V for Vendetta
Mar. 22nd, 2006 01:50 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
von_geisterhandBecause I lack the resolve of Mr. ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
carnaaki, I cannot help myself but wanting to share my impression of that film with the lot of you.
First of all, because this sort of question tends to pop up sooner or later, yes, I have read the book, I thought it was great and Alan Moore, IMHO, is one of the best authors in his field alive today. On the other hand, I never got to like the film-version of "From Hell" quite as much as I thought it might deserve. Reading the book did not make me like it more, but at least I realised that it was probably not possible making a film that would do it justice, anyway."From Hell" needs its footnotes and annotations and these things are difficult to do on film.
"League of extraordinary Gentlemen", on the other hand, could have made a very good film. Shame that the result made me think I had just seen the worst film of the year. Wrongly, as it turned out a few weeks later when I saw "Van Helsing", but "LXG" is a true piece of shit in its own right and particularly compared to the graphic novel.
So my hopes for "V for Vendetta" were not very high, especially when I heard the rumour that they wanted to use the old "Germany won the war"-trick to explain the rise of fascism in the UK.
Still, I had to see, I had to know. And fortunately, I was not disappointed.
Yes, the film could have been a fair bit better and you do feel the american influence very strongly in some parts, but on the whole, it is reasonably clever and does not wimp out from the moral dubiosity and violence of the book. Yes, the Finger-men towards the beginning get away with their lives, but a vendetta is a revenge of blood and blood is being shed in this film, oh yes.
And when it is being shed, you get to see a good use of bullet-time. But stylish or not, all the deaths that are dramatically important are here and present, as is the destruction of Parliament. Which actually was an odd experience as the film-makers decided to go for a relatively typical Hollywood "We the people finally take to the streets again"-ending made to bring tears to your eyes, but the thing the "freed masses"* are watching in awe is indeed the Houses of Parliament turning being incinerated well and proper. By a bomb on a tube-train. Respect to the film-makers for not doing a "Spiderman". So, in this respect the film stays very true to the book. There are a few minor instances where details have been softened, like Evey being outdoors to see a friend rather than prostituting herself and V no longer gassing the people of Larkhill, but these are minor.
What weighs heavier, though, is that the politics have been considerably lightened: Except for a few flashbacks and Prothero ranting about homosexuals, foreigners and such like (and coming across as a hypocrite), this is your basic movie totalitarian state rather than a proper fascist government. Similarly, when the people decide to rise, they sadly do so not because they are no longer watched, but simply because the plot needs them to. Step forward, little girl with thick glasses and bloke screaming "Anarchy for the UK!". This also means that V's manipulation of the government to reach his grand
is not as cunning as would become a man of his mind. John Hurt (having switched sides to be Big Brother now) does little more than scream and crush a glass and Stephen Fry, well, he plays Stephen Fry, being noble, intelligent, kind and, yes, you guessed it, gay (and then doing something incredibly, no, I do mean incredibly stupid). Hugo Weaving is a more than convincing V (and he never takes off his mask), even if the film requires him to do impressions of The Phantom of the Opera, Darth Vader (Episode III) and Alan Moore (you can't tell me that was not deliberate) at various points. Natalie Portman is so-so, a step up from "Episode III", but in the end basically replaceable.
In the end, however, it somehow works, it makes for an interesting two hours, even if I felt like they had to majorly rush things towards the beginning to fit everything in. But it works, even "Valerie" makes an appearance. This is not a conversion in the way that "Sin City" is, but, with all due respect to Mr. Moore, who decided to disassociate himself from this production, this is, without a doubt, the best conversion of one of his books so far.
Now somehow just has to impress me and come up with a version of "Watchmen" able to beat it.
I am not that optimistic, though.
England prevails!
*As per usual, the question of "What exactly is going to happen the next morning?" is not being answered.
carnaaki, I cannot help myself but wanting to share my impression of that film with the lot of you.First of all, because this sort of question tends to pop up sooner or later, yes, I have read the book, I thought it was great and Alan Moore, IMHO, is one of the best authors in his field alive today. On the other hand, I never got to like the film-version of "From Hell" quite as much as I thought it might deserve. Reading the book did not make me like it more, but at least I realised that it was probably not possible making a film that would do it justice, anyway."From Hell" needs its footnotes and annotations and these things are difficult to do on film.
"League of extraordinary Gentlemen", on the other hand, could have made a very good film. Shame that the result made me think I had just seen the worst film of the year. Wrongly, as it turned out a few weeks later when I saw "Van Helsing", but "LXG" is a true piece of shit in its own right and particularly compared to the graphic novel.
So my hopes for "V for Vendetta" were not very high, especially when I heard the rumour that they wanted to use the old "Germany won the war"-trick to explain the rise of fascism in the UK.
Still, I had to see, I had to know. And fortunately, I was not disappointed.
Yes, the film could have been a fair bit better and you do feel the american influence very strongly in some parts, but on the whole, it is reasonably clever and does not wimp out from the moral dubiosity and violence of the book. Yes, the Finger-men towards the beginning get away with their lives, but a vendetta is a revenge of blood and blood is being shed in this film, oh yes.
And when it is being shed, you get to see a good use of bullet-time. But stylish or not, all the deaths that are dramatically important are here and present, as is the destruction of Parliament. Which actually was an odd experience as the film-makers decided to go for a relatively typical Hollywood "We the people finally take to the streets again"-ending made to bring tears to your eyes, but the thing the "freed masses"* are watching in awe is indeed the Houses of Parliament turning being incinerated well and proper. By a bomb on a tube-train. Respect to the film-makers for not doing a "Spiderman". So, in this respect the film stays very true to the book. There are a few minor instances where details have been softened, like Evey being outdoors to see a friend rather than prostituting herself and V no longer gassing the people of Larkhill, but these are minor.
What weighs heavier, though, is that the politics have been considerably lightened: Except for a few flashbacks and Prothero ranting about homosexuals, foreigners and such like (and coming across as a hypocrite), this is your basic movie totalitarian state rather than a proper fascist government. Similarly, when the people decide to rise, they sadly do so not because they are no longer watched, but simply because the plot needs them to. Step forward, little girl with thick glasses and bloke screaming "Anarchy for the UK!". This also means that V's manipulation of the government to reach his grand
is not as cunning as would become a man of his mind. John Hurt (having switched sides to be Big Brother now) does little more than scream and crush a glass and Stephen Fry, well, he plays Stephen Fry, being noble, intelligent, kind and, yes, you guessed it, gay (and then doing something incredibly, no, I do mean incredibly stupid). Hugo Weaving is a more than convincing V (and he never takes off his mask), even if the film requires him to do impressions of The Phantom of the Opera, Darth Vader (Episode III) and Alan Moore (you can't tell me that was not deliberate) at various points. Natalie Portman is so-so, a step up from "Episode III", but in the end basically replaceable.
In the end, however, it somehow works, it makes for an interesting two hours, even if I felt like they had to majorly rush things towards the beginning to fit everything in. But it works, even "Valerie" makes an appearance. This is not a conversion in the way that "Sin City" is, but, with all due respect to Mr. Moore, who decided to disassociate himself from this production, this is, without a doubt, the best conversion of one of his books so far.
Now somehow just has to impress me and come up with a version of "Watchmen" able to beat it.
I am not that optimistic, though.
England prevails!
*As per usual, the question of "What exactly is going to happen the next morning?" is not being answered.
