Movie review: V for Vendetta

Wow! I've read the graphic novel recently and was a big fan of it (although not of its early 80s style drawing). Despite the news that Alan Moore had disowned the adaptation and rabid fan online going on about how the plot had been changed, I was still looking forward to it. And I can enthusiastically say that I was thoroughly satisfied. I won't compare the GN to the movie, except for places where I think it's necessary.

If you're not aware of the dystopian and somewhat controversial plot, V for Vendetta is set in London. The USA is no longer a world superpower after a disastrous war (heh), and despite social destabilisation due to an epidemic (heh), England is still "prevailing" following the rise of a totalitarian government, led by Adam Sutler (John Hurt). The population is kept under control by the use of The Fingermen (a Secret Police force akin to the Stasi or KGB), censorship of the media, and institution of curfews. Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) is caught on the street after curfew by a group of Fingermen who attempt to rape her. She is saved by the arrival of V (Hugo Weaving) a freedom fighter/anarchist/terrorist dressed as Guy Fawkes...and from there the plot gets too complicated for me to discuss here (although if you want to read a spoiler of the film, you can see it here).

First off, this is not an easy movie to deal with. While everyone I went with was extremely pleased with the film, we agreed that it was easy to see why a lot of people wouldn't like it. It draws a lot of parallels, not only with totalitarian governments of the past, both Left- and Right-wing, but with current world events, and social and cultural attitudes. The movie requires a fair amount of thinking and if you're not willing to open your mind to the concept that governments may not have their citizens' best interests as their driving force, you'll probably hate it. There are a number of conspiracy theories banded about - the most common one being that governments would exploit a situation to exercise and exorcise opponents to their ideology. Sure, you might scoff at that idea, but if you consider that Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister at the time of Guy Fawkes and The Gunpowder Plot, used that as a reason to persecute Catholics in the 17th century...when you think about it in conjunction with a certain war that's on right now, it's not such an implausible idea. The movie essentially shows how people can play on mob fear to do things which, when thought out rationally, are unacceptable.

Another controversial aspects of the film is that the hero is explicitly identified as a terrorist. Yes, this is a word that has extreme negative connotations, and really, that is what V is. His actions cause widespread destruction and chaos, he is ruthless and closed to opposing viewpoints, and he does kill a lot of people (although he kills even more in the GN). Despite this, he is shown to us as charming, well-educated, and abused by the government so we cheer him on and want his plans to succeed because the government is obviously in the wrong. The movie has been under a bit of heat because it shows a terrorist in sympathetic light and the climax is a bombing in the London Tube. But I dont think this movie is advocating terrorism as a legitimate method to instill change. Rather, I think the message is that one should try to look beyond the destruction and seek the motivation, which admittedly is a difficult thing to do when faced with the aftermath.

The movie is also highly dependent on the use of symbols and iconography. There's naturally a lot of communist/Nazi iconography to make us identify with what we're seeing a bit more plausible - after all, this kind of stuff has happened. Likewise, the various characters are obviously meant to signify things beyond what they initially seem. V is obviously the embodiment of his ideals as a whole while Evey is representing the audience at large - the effect of the big picture on an individual. The extensive use of symbolism has been a bone of contention between the critics, as some have complained that the movie would have been better if (spoiler) V's identity is revealed (end spoiler). In my opinion (shared by others) this is irrelevent, and I believe that if it were done, it would have diminished the effectiveness of the message.

That said, for all the heaviness of what the film is about, it's surprisingly quite funny. There are moments of levity that are so startling you can't help but burst out laughing. In particular are V's introductory speech to Evey after rescuing her. It's a brilliant piece of alliteration and diction, but so bewildering that you understand where Evey is coming from when she asks "Are you, like, a crazy person?" Hilarious. Given what he's capable of, there's also the strange sight of V in a floral apron (above) and some great one-liners. Also, for haters of Fox News and particularly Bill O'Reilly, there's a character, Prothero, who acts as the voice of the regime and the director and actor (Roger Allam) have obviously based it upon "The O'Reilly Factor". It's a great moment.

On that note, here's my take on the acting. On the whole, the cast is fantastic but extra special kudos must go to Hugo Weaving. I can imagine it would be hard to act when you've got a mask with a fixed smile on your face for pretty much the entire role, but through gesture, intonation and a certain je ne sais quoi, Weaving manages to instill in V a great deal of charisma. I have no idea how he managed to make a constantly smiling mask equal parts intelligent, menacing, humourous, sadistic, and pragmatic. Natalie Portman is pretty good. Her accent is sometimes a bit weird, but on the whole she does convey Evey's emotions. It's not an easy role to portray as the girl who initially, while perhaps not satisfied, is marginally content with her position in life but come to realise things aren't ok. Stephen Rea as Finch, the high-ranking official who didn't realise how far his government would go to acquire and maintain power is great, although I would have liked to have seen what his character goes through in the GN on screen. And of course, the casting of John Hurt as the dictator...its a great contrast to his performance as Winston Smith, the victim of a totalitarian government in 1984.

Criticisms...WTH is with the love subplot?!!?!? I was completely happy until the last 20-30 minutes or so when it looks like V and Evey are in love with each other. Errr....NO!!!! Luckily it was kept to a minimum otherwise I may have dropped the movie down a point. Completely unnecessary. The level of fighting - I thought there was going to be more. That's not to say I think there should have been more. The amount that was there was fine, but I thought there would be more. If they had chosen to put in more, I would be happy with that too but it might be a disappointment to some. Something that was expanded more within the GN that wasn't done in the film is explaining what and why V is the way he is and why Evey is the way she is. In fact, regarding Evey, while I think the development of her character within the movie is very good, it is better in the GN.

I don't know if any of you reading this know or care, but this was a really difficult review to write. There were a lot of things that it brings up that I was considering discussing here, but it would have taken so much thought and writing, V for Vendetta would end up as my review for The Matrix - a constant work in progress in my head. As it is, I think this is the longest review since that monster Brokeback Mountain one I wrote. As you can see, I highly recommend it. For a site that provides even more analysis of V for Vendetta GN, see this site.

8.5/10