V For Vendetta

[buttsie]

Nice selection of vidcaps about 50 all up

http://joblo.com/upcomingmovies/movies.php?id=465

[Huc]

They have been playing V4V on FX channel here in US over the weekend, almost every other day.

[buttsie]

As much as i like this film seeing it being used & abused to simply fill in time is pathetic but so typical.Like theres a million movies in the back catalogue so you got to wonder why the repeat baloney

[vfan]

Hello everyone.
I have just bought the dvd last week and have been watching it repeatedly since, I think it is an excellent film, I am aware that fans of the GN are disappointed that it is not an identical story, but I think that would have been an unnecessary and wasteful duplication, instead they took the opportunity to update the story and provide a relevant and necessary warning of things to come if we are not careful, already the threat of terrorism is being used to restrict the freedoms of people in Britain and other countries, just as is supposed to have happened in the Britain portrayed in this film.
It is also that rarity, a thought provoking film, I am uncertain about the torture episode, Stockholm syndrome may mean that Evey is no longer able to think rationally about V and has effectively become his loyal and devoted Disciple.
I also liked the film Leon.

[vfan]

It has also been suggested that Evey takes over V's position after his death, but Evey clearly does not have V's wit , intelligence or skills to replace him, and even if she wears a mask everyone will know by the sound of her voice that it is not the real V they are hearing, and it would be interpreted as an attempt to censor V by the government or others.
Plus, everyone knows the name Evey Hammond so there really is no point in her wearing a mask.
We may be thankful that Hugo wore it , but who would want to hide Natalie's beautiful face.

[Carlotto]

The scene when she meets V after breaking out the prison is the best scene in cinema history imo

[Dazza]

Vfan - Welcome. Always nice to have some film discussion.

While the film managed to be quite thought provoking by "superhero" film standards, its still far less thought provoking than the novel.

The film was very watered down characters and situations, because they (perhaps rightly) didn't trust that audiences would be able to sign on for the full ride.

So in the film you've got an evil government that is clearly bad, lead by a simple villain of a man. Whereas the government in the novel was elected by the people and might, even though they are facist in nature, be good. And the leader of the party really believes he's doing the right thing.

Most of the characters get that simplifying brush taken to them, including V and Evey. V is a LOT more morally grey in the novel. He's, in a lot of respects, just as bad as the government. When all is said and done in the novel, there's no happy ending. It's anarchy and the future is completely uncertain.

And while there is a bit of doubt around Evey's transformation, the way V shapes her in the novel is incredibly ruthless and really leaves you wondering if she's had her eyes opened or if he has effectively brainwashed her.

I still think the film is pretty good and it does make some good changes, but the choices in the scripting and the overall fake hollywood sheen of the film disappointed me quite a bit.

Children of Men was closer to what I wanted from V.

[maverick88]

I'd like to think that there was a happy ending - the evil government overthrown and a democratic government was established again. I guess it's just one of the types of movies where you can draw your own conclusion. Sometimes I like movies like that and sometimes I don't. For Heat I think they left too many open questions for instance What happened to Val Kilmer's character? and also to Nat's character?

Oh yeah, welcome to the board vfan.

[Rachel]

Children of Men was closer to what I wanted from V.

IA. Times like a million. V for Vendetta was the biggest disappointment to me. It was just so sterilized and overstylized and I'm not really sure why I came in with high expectations. I was actually surprised that so many people loved it. Very overrated.

[vfan]

So in the film you've got an evil government that is clearly bad, lead by a simple villain of a man. Whereas the government in the novel was elected by the people and might, even though they are facist in nature, be good. And the leader of the party really believes he's doing the right thing.

Sounds realistic to me, most dictators only have simple demands. I do not believe a one party state can work for the good of the people, as the people at the top are simple, corruptible human beings.

Most of the characters get that simplifying brush taken to them, including V and Evey. V is a LOT more morally grey in the novel. He's, in a lot of respects, just as bad as the government. When all is said and done in the novel, there's no happy ending. It's anarchy and the future is completely uncertain.

I prefer the film's vision, the GN's V would not be able to inspire followers. Why bother revolting if the end result is even worse.

And while there is a bit of doubt around Evey's transformation, the way V shapes her in the novel is incredibly ruthless and really leaves you wondering if she's had her eyes opened or if he has effectively brainwashed her.

If this had been shown in the film I would not have felt comfortable even watching the film, it would have become something truly evil.
Whereas in the film, I really believed V was trying to help Evey, not destroy her or turn her into a programmed slave. I am still troubled by doubts over how much damage was done to Evey and whether she really is still essentially the same Evey that we saw at the start of the film, (only with less fear of death), I certainly would not encourage the use of torture as a practical psychological treatment.

I still think the film is pretty good and it does make some good changes, but the choices in the scripting and the overall fake hollywood sheen of the film disappointed me quite a bit.

Children of Men was closer to what I wanted from V.

I will look out for this dvd.

[Dazza]

Sounds realistic to me, most dictators only have simple demands. I do not believe a one party state can work for the good of the people, as the people at the top are simple, corruptible human beings.

I don't believe any human being is simple and I don't believe anyone is 100% bad or 100% good.

