V for Vendetta

A very good review, though I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that the last paragraphs could have gone under the subtitle, a Letter to OG-:

If this is an exhaustive list of reasons for hating the film, which am I? I'd love to hear an explaination as to how my unwavering disdain for the Bush administration is actually support for that very administration. I'd love to hear how V for Vendetta has somehow transformed the vote I cast for John Kerry into a vote for George W. Bush or erased the vote I gave Howard Dean in the Virginia primary. I do absolutely insist that my reason for not liking the film is because of its politics - so how could this possibly be true?

If I'm such a curmudgeon who hates everything everyone likes, why is it that I actually tend, more often than not, to thoroughly like the mainstream media? Why is my favorite show on TV Survivor, a show that earns a spot in the top 5 of most watched shows on TV? Why is my favorite TV comedy Arrested Development - a show that everyone else loves to death? Why is it that I defended - and will still defend - Starship Troopers as one of my favorite films of all time? ****, I even openly admit to not hating Linkin Park!

Don't confuse a divergence in opinion with the mainstream every once in a while for some miraculously unidentifiable insecurity or an unquenchable need to feel superior.

I know these comments may not be directed specifically to me, but I am a critic of the film, so they should apply. They just don't.

What exactly makes it a "truly unusual film"? Its agenda may be more brazen than other films, but it isn't exactly unusualy - especially when there have been a handful of politically charged films in the last year alone.

Or maybe, just maybe, the speaker has more than one criticism of the movie? Surely it isn't impossible to have disliked more than one aspect of any film.

Funny you should mention running for president, because I do think that makes a tremendeously effective analogy of the film. If VFV were a flesh and blood entity, it would be an American politician running for president (not counting sweet 'ole Nader, of course :P). It is clearly partisian and goes to no lengths to hide this, but past that it dodges a direct answer to any question that is asked of it. In an effort to not incriminate itself any further, it simply redirects any question it finds objectionable. In turn, any answer a reporter asks it in Podunk, Ohio is given a quick and glossy, but hollow answer, followed by a coached transition back to the party's hot button issue.

This still makes absolutely no sense to me. None whatsoever. Yes, the film is based on a source material, but the two are entirely seperate entities. They are not siamese twins linked at the hip. They live and breath on different planes of existence. Why then, is it a defense of the film (or any film whose literature has a die hard following) that any negative criticism should simply go seek an answer in the book because it does a better job at explaining it?

If you were in a debate, what would happen if instead of clarifying a point on the floor you simply said, "Oh, well I already published that in my paper so you can go look up an answer there."? It is the job of any person who is authoring a transition between two mediums to effictively do just that.

Also, despite the Academy nominating Syriana as an Original Screenplay, it did have an open basing in Baer's book See No Evil. If that film can survive as an adaptation without the fall back of 'just read the book', what is V for Vendetta's excuse now?

Also, don't confuse a nayser's lack of having read the source material with an active effort to not read the source material. Maybe it is just that - a simple lack of having read the source material. It's not like we all got together and burned the book.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

Okay, let me clarify what I meant by "blatant." Yes, there were little jabs here and there. But the Wachowskis didn't use the film to make a blatant statement about or even criticize the state of affairs today. Yet, they very well could have, much the same way The Day After Tomorrow was a blatant attempt to criticize those who oppose the notion that global warming exists, and to "educate" or "warn" the masses. V for Vendetta, I would argue, does none of those things, nor tries to. It keeps things conceptual, and sticks to the "fictional totalitarian Britain" roots. That, I think, was a responsible decision (otherwise, we'd all be rolling our eyes right now).

Yes, the film deals with political issues. But often enough, so do action films, suspense films, thrillers, etc. It seems there's an expectation that a film wearing so much political dressing needs to make some kind of cohesive argument, and I just don't see how that's fair. The film is about a guy who launches a revolution against a totalitarian government. Perhaps you find it shallow and pretentious because it didn't step further, but that would be a result of your expectation for more - not a requirement. Sure, even I wished there was more complexity, but I enjoyed the film for what it was.

