babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » right brain babble   » culture   » V for Vendetta: The Movie

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: V for Vendetta: The Movie
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 26 April 2005 12:53 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alan Moore's deliciously violent graphic novel is coming to the big screen. But can it, will it come close to the brilliance of the original work? This was one of the first AM comics i read and left a big impression on me. At the time, Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan were the villains, harbingers it seemed of a coming fascist revolution. AM created a post-limited nuclear war Britain taken over by a Nazi-like genocidal corporatist regime that cleansed the isles of all non-white, non-christian, non-straight humans.

V the anti-hero, breaks out of the death camp in which he is a victim of mind-altering medical experiments, seemingly enhanced physically and mentally, and gripped with the obsession to single-handedly destroy the fascists, beginning with the surviving camp personnel. The sadistic commandant, the perverted priest, the cynical doctor, the self-hating queer Leader, etc. get a big taste of the old ultra-violence. Then it's on to blowing up public buildings, slaughtering fascist police, and saving one innocent victim to train as his successor...

Needless to say, when i heard that the long-in-development film version was a go, i had (and still have) trepidation that my beloved V was going to be trashed in some dumbed-down, American-mulitplex-friendly action movie.

A heroic terrorist? Blowing up houses of authority and pulling cops hearts out with his bare hands? Screening in Bush's Religio-Fascist America? Could it be????

So far the only clue is this teaser poster.

[ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 26 April 2005 12:59 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
There was (ahem!) a discussion about this a few weeks back hereabouts.

Some trepidation was expressed.


From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Papal Bull
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7050

posted 26 April 2005 01:00 AM      Profile for Papal Bull   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Moore is putting his hands in on this, apparentely. He's seen his other works butchered and fucked mercilessly for money. He doesn't want it to happen to his ultimate labour of love. If it sucks, he will do all he can to stop it. And given that the guy looks crazy enough to scare Skeletor...I'm pretty sure that we have little to fear
From: Vatican's best darned ranch | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 26 April 2005 01:38 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Some interesting discussions going on at IMDB V for Vendetta discussion board

and at V for Vendetta your views

Here's a fan site (i'm sure there are others):

Welcome to my V for Vendetta Shrine

...and a nice Alan Moore interview. Ever wonder what happened to Big Numbers?

[ 26 April 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 26 April 2005 01:53 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Uh-oh, a big change already. No "voice of Fate?!"

Damn.

Exclusive V For Vendetta Set Photos


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 06 May 2005 05:30 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
...and of course The Official Website.

See the stars! Hear them speak!


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 09 May 2005 11:24 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hugo Weaving replaces James Purefoy as the lead in V For Vendetta

quote:
Hugo Weaving has replaced James Purefoy in Warner Bros. Pictures' V For Vendetta, from the Wachowski brothers and Joel Silver. He will star opposite Natalie Portman as the the title vigilante character known as V.

Weaving replaces James Purefoy, who left the production for undisclosed reasons. The film, in production in Berlin with a November 4 release date, is based on the acclaimed graphic novel by Alan Moore and illustrator David Lloyd.

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante (Weaving) known only as "V."



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 10 May 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Looks like they're doing the full prison sequence with Evey - very dark and gut-wrenching, but central to her character and the story. (URL tool doesn't work for this address)

"http://www.natalieportman.com/picstemp/portman%20(4).jpg"


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 10 May 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
In related Alan Moore news, the Watchmen movie is in danger of being scrapped again, due to new management at Paramount. A good article here:

Watching The WATCHMEN

quote:
There have been so many false starts on this film, so many times that it’s come close or a director’s made confident sounds only to get shut down. I really did think Darren Aronofsky was going to make this film. I may be the only one who thought it was a done deal, evidently, but there was a period of about six months where I would have bet money on it. And, of course, I would have lost. Paramount decided that they needed to make WATCHMEN urgently. They needed to fill a 2006 summer release date. They were determined to get the film into production on a certain timetable and told Aronofsky to get moving. It wasn’t just a green light... it was a checkered flag, a pace car, and a packed NASCAR stadium cheering at the top of their lungs. Only problem was, Aronofsky had also just gotten a greenlight to direct THE FOUNTAIN, his dream project. So as much as he wanted to make WATCHMEN, he wanted to make something else more at that particular moment, and since Paramount couldn’t wait for him, they told Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon to find another filmmaker. Immediately.

Which they did. In fact, they found a pretty great director for the job in the form of Paul Greengrass. His BLOODY SUNDAY is a powerhouse, sober and adult and political as hell. Even BOURNE SUPREMACY, which is a fairly standard, if admirably stripped-down, spy thriller if you’re just talking about the script. Greengrass gave the film a pulse, though, and then shot it full of adrenaline. It’s an action film with integrity, a rarity these days. The prospect of him taking WATCHMEN and treating it like a political thriller rather than a comic book movie was instantly intriguing. As Paramount got closer and closer to making the film, even going so far as to confidently, open an official website that has a pretty thriving message board community up and running now, it seemed like the film was finally going to become a reality. The David Hayter script is, as I’ve said before, a minor miracle, a faithful adaptation that is smart and well-built and entirely true to the spirit of Moore’s work, if not the letter. I’ve raved about it at length before, and I’d be happy to do so again. But I’m not alone. It seems that everyone who’s read a draft or reviewed it online has been impressed with what they’ve seen, sometimes almost grudgingly admitting that there’s something special going on here, a chance that this might be a great film.

