V Thoughts

[thehefner]

I think the saddest (most ironic?) thing that can be said about the V FOR VENDETTA movie is that some people will go to see it and they will say, "Wow, this felt like such a comic-book movie." It's a description I abhor, because it's always said by people who don't know what the fuck a comic really is, they just use it to write off something that's flashy, colorful, juvinile, and campy as "comic book." I hate that, I really do. And what makes this all the more sad/ironic is that the original comic, the graphic novel of V FOR VENDETTA, was not as "comic book" as the movie.

That's not to say that I thought the movie fit all those descriptions, or to say I didn't like it. I liked the movie a hell of a lot, more than some of my other friends. I was actually able to get past the changes from the original book for the most part and just enjoy the movie as a movie. That's saying a lot coming from me; something has to be damn good on its own merits to justify changing a brilliant and pefectly adaptable original story.

Still, while I did like it, in the end I fear it's hardly, as so many over-enthusiastic geeks on Ain't It Cool News put it, "the most dangerous movie of the year." This movie is not a world-changer, and you know why? Because they didn't have the balls to go as far as the book did. Which raises such an interesting question, because they so easily could have. They pushed it just so far that they could have taken it futher without much effort or fear of worse controversy. It wouldn't have made a difference.

This movie was, at best, "anarchy lite." Or as chickenhat put it best: "LAND OF THE DEAD had better political commentary."

And as much as I love Romero, a movie of V FOR VENDETTA should have better, more angry, more provocative political commentary than a zombie movie. This isn't a story, a message, that should just reach your average horror movie audience; I was expecting/hoping for a political bombshell disguised as a flashy box-office hit. And it almost got there so many times. I just don't get why the hell they didn't go that extra mile... hell, that extra three feet, in some instances. It wouldn't have cost them anything.

But let's talk about what they did do right, what really worked. First and foremost, bravo to them for doing justice to the entire prison sequence. Because that, more than anything else, is the most important part of the original book, and for all their inexplicable changes of dialogue, bravo to them for keeping the letter from Valerie almost word for word the same from the comic. Also, this is one of those instances where in so many cases, they actually did capture the "spirit" (that oh-so-elusive turn of phrase) of the original. And the scene with the dominos gave me chills, if only because of the memories it evoked of the comic.

The actors were all excellent. It's so awesome seeing Stephen Fry, Stephen Rea, and John Hurt all on the big screen together. Natalie was very good, although looking a little freaky thin (not that she shouldn't be... in the second half, not the first). Hugo Weaving was simply delightful as V, even if the script did wimpify him just the teeniest bit.

And ok, what the FUCK is with Americans that we have to make everything a love story? I mean, I wanted to smack the idiotic audience I was with for laughing at inappropriate moments, but at the close up of Evey kissing V's mask, even I wanted to titter.

I was also amused to know that whimmydiddle shared my exact same thoughts during the last couple minutes of the movie: "This is stupid, this is stupid, this is stupid, oh ok, yeah, it works." But for god's sake, Natalie's last lines should have been fucking cut. I don't know what's worse, filmmakers who feel like they have to throw subtlety to the wind and pound the movie's message into the ground... or the idiotic movie audiences who wouldn't get the message otherwise. I really like to think that those people don't exist, I want to think better of my fellow man, but no, I fear that your average moviegoer needs to have it all spelled out for him. Why is that?

Anyway, it was ultimately a great movie, perhaps even an excellent movie, but a so-so adaptation and not as brilliant and provocative as it should have been. And in some ways, isn't that worse than just being a bad movie?

Comments

[tompurdue.livejournal.com]

Actually, when I say "comic book movie" I mean that the visual look feels like something that comes from a comic book. Of course no two comic artists are the same, but there are a number of visual features of a comic book (especially graphic novels) that have a strong effect on the cinematographer: lots of deep noir shadows and silhouettes, deliberately limited palettes, hanging focus on certain compositions, difficult camerawork and/or striking angles. And dark compositions: if there are cheerful or even just non-noir/gothic-inspired graphic novels, they don't seem to make movies out of 'em.

If I knew comic books better I could probably describe it in more detail, but that's what I'm talking about, and I often know it when I see it even if I don't have the words.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

I'm a little confused by what you think a comic is, then. You've seen the best-selling lists each month. You know what the largest companies are. You know the most iconic characters in the industry. You know that more people in Japan would recognize Superman before Dick Cheney.

The super heroes have been around the longest. The super heroes have gotten the industry through some very difficult times (comic code era included). Admittedly, some of the heroes also really hurt the industry in the '90s. But every mainstream media outlet suffers from staleness because of the "play it safe" mentality.

So I think it's perfectly reasonable to say the average American thinks of the average comic book exactly as they should: flashy, colorful, juevenile, and campy.

It's only the exceptional books that can get away from that. But the basic panel method of comic writing and drawing pretty much dictates big, strong moments strung together.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Yes, but that's Japan, where like Europe and South America, the comic is actually considered a legitimate art form, beyond just superheroes.

I'm not saying that I don't understand the average American's idea of what a comic book is, dude, I'm just lamenting it. I lament it every single time I read an article in the paper with the words "comic books grow up," "Holy ______, Batman!" and "Bam! Pow! Zap!" Y'know?

And the average American has had less and less excuses to think that way, between Crumb, Pekar, Spiegelman, Miller, Moore... hell, Will Eisner invented the graphic novel, and he'd been doing non-superhero fare since before superheroes were even invented (I consider the Spirit detective, but that could be splitting hairs)! There is so much more to comics than superheroes, and hell, even SUPERHEROES haven't always been the way people think of superheros half the time.

