'Remember, remember the fifth of November.'
It is the fifth of November. It is either watch it today, or wait another 365 days.
V For Vendetta the graphic novel is one of Alan Moore's finest work, and the movie adaptation is loved by many as well, even diehard Alan Moore fans, knowing that Alan Moore hates it when his work got adapted to film, have to admit that V For Vendetta the movie is a great movie.
Well, then why the pretentious "Or..." title? Because on one hand, Alan Moore fans have to agree that V For Vendetta the movie is a great movie, but on the other hand, general audience have to agree that the movie differes greatly from the graphic novel; and 'it is not the same in the original' is just one of the many reasons to hate a movie.
But let's not let nitpicking dampen our enjoyment of V For Vendetta the movie. On a technical level, V For Vendetta is near faultless. Hugo Weaving plays V convincingly with the difficulty of not being able to use his facial expressions to convey the character's feeling, he is the perfect choice period. Natalie Portmann plays Evey also very convincingly, whether it is the fragile Evey in the beginning of the movie, or it is the strong Evey in the climax, the audience has no problem believing Portmann in the role.
Most of the other characters are played by British thespians, and they all brought their A-game to the role. John Hurt's Adam Sulter is a great dictator with a commanding presence, need I remind you that more than 80% of Hurt's performance were done in a small room, with the camera inches away from his face, it is very hard to pull off a performance in such a condition, much less a great performance. Stephen Fry plays the talkshow host with a lot of secrets brilliantly, he utilizes his comedic background in his performance, but he shines in the heartfelt moments as well.
Ashamed to say, of the rest of the cast, I only recognise the guy that play Lestrande in BBC's Sherlock, who coincidentally also plays a police in V For Vendetta. Sad to say, this little bit of trivia makes his performance distracting to say the least. I keeping muttering 'call Sherlock dammit, he could find V for you you dumbass' when the actor is on screen. Of course, he cannot be blamed for that distraction, and he, like his fellow actors in this movie, did an awesome job.
The camerawork, the colour palette, the editing and the choice of music are brilliantly done as well. The director enjoys putting contrasting colours into a single frame to anunciate the feeling of the characters involved, or when he is not using this trick, he uses the contrast of black, white and light to set up the mood of scenes. This gives the movie its own taste artistically, and considering the other CBMs at that time, this decision must be applauded.
The director also likes to rapidly cut to elderly homes, bars and houses when Adam Sulter or someone else are making a speech on TV, this gives the audience a chance to meet the people in this world the movie created. The use of long takes for speeches helps convey the gravity of the moment, and the director's habit to top the speeches off with some swift action (not 'fighting' kind of action, sorry English is my second language) brings the emotions to its peak and gives the audience so much satisfaction, after witnessing something that is so awesome.
The use of orchestral music for the movie's soundtrack, with different styles from differet periods, contrasts the world built in the movie in a really nice way. The world in the movie has calenders that say it is in the 2020s to 2030s, but the technology suggests that it is in the past (compared to the real world of 2014), using orchstral music makes the story feel more timeless, which is good.
After singing praises for V For Vendetta the movie, why would I ask the question 'should I hate V For Vendetta the movie?' Because it cannot be denied that there are plenty to hate in this movie.
Comparing the graphic novel to the movie, it is obvious that the story told in the movie are more blac-and-white: V and the people are the good guys, and the government are the bad guys. While in the graphic novel, there is nodefinite black or white, everyone is just a shade of grey (not unlike A Song of Ice and Fire): V is an anarchic cold-blooded vengeance-driven murderer, who primarily wants to get back on those who wronged him, it so happens that overthrowing the government could bring him that, so he uses 'overthrowing the fascist government' as his excuse, for lack of a better word (again, English is just my second language). 'Big Brother' Adam Susan (whose name was changed to 'Sulter' in the movie) is someone who genuinely believes that his actions are for the betterment of the country, he is like Ozymandias from Watchmen, another great graphic novel written by Alan Moore; Adam Susan is not a power hungry demon (though Adam Sulter is), it is just his actions makes everyone's lives a living hell.
Additionally, in the graphic novel there are chances for the party members to freely voice their opinions, but this detail which shows the 'good' in the 'evil' was cut from the movie, probably to emphasise that the government and the ruling party are 'bad guys'. As for the rest of the government officials, at least in the graphic novels their backstory and motivation were a little bit more explored and fleshed out, even if the readers does not agree with the characters' actions, readers can at least understad where the characters are coming from. In the movie, the only thing that can make it more obvious is to add devil horns onto Creedy and Sulter, or have a giant sign that reads 'He is the villian' and an arrow pointing at the two characters on screen.