So when the recent executive shuffle at Paramount took place and Brad Grey took over from Sherry Lansing and Donald DeLine, things changed. That’s not to cast the studio as the bad guys of the story, since they’re not. Brad Grey has a job to do... a truly difficult job. He has to turn Paramount around. Paramount’s been an “almost” for the last five or ten years, a studio that had their biggest hits making Ashley Judd/Morgan Freeman thrill-free thrillers and romantic comedy blah blah and STAR TREK films on occasion. They weren’t a terrible studio, by any means, and Scott Rudin certainly classed the joint up to a large degree with the films he produced for them, but overall, there was some sense of missed potential, of a studio that was waiting for some sort of creative focus. If Brad Grey wants to, he can embrace that missed potential, treat it all as opportunity, and turn Paramount into a talent magnet hit machine. He’s got the relationships. And he’s got the right projects in the pipeline, as long as he pulls the trigger.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 10 May 2005 07:48 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
From the same story:

quote:
When Lloyd and Paul Greengrass and the others come to LA, I’m going to try to sit down with them again. They’re going to make their best pitch to Paramount, and then it’s up to the studio to either make the film or cut them loose. If they do let the property go, then I hope another studio (anyone besides Fox, where I feel the material would be savagely raped and murdered in Tom Rothman’s office for the sheer bloodsport of it) swoops in and picks it up immediately. I’ve waited too long to see this film, and they’re too close to getting it right.

It basically comes down to having to make a whole new pitch, with the outcome unknown. Hopefully the good start that's been made will tip the scales in favour of a green light.

Half of me is desperate for Watchmen to get the big screen treatment and half of me is terrified their going to fuck it up completely.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 10 May 2005 08:49 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I dunno, man. It's a great book, but for the life of me, I can't imagine how you would make a movie out of it. There's just too much going on to fit into two hours, or even three.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 25 May 2005 06:21 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Very kewl - The Mindscape of Alan Moore

quote:
Shadowsnake Films recently released a promotional trailer for The Mindscape of Alan Moore film by DeZ Vylenz — a psychedelic journey with the acclaimed writer as contemporary shaman having the power to transform consciousness and society.

Alan Moore — writer, artist and performer — is the world's most critically acclaimed and widely admired creator of comic books and graphic novels. In The Mindscape of Alan Moore, we see a portrait of the artist as contemporary shaman, someone with the power to transform consciousness by means of manipulating language, symbols and images. The film leads the audience through Moore's world with the writer himself as guide, beginning with his childhood background, following the evolution of his career as he transformed the comics medium, through his immersion in a magical worldview where science, spirituality and society are part of the same universe. The Mindscape of Alan Moore is an audiovisual document of utmost relevance in the wake of recent global developments.

The film does not have full scale distribution yet, but talks are underway with various distributors for a DVD release.

Original music by Drew Richards, with additional The RZA, Bill Laswell & Alan Douglas, Lustmord, and Spectre.


[ 25 May 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 08 June 2005 01:31 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
New update - cool stuff including phone camera footage of the shoot!

Much Nicer V FOR VENDETTA Pictures From London Shoot!!!

quote:
Following on from the V FOR VENDETTA story earlier. I've just got back from working as an SA on the location in London. Thought I'd send you some interesting photographs/video clips taken by myself during some takes as well as the whole night - gotta love the photographic phones.

Just to confirm, the masks are duplications of the V mask and this is one of the final scenes in the film. Where the uprising cilivians, dressed like V, watch the parliament buildings burn down, or march through the soldiers barricades.

Anyways, hope you enjoy the photos. I've even made one up quickly into a poster as I thought the photograph taken by myself would make a superb teaster poster.

Check out the files attached!



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 09 June 2005 01:08 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Who will watch the Watchmen? Maybe nobody!

Oh, poop-in-the-pants!

quote:
Status: Script Stage / Development Hell

June 8, 2005: According to Variety, Paramount has put the kibosh on the production of a film adaptation of Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons’ Watchmen. According to the trade, the movie version of the best-selling and critically acclaimed comic went under the critical microscope after Gail Berman replaced former studio head Donald De Line in March (a change which De Line learned of while in London, discussing possible cuts to the Watchmen budget). Officially, the project is now in “turnaround,” meaning that Producers Larry Gordon and Lloyd Levin were taking the project, with its director Paul Greengrass to other studios to drum up interest. If successful, the next studio will be the third home for the project, as it was at Universal before moving to Paramount. Greengrass had been eyeing a summer start to production. - Thanks to 'David' for the heads up!



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 09 June 2005 01:13 AM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm half disappointed and half relieved by the prospect that there won't be a Watchman movie. I'm with Jacob -- a two- or three-hour movie is unthinkable. It should be a miniseries of the HBO type -- six hours at least.
From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 20 June 2005 06:19 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
an article on the shooting of the film in london (login: babblers8, pwd: audrarules).

quote:
In a rare concession, authorities here agreed to close down all of Whitehall, between Trafalgar and Parliament Squares, for a three-night film shoot earlier this month. The scene on the third night was wild. Hundreds of crew members and their equipment gathered in Parliament Square, flooded with light against the backdrop of Big Ben and the London Eye. Tanks patrolled the streets. More than 100 extras playing government commandos in army camouflage formed a line in front of Parliament, while some 400 others playing rebels marched en masse down Whitehall.

