Finally watched a borrowed DVD of V for Vendetta, based on the Alan Moore graphic novel of that name, and was glad I did.
The movie, especially for the first two-thirds to three-quarters, parallels the book pretty well. There are some changes and updates (it’s been a couple of decades, after all), but there’s not much there to complain about as a “purist” — especially if one must assume a need to simplify the typically Alan Moore convoluted and baroque plot. The fundamentals — a fascist take-over of a scared British population, coupled with tyranny and racial/ethnic/gay cleansing (and worse) is all lifted in huge chunks from the
book.
The movie and book diverge most significantly in the last bit — the climax of the film. Again, this is is almost inevitable — the original’s paean to anarchy (in a purist sense), not to mention the destruction of various party members in a way that resembles Shakespeare on acid, would have been nearly unfilmable and certainly unmarketable.The alternative taken — a bloody coup coupled with “People Power” marches (in Guy Fawlkes gear) — rings a more than a bit conventional and facile, though. Moore’s decision
to take his name off the movie is perfectly understandable, if still a bit melodramatic (he had a lot more to complain about with the adaptation of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen).
Beyond that, there’s a lot less about the supporting players — much of the middle of the book is gone, or greatly elided. The corrupt in-fighting at the top is diminished (sadly); the whole “Fate computer” bit is gone (mercifully). (Okay, anyone else think it was pleasantly ironic that John Hurt, who played Winston Smith in a relatively recent 1984 (which was characterized by a giant “V” logo) is now playing the “Big Brother” analog in another British dystopia (with a giant “V” logo)?)
The movie is beautiful in both vision and action — not as unremittingly gray and depressing as the book (or as one might expect from the book), but still a delight to watch. It feels almost comic-booky at the beginning, as V first goes into action, and that gets slightly echoed toward the end, in the Big Obligatory Knife-vs.-Gun Fight Matrix Homage. Still, I was ultimately able to forgive that, in light of the other fun stuff on the screen.
The acting is quite decent. Natalie Portman shows that she can, in deed, act. Hugo Weaving manages to play V effectively tragi-comic without ever showing his face. John Hurt chews up the scenery. Stephen Fry pulls together a couple of the roles effectively (despite their being written a bit heavy-handedly). Stephen Rea’s Inspector Finch effectively adapts the “insider who’s learning uncomfortable stuff” (though without the LSD) role nicely. Everyone does their job without any obvious weaknesses that can’t be
attributed to the adaptation.
So, how was the movie? Entertaining. Fun to watch. Not nearly as profound as Moore would have had it (nor as written), but also a lot more accessible and, ultimately, coherent. It fails to rise to greatness, not because of its turning away from Moore so much as because neither book nor movie have a decent third act, with Moore going all anarcho-Shakespearean and the Wachowski Bros. going all Matrixy action flick and cheap populism. But, failing to reach greatness, it’s still a worthwhile movie to watch, with
plenty of eye candy and with some messages (some of them even decently rendered) that deserve listening to.
Nice review, and I will put the movie on my list of things to rent.
Your review pretty much paralells the Owner of Time Warp’s take on the movie (down to the LoEG jab ;P).
P.S.
Your comments are still acting badly.
It posts them, but takes forever to do so, and times out saying it is “unable to find server”.
For myself, I’ve always thought Natalie Portman could act — it’s just that most of her recent exposure was in Star Wars, and Lucas’ ability to suck the life out his cast is extraordinary.
I should loan you Garden State — the subtle-but-profound shift in Portman’s accent, so good it seems entirely natural and unconcious, is alone proof of some really strong theatrical chops.
I’m not sure where the problem is with my comments, but I’m aware that they’re taking a long time to publish.
The server I’m on is also having intermittent problems, so it’s unclear if it’s a Me or Them kinda thing.
I will dig into it as time allows.
[blockquote](Okay, anyone else think it was pleasantly ironic that John Hurt, who played Winston Smith in a relatively recent 1984 (which was characterized by a giant “V” logo) is now playing the “Big Brother” analog in another British dystopia (with a giant “V” logo)?)[/blockquote]
I was thinking the same thing. Thank you.
Heh. Nat. Had to watch this again: http://video.nbc.com/player.html?dlid=2586
Not a fan of the Matrix action sequences huh? I think it adds a sort of coolness to it, but then again I am young and naive. I really enjoyed your review of the movie and I am glad to see someone saying more about it then just, “Oh that movie is showing the terrorism is ok and blah blah blah…”
You know I had the same feeling, which I felt was heightened when the TV show guy did the parody of V and Sutler.
Actually, I loved the Matrix stuff — it was just slightly jarring here.
Though the swoopy twirly knives were a nice change in it.
Actually, the “Benny Hill” pastiche was kind of fun (though the fall-out was sadly inevitable).
As I understand it, Alan’s decision to have his name removed has nothing to do with the film itself. It’s a blanket decision that he’s made to disassociate himself from ANY film adaptions of his work. He’s never actually seen the movie, or the movies of League and From Hell. He just doesn’t watch movies anymore.
Via Wikipedia:
It cites this article, which goes into more detail on Moore’s relationships with film adaptations of his work.
Do you think it would have been fair to assert that the V for Vendetta comic book was (to paraphrase the quotation of Alan Moore noted in the Wikipedia article quotation above) ‘a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent British anarchist fantasy of someone with British anarchist values standing up against a state run by facists’?
I’m curious about just what it means to say that a work of fiction is “thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent”. To me, these adjectives apply to agents (meaning people or organizations), but I don’t understand how to apply them to an inanimate object like a comic book or a movie. And if they apply to the movie, which has great similarities to the comic book, then do they apply to the comic book?
I’m also curious if it is reasonable to say that Moore is a British anarchist who has fantasies about Britsh anarchists standing up against a British state run by facists. I know little about Moore, so my only reason for asking this question is the idea that if this is how he sees the movie, then perhaps it’s a reasonable insight into the comic book.
Alan Moore is …
… brilliant … egotistical … about four sigmas off plumb … and a great comic book writer.
An actual honest-to-God interview with him starts here.
And some more Moore-on-V quotes here.
watched V for Vendetta recently, loved it. eye-candy effects, amazing how much character they developed into a mask, then again, maybe he was more than a mask…