This I agree with. Although, it should be said that, if you wanted to find what you were looking for in that particular story, the source material could be an alternative (but never a requirement). Really, I think it's a defensive reaction to people who think the story is mindless and shallow, when in reality there is always more complexity in the written work. As a fan, I know I'd think it an injustice if someone walked around thinking, "Man, V for Vendetta is a dumb story" without ever reading the book, and basing that statement on the film alone. But you seem to be directing your criticisms to the film specifically, so no worries.

Things I Hated About This Movie:

* Those constant, annoying scenes with the Commissioner guy on the big screen with his little adherents talking back and forth to him, I don't know what they really were. Didn't they just reach out and JAB you? Can you imagine me, bored with this film, trying to fall asleep around midnight in my comfy chair, and being constantly JOLTED awake by that gruff old guy barking orders? Those scenes struck like lightning, always coming on so suddenly.

* It had a goofy, not being taken seriously kind of feel throughout it that made me not want to take it seriously.

* Natalie Portman does nothing for me and neither did an unrecognizable Hugo Weaving. Had V been played by Brad Pitt - or gosh, even if they just reused Keanu Reeves, I might have been kept awake by the appeal of a more handsome, romanticesque actor behind that girlish, slaphappy grinning V costume. But Hugo Weaving? Agent Smith? Mitzi?! And to top it off, they shave off all of Natalie Portman's beautiful hair? IT ALL WENT DOWN THE DRAIN FOR THIS MOVIE?! I hope she bought a kickass wig to redeem herself from that horrible mistake.

* The ending. I won't reveal it here. I just thought it was sad and terrible. It's not what I would want to happen in the real world.

* Natalie Portman's scene in the cell where she reads letter from the Sunnybrook Farms lesbian who got imprisoned. This is the point where it should have turned into one of those "women in prison" movies and Evey & the letter lesbian got to each other and became a couple. They could have been a girlfriend team that goes after the evil government and whips butt Matrix style. V could have helped them, trained them, gave them pink outfits/costumes with masks that had kissy faces. Or maybe masks without mouths, like Hello Kitty faces. There could have been a Batman type franchise with them. Trinity from The Matrix could have appeared in the third one, V-3.

Real world? V has what to do with the real world? The ending clearly would, and did, happen in a fictional dystopic totalitarian world...

__________________

1) that's one thing they took exactly from the graphic novel - did you want them to drop this "detail" just because NAtalie's hair is beautiful? were it ugly, would it be okay? and would it have the same impact??

2) yep, like Fight Club's ending, "oh my gosh, so much violence"! well, apart from the fact it's necessary to move things more often than not... and that it should be showed in movies if these are to represent all aspects of life and society and history...

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

This movie seems to be generating quite a love/hate sentiment. Is it because of the movie or the perceived politics of the movie? Most politically benign movies don't receive this kind of reaction.

This movie is about a corrupt and deceptive government that injures its own people for political gain. And a government that demands conformity and punishes diversity. Whether comparisons can be drawn with any current government is up to the viewer. As a liberal, I see some comparisons but its not necessary. This movie can be viewed as socio-political action entertainment without any finger pointing at contemporary governments.

Here's a part of the film that has received less attention...V as a terrorist. In a way, it seems to endorse terrorism. The government may be reprehensible but is terrorism the way to deal with it? Is blowing up huge buildings (the possibility of people inside isn't really addressed) an acceptable act of rebellion? Yes, it's somewhat thrilling and satisfying to see a lone individual sticking it to the Man. But if V's acts of terrorism are acceptable, how much of a leap need be made before al Qaeda acts of terrorism borne out of real or imagined injustices are acceptable? Cheering for V and his pyrotechnics left me with a slightly uneasy feeling.

__________________
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

[quote=Twain] Is blowing up huge buildings (the possibility of people inside isn't really addressed) an acceptable act of rebellion? [quote]

that makes all the difference.
for me at least.

No, but think about what kind of impact it's had on all of the people who adore her beauty! I'm not currently aware of the status of what her hair is like, but I'm sure she spent quite a bit of time being mistaken for Sinead O'Conner. And imagine all of the pictures that were in US Weekly and In Touch - do you know how horrible the fashion critics can be? Do you think her bald head helped make up for any bad fashion mistakes she may have made?!

