We finally made it out to a movie the other night. It's harder to get out than it used to be. The last two movies we saw were King Kong and Wallace and Grommit. But I love movies and I'd read a fair bit about this one. It was hyped as one of those films that make one think, don't provide easy answers and are a bit philosophical. Now I'd loved The Matrix and even parts of the first sequel. (The third one was unmitigated dreck in my opinion) As many know The Matrix had all sorts of philosophical overtones, so I thought I'd give this one a go. Given that quasi-philosophical connection I figured I could put up a brief review here.
The film, for those who aren't familiar of it, is basically someone asking, "what if a superhero appeared in George Orwell's 1984?" Now that sounds intriguing, but in practice it's not as interesting as you might think. Why? Because it really doesn't break much new ground. We all read 1984 and Animal Farm back in High School. And we're all familiar with super-heroes. Unfortunately this film gets bogged down in the cliches. That is, it thinks it's making a big point. Maybe if you were 15 it might. But it ends up being way preachy. Further, it ends up manifesting the worst excesses of the Matrix trilogy. That is it confusing citing ideas for thinking about ideas.
The problem is that the film just thinks it's doing something original by saying totalitarianism is bad. There's no real depth. Any parallels to current events were either trite or stretched. The middle significantly drags because it wants to realize how horrible it was that a police state kept people in fear, killed its own citizens, and didn't tolerate gays. After a bit a half hour of this (including an interminable flashback) I just wanted to yell at the screen, "I get it. Totalitarianism is bad." It would have been better had they focused more on the characters and the odd things they do.
There are two scenes, one at the beginning and one at the end that remind one of the choreographed action of the first Matrix, although done in a completely different style. But they just don't make up for the rest of the film.
Don't let the movie keep you from reading the book. Alan Moore has had the misfortune of having the worst movies made from his books. All his original ideas get replaced by cliches because the producers decide the audiences won't understand them. Which begs the question of why they turn his titles into movies in the first place. The two other books to have had this misfortune are From Hell and League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, which are both better than V, Alan's first major work. There hasn't been a study of the Ripper mythos as carefully thought through or with as much attention to historical detail as From Hell.
Incidentally, the luckiest writer at the movies has been J.G. Ballard. Spielberg's Empire of the Sun and Cronenberg's Crash took the books' stories and, arguably, improved on them.
I rather liked his Watchers. But I just can't imagine how they'd be able to translate it to the screen. Further, I suspect they'll focus in on traditional superhero films rather than how the text deconstructs the heros in very interesting ways.
League should have been better. It was the guy who did Blade's sophomore effort. But there was so much studio involvement, so much conflict with big egos like Connery's that the director swore off all movies. Kind of sad as it was a good idea and I think had the guy had more freedom, would have been an interesting film.
I never saw Crash. Nor, given the topic, did I really want to. But I've long considered Empire of the Sun one of Spielberg's better films and one far too underrated. I didn't know the same guy wrote both.
Some so-so books can be turned into films vastly superior to the source. I think Kubrick did that with Stephen King's The Shining. It's still a flawed movie, but vastly more interesting and nuanced than the original. (I like Kubrick's ending better, even if the decision was partially due to the limits of special effects at the time)
But there seem to be only a few directors who can pull off comic book films. Clearly Bryan Singer can do it. Sam Raimi was an inspired choice for Spiderman, although I don't think he would work for most other projects. Blade (the first one) was vastly superior to the material. Christopher Nolan did inspired work with Batman, despite a clunky and silly third act. But outside of those there hasn't been much to inspire confidence (IMO).
I'm not a big comic guy in the least. But some themes really are interesting. It's too bad that most people just can't figure out how to do the transition. Partially that's due to studio involvement. I don't think most folks (especially at FOX right now) understand what's necessary to make them good. They miss that sort of big idea aspect to the stories that they have to have. Sort of like the Twighlight Zone wasn't just pulpy science fiction and fantasy. There was a point to the stories that you couldn't achieve using regular forms. Miss the point, and the films fail.