From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 06 July 2005 08:34 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
A very cool new poster is up at the official site. Also, check out the photos section for new pix. The fascist riot cops have an updated look that bears considerable resemblence to the US Army.

Oh, and here's a way to get to the NYT article (now archived for $$$):

Remember, remember...

[ 21 July 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 20 July 2005 06:18 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Here's a preview of another cool poster for the film: V lurks underground.

...and here's a report from Quint at the Comic Con.

quote:
To start off, I have to say that even disregarding the line-up of love-struck males that approached the mic to ask questions of her, Ms. Portman had the audience eating out of her hand. She was so adorable, so sweet and so kind that you could feel the love of the audience for her.

TIDBITS:

-The first thing asked of Ms. Portman was for an utterly original moment... which she did to the delight of the audience. A kind of screechy, tongue-sticking-out, fingers splayed out over her forehead thing. Very cute.

-A (supposedly) New Line employee floated the idea of Portman playing Audrey Hepburn in a film. Portman says she idolizes Hepburn and didn't think she could ever bear the responsibility of playing her onscreen.

-A comic fan asked the panel why Alan Moore didn't sign off on the project (to a group of applause from the back of the room). David Lloyd, co-creator and artist on the original series, answered.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Mandos
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 888

posted 20 July 2005 11:29 PM      Profile for Mandos   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Now when are they going to remake V for Lizard People Who Want To Eat Mankind?
From: There, there. | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 21 July 2005 04:34 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
They have - it's called The Bush Administration!

More, more, more Natalie Portman!

quote:
Ahoy, squirts. Quint here... there are some days when it is good to be a geekly internet loser and last Friday was one of those days. Somehow, Warner Bros decided they would let me sit down with Natalie Portman for 10 minutes and leave us two all by our lonesomes for a chat about V FOR VENDETTA. I don't know why they trusted me to be alone with one of the most beautiful girls in the world, but God bless 'em for it.

I've had a crush on Portman since I was about 13 years old and I saw THE PROFESSIONAL for the first time. Throughout the next decade my crush hadn't abated... through BEAUTIFUL GIRLS and up to GARDEN STATE she has a vulnerability and beauty that is unique to her. Shit, they shaved her head for V and she still looks adorable. I know if they shaved my head I'd look like a penis after getting caught in a mousetrap.

Portman was sweet, beautiful, kind and a very giving interviewee. My only regret is that due to them running late with the interviews I was cut off by about 3 minutes without a warning, so I couldn't ask her what her favorite dirty joke was.

So, enough with the jibber-jabber as they say. Let's get on with the interview! I present Ms. Natalie Portman!


[ 21 July 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
rob.leblanc
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2475

posted 26 July 2005 02:43 AM      Profile for rob.leblanc     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm not too sure about comic book movies now...I've been so dissapointed in the past. The only one that I'm looking forward to (if they ever make it) is a movie based one Warren Ellis' comic "Transmetropolitan"

Patrick Stewart, who loves the comic, got his production company to pick it up and a script is being written, changed, and put off. If a film is made, Stewart would supposedly play Spider Jerusalem, The Hunter Thompson-like journalist.

Here's one of the covers...


From: Where am I? Where are YOU? | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alix
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2279

posted 26 July 2005 10:14 AM      Profile for Alix     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
My husband has been very excited about the V for Vendetta ever since he read an interview with J. Michael Straczynski who had read the script and said

quote:
It's not just a good film, it's an *important* film, and there's a great deal of subtlety and nuance in it that was clearly lost on the idiot that read the script so he could make fun of it and stir the pot.

You have to scroll down to June 7th for this item.


From: Kingston | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged
happyfunball
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9501

posted 27 July 2005 10:47 AM      Profile for happyfunball     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Trailer's up.
Apple

From that it looks like it is being marketed as your typical comic-turned-movie. Hopefully it turns out ok.


From: on belay | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 27 July 2005 12:20 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I wonder how blowing up London landmarks is going to play in this age of hyper sensitivity to all things terroristy.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 18 August 2005 03:20 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
V for Vendetta release postponed until March 16

quote:
According to Sci-Fi Wire, the move was made not because of the subject matter and its similarities to the recent terror bombings in London, but to give them more time "to accomodate the post-production schedule."

From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 19 August 2005 05:00 AM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Being that the level of police state brought on by blair is now surpassing even the iron bitch's version of it perhaps it's time for Alan Moore too create another graphic novel.
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 19 August 2005 07:14 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Vigilante:
Being that the level of police state brought on by blair is now surpassing even the iron bitch's version of it perhaps it's time for Alan Moore too create another graphic novel.

So Hitler was preferable to Stalin, Chiang to Mao, and now our junior anarchist has a melancholy moment for old Maggie.

Raygunomics sux


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 19 August 2005 02:26 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
You really don't get what I just said did you. V was created in the mids of the Thatcher gov, a time of increased fascism in Britain. With what Blair is doing now, I am suggesting he could find a new source of inspiration for a philosophical sequal to V.