Well, you know, I don't think that Fight Club is all about violence... I think Fight Club was more about male & female roles in society, stylized in an apocolyptic way to show their changes in the modern world... V For Vendetta, from what I gather after just one viewing, was all about... a VENDETTA! You hurt us, we'll hurt you back.

I see this as a good thing. I was hoping it would generate this sort of uproar, and not just drift into elektra-land.

Agreed. It shoes maturity of worldview when someone is able to set aside their own views and beliefs in order to contemp-late a radically different view. In fact, I think it isn't really possible to view an issue objectively without this skill. You mention you are a liberal. Most of my left leaning friends do not agree with this concept, and believe ones own feelings and beliefs are the only issues worth weighing when it comes to worldly issues. Why is it different for you? Also, you mention diversity, but most left-leaners I know talk about equality, and in my mind, the two cannot coexist easily at all. Just asking, and I would never come down on your personal beliefs in a serious manner. I will joke about them, but all in good fun. I am a libertarian, btw.

It has gotten attention, just check out Newsweek. Also, I don't see it as glorifying terrorism, and I will bring up Sleezy's earlier comments about inspiring radical thougt, but not radical action, or application, as Sleeze called it. Also, I think they covered that base pretty well in the film with "equal and opposite reaction" that V was on about a couple of times. The covernment was terrible and oppresive to the nth degree, so the reaction to the government was likewise.

As for Al Queda, I see a vast difference between a revolutionary reacting to a murderous, incredibly oppresive, totalitarian state, and religious radicals blowing up innocent people in the name of God...

But that's just me

I can't believe this is actually part of the discussion.

Sexy Celebrity, in response to your comments in the SPOILER tags:

Again, the story is more symbolic than realistic. Yes, of course, blowing up a building is horrible...in real life. But this isn't real life, doesn't pretend to be, and doesn't promote blowing up buildings. It uses the blowing up of an important building to symbolize moving on. Sometimes, we just need to forget the past, and start building a new, brighter future.

I watched this story today. I can't help but be reminded of Equilibrium by the "big brother" style government. I was impressed with the ideological concepts presented. I was also impressed by the fact that it was the Wachowski Bros. who produced it. I misjudged them, but now am pleased that I saw this movie.

I do pity those who have over-analyzed the movie. I whole-heartedly agree with those who have simply enjoyed the entertainment factor in it.

__________________

I saw this movie over the weekend and, well, don't think it's that great. First I'll say what I did like about the movie (I mean over the base of entertainment, which is simply the template function that almost all movies are written on and achieve): Hugo Weaving was good and caught V's ridiculous wordiness well. I agree with the New Yorker reviewer (David Denby?) who said Evey's shocked ammusement at V's ludicrous introductory alliterations was indeed a funny moment of the film, and the high point of the entire movie for me. That's pretty much it.

I don't think there was really much of allegorical significance in the movie, and that's fine because frankly allegories about the transgressions of totalitarian regimes are tired. Also it's fine (and necessary) that the movie is a different beast than than comic, but I think there were some good ideas in the comic that could have been exploited better. The comic version, as with all Moore's comics was a self-aware attempt at crossing and exploiting genres, in this case I guess it was the literary distopian allegory genre (maybe there's a more elegant term for it?) with the masked vigillante/superhero genre, and also the detective genre caught between the other two. The allegory was certainly present in the original (anti-Thatcherite) story, and has I suppose been updated faithfully by the Wachowsky sisters, but in the original a large part of the distopia was as the background for the other two to bump around and I'm sad to say that here it seems to have taken those elements and pushed them to the front of the story. Which I think is a large part of why the movie is so unengaging, and safe. (I'm sure other dissenters have talked about this in the thread) no serious person actually disagrees that it's bad to send homosexuals (or anyone else) to the gas chamber or that despotic, shouting head dictators on big tv screens are a bad way to govern. There's also the point that the big conspiracy plot device they used in the movie seems to fly in the face of the political-responsibility/social contract message they give in V's televised speech:

Oh the people need to be more active and aware/understanding of the political/social world, less insular and ignorant. But wait! their insularity is a semi-legitimate response to the fears invoked and exploited by a cynical partisan conspiracy to stage islamic terror attacks etc.

