nixsight

Finally watched V For Vendetta, and I have to admit that I really quite liked it. I know that after my response to King Kong, I’m probably not going to be considered the most reliable critical source, but I needed to share it anyway.

For those of you who haven’t read the graphic novel, I recommend that you watch the movie first. This is my standard “good adaptation” advice, because no matter how good the adaptation, it’s never going to have the same resonance as the source material, and as such you’re cheating yourself out of a perfectly good movie experience by reading the book first. The original will always have the benefit of pure intent and emotional investment that an adaptation can’t possible muster (the only exceptions to this are the movie versions of American Psycho and Shawshank Redemption, both of which perfectly capture the original’s intent, but cut away a lot of the flab present at source. In the first instance, I can only blame Ellis’ apparent belief that technique and intent make up for entertainment value, and in the second, well, it’s Stephen King. He’s a wonderful storyteller, but not that concise. It’s a wonder that more movies haven’t done a better job than his original novels.)

But V For Vendetta, it’s just a quite lovely movie. Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving and Stephen Rea all deliver beautifully textured and convincing performances, with Stephen Fry performing a quite warm if typically Wildean turn, and everyone else doing a wonderfully pantomimey job of it (John Hurt and Roger Allam really hamming it up, in roles that required it, do a wonderful job of setting the scene, but do make proceedings feel more like Brazil than the more grave scenarios that the filmmakers clearly intended).

Visually it’s superb, if a little slick considering it’s “1984″ style setting, with some truly awesome pyrotechnics and fight sequences, which, regardless of how much many comic fans might argue, was a signature of the way V’s story was told in the original (David Lloyd did a wonderful job of creating a graceful and kinetic mood during the comic’s action sequences… V was, to drop a topical phrase, “liquid football”).

There are two main sticking points for me in the movie… The main problem, which wasn’t actually the one that bothered me the most, is the movie’s over-use of melodrama and exposition… there were many subtly evocative sequences cut short, while others were embellished with quite uneccessary Hollywood pandering… although interestingly, Natalie Portman managed to carry off some of the movies’ more romantic and indulgent flourishes. There are points where vital information that is given quite prominently already is overdone… I won’t give examples… I’ll just say that there are moments where flashbacks are used when they really didn’t need to be, and hope you work it out for yourself.

The other is the constant geographical anachronism taking place in the first and second acts of the movie (I didn’t notice it so much in the third). I’m not a person that requires an accent to be perfect, but when the actors are doing a perfectly good job of it (Weaving and Portman doing very well, indeed, as it happens), it seems a shame that the screenplay doesn’t. The setting of the movie is supposed to be idiosyncratically English, so it’s odd that no-one thought to run the script past a couple of English people. It sounds finicky, but when everyone’s doing such a good job of delivering English accents, truly American phrasing should probably have been culled from the script (and I’m not talking about words like “dude” or, um, “fag” that we English have picked up, I’m talking about things like the typically Hollywood “ooh, kitty’s got claws” of the first scene… English accents just sound stupid delivering lines like that).

It’s an odd film, in that it’s quite controversial, but (almost) keeping it’s original setting softens any controversy it might have, and the movie format necessitates a dilution or simplification of Alan Moore’s skillfull knitting together of themes and tropes.

It’s a film about Bush-era America, set in a Thatcher-esque England.

It’s a film set in England, using very typically English themes and stereotypes, but made by Americans and Australians.

In a lot of ways, it’s a very dangerous movie, but made safe by it’s setting in a completely fantastical, easy to dismiss environment (not only is it set in the future, but an England imagined by Americans and Australians is a completely comedic affair, to the point where there is even a moment of Benny Hill pastiche delivered to the viewer. Fuck knows what Natalie Portman made of that…)

All that said, there are some truly beautiful set-pieces in this movie… most of them are delivered courtesy of Stephen Rea’s character – there’s a truly beautiful re-precap featuring him. The final sequence is beautifully edited and realised, if a bit more dramatic and gung-ho than anything in the original, and unsurprisingly, the “prison” sequence (one of the most heartbreaking and touching from the graphic novel) is beautifully delivered, if a little short. And the bit with the dominos (part of the re-precap) made me all wobbly with gravitas.

I can understand why Alan Moore didn’t want his name on it, but honestly, if he wasn’t so damn good, Hollywood wouldn’t have such a problem adapting his stuff. This is, at least, a damn site better than League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and a real step up from From Hell, n’all.

I’m pretty sure there’s stuff I’ve missed… I thought of lots to say while watching the movie, but most of it is forgotten now. It is, after all, 1am, and, ooh… that was it…

I can heartily recommend Fiordaliso Pinot Grigio Dell Venezie (not being a wino, I don’t know which is the important part of that name). It isn’t as sharp as many other dry whites I’ve tasted, it’s not too expensive, and it’s strong enough that one bottle feels like enough for a night watching movies and playing games (weaker, and it would require you opening another bottle, which would be just too much, stronger and it would be just too much all by itself…).