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.
Posted by Greg at March 19, 2006 4:41 PM