How you come to think I like margarette is beyond me.


From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 13 December 2005 09:20 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Damn...some lucky buggers got to see V For Vendetta before I, V's Number One Fan, could! Ohh, the pain...!

Massawyrm professes his thoughts upon BNAT 7 and why V FOR VENDETTA was the best film he's seen this year!

quote:
V For Vendetta was not just the single greatest film experience I had at BNAT. Rather, it is the Single Greatest Film I’ve seen all year. It is an utterly perfect, flawless film, ripe for debate and ready to be argued. It is a comic book adaptation of material now 23 years old, and yet, it could not have been made at a better, more relevant, more appropriate time. This is a film about revolution, a film about police states and terrorism. It is a film about what happens when people are afraid and let those that offer safety at the expense of freedom reign. It is a film about one man pushed over the edge, completely destroyed and ready to get revenge. But more important than revenge, this man wants revolution. This man wants not to cut the chains of slavery off of himself, but rather off of his people. And this man, this V, is a terrorist.

And that’s gonna piss a lot of people off. And it should. V For Vendetta is far from your run of the mill sci-fi. It is an important work of fiction that has more truth to it than is comfortable to most. In this country we have this conceit about terrorism in which we like to forget that we invented the ideals of modern “terrorism”. Despite being taught all about it in grade school, we forget that we won our independence through it. Sure, some will immediately fire back “The Boston Tea Party was not an act of terrorism, it was an act of vandalism.” And they’d be right. Of course those people don’t like to talk about our tactics during the revolutionary war in which brave British soldiers wore bright red coats, marched into fields and lined up to fight a “civilized” war. And those men were cut down by American men, hiding in the trees wearing street clothes that were indistinguishable from any other citizen. The Brits called us cowards. Uncivilized. But for over two hundred years we have operated under aegis of the motto “Desperate times call for desperate measures.” Now the tables are turned. We call men cowards for dressing in street clothes and taking shots at an occupying army. What was once our proud methods of liberation, what was once our revolution against not only tyranny, but outdated methods of warfare, has now become our burden. And now we as a people have fallen into desperate times, times when instead of standing up, we chose the path of least resistance. We chose safety over freedom. And we’re paying for that mistake. And deep down, many of us are waiting for a V.

But V isn’t some action film glorifying a terrorist waging war against a “Right Wing” regime. It is a film about ideas, about the monstrosity on both sides, about discussing what exactly terrorism is while similarly showing the loss of freedom through control by the media. And while the Wachowskis have made a few changes to the original story, they haven’t changed it very much. The theme still remains, only having been slightly tweaked here and there to update the material and enhance its relevance.

This film is extraordinarily powerful. It is a genre fisted gutpunch that uses Science Fiction in the way it was originally intended – as an allegory for high-minded ideals. And while it is busy dissecting terrorism, it is also careful to illustrate the importance of simply showing up over the power of violence. Ultimately V For Vendetta is not a piece glorifying terrorism, but rather one that demands a catalyst to encourage the people.

Hugo Weaving owns this film. His ability to showcase the soul of V, despite the fact that he is a singularly expressionless character is amazing (insert Paul Walker joke here.) This is the single greatest masked character on film since Darth Vader, and while that seems like a bold statement, Hugo Weaving is there to back it up every step of the way. Natalie Portman gives her best, perfectly layered performance since The Professional (Leon), and Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry and John Hurt all deliver with the oomph we’ve come to expect from this trio of masters.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 13 December 2005 10:23 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
YesYesYeeees!!!!

I am cramping up from wanting to see this so bad. I believe this review. It will be just as awesome as I hoped it would, and I'm gonna go see it about 3 MILLION TIMES!!!!!

Okay, maybe not that many.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 16 December 2005 02:58 AM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Another review of the BNAT screening

quote:
Hey folks, Harry here with the first full length review written on V FOR VENDETTA - this one by Nordling. The Nord is a mighty man of passion - and this review is no different. However, he discusses many very extreme spoilers - so if YOU don't know the comic or graphic novel that this is based upon - I don't recommend reading this review. Suffice to say - he absolutely loves it and feels that on top of being a morally ambiguous work - that it is highly entertaining and important. Here ya go...
Hey all.

This review will assume that you have read the graphic novel. I really don't know how else to write it. If you have not read Alan Moore's graphic novel, I urge you to read it before reading this review. If you want to be unspoiled about the film and the story, I'll say this: I think this is an extraordinarily important film, but the ad campaign that the WB is presenting at this time will make the film really hated by a lot of people. It's not THE MATRIX. Strictly speaking, V FOR VENDETTA isn't even an action film in the strictest sence. The action scenes it does have are few and only last a couple of minutes. For those having not read the book, V FOR VENDETTA is a brave film that tries to find the truth in our confusing times - what is our role in our government? And how much can we stand up to oppression before it becomes terrorism? It's a film that definitely needs to be seen and discussed, especially in America and Britain, and I hope everyone that has a chance to see it does so and joins the great conversation about what freedom really means. From here out, stop reading, if you haven't read the graphic novel.

