Latest / This Film is Lit / Prequel to V for Vendetta - Rosemary's Baby Fan Reaction

Transcript

Prequel to V for Vendetta - Rosemary's Baby Fan Reaction · This Film is Lit

• 0:10
  Speaker A: On this week's prequel episode, we follow up on our Rosemary's Baby listener polls and preview V for Vendetta. Oh, welcome back to another prequel episode of this Film Is lit podcast where we talk about movies that are based on books. It's a prequel episode. It's election week. We're stressed about everything, so we're just going to get right into it with our patron shout outs.
• 0:36
  Speaker B: I put up with you because your father and mother were our finest patrons. That's why.
• 0:40
  Speaker A: No new patrons this week. But we have our Academy Award winners and they are Nicole Goebel, Eric Harpo Rat, and I'm normally so fond of Satanists. Parenthetical Nathan Vic Apocalypse Matild Steve from Arizona Int Draft Teresa Schwartz Ian from Wine Country, Kelly Napier Gratch. Just scratch. Shelby says if Batman and Catwoman can be in game in the comics, so can Spidey and Deadpool. You cowards. That darn Skag V Frank and Alina Starkoff, thank you all so very much for your continued support. Katie, let's see what the people had to say about Rosemary's Baby. Yeah, well you know, that's just like.
• 1:21
  Speaker B: Your opinion man on patreon we had 6 votes for the book and 0 for the movie. Was a total shutout on Patreon this week. Shelby said at last this film is lit Covers the anti Breaking Dawn.
• 1:38
  Speaker A: Oh yeah.
• 1:39
  Speaker B: I mentioned way back when you finished the Twilight Saga that I was going to read this as a palette cleanser after Breaking dawn, and I did. But I waited until now to see the movie. Maybe it's just because I experienced the story through the book first, but I had a much more visceral reaction being in Rosemary's head and experiencing it all with her and seeing what she was missing. The movie is a great adaptation, but I'm picking the book. It feels like Ira Levin challenged himself to make his male lead the absolute worst in every book, and I kind of love that. I've now read this the Stepford Wives and earlier this year, A Kiss Before Dying. My favorite so far, even if it's more of a thriller. They did make a movie of that, but I don't know how they could pull off the twist in a visual medium. That said, I still hate Guy Woodhouse the most. I've never encountered such a hateable character, and Dr. Hill's betrayal left me reeling. Like Katie mentioned in the episode, what I'm saying is this book has stayed with me and won't be leaving anytime soon. And I agree. Baby Andrew sounded cute there you go, cute, cute little demon baby.
• 2:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, it'll be interesting to see. Obviously, based on the voting and a few of the comments that I saw, a lot of people preferred the book or picking the book over the movie, which is interesting. I don't know if it's that interesting. I may have felt the same had I read the book as well, because I will say I actually really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was very, very good. But it wasn't one that, like, there were some specific things in it that I was like, ooh, I really like this. I really like this. That sort of thing. But it wasn't something that as a whole, I was like, oh, this is like the Godfather. Like, oh, God, even Annihilation to some extent, where I was like, these are, like, kind of masterpieces. I think this is close, but I don't think it's. Of the two Roman Polanski films I've seen, I don't even know if it's his best film of the two I've seen. So, like, I can get maybe that it wouldn't. That the book may just be, you know, that people have a preference for the book, and then you throw in the Roman plants, give it all. And I can understand just being like, nah. Even if it was close, like, nah, I'll just give it to the book.
• 3:56
  Speaker B: Our next comment on Patreon was from Kelly, who said, I waffled back and forth about which one to pick because the movie is such a faithful adaptation. But I ended up going with the book because having it be from Rosemary's perspective really had me feeling like I was being brought along with her paranoia and terror. I also thought the pacing was better in the book. Not really the movie's fault. It's a lot to get through without being six hours long. But I liked how the book was able to slowly and deliberately have us questioning what was going on and agreeing with Katie. I love when she clapped back about the baby's name.
• 4:33
  Speaker A: Mm. So that's actually two right now so far. That probably the main thing was the, like, being in Rosemary's direct.
• 4:42
  Speaker B: And I do think that that makes a huge difference for a story like this, in my opinion.
• 4:49
  Speaker A: I think the movie was very effective at doing it and making you feel like kind of go on the journey with her and very effectively communicated what she was going through. But I can't argue that a book gives you even more insight, obviously, into the character's head and psyche and that sort of thing.
• 5:04
  Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, that's something that we talk about. All the time on this show.
• 5:07
  Speaker A: It's kind of the nature of the.
• 5:08
  Speaker B: Mediums, the loss, a character's inner dialogue.
• 5:12
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 5:12
  Speaker B: Our last comment on Patreon was from. And I'm normally so fond of Satanists Parenthetical Nathan, who said, I gotta say, this movie was a profound disappointment to me. It really failed to create the same sort of sense of dread or expectation that I got from the book. I wonder if this is because it is so similar to the book that I just knew every beat before it happened. Maybe this lessened my enjoyment of the film because it seemed like a bad copy. It had all the same beats, but none of the creepy heart. It's also possible that just knowing the ending ruined it for me. And that would have happened whichever media I consumed first. I can see that I'm asking the film to be fundamentally different from the book, which is generally not what I want in an adaptation. So I don't really know what my solution would be.
• 6:03
  Speaker A: Yeah, that's interesting. Cause, I mean, obviously this is a very subjective thing. You know, like, you can. There's a lot of things about movies that you can kind of talk about somewhat objectively in terms of, like, you know, the quality of the lighting and the shot composition, all stuff. And even, like, the script to some extent. And even then, obviously it's still subjective, but, like, you can kind of put some sort of objective parameters on stuff. But something like the movie did not create the same sort of sense of dread in me that the book did. That is just a completely interior, subjective, like, emotional reaction to a piece of media. And that's really interesting, though, because for me, it did. The film did without. But I do agree that it's very likely that having read the book first may have influenced it.
