It's kind of hard to come up with 10 adjectives all in one hit and try to predict their relationship to each other. Suffice it to say the result my instant drabble produced was something a little more surreal than intended. Heh.
Feel free to share. I produced a particularly insane E/C one called "The Battle for the Voice", but all my attempts at R/C ended with Raoul either dying or being maimed. Poor Raoul.
Ugh, I deleted it as soon as I was done poring over it. It was to do with V finding a cake laced with transgender-ing powers, that he had acquired from a bird. I think. I don't know where the cake came from, but after V and Evey had transgendered sex, the effects apparently wore off. So that bird's stash is dodgy. You've been warned.
Well, that would be the other piece of work that so far is made up only of pages and pages of notes. The important thing is that something is written down and outside of my head. Which is a good start. Sort of. I went and saw it for the second time over the weekend as part of rather a foolhardy adventure over to Canberra. Suffice it to say, I really dug it the second time around, you dig?
Ah. Then you've joined the legions of phans who adore it? I must say I was lukewarm on it overall. Partly because I grew up in Russia, so I have a great deal of scepticism for revolutions that begin with property damage -- especially as the whole reason for it was so tenuous (why not all get together to do something constructive? Because destruction is more fun). But the idea of a conflict between anarchists and fascists is interesting, if depressing. A bit of a no-win situation really.
Actually, I had the same reaction to "The Matrix" -- I sort of enjoyed it, but I coudln't see why everyone was head over heels in love with it. Maybe something about the films these guys make just doesn't really grab me. Who knows.
Anyway, I'll look forward to your review! Notes in point form are fine by me.
Well I wouldn't say I "adore" it, strictly speaking. But I do find it a terribly interesting piece of work. And very entertaining. I've been looking up a little on the DC comic, and it seems that not only did they streamline the characters (as per usual), but they really toned down the violence as well(to both humans and architecture). Book V appears to have produced a much higher bodycount than dear Hugo! So I do have to kind of give the film credit for ending it on a (relatively) peaceful stand-off. Or more appropriately, stand-UP. The ambiguity of the result remains, but a lot fewer things and bodies get smashed. Realistic? Doubtful, but I don't think that was the point.. Anyhow, before I really get on a roll, I'd better get onto my real "job" before I get tsk-tsk-ed again
I think it would have worked well as a TV series, actually -- more time to expand the dilemmas and ambiguities. Re blood'n'guts: I got the distinct impression that V's body count pre-movie had already gone platinum. Anyway, I'll wait for your review.
Yeah, it's assumed that he's taken out all the other Larkhill staff by that point isn't it. And whoever else got in the way, I guess. I agree about TV being the format where they could have really expanded upon the nuances to the story, but I think the film-makers were really going for one big brutal punch of a statement with the film, so of course the other casualties in this case will include, to some extent, logic, reason and plausibility. But if you want to throw a brick, you've gotta throw a brick, not a rubick's cube. Or something. That's my attempt at sagacity today
Gee, can you tell how enthused I am about getting my work done today????
About as enthused as I am, clearly. I got all of three slides done for my seminar, with breaks to do the laundry, vacuum and finally wash the curtains. Seriously considering baking muffins. (And therapy. )
Re throwing a brick -- I think the Big Statement in the film was quite muddy. Certainly no obvious brick, although perhaps it was intended as such and the lack of logic made it more ambiguous than it was supposed to be. But I'm inclined to think that a certain amount of discomfort was deliberate: the terrorists are the good guys, after all.
My hypothesis about V's body count was not just about the rest of the Larkhill staff but in general: he's completely comfortable with swift, faceless, whack-gotcha sort of killing. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it even when it's not obvious bad guys (eg the TV station where Evey works); nor does he express the least bit of discomfort when Evey says something like "and you're going to kill again?" (can't remember the phrase, but the scene in his living-room). So yeah, he makes Movie Erik look positively cuddly.
Now, that is an interesting point. I'm not sure that I'd call someone who kills on a whim like Movie Erik "cuddly", compared to Movie V. I have more to say on this, but first I must beg you patience as I am starving and in sore need of a crumpet.
Also: FINALLY have wireless at home! Again! Now I AM UNSTOPPABLE
And: I have a bunch of messages on my home page, one from "[email protected]", but I cannot make any of it out. Have you received similar???
OK, so I'll admit, it's been more than crumpet-eating time since my last missive.
Anyhow.
Yeah, I'm going to play Terrorist's Advocate here and say that in defence of Movie V, that I thought there was a deliberate demonstration of concern at certain points to avoid wholesale slaughter of "innocent bystanders". He doesn't set the bomb in Jordan Tower until it's been pretty much evacuated. Parliament and I presume, the Bailey were also empty at the time of their demise, and insofar as the former is concerned, it was public knowledge that shit was going down. So to speak
Also, and this bugged me a fair bit, but I'll run with it anyway, V kills the police officers in Jordan Tower in order to break away from the transmission room. What irritates me is the standard Hollywood reason given by the V stunty involved in this scene - that they had V kill them, rather than disable them (temporarily - like the Fingermen at the start) - because it looked better or more action-y or whatever. Which is pretty fucked logic, but anyway...
