As a movie, taken on its own, V for Vendetta is probably fairly good. It has some flaws, but they are outnumbered by its virtues.
However, I cannot take the movie on its own. Compared to the source material, the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd, the movie is simplified and sentimentalized.
Spoilers within. I talk extensively about film details, particularly where the film differes from the book. See the film first.
.
.
.
I shall begin by focusing on where the film departs from the book. Important subplots (like Helen Heyer and Rose Almond) are cut away, but that's probably unavoidable given time constraints. However, the result is that the leader (here given the title "High Chancellor") isn't assassinated by a citizen, but by a member of his own government. That's a reasonably significant difference, because it tends to say that an evil government's undoing is itself, with the result that you don't need to act, you can just wait.
Of course, the story no longer advocates any part of anarchism, instead falling back on the social democratic ideal of The People. The crowd of V-costumed people at Parliament shows this clearly.
I suspect that, between the shift from anarchy to democracy and the movie's relentless stream of added detail about America's position in this future dystopia, we are seeing the effects of a British story being adapted by Americans. A British script doctor would probably have been a good idea.
Evey and V, of course, are not permitted to have a sexless relationship; no, we are forced to endure mawkish and absurd moments of doomed and denied love. Since Evey does not become the next V, it is not clear what her purpose in the film is beyond the purely ministerial act of launching V's funeral train.
Other pedestration filmmaking also intrudes: Instead of a blackened silhouette emerging from the blazing ruins of cell number 5, we see, several times, a blackened silhouette emerge from the blazing ruins of cell number 5, roar in pain and anger, and shake his arms. In unimaginative by-the-book filmmaking, less is not more, it is not enough.
There are plot changes that fail to justify themselves; for example, Delia Surridge is revealed to be using an alias, for no particular reason. Furthermore, by explaining more about Larkhill and the rise of the Norsefire government, the movie actually manages to write itself into a serious timeline issue; Larkhill enables the rise of the Norsefire government (because film narrative must be a closed space), but Larkhill would not have been possible without a fascist government already in place.
Deitrich's character is altered in ways that make him a stronger and more effective character except for the fact that as such he doesn't fit the space in the fascist British world that he's supposed to occupy.
That brings me to the strongest criticism of the film as film that I've got, and that is that the editor should be beaten with an iced lemontip shark. He apparently believes, or was operating under instructions, that no parallel structure can be tolerated without explicit flashbacks to the events it's paralleling. This is incredibly intrusive. Admittedly, I might not have caught V reborn in fire/Evey reborn in rain without the latter having a quarter-second dropped in of the roaring-in-pain-and-anger blackened silhouette, but it's still intrusive and it gives absolutely no credit to the audience.
Reborn in fire/reborn in rain is trivial, but at least it's one place they're trying to add weight to replace what they've taken away. Similarly, they gave Dietrich his own "Shadow Gallery", which at least shows willing.
Everything is simplified for the idiot American audience: Dietrich, a television host, foolishly lampoons the High Chancellor on his television show. Shortly thereafter, Fingermen break into his home in the middle of the night to "black bag" him. For any reasonable person, "lampooning the High Chancellor" and "fascist government" would be sufficient to explain the arrival of the secret police. In the film, of course, that's not enough; we have to see the High Chancellor watching Dietrich's show and becoming angry enough to shatter his glass of milk, because otherwise, we might not realize why Dietrich gets black bagged.
That being said, Dietrich's lampoon is really quite funny, and I grinned in delight and surprise when the Benny Hill chase music came up.
My pal Pete Vonder Haar wrote:
As with any Hollywood version of revolution, the film makes the assumption that every oppressed citizen is actively skeptical of their own government, can see through its propaganda, and is eager to take up active resistance.
This is actually one place where I'm willing to give the film a little credit. It is true that the four or five sets of ordinary British observers in the film are quick to recognize their government's hypocrisy and lies, but the film may actually be saying that's correct: We are quite good at recognizing our government's hypocrisy and lies; the problem is that we're too willing to put up with it. The problem isn't opening our eyes to the truth, it's getting us to do something about it.
