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: 1 ... 910111213(14)1516171819... 22

 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
23:31 / 11.03.06
Just a wacky idea from out of nowhere, but...

...maybe it's meant to be ambiguous?
 
 
sleazenation
09:00 / 12.03.06
Hmmm - not sure she's in an ideal situation, mind...

An interesting way of putting it... Helen is portrayed throughout the narrative as someone not only willing, but actively eager to trade sex and intimacy in the pursuit of personal power and safety, both through her pawn Conrad and anyone else in a position of influence...

Helen stoops to conquor and does thais from both high and low positions. She will continue to do what she has always done, which is, I feel, a definition of hell.

Of course, you could still easily argue that this is still 'not an ideal situation' but I'm not certain that Helen would agree, nor would ever stop using sex and intimacy to get what she wants...
 
 
sleazenation
09:11 / 12.03.06
I should probably also add that in both high and low bargaining positions Helen successfully refuses the advances of men and is never portrayed as a victim, indeed, Helen is shown as actively enjoying her pursuit of power. Is this an unrealistic idealization of sexual power relations? A comment on a particular mode of female sexual expression? Or something else?
 
 
MJ-12
12:31 / 12.03.06
Rose Almond is a more accurate counter point in some respects, but in others Rose offers a contrast to Helen - Rose actually kills the leader where as Helen never does, despite all her plans

My read on this wasn't that Rose killed the Leader so much as she was manipulated by V into killing him. At first thought, it feels as if this was standing out as a solitary instance of V damaging someone other than the active party hierarchy or redshirt fingermen, but it may also be indicitive of V's disdain for anyone who has been complicit in the regime, no matter how passively. I'm not entirely certain where I'm going with this.
 
 
sleazenation
13:20 / 12.03.06
I might be missing something, but I don't remember V having any active involvement in Rose's life outside of killing her husband, something that was done as much in self defence as anything else as V killed Delia.

Having said which V does claim at one point that 'there are no coincidences' only the appearence of such....
 
 
MJ-12
13:30 / 12.03.06
In the rose room Evey asks V "Is there a rose here for the Leader; for Mr. Susan?"

V's reply is "Oh, no, not here. For him, I've cultivated a most special rose."

In light of that, on a later read, my impression that the message to her that her pension benefits had been cut off, thus sending her spiraling down were the result of V's manipulation of the computer system.
 
 
sleazenation
16:11 / 12.03.06
You might well be right... I never made the connection between V having access to the party computers and the cutting or Rose Almond's benefits... There is no concrete evidence that V was responsible, but it is certainly very plausible...

The quote is there, but there isn't any cut to Rose Almond straight after it, nor any time for the rest of that chapter... So nothing is certain, but your interpretation looks extremely plausible...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
17:26 / 12.03.06
That had never occurred to me either, but now you come to mention it...

I'd always taken it as just another illustration of how callous the system is- it doesn't even look after its own when it has no further need for them, fascism having no time for the weak and dependent.

Fuck it. I'm reading the bastard again this week. I'll see which take on it I like better at the time.
 
 
sleazenation
18:32 / 12.03.06
Well, I've started a thread up in the comics if anyone feels like rereading the source material...
 
 
FinderWolf
13:22 / 13.03.06
Interesting article in the NYTimes , as covered by Newsarama, about Moore and the V film.
 
 
Just Add Water
14:43 / 13.03.06
Here's the NY Times article, since it requires login:

...

The Vendetta Behind 'V for Vendetta'

By DAVE ITZKOFF
Published: March 12, 2006

THE most vivid characters in Alan Moore's graphic novels are antiheroes of ambiguous morality and identity: costumed avengers like Rorschach, the disturbed street vigilante of "Watchmen," or the crusader known only by the letter V, who commits catastrophic acts of terrorism in the dystopian tale "V for Vendetta."

With inventions like these, and a body of writing that spans nearly three decades, Mr. Moore, a 52-year-old native of Northampton, England, distinguished himself as a darkly philosophical voice in the medium of comic books — a rare talent whose work can sell solely on the strength of his name. But if Mr. Moore had his way today, his name would no longer appear on almost any of the graphic novels with which he is most closely associated. "I don't want anything more to do with these works," he said in a recent telephone interview, "because they were stolen from me — knowingly stolen from me."

