BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


V For Vendetta (PICS)

 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 22

 
 
CameronStewart
18:44 / 10.05.05
Well you seem pretty hung up on Weaving's nationality, suggesting that his Aussie accent would "have to be addressed" in the film.
 
 
penitentvandal
18:59 / 10.05.05
Yeah, I should have made clear that it would only fuck up the plot if this Dietrich character came along questioning things openly at the very beginning of the film. The guy setting up a pirate radio station in his shed is actually quite cool, and would go quite nicely in the bit of the book where V's knocked out all the cameras and people start doing their thing.

I think the point that lots of people in the book have doubts is a good one, and it'll be interesting to see how that's addressed in the film without, y'know, shedloads of explanatory dialogue. It would take a lot of careful writing to suggest these doubts without having characters engage in cliched 'Eric, do you never think perhaps what we're doing is wrong?' conversations.

All of which makes it a shame that it's the Wachowski Brothers who are writing it...

As to Weaving, the more I imagine him doing an English accent for V, the cooler I think it would be. And despite my joke earlier, I think it would be cool if he acted V a la Agent Smith, because V needs to be a bit scary and inhuman. Possibly more so in the film, to get over the point that he isn't the cliche 'good guy'.

How do people imagine the script for the film going, anyway? Obviously it would probably stick fairly close to the comic, but would have to be telescoped a bit. But which bits do you lose? The Rescue of Evey Hammond, the Destruction of Big Ben, and the Abduction of Lewis Prothero will remain. Prothero will probably be given the Bishop's paedo tendencies, so the Bish can be cut out - partly due to time constraints, partly because I can't see them risking offending the Christian Right (they're already sailing close enough to the wind with the whole 'terrorist as hero' concept, after all).

From there, we'll have the killing of the Doctor and the revelation of V's past, to humanise V and set him in context. Will we lose Dominic Almond here? Probably. The Rose Almond subplot I can't see staying, but on the other hand it is Rose who kills the leader. If Dominic and Rose stay, Helen and Conrad Heyer will probably go. The second reel will alternate between Evey and either Rose Almond (if they keep her) or Finch. I'd say Finch, because of course V kills his love interest in the shape of Dr Delia, so that revenge angle might go over better with the audience. 'Valerie', perhaps my favourite episode of the series, will probably be jettisoned. Introducing a new character for a five minute flsahback vignette and never referring to her again would be contrary to cinema conventions.

Reel three will begin with the Transformation of Evey and move swiftly to V disabling the cameras, and people enjoying freedom. In the ensuing chaos we'll see V's death, then either Rose Almond or Finch will kill the Leader. Then we get the finale, with Evey as the new V, and roll credits.

That's what I think, anyway. Probably wrong...
 
 
CameronStewart
19:12 / 10.05.05
>>>Prothero will probably be given the Bishop's paedo tendencies, so the Bish can be cut out<<<

Nope, according to IMDB Bishop Lilliman is being played by John Hurt.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
19:22 / 10.05.05
Well you seem pretty hung up on Weaving's nationality, suggesting that his Aussie accent would "have to be addressed" in the film.

Fair enough. I'm just worried that this film will suck, even after I started hoping that it wouldn't... my apologies.

'Valerie', perhaps my favourite episode of the series, will probably be jettisoned. Introducing a new character for a five minute flsahback vignette and never referring to her again would be contrary to cinema conventions.

I distinctly remember reading something that stated that the entire Valerie chapter was kept in the script verbatim. Can't remember where, but I think it will stay.
 
 
Benny the Ball
19:47 / 10.05.05
I hope there isn't a pirate radio in the shed style response. One of my favourite parts of the book was that the people that seemed best suited or inspired by V at first were those that were abusing the old system, and then there is the school girl saying bollocks to the camera. It reminded me of that horrible feeling in 1984 when the proles just aren't going to do anything, and you think nothing's going to change, but then it does (in V, not 1984).
 
 
Jack Fear
20:08 / 10.05.05
according to IMDB Bishop Lilliman is being played by John Hurt

JOYGASM
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
21:27 / 10.05.05
Seems odd that Stephen Rea is playing Prothero, don't you think? He doesn't seem the creepy doll-collecting type...
 
 
Alex's Grandma
23:56 / 10.05.05
How do people imagine the script for the film going anyway

I think that sounds about right VV, the archibishop excepted, and also pretty good if it is. Personally, the only thing it'd be a real shame to lose is in that synopsis is DI Finch at Larkhill, which I'm guessing they might keep, depending on the budget and how far they're planning on going - It is fairly key that he goes through some kind of transformation before his confrontation with V after all, so it may as well be that as any.