I realize I've written some about V FOR VENDETTA already in my BNAT 7 review, but it's been more than 24 hours now, and the film simply will not leave my mind. I'm an optimist. I generally think that good things always happen and that if you wait around long enough the world will eventually right itself if things are bad. I'm not sure how this has anything to do with V FOR VENDETTA, but when that film was over I had such a feeling of satisfaction and of karma wheeling around again. I think that if people let it, V FOR VENDETTA could change lives. And at the same time, I am afraid of how wildly misinterpreted it will be.

For Alan Moore fans, let me say this: you're going to be happy. The film is extraordinarily close, in spirit and in text, to his graphic novel. The Wachowski Brothers do not spare any punches when necessary, and many of the sequences that fans hold to heart are there. I'm going to flat out say it - V never takes the mask off. You never see his face. I am so impressed with Hugo Weaving for taking a pretty much thankless role without any great actory moments to show off and making a full-fledged character. Weaving has a moment in the beginning of the film as he lets the world know his point of view, with V words strewn throughout his monologue, that under any lesser actor would have been embarrassingly bad. He pulls it off so well that towards the end of it people were applauding in the theater. I'm not sure if Weaving is actually the actor in many of the scenes (I believe he replaced another actor during production, although I may be wrong about that) but I have to give him marks for bravery for even attempting it. Which brings me to Natalie Portman...



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 16 December 2005 03:05 AM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Hopefully it will be wonderfully controversial and draw a big audience to see what all the fuss is about.

Need some wingnuts to denounce it.


From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 16 December 2005 02:02 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
New Trailer
From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
StephenGM
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 305

posted 19 December 2005 12:11 PM      Profile for StephenGM     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I won't be seeing this - Alan Moore is so disgusted with the adaptation that he demanded his name be taken off it.

I'll just re-read the graphic novel instead.


From: Toronto, Ontario, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 19 December 2005 04:16 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Are you sure he is disgusted with it? I was under the impression he just didn't like to be associated with film adaptions in general so they are separated from his real work. He doesn't want to be seen endorsing something that he doesn't control himself.
From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 19 December 2005 04:50 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Alan is pretty hard to please, but I guess after getting screwed, you get cynical about Hollywood's intentions. However, I think the Wachowski Brothers will do a great job (even if Matrix 2 & 3 took a big hit).

The review convinces me!

Check out the V for Venezuela blog.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 20 December 2005 03:55 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Spring Forward, Fall Back...Reset Your Watchmen!

quote:
Monday December 19, 8:38 AM
'Watchmen' on duty at Warner Bros

By Borys Kit

LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - "The Watchmen," the seminal DC Comics limited series credited with redefining the superhero genre , has found a home at Warner Bros. Pictures.

The project has been in development since the 1980s, with such directors as Terry Gilliam, Darren Aronofsky and Paul Greengrass on board.

"The Watchmen" is one of the most critically acclaimed series in the genre, and is often is referred to as the "War and Peace" of comic books. It is a crime-conspiracy story that provided the first realistic look at the behind-the-heroics lives of superhero archetypes. In November, the graphic novel was the only nonbook on Time magazine's list of the 100 best novels since 1923.

Set in an alternate America, "Watchmen" follows the costumed hero Rorschach, who is living a vigilante lifestyle because most masked heroes have retired or been outlawed. While investigating a murder, he learns that a former masked-hero colleague has been killed, prompting him to begin investigating a possible conspiracy.

"Watchmen" first landed at a studio in 2001, when it was set up at Universal with David Hayter on board to adapt and Mark Gordon, who holds the rights, producing.

Gordon and Universal parted ways over creative differences, and in July 2004, the project found its way to Paramount with Hayter still on it as writer. At the same time, Aronofsky ("Requiem for a Dream") came on board to develop and direct the movie.

When scheduling conflicts arose with "The Fountain," Aronofsky bowed out in November 2004, and Greengrass, riding high on his hit "The Bourne Supremacy," came on as director. Hayter's script was still the blueprint.

Paramount came close to getting the movie made earlier this year. Crews were building sets in London, casting lists were being made -- Jude Law and Hilary Swank were rumored to be in the mix -- and a summer start date was being scheduled. But the Paramount regime change, the movie's high price tag and its dark tone contributed to its being jettisoned in June.

For "Watchmen" to make Warners its home -- albeit without Greengrass and Hayter-- is somewhat fitting as parent company Time Warner owns DC Comics and the studio is releasing "V for Vendetta," which is based on another comic book by "Watchmen" co-creator Alan Moore, and scheduled for a March 17 release.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 20 December 2005 08:19 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Which Studio Is Watching Watchmen?

quote:
by Stax

December 16, 2005 - IGN FilmForce has confirmed that the long-in-development feature film version of Watchmen is not quite as dead as fans feared after Paramount put it into turnaround last summer, just months before it was slated to film.

Good news first. Producers Lloyd Levin and Larry Gordon have officially set up Watchmen at Warner Bros. (Entertainment Weekly reported a few months back that Gordon and Levin were in talks with Warners.) This studio makes sense as it belongs to the Time Warner empire, as does Watchmen's comic book publisher, DC Comics. Warners has revitalized the comic book movie genre with its gritty, A-list Batman Begins and looks to stay the course with next year's Superman Returns and V for Vendetta.