...it could at the very least be presumed that given the nature of the police state world the film operated within, the officers would have been prepared with some degree of body-armour/combat gear, and they were certainly and clearly operating on a "shoot-to-kill" basis in their confrontation with the Terrorist, they'd be better prepared to handle whatever moves V threw their way, he overcompensates, ergo: dead cops. Yeah, that's pretty lame reasoning, I know.
BUT
My point is, I think in terms of who is the more vicious individual (V v E) or given current circumstances (E v V, heh), who would you rather deal with? Someone who is desperately out of control and acts completely recklessly, killing/endangering god knows who, for god knows what reason (ie: Piangi; Opera patrons) OR someone who has rather detailed plans for destruction and a selective program of murder up his sleeve. I mean, yeah, both = bad. But at least you know where you stand with V.
Oh -- that's a news item that warns against opening spam purporting to be from diary.ru, just saying that they haven't sent out any such messages. All those messages that appear on the front page are links to the administrator's diary, which tend to be news, announcements and housekeeping. BTW, do you have cyrillics installed on your computer? Or do you see various accented symbols that look like someone had a field day with the French dictionary?
Movie Erik... Does he kill on a whim? Maybe it's more that he is entirely capable of murder when he feels himself threatened, even if the threat is illusory -- and up to a certain point he doesn't really want to admit that there is anything wrong with that. But he doesn't seem to go around randomly stringing people up, or kill everyone who gets in the way -- if he did, Carlotta would've been a write-off long ago, and that cab driver he conks on the head also. Having said that, he's certainly bloody scary. His only redeeming feature is that he channels some of his own "vendetta" against humanity into self-pity and self-hatred -- whereas all of V's energy goes into a focussed anger. Inside, V is strong because he believes he is right, even if the wrong reasons. Whereas Erik strongly suspects he is up the creek ("who lives in hell but secretly yearns for heaven"; "fate which condemns me to wallow in blood"), but obstinately persists anyway.
Yeah, the exact opposing point to my Defence of V, is that you could more probably reason with Erik if you could pin him down long enough, mentally or physically. You're right, V has absolute conviction. Well mostly, the movie kind of cops out at the end, having him say Evey is right, and that it's all on her shoulders if Parliament goes boom or not...
But, if Erik sometimes kills in reaction to perceived threat - does not V do the exact same thing with he police in the tower? They weren't exactly firing blanks into the room, nor into the unfortunate guy who got used as a shield. As to whether V has concerns or discomfort about his intention to kill more people,I think I put it in the context of exactly who he was going to kill and why. What I took from the way Hugo voiced the response was one of resolution. Which IMO does not preclude discomfort with or a serious consideration of the idea in and of itself. After all, he's been working up to this over a 20 year period. I think as far as Lilliman, Delia/Dianne, Creedy and Sutler are concerned, he's resolved to do it and so be it. I for one am glad they didn't try to have him deny it - that's his idea of "justice" and he's sticking with it.
Anyhow, I'm sticking with Piangi's murder being completely irrational and baseless, and what I would consider a whim
And before I write something completely indefensible, or illegible (not wearing my glasses ATM, everything on my screen is so soft and fuzzy!!!), I'm gonna call it a night!
Well mostly, the movie kind of cops out at the end, having him say Evey is right, and that it's all on her shoulders if Parliament goes boom or not...
Hm - I think his conviction is not shaken, though. He just realises that it would not be right for him to pull the trigger because his motives are not entirely selfless, whereas Evey's are pure. Which is actually incredibly self-perceptive -- and I guess he had to apologise for that little torture incident sometime.
I agree about V's idea of justice, and yeah, it was right that he did not deny it or make excuses. And he definitely kills when threatened, you're right, but he also kills when he is not at all threatened, out of conviction - the woman who ran the lab facility, for instance. Arguably Erik does that too, but his "conviction" is "they all hate me anyway, waah". I guess it's really weird that this is less scary, but it's the immaturity factor -- somehow Erik's "teenagery" self-hatred makes him more vulnerable and therefore more likely to change his ways. And I do think that Christine hits the jackpot when she throws this in his face, because he is already struggling with it inside. Whereas Evey's protest rings hollow because V has no problem with what he's doing. Which is not to say he doesn't consider it serious, just that he believes that as far as his killings go, he is justified.
Anyhow, I'm sticking with Piangi's murder being completely irrational and baseless, and what I would consider a whim
Fair enough. Personally, I agree it could be a long-planned murder, but I'm inclined to give Erik the benefit of the doubt. By this stage he was slightly deranged and it was a stake-it-all-on-this-night situation, plus he knew he was being hunted. So maybe he did try to knock Piangi out but Piangi struggled, or maybe he didn't even try -- either way, he had to make absolutely sure that his big night didn't end prematurely at the local police station. So in that sense, I do think he felt threatened (ie, Piangi regaining consciousness potentially threatened his plot). Which does not excuse his actions, of course.
