As expected, Natalie Portman did a terrific job carrying the movie, the emotional core. At 25 years old I can't imagine a better actress of her generation, although we'll see who comes along in the next, say, 5 to 15 years. I don't want to go into a full analysis of the film and its style and politics just now, want to let some of it sink in, talk to friends, decide if it's even worth writing about, but I am itching to print some headlines.
The big news is that it's a hard rockin' rock & roll movie, the first good one in a long time, the first good Hollywood one since, unless someone can remind me otherwise, Fight Club. Don't start hammering that they're not in the same league, because I might just agree with you, but they both have a genuine anarchist sensibility in that the film artists give you a big anti-establishment ideological thrust but either stop short or blow past actually telling you what to think.
It's kickass spectacle with punk rock politics, even referencing the Sex Pistols with a doctored "God Save the Queen" poster. It is the most Brechtian Joel Silver movie imaginable. Although the plot is insane, it holds together with more narrative intention than any Wachowski Brothers script since The Matrix.
Since I am unfamiliar with the Alan Moore/David Lloyd comic I can't say how true it is to Mr. Moore's creator's vision, for all I know it's a travesty. On the other hand, who am I to rely on Mr. Moore's condemnation. He had his credit pulled early in production reportedly due to some lie Producer Silver said in public (how else would he expect Silver to stay in the guild?) and has made it clear that he's never going to see it.
As a movie, it's invigorating, unless you're the type of viewer who would find it irresponsible, that it will automatically inspire a bunch of kids to go terrorist and blow up the Capitol. If you believe this movie could cause that to happen, you may find yourself invigorated in a way perhaps contrary to how I felt.
V for Vendetta is a worthy big screen experience, evidently a hit with the kids in IMAX. Right from the beginning the images are complex and beguiling, lots of detail moving very quickly, that striking 1984 post-pop production design. The theater gets quite a buzz, and there were some confused patrons applauding as Rolling Stones "Street Fighting Man" kicked in over the end credits. If, like them, I had mistakenly thought I was at a stage play, I would have joined in.
In my book, all that spells entertainment.
Anyone else out there who's seen it feel strongly about this flick, one way or the other?
8 comments:
As cool as Ms. Portman and the mask were, I have to vote no.
The weird stop-start flow of the narrative, with its long flashbacks that killed any pop-movie fun or momentum.
The way the hero talks in this cool, Cyrano-clever poetic-alliterative way where every other word starts with V... the first time we meet him. Thereafter he talks normally. As if he, and the screenwriters, only had the energy to show off once.
The way the movie seems to condemn fascism, then has the hero use the exact same fascist techniques to triumph at the end... without even suggesting that there might be anything, shall we say, a wee bit ironic about this?
I mean, hundreds of thousands of identically clad citizens pouring through the streets in righteous anger, to bring down the government that (thanks to their hero's machinations) has failed in its promise to keep order and safety? Of Course that's a satisfying, thrilling, rock'n'roll spectacle. Its effectiveness was proven in Europe, like, 80 years ago.
You could say the "triumph" was obviously meant ironically, but nothing in the film points to this, unless the viewer happens to bring his own sense of historical irony. Tell me if I missed something.
But ok, this is your blog, I'm just commenting in it...
I think the problem with the Wachowski's Vendetta is that they aren't up to the task of making the argument for anarchy. That's why they sidestepped that particular time-bomb altogether and watered the conflict down to libertarian liberals vs. neo-cons.
A friend and I were talking about Frank Miller's luck in finding a peer in Robert Rodriguez. Both work at about the same level and were able to collaborate to make a very effective, honest and striking comic to movie adapation.
He suggested that Kubrick was probably the only known filmmaker capable of matching Moores ideas and words with filmmaking talent. Or at least the only one who'd be willing to work from the "low" art form of comics.
As always, gent, much thanks for the comments. I'm always hoping to get opinions contrary to mine -- and each other's as well -- to add life to the blog.
Two interesting negs on the movie, for different reasons.
Jordan takes the screenwriting tack, then the political tack. Personally, I only felt a little momentum sag in the late dialogue scenes between Evie and V, but chalked it up to that stuff you need for the movie to appeal to women as well as guys, like scenes in old Westerns where the hero gets romantic with the girl. When I was a kid I usually covered my eyes or let them glaze over during such scenes, figuring it for convention.
As for the fascism angle, I think the movie is aware of the problem, which is actually a rock & roll movie problem going at least as far back as 1968's Wild in the Streets. I did feel this movie indicated irony and also that it made sure to have the masks taken off to reveal the human beings underneath, including one or two we thought were dead. But there's no denying a sensation that it might take fascism to beat fascism. What's the alternative -- Democrats?
Gus goes for the Alan Moore orthodoxy, and again, not having read the collected comics, I can't agree or disagree on comparative basis. I can say that I did feel some sense of anarchy (the V is so much like the A that used to appear on walls all over Thatcher-era England) for V's character, although it may not have gone as far as Moore did originally.
I also know there are a lot of different perspectives on anarchy. From a political action standpoint, it seems to be about blowing things up. From an actual governance standpoint, I've read about local control, essentially a kind of hyper-Federalism that in some ways goes beyond garden-variety Libertarianism.
In either case, I'm really a believer in anarchism, except from a shake-it-up point of view. Eliminating authority figures only lasts as long as it takes for some new paradigm to arise, whether the biggest local capitalist or strongman in town. To me, in realpolitik, it matters most who's in power, i.e. are the individuals using the centralized power of the state to combat institutionalized racism, or to stifle legitimate dissent.
So if I ever do read Moore's version and end up disagreeing with his conclusion (as I did with Watchmen) does that mean I can like the movie with impunity?
what did the removed commet say?
-Gid
Really amazing! Useful information. All the best.
»
Nice idea with this site its better than most of the rubbish I come across.
»
Greets to the webmaster of this wonderful site! Keep up the good work. Thanks.
»
Hi! Just want to say what a nice site. Bye, see you soon.
»
Post a Comment