Okay, I will be the treasonous dog that says this: The movie is better than the comics.
The comic book was a nice little story, but it hardly deserves the semi-legendary status it achieved in the 1980's, when Alan Moore had slipped heroin into the printer's ink, and the fans wanted Moore Moore Moore! Watchmen, Swamp Thing and Jaspers Warp were tha great stories, but V for Vendetta is merely a very, very good comic book, not a great one. "V for Vendetta" is, however, a great movie. Not the greatest movie ever, but in the top 1,000 or so.
Now, why do I say this? Because I've seen more movies than you, and it's true. You can't name 1,000 movies better than "V for Vendetta." No, serriously, you can't. You probably can't even name 1,000 movies.
So, I am not going to try justify it. I am instead going to do two things. I am going to share with you the thing I wrote before seeing the movie, because I was only told Friday that I had to see the bloody thing and I decided to mock it. And then, I'm going to tell you what about the movie changed my mind.
So, what I wrote before seeing the movie:
Top 10 Ways the Movie was Different from the Comic Book:
10. Natalie Portman has a much nicer ass than the Evey in the comic book.
9. If we want to see the hideous dictator die a horrible death in the movie, all we have to do is put "Alien" on the DVD player.
8. You don't have to shake a Mac to clear the screen. Oops, sorry, wrong list.
7. The movie didn't end two thirds of the way through, forcing us to wait a couple years for the ending, which given that it was done by the folks who brought us "The Matrix" was probably ironic.
6. There is no rule six.
5. Alan Moore's name wasn't on it.
4. Stephen Fry was the best thing in the movie.
3. The Clutch Cargo effects on V's mask were just creepy.
2. Those weren't coloring mistakes in the movie. British people are just really pale.
1. The heavy handed political commentary is actually appropriate today.
(I was actually surprised that 4, 5, 1, and 10 were actually relevant.)
Now, why did I think the movie worked. The simple fact of the matter is that the movie is very Hollywood, and Hollywood, at its best, makes some fine flicks. You absolutely cannot make a movie that is as unrelentingly dark and gloomy as "V for the Vendetta" the comic book is. You'd have to pass out cyanide tablets at the concessions stand. THe movie recognizes this, and the lighting and casting decisions allow for a somewhat lighter feel. You can only do an open-ended story, as in the comic book, if you know you're going to do a sequel, and frankly, the W Bros haven proven they can make one count'em good movie, and then really screw up the sequels, so I'd rather not give them a chance.
Now, there were some mawkish bits, like having the dead guys show up at the end, and if John Hurt had been one of the crowd, well, I might have died laughing. Also, John Hurt was channeling his "Richard III" role, which was kind of weird.
So given all that, I got to thinking afterwards. I really enjoyed the movie. I thought the comic book was interesting, but so what? The comic suffered from a couple problems: 1) For a while in the 1980's and 1990's, comics writers seemed to be looking for any reason to bad mouth America, while we might have some problems, it got kind of annoying, and 2)It lacked a certain something that made it enjoyable. I mean, I liked Jim Shooter's second run on LSH. I liked Big Numbers. I liked John Byrne Alpha Flight. I liked Archie comics. "V for Vendetta" is interesting, but it's just not likeable.
Can a comic book be great without being likeable? Sure. "Maus." "Acme Novelty Library." "Crisis on Infinite Earths." "Sandman: The Kindly Ones." Movies too. "Chinatown" and "Easy Rider" aren't likeable movies. However, if you have two movies, and they are of comparable quality, which one will you watch first, the likeable or the important? "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World" or "Au Revoir les Enfants?" "Star War: The Phantom Menace" or "Beach Babes from Beyond?" "The Incredibles" or "Waking Life?"
The movie "V for Vendetta" is likeable. Natlie Portman has screen presence to spare. "Beautiful Girls," "Leon the Professional," "Closer." The camera loves her. Stephen Fry, well, I've like him since "A Bit of Fry and Laurie" and "Black Adder." He's hilarious. Hugo Weaving is one of the best actors in the world at delivering lines.
