V For Vendetta: Thoughts? SPOILERS!!!

[numba1lostboy]

I jst got back from V For Vendetta...quite an eye-opening movie. I takes a while for the full impact of the film's themes to sink in. I would love to hear any thoughts you guys have about this movie.

[Paka]

I saw this film last night, not knowing much at all about the original comic, the premise, or the cast. I just thought I'd take a chance on it after seeing a few tv spots.

I can certainly say now that I don't regret it one bit! This is truly another stellar comic book film adaptation - right up there with Sin City, imo. Despite the ad campaign promoting it as an action-packed film, there really aren't a ton of fights or explosions. The ones that do occur, however, are fantastically done! With classical music choreography, too!

So even though there's not a ton of action - and more than a few scenes of talking heads - the film is still so well-cut and tightly edited with gripping, tense sequences that you find yourself drawn in and held there for over 2 hours. It was even making my legs twitch involuntarily! As for the cast - wow!! An acclaimed actor and the voice of the U.K. Harry Potter audio books, Stephen Fry, is an irreverant Jay Leno-esque talk-show host, and plays his part wonderfully. Natalie Portman is fantastic as Evey - it's a refreshing change from her vapid Amidala/Padmé character. I hadn't realized V was Hugo Weaving until I saw the credits; boy, does that man have a sexy, sexy voice. And the fact that John Hurt played the everyday guy in 1984, and here instead plays the Big Brother character, is gloriously ironic. ^_^

Undoubtedly, the most overt theme of the film was political. The story takes place in a fascist U.K. only a few decades from now, and the film makes mention of "the former U.S." inundated in chaos and civil war of its own. The future U.K.'s national motto is "Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith" and "England Prevails!" The whole society is a police state, with the public controlled by fear, and the absolutely powerful few corrupted, well, absolutely. A vigilante freedom fighter known only as V uses powerfully symbolic tactics and selective, vengeful killings of corrupt individuals in order to hand the power back to the people - for all of his actions, he's labeled a terrorist. His path crosses with an unlikely ally in Evey Hammond, and their relationship is quite unusual; taking interesting turns throughout the film.

The subversive and very powerful themes of the film are at once entertaining and thought-provoking. Being that this fictional film shows a very real possible scenario for powerful industrial societies playing out, I certainly hope that the people who choose to see this film take away some thoughts on their own relevant state of living, and their own, very much real, oppressive government...

Through its "mask" of entertainment, V For Vendetta is a contemporary call to arms. And I truly hope there are at least a handful out there who will listen...

[numba1lostboy]

That's pretty much what I thought, too. The poetic recital of the opening dialogue sent chills down my spine...and I had no knowledge of the comic book or the story line at all.

The main theme I got out of the movie was that people, when standing together, can do anything. I know that's kinda sugarcaoting it a bit, but that's where my conservative side shows. I really liked the movie and I wanted to be able to apply it to my morals.

The ending was kinda starnge...when V tells Evey that it's not his job to pull the lever, I was thinking, then whose job is it? I agreed with what V said, but only because it's not any one person's job to decide whether or not a person, however evil he/she may be, lives or dies.

Also, after V had killed all the political leaders and half of London lay in ruin, I was wondering how the people are supposed to go back to the way life was. From what I saw, life from then on would be anarchy. It would stay that way until another person or group took control. Then the cycle is liable to start all over again.

If the movie was placing its ending in the hands of human togetherness, then the film has a lot of faith in mankind to think it would stick together to form a more perfect government. Only in the movies, I guess....

The effects were SWEET! The action packed trailers were misleading in the amount of action they led us to beleive the movie had, but every action sequence was mind-boggling amazing!! At the end when V's knives swirl throught the air and you see the trail....SO COOL.

V was just all around cool. They never really explained his backstory to the point where I fully understood it, though. If there was one place that movie could improve on, that would be it. But I forsee a two-disc unrated and extended edition DVD for this movie, so I bet I'll get more of the story then. But in the meantime, is there anyone who knows V's backstory and who could explain the whole coming-out-of-the-fire-and-screaming-bloody-murder thing to me?

[2099net]

But in the meantime, is there anyone who knows V's backstory and who could explain the whole coming-out-of-the-fire-and-screaming-bloody-murder thing to me?

I have read the comic book, but its been a long, long, time. Anyhow, this may be an explanation for what you mention (I'm sure that if not a literal explanation, its a symbolic one).

V's mask is that of Guy Fawkes who tried to blow up the British Parliament in 1605 (due to religious beliefs/persecution/intolerance *sigh* as always. And this was just among Christians!) but he failed and was (I think) tortured, hung, drawn and quartered. Guy Fawkes was, arguably, one of, if not the first terrorists.

The British celebrate his capture (or arguably in the dim mists of time, some who supported his plot celebrated his attempt to blow up Parliament) on the 5th November each year – Bonfire Night, or Guy Fawkes Night. The film was due to open in the UK – where it has more cultural relevance – on Guy Fawkes Night, but the London bombings in July made Warners change the opening date. However, some teaser adverts for V for Vendetta were published with the strap line "Remember, remember the 5th of November. Gunpowder, treason and plot." before it was delayed. These are the first 2 lines of a popular British poem about Guy Fawkes.

