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 ... 1617181920(21)22

 
 
sleazenation
21:07 / 11.04.06
V as viable alternative?

In what way? As a single man or a figurehead? Either way I have to ask, what is going to come after the toppling of Norsefire? There isn't a viable opposition - there isn't a transitional authority or potential care-taker government?

A bullet in the right place can change the world, but it can't achieve effective, responsible government...
 
 
This Sunday
21:38 / 11.04.06
"A bullet in the right place is no substitute for the real thing." ~ from 'The Invisibles', somewhere near the end (possibly the last issue).

What the film(makers, producers, et cetera) seem to be missing, with the adaptation, is that while V is being vigorously confrontational, he doesn't have to be right. You don't have to agree with him. The impetus is forcing a choice, a reaction, a decision from each person. Birth pangs of anarchy, and that moment when the doctor, who may be a gay, hermaphroditic paranoid druggy with a nice hat, or not, smacks the baby on the bottom. Baby cries, baby doesn't cry, or grows up to become a doctor as well or not... but it isn't the doctor's decision.

Yes/no?
 
 
Hallo, Paper Spaceboy
21:43 / 11.04.06
Well, yes, that's what's brilliant about the film. They've brought down Norsefire. On the way home from the movie, the BF and I discussed how open-ended the movie was - they've toppled the government, and now what? There's nothing to stop it being just as bad. It's more about the revolution and the revolving than what comes next.

I'm not sure V is viable from the standpoint of knowing the whole story, but to characters within the film who know nothing of the power-play and personalities involved, he symbolized something else. People will always cling to those images/people that present them with change, even if V's whole point is that England has to come into its own.

Part of what intrigued me about the film was that there was a broader sense of individual choice - sure, you didn't advertize your collection of esoterica, but there was still the beginnings of a movement already there. Evey stood out to me in the first scene; she says "That's quite enough of that," and shuts off the propaganda-vision before heading out to meet her destiny. She makes a small choice in the way she views the regime that suggests that there is more open dissent (look at the uncensored script, even though it brings Fry's execution).
 
 
sleazenation
22:30 / 11.04.06
I'm not sure that the 'open ended' ending is brilliance, rather it is an expedient missing of the point.

In the book we have V ushering in anarchy as an end in itself, with its attendant messy violence (although its portrayal is still quite mild compared to the regime change portrayed in The Adventures of Luther Arkwright). The film attempts to sidestep this, perhaps to appease the qualms of studio execs, and imply the easy removal of an opressive government, going so far as to suggest an immediately better world. It shows us an unreal vision of a bloodless revolution, which strikes me as quite far short of 'brilliant'.

As for the viability of V as an idea, ideas might be bulletproof, but they aren't a viable government. V handed out masks, not government portfolios and areas of responsibility.
 
 
CameronStewart
22:42 / 11.04.06
>>>Well, yes, that's what's brilliant about the film. They've brought down Norsefire. On the way home from the movie, the BF and I discussed how open-ended the movie was - they've toppled the government, and now what?<<<

I don't believe this to be an intentional ambiguity on the part of the Wachowskis, the rest of the film is so simplistic (in contrast to the book), and building up to a triumphant end - the corrupt, murderous conservative government is toppled, and I think it is clearly suggested that its absence now creates freedom and joy for all. In those closing moments I didn't see any doubt or ambiguity about what happens next - it's simply not a concern in the thin story the W's were telling.
 
 
CameronStewart
22:44 / 11.04.06
Ah crap, I didn't see Sleaze's post, he basically just said the exact same thing. Apologies.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
08:09 / 12.04.06
Well, it's certainly an improvement in the Matrix film in that the Wachowski's don't expect us to cheer on the fascists.

But as the film V is a freedom fighter and not an anarchist, and the Government is merely oppresive-authoritarian rather than fascist, does anyone have better recall than me as to whether film V ever says either 'anarchy' or claims to be an anarchist?
 
 
Dead Megatron
08:35 / 12.04.06
No, he doesn't.

The only mention to anarchy is when a robber in V mask yells "Anarchy in the UK", which I thought it was funny, but totally missing the point.
 
 
illmatic
12:49 / 12.04.06
The film attempts to sidestep this, perhaps to appease the qualms of studio execs, and imply the easy removal of an opressive government, going so far as to suggest an immediately better world. It shows us an unreal vision of a bloodless revolution

Totally with Sleaze on this one. It was a Hollywood revolution, complete with soundtrack - that scene segues right into a 40 year old "classic" rock "rebellion" tune (no doubt it had a few execs punching the air on the drive home from the board meeting). So much so that after seeing it, I had thought of starting a thread asking if people had seen anything more realistic - cinema which captures the real chaos and uncertainty of these times. Still open to suggestions here, if anyone knows enough please start the thread.