• 6:51
  Speaker B: Yeah, it is an interesting case because I think with this type of story where there's, like, you know, that kind of sense of mystery and suspense, sometimes knowing what happens still works because you get the sense of, like, dramatic irony, of, like, knowing what's going on and the characters don't know what's going on. I'm not sure that it works as well here as that does in other properties, though.
• 7:22
  Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. I don't know, because that was, like.
• 7:24
  Speaker B: That was something that I also struggled with. Was just like, I still enjoyed reading the book and I enjoyed the movie too. But, like, pretty much the whole time I was reading it, I was like, God, I wonder what experiencing this without knowing the ending would be like.
• 7:39
  Speaker A: Well, and I think we have an example of it. Cause, like, I Said I did not know the ending other than a vague idea of that there's some evil, supernatural thing going on, but, like, literally nothing about what it was or who was involved or anything. And so, for me, it was effective in that regard.
• 7:55
  Speaker B: I mean, I would say, though, that, like, even knowing that much, I feel like, would make potentially a huge difference.
• 8:04
  Speaker A: And maybe it does. So maybe people who had known nothing.
• 8:06
  Speaker B: About it at all would be knowing literally nothing. Because part of the point is that you're dragged along on this journey where you're not sure if Rosemary is, like, going crazy or not.
• 8:16
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 8:17
  Speaker B: Like, she thinks her neighbors are, like, satanic witches that are casting spells.
• 8:21
  Speaker A: It definitely changes your experience of watching the film. I guess my point is that even knowing, like, I'm kind of. I guess my point is that I kind of got to have that experience and that I did not know what the end was. I did not know any of the plot beats at all. So, like, even having that, you know, level of ignorance about the plot made it very enjoyable for me. So I imagine, yes, even going further than that and knowing absolutely nothing about, like, whether or not there even is anything supernatural happening in this may amplify that even more. But even for me, who had a little bit of an inkling that, yeah, we're gonna get to something supernatural eventually, it was still very effective in doing all the things that sounds like, for Nathan, wasn't effective. So I guess that was all I was trying to get across that. Yeah, it still worked for me in that regard, which, you know, I thought was kind of interesting.
• 9:11
  Speaker B: Nathan went on to say, why does Donald Baumgart only get blinded? Like, the coven killed Hutch and Mrs. Gardenia, but not him? I think the answer is he needed to be alive to talk to Rosemary later. And that strikes me as kind of lazy storytelling. I prefer to think that the coven is trying to maintain a bizarre sense of ethics and only do what is necessary. That requires some rape and murder. Sure. But Donald only needs to lose the part and not be silenced. So it would be wrong to kill him.
• 9:42
  Speaker A: I think that's actually probably kind of in line with the actual reasoning, as opposed to just chalking it up to, like, a lazy storytelling. And then on top of that, I think. And this is more of a meta narrative, like a meta storytelling thing. I obviously, I think another part of it is just that you. You're escalating the threat here, or you're. You're. You're incre. Through the course of the narrative, you're escalating what the cult, potential cult is.
• 10:08
  Speaker B: They're capable.
• 10:09
  Speaker A: Capable of. And that sort of thing, which is just a. And that obviously is a storytelling element or a storytelling sort of technique that isn't. You could maybe argue that that still doesn't make perfect sense within the world, but it's a storytelling. It's a legitimate and reasonable storytelling technique to kind of escalate threats in action as you go. And so I think that makes perfect sense as well.
• 10:32
  Speaker B: I feel like the extended undressing before sex was meant to be artsy or something. But I didn't get it all in the context of this film. It seemed out of place for the creepy, ominous vibe. Like it got cut out of some deconstruction of a rom com. I get that real sex is awkward and weird sometimes, but why is this movie highlighting that?
• 10:54
  Speaker A: So I think the reason you're doing that in this movie is to make it feel more real. Like to ground this story that will go off the rails ultimately at the end. We're dealing with the satanic cult birthing the Antichrist, you know, through summoning Satan and have him impregnate a woman on earth or whatever. Like, we get to crazy places at the end of this. And so I think it's important early in the story, especially in a film, to ground the story and give it a sense of realism, to really make the viewer feel pulled in and identify with the characters. Because when you see something, a small detail like that. I think also the way you're talking about here, like, using it as a deconstruction in a rom com is also very valid place in way you could use a scene like that. But in this instance, what it's doing is it's going, these are normal people like you. When they're not movie people. Movie people just magically are naked or don't even need to take off their clothes and just have sex through their clothes or whatever, you know what I mean? Like, they just. They kind of. Just like all of a sudden, they're just magically undercovers having sex. I think showing you this normal couple in this normal apartment eating on the floor and then taking 45 seconds to take their clothes off to have sex. It's a very effective way visually, very quickly, to make the audience go, hey, they're just like me. That's like, yeah, I also, you know, when we have sex, we gotta take our clothes off awkwardly. That's just the way humans. This is what happens, generally speaking. And so, yeah, I think it totally works in that regard, personally, that's a fair point. And that by doing that, Your point is that you're heightening the later horror by making the audience. I think this goes without saying. I just wanted to make sure that I went full circle on that. By having the audience really identify with these characters and insert themselves into these characters when the bad things start happening, it makes all that more horrifying, more terrifying, because it's more easy to imagine it happening to you because you see these characters as real people just like you, as opposed to fake movie characters. Okay, sorry.
• 13:03
  Speaker B: Terry stoppelganger in the movie is Victoria Vetri, which is the actor who plays Terry, and I find that pleasingly meta. Somebody else also commented on that.
• 13:14
  Speaker A: Victoria Vetri, which is the actor. Okay, I'm trying to parse this. So it's Harry's doppelganger in the movie. Okay. The actress, they say in the movie.