In Mr. Moore's account of his career, the villains are clearly defined: they are the mainstream comics industry — particularly DC Comics, the American publisher of "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" — which he believes has hijacked the properties he created, and the American film business, which has distorted his writing beyond recognition. To him, the movie adaptation of "V for Vendetta," which opens on Friday, is not the biggest platform yet for his ideas: it is further proof that Hollywood should be avoided at all costs. "I've read the screenplay," Mr. Moore said. "It's rubbish."

Mr. Moore has never been shy about expressing himself. With "Watchmen," a multilayered epic from 1986-87 (illustrated by Dave Gibbons) about a team of superheroes in an era of rampant crime and nuclear paranoia — and again with "V for Vendetta" (illustrated by David Lloyd), published in America in 1988-89, about an enigmatic freedom fighter opposing a totalitarian British regime — Mr. Moore helped prove that graphic novels could be a vehicle for sophisticated storytelling. "Alan was one of the first writers of our generation, of great courage and great literary skill," said Paul Levitz, the president and publisher of DC Comics. "You could watch him stretching the boundaries of the medium."

But by 1989, Mr. Moore had severed his ties with DC. The publisher says he objected to its decision to label its adult-themed comics (including some of his own) as "Suggested for Mature Readers." Mr. Moore says he was objecting to language in his contracts that would give him back the rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta" when they went out of print — language that he says turned out to be meaningless, because DC never intended to stop reprinting either book. "I said, 'Fair enough,' " he recalls. " 'You have managed to successfully swindle me, and so I will never work for you again.' "

Mr. Levitz said that such so-called reversion clauses routinely appear in comic book contracts, and that DC has honored all of its obligations to Mr. Moore. "I don't think Alan was dissatisfied at the time," Mr. Levitz said. "I think he was dissatisfied several years later."

Mr. Lloyd, the illustrator of "V for Vendetta," also found it difficult to sympathize with Mr. Moore's protests. When he and Mr. Moore sold their film rights to the graphic novel, Mr. Lloyd said: "We didn't do it innocently. Neither myself nor Alan thought we were signing it over to a board of trustees who would look after it like it was the Dead Sea Scrolls."

Mr. Moore recognizes that his senses of justice and proportion may seem overdeveloped. "It is important to me that I should be able to do whatever I want," he said. "I was kind of a selfish child, who always wanted things his way, and I've kind of taken that over into my relationship with the world."

Today, he resides in the sort of home that every gothic adolescent dreams of, one furnished with a library of rare books, antique gold-adorned wands and a painting of the mystical Enochian tables used by Dr. John Dee, the court astrologer of Queen Elizabeth I. He shuns comic-book conventions, never travels outside England and is a firm believer in magic as a "science of consciousness." "I am what Harry Potter grew up into," he said, "and it's not a pretty sight."

Actually, he more closely resembles the boy-wizard's half-giant friend Hagrid, with his bushy, feral beard and intense gaze, but those closest to Mr. Moore say his intimidating exterior is deceptive. "Because he looks like a wild man, people assume that he must be one," said the artist Melinda Gebbie, Mr. Moore's fiancée and longtime collaborator. "He's frightening to people because he doesn't seem to take the carrot, and he's fighting to maintain an integrity that they don't understand."

After he left DC Comics, he spent the 1990's working his way from one independent publisher to the next, ultimately arriving at Wildstorm Studios, owned by the comics artist Jim Lee. There, Mr. Moore was given his own imprint, called America's Best Comics, where he continued to write such pioneering and popular titles as "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," about a proto-superhero team of Victorian literary characters including Allan Quatermain, Captain Nemo and the Invisible Man.

DC Comics purchased Wildstorm, in 1998, expecting that Mr. Moore would not tolerate the arrangement. "We did the deal on the assumption that Alan would be gone the day it was signed," said Mr. Levitz. But Mr. Moore's loyalty to his artists trumped his aversion to his former employers, and he stayed put. "It seemed easier to bite the bullet meself," he said.

In 2001, the first film adaptation of one of Mr. Moore's graphic novels arrived in theaters. "From Hell," distributed by 20th Century Fox, was based on his extensively researched account of the Jack the Ripper murders, a 572-page black-and-white title illustrated by Eddie Campbell. Mr. Moore had no creative participation in the film, and happily so. "There was no way that I would be able to be fair to it," he said. "I did not wish to be connected with it, and regarded it as something separate to my work. In retrospect, this was kind of a naïve attitude."