Like Vendetta, Watchmen is based on a work by lauded comics scribe Alan Moore. With the buzz beginning to turn positive for Vendetta, Warners is understood to want to have another Moore property on-hand should Vendetta prove a success.

Now for the not so good news. Politically charged filmmaker Paul Greengrass no longer appears attached to direct Watchmen, which is a shame considering how well he understood and respected the material. Furthermore, David Hayter's script also appears to have been set aside; Watchmen is now considered an open writing assigment, which means the development process begins anew. Hayter's screenplay adaptation was widely praised online (including by myself) for its fidelity to the complex source material.

IGN FilmForce contacted Mr. Hayter, who was surprisingly candid about these recent developments. "I believe that Paul's schedule dictated that he move on after Paramount was unable to meet their commitment to make the film on the previously set timetable, though I am not certain whether Warners still has Paul in mind for a later date, or if they are just starting again with a new director.


[ 20 December 2005: Message edited by: majorvictory64 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
majorvictory64
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7194

posted 01 February 2006 11:51 PM      Profile for majorvictory64     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Yowza! Guess who's gonna be first in line for the first screening at the Paramount!

WARNER BROS. PICTURES' V FOR VENDETTA TO BE SIMULTANEOUSLY RELEASED TO IMAX ® THEATRES IN MARCH

quote:
Los Angeles, CA - January 26, 2006 - IMAX Corporation and Warner Bros. Pictures today announced that V For Vendetta , a thrilling action-adventure from the creators of The Matrix trilogy , will be simultaneously released to IMAX ® and conventional theatres on March 17, 2006. Produced by Joel Silver and the Wachowski Brothers, directed by James McTeigue and starring Natalie Portman, V For Vendetta will be digitally re-mastered into the unparalleled image and sound quality of The IMAX Experience ® through IMAX DMR ® (Digital Re-mastering) technology. Warner Bros. Pictures will be the exclusive distributor of the film to IMAX theatres worldwide.

The addition of V For Vendetta makes IMAX's 2006 film slate stronger than any previous slate in the Company's 35-year history, with five new digitally re-mastered Hollywood films - including two in IMAX® 3D - already scheduled to be released day-and-date to IMAX theatres this year.

"We're excited to give fans the opportunity to experience V For Vendetta in IMAX's spectacular format," said Joel Silver, producer of V For Vendetta . "The clarity and immersive quality of The IMAX Experience adds a dynamic dimension to the film's powerful visuals, breathtaking action and multi-layered storytelling."

"Moviegoers loved The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions in IMAX theatres, and we are thrilled to offer the next story from the Wachowski Brothers and Joel Silver in this powerful and unique way," said Dan Fellman, President of Domestic Distribution, Warner Bros. Pictures. " The IMAX theatre network generates incremental revenue for our event titles, and we are pleased to partner with IMAX for an exciting 2006 lineup."

"We believe V For Vendetta is a fantastic addition to the IMAX 2006 film slate, especially given the popularity of The Matrix series and our own excitement upon screening the film," said IMAX Co-Chairmen and Co-CEOs Richard L. Gelfond and Bradley J. Wechsler. "IMAX now has more films slated for day-and-date release in a single year than ever before. Beginning with this film, we expect a Hollywood film to be released to the IMAX theatre network every six to eight weeks in 2006, and we are confident that the rising number of event titles will continue to drive the growth of the IMAX theatre network worldwide."


"Warner Bros. Pictures has a special expertise in developing, marketing and distributing groundbreaking, event films, and we're thrilled to once again partner with the studio to fill the March release window with this provocative and visionary film," said Greg Foster, Chairman and President of IMAX Filmed Entertainment . "Joel Silver and the Wachowski Brothers are cutting- edge filmmakers, and when moviegoers experience V For Vendetta in IMAX's format, they're going to feel like they are part of the film's revolution."

Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain, V For Vendetta tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked vigilante known only as "V." Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V's mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself - and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty and corruption.



From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jimmy Brogan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3290

posted 16 March 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for Jimmy Brogan   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Rotten Tomatoes is at 74% fresh

Peter Travers - Rolling Stone Magazine:

quote:
Mad as hell and out to rile up a politically lethargic youth audience, V for Vendetta sometimes trips on its ambitions. But who gives a damn? At least this grabber of a movie actually has ambitions, which makes it unique in a brain-dead multiplex. Better yet, V packs an urgent filmmaking energy that pins you to your seat.

Written by the Wachowskis -- Andy and his transgender brother, Larry -- and directed by first-timer James McTeigue, their assistant on The Matrix, the film flies on a rhythm all its own. There's nothing Neo about V, the masked avenger who uses bombs, daggers and his telegenic charisma to take down a regime that has left him a burned remnant of its ungodly experiments.

Hugo Weaving -- Agent Smith in the Matrix movies -- plays this terrorist grandmaster behind a fiberglass mask that makes his vocal wit and physical eloquence doubly remarkable. Never mind that the Shakespeare-quoting, rose-carrying V comes dangerously close to Phantom of the Opera kitsch. Or that his politics can be as simplistic as Billy Jack's. V has his mojo working.