• 13:23
  Speaker B: Looks like her is the actress.
• 13:25
  Speaker A: Oh, they say it's actually. Okay, so it's like a meta joke. It's like in. They do that in Ocean's 12, I think. Oh, my gosh. What's the actress in the Ocean's movies? In the Ocean's movies. Hold on. Give me two seconds. I'll find it. Julia Roberts. In the Ocean's Movies, Julia Roberts plays. Not Julia Roberts plays some other character. But in the second movie, from my memory, there's a bit where during the heist, they have Julia. They have the character Julia Roberts is playing, pretend to be Julia Roberts in. In the movie to, like, get access to some place or some, like, high roller suite. I don't remember the details, but it's the same kind of thing. They're like, wow, you look a lot like Julia Roberts. We could use that to our advantage. And it is like, it's the same. Yeah, same. Same kind of joke.
• 14:24
  Speaker B: All right. Nathan's last comment here was. In the book, Rosemary refers to the gay couple living in the Bradford as, quote, normal abnormals. I know this is 1967, but as a bisexual dude, fuck that noise. It reminds me of religious people in my life who could accept me because I'm just normal Nathan, but oppose and judge everyone else like me.
• 14:47
  Speaker A: Yeah, that. That mindset is still wildly pervasive in modern culture. Like, it's. It's actually, like, everybody, in my opinion, I think, like, it's kind of everybody. There's a reason that, like, I don't know if it's everybody, but there's a reason that a lot of people, that you can kind of exist and be friends and, like, Go to work with, like, a lot of people that are people that have, like, dichotomously opposing political views, and they don't even. And, like, they might know that you're, you know, maybe you're black, maybe you're queer of some flavor, whatever. But they don't. Like, they just. Everybody views it that way of, like, well, they're one of the good ones of that. And then as a group, though, that group is bad in some way, but, like, not this person they work with. They're fine. And I think it's. And I'm saying I agree it's horrible, but I'm just saying I think that's still an incredibly, like, common kind of person. Not a personality trait, but, like, way that people view the world. Unfortunately.
• 15:53
  Speaker B: Over on Facebook, we had zero votes for the book and one for the movie. And Miladin said, I usually vote on Instagram, but since I ran out of time, I'll do it here. I didn't read the book, but based on Katie's notes, I want to if they ever publish a new edition in my corner of the world. So I rewatched the movie in preparation for this episode. My vote goes slightly to the movie. If I'd done both, my vote would probably go to the book. I loved Mia Farrow's performance and the theme of feeling helpless, terrified, alone, and not knowing who to trust, including your own husband. Speaking of guy, I hated him. After the rape scene happened, anytime he was on screen, I wanted him to die.
• 16:38
  Speaker A: It's fair. I understand.
• 16:40
  Speaker B: To be frank, Rosemary had a chance near the end with a knife. Either him or Roman Castovet, where he was so close to her that cutting his throat was right in front of her. Missed opportunity.
• 16:51
  Speaker A: I actually so thought that might happen. When she walks over and Roman was, like, standing there and she's holding the knife, I thought she might kill him. And, like, what would happen is, like, nothing. Like, people would be like, oh, that sucks. Like, oh, well, still, like, hailed the Antichrist, baby. You know what I mean? Like, that's kind of what I was.
• 17:09
  Speaker B: Cause who cares?
• 17:10
  Speaker A: Yeah. Like, we did the. What thing we wanted to do, or even to the thing of, like, all right, you're in charge now. Or so. I don't know. Like, I was actually kind of expecting that.
• 17:18
  Speaker B: Like, if you kill their leader, you become the leader. Yeah.
• 17:21
  Speaker A: Like, the Sith who know. I don't know. Like, I just. I was actually kind of expecting that to happen.
• 17:27
  Speaker B: As far as acting goes, everyone did a great job in their roles. However, I Didn't like the opening music and singing by Mia Farrow there.
• 17:35
  Speaker A: Singing by Mia Farrow.
• 17:36
  Speaker B: I guess there was. I don't really remember.
• 17:37
  Speaker A: I don't remember that.
• 17:39
  Speaker B: The only thing I remember about the opening credits was seeing Vidal Sassoon.
• 17:43
  Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. The opening credits. And again, though, I think we're doing a similar thing with the sex scene of, like, trying to. Cause I agree the opening credits are. It's just like generic credits over the cityscape. But I think it's also doing a similar thing, potentially, of trying to, like.
• 17:58
  Speaker B: Almost lull you into a false sense of security.
• 18:00
  Speaker A: Kind of like rope. Honestly, very similar type of opening to rope of like, just a generic city. Oh, look, it's just New York City. Tons of people live there. This could be happening in your apartment building if you live in. You know what I mean? Like that kind of thing.
• 18:13
  Speaker B: Well, and Mladin did go on to say here it felt more like the opening for a 60s or 50s Audrey Hepburn romantic comedy, not a horror.
• 18:21
  Speaker A: And again, I think that maybe that's kind of the goal, to make that all feel more personal, more identifiable for the audience.
• 18:30
  Speaker B: I understand that he wanted to establish the beginning of the movie to be more cheerful before shit hits the fan. Another thing I didn't like is the dream sequences at the beginning with the Catholic sisters and when she takes a nap in Dr. Hill's office where she dreams of the perfect family. Both of those scenes could have been cut and nothing would have been lost. I understand that her Catholic background was explained in the book, but in the movie, they barely touch it apart from images in the dreams.
• 18:58
  Speaker A: I disagree. I think that stuff's kind of important to understand a little bit about. I don't remember exactly the one in the. In the Dr. Hill's office. So I guess you point to your argument that it doesn't affect it that.
• 19:08
  Speaker B: Much, that I don't think that one probably could have been cut. I think the main thing that's important about the first dream sequence in the movie, specifically, is that it sets up so we're prepared for the dream sequence later.