I don't think the scene was broadly intended as metaphorical either. I don't credit the Wachowski's with that much subtlety.
 
 
sleazenation
13:37 / 12.04.06
It is also another reason that I find it so infurating that the film was sold as 'an uncompromising vision' as opposed to the deeply compromised adaptation that it was.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
15:11 / 12.04.06
Yes, but Disney market their stuff as 'classics', so let's go easy here. Let's not blame the Wachowskis for the advertising of their film.
 
 
This Sunday
16:45 / 12.04.06
Why can't we blame someone for how their material is marketed, if they make no effort to correct or counter?

Marketing: Alan Moore loves this thing!
Moore: Like hell I do!
Marketing: Well, he loved the idea of a film adaptation, twenty years ago.
Moore: Name. Off. Now. Call me Smithee. Or, Bird.

Or Larry Hama and 'GI Joe' and the bit about why soldiers might not want their kids to be soldiers, turned into rightwing propaganda. He spelled it out in interviews shortly after the issue came out, as I recall.

'Clockwork Orange' and Burgess' assertion that cutting off the end misses the point.

Michael Chabon admitting that claims of him originating certain methods and tics... and that he was legitimizing and making adult all this comics stuff, was bull.

Ballantine being heroically unsupportive of Tim Barrus when he was outed as a fake, a fraud, and a thief. Cancelling his contract and pulling his books.

David Lynch and 'Dune' and credit/no-credit.

Same, 'Mimic' and del Toro.

'Sin City' and its director credit being shared with Frank Miller.

If we can cheer when people do the right thing or stick to their guns, especially when its a public deal, why is it wrong to criticize someone who appears to be just letting the thing ride? Or, perhaps, agreeing.
 
 
Quantum
10:19 / 14.04.06
Did someone already link the Alan Moore interview? What did people think?
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:40 / 23.04.06
Just watching it now... and my God! Voice of Fate analogue/TV presenter guy (not sure of his name in the film) IS Peter Hitchens!!!
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
20:44 / 23.04.06
Ah. Still Protheroe.
 
 
sleazenation
21:23 / 23.04.06
I'm glad I'm not the only one who made that connection...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:33 / 23.04.06
Well, I feel utterly pissed off for having bought a dodgy DVD. Got to the prison part then cut. Missed out Valerie entirely. I've stopped it (as it's suddenly cut to Evey in the Shadow Gallery), and as I planned to anyway will try to find somewhere still showing it this week. BALLS!
 
 
CameronStewart
22:10 / 23.04.06
 
 
Alex's Grandma
01:18 / 24.04.06
Stoat, pirate DVD's fund terrorism, and jeopardise the future production of films like 'Scary Movie 4' and 'Potato Lives Of The Sex Men,' or whatever it was called.

Go to the naughty step, and don't come back until you can recite the script for 'Love Actually' verbatim, you bad, bad man.
 
 
bjacques
14:13 / 24.04.06
Don't buy from pirates; download and cut out the middleman. If yer gonna give yer money to someone, then give it to those single-breasted woman warriors who sell books and DVDs online.

Arrrr...
 
 
sleazenation
15:20 / 24.04.06
Ah but 'Potato Lives Of The Sex Men,' was funded by national lottery money and therefore was entirely unaffected by piracy, not least because no one really wanted to see it...
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
16:46 / 24.04.06
Don't buy from pirates?

I'm hardly gonna buy from fucking ninjas, am I?
 
 
Sniv
17:59 / 24.04.06
Ah, but I bet nijii could cam in the cinema without getting busted and having to chop out half the film. If only you could find the crafty buggers to buy their stealthy warez.
 
 
Triplets
18:23 / 24.04.06
I only buy from subway pirates
 
 
Char Aina
18:28 / 24.04.06
pssst.
john.
innit
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
16:09 / 01.05.06
Sesame Street/V for Vendetta parody.
 
 
Henningjohnathan
19:20 / 02.05.06
I may have missed this discussion, but there seems to be a central flaw to the logic of the story.

I'm pretty sure that we are supposed to believe that V and Valerie's camp was where the Party came up with the virus that they released at St. Mary's school and on the tubes and that water treatment plant as well as the cure for the disease that they "discovered" after the Party took power and started putting people into camps.

