Audiences shouldn't fear their movies, movies should fear...

[Chaszmyr Mae'Val]

~WARNING: CONTAINS SPOILERS~

I saw it last night. I also bought the comic book last week and read the whole thing in the car don't worry, I can't drive anyway

The comic book put across the Fascism vs. Anarchy theme pretty well, and pretty appropriate for the eighties-nineties when the cold war was pretty much the main sleepless night causer amongst the populace (us in particular)

The post-9/11 (or more accurately IMHO the post-London Bombings considering it's set in England) angle was a good one for the film, which of course begs an updated threat as the Cold War Theme is a bit lost on people these days. There were several aspects of the original comic lost to the constraints of time but the film was not made poorer for their loss.

***********SPOILERAGE*********************************
Purely my own opinions





















The Benny Hill sequence had me in fits - there's nothing more quintessentially 'British' they could have added to humiliate a key figure; and V playing a washboard still makes me smirk, which has got me a couple of odd looks at work today

I liked the Guy Fawkes intro - while I imagine it's there to tell the Americans who he is and why it ties in with the story it also looked appropriate, establishing the theme of historical flashback prevalent in the movie.

Oh and the bit with the masks - pure art.

The blowing up of the houses of Parliament occur in the beginning with the comic book. But it worked as a film climax and added to the surreal and thought-provoking mask stuff.

I spent the penultimate ten minutes of the film whispering 'Don't take off his mask.... don't take off his mask..." I am so glad they didn't, I would have been kicked out the cinema for disruptive behaviour if they had.

The other element we feared the Brothers W might make a hash of was done beautifully - Evey's 'Imprisonment'.















*****************END OF SPOILERAGE**************************

All in all I feel it has been THE MOST faithful film adaptation of a comic book I have ever seen. Yes it has changed, there's a lot that's different and there's some bits that have had to be missed because there wasn't enough movie for them. But it has not changed the fundamental basis of the plot.

Ogrek's word on it is "Well that makes up more than adequately for 'Matrix Revolutions'"

My word? Equilibrium now has to fight a death duel with V For Vendetta for the number one slot of My Favourite Movie. Gun Kata versus Superboosted Karate - man that'd be interesting to watch...

[Squidflakes]

You haven't seen Sin City have you?

[Swordsman3003]

Waaaaah! Nobody is hosting the torrent for V for Vendetta.....I can't download it.....

[Chaszmyr Mae'Val]

Waaaaah! Nobody is hosting the torrent for V for Vendetta.....I can't download it.....

Now here is one opinion I'm not afraid or ashamed of to say; you have GOT to see this in the cinema

[Swordsman3003]

It's Rated R, I'm 15, and I can't drive

[Chaszmyr Mae'Val]

That's ridiculous! Come over here, you can watch it because it's rated 15.

[Queenhank]

Well, get one of your parents/legal guardians to drive you over to the theater, and give permission for you to see the film.

[Awkwardschoolgirl]

Pfft, if it's rated R in the US then it's probably rated 14A in Canada... You crazy americans and your way too harsh ratings.

[Rethul]

V For Vendetta was a good movie. That being said, it was also heavy handed with its political commentary. *Possible Spoilers*




Major Issues: Major changes were made to make it more topical, like the Q'ran bit and the use of footage from the war in Iraq. Also, the moral debate between pure Anarchy and Pure Facism was much more compelling than the watered down Totatalitarianism vs. Freedom argument (even a three year old can pick the "correct" choice in the movie). Also, they presented the government as a Theocracy, but this theocratic government followed none of the Christian values (Ten commandments anyone?). Really it was more like Soviet Russia with trappings of religion.

Minor Issues: In the last scene of the movie, when the camera pans over all the soldiers/riot police, when one looks closesly you can see that they're wearing paintball masks... not exactly Mil-spec protection there.
Guy Fawkes didn't act alone, he was part of a large team (13 if I remember correctly, he was just the only one who got caught. Also when they tried to hang him (the planned to cut him down and then torture him more before he died) he instead jumped and snapped his own neck. The use of slow motion and blur in the last fight sequence seemed a little gratuitous.

Good Things: V was a compelling character despite the fact he always wore a mask. The last scene with the masked crowd was cool. Generally good cinematography.

I'm not asking for my money back. It was a good film, but I find it hard to take it seriously on a political level.

P.S. Anyone who says this movie glorifies terrorism/thinks V was a terrorist is a moron. V never used terror tactics, he never attacked civilians, he never used fear over the general populace as a weapon. He was more like a French Resistance Fighter with superpowers.

[Honor]

While I agree with your sentiment, I disagree with your calling lingual drift "degeneration". That brings to mind images of the old beliefs in a "Golden Age" from which humans have fallen, which is, in my opinion, a big crock o' shit. While I don't subscribe to the belief that everything we do is taking us toward some future Utopia, I also don't think there ever was a time in history when things were better than they are now. Of course, I've gotten off-topic.