• 19:22
  Speaker A: Yes.
• 19:23
  Speaker B: So we understand a little bit more about what's happening.
• 19:25
  Speaker A: I think that is a good point, is that it definitely lets us know, like, okay, this is a dream.
• 19:30
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 19:30
  Speaker A: Like, this is how the dreams work.
• 19:32
  Speaker B: Yeah. This is how this movie is handling dream sequences.
• 19:35
  Speaker A: Yeah, I agree with that. But I also think, just on top of that, I think the added layers of characterization from her Catholic past. Yeah, there's a little bit there that I think Just helps flesh her out as a character and makes her more whole. I don't think it's, like, wholly necessary, but I do think it helps. It's one of those.
• 19:53
  Speaker B: And it's obviously not gone into as much as it is in the book, so I could see being, like, frustrated by that.
• 19:58
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 19:59
  Speaker B: Overall, I liked the movie just probably not as much as people that put it at the high scale of Must See Horror Classics Fair.
• 20:07
  Speaker A: I think I would put it there. I think I would put it high on the list of, like. Not that I have an extensive list of that, so I'm probably not the best person, like, to be fair. But I do think of the, you know, horror classics I've seen, I would put this up there of like, hey, you should watch. I actually just recommended it to somebody the other day. I was like, you should watch Rosemary's Baby. It's really good. But, yeah, I don't know. I'd have to. I don't know. I haven't seen enough horror classics to really know where I would rank it specifically.
• 20:34
  Speaker B: I think all of the horror classics I've watched have been for this podcast.
• 20:37
  Speaker A: Pretty much, yeah.
• 20:38
  Speaker B: Same for me on Twitter and Instagram. We didn't have any comments, but we had one vote for the movie on Twitter and two votes for the book and one for the movie on Instagram. On Goodreads, we had one listener who couldn't decide, and that listener was Miko, who said, I knew only one thing about this story going in, but it was the what have you done to its eyes? Part. And from there, one can deduce backwards quite a lot.
• 21:09
  Speaker A: That's fair.
• 21:10
  Speaker B: I wonder how I would have felt about the story not knowing about the satanic cult beforehand. I'd be interested to know who actually raped Rosemary. Was it Guy or someone else working as a conduit or a physical manifestation of Satan, or was it a virgin birth? The different answers give a slightly different idea about what Guy was thinking and what he's willing to put Rosemary through. I'm also curious about what exactly the cast of Vets said to Guy to convince him to go through with this.
• 21:41
  Speaker A: So I think we know. I mean, we don't know exactly what they said, but I think we can just infer that they essentially were like, hey, you will be an incredibly successful movie star.
• 21:54
  Speaker B: If you help us, we can help you become promised him career success.
• 21:58
  Speaker A: As for the first part about who actually in that, my reading on it, just having watched the film once, was that it was Guy and Satan. If that Makes sense. I guess that would be that it was Guy working as like a conduit kind of. Or I could see it as a fin. I don't think it was a virgin birth. I think it's very important narratively that she was raped. I think, like for the point of the story. And like.
• 22:30
  Speaker B: Well, and I could be wrong. I don't think Miko literally means like a virgin birth.
• 22:35
  Speaker A: No, I think he does, in the sense of like. I think he's saying like an immaculate conception. Like the baby just voiped into her stomach.
• 22:42
  Speaker B: Okay, fair enough.
• 22:43
  Speaker A: I think that's what he's implying.
• 22:44
  Speaker B: Yeah.
• 22:45
  Speaker A: And I don't think that's the case. I think there was. Whether it was Satan or Guy or whatever forcibly raped Rosemary and inseminated her. And that's. And that's how we ended up with that. Like, I think that's important to the story that that happened. So that would be the only one of those I would just rule out. But I don't know of those. I don't know exactly which.
• 23:07
  Speaker B: I'm gonna be honest, I never interpreted this as anything other than a physical manifestation of Satan.
• 23:13
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 23:13
  Speaker B: And that's because early on in the book we find out that supposedly Adrien Mercado did summon Satan at the Bramford.
• 23:23
  Speaker A: Yeah, but so in the movie, the reason you could be unsure is that one you see Guy having sex with her and then it does switch to the demon, like in the dream scene.
• 23:31
  Speaker B: Right.
• 23:31
  Speaker A: And then it switches to the demon, then it switches back and you're kind of unsure. But then also at the end or the next morning, he has the scratches all over him, which was to imply that while he was raping her is when that happened. And now I guess you could assume that those scratches are. Or. Sorry, that she has scratches on him. Okay, never mind. That's right. He doesn't have scratches. She has scratches. And that could just be from. Nevermind. So, yeah, I guess it could be either. I wasn't sure. I kind of thought it might be him as like, yeah, the conduit for Satan. But I don't know. It doesn't really matter either way. I just think it's important that it was that.
• 24:13
  Speaker B: Anyways, Mika went on to say, I have a bit of a hard time figuring out if I prefer the book or the movie. In the book we see Rosemary's thoughts, which helps explain her actions, like how she figures out that there's a secret passage in the closet. But I also feel like the book puts too strong a point on Some things too early. For example, when Guy gets the phone call about Baumgart going blind, the book describes how he hurried to the phone like he was expecting it to ring. In the movie, it's something you might notice on the second viewing. The performances, mainly Mia Farrow and Ruth Gordon, also helped me to believe some of the interactions way more than just reading them.
• 24:55
  Speaker A: Is Ruth Gordon. What's her name? The.
• 24:58
  Speaker B: I think that's Minnie. Yeah, I think so.
• 25:00
  Speaker A: I think so. Yeah.
• 25:02
  Speaker B: I always feel like it's a cop out, but because I can easily recommend both, I don't feel bad calling this a tie.