Heh, typical scientist - keeps coming up with reasonable hypotheses long after the rest of us are content to rest on our own moral/ethical/imaginative delineations
I don't know, maybe it's just how my brain works, but I still find Erik's penchant for slaughter slightly more scary than V's. Especially because of its teenagery nature. Maybe that's just a hangover from dealing with my brothers when I was growing up. Not that they had a penchant for slaughter, but my younger brother (not the doctor) had a particularly volatile temper. Of course he's largely grown out of it, but not all men do, and you're spot-on, Erik got EXTREMELY lucky that Christine had the balls (so to speak) to call him on it, and thus prompt his taking the road towards maturity. But, to extrapolate wildly, minus the gutsy girl intervention, that kind of personality.....left unchecked and with only niggling interventions from the angel on his right shoulder (vs the devil on his left - or whatever, you know what I mean!)......extreme psychosis, anyone? I dk
Whereas I think what you have with V is someone with an endgame. There is the possibility he'll just rationalise that x number of people need to be brought to his "justice", and those that qualify within the category of "x" could endlessly expand depending on how "thorough" I guess he wants to be. The natural and ultimate conclusion is that anyone and everyone who was in any sense complicit in the Larkhill activities comes within his self-appointed mandate, and that includes not only all the on-site staff he's already gone after, but those in the Tax Dept that disposed of the electronic records, or whoever tried to bury the paper records Finch eventually unearths, any other bureaucrat involved in the shenangigans one way or another....as The Stranger says so glibly in DF, "everyone is connected"...so logically, V's list for retribution could be infinite. And I don't know whether his admonition to Creedy "it's the only way you'll stop me" is any indication of this or not.
But I think. What do I think???? Hmmmm, I guess I just attribute to V more pragmatism than that. He's already scolded the population at large for being cowed into complicity (tacit or overt) with the regime, and his revolution is his response - he's going to shake them violently out of their apathy - but I don't think he's going to directly punish them. Though one could argue that instigating some attempt at anarchic revolution would be punishment enough for those of us who would, really, much prefer to simply go about our daily lives and let the government worry about the government.
I feel I'm losing my point here, so in short - I think V would stop. He seems to have finite objectives towards calculated murder, whereas Erik could have crazily gone on whacking people if Christine hadn't told him to pull his head out of his arse. BUT as alternate realities aren't open to us in the contexts of both films' conclusions - V barrels on towards martyrdom/suicide and Erik gets wise - it's all down to conjecture as to who would persist in their individual brand of scariness. But I think we can both agree that we'd rather not deal with either in their limited incarnations, no?
Gee, having lunch certainly aids one with the jabbering!
If only I could apply my powers for Good, instead of Evil! Though frankly, Commercial Law is the epitome of Evil, so maybe I'll do all right with that as well this afternoon.
I think I'd rather not deal with either of them in MY limited incarnations. (At least I think they're limited, but you never know... I could be continually reborn as a lizard or something.) But yeah. I like these chip-on-their-shoulder types in much the same way as I like Bengal tigers: with a shatterproof screen between us.
But, to extrapolate wildly, minus the gutsy girl intervention, that kind of personality.....left unchecked and with only niggling interventions from the angel on his right shoulder (vs the devil on his left - or whatever, you know what I mean!)......extreme psychosis, anyone? I dk
Up to a point, definitely, and I do think this is what happened with Mme Giry. Because she felt his first murder was justified, she couldn't get past her pity enough to put her foot down. But would Erik have eventually stopped by himself, without Christine calling him on it? I think he might have. This is what I meant when I said that V's conviction makes him impervious to Evey's objections. If Erik was truly convinced he was doing the right thing, Christine could shout herself hoarse for all the good it would do.
So in effect, Erik kills people and V kills people, but Erik hasn't truly made his peace with it - and V has. Erik fears what he is (and it's not just the face). V rather likes himself. I guess it's difficult to compare them because the people V targets tend to be actively hurting others, so you can justify it on the same grounds that we justify (rightly, I think) little Erik's murder of his keeper. What bothers me more is that V seems to have a pretty elastic sense of what is acceptable collateral damage, and his convinction makes this a more serious issue than Erik's comparable attitude (eg the chandelier). Basically, if Erik was rehabilitated, he'd stop killing people, including those who "get in the way". If V gave up his vendetta, the fire inside him would go out and he would die (and Evey knows it even as she futilely suggests they run away).
But supposing V accomplished the revolution and managed to stay alive. What then? Would he stop? Considering that he brings down a government with no plan for the future, it seems likely that the revolution will snowball into a self-cannibalising frenzy of tearing down the "old regime" and all its trappings -- and the opportunists jump in to fight for the biggest share of the power that is up for grabs. This is when you tend to get looting, lynching and, unless order is established rapidly, famine and civil war. V is a typical revolutionary -- his focus is on the struggle, not on what comes afterwards. That's fine, but what happens when he succeeds? Would he search for someone else to blame (Mr X has put forward a program that impedes democracy -- don't vote for him or I'll blow up the Tower of London ). Having made himself the self-appointed guardian of truth and light, would V relinquish that role? I doubt it.
