I went and saw "V for Vendetta" *spoiler*

[XemaSab]

So wtf was up with him holding her captive????

That was a very odd note to the film. :shrug:

On edit:

Read Scorpio's thread about it.... still perplexed about what that served ideologically.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=105&topic_id=4936253

[gordontron]

1. agreed

it kind of wierded me out too. I guess it just shows how even after that they can come back together.

[TimeChaser]

2. From what I understand,

she had said before that she didn't like the fear that prevented her from really doing anything. So he put her through the same (or similar) kind of situation that had created him while at the same time always leaving her with a way out.

[Beaverhausen]

13. That's how I saw it too

[Duer 157099]

3. He was distilling the very last drop of fear out of her

I think.

[gordontron]

5. yeah but it is still creepy nt

[Shine]

4. I thought so, too. I had a real problem with that.

He basically tortured her to help set her mind "free"??! Whatever.

For me, the movie raised the thought-provoking question of whether the ends justify the means.

Hmmm....

plus, wtf was up with her kissing the lips on his mask??! That was effing bizarre, if you ask me. The whole love-interest relationship thing seemed a bit too forced, imo.

But, other than that, I actually thought it was pretty decent. I thought about it for days, afterwards.

:hi:

[XemaSab]

6. As far as the ends justify the means

V himself isn't shown as a particularly sympathetic dude, ya know?

But all the "bad guys" are extra un-sympathetic. :shrug:

[orleans]

8. the lip kiss on mask thing bothered my daughter too

i didn't see it but she came home the other night and told me all about it. she didn't like that kiss, she thought it was forced, and that they didn't have to become romantic at the end--at least to her it symbolized romance--

sounded like an interesting movie--something i'll see (on dvd)

[XemaSab]

9. As far as the kiss goes

He's not a person, he's an ideology, and she's embracing the ideology.

I think.

[Shine]

10. Yeah, I'm sure that's what the film makers were intending.

it still came off as a bit cheesy to me, though. :eyes:

[mondo joe]

38. I don't see what's cheesy. This is the most important person in her

life, at this point, and this is the one contact she'll have with him.

[Shine]

51. I get your point, but I'm sorry, it just seemed a bit forced to me.

the notion of her kissing a hard wooden mask, instead of his fire-damaged lips. It seemed to further point out the literal and figurative barrier between them.

But I agree with what an earlier post mentioned, the kiss was more metaphoric. She was embracing the ideology, which he represented.

Can the man be separate from the ideology? I don't know....

Which one did she fall in love with?

I think it's a sign of a good movie that it's creating such interesting fodder for discussion, don't you?

:hi: joe!

[ContraBass Black]

19. The way he lived, the mask was his face.

But yes, it was forced.

[amitten]

7. These aspects should have been edited from V:

1. The ridiculous V-themed monologue he gives when they first meet
2. The whole torture thing
3. The whole persecuted-lesbian-movie-star thing (really pointless)
4. The kissing of the mask/romantic slant in general

Minus those four plot disturbances, it would have been incredible. With them, it was just really good.

[DS1]

11. heh, when that monologue started I though "Oh shit, what have I gotten

myself into"

but it was thankfully the only one, and of course, all the Shakespeare when RIGHT over my head :-)

[Radical Activist]

17. The opening monologue was bad

At that point I was embarrassed I took a date to see that movie.

I think the lesbian thing was important because it draws parallels to today's conservative movement.

[amitten]

30. I thought the lesbian thing was a bad call. And I'll tell ya why.

Gay-bashing is alive and well, as we know. But it isn't government-driven. It's driven by the average uneducated person who really truly is afraid of all things gay. So it was a bad example to use, because many of the uneducated people this movie was trying to wake up ALREADY hate gays as it is. So, the movie lost those people at that point--maybe completely. People like that aren't going to "feel sorry" for persecuted gays on screen. So, it undermined the message that government can sometimes persecute the underdog.

Furthermore, the government in the movie had no apparent motive for singling out gays. It just didn't jibe with the overall message of the movie. Therefore, it just came off as a rather heavy-handed plea for sympathy toward gays. It could have been omitted altogether, and the movie would have been better rather than worse for it.

