V for Vendetta

[jura86]

On another take, why do you this rather dystopic vision of the future didn't catch the public attn like THE MATRIX???. Is it too intellectual, poor marketing? I think it's been somewhat of b.o. disappointment.   Then again, it's sad to see something like Scary Movie #4 doing so well and more adult oriented films not taking the cake.  I mean you don't have to agree with all movies viewpoints to actually go see it and enjoy it...

I think that's a really interesting point -- as someone who is v.interested in box office results, it is definitely worrying how poorly, thought-provoking, intelligent films are doing lately, while mindless, critically panned duds of films are consistently doing good business. I even read an interview recently with Sarah Jessica Parker (of all people), and she was saying how bad it is that critically acclaimed dramas are finding it so difficult to make money these days - look at all of the Oscar nominees - none of them were huge hits, even though GNGL, Capote and BBM had fantastic reviews. Perhaps more mature, grown-up audiences are staying at home these days, watching films on dvd in the comfort of their own homes away from teenagers in cinemas, or perhaps television drama is much better in the US now (I couldn't say) so that's why certain audiences are staying away from the cinema. One scary thought -- it could be a change in western society and culture, enjoying something thought-provoking and intellectual may be seen as a bad thing now - no offence to anyone who likes the guy, but its obvious that Bush appeals to a lot of people because he seems down-to-earth, not-too-intelligent, average joe kinda guy. Maybe America doesn't want these sort of films -- just like they don't want their cowboys to be gay, lol!

Looking at V for Vendetta specifically, it probably didn't do as well as expected because: a) the protagonist wears a mask throughout the film, and audiences (apparently - I'm sure I read this somewhere) like to see the eyes of their heroes/anti-heroes - apparently, this was one possible reason why "Daredevil" didn't do as well as expected (however, that was probably just because Daredevil was a bad film. b) Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman aren't massively bankable stars. c) Its UK setting perhaps? I know the Harry Potter films are too, but they had a huge in-built audience -- what's certainly weird is how badly V did in the UK (much worse than in the US) - but I blame all of that on marketing - in the UK, there was not much advertising, no big premieres or tv interviews/specials with the stars/makers of the film, so it was bound to fail.

[JCinNYC2006]

Okay Starboard, let's have it out with our loving mano-a-mano here lol.

Can you really call what V did to Evie torture? I thought it was just simple deprivation really, and not too extreme...  Just basic interrogation and prisoner will breaking....

rt

In the same respectful spirit, it's definitely torture.  Is it concentration camp level torture?  No, the level of pain inflicted on Evie was probably not primarily physical, but it was mental.  It was meant to test her to see if she would give in to her fear, as much of her life had be ruled by it.  But she was clearly suffering, believing that she was in prison and might die as a result. 

The fact that she comes out of it stronger, in large part due to finding Valerie's writing (which again, whether he created or whether they were real, were used by V very manipulatively), doesn't make it any less a type of torture tactic.  I agree with Starboard in terms of the questions about the means that it raises, but to me, V seems to be saying hell yes, the end justifies the means - I don't think he even makes that distinction between himself and his enemies. 

Juan

[rtprod]

I think we are over-rotating a bit on the "torture" sequence of this film, which minus the embedded Valerie sequence might comprise 5 minutes or so of 131 in a movie that offers so many other pleasures. 

I guess I just disagree with the assessment that this is technically torture.  It's an exercise in manipulation and V has nothing personal to gain from what he does.  To lump this in as being truly torturous reminds me of how elastic the definitions are today of what constitutes sexual harassment on a scale from ridiculous to legitimate.  As interrogation standards go, Cillian Murphy was tortured far worse after the IRA explosion in Breakfast on Pluto, and that was a comedy after all. 

Imprisoned?  Yes.  Manipulated?  Yes.  Deprived?  Maybe.  Tortured?  Ummm....

Happily politically incorrect here so hurl the tomatoes or pies at least. 

rt

[JCinNYC2006]

I think we are over-rotating a bit on the "torture" sequence of this film, which minus the embedded Valerie sequence might comprise 5 minutes or so of 131 in a movie that offers so many other pleasures.

Not really.  The point is not that the movie is about torture.  I was agreeing with Starboard's take on V and that he was as willing to do whatever it took to get his point across.  I think a bigger part of the reason why the movie 

I guess I just disagree with the assessment that this is technically torture.  It's an exercise in manipulation and V has nothing personal to gain from what he does.  To lump this in as being truly torturous reminds me of how elastic the definitions are today of what constitutes sexual harassment on a scale from ridiculous to legitimate.  As interrogation standards go, Cillian Murphy was tortured far worse after the IRA explosion in Breakfast on Pluto, and that was a comedy after all. 

What does 'technically torture' mean?  According to Wordnet, torture is defined as:

     n 1: extreme mental distress [syn: anguish, torment]
     2: unbearable physical pain [syn: torment]
     3: intense feelings of suffering; acute mental or physical
        pain; "an agony of doubt"; "the torments of the damned"
        [syn: agony, torment]
     4: the act of distorting something so it seems to mean
        something it was not intended to mean 

From her performance, Evie goes through all of this except for the physical part.  The character of Kitten was physically abused much more, but again, what constitutes torture is not necessarily degree.

Imprisoned?  Yes.  Manipulated?  Yes.  Deprived?  Maybe.  Tortured?  Ummm....

Happily politically incorrect here so hurl the tomatoes or pies at least. 

rt

LOL, not politically correct here either, but no cyber tomatoes needed.  It's just a fun discussion.

Juan

[rtprod]

Okay, you guys can win on this one.  I'm all torture-talked out.  How can I argue with Wordnet?

rt

[starboardlight]

even if we don't use the word "torture", he still took away her rights and freedom, for that time. sure she comes out strong for it, but I'm not sure I can justify it. The government wants to wiretap our phone calls by justifying that it'll make us better and safer, and yet we know that that's not a good thing.

As a film it's a fun film. And if I turn off my contemporary political/social mind, I can totally understand and accept V as a character. It's just that I want it to be more than a film. I think that we're meant to see it as a commentary on what's going on now. With that in mind, V's tactic just doesn't seem so different from what we're suppose to question about our own governments. And maybe that's the the point. We're suppose to question everything and everyone that tells us they know what's good for us, even our own heroes.

rt, this discussion has been helpful to me though, so don't feel like you're bashing your head against the wall. I kept asking myself why I can't get over V's tactics. Why is it I can accept Ennis and Jack as flawed men, but not V? The difference for me is that BBM world is a complex one that is as ambiguous and contradictory as the one we live in, while V's world is an extreme one that is shown to us with black and white, good and evil, distopia and utopia. As such I seem to want V to be more "ideal" than "real".

[JennyC]

rt, this discussion has been helpful to me though, so don't feel like you're bashing your head against the wall. I kept asking myself why I can't get over V's tactics. Why is it I can accept Ennis and Jack as flawed men, but not V? The difference for me is that BBM world is a complex one that is as ambiguous and contradictory as the one we live in, while V's world is an extreme one that is shown to us with black and white, good and evil, distopia and utopia. As such I seem to want V to be more "ideal" than "real".

Starboard, well said.

This discussion is very interesting.  I have been lurking here from time to time when there is new post.  I have not seen the film, therefore can not comment on it, but the whole discussion of how the film is aimed to reflect what's going on now, and the torture discussion is quite intriguing. I will watch it when it's on DVD.  Thanks for you posts and I will be able to watch the movie with some new perspectives.