New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | March 17, 2006

Damon Dimmick remembers the fifth of November with the Wachowski brothers' adaptation of V for Vendetta.

Comments

|3.17.06 @ 3:06PM|#

"Perhaps the greatest evidence that there is little intellectual heft left in the anarchist movement is the occasional protests in Albany, N.Y., where self-proclaimed anarchists turn up to protest budget cuts at state-run schools."


From the Taste page of today's WSJ. Funniest thing I have read in a long time.

|3.17.06 @ 3:32PM|#

Should this be designated a "spoiler free" thread?

|3.17.06 @ 3:33PM|#

Please, no. I like reading spoilers more than I like watching movies.

Jon Bristow|3.17.06 @ 3:38PM|#

Well, has the statute of limitations run out for the Graphic Novel? It's been out for nearly a decade and a half now...

|3.17.06 @ 3:43PM|#

That's "Wachowski" brothers -- no "t" in their last name.

|3.17.06 @ 3:54PM|#

However you spell it, there is no coherent plot or clear thinking in "Wachowski" brothers. Judging from the Matrix movies, these guys make Dan Brown and Michael Creighton look like Thomas Aquinas and Issac Asimov.

|3.17.06 @ 4:09PM|#

John,

True, but they deserve to have their name spelled right, if only so we can damn them properly. They do make very visually appealing films, though.

The hollywood treatment of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" caused Alan Moore to want his name taken off the credits for "V for Vendetta," and I can't say as I blame him. I'm dreading what Hollywood will do to his work in the forthcoming "Watchmen."

|3.17.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Ah well, I suppose I was hoping for too much from Hollywood. There's always A Scanner Darkly to look forward to. Anybody catch the Village Fishwrap's article on V for Vendetta? I'm curious to see how far they can stick their noses in the air over this one.

Tim Cavanaugh|3.17.06 @ 5:38PM|#

However you spell it, there is no coherent plot or clear thinking in "Wachowski" brothers. Judging from the Matrix movies, these guys make Dan Brown and Michael Creighton look like Thomas Aquinas and Issac Asimov.

Well the first Matrix movie had a pretty coherent plot. I mean, if you just allow that the best way the machines have figured out to keep their system going is to keep breeding billions of humans, going to all the trouble and expense to raise and feed them, keep them on a life support system so advanced it doesn't even give you bedsores, and keep them amused with an infinitely complex VR supernetwork, because that's apparently the most efficient way to generate a whopping 98.6 degrees worth of energy to power their...

All right, all right, it's not a coherent plot. But it was pretty damn cool while it lasted.

|3.17.06 @ 8:35PM|#

"However you spell it, there is no coherent plot or clear thinking in "Wachowski" brothers."

Um... they just produced the movie, not directed or wrote it. It looks like a cool ass movie to me, one that libertarians can dig. "People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people."

|3.17.06 @ 11:29PM|#

I saw it and I agree with the review. It was heavy-handed and muddled. Paul Verhoeven would have been just as heavy-handed, but he would have connected the dots better. It cried out for a stronger director.

|3.17.06 @ 11:38PM|#

Seriously, did no one ever put a bag on a person's head before Abu Ghraib? Just off the top of my head, I recall scenes from Con Air, Brazil, and an episode of the TV series M:I where bags were put over prisoners' heads, and I'm sure it had been done many times in film and in real life before then.

I know I'm picking at nits, but this is like the twentieth review I've read that says the bags-on-heads are a reference to Abu Ghraib. If you look hard enough for something you will certainly find it.

Tim Cavanaugh|3.18.06 @ 12:04AM|#

Paul Verhoeven would have been just as heavy-handed

Man, there's a great version that only happened in our imaginations. Verhoeven in full Robocop/Starship Troopers mode could have directed the shit out of this material--getting the thematic stuff across and making it a total fist-in-the-air action movie, while also mercilessly mocking and satirizing it. Nobody's ever been better at making you feel both smug for getting the dark comedy buried in the mindless action adventure and slightly dirty because you're enjoying the action adventure stuff so much. That would have been something to see.

|3.18.06 @ 2:08AM|#

"True, but they deserve to have their name spelled right, if only so we can damn them properly."

