Infinite MonkeysI saw V for Vendetta on Tuesday at the IMAX theater in the Irvine Spectrum. Great movie, and an excellent place to see it.
It was interesting how the movie was able to play like a graphic novel in pacing and "vibe" without attempting to simulate the medium itself. In this way, "V" was much closer to "Batman Returns" than to "Sin City" - which I appreciated, because you could get sucked into the story without being distracted by the presentation.
Does the film "endorse" some extreme ideas? Yes and no. On the one hand, it's "just a movie" and not presented as some sort of philosophical justification of anarchism, vigilantism, or guerilla/terrorist tactics. At the same time, these practices are presented as unapologetically heroic in the film. This is not, in my opinion, a bad thing. Even if one doesn't agree with the lengths to which V will go to defend freedom, these considerations should not be dismissed without discussion. It's not a bad thing for people to consider how much crap they'll accept from their government before they say, "enough!"
The Wachowski Brothers continue to reinforce my belief that "the questions are more interesting than the answers." I think the first Matrix movie (versus the other two) was the strongest evidence of this. The Wachowskis bite off a less speculative subject this time, however, and the results are more mentally satisfying. While the conclusions are still naive and idealistic, and the romantic elements are ham-fisted, "V for Vendetta" is viscerally satisfying and appealing to our "better angels" of justice and liberty.
Posted by RobbL at March 23, 2006 10:56 AMI thought the movie was just OK. But the graphic novel is much more satisfying.
Posted by: H.L. Monkey at March 23, 2006 09:57 PMWhich leads to another one of my life axioms: Always see the movie first.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at March 24, 2006 07:47 AMExcept in the case of Bonfire of the Vanities. The book was a modern classic, and the movie was a pungent turd. If you had seen the movie first you woulld feel like burning the book.
Posted by: JamesPh. at March 25, 2006 11:40 PMYes, that one there falls under the "Exception that proves the rule" category.
In fact, I haven't ever read the book, partly because I don't read much fiction, but also because the movie was so awful.
I just ordered the hardback edition of the "V" graphic novel on half.com. I'm looking forward to its arrival.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at March 26, 2006 01:22 PMReally? That's the exception the proves the rule? How about "Dune"? "Prince of Tides"? Almost every Stephen King movie?
Just about the only great book made into a great movie was "To Kill a Mockingbird."
Otherwise, it's really novellas...and, yes, graphic novels...that make good movies. And seeing the bad movie first really, really can ruin a book for you forever.
Posted by: Monkey David at March 26, 2006 10:01 PMWell, I think it applies more to books with cult followings. The Lord of the Rings is a good example. Very good movies, in the case of "Fellowship" maybe even great. I think I enjoyed them more than my friend who had read the books over and over again. I wasn't disappointed about what they left out - rather, I was excited, when I did read the books, at all of the cool additional stories. And the one section that I DID read before I saw it (the part of the "Return of the King" movie that was taken from the "Two Towers" book) was one of the most disappointing parts for me, largely because I was expecting the events to coincide with the book.
"Jurassic Park" was disappointing to most folks who read the book first. I enjoyed the movie because I could enjoy it for what it was, rather than for what it wasn't, and then I enjoyed the book in a completely different way. And speaking of Stephen King novels, I understand that Kubrick's "The Shining" was very different from the book, and that fans of the book were disappointed with the movie. It's one of my favorite movies.
What can I say about "The Prince of Tides"? I think Babs should have been a clue that the movie would suck. Which brings me to the main issue with your argument, David: You're citing poor adaptations of books as examples that you should read the book first. I don't think this follows. A poor adaptation is a poor adaptation. But when you're dealing with a GOOD adaptation of a GOOD novel (as with The Lord of the Rings), my experience has been that I enjoy both more if I see the movie first.
Regardless, seeing the movie first allows you to experience it on its own merits, without the burden of expectations set by having read and loved the book. For the most part, the reverse is rarely the case.
Posted by: Monkey RobbL at March 27, 2006 04:55 PM