• 25:09
  Speaker A: That's fair.
• 25:10
  Speaker B: A couple other random thoughts from Mikko were Rosemary better with anagrams, she could have transformed all of them witches into an ominous we fill the stomach. I mean, I guess if they're not wrong.
• 25:25
  Speaker A: Yeah, that would fit.
• 25:26
  Speaker B: But then again, it's also an anagram of the wolf alchemist. For some reason, I really liked Rosemary snapping to Roman, who she realizes isn't actually traveling. Shut up. You're in Dubrovnik. I can't hear you.
• 25:40
  Speaker A: I also love that line. I chuckled out loud in the movie or when that line hit.
• 25:45
  Speaker B: Also from the book, I believe.
• 25:46
  Speaker A: I think it is. Yeah, I think you mentioned that it was. Yeah, you did. You mentioned that movie. Nailed it.
• 25:53
  Speaker B: I assumed the pain was from the baby's horn or claw stabbing Rosemary. And the belief comes when the baby finally moves and changes position.
• 26:01
  Speaker A: Could be.
• 26:02
  Speaker B: Could be. I think it would be, too, because it starts, like, pretty much right away.
• 26:07
  Speaker A: It's right away. And it's so consistent.
• 26:08
  Speaker B: I think it would be too early.
• 26:10
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 26:11
  Speaker B: But then, I mean, it's a Satan baby, so, like, who knows?
• 26:14
  Speaker A: It's.
• 26:14
  Speaker B: Yeah, who knows? I don't know anything about the gestation of Satan babies.
• 26:19
  Speaker A: Me either.
• 26:21
  Speaker B: Brian was actually on point guessing that the baby's birthday would be predetermined. Cultists even comment on it afterwards. June 25, exactly opposite to Jesus.
• 26:31
  Speaker A: I do remember that, now that you mention it, that they're like, yeah, it's because it's the Antichrist. His birthday is the opposite of Christ. It's almost my birthday. Very close.
• 26:41
  Speaker B: Are you secretly the Antichrist?
• 26:43
  Speaker A: No, because it's not my birthday. It's just close to my birthday.
• 26:47
  Speaker B: Secretly almost the Antichrist.
• 26:49
  Speaker A: Yeah, I guess we all are almost the Antichrist. I don't know. I don't know what that would even mean.
• 26:55
  Speaker B: So in the movie, Rosemary compares Terry to Victoria Vetri, and Katie commented on her not being well known. You might recognize Vetri as Terry in Rosemary's Baby, apparently under the pseudonym Angela Dorian that she also used in Playboy.
• 27:14
  Speaker A: Well, there you go.
• 27:15
  Speaker B: So there you have it.
• 27:18
  Speaker A: Yep.
• 27:18
  Speaker B: So our winner this week was the book with eight votes to the movie's three, plus Miko, who couldn't decide.
• 27:26
  Speaker A: All right, thank you all for your votes and your feedback. Now it's time to go ahead and preview V for Vendetta, the book. I wish I wasn't afraid all the time, but I am. People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. Those caught in violation of curfew will.
• 28:06
  Speaker B: Be prosecuted without leniency or exception.
• 28:09
  Speaker A: It's past curfew visa.
• 28:19
  Speaker B: V for Vendetta is a British graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd with additional art by Tony Ware. It was initially published between 1982 and 1985 as an ongoing serial in the British anthology Warrior. According to Wikipedia, at the time it was one of the least popular being published in that anthology. Not really sure how they determined that, but there you have it. However, Warrior was canceled in 1985 with two completed issues going unpublished due to that cancellation. But in 1988, DC Comics published a 10 issue series that reprinted those Warrior stories and then continued the series to completion. The entire series was later released as a collection in both paperback and hardback form, and by 2006 DC Comics had sold more than 500,000 copies of the graphic novel in the United States. A little bit of background information. Moore was apparently inspired by a comic strip idea submission that the D.C. thompson Script Writing Competition rejected in 1975 called the Doll, which involved a transgender terrorist in white face makeup who fought a totalitarian state during the 1980s.
• 29:46
  Speaker A: Nice.
• 29:46
  Speaker B: Which I'm going to be honest, sounds fucking lit.
• 29:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, sounds pretty awesome.
• 29:53
  Speaker B: Years later, following that like initial idea, warriors publisher DEZ Skin reportedly invited Moore to create a dark mystery strip with artist David Lloyd. And V for Vendetta was originally intended to recreate something similar to their popular Marvel UK night raven strip in a 1930s noir style. However, rather than do historical research, they decided to set the story in the near future instead. Very relatable.
• 30:26
  Speaker A: I mean, Moore did did his fair share of that for Watchmen, I guess.
• 30:30
  Speaker B: So it's like, eh, David Lloyd developed the idea of dressing V as Guy Fawkes after previous designs followed the more conventional superhero look, but I guess they didn't like that. Moore stated in a 2012 interview that Britain has a history of quote, making heroes out of criminals or people who in other centuries might have been regarded as terrorists. He wanted a similar ambiguity for a protagonist reviled as a villain by the Briton of his fictional 1990s.
• 31:02
  Speaker A: I think a lot of countries, I think everybody.
• 31:05
  Speaker B: I think everybody kind of does.
• 31:06
  Speaker A: Yeah. I don't think that's like a British thing, but, like, it's pretty normal for, yeah, people who. Seen as folk heroes. Yeah. Become folk heroes when they were seen as terrorists in their time and. Yeah, that sort of thing.
• 31:19
  Speaker B: In his essay behind the Painted Smile, Moore recollected various inspirations and allusions that he had wanted to bring to V for Vendetta, which included dystopian heavyweights like Orwell, Huxley and Judge Dredd, as well as less, maybe less obvious reference points like David Bowie, Vincent Price and Robin Hood.