Well, if you're going to nitpick, I'm not sure it's entirely accurate any more to call them "brothers".

|3.18.06 @ 9:38AM|#

Tim Cavanaugh,

Somehow I'm getting the feeling you never read the book Starship Troopers.

|3.18.06 @ 11:03AM|#

I also didn't see the bags on the head as a reference to Abu Ghraib, though I guess it probably was one since so much of the rest of the film has recent references. I was thinking of similar things like this happening in Latin America and the Middle East, as well as random dictatorships in East Asia and elsewhere.

Anyone catch the Emma Goldman reference in the film? Loved it!

|3.18.06 @ 11:25AM|#

The Wachowskis did, in fact, write the screenplay for the film.

It's too bad that the Matrix sequels drug it down & ruined it's good name, because the original Matrix was a great SF movie, even if it had a few plot holes.

V for Vendetta, while good, is not as good - it is rather heavy-handed & left-leaning. It's no coincidence that all the things the cartoonishly evil gov't is shown doing are things that lefties go nuts about, while there is nothing about the gov't confiscating guns (even though one of the characters make reference to what happens when a group of people without guns runs up against a group of people with guns), stripping property right, or interfering in the market. I much prefer the depiction in Firefly/Serenity of an ostensibly benevolent democracy that ends up doing evil things to the pseudo-Third Reich portrayed in V for Vendetta.

For a movie that explicitly says it's about the power of ideas, it's odd that the reason for Guy Fawkes attempted bombing of Parliament is never mentioned. And there is also a major inconsistency between V's ideas & actions about 2/3 of the way through the film, which I won't disclose because of the spoiler, but relates to Natalie Portman's character.

Still, I had a good impression on the whole - it was a surprisingly positive treatment of anarchy/revolution with a good theme in "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people," great visuals, and lots of references to both current events & the history of anarchy. I saw it with a stodgy paleo-con friend who I expected would dislike the film because it "advocated terrorism," but he walked away with a fairly positive impression, so perhaps the message about liberty in this film will transcend some barriers.

|3.18.06 @ 1:14PM|#

V for Vendetta was the best film I've seen since Firefly. There were parts that I could nitpick, but I thought the overall message was pretty clear and powerfully presented. It's more than inspired me to read Moore's graphic novel.

|3.18.06 @ 1:56PM|#

Saw it last night... it's heavy-handed and over-the-top... but when the lines are delivered by Hugo Weaving, and the plot hits that close to home, I could care less. While Natalie Portman didn't have the most convincing accent ever, she didn't suck it up as badly as usual. The aesthetics of the film were chilling; it definitely felt like a plausible Anglo-American fascism. I hadn't walked out of a movie feeling so empowered since Fight Club.

Yes, I definitely think that the movie has a message that can be enjoyed by liberals, libertarians, anarchists, and traditional conservatives alike. There isn't much in the movie that I could see Ayn Rand or Barry Goldwater disagreeing with, except perhaps the use of terrorist means... though I'm not so sure the former would be opposed, under the circumstances. V was practically John Galt in a mask.

As for the last two Matrix films... they were great if you knew what you were watching, and had read most of Ken Wilber's canon. Otherwise, you'll be lost... which is a shame, given I thought they were both excellent.

|3.18.06 @ 2:11PM|#

Dan writes: "stripping property right, or interfering in the market."

Wouldn't that fall under the censorship? Banned music, banned art, banned books, TV producers being dragged off and killed for satirizing the head of state.

All of that is a pretty significant interference with property rights and markets.

|3.18.06 @ 2:14PM|#

The irony about the conservative complaints about the movie is that they'd wet their pants in ecstasy if real-life 'V's popped up in Iran, North Korea, Syria, Libya, China, etc, etc, etc.

|3.18.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Great movie. Not adding much to Jon's comment, if the state symbol was a crescent, or if the native language was not English, or if the skin of individuals in gov't were darker it might be more palatable to our good hawks sensitive to any criticism of our progress in Iraq.