This device is so bogus that you don't even see it used that much in Hollywood anymore, so why should these guys get away with it? The portrayal of the Nazi's was so abstractly evil that I didn't even see it as controvercial in any way. Same thing with the good guys. That sketch the gay tv host uses to poke fun at the leader could have really been funny or original, instead of just a flat standin for what the film makers think political humor looks at.

As to the other genre's or narrative elements, I don't think they get as much time to develop in the movie version, or when they do are developed inneptly or just exploited to score some emotional points. The handling of the cop is probably the biggest failure in the movie. The actor does well with what he's given but it's pretty thin stuff.

Also with V's staging of the concentration camp. That should have been developed much better, and could have been done with a different eye or different editing than the rest of the movie to set it apart a bit or give it some weight. It could also have been an explicit point of contrast for the rest of the movie: V's manipulation of Evey and reporting of events with the dictator's manipulation of the people, and maybe the added dimension of the cop/detective's rendering of events. He's supposed to be the surrogate for the audience, and if not given attention (which he's not), then the movie comes across as an incoherent mess. Which it is.

1) yeah but don't forget that it's Natalie Portman. almost everyone considers her a beauty, so she can allow herself more than the common people, who, say, work at the bank
2)
a) were it not Natalie, but another actress, would you be less shocked?
b) cuz ultimately, they did need an actress to impersonate Evey, didn't they?
c) and if they wanted to be faithful to the novel, they couldn't cut that aspect of the story (important to see how far in cruelty V can go for his ideals), so they needed the actress to do it, isn't it so?

that's one important aspect, you're right. but don't forget, especially the beginning (plus dozens of references to it throughout the movie), the critic of ("developped countries"') consumerism, and the lost generation's desillusionment - both as central (and intercrossing) themes of that film.

i sympathize (and sorta feel that pain, believe it or not), but it's exactly what i personally (stress on this word) will never condone, since i see it everyday, in Germany with the forbidden nazi flags and svastikas (even if you're a buddhist, or if the flag was supposed to appear in a historical comic book, as an example!!), or in the States where they had to change Spiderman's poster without the Twin Towers. when something, that is part of history, becomes taboo, there the problem begins. how can you teach people history (even in novels and films) lying to them about some details that are "not supposed to be showed"?
secondly, V has nothing to do with Osama; that comparison borders traumatic obsession, sorry to say that. (even if i understand the reasons for, it's something to cure, like a traumatic experience always is)
thirdly, such an obsession and throwing everything into the same pot always leads to rough generalizations and erroneous interpretations of facts. an example: the word "nationalism" has such a bad connotation in Germany since Wolrd War II that they throw things into the same pot that have barely anything in common, like the Irish struggle, or Tibetan (although it is, falsely and hypocretically, more correct if it is *not* European), any struggle for freedom of a nation, with what was German imperialism, mistaking two different things (nationalism/imperialism). was the French resistance terrorism? yes it was. or you find another word for it, but in the facts, it will amount to the same kinda actions (bombs, etc...), will it not?? so, if we call it "terrorism", it may be necessary, like everything in the world, whether love, violence, marriage etc..., depending on the context and situation.

so, judging a movie out of what is a remaining pain from the past (definition of a trauma), is like someone who's been dumped and would judge all, absolutely all, love stories as exaggerated, dumb, stupid, illogical, making any of these bad cinema, which is equivalent to...? = losing your objectivity out of emotional control over fair criticism.

like i said, i understand though, we all have "blocades" (like they call it in Tai Chi Chuan and acupuncture). the important is to make an effort not to be controlled by them, or at least, the less the better.

Saw V last night, thought it was good, entertaining, but not great. It seemed to lack the emotional punch it needed. Natalie Portman's accent didn't help with the suspension of disbelief (it is positively Australian at some points...why didn't they just hire Keira Knightley?). What bugged me about this film was the amount of flashbacks, and showing the same scenes again, like the audience had forgotten.

Originally Posted by Sedai

I see this as a good thing. I was hoping it would generate this sort of uproar, and not just drift into elektra-land.

No, there's no chance of this movie going to Elektra Land. Even Jennifer Garner wishes she hadn't gone to Elektra Land.

Most of my left leaning friends do not agree with this concept, and believe ones own feelings and beliefs are the only issues worth weighing when it comes to worldly issues. Why is it different for you?