The comic book "V for Vendetta" is not likeable. It's depressing. In my opinion, that puts the movie ahead.
Posted by Mike Chary at March 20, 2006 9:38 PM
| TrackBack
You know, if you guys do any more reviews of this movie, I'm going to have to go see it.
(I figured I'd see it earlier than later, but last weekend was booked solid for me...)
"Also, John Hurt was channeling his "Richard III" role, which was kind of weird."
Wasn't that Ian McKellan?
" "Leon the Professional,""
Indeed, this was kind of an echo of that film, wasn't it?
I'd watch "Au Revoir les Enfants". And I'd read V for Vendetta before I'd reread anything John Byrne has ever written, hands down.
Mike:
The comic suffered from a couple problems: 1) For a while in the 1980's and 1990's, comics writers seemed to be looking for any reason to bad mouth America,
V for Vendetta is really quite explicitly the grumpy 1980s Alan Moore using any excuse to badmouth Britain. Remember "It's cold and it's mean-spirited and I don't like it here any more" from his introduction?
Greg, yes, but we had Reagan, who was Thatcher-lite, so it was the same deal. But really, I was thinking of the fact that he whacked most of North America via plague.
Jon H, that's what made it weird. (I was making a rather sardonic joke that Hurt was playing "Stock British Dictator #7")
He whacked most of North America via global thermonuclear war.
"Whacked most of North America via plague"? Shome mishtake shurely?
I don't recall *any* mention of a plague in the book. There was a nuclear war, which involved the US in some capacity, and Africa was totally destroyed, but there's no mention of a plague that I recall, and no mention of the US' status post-war (although we can infer that much of it's gone). the plague was something the Wachowskis invented...
WRT: plague, yeah, my bad. I conflated the two, but my point is the same: he destroyed the US in the book, and back in the 1980's, that annoyed me.
Andrew Hickey writes: "the plague was something the Wachowskis invented..."
I consider it a reasonable update. Biohazards (naturally spread or intentionally spread) are a more relevant threat these days than nuclear war (unless you're in India or Pakistan).
I mean, people *were* killed by mail-distributed anthrax in the US, and not that long ago. (And it remains unsolved, and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Federal employees were involved, whether acting on their own or acting with the approval of supervisors.)
Mike Chary writes: "Jon H, that's what made it weird. (I was making a rather sardonic joke that Hurt was playing "Stock British Dictator #7")"
Ah. I always get them mixed up anyway. They're the interchangeable senior gay British dramatists.
Perhaps Mr. Moore "whacked" most of North America to get it out of the way. I mean, how can one write a story of 20th century Britain without getting America involved somehow? I think Mr. Moore wanted to focus his attention on Britain and not waste time on how America fit into the scheme. Thus, the whacking.
How many references to America are there in the original? Maybe I'm misremembering, but all I can think of are a statement that the President threatened to use nuclear weapons against Russia if it didn't leave Poland. Given that nuclear war followed, we can assume that he made good on his threat, and if the war was big enough to annihilate Africa (does that mean Moore was making an anti-Africa statement, too?), we can extrapolate and speculate about America's destruction, but it's only speculation.
You can make comparisons between Thatcher and Reagan and make your own jump as to how V for Vendetta applied to each, but I suspect Moore was totally uninterested in making any sort of statement about America. England was his home; England was the society he saw as degenerating; and England was the topic he was addressing.
Doug: Don't care. It's a visceral reaction, not a reasoning reaction. It's probably incredibly unfair. However, since I view it as a piece of entertainment, and I'm the audience, I don't have to be fair about it. It annoyed me at the time, and that's enough.
In fact, major disease outbreaks and quarantines are a small part of the ongoing disaster which is England in Moore & Lloyd's V.
The real irony is that Moore was wrong about Thatcher. Although there seems to be a section of British comic writers who can't forgive her for reversing the decline, and must continue to create cartoon replacements they can make do all the things their paranoid delusions insist would have happened.