[ContraBass Black]

31. I think the point was fundamentalist Christian theocracy.

Where homosexuality is capital crime.

[amitten]

32. Yeah, but it could have been subtly worked in, in a smaller way.

It didn't deserve to be it's own 10-minute subplot.

I thought it just made the movie even longer, and it was already a bit long for what it was.

[ContraBass Black]

33. I didn't notice the length while I was watching.

Altehr there were a few points where the dialog dragged.

[amitten]

34. Yeah, the dialog did drag. Part of the problem was the direction.

It seemed long to me, and I have the patience of a saint.

[progmom]

40. gay bashing is not government driven?

I have to point out how terribly wrong you are here.

They call it The Protection of Marriage or Equal Rights Not Special Rights. Right now the administration is using homophobia to rally their base...this is why there were gay marriage ban ammendments on the ballots in 11 states during the 2004 elections. Of course you know that all 11 passed easily.

Bill Frist calls it sodomy, and says that by calling a Texas ban on gay SEX unconstitutional, the Supreme Court threatened to make the American home a place where criminality is condoned. "I have this fear that this zone of privacy that we all want protected in our own homes is gradually — or I'm concerned about the potential for it gradually being encroached upon, where criminal activity within the home would in some way be condoned," Frist told ABC's This Week. "And I'm thinking of — whether it's prostitution or illegal commercial drug activity in the home ... to have the courts come in, in this zone of privacy, and begin to define it gives me some concern."

And then there's Senator Santorum's thoughts on the same issue: "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."


This is our government. They are selling the idea that homosexuality is criminal activity. To say this isn't government-driven is sadly unrealistic.

[swimboy]

42. Government-sponsored homophobia

We are used all the time to frighten and motivate the republican base, to ensure that their voters turn out and at the same time that they are voting to protect the sanctity of their homes and marriages from the homosexual scourge (that somehow gets reworded and put back on the ballot every fucking time) they are keeping the mighty defenders in office and in control.

The only weaknesses I see in their plan involves attention deficit and fatigue of their base and a new generation coming up that doesn't accord this issue the same level of apocalyptic concern.

If you take the pitcher to the spring often enough, you will break it there.

Thanks, progmom! Testify! :loveya:

[Radical Activist]

43. I still disagree.

All oppressive and fascist movements use fear and prejudice against both foreign and domestic enemies. It was done by Stalin, Robespierre, Hitler, and Bush. The enemies in each case are different but this is an important aspect of these types of movements that I think was very important to illustrate in the film.
I also think it added a more human element to a film that bordered on being too sci-fi/fantasy for mainstream audiences.

[mondo joe]

37. Without 2 & 3 there's no point to the movie - it'd be just

another hollywood action movie.

[Orrex]

41. Question

Was the monologue from Macbeth? That's how it was written in the graphic novel. As were the other three things you mention, by the way.

Not that that's a justification--if it comes across as ineffective, then it's ineffective whether or not it's faithful to the text.

That's why, for example, Jackson made a good choice to omit Tom Bombadil and Glorfindel from Fellowship. IMO.

[Orsino]

12. It's the Hero's Ordeal...

...a classic mythological trope. Extreme hardship transforms people.

The book makes it plainer that this is what happened to V, and horrible as it is, it makes sense that he would use similar methods on Evey. Another bit the movie left out is Finch's visit to Larkhill, and his bad acid trip there that makes it possible for him to get into V's head--and ultimately kill him. The author also says, in almost so many words, that the chaos resulting from V's rampage is but a prelude to the transformation of society. In the book, these parallels are clearer.

[Radical Activist]

16. I think it was clear in the movie

that the same thing happened to V. It was still a bizarre twist that I felt weakened the overall message of the government being the villain, and Evey's reaction to it and ultimate forgiveness was poorly done and difficult to believe.

[Orsino]

18. Yeah. V *was* a monster, and isn't a hero...

...despite his being the one wearing a costume. It is Evey endures V's tortures, but comes out of it unwilling to kill. She is hte hero. V is a villain, but one with the wisdom to realize it, and in the movie plainly states that he doesn't belong in whatever better world emerges from the chaos he unleashes. That last is a point the movie may have made better than did the book.