And so do the filmmakers. The source material is the 1989 graphic novel illustrated by David Lloyd and written by Alan Moore, who wants no part of what the Wachowskis have wrought. Moore took his name off the film's credits. Moore's novel skewered the 1980s England of Margaret Thatcher. In the Wachowski update, England is a police state ruled by Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt), a fear-mongering, gay-bashing, Islam-hating dictator who strips citizens of their civil rights and religious freedoms in exchange for protection from bioweapons of mass destruction. Some see parallels here to BushWorld. Come on. The chancellor, as acted to the hilt by Hurt, can't be W -- he's hyperarticulate.



From: The right choice - Iggy Thumbscrews for Liberal leader | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Yst
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9749

posted 18 March 2006 12:59 AM      Profile for Yst     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought rather well of the movie. I didn't expect it to equal the comic, nor did it. I thought the goal of representing the comic precisely as Moore and Lloyd created it in two hour movie format an impossible one, and so it was. But for what it was, I certainly don't think it was bad, by any means.

Part of the intrigue of the comic for me has to do with the fact of its placing itself in a future seen from the vantage point of Thatcherism and a time in western political history very important to but not precisely like our present one. And so while I appreciate the reasoning behind the movie's attempts to modernise the setting, it loses some of the complexity of the comic in the process.

**** SPOILERS: ****

Things I was somewhat sad to see taken out, but which may have been necessary for time:
- Prothero's capture and descent into madness at the Shadow Gallery.
- Delia's diary.
- Derek and Rose.

Things I was somewhat surprised to see changed, since they aren't a matter of saving time:
- Evey isn't attempting to prostitute herself to the fingermen from whom V saves her, though they do intend to rape her. She isn't dirt poor and working at a matchstick factory. She doesn't follow V to the Shadow Gallery at this point.
- Evey tries to betray V to Lilliman?
- Fate doesn't enter into the situation. V doesn't have access to Fate.
- Susan isn't a pathetic figure. And he's named Suttler.
- Gordon is a talkshow host. He's taken by the fingermen for a subversive TV bit.
- V's address to Britain isn't darkly humourous. He doesn't tell the human race that it's been fired.

Things I was somewhat surprised to see stayed in:
- Evey being used as bait for Lilliman.

Things I felt demonstrated gratuitous Wachowskiism:
- V's death scene. He's killed by a lone cop with a handgun, not a firing squad. And he throws a single knife, not veritable storm of them. Put that in Wachowski terms, though, and you get what the movie did.


From: State of Genderfuck | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
obscurantist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8238

posted 18 March 2006 02:46 AM      Profile for obscurantist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I've never read the book, and I think I'll start reading Alan Moore's work after this, but I have to say the movie was pretty damn bad. Yes, it presents some Important Ideas, but it presents them with all of the grace of Michael Moore after a long night of heavy drinking.

There are enough frequent flashes of wit, enough engaging characters, to keep it watchable. But in general, it succumbs to the worst stylistic excesses, the worst linguistic clunkers, the worst plot inconsistencies / implausibilities, and (more generally) the worst cliches of the daring-subversive-antihero-against-the-evil-fascist-authority genre. (Actually, I take that back about the language. There were a few lines to wince at, but the dialogue is not bad for the most part.)

People on the left are likely to be frustrated by the film's half-baked development of a political theme, politically unaware people are likely to miss the point and just see it as another action flick with a few references to current events, and right-wingers are likely to roll their eyes at what will seem to them like another incoherent and hysterical left-wing screed.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: Yossarian ]


From: an unweeded garden | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jason Kauppinen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5932

posted 18 March 2006 08:40 PM      Profile for Jason Kauppinen   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I saw the movie last night and liked it a lot.

I would say that the mainstream journalists who are writing that this movie is a huge criticism of the United States are exaggerating wildly.

There's one reference to "America's War", and a brief shot of a contraband work of art: a composite US/UK/Nazi flag with a "Coalition of the Willing" caption.

That's it. Big whoop.

As for other "journalists" saying that V is a terrorist, well, that's a stupid assertion:

V blows up empty buildings, doesn't kill civilians, and the government he's acting against is demonstratably evil.

Yet others are also saying that it's "anti-Christian"--also a stupid assertion:

None of the party members actually pray or base their beliefs on Christianity, they just want power. They appropriate Christian imagry and spout off about faith in their propeganda. Big deal. The Bible actually contains warnings against people doing that in Matt 7:15 to 7:20. How is a fictional portrayal of evil people doing just that anti-Christian???? The assertion is simply ludicrous.

And one of the evil party members is a depraved Bishop. Well, again, considering that this is a movie set in Britain, and not the United States, (as some of these journalists may think on some level) it is not unreasonable to specualte that a fascist party intent on acquiring power in the UK would also subourn the Church of England.

Really the reaction to this movie that some Americans are having is nothing short of comical.

[ 18 March 2006: Message edited by: Jason Kauppinen ]


From: Kingston, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 18 March 2006 10:26 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I thought it was ok, and actually a good adaptation of the novel. The graphic novel would have been impossible to make into a movie, so I think they did the best they could.

I also think they did the best they could with the new alternative history, although it does seem far fetched that a theofascist government could take power in the UK. Seeing that the US collapses is an interesting twist though.