Two years later, when 20th Century Fox released a movie version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," the screenwriter Larry Cohen and the producer Martin Poll sued the studio, charging that elements of the film had been plagiarized from their work. Though the film, which was one of the year's costliest flops, differed drastically from the graphic novel, the lawsuit nonetheless claimed that the "Extraordinary Gentlemen" comics had been created as a "smokescreen" to cover up the theft.

Mr. Moore found the accusations deeply insulting, and the 10 hours of testimony he was compelled to give, via video link, even more so. "If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin," he said, "I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours." When the case was settled out of court, Mr. Moore took it as an especially bitter blow, believing that he had been denied the chance to exonerate himself.

Since then, he has refused to allow any more movies to be made from work he controls. In the case of work whose rights he does not control, he has refused credits on any film adaptations, and has given his share of option money and royalties to the artists who illustrated the original comic books. That position is so radical that though his colleagues say they respect his position, few in the film industry can understand it.

"It's very simple, but they don't seem to hear it," said John O'Neill, the illustrator of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen." "They just gravitate towards offering more money."

Last year, when Mr. Moore received a phone call from Larry Wachowski — who, with his brother, Andy, had written and directed the "Matrix" movies — to discuss the "V for Vendetta" film that the Wachowskis were writing and producing for Warner Brothers, Mr. Moore felt he had made it clear that he did not want to be involved in the project.

"I explained to him that I'd had some bad experiences in Hollywood," Mr. Moore said. "I didn't want any input in it, didn't want to see it and didn't want to meet him to have coffee and talk about ideas for the film."

But at a press conference on March 4, 2005, to announce the start of production on the "V for Vendetta" film, the producer Joel Silver said Mr. Moore was "very excited about what Larry had to say and Larry sent the script, so we hope to see him sometime before we're in the U.K." This, Mr. Moore said, "was a flat lie."

"Given that I'd already published statements saying I wasn't interested in the film, it actually made me look duplicitous," he said.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Silver said he had misconstrued a meeting he had with Mr. Moore and Dave Gibbons nearly 20 years ago, when Mr. Silver first acquired the film rights to "Watchmen" and "V for Vendetta." (Mr. Silver no longer owns the rights to "Watchmen," though Warner Brothers is still planning an adaptation.) "I had a nice little lunch with them," he said, "and Alan was odd, but he was enthusiastic and encouraging us to do this. I had foolishly thought that he would continue feeling that way today, not realizing that he wouldn't."

Mr. Silver said he called Mr. Moore to apologize for his statement at the press conference, but that Mr. Moore was unmoved. "He said to me, 'I'm going to hang up on you if you don't stop talking to me,' " Mr. Silver recalled. "It was like a conversation with a tape recording."

Through his editors at DC Comics (like Warner Brothers, a subsidiary of Time Warner), Mr. Moore insisted that the studio publicly retract Mr. Silver's remarks. When no retraction was made, Mr. Moore once again quit his association with DC (and Wildstorm along with it), and demanded that his name be removed from the "V for Vendetta" film, as well as from any of his work that DC might reprint in the future.

The producers of "V for Vendetta" reluctantly agreed to strip Mr. Moore's name from the film's credits, a move that saddened Mr. Lloyd, who still endorses the film. "Alan and I were like Laurel and Hardy when we worked on that," Mr. Lloyd said. "We clicked. I felt bad about not seeing a credit for that team preserved, but there you go."

DC, however, said it would be inappropriate to take Mr. Moore's name off of any of his works. "This isn't an adaptation of the work, it's not a derivative work, it's not a work that's been changed in any fashion from how he was happy with it a minute ago," said Mr. Levitz.

Still, some DC editors hope that Mr. Moore might return. "He remains a good friend, and I would work with him again in a heartbeat," said Karen Berger, the executive editor of the DC imprint Vertigo, in an e-mail statement.

But Mr. Moore does not seem likely to change his mind this time. For one thing, his schedule is almost entirely consumed with other comics projects, including a new volume of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," to be released in late 2006 or early 2007 by the American publisher Top Shelf Productions. This summer, Mr. Moore said, Top Shelf will also be publishing "Lost Girls," his 16-years-in-the-making collaboration with Ms. Gebbie, a series of unrepentantly pornographic adventures told by the grown-up incarnations of Wendy Darling of "Peter Pan," Alice of "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland" and Dorothy Gale of "The Wizard of Oz." "I refuse to call it erotica, because that just sounds like pornography for people who've got more money," Mr. Moore said. "It would seem to be possible to come up with a kind of pornography that was meaningful and beautiful, not ugly."