As for the rest, the casting of the film is very good. All of the six principal actors (Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, John Hurt, and Tim Pigott-Smith) inhabit their roles very well. (Although I'm not as enamored of Natalie Portman's fuzzy head as I expected to be.) The supporting cast do fine as well. V's appearance is a superb visualization of the comic.
All things considered, V for Vendetta, the graphic novel, is very good; V for Vendetta, the movie, is a simplified and sentimentalized, but otherwise effective, translation of the book.
Sentimental music. Lost parents. Lost loves. A polished, gleaming, media-centered fascism, rather than David Lloyd's rather ugly rendering. All that the movie version lacked, to qualify as another imitation Spielberg movie, was some flashbacks to a distant, disapproving father.
Greg writes: "That's a reasonably significant difference, because it tends to say that an evil government's undoing is itself, with the result that you don't need to act, you can just wait."
No, because there's no reason to think the government would have improved after the High Chancellor was killed. It would have remained just as evil.
I think the point was that you can sometimes use a government's evil against itself. That wasn't passive waiting on V's part - he could get to the one creep, but could not get to the High Chancellor; the creep *could* get to the High Chancellor. 'V' took advantage of that fact, and the creep's self-interest and disloyalty, to accomplish his goals. Then he killed the creep.
Rasselas wrote: "A polished, gleaming, media-centered fascism, rather than David Lloyd's rather ugly rendering."
A polished, gleaming, media-centered fascism is far more likely in the real world, don't you think?
It is interesting that they sexualize V and Evey's relationship (slightly) but desexed her character in every other way. She was no longer the girl who was desperate enough for money to prostitute herself (in fact she seemed happily employed, or at least employed) and she had no physical relationship to Dietrich. I am not saying they were needed but it is an interesting shift. I think the former (prostitution) is the bigger change since it changes Evey from someone already desperate to someone who forgot the time.
Some changes were fine, though. The original book had the Londoners getting more bold as the year went on. We had Bollocks girl (given a larger role in this movie, which is kind of nice) and a variety of lewdness to cameras that were no longer working. I think having Dietrich benig publicly making his point was just a representation of that boldness; "We have the highest rated show on TV" or some such was his response. He also made it sound like he had done similar but less offensive things in the past because he was expecting the usual treatement...censure, apology, community service. The heavy-handed Fingermen must have been less in force than they had in the old days. Maybe. That was my take, anyway.
The changes that I had the most problem with were around Finch. Rea was great as Finch and most of the character arc was great...his distrust of the Fingermen and Creedy in particular, him already being on the fence with how the government works, etc. What was missing was his transformation from the book. V had Larkhill, Evey had fake imprisonment and Finch had his drug-trip down memory lane at Larkhill. That was a key transformation for the character. He alludes to it with his story but I don't think we have the same impact if we had seen it in action (though Rasselas might have thought it too Spielberg?? :-) ). Then the fact that it wasn't Finch who pulls the trigger on V... I missed it. Killing V and then seeing what was lost was a great and final transformation for Finch and I missed that. Also Evey not becoming V was an odd missing portion of it (but apparently this was taken up by the rest of London becoming V...hmmm...).
Still, a good adaptation of a difficult comic book. I want to see it again so I can enjoy it for what it is. I don't know about the rest of y'all, but any time I see an adaptation I tend to spend my first viewing looking for expected beats and plot points and sometimes miss the movie on its own terms. I think I can comfortably see it as they filmmakers intended it when I sit down a second time.
Personally, I think "transformative vision via LSD" is quite a dated concept, and the LSD isn't really necessary anyway - it's not like there was never an epiphany before the advent of LSD.
I mostly agree with what fil said.
I enjoyed the movie and thought it was a decent adaptation of a difficult work. The actors throughout were uniformly excellent. V never showing his face worked much better than I expected it to. The real deal-breaker for me would have been if they screwed up Evey's imprisonment sequence, which they didn't, and I was pleased. I had to check with the other people with whom I saw the movie whether or not they knew or guessed that V had captured her and not the government. Having read the book, I wasn't sure if they were giving away too much with the various clues, but it seemed to be fine as all of them thought she had been taken by the government.
I'll likely buy it when it comes out on dvd.