2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor
V for Vendetta 'Review'
Issue date: 4/20/06 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 1
To the Editor:
In her review of the James McTiegue film "V for Vendetta" Megan Gallagher thinks she has "prove[n] Hollywood incompetent." In fact, she has done little more than proven herself an incompetent reviewer.
I find it particularly noteworthy that Ms. Gallagher does not even mention the source material for the film- the almost universally lauded comic book by Alan Moore. Similarly, the Wachowski brothers' earlier pictures such as "The Matrix," which provides context for the "whitish tracking blurs" on V's knives that have cost Ms. Gallagher so much sleep at night don't warrant a mention. Doesn't the reading public have the right to expect critics to have done the proper background work?
Indeed, I have my doubts that Ms. Gallagher even watched the film. She claims that it "never truly justifies or explains V's actions and motives to a satisfactory degree." Well, I might suggest that the character as presented in the film is motivated by 1) revenge and 2) principles of "justice," both of which get established with little subtlety time and time again. The reviewer then goes on to state in the same sentence that the film paints V as "a blood-thirsty maniac who treads the uncomfortable line between revolutionary and terrorist more often than the filmmakers would like to admit." I am glad that Ms. Gallagher has such intimate knowledge of what the Wachowski brothers "would like to admit." More importantly, I find it troubling that a student at the prestigious Smith College can't identify a major plot theme- the tension between terrorist and freedom fighter- when it beats her over the head for two hours.
I have also read the Socialist Worker's review of the film in question. To put it in the vernacular, "sux 2 b u" when a Trotskyite rag can write a more nuanced review of a film than the newspaper for a $40,000-a-year factory for Senators' wives.
Nicholas James Pell
UMass student
PS: Three questions to ask when reviewing any piece of art:
1. What does the artist set out to do?
2. Does the artist achieve this?
3. Does the work exhibit "high seriousness?"
In her review of the James McTiegue film "V for Vendetta" Megan Gallagher thinks she has "prove[n] Hollywood incompetent." In fact, she has done little more than proven herself an incompetent reviewer.
I find it particularly noteworthy that Ms. Gallagher does not even mention the source material for the film- the almost universally lauded comic book by Alan Moore. Similarly, the Wachowski brothers' earlier pictures such as "The Matrix," which provides context for the "whitish tracking blurs" on V's knives that have cost Ms. Gallagher so much sleep at night don't warrant a mention. Doesn't the reading public have the right to expect critics to have done the proper background work?
Indeed, I have my doubts that Ms. Gallagher even watched the film. She claims that it "never truly justifies or explains V's actions and motives to a satisfactory degree." Well, I might suggest that the character as presented in the film is motivated by 1) revenge and 2) principles of "justice," both of which get established with little subtlety time and time again. The reviewer then goes on to state in the same sentence that the film paints V as "a blood-thirsty maniac who treads the uncomfortable line between revolutionary and terrorist more often than the filmmakers would like to admit." I am glad that Ms. Gallagher has such intimate knowledge of what the Wachowski brothers "would like to admit." More importantly, I find it troubling that a student at the prestigious Smith College can't identify a major plot theme- the tension between terrorist and freedom fighter- when it beats her over the head for two hours.
I have also read the Socialist Worker's review of the film in question. To put it in the vernacular, "sux 2 b u" when a Trotskyite rag can write a more nuanced review of a film than the newspaper for a $40,000-a-year factory for Senators' wives.
Nicholas James Pell
UMass student
PS: Three questions to ask when reviewing any piece of art:
1. What does the artist set out to do?
2. Does the artist achieve this?
3. Does the work exhibit "high seriousness?"
Be the first to comment on this story