The only problem I can see is who's going to kill The Leader - what with everything else that's going on, I wonder if they're going to have enough time to develop another character to the point where it's credible for him or her to be pulling the trigger, rather than V. A random bystander in a V mask, possibly ? It would detract a bit from the denouement, but it might be all right.

I'm actually thinking this could be ok now, given the cast list - the W brothers are still a worry, but they'll have some idea, hopefully, of where they went wrong with The Matrix sequels by now, and it's not as if in this case they're working from scratch. Scriptwise, it'd be more a question of what to leave out, I'd have thought. Similarly, I can't see them seriously going for the 'Nazi's won the War' angle - for one thing, it would take them far too long to explain how events had developed from there, and for another, a post-catastrophe Britain seems like a perfectly efficient backdrop for the story as it is. It's not as if they'd have to go into too much detail as to who was responsible, and nor is the original, really, a particularly Anti-American piece. In fact I think a US audience might quite go for the idea of a Motown-loving freedom fighter offing all the stuffy, repressed Brits pols and their crumbling, fascistic institutions.

Not that I'm suggesting Bruce Willis for the lead, or anything.
 
 
penitentvandal
06:18 / 11.05.05
'The entrenched Fascist state is about to have a very...bad...DAY!'

V pleased to hear they will be keeping the 'Valerie' chapter, starting to feel a wee bit more excited about this film now...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:00 / 11.05.05
I'm a we bit concerned about Portman. Yeah, facially she looks the part, and she's a great actor - but she's freakin' tiny. V isn't. What happens at the end, after the training and V's little appointment with Victoria? Everyone's gonna take one look at her and go "Bollocks, that's not the terrorist, that's a little girl!" Unless her V is mysteriously much larger, or she wears stilts or something...
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
11:02 / 11.05.05
More I think about it, more I think Knightley would be a better fit. She's young, English, tall and pretty athletic looking - she can be both Eveys, and she's 'up-for-it' enough to shave her head. Time machine back to pre-production, please!
 
 
Triplets
14:24 / 11.05.05
Everyone's gonna take one look at her and go "Bollocks, that's not the terrorist, that's a little girl!" Unless her V is mysteriously much larger, or she wears stilts or something...

 
 
Grey Area
15:28 / 11.05.05
"Bollocks, that's not the terrorist, that's a little girl!"

Well, considering that in the book e-V only makes one appearance in front of the crowd, and that from a great height, I don't think size is going to be an issue. And the scenes with...oh what's his name? The assistant officer at the end? My opnion is that it'll not make it into the film. It's just too much of an open ending.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
16:49 / 11.05.05
More I think about it, more I think Knightley would be a better fit. She's young, English, tall and pretty athletic looking - she can be both Eveys, and she's 'up-for-it' enough to shave her head. Time machine back to pre-production, please!

I have issues with Evey looking like a holocaust survivor, personally. Quite interested to see Portman in this, and she looks strangely hot* with the shaved head.

*I have never, ever, even vaguely found Natalie Portman sexy ever before. Perhaps it's my Dykey-Likey tendencies?
 
 
CameronStewart
18:08 / 11.05.05
>>>I have issues with Evey looking like a holocaust survivor, personally.<<<

That's exactly how David Lloyd drew her though, at the end of her initiation...
 
 
Benny the Ball
21:25 / 11.05.05
Exactly. The chapter where she feels the rain for the first time again, her body is so collapsed around itself and she is so focussed on the now that she cannot be anything but what V shows her she is - that pure peeled away persona, but Lloyd presented her like a holocaust victem totally
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
21:36 / 11.05.05
Point of fact - Hugo Weaving isn't actually Australian, he was just raised there. He was born in Nigeria. In the same way, neither is Mel Gibson (the US), Russell Crowe (Kiwi), Nicole Kidman (Hawaii), Sam Neill (Ireland)... point is, their place of birth means shit. None of the above have ever had a problem handling accents.