Ms. Gebbie said she was more excited to see Mr. Moore finish his novel "Jerusalem," another years-long project that he estimates will total 750 pages when complete. "It's his story, his heritage, his blood ties and his amazing, wonderful system of beliefs," Ms. Gebbie said. "This book for him is an unfolding of his real, deep self."

But Mr. Moore suggested that his comic-book writing has already defined his identity. He recalled an encounter with a fan who asked him to sign a horrific issue of his 1980's comic "The Saga of the Swamp Thing"; the admirer then disclosed that he was a special effects designer for the television series "CSI: NY." "Every time you've got an ice pick going into someone's brain, and the close-ups of the little spurting ruptured blood vessels, and that horrible squishing sound, that's him," Mr. Moore said. "So that's something I can be proud of. This is my legacy."

...

Sorry about the length, but there it is. If you want to log in to read it, but don't want to register, use www.bugmenot.com
 
 
FinderWolf
16:43 / 13.03.06
New novel called "Jerusalem"? This is the first I've heard of this. Interesting.

>> "I am what Harry Potter grew up into," he said, "and it's not a pretty sight."

Great sentence.
 
 
FinderWolf
16:45 / 13.03.06
But this is the best sentence of the interview:

>> "If I had raped and murdered a schoolbus full of retarded children after selling them heroin," he said, "I doubt that I would have been cross-examined for 10 hours."

I had heard some of the story of the lawsuit regarding the movie of LEAGUE, but never heard the claim that the comic was created as a 'smokescreen' for the movie...one can see how this outlandish claim would royally infuriate anyone.
 
 
CameronStewart
18:42 / 13.03.06
AS I understand it, film producer Don Murphy was talking to Alan Moore some years ago and was asking him about what he was working on (which, at the time, was what would eventually become the ABC line). When Moore told Murphy about an idea he had for a Victorian-age superteam comprised of famous literary characters, Murphy loved it and immediately bought the film rights from Moore.

So, crucially for the lawsuit, the filmmaking process actually began BEFORE the comic came out. It was alleged that Murphy/Fox had received a script called "Cast of Characters," about a Victorian-age superteam comprised of famous literary characters, and then paid Alan Moore to create a comic with the same premise that they could "adapt."

I don't think there's any truth to the claim, but I do remember that it was odd seeing a full-page ad from Fox in Variety, congratulating Moore and O'Neill on the sale of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, when at the time the first issue had barely been out for a week...
 
 
FinderWolf
20:08 / 13.03.06
Innnteresting.....so it must be true that the film rights were purchased when Moore verbally communicated the basic idea, right? That sounds like it's fact as opposed to a claim. The rest is where it sounds like it become more murky...
 
 
FinderWolf
22:22 / 13.03.06
I know much has been made of the 'rights will revert to Moore when the graphic novel goes out of print' thing. In DC's defense, as Rich Johnston says this week, "... no one at the time would have predicted that twenty years on the book would still be in print." Back then, in the early 80s, paperback compilations of comic books were still very very new.

However, DC could have ethically given Moore the rights after a certain number of years had passed...but as a corporation they didn't want to give up a cash cow (as that would then become a domino effect with Watchmen and other Moore-created properties, and then other creators might then cry 'precedent!'). But they could have been more flexible about the whole thing. I imagine Moore still gets royalties for all his DC work, but still.
 
 
penitentvandal
08:00 / 14.03.06
Two years later, when 20th Century Fox released a movie version of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen," the screenwriter Larry Cohen and the producer Martin Poll sued the studio, charging that elements of the film had been plagiarized from their work. Though the film, which was one of the year's costliest flops, differed drastically from the graphic novel, the lawsuit nonetheless claimed that the "Extraordinary Gentlemen" comics had been created as a "smokescreen" to cover up the theft.

Ladies and gentlemen, this just in from our correspondent, people in Hollywood are now officially doing far too much cocaine...
 
 
■
09:05 / 14.03.06
I never made the connection between V having access to the party computers and the cutting or Rose Almond's benefits...

Ooh, neother had I. Makes sense, though. Fits with V's rejection of ceding your freedom to an authority by starting with cutting off a dependence on that authority.