I disagree with the missing elements from the comic (yeah i said it) having even a marginal impact in this story. Yes, I found the missing LSD tale dissapointing, but such a realization as Finch's can come without it anyway.

I don't know if Alan Moore will like the movie tho I don't care at this point. We finally got another good big budget movie for which I'm grateful - knowing what i know now I would have spent $25 instead of $14.

|3.18.06 @ 5:30PM|#

The NY Times review mocked the idea that a mainstream Hollywood film could be 'subversive', but I think the reviewer was mistaken.

Even a mass-market, commercialized product like Barbie Dolls can be subversive in the right environment - for example, in Saudi Arabia, by providing a very different image of womanhood (Barbie drives, dresses in modern and revealing clothes, etc).

|3.18.06 @ 6:18PM|#

Jon H: NYT is entirely wrong. "Fight Club" is one of the most subversive films I've ever seen. For that matter, so was "Starship Troopers," which explicitly mocked military-worship. For those who don't understand why Verhoeven "ruined" Heinlein's novel, he had the misfortune to spend his childhood under Nazi occupation. If he had the film to make all over again, I doubt he would change a note.

|3.18.06 @ 6:22PM|#

JonH writes of my complaint that there is little on gov't interference with property rights/markets in the movie "Wouldn't that fall under the censorship? Banned music, banned art, banned books, TV producers being dragged off and killed for satirizing the head of state."

I agree on the technical point, but I doubt many viewers make that connection. Censorship is treated in the movie simply as violation of free speech, which is also how it is generally viewed. Nothing about property rights or markets is implied or discussed. Sure, we can come up with ways in which property rights are violated - the takings to install those video screens & loud speakers, for instance, but it's not highlighted at all in the film & you really have to stretch to think it's the least bit significant in the context of the film. Indeed, in what little relevant commentary there is in the film, the market is shown operating relatively normally in the barely extant subplot about the drug company.

This is in line with my point that all of the evil stuff the gov't does is designed to appeal to lefties, and the concerns of many on the right about big gov't are really left unaddressed. I would have liked to have seen something about the gov't confiscating guns, taking people's property to turn into gov't facilities or corporate office parks, prohibiting the sale of devices that might enable dissent, such as radios, implementing price controls, imposing a massive tax burden on the citizenry, etc. We can assume that many of these things were actually going on in this dystopian world, but they aren't shown in the film.

|3.18.06 @ 9:08PM|#

A side note correcting the article: The patriarchial cross was always used as part of the symbol for Norsefire.

|3.18.06 @ 9:58PM|#

Dan:

I'm not entirely sure that the "market" was even operational as such... almost all products and services in the movie were uniformly branded as "British ----", which implies that most, if not all businesses in the country are part of nationalized industrial cartels. The pharmaceutical company is mentioned as an illustration of the dangers of government and corporate collusion, which already takes place on a massive scale in both Europe and America. Free market? Hardly.

There was enough bad stuff going on to offend anyone on the right or left with the least bit of libertarian instinct. For example, I can hardly imagine that the typical American or British conservative would approve of homosexuals being carted off to work camps and used as test subjects in dangerous experiments regardless of said conservative's opinion on gay rights. While the negative qualities ascribed to the state may be more biased towards lefty sympathies, it didn't strike me as anti-conservative; merely anti-fascist.

Robert|3.18.06 @ 11:17PM|#

I skipped most of the stuff about Vendetta because I'm going to see the movie tomorrow and don't want to be spoiled. However, if you really want to see an adaptation in theme of Watchmen, see the current TV series (not the game show) Lost, which is also considerably influenced by Illuminatus! and Masks of the Illuminati. I seem to be one of the few who think Heinlein would've loved the movie of Starship Troopers, probably because I think Heinlein would've shared my attitude that adaptations should use their source material as a point of departure. Often that's the only way the spirit of the original can be captured anyway, as in the movie of The Mothman Prophecies.

|3.19.06 @ 12:19AM|#

Verhoeven in full Robocop/Starship Troopers mode could have directed the shit out of this material--getting the thematic stuff across and making it a total fist-in-the-air action movie, while also mercilessly mocking and satirizing it.