And e-V looking different/larger from a lower angle... oh, fuck off. A petite five-foot-something woman can pass as a six-foot-something powerfully built terrorist 'from a certain angle'? Unless that angle is being viewed from a different dimension, you're talking shit. E-V's appearance in front of the crowd at the end is one of the most powerful moments in the narrative. It's a problem, and no amount of shilly-shallying with camera angles can solve it.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
21:54 / 11.05.05
Got to be honest, Jack, I think you're talking bollocks there. There's not a single point of reference in those few panels - absolutely no way of judging the relative height of the character. It's all billowing cape and theatrical mask, and when you've got that sort of paraphernalia and are standing about twenty feet above everybody else, silhouetted against a blood-red sky and in front of a crowd of people whose organised society you - or somebody who's known to wear the same cape/hat/mask - have just destroyed, nobody in that crowd's likely to be whispering "aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?"

The theatrical props are noticed, along with the voice and the message, not how tall ze is.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
22:30 / 11.05.05
Oh, rubbish. From the crowd's point of view? Possibly, but you're taking a hell of a lot for granted. Evey, in the comics, was never exactly a small woman, so that helps. From the cinema audience's point of view? They know V. They've seen him portrayed throughout as a larger than life figure, let alone a large man. They know that e-V is actually Natalie Portman. For fuck's sake. Have you not heard of dramatic irony? It makes it laughable that, in a putative movie, the gelfling thing would ever consider taking V's place for even that one scene.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
23:35 / 11.05.05
Presumably, if at the climatic point of the movie, when it seems like the downtrodden UK public are finally, possibly going to throw off their chains and embrace a new future somebody in the audience shouts out 'shortarse' it's not going to be what the director intended... But is that necessarily true ?

Perhaps by casting a smaller actress in the role, they're making a point about the transitory nature of political revolution, in the absence of a charismatic figure to lead it ? V's boots being in this case literally too big to fill.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
01:18 / 12.05.05
From the cinema audience's point of view? They know V. They've seen him portrayed throughout as a larger than life figure, let alone a large man. They know that e-V is actually Natalie Portman.

Well, considering that you've not seen the film, you're presuming to know an awful lot here. Like, for example, that the audience will be shown a scene in which V passes on the reigns to Evey before they see a scene featuring Evey as V. That could be left to a final reveal or a flashback - show the previous one die, then have him rise from the grave for the crowd speech and only show us Portman removing the mask or the transition of power afterwards. Fuck, they don't even necessarily have to do that much - just leave it up to us to work out how V's still walking around.

There are plenty of ways in which they could film this shit that wouldn't lead to any of the problems you're already forecasting. We already know that they're not doing a direct translation of the comic - why are you so hung up on the idea that this scene must play out in exactly the same way it did before?
 
 
Triplets
07:39 / 12.05.05
Because this is the internet. This is what we do here.
 
 
Brigade du jour
10:01 / 12.05.05
Hey I saw this movie once where Orlando Bloom was meant to be, like two feet taller than John Rhys Davies, but in real life the latter is actually taller than the former. Seriously! I really reckon they can pull this trick off.
 
 
Brigade du jour
10:25 / 12.05.05
Sorry, I was being a bit facetious there, wasn't I? Still, I think my point (that it's quite remarkable how you can manipulate an audience's perception of an object simply by where you place a camera) stands, proud and erect. Missus.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:35 / 12.05.05
Yes! They can use special effects to make Natalie Portman look taller! What with the tight pre/post production schedules and minimal shooting time to get it to the premiere on 4th November, that'll be one of their prime concerns!

Spats, despite what you may think I have actually thought about a movie adaptation. I'm not picturing it playing out exactly as it did in the comic, I'm saying the scene's important to the story, and it's one of my favourite scenes in the comic. And I honestly do not think there is a way to play it credibly using Natalie Portman. Flashbacks, rearrangement of the timeframe of the story, keeping the audience guessing - hardly revolutionary tools in the filmmaker's box. And none of them work because the scene with V's return ("they say anarchy is dead...") is the final catalyst for the climax of the movie - that, and the riot that follows, is the emotional payoff for the narrative. It's the Bolivian army closing in on Butch & Sundance so you know there's no way out, Dave Kujan's slow horrorstruck realisation that Kint has pulled the wool over his (and our) eyes, poor doomed John Baxter chasing a tiny figure in a red coat through the dark streets of Venice. Narrative dynamics are a contract between the filmmakers (or novelist or whatever) and the audience. That's why it falls apart when the audience feels betrayed or belittled or bemused. That's why (for example) deus ex machina is such a cheap narrative bridge, because it steals part of the film for the audience - doesn't matter how well it's executed, the dynamic is lost.