BTW, I do recall at least one MP in Thatcher's Tories seriously suggesting the idea of Aids quarantine camps in the mid-1980s. Damned if I can remember who it was, though, and as teh interweb wasn't around then it's going to be hard to find. Maybe I'll try Hansard. Could be a hard slog.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
10:24 / 14.03.06
I saw V for Vendetta last night. I was far from 100% happy - but then again, I just reread it last week. Some bits of it were done well, other bits really sucked.
 
SPOILERS!
    
    
    
    
    
    
 
After V rescues Evey from the Fingermen, the next morning, V is in AN APRON. COOKING EGGS. Quite a lot of Evey and V's interaction in the Shadow Gallery is romantic-comedy-ised. Oh, and they fall in love. V is given a lot more humanity in the movie, he's more fallible.
 
Another thing is that Norsefire's christianity is emphasised a lot more, for what seemed to me were reasons of cheap controversy. Lewis Prothero, the voice of London, is now a TV demagogue/evangelist, who claims that the devestation wrought on America (which is now described as one big leper colony) was down to them being godless. Also, the Leader (now arch-chancellor) is just a face on a screen. Fate has been cut out, and less emphasis put on the government's 24/7 surveillance of the population. I kind of missed the Leader's "relationship" with Fate, the computer...
 
The character of Gordon is changed; he's played by Stephen Fry, and is a TV presenter. Evey does end up living with him, but he is killed for satirising the Leader (in a Benny Hill-esque sequence, which was actually pretty amusing), and for possessing illegal materials (an ornate Koran, and a painting called God Save The Queen, which is basically Andy Warhol's Marilyn Monroe, with John Hurt's face superimposed). And, after Evey runs away from V and goes to Gordon's house, their conversation mirrors her and V's. Oh, and Gordon cooks "eggy in a basket". *sighs*.
 
My main issue with the movie is the change in V's motives for rescuing Evey, and "freeing" her. In the book, Evey reads V's books, and understands his motives, and when she is ready, V puts his plan into operation; he dies, and she takes his place, as a new V for a new world. In the movie, V leaves the shadow gallery to her because he is in love with her. Thus, evey doesn't take over from V. There's a conceptually ok but cheesily executed moment at the end where a crowd of people, all dressed as V with hats, masks and cloaks, are charging through London, and as the houses of parliament explode, they all take off their masks; they are all minor characters who died during the film, tying in with Evey's words that V was every one of them. Which meant that the end of the book, which I loved - "Rumours of my demise have been greatly exaggerated" - was cut.
 
The Stones' Street Fighting Man played over the end credits. Which was kinda cool.
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
11:19 / 14.03.06
fackya, Washowskys. fackya, Hollywood.

still, I want to see this, fackmiself.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
11:46 / 14.03.06
Well, if you do, Hector, keep an eye out for the GROUNDBREAKING, UNCOMPROMISING SPECIAL EFFECTS! From the people who brought you BULLET TIME - we get KNIFE TIME and RAIN TIME!
 
 
H3ct0r L1m4
12:00 / 14.03.06
woo-hoooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!
hahahahaha, oh, man...

and fackya, alan moore, for letting yourself be facked like that. sue the mudafackars if you will, big beard, but stop
regretting giving your cherry to Hollywood.

thanks, JAW, for posting the article.
 
 
Alex's Grandma
12:03 / 14.03.06
Lousy review on 'Film 2006 with Jonathan Ross' last night... Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.
 
 
penitentvandal
12:13 / 14.03.06
Wossy's just annoyed that this means he will have to name his secret US-prisons-in-Europe movie something other than 'R for Rendition'...

Also:

V is in AN APRON. COOKING EGGS.

Looking forward to the inevitable tie-in 'Cooking with V' book...

'Eggs: Yes, eggs, like, from something's ovaries. They can be prepared in many ways: boiled, fried, scrambled, poached, made into an omellette, and (somehow) in a basket. I myself like to cook them by putting them in a small metal box full of dynamite, then BLOWING UP THE HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT! Eggs a la V there, lovely. Next week, how to cook a sunday roast while carrying out a decades-long cladestine plan of revenge.'
 
 
jeed
12:19 / 14.03.06
[rot]
Cube, the esteemed fuckwit who came up with the idea for AIDS quarantine camps in the 80s was Christopher Monckton and it was published in

"Monckton, Christopher, "AIDS: A British View," THE AMERICAN SPECTATOR, 1/87, p29"

"There is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life…Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month…all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently".

