V for Vendetta

James McTeigue, 2005
“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.”
I’ve decided to break with tradition today and discuss a recent movie. So, anyway, spoilers ahead. Yesterday, I went down to the local cinematheque to see V for Vendetta. I was reasonably excited about this one, especially since I’m a fan of the comic book series it’s based on. V for Vendetta is one of the seminal works of comic book genius Alan Moore and, while previous adaptations of Moore’s work, including From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, have been, shall we say, less than good, this one certainly looked promising. The plot of V for Vendetta revolves around an enigmatic terrorist, Codename V. V lives in a fascist, future London, ruled over by an oppressive government which slaughters sexual and religious deviants. V knows the inner workings of this establishment and has vowed to bring it down, murdering many of its central figures and blowing up the Old Bailey. Along for the ride is a young woman named Evey, meant to be our window into V’s world. She comes to live with V in his Shadow Gallery, an impressive subterranean home filled with beautiful but banned works of art, old films, and a Wurlitzer. Evey stays with V until she is captured and tortured.
Admittedly, Moore’s original work starts off a bit uneven, if only because it isn’t until a few issues in that Moore, his illustrator David Lloyd, and their editors decided to make this a finite series. Still, once Alan Moore’s V for Vendetta gets going, it really gets going. Sadly, this isn’t the case for the film. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed the film. It is certainly very watchable and entertaining throughout. It is, however, terribly uneven. There are snatches of brilliance and points of general mediocrity. While there is more than enough brilliance to rise the film above the standards of the average studio blockbuster, it simply never comes together as it should. That said, this is a very intriguing film, especially for those who have not yet read the comic. There are a lot of ideas here and a lot of questions. The film will certainly inspire numerous conversations between academics, critics, and moviegoers, if only about the central character, who is, essentially, a super-hero terrorist. The film is violent and darkly funny (an homage to Benny Hill had me in hysterics) and, above all, thought provoking. It would be easy to say that this is the time for this film. That now is a time when governments need to be questioned and that is why the film has been made. I don’t think that’s the case, though. For one thing, the comic was written in the eighties and the Wachowski’s began planning a film version even before the first Matrix. No, I would argue that the themes here are enduring and universal. Questions are asked that seem pertinent in any time.
As I said, though, this is a very uneven film. The highs are very high, though. Particularly good is Evey’s abduction and torture, crosscut with the life story of fellow inmate Valerie. This sequence is just as powerful on the screen as it is on the page. The visuals are excellent, particularly the somewhat ritualistic, and possibly analogous to Christ, shaving of Evey’s head and the shot of Valerie kissing her lover for the first time, with the sunlight pouring between their faces. Natalie Portman is just terrific throughout this sequence, perfectly portraying a transition from utter fear and hopelessness to acceptance and utter calm. Otherwise, her performance is just as uneven as the film itself.
The other actors are excellent though. Hugo Weaving is terrific as V, brilliantly acting through a full face mask which, without a view of eyes or mouth, could be a huge impediment. Stephen Fry also shows up for a nice turn as a late night talk host, but it’s a bit weird to see him in this movie, especially for us Black Adder fans.
BIG TIME SPOILERS, AHOY! At any rate, much of the rest of the movie feels a bit rushed, with the sequences not given the same opportunity to breathe that they have in the comic. True, the movie is going to be a good deal shorter, but I have the feeling that a more simple, fluid editing style could have fixed this. Further, many of the scenes feel like their pulling punches, which is particularly weird for a film about a super-hero terrorist and a government which has secretly killed scores of its citizens. For example, the comic’s powerful conclusion, in which Evey becomes V, is glossed over, as is most of Finch’s angst and complexity of character as he uncovers a terrifying conspiracy. This is particularly bizarre omission given how well this transformation is foreshadowed in the film’s opening moments. Also disappointing is the loss of High Councilor Adam Sutler (called Adam Susan in the comic) as a character. In the film, Sutler largely only appears on a big screen, shouting at his subordinates. Gone are the sequences of a hollow man, alone in his castle, bizarrely confessing his love to the super computer Fate, also missing from the picture, which helps to run his government. Tragically, the Vicious Cabaret is missing, which I was really looking forward to. We are missing V’s beautiful soliloquy to Lady Justice, which I think is a damn shame and, again, odd.

True, many of these additions would have lengthened the film to the three hour mark, but in a world of Lord of the Rings movies and King Kong, I don’t think that that is the problem it used to be. Most troubling of all is V’s words to Evey near the end of the film. He tells her that he has fallen in love with her. I’m sorry. What? V exists in the comic as asexual. He loves Evey, but not like that and adding that note to the film version just seems wrong. Indeed, if V is anything in the comic, he is gay. How else did he end up in Room 5? Instead of keeping with this, the filmmakers transpose that aspect of the V/Evey relationship with that of the Deitrich/Evey relationship. In the comic, Evey goes to stay with Deitrich, whose name is, I think, Gordon, there, and they have a brief but meaningful relationship. In the film, Deitrich becomes a bit of a heavy handed way to move Evey toward V’s line of thought and is homosexual.
All that said, I do still think this is a pretty good movie and a valiant effort. It is much smarter and infinitely more intriguing than the usual blockbuster fare, such as the trailer for 3 Fast 3 Furious which ran before the film. I am glad it was released. It will no doubt lead to many involved discussions, both about the film as a film and about its ideas. Hopefully, it will get more people to check out Alan Moore’s comic, which is really the finest dystopian novel of any sort since George Orwell. Finally, I predict that V will be the big costume this Halloween and it will be damn cool to see the streets filled with Vs. I probably won’t dress up as the Man from Room 5 myself, but I’ll certainly by a mask. It’d be a hell of a thing to hang on the wall.

