V for Vendetta. No spoilers.

[wolven7]

DeathBoy - [disenchantment]--- I am an Alan Moore junkie. I adore the way he puts words together, and what that does to the inside of my head. I love the ideas he captures, and the way he has of expressing them.

I hate the Wachowski Siblings, for a lot of different reasons. They reuse a lot of the same shit, over and over, but don't take it to new levels. The don't tend to evolve.

I think that art is about communication. I believe that the purpose of any writer/musician/painter/artist's work is to get a message out into the world, in a certain way, with a certain context.

DeathBoy - [AntiMatter]--- That means that the transmission is one thing, and the reception is quite another. Signal to Noise ratio. How the audience interprets, analyses, de/reconstructs the datastory provided by the artist is an essential part of the experience: The Audience's part.

I loved the film adaptation of V for Vendetta. There were parts i wanted to be more fleshed out, parts i would have rather not had in, and things that were changed, in both temporal and physical measure. (Peter Gabriel - [Signal To Noise]). I think that, overall, it portrayed the same message as the original (Fear, Fascism, Change, Becoming that Change), but did it in a way that was appropriate to the climate of today.

Alan Moore thinks that it was a lack of courage on the part of the adapters, to not simply write something new. Well I ask you all, can one not want to see a work reach a larger audience, message and all? Can one not want the intent and the meaning of a piece (something deeper than set pieces and speeches, but integral to them both) to survive, and flourish; thrive? That's what this story is about: Ideas and their ability to change. To incite and to drive. I think that remains well intact.

If you think they murdered the original work, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. But you're wrong. The book is right the hell there, and it always will be. If you really thought the movie was that bad, go re-read it, and get others to, as well.

Hell, if you thought it was that Good, go do the same. I know I will be, this week.

It's the idea that matters.

Comments

[brigidreborn.livejournal.com]

I just saw that on friday and enjoyed it. I now feel the need to read the book. I think that movie is going to make a lot of people awfully nervous.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

You should Defiantely read the book.

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I liked it...
I thought it did the original decent justice...
I think it preserved the message fairly well...
I think it could have been done MUCH better...
I hated something they changed about the characters interaction; it detracted from the essence of the message to put in a hollywood standard side plot. Which I hate, even though they ALWAYS do that and I shoudl be used to it by now.

They made V less enigmatic and more goofy, I thought. I wasn't thrilled with that aspect, but it was not a dealbreaker.

I'll probably like it more if I watch it a few mor times

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yes, could have been done better, but I don't think it could have been made, if it didn't seem somewhat "ineffectual" on the surface.

I only really felt the goofy bit, with some of the Evey interaction, which, yes, was somewhat different, and a bit rushed.

Though I thoroughly enjoyed the film ( i really did love it), at this point, I'm simply hoping for a re-edit/extended edition, with these points addressed and taken care of. Spead the word, see if we can't prod that into happening.

*disappointed with you*

[not-hothead-yet.livejournal.com]

I guess you're entitled to your opinion. But you're wrong.

Why do you even bother saying "you're entitled to your opinion"?

Re: *disappointed with you*

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Because they are, even if they're wrong. The original work is safe and sound, even if they think the intent of the piece was dessicrated, by the film.

Irony for the sake of impact and subtlety

[scamort.livejournal.com]

I still believe that the message of the book becomes hollow when you remove the overall goal of V's actions. When you change him from the creative, powerful, and beautiful creature that he is into something... else, then you have missed out an opportunity to deal with the other characters' developements. V was not the main character of V for Vendetta in the literary sense because he undergoes minimal change, if any. Evey has always been the main character, in the sense that it is her realization of going from powerlessness to self-empowerment as a reponse to V's prodding. The movie did bring some of that to the big screen, but when V and evey change and grow as a response to each other, V ceases to be the embodiment of a FORCE in the world and becomes just another character. V is better suited for life outside the Vicious Cabaret.

There were parts that were, on the surface, true to the storyline. But if you remove the core dynamics of character development, then you cease to have the core messages.

These problems with the movie are on top of the technical bullshittery that went on with the editing process and the overall style of the work, as well as the backhanded attacks at the bush administration and our "War on Terror."

I say if the Wachowski's had enjoyed the book so much, they would not have adapted it without the character dynamics in tact. This 'adaptation' is a ploy made by the brothers to capatilize on the politically uncertain times in which we live. Had they wanted to do something real with V, they could have taken several elements from the story and applied them to a different cast of characters and make a new story.

This movie wasn't an homage, it was an exploitation.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

I think that V's choice, in the book was that of a preferred method: Something that would better take the place of the institution that created him. The key choice, I felt, was change.

"Education is empowerment and, therefore, the success of any educational experience is measured in how empowered the recipient believes he or she is." - Dr Lorraine Wilson

I didn't see the war on terror shit, any more than once. I mean, yes, the word "Terrorist" is thrown around left and right, but look back to the fucking Reagan administration. Those who had our consnt were freedom fighters, those who didn't were Terrorists. Movies about Iran (because we were friends with Iraq, then), all Iranians were Terrorists. Muslims, whatever. The same then, as it is, now, only Now we've moved a few degrees to the west, and have decided to become our own freedom force.

