![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jan. 21st, 2006 03:25 am[I accidentally posted this without a spoiler-cut for a minute before fixing it; if I spoiled things for you, you may slap me with the implement of your choice.]
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
temvald lent me V for Vendetta earlier this week. This was the result of a recent visit to the Freaks whereupon it was learned that I had not read it, and it suddenly became imperative in the eyes of my friends that I do so immediately, before the movie comes out and destroys the original work.
Aside: it's passing strange that I haven't read this before, especially since it was first published as a single volume only a couple of years before my super-hardcore comics phase began in 1990. After I explored the Marvel universe as much as I could stand, I went on to read all the big famous "graphic novels" of the day, including all the ones you're thinking about now, but not V. I'm not sure I even heard of it, even though I was familiar with Moore's work in Swamp Thing. Shrug.
Anyway, I thought it was a good, easy read, and worth my time, but I wasn't especially moved by it. It was subversive in ways I've seen before, quite frankly. I recognize that many images it triggers are from comics I read in the 1990s, meaning that it's here waving around Prior Art in these cases, and I respect that. But, alas, I have read too much, and seen too many things produced by those who were influenced by it and went on to make the same thing, only prettier.
That said, I did like the ending. The shape of it was telegraphed from halfway in, but the execution was more subtle. I especially liked how ( Lt. Worf learned that Christmas was inside himself, all along. )
So tonight I watched trailer for the film that's coming out in March, and, uh -- well, yes, that does appear to be the movie version of the comic I just read. I could identify many of the tiny little jump-cut scene-slices as events literally transplanted from the book, and found this surprising, for I was assuming that Liberties would be Taken to the point of total mutation. The two principal characters look exactly right, too. I see that the Wachowski brothers are directing; perhaps they are approaching the material with fanboy-fueled reverence? Well, that could be good or bad, couldn't it.
I find a good sign, though, in the fact that the title and the main character's costume design remain untouched from the comic. Both are plays (one verbal, one visual) on British culture, and aren't easily dereferenced to mainstream American audiences. A superhero dressed in a Guy Fawkes costume (complete with silly hat) is surprising, weird, and immediately meaningful if you recognize the significance. But to the >99 percent of Americans who have never once heard the "Remember, remember" rhyme, I fear that it will just be weird. The filmmakers must have known this, and they could have dropped Fawkes and gone more Ninja or something. But they take the more difficult route. This will be interesting to see.
The title, meanwhile, is just clunky. The phrase it puns from, beyond being very British, is old; does anyone younger than 50 still use "V for Victory" as a common idiom, even in the land of Churchill? It would have been perfectly fine to call the movie "V", I think. Dollars to donuts said that they wanted to, but didn't even bother since the cheesy alien-invasion film and TV series of the same title isn't sufficiently forgotten yet.
Also James Lileks will hate this movie. I hope that it is good and he hates it. I do not take pleasure out of him hating things, except well yes I do. I don't know why, though. He's a good guy. I was a fan of him for a long time, though, long enough for him to have installed a little memetic homunculus in my head that bears his likeness, and it stamps its feet and fumes at certain stimuli. Its reaction to V for Vendetta is: Any depiction of a terrorist as a hero is disgusting. You would rather have howling chaos and anarchy than safety and order? You are insane, it insists, with flared nostrils. Go away.
As I said, it will be interesting to see.
temvald lent me V for Vendetta earlier this week. This was the result of a recent visit to the Freaks whereupon it was learned that I had not read it, and it suddenly became imperative in the eyes of my friends that I do so immediately, before the movie comes out and destroys the original work.Aside: it's passing strange that I haven't read this before, especially since it was first published as a single volume only a couple of years before my super-hardcore comics phase began in 1990. After I explored the Marvel universe as much as I could stand, I went on to read all the big famous "graphic novels" of the day, including all the ones you're thinking about now, but not V. I'm not sure I even heard of it, even though I was familiar with Moore's work in Swamp Thing. Shrug.
Anyway, I thought it was a good, easy read, and worth my time, but I wasn't especially moved by it. It was subversive in ways I've seen before, quite frankly. I recognize that many images it triggers are from comics I read in the 1990s, meaning that it's here waving around Prior Art in these cases, and I respect that. But, alas, I have read too much, and seen too many things produced by those who were influenced by it and went on to make the same thing, only prettier.
That said, I did like the ending. The shape of it was telegraphed from halfway in, but the execution was more subtle. I especially liked how ( Lt. Worf learned that Christmas was inside himself, all along. )
So tonight I watched trailer for the film that's coming out in March, and, uh -- well, yes, that does appear to be the movie version of the comic I just read. I could identify many of the tiny little jump-cut scene-slices as events literally transplanted from the book, and found this surprising, for I was assuming that Liberties would be Taken to the point of total mutation. The two principal characters look exactly right, too. I see that the Wachowski brothers are directing; perhaps they are approaching the material with fanboy-fueled reverence? Well, that could be good or bad, couldn't it.
I find a good sign, though, in the fact that the title and the main character's costume design remain untouched from the comic. Both are plays (one verbal, one visual) on British culture, and aren't easily dereferenced to mainstream American audiences. A superhero dressed in a Guy Fawkes costume (complete with silly hat) is surprising, weird, and immediately meaningful if you recognize the significance. But to the >99 percent of Americans who have never once heard the "Remember, remember" rhyme, I fear that it will just be weird. The filmmakers must have known this, and they could have dropped Fawkes and gone more Ninja or something. But they take the more difficult route. This will be interesting to see.
The title, meanwhile, is just clunky. The phrase it puns from, beyond being very British, is old; does anyone younger than 50 still use "V for Victory" as a common idiom, even in the land of Churchill? It would have been perfectly fine to call the movie "V", I think. Dollars to donuts said that they wanted to, but didn't even bother since the cheesy alien-invasion film and TV series of the same title isn't sufficiently forgotten yet.
Also James Lileks will hate this movie. I hope that it is good and he hates it. I do not take pleasure out of him hating things, except well yes I do. I don't know why, though. He's a good guy. I was a fan of him for a long time, though, long enough for him to have installed a little memetic homunculus in my head that bears his likeness, and it stamps its feet and fumes at certain stimuli. Its reaction to V for Vendetta is: Any depiction of a terrorist as a hero is disgusting. You would rather have howling chaos and anarchy than safety and order? You are insane, it insists, with flared nostrils. Go away.
As I said, it will be interesting to see.