In the superhero department X-Men and Daredevil appear to have survived the transition to film, but I don't think the comics were ever up to much. But Daredevil's pal Elektra, who's got some interesting quirks, lost everything and was reduced to a sequence of cliches in her own movie.
A good comic to good film transfer is Ghost World. They end up being different stories, but you can tell that director Terry Zwigoff actually cared about the Daniel Clowes original, and put some thought into what he wanted to convey and how. It also has one of the tip-offs that indicate a movie is properly attended to: the soundtrack actually complements the movie, rather than being the usual selection of whatever the responsible media conglomerate is promoting that season.
Daredevil was awful - the comics are 30 times better than the Ben Affleck dreck that we were served up.
In Moore's V for Vendetta (the comic) the bad guys were, amazingly, more sympathetic. The facist leader actually felt facism was the best thing to protect the people. From what I hear, the movie reduces him to a cliche. Same with V - though the comic was "on his side" to some extent, there were a lot of hints V was insane and/or carrying on a personal grudge rather than acting out of nobility.
Although Moore did admit he wrote V for Vendetta out of a hatred of Margaret Thatcher and a desire to blow up a building full of conservatives. So make of it what you will.
I didn't like the movie much either. Both my wife and I thought it dragged on and on unnecessarily.
While the totalitarianism theme may have been a bit shallow, I thought the movie was excellent and quite inspiring. Of course I don't consume enough movies to be very critical, and trite redo's that are lost on film zealots might be meaningful to me. :)
Concerning "fascism was the best thing to protect the people." that reminded me of the computer game Half Life 2 which pulled it off much more convincingly--saying that human emotions were responsible for suffering--like on Equilibrium--although there was an X-filesian alien compulsion behind it all.
*****POSSIBLE SPOILER BELOW*******
SCROLL PAST THE STARS IF YOU HATE HAVING MOVIES RUINED FOR YOU AS I DO
(If you haven't seen the movie..... then HONESTLY, skip past this part and save yourself some enjoyment and surprise for once!) One interesting part was Evie's imprisonment. During her torture she suffers terribly and hits rock bottom. Did her captors do this to help her 'find herself' in some grand sense? Or was it mostly to prove her allegiance? Initially it seemed extremely cruel... just not something polite people generally do. But is this similar to what God is supposed to be doing for us? Are there similar ideas in the Mormon story of the Fall--that we learn joy through suffering? Or perhaps in the cruel Abrahamic test that each of us is supposed to pass before we can sit down with the big names in the afterlife?
If Mormons truly believe in an uncreated intelligence at the base of our identity, then are Mormons ultimately existentialists? Can God only satisfy the bodily or spiritual desires he has created? Does that mean that there are ultimate intelligence needs that can only be satisfied by ourselves? Can ultimate meaning only come from within?
*******************SPOILERS FINISHED***********************
Sorry for taking up so much space. But ever since Star Wars Episode One, I usually try to know as little as possible about movies before going in because all manner of bad things happen that serve to decrease my enjoyment of cinema: unfulfilled expectations, premature guessing of plots, and just feeling like I've seen it all before and I'm watching a second time. I actually plug my ears and cover my eyes for previews of movies I plan on seeing. And I think it helps. Of course I put 'surprise' high on my list of life's enjoyments...
I really liked V for Vendetta. And I wish that minor-keyed variation on the 1812 overture that you hear a glimpse of in the beginning was on the soundtrack.
Mark
Tell Steve Jones of the BYU physics department that the comparisons to the current government were trite or stretched! The movie made me think of him, I wonder if he is aware of it.
It also made me think that Neal Maxwell would have gotten a kick out of V's first speech. I wonder if that is a blasphemous thought...
I'd have to second the Daredevil as awful - primarily the final ending where they aren't consistent on what Daredevil's abilities are. He suddenly has the ability to withstand ridiculous abuse and "heal" himself. I've been told that the director's cut is better, but I really am not interested in watching it to see if it is. I really dislike films that sort of allow abuse and then remarkable healing for a cliched back from the edge of death overcoming of ones foe. Not just because it is so cliched. But because it is so unrealistic. You set up the rules for the film. And I'm willing to provide a certain level of suspension of disbelief. But when the director then violates those rules I get frustrated.