It's a weakness of the graphic novel that Moore ended up creating a despicable protagonist to combat a cartoon version (Fascism) of what was essentially no threat at all (Thatcherism.)
In what way, exactly, was Moore 'wrong' about Thatcher? She did enormous damage to the country, and her ideological descendants have done more...
Well, at least homosexuality hasn't been eradicated, even as an abstract concept...
In part because people like Moore were around to oppose Thatcher, of course. Castigating him for outlasting her is a bit like saying Vaclav Havel was wrong about the Soviets or Frederick Douglass was wrong about slaveowners.
Hey Mike, I was hunting for well-informed V reviews and knew I could count on you for a strong counterpoint.
However, I also remember that you thought Highlander 2 was worth seeing. Nevertheless, figure I'll go see it soon. Thanks.
"She did enormous damage to the country, and her ideological descendants have done more"
Her true ideological descendents have been well-nigh powerless since Tony Blair took office, with little chance of improving their situation any time soon.
Frankly, whatever Thatcher did to the UK is very small potatoes compared to what Bush has done to the US.
Francis Uy, Francis Uy...I vaguely remember a Francis Uy back from my college days. I assumed, however, that he'd been killed by some internet spammer, seeing as how he has lost the ability to answer e-mail and return phone calls...
Yes, it is true that I enjoyed Highlander 2, having paid $1 to see it in Buttfuck Nowhere, since my expectations were only a few swordfights. Besides, it was gloriously bad and had Sean "I Use the Same Accent for Every Role" Connery.
"So, Sean, the movie takes place *in* Scotland. Everyone in the movie is Scottish.... Except for you. You play a 16th century Spanish nobleman."
"Okay, let me practice. (full Scots brogue) "Hello, My name is Ramirez. I'm from Madrid."
"And now for my impression of a Russian submarine commander. (full Scots brogue) "Dasvidanya!"
Any, let me avail myself othis opportunity to tell you that your favorite show, "Jeopardy!" has an online contestant search:
Blair's government are a Thatcherite one. They have exactly the same combination of utter social illiberalism, fervent belief in the importance of religion, and absolute faith in 'free markets' as an economic panacaea that she had. The only notable difference is that she was anti-homosexuality while the current 'Labour' government are broadly neutral on the subject.
Some people seem to be seriously confused about V for Vendetta: it's not about America and it's not about Thatcher.
Moore's scenario actually depended on Labour winning the 1983 election, at which time it was very much more to the left than it is now, getting out of NATO and hence not being targeted in the global thermonuclear war that followed.The people who took over Britain after the war were not Thatcherites, but National Frontists, real true fascists. In Britain in the early eighties, this was not a farfetched concept, even if the National Front had lost much of its support from its height in 1979, thanks largely to Thatcher co-opting much of the rightwing anger in Britain at the time.
In short, V for Vendetta took aim at a strong tendency towards fascism in Britain of the time, a tendency that was only partially encouraged by Thatcher.
Oh and Mike, the reason people targetted America was because America was because America did a lot to deserve it; still does for that part.
I also think the view that V for Vendetta should've been entertaining is fairly idiotic.
It's not meant as light entertainment, so to compare it with something as meanignless as Archie comics is, well, wrong.
Martin:
It's still annoying. There are many Americans, after all, who don't deserve the reputation. However, we had this dicussion a few years ago, so I'd just as soon not start it up again now.
And Archie comics aren't meaningless. They are simply involved in a different project than "V for Vendetta," and at their best, they are better at what they do, than "V for Vendetta" was at what it did.
And the notion that "V for Vendetta" should not be considered as entertainment is a bizarre opinion, and frankly, any person who holds that opinion has either nothing of value to say on "V for Vendetta" or nothing of value to say on entertainment. I'm not sure which.
And [your statement of opinion] is [my derogatory statement of opinion], and frankly, [ad hominem attack]. [Dissembling].
It's Internet Mad Libs!
Okay, Professor Singer, if "V for Vendetta" is not entertainment, what is it? Come on? Share.