What does that make us to someone else? Even if we are "right," someone just thinks we're trying to destroy their way of life.

Maybe, in each of our eyes, we're just trying to make the world better, so the things we abhor won't happen again. But I digress

Many of the character interactions were still there. They were simply sped up. It happens when you put a 265-page book into the space of 2 hours, it's going to happen. It's just the way of it.

Honestly, I'd have liked to see a V TV mini-series. But it'd never happen.

[scamort.livejournal.com]

It's remarkably easy to say "things are fucked up, lets change them" than it is to say "this is the way things should be." Without direction, change and revolution becomes mindless destruction at best, excuse for a far more totalitarian regime to set up shop at worst.

And it seemed to me like the people of london were already pretty receptive to the messages V broadcasted, and were already "doing their part" to dismantle the Nordic Storm regime. There was not the heavy atmosphere of fear present. No cameras? No widespread wiretaps and in-home microphones? Just a few trucks driving around listening in? Gah.

Anyways, the film makes two overtly heavy-handed attacks at the AMERIKKKAN govt. The "American War" comment on the NS version of Fox news, and the flag of the "Coalition of the Willing" that featured an American and a Nazi flag side by side. Woo hoo, those crazy americans sure are like the Nazis. Ad Hitlerum indeed. And this is coming from ME.

The interactions are there, but twisted as to be almost unrecognizable. bah.

not sure where you got all the Reagan freedom fighters/terrorist thing from.. I mean, remember who you're talking to here. If someone you know is going to be up on american indescrestions in foreign policy, it's gonna be me. :)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

In the 1980's, in the process of "Liberating" Afghanistan from the USSR, we funded and trained Osama bin Laden's forces, and called them Freedom Fighters.

Where do you think they got the guns they use on us, now?

It's something we do, and from which we don't seem to learn: Train new dictators, and have them bite us on the ass.

Change should be directed by the people, they should be free to rule themselves, when they truly understand that their freedom and their equality (read "Safety") stand at odds, in many occassions. First step: Change what they understand about freedom. Teach them that they are trapped and could be free. Second step: Open the "Cage," clichéd as that sounds.

Third Step is up to them.

And who was doing whta part? They were slaves to staus quo, and, if not, hidden so far that they were Only of use to themselves. The self only has meaning in the wider context of the not-self. Personal change only means anything if there is something From Which We Change.

[scamort.livejournal.com]

What I meant by "not sure where you got all the reagan freedom fighters vs terrorist thing from" is that I'm not sure where it enters into our discourse. Sure it has some bearing on the film in general, but not much to do with our discussion of it specifically.

I am well versed in most of the hypocrisy, lies, and imperialistic efforts of the US in the middle east.

anyways, we're sort of getting away from the film and starting to debate the nature of change in an oppressive situation. I think you know where I stand on the issue. :)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My point was that the word "Terrorist" is the word used for anyone violently opposing the status quo. When they win, they're "Freedom Fighters" or "Liberators".

My point, in regards to the film, is that we have to take it within the wider context of What did it accomplish, given the climate, and the limitations of adaptation.

You cannot convert a piece like "V" from page to screen, whole cloth, and retain an underlying message. Yes, the sense of Anarchy was missing, but, having re-read the thing today, I still feel confident that the change to self-governance (and even that may be a bit too strong) was achieved, and made important, in the film.

[elioraceit.livejournal.com]

did "signal to noise" pop up randomly on your winamp?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Not that time, though that kind of thing happens to me a Lot.

You know that.

[elioraceit.livejournal.com]

i do. :)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Damn straight.

"It's the idea that matters."

[kmn-rdr-caoimhe.livejournal.com]

And Ideas are bulletproof.

I'll say, I had my own nitpicky things about the film myself, even not having read the book. But I figured they were going for commercially viable, and I'd definitely say thy succeeded. Overall the movie was great for pretty much the reasons you already stated.

Re: "It's the idea that matters."

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yeah, my thoughts exactly. There were problems, yes, but they were mostly problems of the market, not the work.

In my opinion, the best way to deal with all sides is "If you liked/hated/loved that, check out the book."

Re: "It's the idea that matters."

[kmn-rdr-caoimhe.livejournal.com]

And on the Wachowskis: Hey, at least it wasn't Uwe Boll.

Re: "It's the idea that matters."

[wolven.livejournal.com]

PreCISEly.

[deathboy.livejournal.com]

*grins* - glad you like the tracks! you're welcome to (ok, would be doing me a favour) link to them, btw ;)

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Will most certainly do.

[unknownbinaries.livejournal.com]

You know what i thought. Loved it.

I just read the title of this as 'V for Vendetta:No Spiders' for some reason.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

So awesome.

Hm. There weren't any, actually...