6 Comments:
We went and saw V this past weekend too. I haven't read the comic, but overall, we really enjoyed this movie. And perhaps, maybe never having read the comic, allowed us to do that. After reading your post, I can understand why they chose the things they did in the film and left certain things out. The things you speak of could possibly show up as deleted scenes, or alternate endings on the DVD. If the comic ends with Evey becoming V...I can understand why the film DIDN'T do that. While it would've been a cool twist...that's not the idea they were pushing for throughout the movie. The idea was to make the public aware of their government's corruption or wrongful doings...even oppression...and give the people strength to change that. And they did. I think they leave the audience believing that everything is going to be okay now, and the need for a "V" is no longer necessary. I think they showed enough to get the point across, and didn't over-indulge in useless details that didn't further the story. I'm sure when making a film of this scope...lots of shots were probably taken...some used, some not. At some point, you have to sit down and look at your film objectively. You have to decide what's really needed, and what's not. A lot of people that have seen this movie, or haven't, may have or may not have read the comic. So, you've got that aspect to work from. You have to please the fanboys (which is impossible to do anyway), and you have to impress the general public who has payed to see it. I'm sure I'll have more to say once I read the comic. But, right now I think they did a good job. In my opinion, it's the first great film of the year.
I really had no idea going into this movie what it was about. When you and Jonathon were talking about Guy Fawkes last Thursday night, I must have missed the fact that it had anything to do with this movie.
But having seen it... I loved it. Excellent story, excellent idea.
I think you missed the real meaning behind V telling Evey that he is in love with her -- he's not in love with her as wants to marry her, he's in love with the fact that she is going to be able to go on, be able to take the next steps to ensure that the government falls, ensure that freedom is restored. V can't do that -- he took them all as far as he could, but the next steps are up to others. That's why he's in love with her -- because she is strong enough and has the ability to take those steps.
V may or may not have been gay -- he could have ended up in that facility originally because of homosexuality or differing religious beliefs... or because he was a "terrorist" of some kind as deemed by the government.
I'm sure they didn't time the release of the movie due to the current political situation here, but at the same time, while the issues raised are timelessly relevant, today they do seem to have more relevance -- as our rights are being changed for the specific purpose of fighting terrorism, as more and more Christian values are written into laws, and our president gathers additional powers that were not expressly given to him by Congress or the Constitution... it is an interesting time in which we live.
I think the key thing that I really liked though, is that this wasn't a martial arts superpower kind of movie -- the power in this story is all about words and ideas.
And that what makes it unique and fun to watch.
No matter how varying Natalie Portman's accent was or the occasional weak spots in the film itself. It's the idea that makes it cool.
But Evey taking on the mantle of V is exactly what the film is leading up to. Certainly, when I told the people I saw the film with that that is how the comic ended, they said that is how they expected the film to end. It's something the film goes to a great deal of trouble to foreshadow visually. Further, Evey is the public. She is the everyperson of fascist Britain and our window into the story. Metaphorically, she embodies the vox populii. Her assuming the mantle of V is a recognition that V's mission is a success, that the public has embraced what he's told them. It is also recognition that there must continue to be a V. That is the whole idea of the piece. If V is rebellion, the idea of questioning the government given human form, then he must always exist in some form or Britian will return to how it was under Susan's control. At the end of the story, everything is not yet okay. Peolple's eyes have been opened and they're on the right path, but it could still easily go wrong without the idea still forefront in their minds.
As far as Katie's post and the love question, I agree somewhat. That is why V loves her. That is why V loves the common man and why he loves them. The line is not, however, "I love you," but "I have fallen in love with you," which combined with certain shots, the inversion of Evey's relationship with the Stephen Fry character, and the way the Count of Monte Cristo stuff is played says to me that the filmmakers mean that in the kissy kissy, if only sort of way. Of course, I could be wrong, but there must be some reason for changing the line as it originally appeared, simply "I love you."
At any rate, I'm not trying to be nitpicky here. I think this is a big deal in regards to the deeper meanings of the text. I don't regard it as an organic web-shooters/mechanical web-shooters sort of thing. I'm just saying.
Also, I'm pleased that this much discussion is coming out of the film. It really is intriguing and there is still enough of the original idea present to make debate not only possible, but desirable, and a film really can't ask to do much more than that.
I don't think the film disagreed or agreed with making Evey V or not. They didn't show it...or expand on it. They foreshadowed on her belief becoming that of V's...but not necessarily her becoming the next 'V'.
They left it up to audience's imagination to decide what happens to her.
Not to mention, the word terrorist came up a lot in the movie. Which is essentially what V is and what Evey has become. Regardless of whether or not the government was righteous, the government exists nonetheless. V bascially started a public mutiny. I think if they had ended the film with a terrorist continuing to terrorize, the general audience might've had a problem with that. They had to end it in a 'politically correct' way to avoid harsh scrutiny, and in doing so, they let the audience make up their own minds about how the people's actions now would change the course of history.
Okay...I bought the book. I'll read it and get back to you. =)
Post a Comment
<< Home