V for Vendetta (2005)
Sun, Apr. 16th, 2006 11:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
oyceterI haven't read the comic yet, so no comments on how the movie works or doesn't work in that respect. On the other hand, now I really want to read the comic to see what imagery was the same, what plot was condensed and etc, and none of the libraries in the area have it available! I suppose everyone else watched the movie and ILLed it as well.
I know everyone says "Such-and-such is the comic book movie for non-comic-book readers!" about assorted movies, but this would be my comic book movie for non-comic-book readers, largely because it doesn't deal with superpowers and doesn't have the cheesy lines (or quite as many). Also, I think the comic-book aspects of the movie (V's mask, the iconic nature of the government symbols and etc.) very much work in the 1984-ish, vaguely futuristic AU setting, particularly because it doesn't use the hand-wavy science that many superhero comics and movies do.
I also thought Sin City worked well as a movie for non-comic-book readers, but the content of that movie is so problematic for me that I wouldn't rec it.
That's not to say that V for Vendetta isn't problematic; it is. I dislike that violence is the first response to a problem, I dislike what happens to Evey mid-movie, and I very much think the symbolism of Guy Fawkes and the threatened destruction of the House of Parliament as a symbol of rebellion is extremely problematic post-9/11. I also don't like the fact that no one in the movie protests the fact that the destruction of a giant building may not be the best way to bring down a government, even a totalitarian one. Also, the historian in me wails, because the Houses of Parliament are beautiful.
On the other hand, I like that it is very obvious that V is a monster, created by other monsters, and that while he has his own twisted reasons for the havoc he wreaks and the lives he takes, past monstrosity never excuses the continuation of it. It reminds me a great deal of Angel's "Damage," in that sense.
I am also shallow and adored the way the film looked, very claustrophobic and futuristic without ever being too shiny and sci-fi. I loved the giant close-up of the councellor's face and the small people below, the way V's outfit echoed the lines of 17th-century fashion, how V never took his mask off except once, and that we never get to see his face. I also very much liked V and Evey's relationship, which is somewhat romantic but also very platonic, and how oddly courteous he is. And there are just some beautiful set-pieces: fireworks and explosions to Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, many people dressed as V, secret hidden rooms with Renaissance art and 1950s pop art.
Thankfully, unlike Sin City, the narrative isn't quite so problematic that I couldn't enjoy the movie even while I was debating with it.
Hugo Weaving also did a wonderful job as V. He didn't exaggerate his actions because he couldn't work with facial expressions (also termed the Power Rangers mistake), but you could always tell what he was thinking via body language and via his voice. Hugo Weaving has a lovely voice, btw. And because I couldn't see his face, I never got the weirdness of thinking that Mr. Smith as Elrond was talking to Frodo or something odd like that.
Natalie Portman I didn't like quite as much, but that could be because she just didn't have as much to do.
I also very much liked Inspector Finch.
Spoilers for movie
The part I very much didn't like was the whole V-torturing-Evey revelation, which I thought was stupid. Personally, I think that's a horrible reason to torture anyone. Well, to be honest, I think torture never has a good reason, particularly not some stupid "this makes you stronger" thing. I thought Evey should have been way more pissed off at V for that. Also, I think it would have been much more effective had it actually been the government.
I also didn't like the thought that the chancellor and his gang was responsible for the plagues that put them in power. It's too easy of an answer, and the story would have been better and more complicated had they taken power in the light of other terrorist attacks. People choose stupid things when they feel threatened and are promised security. It doesn't have to be massive conspiracy for that stupidity to take place.
It's strange to know that Alan Moore wrote the comic a long time before 9/11, just because it seems so relevant now.
Also, like most movies that deal with revolutions against totalitarian governments, I want to know what happens after the revolution. One always sees the final triumphant shot, but really, the difficulty lies in the rebuilding, in creating a new government that doens't become totalitarian in another way.
I know everyone says "Such-and-such is the comic book movie for non-comic-book readers!" about assorted movies, but this would be my comic book movie for non-comic-book readers, largely because it doesn't deal with superpowers and doesn't have the cheesy lines (or quite as many). Also, I think the comic-book aspects of the movie (V's mask, the iconic nature of the government symbols and etc.) very much work in the 1984-ish, vaguely futuristic AU setting, particularly because it doesn't use the hand-wavy science that many superhero comics and movies do.
