Review: V For Vendetta

[jducoeur]

msmemory and I just got back from watching V (at the IMAX, because hey -- this seemed like a movie worth seeing on the big screen). Some thoughts follow. It's largely spoiler-free, presuming you've seen the ads and have some idea what the movie is about, but I will make many statements about its relationship to the original story.

An adaptation like this begs for a metaphor. My first reaction was to make it musical: that this movie has the same melody line as the graphic novel, but is missing the harmonies. That's not really right, though: it has its own harmonies -- perhaps less complex than the original, but there nonetheless. Closer to the mark would be to say that these are two tunes built on top of the same tenor line, but that's not really right, either.

So a different approach, which I suppose applies to most good comic book adaptations: this tells much the same myth as the original story. But as is the way of most myth, it has changed in many ways, some of them important. It is trying to tell a different story through the same myth -- thematically close, but not the same.

That said, this is a good movie, and I don't really begrudge them their changes. For the most part, they understood which scenes in the original were most powerful, and largely didn't mess with them. In particular, the critical chapter of the story -- the transformative sequence that I regard as the best single issue in the history of comics -- is preserved almost word-for-word, and they do it justice. As I expected, they greatly compressed the story. They sort of had to: the original is both long and intricate, too much so for a 2-hour film. But they did so with care, and the result is a movie that is quite powerful in its own way.

There are some missed notes. They make a number of subtle changes that have the result of humanizing V much more than he is in the original. That's not an unreasonable decision on principle, but there are times that he comes across as -- well, kind of a lovable goofball in a crazy way. IMO, that's taking it a bit too far, losing some of the intimidating power of the character.

Perhaps more seriously, I think the movie both oversimplifies and oversells the political message, which comes across as a bit ham-handed. The bad guys are more simplistically evil here, villains in search of power. What makes the original so unsettling is that the evil in it is so banal. In the movie, you can almost dismiss the villains, saying that real people wouldn't be so bad. But in the original story, the fascists (I don't think it really gives anything away to say that this tale is a screed against fascism) mostly sincerely believe that they are doing what is absolutely necessary. The terrifying thing about the original is that its scenario is not just plausible, it's almost inevitable given the history it presumes.

Still and all, by the numbers this is a good movie. The writing is good if imperfect, the direction crisp, the acting excellent. Natalie Portman is cast as the heart and soul of the story, and she carries the part ably. For a Wachovski Brothers movie, it is surprisingly restrained in the action sequences and special effects -- they're there, but they don't overwhelm the story. (They only succumb to bullet-time sorts of effects in one or two places.) And while the political message is a bit unsubtle, it's a very timely message to tell.

So the movie is recommended. (Although let's be clear: this is absolutely not a film for kids -- it is very intentionally violent, and that violence is central to the story.) But it's no substitute for the original graphic novel, which is longer, subtler and rather darker. If you like the movie, I do commend seeking out the original, which is currently easy to find...

Comments

[patsmor.livejournal.com]

A while ago, we (you? me? goldsquare?) had a discussion about whether this could start political change. What do you think now?

[jducoeur]

In any sort of big way, no -- I don't think this is the spark to the tinder, or anything like that. But it speaks to America in the sort of language that the country tends to understand (big and broad, with explosions and a clear moral), so I think it's likely to at least influence a few people in useful directions.

So I wouldn't say "start political change". But I could imagine it knocking another point off of Bush's pollings if it continues to be successful (tonight's show was packed, in a cavernous theater), and maybe make people just a shade more suspicious of the next such demogogue. If it can accomplish that, it will have done good, IMO...

[mindways]

I pretty much agree with everything you've said. I had a few quibbles here and there - in some places, it felt like they just couldn't resist the urge to do "the big movie thing" when a subtler or more understated technique would not merely have worked as well, but better...but for the most part, very minor points, and I was very pleased with how they chose to do a great many things.

The one exception was parts of the ending (I'll save details for private email to keep this spoiler-light), which I felt would have had a lot more oomph had it been done in a manner more like the original...and which I felt could have been tweaked to be better even within the basic structure of how they did it. This blindsided me, because I'd gotten through 98% of the movie without any reactions like that, so I felt a bit let down by the ending...but on the whole, I was happy with the movie.

(Though I could see how diehard fanatics of the original might well hate it. :)

IMO, that's taking it a bit too far, losing some of the intimidating power of the character.

Likewise. (It is symmetrical - the original had a very absolutist resistance (V) to a sometimes-disturbingly humanized set of antagonists; the movie flips which is more elemental and which is easier to identify with. But I think it's more interesting in the original configuration.)

One of the people I saw it with wasn't familiar with the graphic novel; she enjoyed the movie - she went in expecting a reasonable-caliber action flick and instead found herself watching a reasonable-caliber political/philosophical movie with some action sequences. (The more action-y of which both she and I felt were very cool, but in the wrong movie entirely. :)

[original graphic novel]

The original graphic novel really stands athwart the line back when 'graphic novels' were splitting off from 'comics' - or at least, that's how it came across to me; the conventions used in it felt like something halfway along the evolution from one to the other. I like it a lot, but sometimes those older narrative conventions threw me a bit.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

sometimes those older narrative conventions threw me a bit.

Do you mean something besides the "all chapters are exactly eight pages" thing? Just curious; I'm always interested in discussing the formal properties of comics narratives (especially Alan Moore ones!).

[mindways]

Yes, although I'd be hard-pressed to tell you exactly what, since I read it a while ago and I don't have a copy I can look at to remind myself - I have a strong memory of the realization/impression itself, but not of precisely what triggered it.

I think one of the things was the usage of third-party narrator voice? - most graphic novels I've seen use it pretty sparingly, if at all; most works I've read that are liberal with its application are comic books.

There were other things, too, I think, but they flee memory.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

I think one of the things was the usage of third-party narrator voice?

That doesn't jibe well with my memory, unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by narrator voice. One of the notable things that Moore did with V was to almost completely *eliminate* narratorial voices; The story is very much shown, not told. (With the exception of some flashback sequences, and even those were presented as present-day people reading physical documents.)

[antoniseb.livejournal.com]

Which IMAX theater is it in?

[msmemory.livejournal.com]

Jordan's, both Natick and Reading.

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

This always strikes me as a "truth is stranger than even SF" thing. The biggest movie theaters we have locally are located inside furniture stores...

[jducoeur]

Yep -- it would have sounded bizarre ten years ago. But it has proven to be a remarkably clever move on Jordan's part: by turning their stores into "shoppertainment", they drive a lot more people into them. And the stores are themselves constructed cannily: when you exit the movie, you have to pass through a lot of nice furniture on the way to the exit...

[alexx-kay.livejournal.com]

An adaptation like this begs for a metaphor. My first reaction was to make it musical

I have to admit, my brain mis-parsed this on first reading as "make it a musical". As in, the best way to adapt this story would be to do just that. Which is one of those ideas that is so crazy that it actually might work. After all, the original uses music to strong effect throughout, and even has one episode which is, explicitly, a sung overture.

V for Musical

[new-man.livejournal.com]

I was disappointed that they didn't use "O Jerusalem" or "Sympathy for The Devil" in the film.

Re: V for Musical

[alethea-eastrid.livejournal.com]

I seem to remember reading that they had some trouble getting music permissions, and so did not get to use their preferred choices. Don't have time to chase down a cite, but I think it was a Boston paper of this week(end?)--possibly the Phoenix? Havn't read the book, havn't (yet) seen the movie, don't know what songs in particular they were referring to...