V for Vendetta review and stuff
So I went to go see V for Vendetta last night with my new roomie drglam, and we had great fun! The acting was simply incandescent: everyone in that movie put out 110%, and yet no one completely dominated the show (ok, Natalie Portman, but she WAS the female lead). Thinking about it, everyone had a scene that they pretty much got to own. A very pleasent surprise was Stephen Fry, whose character I do not recall at all from the original work, but who has a subtle but pivotal role in the movie.
I highly recommend the movie, but now I have to go re-read the graphic novel! I read it back in the late 80's, and while I have an excellent memory for the written word, I can't clearly remember exactly where the movie diverges from the literary work. There were large chunks of movie that I did not recall from the book. One of them involved the nature of V the person, which I will not go into here as I have no wish to spoil either the movie or the graphic novel. Let's just say that the character of V in the movie is a little too much of a mutant Phantom of the Opera for my taste.
One trend I am really beginning to see with movie adaptations of late is: while the quality of these movies has been improving in general, newer adaptations themselves have increasingly less to do with the original works. More than once I have walked out of a movie theater thinking: "Good movie, if I ignore the fact that there is this comic book/novel/series/whatever with the same name with very different content. Increasingly, the original works are being regarded strictly as source material by movie-makers. In a worst-case scenario, original literary works are simply regarded as grist for the Hollywood mills, where a movie has little resemblence to the source and the studio is using the name of the original work simply for brand power. Lois McMaster Bujold's WARRIOR'S APPRENTICE was optioned by a studio, and the resultant script was apparently atrocious: Miles Vorkosigan as blow 'em up action hero (shudder).
On the plus side, there are an increasing number of movie-makers who have some pretty damn good ideas of their own, which they are applying to the orginal material. What is coming out in movie form is a synthesis of two discrete visions (author and director/producer/screenwriter), which has artistic integrity in and of itself. Diana Wynn Jones's and Miazaki's HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are two very different works even though there is some overlap. I would recommend both book and movie, even though they are different. Both works stand on their own.
It seems to me that there is a spectrum: at one end you have a completely faithful adaptation to the original work, and at the other you have a title, some character names and maybe one or two plot points similarity. When should one adhere to the book, and when is a movie-maker justified in making changes?
I have some thoughts on this, but no time! Hopefully, I'll get back to this!
I highly recommend the movie, but now I have to go re-read the graphic novel! I read it back in the late 80's, and while I have an excellent memory for the written word, I can't clearly remember exactly where the movie diverges from the literary work. There were large chunks of movie that I did not recall from the book. One of them involved the nature of V the person, which I will not go into here as I have no wish to spoil either the movie or the graphic novel. Let's just say that the character of V in the movie is a little too much of a mutant Phantom of the Opera for my taste.
One trend I am really beginning to see with movie adaptations of late is: while the quality of these movies has been improving in general, newer adaptations themselves have increasingly less to do with the original works. More than once I have walked out of a movie theater thinking: "Good movie, if I ignore the fact that there is this comic book/novel/series/whatever with the same name with very different content. Increasingly, the original works are being regarded strictly as source material by movie-makers. In a worst-case scenario, original literary works are simply regarded as grist for the Hollywood mills, where a movie has little resemblence to the source and the studio is using the name of the original work simply for brand power. Lois McMaster Bujold's WARRIOR'S APPRENTICE was optioned by a studio, and the resultant script was apparently atrocious: Miles Vorkosigan as blow 'em up action hero (shudder).
On the plus side, there are an increasing number of movie-makers who have some pretty damn good ideas of their own, which they are applying to the orginal material. What is coming out in movie form is a synthesis of two discrete visions (author and director/producer/screenwriter), which has artistic integrity in and of itself. Diana Wynn Jones's and Miazaki's HOWL'S MOVING CASTLE are two very different works even though there is some overlap. I would recommend both book and movie, even though they are different. Both works stand on their own.
It seems to me that there is a spectrum: at one end you have a completely faithful adaptation to the original work, and at the other you have a title, some character names and maybe one or two plot points similarity. When should one adhere to the book, and when is a movie-maker justified in making changes?
I have some thoughts on this, but no time! Hopefully, I'll get back to this!