On Bonfire Night big bonfires are built with effigies of Guy Fawkes (or dummies representing other hated individuals) placed at the top and burnt. We also have firework displays. Although this tradition keeps the story of Guy Fawkes alive, and it is known to every schoolchild, the fact that he was one of the first "terrorists" is often ignored or simplified in the retellings.

V and the story V for Vendetta obviously has lots of parallels to Guy Fawkes and his story.

The future U.K.'s national motto is "Strength through Unity, Unity through Faith" and "England Prevails!" The whole society is a police state, with the public controlled by fear, and the absolutely powerful few corrupted, well, absolutely.

Sounds like Antz!

A vigilante freedom fighter known only as V uses powerfully symbolic tactics and selective, vengeful killings of corrupt individuals in order to hand the power back to the people - for all of his actions, he's labeled a terrorist.

Which is basically the drive of the original comicbook – when does a "Freedom Fighter" become a "Terrorist"? But the original pushes V further away from the heroic freedom fighter ideal, and makes his actions much more callous, blurring the lines between the two even more. Can a "freedom fighter" justify or dismiss innocent deaths he causes if it's for the "greater good"? What is the definition of good? And do oppressive, monstrous regimes themselves create opposition which is even more oppressive and monstrous?

I'm impressed Warner are releasing this, just as I was that they released Constantine, another film that was liable to offend those looking to be offended. However, Constantine wasn't quite "right" and chickened out at the ending (over smoking no less) despite going full hog with its concepts of blasphemy and heresy (and then it chickens out over smoking and totally ruins the perfect comicbook ending!). I hope V for Vendetta doesn't chicken out too much.

From the UK reviews, this film has got either 4 or 5 stars, or 1 or 2 stars. Roughly in equal amounts. It seems to be a film people are either going to love or hate. I'm most interested in seeing it on DVD when it is released.

For both of you, here's the Wikipedia entry for the comicbook series which addresses a lot of the reasoning and plot. It is noted that V's backstory is never revealed.

[deathie mouse]

But Netty, you didn't answer numba1lostboy's question.

I haven't read the comic, but i think what happened in the fire is that either an accident happened and V, having improved reflexes, physicality; byproduct to the drug/virus effects, whatever, used the opportunity to escape, or actually became so strong during the experimentation, that V created it to escape. And of course V being an intelligent, aware, and cultured human being, didnt take being treated like that very well :-p

I could be wrong tho as i havent read the comic :-p

And i give it a 5. I just didnt totally like one thing of it but numba1lostboy liked that so 5 for it

I wish they did Batman movies like this

[numba1lostboy]

Thanks to both of you.

That whole "Guy Fawkes Night" tradition sounds fairly creepy. I'm glad that we in the US don't got to the extremes that the UK does.

I think I'm going to try to find the comic book and read it. That will probably answer my questions the best.

The poem that Evey narrates a the beginning of the film is the "Remember remember the 5th of November" one. Does anyone know that whole poem. It sounded so cool when she was reading it.

[2099net]

its in the wikipedia article I linked to

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
gunpowder, treason and plot,
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
should ever be forgot.
Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes,
'twas his intent
to blow up the King and the Parliament.
Three score barrels of powder below,
Poor old England to overthrow:
By God's providence he was catch'd
With a dark lantern and burning match.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring.
Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King!
Hip hip hoorah!

These verses are usually left off modern day recitations of the poem (for an obvious reason. See if you can guess what it is ):

A penny loaf to feed the Pope.
A farthing o' cheese to choke him.
A pint of beer to rinse it down.
A faggot of sticks to burn him.
Burn him in a tub of tar.
Burn him like a blazing star.
Burn his body from his head.
Then we'll say ol' Pope is dead.
Hip hip hoorah!
Hip hip hoorah!

Don't worry. Bonfire night is great fun. Just the thing for a cold November evening. A good big fire, lots of treacle toffee, toffee apples and fireworks.

Deathie, like I said, its a long time since I read the book, about 7 years. I borrowed it off a work college, and I honestly cannot remember much detail about the story.

[Paka]

Which is basically the drive of the original comicbook – when does a "Freedom Fighter" become a "Terrorist"? But the original pushes V further away from the heroic freedom fighter ideal, and makes his actions much more callous, blurring the lines between the two even more. Can a "freedom fighter" justify or dismiss innocent deaths he causes if it's for the "greater good"? What is the definition of good? And do oppressive, monstrous regimes themselves create opposition which is even more oppressive and monstrous?

I went to the Wiki article and found it interesting that Alan Moore is quoted to say, "...the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think, and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history."

Personally I like deliberately ambiguous themes like that - leaving the reader to his own devices and whatnot. I'm not a black-and-white kind of person. It seems that absolutes are comfortable for more "average" people, and it's a shame that the reality of life being a spectrum of grays is appreciated only by those on the "fringe" of society.