Languages change. There's nothing you can do about it, and there's no use in complaining about it. If languages were things which could be set in stone, and never changed, then we would still be speaking the first language. Hell, in Chaucer's time, English was considered a crude language of the commoners, and not the pinnacle of linguistic perfection so many see it as today. One day, someone may say the same about Ebonics, or Brooklynese. The fact of the matter is: we can't do anything about the change, and so there is no point in making a big deal about it. Hell, "Anarchist" could very well one day refer to window washers. Or, in the case of my avatar, it could be a girl's name

While I wholly agree with the sentiment of what you're saying, I also have to wholly disagree with the examples you're using as valid evidence. There's a difference between lingual drift and degenration... Just as there's a difference between evolution and de-evolution.

People adding new depth to language to allow them to accurately or evocatively describe an ever expanding world - or universe - of possibilities is one thing... Coining new phraseology, developing new useage, creating new words of whole cloth... All necesary and good, and all ample evidence that any age that considers themselves the pinnacle of anything is, in all liklihood, blindly sacrificing their natural ability to excel further to the dull fantasy of imagined perfection.

But this isn't what we're talking about here... These people didn't expand the meaning of the word "anarchy", they diluted it. Whether it was because they didn't know that what they were striving to describe already had a name, or because they didn't know what the word they hijacked meant, or simply because they conciously decided to engage in dishonesty in order to give their ideas the patina of other ideas they viewed as more noble, what they did was degrade the level and quality of communication, even if only in a small way.

The change of language over time either adds too or takes away from the capability of people to communicate and express ideas... When it does the former, that is advancement... Evolution. When it does the latter, that is degeneration... De-evolution... Because that is the only purpose of language is to express ideas, to communicate ideas, over both space and time.

Not all change is automatically good.

[Queenhank]

It's not a de-evolution of the word, though. It is a change in the meaning. Instead of meaning "no rulers" it means "Alan Moore, plus a bunch of mall goth wannabes". That's a change in the definition. Sure, it means something more broad now, but it's not so much a simplification, as a new definition. Kinda like "freedom" or "democracy".

[Frombork!]

If a "culture" has two people or more... leadership is going to emerge. And, in my opinion, if you have leadership, you shouldn't be calling it "anarchy".

Well, I can't argue with that definition; no one can. Which I think is the precise reason the term 'Anarchy' has broadened its scope: as you define it anarchy can only ever apply to a "culture" of one, rendering it a particularly un-useful term.

See... This is how I get so effing annoyed at the degeneration of language. "Anarchy" is a simple word, with simple origins. An- Without. Not, non, lacking. Archy- From the greek Arkhos, from which comes the latin Archon. Leader. Ruler. High Official or Authoritative Figure.

The funny thing is, anarchy as a social model is a relatively new use of the word. Before that it was used only as a synonym for chaos. Also, from your description of its etymology, even its latin derivation looks degenerative: shouldn't the term for a society sans-rulers be "an anarchonism'? If english is sinking, I plan on going down with the ship.

Speaking of cunning linguists, I quite liked V's V-centric monologue. It was silly, but fun.

[Honor]

It's not a de-evolution of the word, though. It is a change in the meaning.

Exactly. A de-evolution. It's taking one concept, which already has a name, and applying a different name, which already refers to a different concept. It's calling a hamster a sugar bowl, for political gain. And the only thing it realy accomplishes is to prevent people from knowing what a hamster is, or what a sugar bowl is.

Language has one and exactly one purpose... To allow us the ability to communicate ideas. Sometimes new words are needed, and sometimes we re-purpose old words instead of (or along with) coming up with new ones.

Byte is a good example. If written, it's pretty easy to divine, but if spoken, you'll have to rely on context... If I say the file is twenty-eight thousand bytes, you probably know I'm not talking about how long you'll be chewing paper to masticate it. If I ask if you wanna run down to Carnagie's for a bite, you probably know I'm not talking about a very small computer file.

Even "spam" is a decent example... It's adding new meanings to an old word. Not properly, of course, but still... The new "spam" and the old "Spam" are mutually exclusive words with a commonality.

Just like if I call the end of a relationship or life "the bitter end" or describe a subject I know a lot about as "my strong suit"... These are departures from the original meaning of these words and phrases, but they add to the richness of language as a whole.

What we're talking about with "anarchy" though, is just a de-evolution... we're not adding a new meaning, we're just misusing the word...

Like calling a wrench a screwdriver because you know screwdrivers are more popular, or because you don't know what a screwdriver is, exactly, but you know it's used for attaching metal things, and the tool in your hand is also used for attaching metal things, so it must be a screwdriver.

It reduces the ability of language to serve it's primary purpose... It directly hinders communication. It helps to make it so that when I say something, you have no idea what I mean.

The form of government practiced in the soviet union wasn't communism, it was totalitarianism early on and authoritarian socialism later. The form of government pracitced in communist china isn't communism - it's socialism. The form of government practiced in the United States is not a democracy, it's a democratic republic. Any American kid knows the government of Great Britain is Socialist, but it's not... it's a bureaucratic republic.