....Aaaanyway, of course it's only conjecture as to who would persist, Erik or V. But hey, conjecture is fun.
V is a typical revolutionary -- his focus is on the struggle, not on what comes afterwards
Yes, exactly, and this is where I got the sense that he was copping out on Evey at the end. I think you're right that he recognises that if he's the one to set off the charges, he's getting more out of it than the proposed benefits to society at large - he'd be doing it for himself as well. The problem is, whether Evey does or doesn't pull the lever, V isn't sticking around to deal with what he's initiated either way. He's bent on self-destruction as well, whether as a pure "martyr"; as the extinguishing of his cause; or simply because he cannot face the future - either because of physical pain (whaddya reckon, 2nd-3rd degree burns, 90% of the body - he's miraculously lucky to have made it to the 20year mark), or because as you say - the world may have no place for him. And I think that's the tragedy of the film and the concept of V as a "revolutionary". He doesn't stick it out. And that, to me, exposes the whole folly of extreme and absolute tactics like suicide bombers and the like. The film is interesting to me because it goes out of its way to make you empathise with "the terrorist" and then, in the end, it just as strongly demonstrates what so often becomes of these individuals. I don't think he died an heroic death, I think he died a terribly sad and regrettable death. Like so many others.
Anyhow, some of my review is concerned with how V is pretty much the "monster" he's trying to bring down. I think Alan Moore is fairly right in his criticism that the novel was much more about opposing fascism with Anarchism - in the political-theoretical sense, rather than the colloquial sense of pure chaos; and the film seems more strongly skewed to either : "Fascism" [read - Bush Administration] = Bad, Let's not Go THERE; or (and what I got out of it personally) EXTREMISM = BAD. Fighting Fire with Fire only means there's more fire. So to an extent, I found V's demise apt. The ending itself with the people of London standing witness to a much bigger bonfire than usual...I don't know. On one hand, I found it profoundly hopeful and on the other hand, it filled me with dread for the day after. As you say, what's going to stop the new Britain from becoming just another imploded state like the current Iraq, ie: going down the path of nearly every other "revolutionised" state. The question is left open, and I'm kind of still all over the place as to whether this completely undermines some of the other, really impressive aspects of the film.
I agree with everything you've said, particularly about fearing for the day after. I felt exactly the same way, and what I liked was that the emotional manipulativeness of the film is quite deliberately offset by the uncomfortable awareness that while your feet are tapping out a march, your head is screaming "WTF are you doing?!" It's exactly how a military-themed movie should make you feel.
Odd story: when I went to see this movie, B. and I had trouble getting seats. Finally we found a single seat on either side of a couple, who were right on the end of a row. I asked if the seats are free. You'd think they'd see we're together and move up one, right? They did, but not after a minute of fumbling -- until the girl finally gave me an annoyed look and said in a long-suffering tone, "You want us to move up, is that what you're trying to say?" ... You should've seen them clapping at the end of the film. You'd think they were all for liberty, equality and fraternity. Ha. And that is just one more reason to fear "the day after". People are terrible humans, after all.
Wow, you're serious about this review. Come ON already!
I haven't read "Count of Monte Cristo", having been put off Dumas by "The Three Musketeers", but you're right, there is definitely a connection. I guess what complicates things in "V for Vendetta" is that in addition to the traditional tale of coldly planned vengeance (like, say, "Wuthering Heights"), there is also the issue of bringing down a tyranny. So there is that extra conflict: vengeance is bad... but freedom is good... but violence is bad... etc.
I've been scared of Dumas ever since the whack-job Polanski did on the Ninth Gate. Which was kind of funny, but at the same time, put me right off anything Dumas-related, even indirectly. Plus Man in the Iron Mask with Jeremy Irons and Leo was execrable. And Guy Pearce just plain frightens me. So you see - I have Dumas issues to overcome as well.
Yes, I'm bloody serious about the review! I'm typing it right now, and for some additional insight, I decided to trip my way over into potophans.net, where I have not been for months and then some, to see this phannish devotion you spoke of.
You weren't kidding.
But it's kind of fun to see just how delightedly enthusiastic they are and what fun they had with the Phantom reiteration it presents. If a little scary in itself.
I might note that I have a 40% assignment on a subject that I LOATHE with the Rage of a Thousand Suns due on Monday. So as you can see, I'll be up for a while attending to this most pressing matter of a review for some movie I saw this time. Twice. Keep the Faith!
And the fact that I'm typing all this stuff about life and death and the meaning of violence to the background drone of Footloose, just kind of throws this weird perspective over everything. Chicken-race with tractors indeed. Didn't they try that on Arrested Development last year? Somehow, things don't seem as funny when Kevin Bacon's had a hand in the action. Just, sort of perverse....
I'll swap your assignment for my seminar. Which I have to present on Monday. In front of the entire school of biological sciences. On my entire Ph.D. project. If I get through it without embarrassing myself too profoundly, I solemnly swear to celebrate by posting the next "Solo" chapter by the end of next week. And yet, have I finished the seminar, let alone practiced it? Nope.
