invention of cloth?
Don't get me wrong, I think you make interesting points. But my beef with the movie is that I didn't think it was very good. It screamed "Novice Director" to me. The acting was okay, but I would have gotten a professional mime to play V and had him voiced by McGoohan. Natalie Portman didn't really do to much for me. She wasn't bad, but I didn't think she was terrific, and her Jewish origin clashes with the blonde Evey of the book (a product of an ethnically "clean" society).
I have other beefs, like, Why did Evey have a job? To me, her desperation, so simply established by her introduction (and the beginning of the story), sets her up as a sort of blank slate of naivety. A lump of clay that V can mold to suit his needs. Also I didn't dig on the fact that they had a much more romantic relationship than in the book, where I thought they had a much more father/daughter relationship.
And that's my thoughts for today.
I don't think they are really that far out.
I agree that if they were present only by themselves, I probably would have barely noticed. The fact they were present with all of the other stuff is the problem for me. It became less "Enjoy the movie" and more "Look at all the ways we can make this about the present day".
The hoods were done in the style of the Abu Gharib prison and were on the prisoners in the detention center. I really doubt they were included on accident, particularly when they weren't anywhere in the book and really don't add a whole lot except the visual punch of them being related to the Abu Gharib scandal.
Taken on it's own, probably not that big of a deal and I might not have even noticed. Mixed in with all of the other stuff and I was just out of the story. At the part at the end when we are supposed to feel sorrow and emotion, I felt nothing. The whole experience was ruined.
And I'll agree with what you said as well.
Huh.
See, I thought you were talking about Evey's torture. I didn't even notice the hoods in the detention center. So there you go.
If it's been years since I found the time to read a classic like V why do I even bother keeping copies of SHOGUN WARRIORS
Because it is just the kind of thing that all of the truly great and towering intellects of our time who are also possessed of massively, unquestionably great taste do. And they are kept right next to (Marvel's) Micronaughts and Rom the Spaceknight on the area of easiest access on the bookshelf.
As a truly great and towering intellect of our time, I concur.
I do think the book is much better than the movie, the movie was more evil fascists vs the great leftist.
And while thats fine...
Moore was a little more ambigous on what the good guys & bad guys were. The fascist cops had families and wives. The "good guy" V was a murderer, a torturer, and a terrorist. The villains weren't cartoons they were people.
So while a good movie it wasn't better than the graphic novel.
I think the film makes the message that sometimes terrorism is justified to maintain your rights as a human being.
It doesn't glorify terrorism, but entertains the idea of it being necessary. If governments are fair and decent, they should have nothing to fear.
SAM-EL
Majorly disagree on the pacing thing... hell, they were initially six-eight page chapters. In the first one, he blows up Parliament.
The pace changes throughout the book, especially the middle where Evey rejects V's life and tries to find a different one. Which then picks up when things go wrong.
The big change in the movie for me is the one I've always banged on about since I saw the script. It's not about Fascism Vs Anarchy anymore, both posited as the only possibly alternatives, certainly in V's mind. It was that kind of political philosophy executed so precisely that puts it well above Watchmen for me. Hell, V works as a interesting trilogy with From Hell and A Small Killing.
I kind of hope that V will be compared to Bin Laden. They are both terrorists after all. As much as the Contras, the IRA and what we know as Al Qaida.
Now start bringing the Boston Tea Party into this any we're all set.
All this talk of Shogun Warriors etc. reminded me of something I saw at the comic shop last Thursday, among the new releases: Marvel's released an "Essential Godzilla" collection!
It looked as though it contained all 24 issues of the 1977-79 series (in black and white, granted). (I didn't buy it - yet? - as I already have original copies, in some cases multiples, of every issue.) Now, it's not exactly like the movies, to be sure; and it could be that I look at it a little more fondly because it was one of the very first comics I collected - before I even knew where to find the issue numbers on the cover... But it's got some very interesting work from Doug Moench and Herb Trimpe - who created a pretty cool design for the big G; lots of face time for SHIELD agents Dum Dum Dugan, Gabe Jones, and Jimmy Woo, along with many other Marvel guest appearances and the first appearances of such recurring Marvel characters as Dr. Demonicus and Red Ronin; and I still feel that, with a combination of excellent script and art, Godzilla #6 is among the best comics I've read. Just sayin' ....
Peter David: No, "V"'s face is never seen. The closest we come is, as per the original book, a heavily shadowed view of his severely burned body as he emerges from the fire.
Luigi Novi: And when during the flashbacks of Dr. Surridge remembering her treatment of V, or “the man in Room Five”. We see his head from behind, with the front of it in shadow, but we see enough of the back of it to see that he’s Caucasian.
Marc Simm: Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I've wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
Luigi Novi: Aside from Dumbeldore’s pet Phoenix, I never heard of him before reading an article about the movie in particular and thematically similar movies in general in a recent issue of The Village Voice. Then I Wikipedia-ed it, and was fascinated by what I read.
Peter David: No, it really wasn't. I think it wise to remember that novels are never "butchered into" anything. The novel is the novel, the movie is the movie. They are two separate works.
Luigi Novi: And if the material is devalued in the process, and for reasons that were not necessary to the adaptation process, then opining that it was butchered is perfectly valid.
And yeah, IGuy, I thought the references to our current administration, like killing Gordon because he had a Koran in his home, were a bit forced. I also thought calling John Hurt the “High Chancellor” instead of simply “The Leader” was too much a lead-pipe-over-my-head reference to Hitler. Leaving as it was in the film would’ve gotten the message across to all but the most obtuse. I also though the use of religion in the Chancellor’s speech was a bit too much too, even though the “Purity through Faith” posters were in the book.
I also noticed a black among the rebels at the end when they took off their Fawkes masks, even though I thought blacks were among the groups imprisoned in the camps in the book.
Luke, right with ya, pal. GODZILLA was sooooo underrated. Trimpe's art, while making Big G look more dinosaurian than the "real" thing, was still pretty cool. If Toho hadn't refused to let them use the other monsters in the pantheon it would've run forever. Forever, I say!
"I also noticed a black among the rebels at the end when they took off their Fawkes masks, even though I thought blacks were among the groups imprisoned in the camps in the book."
I'm not sure that counts. There were a lot of dead people in that crowd.
There were a lot of dead people in that crowd.
Based on Luigi's post in the other thread about V For Vendetta, I think Luigi failed to notice the symbolism at the time. :)
Apparently. I seem to often miss things or not know what's going on sometimes. I hate it when people take advantage of this. Like for example, I have this really sneaking suspicion that I'm being billed for a lot of unnecessary stuff by my gynecologist....
:-)
Since were discussing the film & comic could I ask those of you from outsie the UK something I've wondered about. Is the Guy Fawkes story and the 5th November something that has any meaning to you guys?
The reviewer at the Dallas Morning News said the lead wore a mask of some historical figure people wouldn't recognize (he said "people," not "Americans") who certainly wasn't as famous as the producers of the Matrix.
I remember a comic strip of years gone by:
MARLON: So who's this Guy Fawkes bloke then?
WELLINGTON: He tried to blow up the Houses of Parliament.
MARLON: Fancy that. I never even knnew they were inflatable.