[XemaSab]

20. I've heard it said before

that soldiers returning from battle have historically been some of the most dangerous elements in societies.

Young men who are trained to kill and with energy to burn... The theory that he doesn't belong in the new society seems to play into this.

"War is a force that gives us meaning" is a book that touches on this topic.

There's the definite question in the film of whether the ends justify the means... for the government in the film, the answer is yes, but the answer also appears to be yes for V as well, especially with regards to torturing Evie. The scene at the end with all the people marching in the streets... they could have all been killed, and if they had been it would it have been just as "valid" a movement than if they hadn't been?

[Lisa]

23. that fits well with the "play within a play" where V and the Chancellor

... appear to switch identities. Sometimes those types of scenes are used to emphasize ideas (like in Hamlet or the early medieval mystery plays). They seemed to be implying that V is very similar to the regime itself (willingness to torture, etc.).

[cemaphonic]

14. It works better in the book than in the movie

1) The circumstances of V's creation is explored in more detail, and it is clear that he is recreating the same events to Evey. As creepy and horrible as this all is, Evey is able to forgive him for it because...

2) In the book, it is much more obvious that V is batshit crazy.

Basically, it's a question of mood. In the book, V is presented far less as a romantic antihero, so the whole torture bit doesn't seem quite as "off."

[Radical Activist]

15. I didn't like that either.

I also thought V acted like someone who lived in his Mom's basement and played Dungeons and Dragons until sometime in his mid 30's. Parts of it were a little too corny. I could not maintain my suspension of disbelief.

I didn't realize the movie was going to a manifesto for the kind of Anarchy for amateurs dream of causing enough chaos that it will somehow magically cause a popular uprising and collapse of government. The V symbol was obviously similar to the anarchy symbol. They never explained why the chaos was supposed to lead to something better. There's always another dictator in line to replace the last one and violence is normally used as an excuse to become even more repressive, with public support.

Other parts of the movie were good. Using the black mask and orange poncho, just like at Guantanamo, was clever. None of the torture scenes were anything more severe than what the US is doing at Guantanamo right now.
Natalie Portman as a radical left wing activist was appealing but I never thought the actions of her character toward V made much sense. First she tries to leave him when she has no place to hide from the government, and her reaction to being imprisoned and tortured by V was badly done.

[XemaSab]

21. I've been thinking about some of the themes in the film

and one of the references that the film seems to draw from is Fowles' "The Collector."

He holds Evie captive in his "basement," and the art and books and particularly the butterflies seem too obvious a reference to be accidental.

1984, the Count of Monte Christo, and a few others are definitely in there as well.

Any thoughts?

[Lisa]

25. I was wondering if the butterflies ....

... besides being a reference to collecting (having curios and natural history specimens was the "in" thing for Victorian gentlemen -- mentioned a lot in the Sherlock Holmes stories, for example!) ... were also a nod to Darwin? Since the regime would probably have suppressed scientific inquiry, other than what was necessary for medical and military use. (Even in the flashback scenes where the girls were studying biology, the diagrams etc. used in the classroom looked ancient!)

Stephen Jay Gould, among other writers, mentions the absolute wonder evoked by Victorian-style displays of butterflies and beetles -- hundreds, even thousands of them, mounted in decorative patterns. He suggested that the sight of this much diversity helped a lot of people visualize how evolutionary change worked. (This type of museum display has been mostly replaced these days, by large plastic models, interpretive videos, etc.)

[XemaSab]

26. Sharp observation on the biology class!

Also, the woman who ran the experiments at Larkhill was a botanist.

The butterflies also reminds me of Nabakov, but that's probably stretching the boundaries of what one can look for in the film a bit. ;)

[Shakespeare]

45. Well, butterflies traditionally are a symbol of metamorphosis and rebirth

I haven't seen the movie yet, but intend to. I've enjoyed the comments on DU I've read so far.

[Lisa]

46. "Angels and Insects" ...

For some reason I was reminded a bit of that movie (and novel), when I saw that basement collection. Even though it's a futuristic setting, there is a strong gothic/Victorian flavour to it all.