Via a weird logical chain that went "phantom reiteration - V is totally unlike Erik - except the Susan Kay one" I just remembered what I was going to ask you. Have you read SK's novel? And if not, do you want to? I can send you the pdf if you're interested (it's about 5 Mb). I read three pages and had a strong impulse to throw it at the wall, but since it's an e-book I had to contend myself with shutting the window. I may try it again sometime though.
Agreed about "Man in the Iron Mask" and Guy Pierce. He was actually in "The Count of Monte Cristo" too, with Jim Calaviezel (or however he spells his name). I quite liked that film, despite the distinctly B-grade feel.
Yeah, another buddy I made on PPN (teenage Mormon living on a Navajo reservation, no less!) sent me this massive file of Kay's book. All. IN. ONE. PARAGRAPH. I haven't been able to make my way through it all yet for the sheer physical pain it causes me in trying. "It was a breach birth and..."<aaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrgghhhhhhhhhh MY EYES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!>
Oh, on the seminar: puppets. You cannot fail if you have the assistance of Puppets. For who would dare mock an innocent scrap of feisty felt, trying to make its way in the harsh, non-stuffed world???
Yeah, Jim Caviezel. I saw him at the end of this snuff flick one time. Passionate Zombie or something.
And what I forgot to add above: Oooh, more Solo!? Already?!?! Do they get to have passive-aggressive sex again?????
Incidentally, have you noticed, that despite V evaporating from Australian cinemas like so much moisture in the dust on a Wagga street, they've been playing Alan Moore's other comic-to-film adaptations on TV lately? The really, utterly, horrifically CRAP ones??? The ones he DIDN'T trash venomously in public??? The ones with Heather GRAHAM and Stuart TOWNSEND in them?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? SEAN CONNERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Crazy. Just Crazy.
And hey, on the seminar again. At least the puppets you'll be using have completed slides to go on. I ain't got nuthin'.
Oooh, Kevin's teaching someone about the joys of body rhythm. Or something.
V and Erik were out for a raging Valentine's walk On a pond. As they went, Erik rested his hand on V's heel. It was the most romantic walk ever. But even though the day was so pleading, V was filled with flourescent dread.
"Do you suppose it's mawkish here?" he asked brutally.
"You luminescent silly," Erik said, tickling V with his codpiece. "It's completely graceful."
Just then, an idiographic May-fly leapt out from behind a trencher and slashed Erik in the nape. "Aaargh!" Erik screamed.
Things looked sonorous. But V, although he was tender, knew he had to save his love. He grabbed a glove and, Like a wraith that looks upon the world that has forsaken it., beat the May-fly meekly until it ran off. "That will teach you to slash innocent people."
Then he clasped Erik close. Erik was bleeding openly. "My darling," V said, and pressed his lips to Erik's spine.
"I love you," Erik said selfishly, and expired in V's arms.
-
-
30.04.2006 в 13:43-
-
30.04.2006 в 17:17-
-
01.05.2006 в 05:56-
-
01.05.2006 в 06:32-
-
01.05.2006 в 11:01-
-
01.05.2006 в 13:48-
-
02.05.2006 в 02:59-
-
02.05.2006 в 11:17Actually, I had the same reaction to "The Matrix" -- I sort of enjoyed it, but I coudln't see why everyone was head over heels in love with it. Maybe something about the films these guys make just doesn't really grab me. Who knows.
Anyway, I'll look forward to your review! Notes in point form are fine by me.
-
-
03.05.2006 в 04:37-
-
03.05.2006 в 04:44-
-
03.05.2006 в 05:34Gee, can you tell how enthused I am about getting my work done today????
-
-
03.05.2006 в 10:06Re throwing a brick -- I think the Big Statement in the film was quite muddy. Certainly no obvious brick, although perhaps it was intended as such and the lack of logic made it more ambiguous than it was supposed to be. But I'm inclined to think that a certain amount of discomfort was deliberate: the terrorists are the good guys, after all.
My hypothesis about V's body count was not just about the rest of the Larkhill staff but in general: he's completely comfortable with swift, faceless, whack-gotcha sort of killing. He doesn't seem particularly concerned about it even when it's not obvious bad guys (eg the TV station where Evey works); nor does he express the least bit of discomfort when Evey says something like "and you're going to kill again?" (can't remember the phrase, but the scene in his living-room). So yeah, he makes Movie Erik look positively cuddly.
-
-
03.05.2006 в 12:10Also: FINALLY have wireless at home! Again! Now I AM UNSTOPPABLE
And: I have a bunch of messages on my home page, one from "[email protected]", but I cannot make any of it out. Have you received similar???
-
-
03.05.2006 в 16:49Anyhow.
Yeah, I'm going to play Terrorist's Advocate here and say that in defence of Movie V, that I thought there was a deliberate demonstration of concern at certain points to avoid wholesale slaughter of "innocent bystanders". He doesn't set the bomb in Jordan Tower until it's been pretty much evacuated. Parliament and I presume, the Bailey were also empty at the time of their demise, and insofar as the former is concerned, it was public knowledge that shit was going down. So to speak
Also, and this bugged me a fair bit, but I'll run with it anyway, V kills the police officers in Jordan Tower in order to break away from the transmission room. What irritates me is the standard Hollywood reason given by the V stunty involved in this scene - that they had V kill them, rather than disable them (temporarily - like the Fingermen at the start) - because it looked better or more action-y or whatever. Which is pretty fucked logic, but anyway...