I'm not sure it IS that different. Liberalism tends to place more value on the individual while conservatism favors society. I believe that's why conservatism can so easily drift off to nationalism and in extreme cases, fascism. And perhaps that's also why liberalism is more comfortable with socialism and has flirted with communism. One is "My country, right or wrong," the other is "My country might be right or it might be wrong."

Also, you mention diversity, but most left-leaners I know talk about equality, and in my mind, the two cannot coexist easily at all.

I want them both. Whether both can be realized is another matter. I welcome diversity of religion, race, politics, sexual orientation, eye color and anything else and hope that they all receive equal treatment under the law. Equal treatment by other people (often those who enjoy some sort of majority status) is a little more difficult.

I am a libertarian, btw.

You know how I said conservatism can lead to nationalism and even fascism? Your journey down the long dark road can lead to anarchy. Actually, libertarians and liberals have much in common, mainly a healthy respect for the individual and his rights. Our main differences may lie in what extent the government should be involved in the welfare of its citizens.

As for Al Queda, I see a vast difference between a revolutionary reacting to a murderous, incredibly oppresive, totalitarian state, and religious radicals blowing up innocent people in the name of God...

I do too. The problem is that al Qaeda sees us as a murderous, imperialist, corrupt and amoral state. And in their minds, are every bit as justified in their horrendous acts as V.

Until a disclaimer comes on the screen that says :"Relax, these buildings were empty and contained no innocent victims" then V is guilty of a similar crime as al Qaeda. His cause may be far more noble in my opinion and yours but the collateral damage is much the same.

It is unlikely that the Houses of Parliament had people in them because a. the governament of the country seems to consist solely of the big talking head on the tv screen and his few advisors (this is a totalitarian regime, after all, not a democracy with a large parliament), and b. they knew the attack was coming.

Also, in an earlier attack on the tv corporation, the alarm is sounded to get everyone out. V also seems to be quite scrupulous about only attacking those who have wronged him and avoiding innocent victims, although his instigation of chaos does inadvertantly cause some.

But this aside, does the masked avenger need to be morally pure for the film to work? How many great films feature people who do bad things and kill innocent bystanders? And V is 'punished' within the film for his actions, by not being allowed to survive the film.

The film shouldn't be taken as absolute reality. Absolute reality would make a very dull film indeed and considering you'd have to fit a year in 130 minutes, would really lead more and more people to find what is deemed in film critic circles as "plot holes".

One area of the film is the "message".

The other are of the film is the genre being, action adventure.

In order for the producers and directors to remain loyal to these factors, a viewer must either accept this and enjoy the ride (in my opinion, brilliantly made and extremely entertaining) or just waste time and find flaws by relating it to one's own subjective view of reality.

It's a great film, a clear, current and important message outlined in a fashion of action and adventure that would reach a wider audience than a drama or a thriller and serious enough, which wouldn't have been possible if it was a comedy.

Films are to be enjoyed. I know critique is enjoyable due to it's dissection but to expect too much (to the point of reality) from an action adventure with realistic tones is unrealistic.

I don't buy this 'it's action/it's a fantasy world so therefore you can't criticise it' line. It is up to the film to convince the audience, it is not up to the audience to ignore flaws in the film and get on with enjoying it, regardless of its quality. There are plenty of fantasy/action movies with more intelligence, emotion and believability than V for Vendetta. If people are 'expecting too much' from V for Vendetta, perhaps they have been spoiled by watching better films. To succeeed as a film, it needs to be a good film; it isn't just a vehicle for getting a dubious political message to the lowest common denominator of film goers. Films that respect the intelligence of their audience are generally more respected by the audience.

= how to make a movie dull in one lesson.

if people cannot be honest, looking back at their history and what gave them (at least a relative) freedom and play the dumb over-emotional card, it's their own fault. should we remind them all the friggin' time (a movie is made, a book is published, etc...) Resistance fought the Nazis with what they would call terrorist methods? that the borderline between terrorists and insurgents is more than vague and that the American Revolutionaries fighting the British army were what else than insurgents (= terrorists from the governmental point of view?)

The 'terrorists' were the heroes in Star Wars, too....