There's more details and a bio here

[/rot]
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
12:39 / 14.03.06
Oh, and also V's introductory monologue (lovingly reproduced here)
was shit. Mind you, not even Brian Blessed could've made that sound good.
 
 
Seth
13:36 / 14.03.06
I quite like the idea of V in an apron. It would appeal to his sense of humour, I reckon.
 
 
sleazenation
14:11 / 14.03.06
as long as he isn't cooking eggy in a basket...
 
 
Andria
15:11 / 14.03.06
I saw this last night, too, and it was a bit hard to watch.

Spoilers, obviously:

I agree with much of what cloud said.

V is portrayed as slightly ridiculous and very human (in an apron cooking eggs, jokingly fencing with an old knight armor, breaking a mirror and crying as Evey leaves him and so on.

The Leader is replaced by a small angry man who screams all the time on large TV screens (an obvious Hitler caricature) rather than as a lonely, isolated human with a desperate relationship to a computer (which is entirely left out, by the way, making for some huge plot holes - although the question of how V can control all the megaphones on the streets is raised, it's never answered at all).

In the beginning when Evey gets in trouble with the finger men, she was not out to prostitute herself, instead, she was on her way to sleep with her boss Gordon who - despite being revealed later in the movie as a homosexual - regurlarly sleeps with younger women because he is expected to. Hm.

The whole sequence when Evey runs away from V and is taken in by Gordon is a bit strange. There are a lot of symmetry there - the scene when he cooks her breakfast closely mirrors the scene where V does the same, the scene where the finger men come and take Gordon away very much resembles the flashback scene where Evey's mother is arrested, and I think there were a few other such scenes. I'm not quite sure what the purpose of it is, though - is it about evolving and deepening the Evey character, is it meant to be a nod to Watchmen, is it just the Wachowskis trying to be clever for no particular reason?

V's terrorist action are done in a very different order from the comic, which I can understand why they changed, but it managed to destroy a few key scenes. As the Old Bailey is blown up by V at the very start of the scene, where he does something similar to the conducting scene in the comic, the scene between V and Justitia never happens, so a lot of V's motives go unexplained. It seems that V is fuelled mostly by revenge, which goes against the whole idea that V is just an ideal.

There is a very cheesy scene where V says to Evey that he thought he was unable to feel anything, but then she came along and he fell in love. What?

Lewis Prothero does seem like he would be more likely to appear on FOX News than British radio, which is probably the point. A lot of things seemed to have been included just because of 9/11 - there are references to the US as having torn the world with endless wars until it collapsed into a civil war; V mentions when he is plotting to blow up Parliament that destroying a single building can bring about great change; the media is used as a tool to instill fear in the population, even mentioning the avian flu.

Don't even get me started on the ending. V uses the British post company to send out V masks to everyone and no one has a problem with (it's not like an authoritarian government would check what is being manufactured and transported or anything) and the power of the V symbol and the anarchy it stands for is destroyed as masses of people dress up in identical uniforms and marches down the streets...

And so on. I could go on a lot longer about changed that annoyed me greatly and not-so-greatly (haven't even mentioned Finch, who plays a pretty big role in the movie, and his investigation, "Saint Mary's," the pointless Guy Fawkes opening scene, etc., etc.).

But as you notice, all I do is complain about how it was different from the comic, not how good it was as a movie. My friend, who has never read the comic, thought the movie was consistently great, and I think he might be right. I had a hard time relaxing and just enjoying the movie, because I like the source material so much I just found myself comparing it scene-to-scene instead of noticing the strenghts of the movie. And it was a good movie: the scene where V and Evey are introduced is great; Valerie's letter almost made me cry (even though they changed some of my favourite lines from it, such as "I know every inch of this cell. This cell knows every inch of me. Except one." [inexact quotation]) and it was exciting throughout.

If you do see it, and I would recommend it, don't think to much about the comic. Doing that almost ruined an otherwise enjoyable movie for me.

Oh and I thought it was kind of fun how Evey and V danced to "Bird Guhl" by Antony & The Johnsons, in the Shadow Gallery, which reminds me of one other thing I was going to mention. The movie, which was set sometime ten or fifteen years from today, seemed a bit unsure of what time period it should be in. Most things looked very much like the present day - cellphones, TVs, fashion - but there were some science fiction stuff that went by almost entirely unexplained such as a small (plot) device with a red light on it that seemed to jam recording devices, or something, while some parts of the movie looked a lot older - it was strange to see Valerie's life look almost exactly as in the comic, but set in 2015.