...it could at the very least be presumed that given the nature of the police state world the film operated within, the officers would have been prepared with some degree of body-armour/combat gear, and they were certainly and clearly operating on a "shoot-to-kill" basis in their confrontation with the Terrorist, they'd be better prepared to handle whatever moves V threw their way, he overcompensates, ergo: dead cops. Yeah, that's pretty lame reasoning, I know.
BUT
My point is, I think in terms of who is the more vicious individual (V v E) or given current circumstances (E v V, heh), who would you rather deal with? Someone who is desperately out of control and acts completely recklessly, killing/endangering god knows who, for god knows what reason (ie: Piangi; Opera patrons) OR someone who has rather detailed plans for destruction and a selective program of murder up his sleeve. I mean, yeah, both = bad. But at least you know where you stand with V.
-
-
03.05.2006 в 16:52Movie Erik... Does he kill on a whim? Maybe it's more that he is entirely capable of murder when he feels himself threatened, even if the threat is illusory -- and up to a certain point he doesn't really want to admit that there is anything wrong with that. But he doesn't seem to go around randomly stringing people up, or kill everyone who gets in the way -- if he did, Carlotta would've been a write-off long ago, and that cab driver he conks on the head also. Having said that, he's certainly bloody scary. His only redeeming feature is that he channels some of his own "vendetta" against humanity into self-pity and self-hatred -- whereas all of V's energy goes into a focussed anger. Inside, V is strong because he believes he is right, even if the wrong reasons. Whereas Erik strongly suspects he is up the creek ("who lives in hell but secretly yearns for heaven"; "fate which condemns me to wallow in blood"), but obstinately persists anyway.
-
-
03.05.2006 в 17:45But, if Erik sometimes kills in reaction to perceived threat - does not V do the exact same thing with he police in the tower? They weren't exactly firing blanks into the room, nor into the unfortunate guy who got used as a shield. As to whether V has concerns or discomfort about his intention to kill more people,I think I put it in the context of exactly who he was going to kill and why. What I took from the way Hugo voiced the response was one of resolution. Which IMO does not preclude discomfort with or a serious consideration of the idea in and of itself. After all, he's been working up to this over a 20 year period. I think as far as Lilliman, Delia/Dianne, Creedy and Sutler are concerned, he's resolved to do it and so be it. I for one am glad they didn't try to have him deny it - that's his idea of "justice" and he's sticking with it.
Anyhow, I'm sticking with Piangi's murder being completely irrational and baseless, and what I would consider a whim
And before I write something completely indefensible, or illegible (not wearing my glasses ATM, everything on my screen is so soft and fuzzy!!!), I'm gonna call it a night!
-
-
03.05.2006 в 18:44Hm - I think his conviction is not shaken, though. He just realises that it would not be right for him to pull the trigger because his motives are not entirely selfless, whereas Evey's are pure. Which is actually incredibly self-perceptive -- and I guess he had to apologise for that little torture incident sometime.
I agree about V's idea of justice, and yeah, it was right that he did not deny it or make excuses. And he definitely kills when threatened, you're right, but he also kills when he is not at all threatened, out of conviction - the woman who ran the lab facility, for instance. Arguably Erik does that too, but his "conviction" is "they all hate me anyway, waah". I guess it's really weird that this is less scary, but it's the immaturity factor -- somehow Erik's "teenagery" self-hatred makes him more vulnerable and therefore more likely to change his ways. And I do think that Christine hits the jackpot when she throws this in his face, because he is already struggling with it inside. Whereas Evey's protest rings hollow because V has no problem with what he's doing. Which is not to say he doesn't consider it serious, just that he believes that as far as his killings go, he is justified.