Additionally, in the graphic novel, it is Anarchy VS Fascism, Alan Moore chose to write all the charaters to be morally ambiguous, to let his readers decide for themselves who to root for. However, in the movie, it is 'a more open government' VS 'Fascism', or to put it in jargons, 'neo-conservatism' VS 'neo-liberalism', scenes after scenes of V with humanity were added to the movie, meticulously showing how he hates himself for being the monster that he is, making the character a different one from the original. A common criticism of the movie is that the changes to the story underrates the audiences' intellect. It is as if the audience are all kids who need to be told who are the 'good guys' and who are the 'bad guys' in order to understand a story.
Some even took the argument further, they said that in the movie, V encourages the populace to see for themselves what kind of a world they are living in, in stark contrast to the arrogance that is shown when V pushes the poulace to follow his lead. It is suggested that while V respects the populace's intellect in the movie, the filmmakers do not respect the audiences' intellect, making the insult even more enraging.
As I had stated above, 'it is not the same in the original' is just one of the many reasons to hate a movie, and there are other legit reasons. The message of the movie, or the values carried in a movie is of paramount importance, as it makes its audience like or hate a movie based on some non-technical issues. For example, 1915's Birth of A Nation is arguably the most influential movie in the history of America, a lot of people loves this movie, but a lot more people hate and disown the movie for the racism in it. Braveheart, one of my all-time favourite movies, which won Best Picture, Best Director, Best Make-up, Best cinematograpy and Best Sound-editing, is hated by many English, because history were twisted and historical figures were demonized in the movie; and I fully understand and respect that. I raised this two examples to emphasise that I truly believe it is justified to hate a movie based on its message and values; and I don't agree with certain messgaes and values from V For Vendetta.
Now, if one mentions 'V For Vendetta' to someone else, chances are that someone would think of that Guy Fawkes mask, the mask that the people of London wore in the climax of the movie, as they march to the Parliament building to answer the V's invitation. This same mask is now worn by many protestors throughout the world, and I blame the director for this blunder. He failed in conveying the 'special situation' in the movie does not equates the situation in real life. I am saying this, knowing full well and accepted the fact that the filmmakers think the audience are babies and has little to no intelligence. Alan Moore, who is an Anarchist himself, wrote the story; but the director had the BALLS to change the meaning of the mask to 'Justice' and 'Righteousness'. This is disrespectful to the author and this contradicts the tone of the movie. When one had decided the tone of the movie, go all the away with it, don't treat the audience like babies throughout your movie only to treat them like intelligent adults who can think for their own in the climax of the movie. It is all because of how the climax of the movie is handled, that the Guy Fawkes mask is used so much in protests nowadays, and I think this is all a big stupid joke.
I digress on politics, but I have another reason to dislike the movie.
I know chances are I am actually criticizing Alan Moore and the original, but I don't care now. I cannot stand the blatant and groundless attack on Christianity. Let me repeat myself, I understand that this is most likely something taken from the graphic novel, but shouldn't filmmakers try to improve on the source material? I get it when Alan Moore took certain types of people (like non-believers and homosexuals) that were persecuted by Hilter and put the same types of people in his books as the persecued type, I get it that it is a commone practice in literature to take from history, I really do understand; but shouldn't the movie at least make up a reason as to why the government persecute these types of people, but not alcoholics, chain smokers or people who needs glassses? No, no reason at all.
I realise that the movie had no time (or chose not to) for developing the background and motivation of the government officials, so I am not surprised that there is no explanation as to why the government chose to persecute non-believers and homosexuals. But as a Christian myself, I look at this decision as some powerful producer who for his/ her reasons handing out memos, sacrificing the need to reinforce the rules in the world of the movie, to smack Christianity in the face and fullfil his/ her own goal.
All the people who fought against the fascist government are the persecuted types themselves (Valerie/ Gordon) and the 'politically awaken', it is as if the movie is saying one has to be persecuted to revolt against a tyranny, and the possibility of one, motivated by compassion for others, to take a stand against a tyranny does not exist; it would be so very nice if the filmmaker could add in a character who fights against the governemt and is a devout Christian who is ashamed of what the government had done in the name of his/ her Lord and God. With this inclusion, at least it would feel like the movie is attacking a governemnt ideoligy that everyone agree to be 'bad', and not attacking a religion of millions of people, my religion.
To conclude, V For Vendetta excels in the technical details and the story telling; but because of personal reasons, I cannot whoeheartedly say that I love this movie. I choose to appreciate this movie the same way many English appreicate and disown Braveheart at the same time. What's wrong if a guy consciously choose to hate a great movie, if he has his own reasons, and he acknowledges that the movie is great? Nothing.