At the end of the film though, you get a sense that V for Vendetta isn't radical at all. He's the monster fighting the monstrosity of the regime. After both are gone (after anarchism and fascism cancel each other out), some sort of liberal democratic norm would be restored.

That John Hurt played Winston Smith in 1984 and plays the head honcho in V is a great cinematic twist.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 20 March 2006 02:55 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The movie was pretty crappy. The performances and story were o.k. (disclaimer: I never read the o.g. graphic novel). The biggest flaw to me was he fact that they didn't do a particularily good job of conveying what kind of world we were looking at and what effect living under tyrrany had on the people in it. I found it all very shallow and unsatisfying, like they tried to straddle the line between making either a statement picture or an entertaining action film, but ended up with neither.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 20 March 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ceti:

At the end of the film though, you get a sense that V for Vendetta isn't radical at all. He's the monster fighting the monstrosity of the regime. After both are gone (after anarchism and fascism cancel each other out), some sort of liberal democratic norm would be restored.

Yes. Add to that the fact that the movie places the blame for everything on the government, where Moore's story places it on the populace, and I can see why Moore wanted his name removed. Moore has the British entering fascism with eyes wide open; the movie has them blindfolded and deceived. The basic message of Moore's story is changed to a typical Government Conspiracy Movie.

I enjoyed the movie well enough, though. Very entertaining, and Hugo Weaving did a good job as V, I thought. But it sure ain't "Alan Moore's V for Vendetta", that's certain.


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 20 March 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Painful. Having just re-read the book and marvelled at how powerful it is, it was jarring to walk into the theatre and find every scene comparing unfavourably. The problem is that Alan Moore is an excellent writer and the W brothers are fairly bad writers. I found the whole movie a bit flat and clumsy, lacking certain crucial elements of the story, and still inexplicably tacking on unnecessary nonsense.

I would encourage anyone liking this to read the book. It is a very graceful, lyrical work that makes strong statements about fighting tyranny with an emotional resonance that the movie doesn't seem to understand.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 20 March 2006 09:37 PM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I did not read the novel prior to seeing the film but talked to a colleague at work a bit about it and eventually went to see it with my son.

I am 33 years older than him. I loved the movie mainly because of the story. It was a classic tale for our times. It asks the question of whether or not violence is justified and under what circumstances. The entire plot however was built around the idea that destroying symbols of state power be they the British Parliament buildings in a dystopian fascist Britain of the future or whatever...

Violence against individuals of obvious evil, state sponsored mass murderers, is also seen as justified.

Now fast forward/backward to today.

Was 9/11 a state-sponsored act of shadowy forces in the US to provoke the "War on Terror"? It is a question many people are asking and have been for some time. Is terrorism then a valid reponse against state oppression? And so on...

The book was written 10 years before 9/11! It has therefore a powerful authenticity.

It is however, a cartoon. The politics are, as my son pointed out, much more complicated. The world's leaders do not seem to us to be scions of evil. They have their own "point of view" etc. Bombings do not destroy "symbols" but rather real people.

What I found compelling however was the idea that the primary purpose of V was to make a symbolic statement. Now the problem say, Osama Bin Laden would have had,(if this was actually something he planned), is that he was not American. It wasn't therefore an act of revolt and liberation of an indigenous population against a tyranical government. It was an act of terror against an international superpower - not the wisest of strategies if it was all about making a political statement, which I think it was.Thus the entire logic of symbolic violence against the state had the exact opposite effect on Americans. Now this is where the entire thesis fails in my view. Violence does not inspire freedom and democracy it destroys it. Violence and terror turns people off - unless it is in a work of art. Then people love it. Why? Who knows? Catharsis? Simplistic resolution? Sublimation even? It is very difficult to say.

It is a movie about belief and fear and people maintaining themselves if the face of an Orwellian state apparatus. On this level it inspires.

I really enjoyed the film and I think it will have international appeal.


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Willowdale Wizard
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3674

posted 21 March 2006 05:57 AM      Profile for Willowdale Wizard   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fate doesn't enter into the situation. V doesn't have access to Fate.

bloody hell.

i defintely won't be seeing it now.


From: england (hometown of toronto) | Registered: Jan 2003  |  IP: Logged
Boinker
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 664

posted 25 March 2006 09:38 AM      Profile for Boinker   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The idea of terrorism as symbolic act is overrated. If however, certain terrorists are motivated for committing symbolic acts then you have to ask why they haven't targeted other syumbols of state power and oppression.

Perhaps they are unable to given the international clamp down on acts of terror. But it might also be evidence that knocking down the two Towers and killing all of those innocent people was "sufficient" for the purposes of those who orchestrated it. As they say in the Watergate film " All the President's Men",(actually I think it was the movie JFK - ed. note) who benefited?

Virtually no one but those who are getting political capital for implementing a police state in the US - the Establishment.(Again the point made in the movie JFK. ed. note ) The logic of the "symbolic terrorism" argument implies that it was therefore the same Establishment that was behind it.

This is the fascinating thing about V is that it is encouraging people to look through the propaganda of the state in a way that is precisely needed at this point in the US and elsewhere around the world.

But the movie contradicts itself in advocating that which it abhors: acts of terrorism.conspiracy theoriesClay Shaw?

[ 26 March 2006: Message edited by: Boinker ]


From: The Junction | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca