V for Vendetta (2005)

[oyceter]

I 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.

Comments

[sophia-helix.livejournal.com]

Three thoughts:

- Evey has way, way less action and way, way more whining and crying in the comic. Normally I hate when movies invent things for characters to do (Exhibit A: Arwen Evenstar), but it was a good call here. Wait till you read the comic and see how Evey actually leaves the Shadow Gallery.

- I don't know why, but I bought the violent nihilism of the movie. Possibly because I read the comic first, so it came off as less facile. The torture scene works for me, and for some reason I adore the explosions. Again, maybe reading the comic made the difference.

- The cheap explanation of the massive conspiracy was the only flaw in the movief for me. I had more detailed writeup (http://sophia-helix.livejournal.com/406762.html) on the comic and movie where I went into it more, but suffice to say that the comic never really explains what happened, just that something did. It's too easy to blame everything on that handful of men. Also, the ending is too hopeful. :)

But I really did like it! It almost gives me hope for the Watchmen moviet that'll come along eventually, although not really.

[oyceter]

Oh good, I am a fan of less whining and crying nearly all the time.

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.

[maga-dogg.livejournal.com]

It's strange to know that Alan Moore wrote the comic a long time before 9/11, just because it seems so relevant now.

Grr. Americans seem to have this base conception that there was no organised terrorism in the West until 9/11, and after that Everything Changed. When Moore wrote this, the (mostly US-funded) IRA was pretty active blowing up shit in the UK, and the utter-bastard Thatcherite government was enthusiastically responding to Irish unrest with big stampy boots.

To nobody's very great surprise this did not make the IRA less eager to blow shit up.

It doesn't have to be massive conspiracy for that stupidity to take place.
In the case of Guy Fawkes, it's worth pointing out, the massive conspiracy was actually true. Plus, you have to remember that Moore is a committed anarchist. From that perspective, the fact that the government exists at all is a massive conspiracy; further conspiracies aren't qualitatively different.

[kate_nepveu]

I read spoilers and I would hate hate hate the V-torturing-Evey thing, so feel perfectly justified in skipping the movie.

Also, like most movies that deal with revolutions against totalitarian governments, I want to know what happens after the revolution.

Is there _anything_ that does this? Not just movies, but anything?

[anneth.livejournal.com]

I'll be interested to see what you make of the graphic novel. I found the movie rather philosophically incoherent, but I really liked it anyway. I totally agree with you about Weaving; I thought he did an absolutely marvelous job. And that voice! I agree with your other problems with the movie, though, and also found myself annoyed by how little the writers/directors seemed to be willing to credit audience intelligence.

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

The Conqueror's Child - by Suzy Chamas (sp?).

- hossgal

[oyceter]

Just as an FYI, I don't personally identify as American all the way, though I partly do. Nationality is a tangled and complex issue for me.

On the other hand, I do think many things changed because of 9/11, not because acts of terrorism don't happen elsewhere, but because people thought of it as a big thing and that's how the US government reacted to it. I'm not saying that it's fair or whatnot, particularly the US's influence on world affairs, but I do think a lot of things ended up changing after 9/11.

Also, my thing against the big government conspiracy is that from a plot point of view, it provides explanations that are too easy for the audience.

[oyceter]

I really hated the V-torturing-Evey thing. I mean... what was the point? Torture can sometimes be good if it leads to lack of fear? That that somehow justifies it?

Is there _anything_ that does this? Not just movies, but anything?

That's one of the reasons I liked Lloyd Alexander's Westmark trilogy so much! I don't remember specifically if the final book deals solely with the aftermath of revolution, but I really love that he throws out a lot of politically thorny issues and that he doesn't offer an easy answer. And that the trilogy doesn't end with the glorious overthrow of the Evil Government and shows us some of the rebuilding.

[oyceter]

Yeah, I'm not sure how much I'd like the comic, given my reaction to other Moore things, but it'd be interesting reading it and seeing what changed and what didn't.

[maga-dogg.livejournal.com]

Also, my thing against the big government conspiracy is that from a plot point of view, it provides explanations that are too easy for the audience.

Fair enough - also, Moore has distanced himself so very far from the movie that it gets a bit questionable as to how relevant his take on things is crit-wise. And I agree, in general - simple explanations are lazy, let audiences be lazy and make me shake my fist at the screen. I can't think, offhand, of a movie that provided complex, difficult explanations; when it diverges from simple explanations, the tendency's to ask difficult questions and then let them hang.

[kate_nepveu]

Hee. _The Kestrel_ is next on the pile, I assure you.

[kate_nepveu]

Charnas.

Amazon tells me it's 4th and last in a series; is it readable by itself?

I misspell that name every dang time

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

Bah, yes, Charnas.

is it readable by itself?

I would say, absolutely not. I think part of the reason the rebuilding in CC works is because of the world building that proceeded it - without that, you don't (I think) understand the cultural (and real) limitations on both oppressor and oppressed.

For this reason, I also recommend that you not skip Walk to the End of the World, which I found the least interesting of the four novels - that story does the most to show the oppressor pov. The other two are more directly related as far as actual action goes.

However, YMMV.

- hossgal

Re: I misspell that name every dang time

[kate_nepveu]

I confess a lack of interest in gender-oppression dystopias, but I may give them a browse and see what I think. Thanks for the information.

no prob

[leadensky.livejournal.com]

I was going to say: FWIW, I generally *despise* the genre, but was drawn in by the ponies in Motherlines, and the characters and world building kept me going. Obviously, YMMV, etc, but if you read them, I'd be interested in your pov.

- hg

[canandagirl.livejournal.com]

Now it's been a very long time since I've read the comic, and I loved it! Alan Moore is such a fabulous writer. However, there was a point for V tormenting Evey. She was such a young girl who had such vague knowledge of life before the facist government. She didn't understand or really believe what V was fighting for, and the torment freed her thinking into embracing his cause.

(At least I think...like I said, it must be over 10 years since I've read the comic.)

I'll still watch the movie, but I have to say I'm cautious. I'm afraid they've made total hash out of the novel.

[oyceter]

I could see the point that the movie (and probably the comic) was trying to get at, but I still disagree with it. Also, it was such a giant betrayal of trust. I just don't think anything can justify that/

[canandagirl.livejournal.com]

Very true. Personally, I think if I was Evey, I would have punched V and never talked to him again.