Representatives of all of these governments have been engaging in these "changes in meaning" you're singing the praises of for decades and decades, and the only real effect has been that people in most of these countries don't know what democracy, republicanism, socialism, communism, or anarchism are.

Well, I can't argue with that definition; no one can. Which I think is the precise reason the term 'Anarchy' has broadened its scope...

It hasn't "broadened it's scope" though, so much as it's pretended to be something cooler. Anarcho-syndaclism, for instance, isn't "anarchy". It's communism. We didn't need someone to make up a new word for it, we didn't need someone to "broaden" the meaning of another word for it. We had a word for it.

But it wasn't a very popular word, was it...? So maybe it's better for all involved if we pretend it's something else, besides communism. Then maybe we'll get some followers. ("um... 'scuse me sir... "anarchisms" can't have followers" "stfu, bob. I'm trying to run a revolution here, and you're fucking with me over something as trivial as truth!?!")

[YellowBook]

It hasn't "broadened it's scope" though, so much as it's pretended to be something cooler. Anarcho-syndaclism, for instance, isn't "anarchy". It's communism. We didn't need someone to make up a new word for it, we didn't need someone to "broaden" the meaning of another word for it. We had a word for it.

Well, the problem is that the accepted meaning of "communism" had come to be Marxism/Leninism, state socialism, or authoritarian communism (choose your term for the same thing). Anarcho-syndicalism, if you wanted to call it communism, would have to be qualified in some way, like "libertarian communism". And what a can of linguistic terms that would open up!

But it wasn't a very popular word, was it...? So maybe it's better for all involved if we pretend it's something else, besides communism. Then maybe we'll get some followers.

I think there's a difference between leaders and rulers. Leaders you follow because you think it's a good idea --- you respect their skills, knowledge, and hard work, and you think following them will help you achieve the goals you believe in. If you stop thinking it's a good idea to follow them, then you stop following them. Rulers you follow because you can be coerced to. If you don't follow them, they will have your life, liberty, or property taken away. People need leaders (sometimes), a fact which I think very few anarchists would dispute. What anarchists (since P. J. Proudhon was the first to describe himself as one in 1840) agree on is that people do not need rulers. And I don't think it's any terrible perversion of the word "anarchy" to signify that.

That said, I'm much more likely to describe myself as a "libertarian socialist," a "left-libertarian," or a "mutualist" than an "anarchist."

[Squidflakes]

Exactly. A de-evolution.

We're all De-vo

[William G]

V tortures Evey to his way of thinking in both the book and the movie, is he still a hero?

[Nithos]

Code: Select all

Well, I can't argue with that definition; no one can. Which I think is the precise reason the term 'Anarchy' has broadened its scope: as you define it anarchy can only ever apply to a "culture" of one, rendering it a particularly un-useful term. 

The term anarchy hasn't broadened its scope, it's been coopted by a political movement for whatever reason, and misused. Just as in Honor's example, the term sugar bowl wasn't being expanded, it was being used to obfuscate. There's just no connection between the meaning of anarchy, and several of the ideas espoused under the label anarchy. And it isn't a useful term in the sense of a system of governance because it isn't ment to be one, as you said it's older meaning is closer to chaos. The use of it as a political label is a misuse unless someone is actually advocating chaos (and some people do, THOSE are anarchists, not the communists-with-a-cooler-label).

[Ce6]

I finally got around to seeing this movie today (well, technically yesterday as it's almost 3am)
Much of the ideological points and adaptation comparisions have already been discussed so I won't bring those up (besides, I never read the comic so I don't have something to compare the film against)
I liked the movie, well put together and thought-provoking, plus enough explosions and gratuitios violence to get and keep the audience's attention.

The use of the mask helps to solidify one of the main points: "The idea is greater than the man who voices it"
With the protagonist masked as he is, the audience is not able to read his facial expressionisms and to a less extent his body language, and thus must listen more closely to his words. In my opinion, it helps to make the movie work on a level above just "blowing stuff up", it encourages the watcher to think about the dialogue as well, to try to find the motive for the explosions.

Plus I think I know one of the things that got our local literary dominatrix Honor's attention: in about the first 10 minutes of the film I think I heard almost every word in the English language which begins with a "V". You know someone had to have fun writing that part of the script, sitting there with a dictionary just going down the list.

[Awkwardschoolgirl]

I saw the movie last Friday. It rocked my non-existant cock off. My favourite part was the Bishop scene. *titter* Oh and the mask made me laugh a little every time there was a serious part and he was still grinning. I mean I'm sure it's symbolic for something but... *shrug* it still made me giggle.

[Honor]

...I mean I'm sure it's symbolic for something but... *shrug* it still made me giggle.

It's a fairly traditional "Guy Fawkes Night" mask, I believe.

It rocked my non-existant cock off.

>.>

Why does that make me want to fuck you...?


Oh, yeah. 'Cause everything makes me want to fuck you.