Jonc's $0.02 on V for Vendetta...
Mar. 19th, 2006 03:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jon_chaissonI think a lot of what I was about to post about this movie has already been touched upon by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
emmalyon and editswlonghair, so I'll say now that I LOVED it.
One problem I had with it was actually my own fault, as I went in not only already knowing the entire story (I just recently reread it) but also paying attention to what they'd changed for the movie. This is exactly the type of thing I hated doing in college but like I said, it's my own fault, so I can't say I didn't like it because X, Y and Z of the original plot wasn't in there. I think if I hadn't reread it so recently, I probably would have paid more attention to the movie's version of the story and thus would have enjoyed it more.
There were a few things that surprised me, such as the man Lockwood and the St.Mary's/Three Rivers virus subplot which ended up sticking out like the new parts in an old story that they were, but they worked them so seamlessly into the main storyline that it made sense and worked quite well.
One particular thing that I really enjoyed was the fact that it was set in the somewhat near future (Emm and I figured it to be some time around 2035), and in a dystopian world at that, but they didn't use the cliche of run-down streets, burning barrels, ill-fed and poorly clothed children, and so on. Everything looked the same as it does now, except for the fact that London was in a totalitarian world mindset. To me that worked great, because it really brought home the fact that it wasn't so much that people are sheep, but that the popular mindset at the time was that Sutler's regime was a good idea in time of crisis. With this I think I see where some neocon critics and others are seeing a political parallel between the movie and Bush, but that's another post entirely. Nonetheless, the fact that life actually WAS good despite the evilness that ran the works to me was a stronger image than showing visual dystopia.
Writing-wise, I was quite impressed at how seamlessly the whole story moved. As a writer I'm always noticing the flow of the story, and too often I notice where the story drags or where it's uneven or where some script person took a bunch of white-out and scotch tape and did a patch job of it. Especially with action films, where at a certain point in the movie, the pace is deliberately turned up and kept there until the climax, where the pace suddenly stops and you're stuck there, breathless. This one had a very nice deliberate flow to it, and while it was more of a mystery than an action flick, it had the miniature peaks and valleys that stories are supposed to have. In the context of the Valerie sequence, it was a miniature peak that had its purpose as pushing Evey towards her own personal release from her fears. And once she's freed, her own release of emotion was that more intense and meaningful. This, among other things, is what impressed me most and made me think, 'now that is how you write a story.'
Visually, I can see where McTigue borrowed from the Wachowski brothers and used light and dark not only in the context of mood but also of meaning. I could go into detail, but instead of boring you (and myself), I'll say that the deliberate use of color (and the deliberate non-use of it) as a part of the story itself was what made it visually pleasing for me. I used to be a former film student who would say "ooh, cool shot!" but now I'm more of a "ooh, that was a beautifully shot scene..." so the constant use of rich reds and oranges in Dietrich's house and V's Shadow Gallery, the sickly greens and yellows of Larkhill, as well as the cold blues and greys in the television studio and Finch's office worked quite nicely. I don't know if anyone noticed, but in all the flashbacks, all the colors were mixed: discordantly in V's back story at Larkhill, but gorgeously mixed in Valerie's.
All in all, visually it was a movie that I enjoyed immensely. Writing-wise, it was one of those "Damn, I wish I'd written that..." sort of movies that makes me want to run home, turn on the computer and start writing. I admit it wasn't sheer perfection, but it was something that I'll definitely go see again, and something I'll definitely pick up on dvd when it comes out.
emmalyon and editswlonghair, so I'll say now that I LOVED it.One problem I had with it was actually my own fault, as I went in not only already knowing the entire story (I just recently reread it) but also paying attention to what they'd changed for the movie. This is exactly the type of thing I hated doing in college but like I said, it's my own fault, so I can't say I didn't like it because X, Y and Z of the original plot wasn't in there. I think if I hadn't reread it so recently, I probably would have paid more attention to the movie's version of the story and thus would have enjoyed it more.
There were a few things that surprised me, such as the man Lockwood and the St.Mary's/Three Rivers virus subplot which ended up sticking out like the new parts in an old story that they were, but they worked them so seamlessly into the main storyline that it made sense and worked quite well.
One particular thing that I really enjoyed was the fact that it was set in the somewhat near future (Emm and I figured it to be some time around 2035), and in a dystopian world at that, but they didn't use the cliche of run-down streets, burning barrels, ill-fed and poorly clothed children, and so on. Everything looked the same as it does now, except for the fact that London was in a totalitarian world mindset. To me that worked great, because it really brought home the fact that it wasn't so much that people are sheep, but that the popular mindset at the time was that Sutler's regime was a good idea in time of crisis. With this I think I see where some neocon critics and others are seeing a political parallel between the movie and Bush, but that's another post entirely. Nonetheless, the fact that life actually WAS good despite the evilness that ran the works to me was a stronger image than showing visual dystopia.
Writing-wise, I was quite impressed at how seamlessly the whole story moved. As a writer I'm always noticing the flow of the story, and too often I notice where the story drags or where it's uneven or where some script person took a bunch of white-out and scotch tape and did a patch job of it. Especially with action films, where at a certain point in the movie, the pace is deliberately turned up and kept there until the climax, where the pace suddenly stops and you're stuck there, breathless. This one had a very nice deliberate flow to it, and while it was more of a mystery than an action flick, it had the miniature peaks and valleys that stories are supposed to have. In the context of the Valerie sequence, it was a miniature peak that had its purpose as pushing Evey towards her own personal release from her fears. And once she's freed, her own release of emotion was that more intense and meaningful. This, among other things, is what impressed me most and made me think, 'now that is how you write a story.'
Visually, I can see where McTigue borrowed from the Wachowski brothers and used light and dark not only in the context of mood but also of meaning. I could go into detail, but instead of boring you (and myself), I'll say that the deliberate use of color (and the deliberate non-use of it) as a part of the story itself was what made it visually pleasing for me. I used to be a former film student who would say "ooh, cool shot!" but now I'm more of a "ooh, that was a beautifully shot scene..." so the constant use of rich reds and oranges in Dietrich's house and V's Shadow Gallery, the sickly greens and yellows of Larkhill, as well as the cold blues and greys in the television studio and Finch's office worked quite nicely. I don't know if anyone noticed, but in all the flashbacks, all the colors were mixed: discordantly in V's back story at Larkhill, but gorgeously mixed in Valerie's.
All in all, visually it was a movie that I enjoyed immensely. Writing-wise, it was one of those "Damn, I wish I'd written that..." sort of movies that makes me want to run home, turn on the computer and start writing. I admit it wasn't sheer perfection, but it was something that I'll definitely go see again, and something I'll definitely pick up on dvd when it comes out.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 03:22 pm (UTC)Mind you, I didn't dislike those films like some folks did...but it was a funny comment.
no subject
Date: 2006-03-20 06:53 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2006-03-21 08:01 pm (UTC)That, and they have Monica Belluci in them. 'Nuf Said. ;)