This is based on my assertion that there's no point to Evey as a character unless she takes over from V at that moment. The narrative of the comic requires her new V to take over to create and assist where the old V destroyed. This is what everything that happens to her throughout the story means, what it's for. It's the climax of Evey's story too. This isn't just a one-off appearance to resurrect V this one time, to bring about the riot that follows. He's trained her to take over from him, it's the whole narrative drive of the story. Doesn't matter when the audience finds out - as soon as we know it's Portman under the mask, the illusion crumbles, there's no suspension of disbelief. It's suddenly laughable - "what is this, the Muppet Babies' version of V?" And if we never find out that Portman's taken over from V, her whoel story, which (arguably) is the story of V For Vendetta itself, is redundant. She's just a damsel in distress cum exposition device.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
11:56 / 12.05.05
Doesn't matter when the audience finds out - as soon as we know it's Portman under the mask, the illusion crumbles, there's no suspension of disbelief.

Does that matter, though? We can have the illusion shattered for us, providing that we can still accept that the crowd in that scene believe it. And I don't think there's any reason why that shouldn't be the case. V hasn't been a hugely public figure up until that point - even those he's directly terrorised have only really seen the mask and heard the disguised voice. So I don't see that there is any great barrier to our believing that they'd accept that this is V, the only V there's ever been. By the end of the book, Evey's been subsumed by V - as long as they can get that across, that she's not just doing an impersonation but has become the character in every way that matters, then I think that scene will play out just fine.

I mean, I don't believe Michael Keaton as Batman, but I believe that Gotham City believes it, so it still works.

As is goes, I do think that this is some pretty dumb casting, but more because I don't see Portman as Evey in the first place, rather than Portman as Evey as V.
 
 
grant
15:46 / 12.05.05
I hear James Earl Jones really isn't that much taller than Mark Hammill in real life, too.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
17:04 / 12.05.05
Doesn't matter when the audience finds out - as soon as we know it's Portman under the mask, the illusion crumbles, there's no suspension of disbelief.

"Bolucs" as the wee girl would graffiti. The entire fucking point of V is that he was not a man, but an idea. It doesn't matter who is wearing the mask, it could be anyone playing Evey and the transformation would still be gripping and believeable (if done well, mind.)

Did you have the same problem with the comic? Because V is noticeably taller than Evey at many points in the artwork. Did that ruin your suspension of disbelief?

And, yes, after the torture Evey does look like a holocaust survivor. But before that she's a simple, ditzy, pubescent girl. She even looks ever so slightly chubby.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:42 / 12.05.05
Sorry to bring this up again, but it bugs me every time I read this thread. Especial apologies to Tom Tit, because I'm not having a go at you or trying to be smug- just trying to get this out of my head so it stops bugging me. (And I don't particularly LIKE Hugo Weaving, so I'm not too keen on the idea anyway, but hey, I'll let him impress me).

but...

1)The rest of the world is a nuclear wasteland (in the comic) Yes, but only since Evey was a child... ie about ten years previous to the events portrayed in the comic, Larkhill being, what? about five years earlier? Just cos there's no Australia doesn't mean there're no Australians...

And I agree with JtB on many things (including the importance of THAT scene with the crowd), but- the way I read it, nobody in the crowd would have seen V before. (As has been pointed out, not many people actually have, in the flesh). And, y'know, I wouldn't really have a great deal of faith in a revolution which consisted of "whoah, you've come from nowhere and freed us from tyranny- or given us the impetus to free OURSELVES. But you're shorter than we'd like, so we'll just go back to being oppressed, if it's all the same with you".

Although one of the other things I agree with Mr The Bodiless on is that Knightley would be ideal. But I CAN see Portman carrying it off, what with me not being the casting director.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
18:47 / 12.05.05
Oh, and about Evey thinking V could be her father- I don't really think, even without an accent, she'd think that (what with knowing what her father sounds like and all) anyway, unless he sounded like him anyway, and what are the chances of that?- UNLESS the voice was fairly nondescript. I like the idea of a blank, possibly computer-generated voice (kind of like a vocal version of the "A Scanner Darkly" scramblesuit- it's a problem Moore never really had to cope with in the comic medium, but which will have to be addressed in a movie.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
21:32 / 12.05.05
I don't really think, even without an accent, she'd think that (what with knowing what her father sounds like and all) anyway, unless he sounded like him anyway, and what are the chances of that?- UNLESS the voice was fairly nondescript.

Since Evey's father died four years before the events in V, I'm inclined to give the benefit of the doubt and assume she might not remember her father's voice as well as you're assuming. My Grandfather and I were fairly close, I grew up with him living across the street from me, and he died when I was 12. I'd have been hard pressed to tell you (or even remember) what he sounded like four years later, except that he had a deep, gravelly voice. How many older men fit that description? Exactly.