One historian I know has remarked that the Victorians were kind of in the transition between superstition and modern science ... they had the basic frameworks of scientific taxonomy, evolutionary biology, and animal behaviour, but could not resist attributing human vices and virtues to the animal kingdom (as was done in medieval times). They were particularly fascinated by insects. Butterflies, as you point out -- and ants, and bees, were often used as "moral examples". (Hmm -- I wonder if Bush's fascination with the "Very Hungry Caterpillar" book is a holdover?) There is a cool article in the "Biophilia Hypothesis" collection edited by E.O. Wilson, which looks at the ways in which humans perceive bees!

[MrScorpio]

22. There's one thing about V that I wish they expanded on

That of the "Reclamation", clearly it was a period of time that England went through a ethnic cleansing.

A city as ethnicly diverse as London must have underwent a bloodbath.

[ContraBass Black]

24. I didn't think anything of it at the time,

But the only black person I remember was the gay man being arrested in bed.

[MrScorpio]

27. Well the fact that that London was very much lilly white

Stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

[NewJeffCT]

35. It stood out to me as well

The soldiers were all white, the media was all white, the cops were all white, etc.

Maybe not ethnic cleansing, but maybe minorities were shuffled off to their own special zones or sections?

[MrScorpio]

47. I go back to the word "Reclamation"

As is England was reclaimed for the "English" and not the citzens tha decended from its Commonwealth and former colonies.

Racial purification and deportation seems to be the only means to obtain the result.

[XemaSab]

29. The only other minority that I can recall

Was in a quick screen shot of the garbage shown on TV where there was a Muslim stereotype holding a blonde woman captive.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

56. Ah, the "Storm Saxon" show.

Check out how it's presented in the comic.

[nemo137]

60. "Laser Luger."

"A hellish vision of England gone wrong in the 24th century" or something like that. If we're talking about things from the comics they should have left in, I'm going to go with V's song from the beginning of book two or three of the comic.

[Lisa]

28. perhaps they understated it, to get people thinking?

The British viewers themselves -- and anybody who's visited, or even seen modern London on TV (coverage of Princess Diana's funeral, for example) -- would notice the contrast. In some ways that could have a deeper impact than simply showing more scenes of people being rounded up by the regime.

It certainly worked on us!


MrScorpio, you might be interested in reading Ronald Wright's "A Scientific Romance", where an archaeologist is able to time-travel to the ruins of a future London. He excavates a building, and gradually begins to piece together the horrific events of the early 21st century ...

[nickgutierrez]

36. I assumed it did.

Especially after hearing the Limbaugh-O'Reilly clone - I forgot his name - talk about godlessness being the downfall of America and the whole list of "undesirables".

[MrScorpio]

50. Louis Prothero - The Voice Of London

To me, that was just a tidbit

[RandomKoolzip]

39. I've been reading Ed Sanders's "The Family," about Manson.

It's the same shit Charles Manson did to brainwash and "indoctrinate" his female followers. Why no one recognizes it as the manipulative, violent misogyny it is beyond me.

[Ava]

44. i saw a special screening of it the day before it came out

and i loved it.

i need to get myself a mask.

the ending gave me chill bumps when all of the people in masks started marching to parliment. the score was awesome and contributed to it.

i want to see it again.

[JackORoses]

48. this is how i see it,

When V first took EV to his home, she told him she wanted to help him however she could. So she helped him get to the Bishop.
However, at the last moment she was overwhelmed by the temptation to return to her former life and told the Bishop everything in hopes that he could help her.
She was still bound to the 'easier' life she had led, and was willing to betray V and her own self to get it back.

Even though in her heart she wanted to help V(and thus herself), her mind couldn't let go. She was still under the illusion that those in power could give her life back to her.

This is why V tortured her.
He had to make her choose between her past(Government approved false life) and her future(Self-determined true life).

She wouldn't have believed she was in a government prison if it hadn't seemed real, complete with torture.

So, finally, she makes her choice. She is offered her old life or death

She would rather die than go back. In protecting V, she is protecting her true self.

Before the imprisonment, even though she wanted to help, she couldn't. The temptation of a return to 'normalcy' was too much.
After, her illusions of 'normalcy' had been shattered, and she knew who she truly was.

That is why she is the only Domino left standing.
V knocked all the others down, but she had to knock hers down herself.