I think you can see my problem. It's made clear that people didn't start disappearing and weren't sent to camps until AFTER the outbreak. Valerie's story clearly makes the point that when the flowers died (the outbreak) she was still living with her lover in the London flat.

Since she's in the scene with the first group of inmates to Larkhill, how can Larkhill be where they discovered the virus and the cure when it came long after the outbreak that let the party take power? How could the party have used the virus from Larkhill to take power when it had taken power before the Larkhill project even began?

Is there an explanation other than V was lying? How could Finch have been this improbably gullible?
 
 
Seth
23:21 / 02.05.06
So are you saying that V is immortal? Or that Evey is a Timelord?
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
06:33 / 03.05.06
I think the timeline all makes sense if we don't jump to the conclusion that you do in your second paragraph. I never assumed that, although I suspect that's because I read the graphic novel first, in which the environmental crisis is a nuclear winter and Larkhill is more obviously like a concentration camp in WW2. Doesn't the very fact that you see the flaw suggest that your reading is wrong?
 
 
Seth
10:35 / 03.05.06
Right. So Larkhill is one giant time machine, the interior of which exists outside of linear time. That makes a lot more sense.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
00:00 / 04.05.06
No, silly. Larkhill is the holistic worldview. Duuh!
 
 
kamals
15:27 / 29.05.06
Quoth Who killed Dead Megatron? A theatre actor, for that matter. His gestures, his attitudes, his "affectation" are influenced by his craft, not his orentation. Not that he's not gay, he could be, and his professed "love" for Evey at the end could be easily a fraternal love...

I had a real impression that a sub-text existed, beneath the surface plot of the movie, implying that V could have been Evey's brother. That perhaps she did not see him actually die in the hospital. We know nothing of a funeral. This is, of course, a grasping at threads on my part. The movie seems to suggest, to hint at, something not unlike this, however.

There is, of course, the matter of the age difference. V seems older than her. This may not be the case, however.

In either case, the relationship between the two does seem decidedly fraternal with overtones of something romantic. It was certainly not erotic; their loved seems to have transcended eroticism.

Movie V is more human than Comic V. Less "sociopatic". I didn't care for that either.


I did cry with Valerie's story, though. But then again, I was already predisposed to.

It seemed forced and overdone, to be honest.

* I gave the subject some though. I guess people associate "gayness" with too much gestualization/"affectation" is because straigh male are so repressed, we/they can't move their arms around much. Pay attentation, straight male always have their arms crossed, or their hands on their pockets, or they are holding a mug of beer.

This is a generalization that is highly dependant on cultural factors. I've known, and have grown up with, Indo-Pak Desi straight men who certainly do not lack gestualization or affection, especially recent immigrants. Indeed I've seen gestualization of an intensity that would be considered highly effeminate in many straight, white, quarters. Ditto for many Arab guys I know.

Within the bastion of Western culture, there are many other ethnic sub-cultures in which a high degree of gestualization is a norm among straight men. In spite of degrees of stoic self-repression of emotions, or whatever.

I think that the aspect of self-repression is highly stereotyped. I can only speak from my own experiences.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:55 / 02.08.06
Finally got round to seeing it last night. And for a movie with the potential to be so bad, it was bloody good.

Realistically, I don't think it took any more liberties with the source material than the majority of comic or novel adaptations do. I even surprised myself by liking the Army of Vs. And the Valerie sequence was wonderful (had it not been, I'd have killed the Wachowskis myself), which put me in a frame of mind to forgive the movie a lot. Fortunately, there wasn't much that needed forgiving.

Shame Mr Moore had his name taken off, really- it's by far the best treatment the movies have given him.
 
 
Dead Megatron
18:10 / 02.08.06
The movie was all right, I just can't forgive the W-bros for removing any mention of Anarchy from V's mouth, because that's what had me when I read the comic, way back when I was 17. It changed my world view forever, opened it, turned me from a midle-class "square" kid to a - and forgive my lack of modesty - a free-thinker. And that's something the movie will not be able to do for the generation who watched it, I fear. A gravely missed oportunity, specially because there seem to be a lack of movies that blow our minds in the latest year, and this shoudl be one of those, but it wasn't

but the movie was not bad, per se...
 
 
Triplets
19:18 / 02.08.06
Everyone, that sound you hear? That's your cringes cringeing.
 
  

Page: 1 ... 1617181920(21)22

 
  
Add Your Reply