I don't know what your definition of "big, strong moments" necessarily is; does a moment have to be big to be strong?

See, what really gets me is that the only thing it would take to chance the view of the average american is if they would read a comic. But they don't, and they keep their stereotypes intact. I'm at work now and surrounded by hundreds of titles that defy the public's expectations of what a comic is, if only in a small way. And while all other fields and art forms have their stereotypes as well for the people not into them, "comic book" is still so often a pejorative term (which I was reminded yet again when Sam Mendes and Tom Hanks tried to shy away from and apologize for the fact that Road to Perdition was a comic). And that makes me sad, it really does.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well, as for the shadows and use of light, I think that goes back to German expressionism, which also really impacted comics. But it also impacted film noir, pulp, etc.

My problem is that comics are not, by nature, flashy and bright. All it takes to be a comic is a narrative structure told with pictures. Sequential art, going back to the egyptians. When most people use the term "comic book" they're thinking of a very specific area in a very specific time frame; in many ways, maybe entirely, it hasn't existed since the 60's.

Oh, they do make movies of those comics. But the problem is that when the movies come out, people don't read the comics they're based on. They seem to quickly forget or disregard the source material, since it's the movie that made the impact. And since most of these people never read a comic in their lives anyway (or they think what's in the newspaper comics section counts), the mental image they have of what a comic is remains intact.

I would be very intetested to hear what you might make of the book "Understanding Comics" by Scott McCloud.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

See, what really gets me is that the only thing it would take to chance the view of the average american is if they would read a comic.

I think you missed my point, then.

The average American is going to go for a book that exactly reinforces that stereotype. One of the X-men titles, spiderman, wolverine, hulk, batman, Superman, JLA all fall into the stereotype traps because they're the books that define the industry. Most of the comics out there are pretty bad literature.

I think you're basing your PoV off of people walking in and buying a comic that you respect. We all fall into this trap, of projecting our prefences onto others. But your taste just isn't indicative of the industry as a whole. Which is why DC owns Vertigo, and Harry Potter owns them both. Even if we think it should be the other way around.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Well, most of everything is pretty bad literature.

I'm not so certain I see your point as how it relates to my point. I mean, when it comes down to it, anything I am saying can be discounted because, after all, it's all just opinion. But you know my snobbish tendencies, so this is my opinion.

That said, there are lots of things that I personally don't like but think are good. Much of Joss Whedon's stuff here applies.

Well then perhaps all this can just be filed under my own snobbishness. And I dunno if I've said it before, but I'm not a snob so much because I want to look down on people. It's that we get so much mediocity that the average person settles for it, and even thinks it's great, when in fact we could have so much better. No, we deserve so much better, do we not? The average public taste doesn't have to be for crap, and yes, I know I'm a snob and that's just my opinion and all, but... it's crap! And they pay for crap! Even your average casual non-movie-geek deserves better fare.

But that's another argument, and again, I'm really not certain how you exactly got here from my original point. I was just writing a preface to a review, and so far no one's commented on the actual movie yet.

[jayel4192.livejournal.com]

We got here because I still say the connotations behind a "comic book movie" are based on the stereotypes of the comics. But that is accurate, because most of the comics out there conform to the stereotypes.

Whether or not people like those comics is almost irrelevent. Odds are Any Joe Schmoe who walks off the street and into a comic store is going pull a comic off the shelf that reinforces the stereotypes.

That was my original point, a reply to your original point that you think people have the wrong impression of what a comic is. I say they have the right one. Not all comics fall into that stereotype. But the stereotype is sufficient to describe the vast majority of books sold in this country.

[gnort.livejournal.com]

let's give credit where credit's due, Calvin and Hobbes was brilliant. Even Dilbert can be quite brilliant despite the fact that it didn't translate well to television.

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Ok, I think I get your point now. And yes, the vast majority does fit into that stereotype, I suppose. But that's the vast majority that are sold, not the vast majority that are created.

I'm talking about the art form more than the industry. There are certainly many, many more independant comics being made than superhero and "mainstream" books. Going to SPX for the past several years has shown me that.

But also, I would raise a point that we do get several Joe Schmoes walking into our store, flipping through comics. I couldn't tell you how many times I've heard them remark on the dissonance between the comics they remembered, the ideas they've had about comics, and the actual superhero comics on the shelves today. So no, not always are the stereotypes reinforced. But you do raise a good point nonetheless.

I'm saying the stereotype they have is more based on the Adam West Batman TV show than actual superhero comics today. These are people who still think kids read superhero comics, when in fact it's mainly being read by adults and the subject matter, even in regular superhero books, is for teens and older. That's why I think the stereotype is more based on. Because that damn show had such an impact, and again, people aren't reading the actual current books to see how things have changed (and in many ways, have not, you're right.)

[thehefner.livejournal.com]

Did I say comic strips were bad? I love those comics, they're just a different art form in a lot of ways. And I agree with your assertions on C&H and Dilbert.

PS: Read Bloom County.

[gore-whore-5.livejournal.com]

I liked the love aspect, but that's probably because I've got a Stockholm Syndrome fantasy. I thought V was cool the moment I saw him, and fell in love the moment I saw him cooking breakfast for Evey the morning after he kidnapped her.

[gnort.livejournal.com]

Ah ok, I misread the statement regarding what's in the newspaper, I only read a couple so the rest could be garbage. I don't know..I will check out bloom county