She had to be reborn to live in the 'New World'. She couldn't bring the baggage of the old with her.

[Bucky]

49. Oh come on! Women always fall in love with their abductors!

Don't any of you watch Disney movies anymore? Beauty always falls for the Beast, given enough time and sufficiently sturdy handcuffs. Where's your sense of romance?

[windy252]

53. lol

[leftofthedial]

52. revolution is serious business

there's a reason why gangs have initiations.

one thing I didn't get was after the big ass-ckicking laser and sword fight at the underground station near the end, there was a shot of V, the last one left standing (sort of). There was digital Matrix-like rippling effect of the entire background, as though there was a disturbance in the Force or something. It was very much like when the Matrix was attacked and the "world" became momentarily distorted. Why? Nothing in the movie would explain that kind of thing happening.

[Radical Activist]

54. I had a problem with that too.

It disrupted by ability to suspend disbelief. I didn't see any good reason for it. Maybe it was just force of habit for the brothers W.

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

55. Okay, who in this thread has actually read the comic?

V wanted Evey to have the same revelations he'd had at Larkhill, and the only way to do that was to subject her to the same experience. He thought she'd become a better person because of it, and by some (not all) standards, she did. Does that justify what he did to her? Absolutely not, and you could see that he regretted the suffering she went through. But a true spiritual awakening never comes without hardship. And one of the V's biggest motivations is the understanding that, when it comes to the things that are really important, you have to resort to extreme measures in order to get people's attention.

It also points to something that the movie doesn't touch on at all (and should) - that V and the Leader do not represent good and evil, but two opposing ideological extremes, neither of which has any place in a sane world. In the book, both are represented as men driven to fanatic madness, who have thrown away their humanity and become the avatar of an ideal. They both want what they think is best for England and its people, and are prepared to do some pretty horrible things to acheive it. It's a point in V's favor that he realizes his only role is to tear down the established order, and that he won't, can't, have a role in whatever comes afterward. "Away with our destroyers! They have no place within our better world. But let us raise a toast to all our bombers, all our bastards, most unlovely and most unforgiveable. Let's drink their health, then meet with them no more."

And if you want to talk about needless bits, let's get rid of Stephen Fry's character. In the book he was a gun-runner who got killed by a rival, and yes, Evey slept with him. But Messrs. Wachowski, who couldn't write subtlety at gunpoint, decided they needed to reinforce the whole Evil Conservatives idea. And so our criminal with a heart of gold-containing alloy was transformed into an "old queen" who kept an illegal copy of <gasp!> the Quran in a secret room in his house.

[nemo137]

59. Honestly, as much as I like the Stephen Fry

the original Gordon was much cooler. But then, to really get him in there, you'd need to bring back all the political scheming from the comic, and there just wasn't time for that.

[Nikia]

57. I don't think that V was really a nice character

He put innocent people in danger to make his broadcast and to get away. He felt justified in killing everyone who had caused harm to him, including the doctor who had already psychologically punished herself and was sorry.
He redeemed himself by leaving the choice to blow up Parliament to Evie.

[davsand]

58. V was a killer.

The torture thing bothered the hell out of me except for one thing--you knew he was a killer already. You KNEW he was f**king nuts and you wanted to like him anyway. The torture thing--painful as it was--brings you back to the reality of his character warts and all. It was necessary.

In the 70's, movies had the "anti-hero" and V was much that same thing only written in the early 80's. How V became a killer was sympathetic--you feel bad for what happened to him--but that sympathy make you want to forget the fundamental truth that he really IS not a sane man. Sane people do not devote themselves to vengeance like he did, nor do they kill with abandon as he seemed to do.

Consider this little point, V was made crazy by what had happened to him. The girl was forever changed by V torturing her. Your attitudes about him and about that government were manipulated to an extent because you knew about that torture and mindf**king that went on.

The overwhelming thing I walked out of that film with (other than an even greater dislike for the current regime) was a realization that my mind had been messed with in ways that were comparable in many ways to what had been done to the average folks dependent on the manipulated media depicted in that film. We are ALL prey for that mindset, no matter how informed we think we are.

I loved to hate that film. I am very glad I saw it.


Laura