I prefer the film's vision, the GN's V would not be able to inspire followers. Why bother revolting if the end result is even worse.

From what I remember from the novel, he doesn't really have anything like the following he does in the film. It's essentially just Evey.

"Its funny, they're not the terrorists followers or anything. They're just rioters...but he's become some sort of all purpose symbol to them, hasn't he?"

"People need symbols, Dominic. He understood that. We've forgotten it. Those people outside lost families during the war. We've kept the lid on their bitterness for years, but we haven't helped them deal with it. Maybe he didn't either, but he certainly took the lid off."

That exchange from the novel is the crux of it. People were suppressed and deep down they were angry. V helped give them the freedom to vent, even if the result was a lot of really horrible things.

Birth is incredibly painful and violent, perhaps the country needed to go through that in order to emerge in better shape eventually. Or perhaps they were better off under a fascist government. That big old question mark is part of what takes the novel into the realm of greatness, imo.

If this had been shown in the film I would not have felt comfortable even watching the film, it would have become something truly evil.
Whereas in the film, I really believed V was trying to help Evey, not destroy her or turn her into a programmed slave. I am still troubled by doubts over how much damage was done to Evey and whether she really is still essentially the same Evey that we saw at the start of the film, (only with less fear of death), I certainly would not encourage the use of torture as a practical psychological treatment.

I'm all about the moral grey. I find black and white pretty boring most of the time. As you say, that hint is certainly still there in the film, but it ends in such a euphoric and uplifting "take that bad guys" ending that it never amounts to much.

Again, its these questions that made the novel great. For me, its what the material is all about. To just focus on the surface of the story is sorta missing the point.

It's like the whole Will Smith and Spielberg remaking Oldboy debate. Will they be willing to go to the dark places that the material demands? It may look like Oldboy on the surface but if you don't walk out of there with your head spinning and feeling like you've been punched in the gut...well whats the point? Go adapt something else.

[Carlotto]

Broadly speaking, I don't like remakes... if the original was that good, why do a remake ? Plus most of the time the remake is worse (not always of course)

As for VfV, I loved it. It may be a bit more manichean than the novel but compared to a lot of Hollywood movies, it is not that manichean.
You said that Sutler is a bit "unsophisticated", but I loved both the character and the actor.
I agree the ending could have had a bit more depth, but I found it very intense tragically...



<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RPXUALsJg0M&hl=fr&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RPXUALsJg0M&hl=fr&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[vfan]

I don't believe any human being is simple and I don't believe anyone is 100% bad or 100% good.

Very true, there will be good and bad people and people who will be one or the other depending on how they feel at the time, but the end result of a one party state with a leader who does not care about the people is Zimbabwe.

From what I remember from the novel, he doesn't really have anything like the following he does in the film. It's essentially just Evey.

"Its funny, they're not the terrorists followers or anything. They're just rioters...but he's become some sort of all purpose symbol to them, hasn't he?"

"People need symbols, Dominic. He understood that. We've forgotten it. Those people outside lost families during the war. We've kept the lid on their bitterness for years, but we haven't helped them deal with it. Maybe he didn't either, but he certainly took the lid off."

That exchange from the novel is the crux of it. People were suppressed and deep down they were angry. V helped give them the freedom to vent, even if the result was a lot of really horrible things.

Birth is incredibly painful and violent, perhaps the country needed to go through that in order to emerge in better shape eventually. Or perhaps they were better off under a fascist government. That big old question mark is part of what takes the novel into the realm of greatness, imo.

Without the backing of a majority of the people, any disorder will be quickly and ruthlessly suppressed, with snipers or machine guns if that's what it takes. If there had not been hundreds of thousands of protesters advancing on parliament, the army would have opened fire even without orders from high command, that is after all, what they are paid for.

I'm all about the moral grey. I find black and white pretty boring most of the time. As you say, that hint is certainly still there in the film, but it ends in such a euphoric and uplifting "take that bad guys" ending that it never amounts to much.

There is nothing about V that is morally ambiguous, he is a killer, only a politician would see that as a right and proper thing to do, he is a torturer, again only a politician....

Again, its these questions that made the novel great. For me, its what the material is all about. To just focus on the surface of the story is sorta missing the point.

I think I looked far enough below the surface to find aspects of the story disturbing, maybe that's not a bad thing, but I don't want it shown in such explicit detail that I feel dirty or psychologically damaged by having seen it.

It's like the whole Will Smith and Spielberg remaking Oldboy debate. Will they be willing to go to the dark places that the material demands? It may look like Oldboy on the surface but if you don't walk out of there with your head spinning and feeling like you've been punched in the gut...well whats the point? Go adapt something else.

I don't think I have seen oldboy and probably would not want to.

[vfan]

Broadly speaking, I don't like remakes... if the original was that good, why do a remake ? Plus most of the time the remake is worse (not always of course)

Let's start a campaign to get V for vendetta remade, it might please the graphic novel fans, everyone involved in the production would earn a few bob, and we might get an extended version of the film, say, 3 hours?

[vfan]

In the graphic novel, did V fall in love with Evey?.