Anyhow, I'm sticking with Piangi's murder being completely irrational and baseless, and what I would consider a whim
Fair enough. Personally, I agree it could be a long-planned murder, but I'm inclined to give Erik the benefit of the doubt. By this stage he was slightly deranged and it was a stake-it-all-on-this-night situation, plus he knew he was being hunted. So maybe he did try to knock Piangi out but Piangi struggled, or maybe he didn't even try -- either way, he had to make absolutely sure that his big night didn't end prematurely at the local police station. So in that sense, I do think he felt threatened (ie, Piangi regaining consciousness potentially threatened his plot). Which does not excuse his actions, of course.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 08:45I don't know, maybe it's just how my brain works, but I still find Erik's penchant for slaughter slightly more scary than V's. Especially because of its teenagery nature. Maybe that's just a hangover from dealing with my brothers when I was growing up. Not that they had a penchant for slaughter, but my younger brother (not the doctor) had a particularly volatile temper. Of course he's largely grown out of it, but not all men do, and you're spot-on, Erik got EXTREMELY lucky that Christine had the balls (so to speak) to call him on it, and thus prompt his taking the road towards maturity. But, to extrapolate wildly, minus the gutsy girl intervention, that kind of personality.....left unchecked and with only niggling interventions from the angel on his right shoulder (vs the devil on his left - or whatever, you know what I mean!)......extreme psychosis, anyone? I dk
Whereas I think what you have with V is someone with an endgame. There is the possibility he'll just rationalise that x number of people need to be brought to his "justice", and those that qualify within the category of "x" could endlessly expand depending on how "thorough" I guess he wants to be. The natural and ultimate conclusion is that anyone and everyone who was in any sense complicit in the Larkhill activities comes within his self-appointed mandate, and that includes not only all the on-site staff he's already gone after, but those in the Tax Dept that disposed of the electronic records, or whoever tried to bury the paper records Finch eventually unearths, any other bureaucrat involved in the shenangigans one way or another....as The Stranger says so glibly in DF, "everyone is connected"...so logically, V's list for retribution could be infinite. And I don't know whether his admonition to Creedy "it's the only way you'll stop me" is any indication of this or not.
But I think. What do I think???? Hmmmm, I guess I just attribute to V more pragmatism than that. He's already scolded the population at large for being cowed into complicity (tacit or overt) with the regime, and his revolution is his response - he's going to shake them violently out of their apathy - but I don't think he's going to directly punish them. Though one could argue that instigating some attempt at anarchic revolution would be punishment enough for those of us who would, really, much prefer to simply go about our daily lives and let the government worry about the government.
I feel I'm losing my point here, so in short - I think V would stop. He seems to have finite objectives towards calculated murder, whereas Erik could have crazily gone on whacking people if Christine hadn't told him to pull his head out of his arse. BUT as alternate realities aren't open to us in the contexts of both films' conclusions - V barrels on towards martyrdom/suicide and Erik gets wise - it's all down to conjecture as to who would persist in their individual brand of scariness. But I think we can both agree that we'd rather not deal with either in their limited incarnations, no?
Gee, having lunch certainly aids one with the jabbering!
If only I could apply my powers for Good, instead of Evil! Though frankly, Commercial Law is the epitome of Evil, so maybe I'll do all right with that as well this afternoon.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 10:18But, to extrapolate wildly, minus the gutsy girl intervention, that kind of personality.....left unchecked and with only niggling interventions from the angel on his right shoulder (vs the devil on his left - or whatever, you know what I mean!)......extreme psychosis, anyone? I dk
Up to a point, definitely, and I do think this is what happened with Mme Giry. Because she felt his first murder was justified, she couldn't get past her pity enough to put her foot down. But would Erik have eventually stopped by himself, without Christine calling him on it? I think he might have. This is what I meant when I said that V's conviction makes him impervious to Evey's objections. If Erik was truly convinced he was doing the right thing, Christine could shout herself hoarse for all the good it would do.
So in effect, Erik kills people and V kills people, but Erik hasn't truly made his peace with it - and V has. Erik fears what he is (and it's not just the face). V rather likes himself.
But supposing V accomplished the revolution and managed to stay alive. What then? Would he stop? Considering that he brings down a government with no plan for the future, it seems likely that the revolution will snowball into a self-cannibalising frenzy of tearing down the "old regime" and all its trappings -- and the opportunists jump in to fight for the biggest share of the power that is up for grabs. This is when you tend to get looting, lynching and, unless order is established rapidly, famine and civil war. V is a typical revolutionary -- his focus is on the struggle, not on what comes afterwards. That's fine, but what happens when he succeeds? Would he search for someone else to blame (Mr X has put forward a program that impedes democracy -- don't vote for him or I'll blow up the Tower of London
....Aaaanyway, of course it's only conjecture as to who would persist, Erik or V. But hey, conjecture is fun.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 11:30Yes, exactly, and this is where I got the sense that he was copping out on Evey at the end. I think you're right that he recognises that if he's the one to set off the charges, he's getting more out of it than the proposed benefits to society at large - he'd be doing it for himself as well. The problem is, whether Evey does or doesn't pull the lever, V isn't sticking around to deal with what he's initiated either way. He's bent on self-destruction as well, whether as a pure "martyr"; as the extinguishing of his cause; or simply because he cannot face the future - either because of physical pain (whaddya reckon, 2nd-3rd degree burns, 90% of the body - he's miraculously lucky to have made it to the 20year mark), or because as you say - the world may have no place for him. And I think that's the tragedy of the film and the concept of V as a "revolutionary". He doesn't stick it out. And that, to me, exposes the whole folly of extreme and absolute tactics like suicide bombers and the like. The film is interesting to me because it goes out of its way to make you empathise with "the terrorist" and then, in the end, it just as strongly demonstrates what so often becomes of these individuals. I don't think he died an heroic death, I think he died a terribly sad and regrettable death. Like so many others.
