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 hëll 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
• 
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.
http://www.bonefire.org/guy/
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
Hëll, 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:
http://toonopedia.com/mraclman.htm
Thanks for the link, Craig.
“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 bìŧçh 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 šhìŧ 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 gøddámņ 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 dámņëd 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 bìŧçhìņg 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.
Fascist. Sorry.
“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:
Having re-read the comics after seeing the film, I have to say that the film version of V is far too kind to the citizenry.
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 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, Sáddámņ 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.