• 31:40
  Speaker A: I was just confused for a second because the way that list went disturbed heavyweights, Orwell, Huxley and Judge Shredded. I was like, well, one of those is not a real person. But I get like, yeah, what we're doing. Okay.
• 31:55
  Speaker B: There was a big, like, paragraph chunk of just like random things, and I was trying to pull stuff out of it that I felt like people were going to recognize off the top of their minds. The political climate of Britain in the early 1980s obviously also influenced the work. I'm not going to pretend that I know anything about the political climate of Britain in the early 1980s, but just as a reference point, this was the Margaret Thatcher Conservative era.
• 32:23
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 32:29
  Speaker B: The two conflicting political viewpoints that dominate the story are anarchism and fascism. Moore stated in a 2006 interview that V is designed as an enigma, as he, quote, didn't want to tell people what to think, but wanted them to consider some extreme events that have recurred throughout history.
• 32:50
  Speaker A: Yeah, Moore doesn't really do, like, this is the message and the moral of the story. It's more like, hey, here's some shit. Figure it out, fuck heads. I mean, he definitely has an opinion that you can kind of glean from his stuff, but it's not nearly. It's not. It's not. His stuff is. Again, I say his. I've read Watchmen, but it. Yeah, it's. There's layers like an Onion.
• 33:19
  Speaker B: The February 1989 issue of the Comics Journal ran a poll on the top 100 English language comics of the century, in which V for Vendetta placed 83rd. And in November of 2019, the BBC News listed V for Vendetta on its list of 100 most influential novels. Continuing with some cultural impact of V for Vendetta, hundreds of thousands of Guy Fawkes masks from the books and film have been sold every year since the film's release in 2005. Perhaps most notably, Anonymous, an online group associated with computer hacking, popularized the mask as a symbol for rebellion by wearing it at protests against governments. So the mask was adopted by protesters during the 2008 Project Chantology protests against the Church of Scientology, the 2011 Occupy Wall street protests, and in the 2014 Hong Kong protests, just to name a few instances.
• 34:25
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 34:27
  Speaker B: Following the Occupy Wall street protests, artist David Lloyd stated, quote, the Guy Fawkes mask has now become a common brand and a convenient placard to use in protest against tyranny. And I'm happy using it. It seems quite unique, an icon of popular culture being used this way.
• 34:46
  Speaker A: Yeah. In that specific way. It's definitely up there. There are probably other examples, but it's.
• 34:50
  Speaker B: I'm sure there are other examples, but it has. The mask itself has kind of taken on a life of its own.
• 34:57
  Speaker A: Oh, absolutely.
• 34:57
  Speaker B: Outside of, like, the story, tons of.
• 35:00
  Speaker A: People who know, know what this is or know what the mask is and like, know, like, affiliate it with, you know, protests and revolutions and that sort of thing. So many of those people probably have never seen Beaver Vendetta or know anything about it. If I had to guess, I mean.
• 35:15
  Speaker B: Me included, I've never seen it. And I mean, I know a little bit about what it is, but not a lot.
• 35:21
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 35:23
  Speaker B: Speaking of. Other than the 2005 film that we will be discussing, the graphic novel has not seen another successful adaptation. In 2017, British Broadcasting Network Channel 4 announced a television series adaptation. However, that project has been in development hell since then, and in 2019, I thought this was really interesting. In 2019, the day following the series premiere of Pennyworth, which was previously presented ostensibly as solely a direct prequel to the Fox television series Gotham series, co showrunner Danny Cannon confirmed that Pennyworth would also serve as a loose prequel to V for Vendetta, with the British civil war depicted in the series first season, eventually leading to the formation of the Norsefire government of V for Vendetta. Characters wearing V's Guy Fawkes mask were later introduced in the series 2022 third season. However, Pennyworth was canceled following that third season, and the V for Vendetta plot thread that they opened doesn't seem to have gone anywhere else. I didn't see anything about them wanting to do a spin off or anything like that, but it kind of feels like maybe they were leaving it open for that, but it doesn't seem to have gone anywhere interesting?
• 36:53
  Speaker A: Well, there's a weird connection to that because I actually knew that I had seen that. But there's a weird connection to that that I'll get to in my notes here in just. Well, right now, actually. Let's go ahead and talk about V for Vendetta, the film. Who are you.
• 37:09
  Speaker B: Gentlemen?
• 37:10
  Speaker A: I want this terrorist foul, and I want him to understand what terror really means. We're working on several leads. Her parents were detained when she was 12. It was like those black bags erased them from the face of the earth. You have one chance.
• 37:28
  Speaker B: You must tell us the whereabouts of code name V.