I also thought Sin City worked well as a movie for non-comic-book readers, but the content of that movie is so problematic for me that I wouldn't rec it.
That's not to say that V for Vendetta isn't problematic; it is. I dislike that violence is the first response to a problem, I dislike what happens to Evey mid-movie, and I very much think the symbolism of Guy Fawkes and the threatened destruction of the House of Parliament as a symbol of rebellion is extremely problematic post-9/11. I also don't like the fact that no one in the movie protests the fact that the destruction of a giant building may not be the best way to bring down a government, even a totalitarian one. Also, the historian in me wails, because the Houses of Parliament are beautiful.
On the other hand, I like that it is very obvious that V is a monster, created by other monsters, and that while he has his own twisted reasons for the havoc he wreaks and the lives he takes, past monstrosity never excuses the continuation of it. It reminds me a great deal of Angel's "Damage," in that sense.
I am also shallow and adored the way the film looked, very claustrophobic and futuristic without ever being too shiny and sci-fi. I loved the giant close-up of the councellor's face and the small people below, the way V's outfit echoed the lines of 17th-century fashion, how V never took his mask off except once, and that we never get to see his face. I also very much liked V and Evey's relationship, which is somewhat romantic but also very platonic, and how oddly courteous he is. And there are just some beautiful set-pieces: fireworks and explosions to Tchaikovsky's 1812 Overture, many people dressed as V, secret hidden rooms with Renaissance art and 1950s pop art.
Thankfully, unlike Sin City, the narrative isn't quite so problematic that I couldn't enjoy the movie even while I was debating with it.
Hugo Weaving also did a wonderful job as V. He didn't exaggerate his actions because he couldn't work with facial expressions (also termed the Power Rangers mistake), but you could always tell what he was thinking via body language and via his voice. Hugo Weaving has a lovely voice, btw. And because I couldn't see his face, I never got the weirdness of thinking that Mr. Smith as Elrond was talking to Frodo or something odd like that.
Natalie Portman I didn't like quite as much, but that could be because she just didn't have as much to do.
I also very much liked Inspector Finch.
Spoilers for movie
The part I very much didn't like was the whole V-torturing-Evey revelation, which I thought was stupid. Personally, I think that's a horrible reason to torture anyone. Well, to be honest, I think torture never has a good reason, particularly not some stupid "this makes you stronger" thing. I thought Evey should have been way more pissed off at V for that. Also, I think it would have been much more effective had it actually been the government.
I also didn't like the thought that the chancellor and his gang was responsible for the plagues that put them in power. It's too easy of an answer, and the story would have been better and more complicated had they taken power in the light of other terrorist attacks. People choose stupid things when they feel threatened and are promised security. It doesn't have to be massive conspiracy for that stupidity to take place.
It's strange to know that Alan Moore wrote the comic a long time before 9/11, just because it seems so relevant now.
Also, like most movies that deal with revolutions against totalitarian governments, I want to know what happens after the revolution. One always sees the final triumphant shot, but really, the difficulty lies in the rebuilding, in creating a new government that doens't become totalitarian in another way.
Tags:
(no subject)
Mon, Apr. 17th, 2006 07:45 am (UTC)I think there were so many real-world parallels in the movie that I couldn't just brush off the violent nihilism. Also, I'm getting rather sick of violent nihilism in comics (and other media, of course) and it keeps showing up! Woe. But there was this one line in the movie that went something like "Blowing up a building is a symbol" and I immediately thought of the Twin Towers. And my brain kept thinking that all V's reasoning was good and such, but that I am sure that people blowing up buildings elsewhere around the world think they are doing good things as well.
I'm glad that the mass conspiracy theory wasn't in the comic, because I thought it was dumb. The government was creepy enough without sticking that in.
There's a Watchmen movie in the works?! I wonder how they'll handle the pirate stuff...? And if they keep the pirate stuff in, I'm not sure if I'll even want to see it.