Also... from the sound of the graphic novel summary, a few things were switched around here and there in the film, though it still stayed quite true to the core story. That V's backstory is never fully exposed is a bit frustrating... but it does tie in well with the story's overall theme of ambiguity.

[2099net]

Well, I watched this mid-week on DVD and all I can say is: Wow!

This is the best comic (Graphic Novel) to film adaptation ever. It buries *all* of the Batman films, even my much-loved Batman Returns. It also makes a much better job than either of the Spider-Man films have.

But its a bit unfair to compare film versions of basically on-going soaps to an adaptation of a story with a proper beginning, middle and end. I just feel Alan Moore has cut off his nose to spite his face with his rants against the film, his insistance on not being credited and even the fact that he refused a royalty payment!

I can understand him not being happy with films like From Hell (above average, but a shallow version of his work) and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen (much more fun than I was expecting, but totally different from his source), but this adaptation I feel was virtually flawless. If a noted theatrical playwrite were to adapt a Shakespere play to film, it would be no better an adaptation than this.

Even the much quoted "Eggie in a Basket" rant from Moore played right in the context of the film. I really don't understand what's up with Moore. He's even decided to quit DC because of this film.

(Although hopefully it was working hard on the upcoming The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen: The Black Dossier graphic novel that stressed him out!)

I do have some reservations though, but only minor flaws.

Firstly, it appears the British go around saying "bollocks" all the time. Whatever! Bollocks to that!

Secondly, I thought the knife-play at the end was to graphic. We don't need to see dozens of people stabbed and sliced in slow-motion with gushes of blood to get the point. The second point is the most disappointing aspect of the film, after the rest of the film managed so well conveying the story with dialogue.

[satas]

Moore's main complaint with the movie, is that it took a book based on the brittish government of the 80's and turned it into a parable about current american politics. The book was more aimed at anarchy, and he felt if the producers wanted to make a movie bashing the current american administration, they should have set the movie in america, and not changed his vision to suit theirs. He specifically cited all the talk about the war in america, the sillyness wtih the koran, etc. as things he felt were added for no reason. The character of Evee was changed quite a bit too. As a big fan of the comic, i understod where he was coming from, but honestly, i thought it was an incredible movie. The book might not have translated as well, considering he blew up parliment at the very start, and later got around to the bailey. I really liked how the movie built up the whole year and ended with a bang.

[2099net]

Well, like I said earlier in the thread, its been a long time since I read the graphic novel, but I thought it was a spot on adaptation (allowing for the changes needed for a transition from page to screen which most adaptations need). The book I got with the DVD only contains the first 9 chapters, so I still can't do a direct comparison.

I understand the story was originally published in a british comic called Warrior, a weekly anthology title (thus the short chapters). As it was originally only intended for a British audience, there was no need to address the US. However, in a film created for a primarily US audience, its pretty clear the US question had to be addressed. In the end, it was covered in a few lines, during a few scenes, so I can't really see the problem.

As for the parallels to the Bush administration, I don't believe there were many changes for this. The point is immediately obvious when watching the film, but I don't think many changes were made. Presumably the original was written as a reaction to Thatcher's government. Some of Moore's predictions are uncannily accurate (such as closed-circuit TV - I believe Britain has more CCTV cameras per head of population than any other country). But again, a story written in the mid-80's with a context based around the mid-80's (Mid-80's Britain at that) just wouldn't appeal. The skill comes in making the story address contemporary issues while keeping the essense of the story intact.

And I belive this adaptation does that. The stuff with the Koran may not be in the original, but its not "sillyness" (especially after some of the public's reactions to the 8/10 terrorist attempt over here) - its a small detail added which makes his story more modern.

Obviously, you couldn't do a story about a Guy Fawkes themed hero/villain and set it anywhere else but Britain. I still think Moore has made himself appear a little foolish with his outspoken comments about this film. I wonder how much of the original script etc he saw before bailing? I think past incidents were tainting his judgement too much. I'm sure if this was the first Alan Moore written film, his attitude to films would be different. He should also give Warner Bros. credit for actually making the film, in such difficult times - especially when there's a vocal minority ready to jump on anything with these themes and label them "Un-American".

[satas]

I should have pointed out the "sillyness about the koran" was a direct quote from moore. Like i said i liked the movie quite a bit, and i know dave gibbons said he did too. The biggest changes for me were evee working for the television station, and the fact that she wasnt basically a street walker as she was trying to be in the book. Her friend she stayed with in the book also was not a tv show employee, nor was he gay, he was someone she was intimate with during her stay. I know the movie wanted to make her more "innocent". I do think the movie flowed much better than the original book however, with the build up over a year. The one thing i dont get is why they changed the posters to say "strength through unity, unity though faith." instead of the original "strength through purity, purity through faith"

[hudday]

stunning film and i own the 2 disc dvd version which will also answer all questions about background etc, you get half the original novel for free as well we do a guy fawkes night here in the uk as someone mentioned earlier, basically everyone burns effegys of the man and send fireworks up to the sky all night long, was always scared of it as a child