• 37:34
  Speaker A: If our own government was responsible for the deaths of 100,000 people, you really want to know. Those who are responsible will be held accountable. The time has come for you to live without fear. I'm ready, Beaver. Vendetta is a 2005 film directed by James McTeague, known for the Raven ninja assassin, as well as being an assistant director on the Matrix. The film was written by Lily and Lana Wachowski, who known obviously for the Matrix films. Cloud Atlas, Speed Racer, Jupiter Ascending, Sense eight, lots of other things, but the Wachowskis, very, very famous. The film stars Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, John Hurt, and Stephen Fry, among quite a few others. Those were just the main ones listed. It has a 73% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 62% on Metacritic, and an 8.1 out of 10 on IMDb. And it's actually movie number 168 on their top movie list. It used to be the top 250. Now it's just their top movie list. I don't know how far it goes. The film made 134 million against a budget of 50 million and was nominated for three Saturn Awards, which are the the Oscars for the Academy Awards for science fiction, fantasy and like genre film. It was nominated for three Saturn Awards, one for best science fiction film, one for best writing, and one for best costumes. And then it actually won. Natalie Portman won the Saturn for best actress. So getting into a little bit of the backstory of the film's production, the rights for V for Vendetta were acquired in 1988 by Joel Silver, who was a producer along with another Alan Moore property, Watchmen. And an early draft of this script was actually written by Roadhouse author or author screenwriter Hilary Henkin. But her version was a very heightened, satirical and like surreal version of the story that differed pretty largely from the novel. And it sounds like maybe the studio wasn't super happy with it. It's Kind of. Nothing really happened with it for a while. Meanwhile, the Wachowskis were big fans of the graphic novel and actually wrote a draft for a screenplay before they'd ever even made the Matrix films. Back in, like, the mid-90s, they wrote a draft of a screenplay for V for Vendetta. Moving forward quite a bit, as the film was getting produced and coming out, Alan Moore dissociated himself from the film because he was not involved with the writing or directing in any real way, and his voice was not being heard for what he wanted. He would go on to actually. To end his cooperation with DC Comics after Warner brothers, who is DC's parent company, decided that they were not going to retract statements that they made about Moore's supposed endorsement of the film. What that me that reads like. And I didn't look into this, but to what me that reads like is, like. They basically implied that he was like, yeah, signing off on the movie. And he was like, no, I don't. And they were like, nah, too bad. Don't care. And then he was like, all right, fuck you, dc. He apparently did not like some of the adaptation changes that they made for the story. But more specifically, the thing that he really didn't like is changing the theme of his original work to be less about fascism versus anarchism and instead having the story reflect the current American of. I say current. The contemporary American politics. When the film was made in the early 2000s of neoconservatism versus American liberalism. And as a result of all this, Moore's name does not appear in the credits or anywhere. But, yeah, he was like you. Which, look, I guess I understand being. But, like, that's kind of what adaptations do. Take something. Find a way to make it relevant to a current. You know, I don't know. It's. Yeah. Anyways, we'll see. I'd be interested to see. But that was like. His big thing is, like, it's not about, like, American liberalism and conservatism. It's about fascism and anarchism. And that's not what this story is about. So we'll see. So. And this is the funny, interesting crossover. James Purefoy, the actor was originally cast as V and James Purefoy. Some people may know him from sex education, Pennyworth, Altered Carbon and Rome, among other things. In sex education, the main thing we know him from, he plays Otis dad, the Jordan Peterson character. Yeah. And in Pennyworth, he plays, like, a guy named Captain Gulliver or something like that. The thing that's really interesting mentioning that he's in Pennyworth and that's like a prequel to V for Vendetta. He filmed for six weeks on this project or on the film before leaving the project. At the time, the stated reason, the given reason for why he leave the film was reportedly, quote, difficulties wearing the mask for the entire film, which obviously sounds like nonsense. He would later state in interviews that it was over creative differences about the character and, like, how it should be played and that sort of thing. So I thought that was really interesting that he. And then he would go on to be in Pennyworth, I assume not playing a character related to. But that would actually be fun if you got him and then had his. Like, he is the V or whatever, but, like, it's the pre. I don't know. I know nothing about Pennywise or Pennyworth or what.
• 42:49
  Speaker B: Pennywise, yeah.
• 42:51
  Speaker A: Or what's going on. I know it's. I know it's Alfred's backstory, but, like, I've never seen a second of it, so. Director James McTeague had actually met Natalie Portman and the reason she's cast in this movie, he had met her while he was an assistant director on Star Wars Episode 2. He was. That's Attack of the Clones. I think he was one of the ads on that project, or a second unit director or something like that. Knew Natalie Portman from that, and that's how she came onto this film. And she actually ended up having to train with a dialect coach for quite a while so that she actually could gain an English accent for the film because she is American. The climax of the movie is filmed actually at. In London. They filmed a lot of this in London, but specifically the climax of the film, which takes place in what you would call it the Parliament. I think, basically, for the most part, I have seen this movie one time when it came out, I remember zero things about it. But they filmed in Trafalgar Square, Whitehall, Parliament, in the area near Big Ben from midnight to 5:00am for, like, several weeks, I think I read. And this is apparently the first time that this area had ever accommodated that level of, like, film production. Like, shutting down that whole area for parts of that whole area for, like, you know, five hours every night. Interestingly, Tony Blair, the Prime Minister of England of Britain at the time, his son was working on the film. And Stephen Fry would later say in interviews that that may have helped them get some of the access that they got. The government has denied that that played any role in them getting access. And that was just really Like a lot of negotiation and blah, blah, blah, and they just made it work. But, you know, who knows? There's a kind of a famous domino scene in this movie where V tips over a bunch of black and red dominoes that form a giant letter V. According to Wikipedia, that involved. Or no, this is an INDB trivia fact. According to IMB trivia, that involved 22,000 dominoes and it took four professional domino assemblers 200 hours to set up. My guess would be that's 200 hours total. Like they're doing man hours there. So it's maybe like 50 hours times the four people, potentially. Because 200 hours with four people for that, that seems too long to me, but I don't know that. I'm just guessing that's 200 man hours and not 200 raw hours, but who knows? So getting in some reviews, writing for BBC, Jonathan Ross, and I think it is that Jonathan Ross, like the one people. Yeah, it is. The host or whatever. He blasted the film, calling it, quote, a woeful, depressing failure. He's not a critic, so I don't know why this is just in the critic part on Wikipedia.
• 45:38
  Speaker B: Maybe he was just a big fan of the book.
• 45:40
  Speaker A: Yeah, maybe. I don't know. I'd have to look. But I'm pretty sure he's not a critic. I believe he's like a. Like a host, like a team. I think I've heard of Jonathan Ross and I don't really know anything about him. He stated, quote, the cast of notable and familiar talents such as John Hurt and Stephen Ria stand little chance amid the wreckage of the Wachowski sisters dismal script and its particularly poor dialogue, end quote. Wachowski siblings. This is before they transitioned. I believe this is 2005. Yeah. So Sean Burns of Philadelphia Weekly gave the film a D, criticizing the film's treatment of his political message as being, quote, fairly dim, adolescent stuff, end quote. As well as disliking, quote, the barely decorated sets with television standard overlit shadow free cinematography by the late Adrian Biddle. The film is a visual insult, end quote.