But, yeah, it's mostly hopeful thinking and the need to be rescued / have a father figure that makes Evey think V is her father. She gets over it.

Yes, nit-picking about the height of the anthropomorphic personification (hahahaha) of Anarchy is silly. V's a billion feet tall, reguardless of who is really behind the mask.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
22:00 / 12.05.05
On the voice - is it not stated explicitly in the book that he's using something to disguise it? I've got it into my head that it is and I've always read it that way, but I'm more than prepared to be proved wrong.

Even if it's not actually mentioned, it's not too much of a leap to presume that this is the case - that V's either got some sort of vocal shiznit concealed within the mask or he's modifying it by other means. I mean, it's got to be a pretty dumb near-future totalitarian government that fails to use voice recognition software as part of its arsenal of controlling doohickeys, after all, so it just makes sense for him to make sure he's got that angle covered.
 
 
Tom Tit's Tot: A Girl!
01:08 / 13.05.05
On the voice - is it not stated explicitly in the book that he's using something to disguise it? I've got it into my head that it is and I've always read it that way, but I'm more than prepared to be proved wrong.

Page 56 of the trade is the closest we get to information on his voice. When V is talking to the Bishop, the surveillance men comment as V begins to speak "That's a man's voice." V uses the music playing in the background to mask his voice. That's about it, but it seems to point towards no electronically modulated voice, in my opinion.

I could never agree to the idea of V having a computer-generated or treated voice. V is a vaudeville villian, a pantomime baddy. He speaks like a thespian with a self-knowing smirk. Really. If they push the gravitas with Weaving, I'll be worried. Part of what makes V great is his black humour, methinks.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
10:34 / 13.05.05
Does that matter, though? We can have the illusion shattered for us, providing that we can still accept that the crowd in that scene believe it.

...yes, it does matter. What the fuck are you on? We're talking about a cinematic experience here. These aren't real people, and it's not actually happening. Our whole concept of "who" and what" in cinema is predicated on our relationship with the text. There are no characters, no narrative, no crowd in that scene, without a successfully negotiated contract between audience and filmmakers. This is basic film theory.

The entire fucking point of V is that he was not a man, but an idea. It doesn't matter who is wearing the mask, it could be anyone playing Evey and the transformation would still be gripping and believeable (if done well, mind.)

Yes, that's the entire point of V as a character, just as it's the entire point of Evey as a character that she becomes V. However, V himself is not an idea. He's described in various places within the comic as being an incredibly fast and incredibly strong man. These things are essential to a lot of the things he's able to do within his acts of terrorism - he may be a great character, but he's also an action hero like most comics characters (and V ticks a lot of the boxes needed to qualify as a basic superhero type). And Spats is right, Evey doesn't just impersonate him for that one scene, she becomes him. Even if they leave out that scene with whats-his-face at the end, where she effectively recruits her own replacement, we're supposed to believe that Evey carries on being V. Trouble is, she has no credibility as V because she's VERY VERY SMALL. In the comic V only pulls off magnificent charisma dressed the way he does because he's got the physical presence and scariness to carry off what is basically a very silly costume - and, I guess, because comics readers have a history of accepting characters in ridiculous costumes without complaint. In a movie? Different kettle of fish entirely. Even if it's shot with the same artful use of tone and shadow that Lloyd used, V still needs someone physically imposing under that Halloween costume for it to work.

Did you have the same problem with the comic? Because V is noticeably taller than Evey at many points in the artwork. Did that ruin your suspension of disbelief? And, yes, after the torture Evey does look like a holocaust survivor. But before that she's a simple, ditzy, pubescent girl. She even looks ever so slightly chubby.

And after the training, she's all hard angles, muscles and thousand-yard stare. And Evey, in the comics, isn't a world of difference away from V in height. Natalie Portman is. A. Little. Bird. She will look like a little girl dressed up like a witch.

Yes, nit-picking about the height of the anthropomorphic personification (hahahaha) of Anarchy is silly. V's a billion feet tall, reguardless of who is really behind the mask.

Romantic bullshit. Tell you what, try telling a casting director you're trying to cast the anthropomorphic personification of Anarchy, see how far you get before being laughed out of the building.
 
 
Spatula Clarke
10:38 / 13.05.05
Are you actually capable of discussing this stuff without being a dick?
 
  

Page: 123(4)56789... 22

 
  
Add Your Reply