Anyhow, some of my review is concerned with how V is pretty much the "monster" he's trying to bring down. I think Alan Moore is fairly right in his criticism that the novel was much more about opposing fascism with Anarchism - in the political-theoretical sense, rather than the colloquial sense of pure chaos; and the film seems more strongly skewed to either : "Fascism" [read - Bush Administration] = Bad, Let's not Go THERE; or (and what I got out of it personally) EXTREMISM = BAD. Fighting Fire with Fire only means there's more fire. So to an extent, I found V's demise apt. The ending itself with the people of London standing witness to a much bigger bonfire than usual...I don't know. On one hand, I found it profoundly hopeful and on the other hand, it filled me with dread for the day after. As you say, what's going to stop the new Britain from becoming just another imploded state like the current Iraq, ie: going down the path of nearly every other "revolutionised" state. The question is left open, and I'm kind of still all over the place as to whether this completely undermines some of the other, really impressive aspects of the film.
AAAAAANNNND before I really get going, I should:
a) put this kind of energy towards my review
b) after I've GONE HOME.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 11:51Yes, conjecture IS fun.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 11:52Odd story: when I went to see this movie, B. and I had trouble getting seats. Finally we found a single seat on either side of a couple, who were right on the end of a row. I asked if the seats are free. You'd think they'd see we're together and move up one, right? They did, but not after a minute of fumbling -- until the girl finally gave me an annoyed look and said in a long-suffering tone, "You want us to move up, is that what you're trying to say?" ... You should've seen them clapping at the end of the film. You'd think they were all for liberty, equality and fraternity. Ha. And that is just one more reason to fear "the day after". People are terrible humans, after all.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 16:51-
-
05.05.2006 в 17:02I haven't read "Count of Monte Cristo", having been put off Dumas by "The Three Musketeers", but you're right, there is definitely a connection. I guess what complicates things in "V for Vendetta" is that in addition to the traditional tale of coldly planned vengeance (like, say, "Wuthering Heights"), there is also the issue of bringing down a tyranny. So there is that extra conflict: vengeance is bad... but freedom is good... but violence is bad... etc.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 17:22Yes, I'm bloody serious about the review! I'm typing it right now, and for some additional insight, I decided to trip my way over into potophans.net, where I have not been for months and then some, to see this phannish devotion you spoke of.
You weren't kidding.
But it's kind of fun to see just how delightedly enthusiastic they are and what fun they had with the Phantom reiteration it presents. If a little scary in itself.
I might note that I have a 40% assignment on a subject that I LOATHE with the Rage of a Thousand Suns due on Monday. So as you can see, I'll be up for a while attending to this most pressing matter of a review for some movie I saw this time. Twice. Keep the Faith!
-
-
05.05.2006 в 17:30-
-
05.05.2006 в 17:38Via a weird logical chain that went "phantom reiteration - V is totally unlike Erik - except the Susan Kay one" I just remembered what I was going to ask you. Have you read SK's novel? And if not, do you want to? I can send you the pdf if you're interested (it's about 5 Mb). I read three pages and had a strong impulse to throw it at the wall, but since it's an e-book I had to contend myself with shutting the window. I may try it again sometime though.
Agreed about "Man in the Iron Mask" and Guy Pierce. He was actually in "The Count of Monte Cristo" too, with Jim Calaviezel (or however he spells his name). I quite liked that film, despite the distinctly B-grade feel.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 17:51Oh, on the seminar: puppets. You cannot fail if you have the assistance of Puppets. For who would dare mock an innocent scrap of feisty felt, trying to make its way in the harsh, non-stuffed world???
Yeah, Jim Caviezel. I saw him at the end of this snuff flick one time. Passionate Zombie or something.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 18:05Incidentally, have you noticed, that despite V evaporating from Australian cinemas like so much moisture in the dust on a Wagga street, they've been playing Alan Moore's other comic-to-film adaptations on TV lately? The really, utterly, horrifically CRAP ones??? The ones he DIDN'T trash venomously in public??? The ones with Heather GRAHAM and Stuart TOWNSEND in them?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? SEAN CONNERY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Crazy. Just Crazy.
And hey, on the seminar again. At least the puppets you'll be using have completed slides to go on. I ain't got nuthin'.
Oooh, Kevin's teaching someone about the joys of body rhythm. Or something.
-
-
05.05.2006 в 18:17The Adventure Of The May-fly
V and Erik were out for a raging Valentine's walk On a pond. As they went, Erik rested his hand on V's heel. It was the most romantic walk ever. But even though the day was so pleading, V was filled with flourescent dread.
"Do you suppose it's mawkish here?" he asked brutally.
"You luminescent silly," Erik said, tickling V with his codpiece. "It's completely graceful."
Just then, an idiographic May-fly leapt out from behind a trencher and slashed Erik in the nape. "Aaargh!" Erik screamed.
Things looked sonorous. But V, although he was tender, knew he had to save his love. He grabbed a glove and, Like a wraith that looks upon the world that has forsaken it., beat the May-fly meekly until it ran off. "That will teach you to slash innocent people."
Then he clasped Erik close. Erik was bleeding openly. "My darling," V said, and pressed his lips to Erik's spine.
"I love you," Erik said selfishly, and expired in V's arms.
V never loved again.