• 46:29
  Speaker B: Wow.
• 46:31
  Speaker A: Going on to say on the topic of Alan Moore removing his name from the project, it's not hard to see why. Also criticized Natalie Portman's performance, saying, quote, portman still seems to believe that standing around with your mouth hanging open constitutes a performance, end quote. I've heard recently that people don't like Natalie Portman as an actress. This isn't like an uncommon thing. I think she's usually pretty good. I don't know.
• 46:55
  Speaker B: I've heard people say that there's things.
• 46:57
  Speaker A: She'S been bad at. I think she's bad in Star Wars Episode 2 and 3, but I think that's less to do with her and more to do with the dialogue and direction and that sort of thing. But a lot of stuff I think she's perfectly good in, so I don't know. Harry Gurin, writing for the Irish TV network rte, said, quote, the film works as a political thriller, adventure and social commentary, and it deserves to be seen by audience who would otherwise avoid any and all or any all of the three, adding, quote, the film will become a cult favorite whose reputation will only be enhanced with age. Andy Jacobs for the BBC gave it two out of five star, saying, it's, quote, a bit of a mess and it rarely thrills or engages as a story. End quote. But on the other hand, Ebert and Ropert gave the film two thumbs up and Roger Ebert wrote, quote, v for Vendetta almost always has something going on that is actually interesting, inviting us to decode the character and plot and apply the message where we will. So Ebert liked it. Ebert was a fan, but most of the critics here, not such bigger fans. But when I read the IMDb or the Rotten Tomatoes score 73% Rotten Tomato 62 on Metacritic. It's not like, terrible. It's not great, but it's not terrible, you know. So yeah, it's interesting. I don't remember. Well, we'll get to that in a second. Before we wrap up, we want to remind you can do us a giant favor by heading over to Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Threads, Goodreads, wherever you, whatever social media platform you use. Find us there. Interact. We'd love to hear from you. You could drop us a nice little five star rating. Write us a review on any of the platforms where you listen to us. You know, Apple, podcasts, Spotify, I think we're on other things. I don't know. I think you can get us wherever you get podcasts, I'm fairly certain. And finally, if you want to support us, Patreon.com ThisFilmIsLit you can support us there. Get access to different things at different levels, including early advance warning about what we're covering, bonus content starting at the $5 level, and priority recommendations at the $15 level. Katie, where can people watch V for Vendetta?
• 49:00
  Speaker B: Well, as always, you can check with your local library or a local video rental store if you still have one. Other than that, you can stream this with a subscription to Amazon prime or you can rent it for around 4 bucks through regular Amazon, YouTube, Apple TV, or Fandango @ home.
• 49:21
  Speaker A: All right. So, yeah, what I was going to say was that I actually am interested to watch this one because I watched this movie when it came out, and I don't even remember if I liked it. I will say that it didn't make as enough of an impact on me to have a last. It's not like I saw a lot of movies. This is right in that period where I was watching tons of movies.
• 49:41
  Speaker B: Yeah, this was high school for us.
• 49:43
  Speaker A: Yeah, this is like my senior year or. Well, it was like my sophomore, junior year of high school. I was watching tons of movies. Very formative, like, to my taste in movies and stuff. And I remember seeing this in theaters, and I remember zero things about it. So, like, I remember, like, visually some of, like, the character and stuff. And I remember, like, I remember a scene where Natalie Portman gets her head shaved, I think. But, like, other than that, I remember none of the plot, none of anything. So. And I'm very excited to read that. I haven't started yet, but I'm going to read that here over the next few days, the graphic novel. Because I obviously really enjoyed Watchmen. So interested to see what Moore did with this one.
• 50:18
  Speaker B: I've never seen this movie. I am interested. I feel like I've always heard that it's good. On the other hand, this is also one of those movies where the guys that I have known in my life who liked this movie are the worst. Yeah, the worst.
• 50:35
  Speaker A: Yeah.
• 50:36
  Speaker B: So.
• 50:36
  Speaker A: But see, that's the thing that's interesting is, like, I don't think. I think that's because it's a very aesthetic movie, which is actually interesting. Some of those reviews you're talking about how ugly it is. And maybe it is ugly. Like, I don't remember, but it's a very, like, aesthetically driven movie. And so I think that's one of those things that, like, young dudes latch onto very often. And so I think that has more to do with it maybe, than anything else.
• 51:00
  Speaker B: I do think that this is one that will probably end up on my running list of media that a certain type of guy insists on misunderstanding.
• 51:09
  Speaker A: Yes. I think that's also probably the case, knowing the Wachowskis and some of their more modern work and, like, the kind of stories they write and what they write about. Yeah, I can't even then, like, it's actually funny. Like, the. More thing about, like, oh, you made this thing about fascism and anarchism and turned it into this like, sort of treatise on American politics. I'm like, that doesn't sound like the Wachowskis to me though. Like, their stuff is not usually super. It's very political, but it's usually not like American. Well, I say that. I say usually. I don't know if it's. But very often their stuff does have kind of grander, like, political aspirations, at least of being representative of larger scale political extremes and ideologies. And not just like Republicans bad usually, even though they clearly hate Republicans. But like, it's not like what they're. It's not usually like the whole thing that they're doing. So I'm very interested to see how it plays out especially like thematically and from like kind of a political perspective, because the whole movie is about politics. So anyways, that's going to do it for this prequel episode. Come back in one week's time. We're talking about V for Vendetta. In until that time, guys, gals, non binary pals and everybody else keep reading books, keep watching movies and keep being awesome.