So, you think he'd satirize rebellion against totalitarianism? I don't know know whether that's true, but if it is, it's remarkably stupid.

Tim Cavanaugh|3.19.06 @ 1:01PM|#

So, you think he'd satirize rebellion against totalitarianism? I don't know know whether that's true, but if it is, it's remarkably stupid.

No, he would satirize V For Vendetta, a remarkably stupid book that sets up a completely programmatic structure stoking the pieties of Thatcher-era leftists, steals the 1984 plot without taking any of Orwell's political intelligence (and also removes it from the World War II/immediate postwar context which is the only one wherein 1984 makes sense), and pats itself strenuously on the back for daring to stand against a regime nobody would defend in the first place. A book as self-serious and simple-minded as V For Vendetta is ripe to be satirized, and given that Verhoeven managed to satirize a much better book in Starship Troopers, I think he might have made something interesting out of it. The last thing I want to see is a movie that takes V For Vendetta seriously as any kind of insightful political entertainment.

dhex|3.19.06 @ 2:07PM|#

i must disagree, tim timmany, tim timmany, tim tim teree: the entire prison letter sequence in v is anything but stupid.

|3.19.06 @ 5:55PM|#

You just don't get it, Tim.

|3.19.06 @ 6:05PM|#

I'm not saying the film is necessarily anti-conservative, but I am saying that it doesn't bother to try to appeal to conservatives or anyone who views markets/property favorably and is instead clearly tailored towards lefty interests.

Of course there was plenty of bad stuff going on to raise anyone's hackles, but I would have liked a more balanced portrayal of the abuses of this government then simply depicting those that are typical leftist concerns. For one thing, it might help promote awareness that such abuses often go hand-in-hand with the big gov't abuses feared by the right.

|3.19.06 @ 6:07PM|#

And I say this not as a conservative, but as a libertarian who likes his depictions of fictional totalitarian governments more well-rounded.

|3.19.06 @ 7:23PM|#

Does Tim also believe that no body stood up to defend the Nazies, or the Soviets, or any other totalitarian regiem?

|3.19.06 @ 11:14PM|#

...pats itself strenuously on the back for daring to stand against a regime nobody would defend in the first place...
...Does Tim also believe that no body stood up to defend the Nazies, or the Soviets, or any other totalitarian regiem?

I don't get this. Who cares who would defend such a regime, and what would that have to do with the bravery of a character resisting such a regime?

Tim Cavanaugh|3.20.06 @ 12:40PM|#

We're not talking about the Nazis or the Soviets, we're talking about the (literally and figuratively) comic-book version of totalitarianism in V For Vendetta. But if it will end this discussion: I cartoonishly admire the cartoon bravery of the cartoon characters who used cartoon effects to stand up to the cartoon government the cartoon V For Vendetta.

|3.20.06 @ 12:59PM|#

Well, you're definitely acting like a cartoon libertarian.

Joshua|3.20.06 @ 2:04PM|#

I've already reviewed this movie on my blog. A quick summary: Being from a 20-year-old graphic novel, it requires a greater-than-average suspension of disbelief. V strikes me more as a vigilante than either a terrorist or a freedom fighter. Still, the movie breaks a lot of molds, and has enough nice touches to keep it enjoyable.

|3.20.06 @ 5:00PM|#

I absolutely agree, Joshua. I first read V when it first came out when I was in high school, and I've always loved the story. I thought the movie, while it wasn't the most faithful and fantastic adaptation ever, was better than any other adaptation of Moore's work. I went in knowing that it was probably going to brow beat me a bit with contemporary "relevancy," but in the end I walked out of the theater feeling that the point was made fairly well that the real enemies aren't religious people, or conservatives, but governments themselves, and the people that allow their inner desire for liberty be quashed in the name of safety.