Sorry for the incoherence and any spelling mistakes.
 
 
CameronStewart
16:53 / 14.03.06
Oh god...the description of V breaking down and crying over Evey, and him confessing love for her, sounds absolutely dreadful.

Does it change the connotation of him kidnapping and torturing her?
 
 
FinderWolf
17:01 / 14.03.06
UGH. V should not be in love with Evey. Or at least he shouldn't show it and blubber about it.

Rain Time and Knife Time...yikes.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
17:07 / 14.03.06
Cameron - the whole kidnap and torture are *fairly* faithful...in the movie, V's rationale is "you said you wanted to be free of fear, and I love you, and it was TEH HARDEST THING I EVER HAD TO DO" and so forth. She still feels hard done by, until he shows her a movie poster with Valerie in it, when it kinda clicks into place for her.
 
 
lonely as a cloud...
17:13 / 14.03.06
Um, to ameliorate my negativity... Stephen Rea's Finch, whose character was changed quite a bit, was good. There was a subplot about how the government used nasty bioweapons (in which the chemical company owned by prominent party members owned a major share) on their own people, and blamed it on terrorists; Finch, as head of the Fingermen, was investigating V, and trying to find out more about Larkhill - but was blocked. V, disguised as the last living worker from Larkhill that Finch discovered, told Finch about this; Finch eventually comes around to the idea, and finished the movie on a parapet, with Evey, watching the houses of parliament explode.
 
 
tickspeak
17:32 / 14.03.06
No, the romance has absolutely no effect on the rest of the movie because it is limp and obviously shoe-horned in. You sort of clench through the few moments and then enjoy the rest of it as you can. Evey's prison sequence is excellent and its conclusion is well-played and in line with V's expected characterization.

Stephen Fry should get a million dollars every time anyone in the world says "eggy in a basket" because HE HAD TO SAY IT ON SCREEN. Also he handled his "I'm gay but I still have dignity, does that surprise you? LOOK, THE KORAN" moment really well. Which brings me to the main strength of the film which is also something that will have some fans of the book gnashing their teeth. The movie is about the current moment and it is made from an American perspective. It is an (immaturely articulated but from a place of considered dissatisfaction) indictment of the current state of American government and society. The first sequence in the movie (after the relatively innofensive Guy Fawkes intro) is a British Bill O'Reilly telling us why the movie isn't about America (which was offensive). Even so, though, I think it's a slick, relatively dense movie that gets at the heart of modern American complacency. The climax when the people of London put on V masks (and hats and capes and possibly even tunics too, I'm not sure) worked perfectly for me--V gave the people a gift to help them along to his way of thinking, and it was the same gift he gave Evey. He freed them from fear by granting them invisibility (though Evey finds her invisibility after she gives up fear...whatever). The fireworks get the people to take the masks off again once they've overcome that initial fear of walking towards a platoon of soldiers aiming guns at them, at which point they (the masks) are no longer necessary.

The lovingly-captured Explosion Porn was exquisite and really bookended the movie (which is a lot more talk than anything else, not to its detriment) in a satisfying way. I thought the Cop Killer Porn scene (Knife Time!) was pretty ill-conceived and ill-executed.

It is Hollywood, make no mistake. But the appelation "uncompromising" is only about half a complete load of horseshit--there's a surprising amount of depth behind the clunky script.
 
 
penitentvandal
08:38 / 15.03.06
I think V being in love with Evey is a big mistake. It takes away a lot of the edge from it - the whole 'or perhaps I'm your father?' thing of V being apparently indifferent to Evey's feelings was a dynamic I really liked in the comic, and it annoys me that it won't be in the film. I've said it before and I'll say it again: why does every big film these days have to have a romantic subplot in it?

I'm still psyched to see it, though. The comments about criticisms of the film basically being 'well, it wasn't like that in the book' remind me a lot of when my partner and I saw Constantine - I spent the first half hour of it thinking 'but no, it isn't like that' while my partner, who's never read the comics, was able to get into it just as a movie and quite enjoyed it. I thought it was okay, but suffered from (a) not being set in London and (b) Keanu Reeves. Hopefully V will be a bit better. In fact, of course it will, being set in London and lacking in Keanu Reeves! I feel better already.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 910111213(14)1516171819... 22

 
  
Add Your Reply