Of course perhaps I'm a bit too picky on this point. (I also hate how they are forever cocking guns in Hollywood films to show "they really mean it" when the gun is useless until cocked and recocking it might actually eject the loaded round in some guns - assuming you even can recock)
To the other points. (Spoilers ahoy)
The idea that in trials we find out what our limits are is a good one. Unfortunately it was handled amazingly clumsily. And the reaction when she finds out V is her captor was kind of ridiculous in my opinion. The reason V did this made sense - if she was captured, would she tell of his location? Yet this was precisely where V's "honorable freedom fighter" status was most in question. Rather than using this to open up an examination, they resolve it swiftly and rather sillily.
Random John, I thought of Steve Jones' little conspiracy theories as well. Funny that. Although interestingly the government has opened up an investigation of that extra building's collapse. Presumably to silence these conspiracy theories (which I find rather distasteful) I also thought of Maxwell's literary love of alliterations. The beginning was by far my favorite part of the movie. Somewhere during the attack on the film studio it went downhill and didn't really recover.
This website, like a few others I have seen, seems to have missed the point of this remarkable movie somewhat. It's message was not that Totalitarianism is bad, but rather that if we allow the various governements of the world, particularly Britain and the US, continue to infringe on Human Rights and Civil Liberties, we will end up in an Orwellian State. It's entire purpose is to remind the people of 'democratic' countries, that democracy is about the populous! The final scene, when what looks like the entire population of London converges on Parliament (side note: You are no longer allowed to protest within 1 mile of Westminster without Police authorisation) is stiring call to citizen, not to descend into anarchy (in the Hobbesian sense, but rather to reclaim what is rightfully theirs. To continually hold the people it elects to account! There may be a point that some of the philosophical/poetical/dramatic symbols/allusions etc. are flawed or over-the-top or repetitive, but given that the vast majority of people have no grasp of these concepts, all of this repetition serves to ensure that the most important issues facing them are reinforced to the extent that they are not forgotten!
If that was its message it sure was done very, very poorly.
Somehow I ended up quite high in Google's rankings for reviews of V for Vendetta. So perhaps I ought expand that above comment.
(Spoilers ahoy)
If the theme of the movie is to constantly be on guard, a kind of Jeffersonian message, then it fails miserably for the following reasons. For one, the fascists rise during a period of massive warfare with Islamofascists. Now this has an echo of the various powers in 1984. But the key move is a secret development of a biological weapon used on its own population which then more or less forces by expediency the rise of the fascist power. These leaders then keep the people in a state of fear, centralizing their power.
The only problem is it is completely unclear to me how one could be on guard about this. It seems that the public, given these premises, was between a rock and a hard place. Any government would have had to declare martial law in such circumstances.
Now perhaps there is something to be said for constantly questioning the limits on freedoms during a time of crisis. Too bad the movie didn't touch on those themes. Instead we got a story about a super-powered burn victim who blows up buildings and kills the people who had tormented him. (An other clumsy film that did touch on those themes was Bruce Willis' film The Seige.) The only public response was at the end, an attempted homage to what happened in Ukraine I suspect, although I'm sure it was in the original text. But even that was handled quite poorly. Further it was hardly the public uprising (which would have been quite good had that been addressed) Instead it was a few manipulations by the V character to ensure that the government committed a few atrocities on the public.
So where is the stirring call to the public? If you want to deal with a stirring call to the public then you ought focus on the public instead of the superhero. And you want to avoid the whole resolution by the superhero. Instead you want to have, say the public being stirred... Well beyond them showing up at the end for 1 minute dressed as V.
I pretty much felt the same way about the movie. If I had written the movie, I think would've done more to develop the idea that totalitarian regimes need popular support intead of focusing the 'get over your fear' angle.
I've closed comments in order to avoid spam since I don't check this older blog as much anymore.
and Theology
Number of unique visitors:
Blogged by Clark Goble