Set in a future dystopian
V’s maniacal laughter throughout this show reveals him for what he is: a terrorist. But V is not the villain of this film. He is the hero. In fact, this movie’s thesis is that terrorism is not always evil, and in fact it is sometimes necessary.
Needless to say, that hits us right where we live. “Terrorist” has become the new buzzword for everything we hate, like Communist was back in the 50s. V for Vendetta does not flinch from its controversial message, however, and in fact takes more than a few potshots—some subtle, some overt—at America’s current ruling regime.
Based on Alan Moore and David Lloyd’s graphic novel of the same title, the movie was written for the screen by Andy and Larry Wachowski of Matrix fame. And V bears many similarities to The Matrix, from the stylized action to the heavy ideas to the subversive message. Unlike The Matrix, however, the Wachowski brothers turned over the keys to James McTeigue, making his directorial debut (though he was the Wachowski brothers’ first assistant director on The Matrix set). The rookie McTeigue does a bang-up job: The movie still has a distinctly Wachowskian feel, but McTeigue also makes it his own, eschewing the Wachowski brothers’ need to make everything artsy-looking and shooting a somewhat more straightforward film.
McTeigue is helped by two lead actors who make everything look easy. Hugo Weaving plays V, and somehow manages to convey convincing emotion despite being trapped behind a completely immobile mask. That’s not a feat to be underestimated—you try getting an audience to not only understand you, but like you, when they can never see your real eyes or smile. He has an able counterpart, as well, in Natalie Portman, who turns in what must certainly be her best acting performance to date.
Portman isn’t as handicapped by the mask as Weaving, but it makes certain aspects of her character tricky as well. To the movie’s credit, it never ignores either the benefits or the drawbacks that the mask provides. The mask gives V universality and an unrivaled ability to provoke fear, but for that he has to trade in intimacy and personality.
Which, to answer the naysayers who find the mask disconcerting, is really the point. You can’t become a cause and still remain yourself. V understands this, and seems to fight against it at times, but never denies it. In so doing, V—the terrorist—actually becomes the most unselfish character in the film.
It’s not a perfect movie, some early segments drag a bit, and V displays an unexplained adeptness at pretty much everything, as well as a peculiar inability to fail at anything he does. (I, for one, am glad that the terrorists that currently oppose our country aren’t as impossibly skilled as he is.) But even so, V for Vendetta still clocks in at a rock-solid 15.
17 comments:
V's "unexplained adeptness" is a by-product of the experimentation done to the prisoners of the concentration camp. It enhanced his strength, speed, stamina, and obviously gave him a great reserve of resistance to pain, but drove him somewhat insane.
Thanks -m. I imagine that's more clear in the original graphic novel, which I have not read. For what it's worth, I thought that point was perhaps a tad unclear in the film. But I also feel like I could watch that film 6 or 7 more times and pick up new things each time.
Well, it's strongly implied in both versions of that story that that's the case. It's driven home a bit more strongly at the end, what with all the gunfire and all.
If V is so selfish, why is his death part of the plan? Surely such a skilled individual could have lived on if he truly wanted.
JP, you've been going on and on about how V is not a hero, and you're right.
Everybody still awake and with me? Good.
V is a protagonist, and technically the "hero" of the story (the actual hero of the story is Evey, but that's neither here nor there), but there's a better word for him. Anti-hero can mean a lot of things, but for the sake of this argument, we'll limit the definition to individuals who do deeds that can be considered heroic or altruistic, but their means are questionable. The Punisher wages a war on crime, but he does so by brutally killing every criminal he can get his hands on. Even when he occasionally gets caught and put in jail, his war continues. Wolverine fights on the side of good, but he has a background in wetworks, and isn't shy about killing in battle (although he has shown restraint from time to time, depending on the opponent and situation), even when Professor X or Cyclops tells him not to He drinks, smokes, curses, and has seemingly "known" (yes, in the Biblical sense) every woman in the Marvel Universe. Most traditional heroes don't have UNBREAKABLE KNIVES that come out of their arms. Marv (from Sin City) is a big, dumb brute. He goes on a rampage to avenge the murder of the one woman who showed him kindness, even after he discovers that she was a prostitute, and had an ulterior motive. But we still sympathetize, and even cheer him on as he kills his way through half of Basin Cityto get to the truth. Clint Eastwood's Man with No Name (From A Fistful of Dollars, For a Few Dollars More, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly...aka Blondie/Joe/Manco) shoots first and asks questions later, turns two warring gangs in a town against each other to thin them out and reap the rewards. 24's Jack Bauer has shown time and time again that he will do ANYTHING to get what he needs to protect the country, including torturing people, putting innocents in the line of fire, etc. Though he uses these methods as an absolute last resort, he has shown that he has the fortitude to go through with what he has to.
"Heroes" do not come in black and white. Superman thinks of Batman as extreme from time to time, but Batman is nowhere as extreme as the Punisher. Captain America is considered the ultimate Boy Scout by many, but he was a solider, and will kill if he has to. Are innocent citizens in the Marvel Universe benefitting from The Punisher's war on crime? Hell yes. Is he a figure worthy of admiration or emulation? Uh, not by any stretch of the imagination. While V isn't as extreme as The Punisher, he does have a more dangerous opponent, who are that much more reprehensible for the fact that they were culling the blacks, gays, Muslims, and other "undesirables", and essentially crushing the rest of the country beneath their heels, when they were supposed to be protecting them.
P.S. People keep talking about "terrorism", but aren't V's actions actually patriotic if they're in England's best interest? Where is the line drawn anyhow?
I'll not respond to your points individually here, Hession, but I'd be interested in dialoguing with you about them, so if you'd like to you can drop me an email at theymightbecritics@gmail.com
Instead, I'd like to speak to what I think is the salient point here: Whether or not you agree with the message of the movie, or with V's actions, or anything else, the fact that these things provoke such discussion is what makes this movie good. The movie came out and made a point in an original and interesting way, and the film should be praised on those merits, whether you agree with that point or not. After all, the American Film Institute named "The Birth of a Nation" one of its top 100 films, even though it had a tremendously racist message that the Institute almost certainly disagreed with.
All I'm trying to say here is that when you're judging a movie, or any other piece of art, you've got to put aside your personal feelings about the message contained within, and merely judge the art on how effective a conduit of the message it was.
Any discussion on the message of the movie or on the goodness or evilness of the actions of the characters in it becomes a separate--also worthwhile--discussion.
*smacks forehead*
Christ, are you thick. V is not a hero, he's an anti-hero. He's still the protagonist, but they're not the same thing. You're judging V on the same scale that you would use to judge, say, Superman or Spider-Man, and it doesn't add up. The same problem with Harry Potter? Oooooohhhkkkkkkk, if you're one of those people who thinks that magic is real and that Harry Potter "promotes" it, then I think I'm wasting my time here.
And Evey doesn't emulate V! She sends the train to Parliment, which would be empty! She says repeatedly throughout the story that she won't help V kill!
I feel the need to change the tenor of this conversation, in addition to better understand the man with whom I disagree.
So, Hession, what sorts of movies do you like?
I feel the need to comment on this terrorism talk. Have people considered that our country was liberated by what were considered Terrorist acts at the time. I am not in ayway condoning terrorism, but we live in a free country where our founding fathers decided to violently stand up against their rulers, because they did not feel they were being treated justly, seems like a good comparison to V to me. I am sorry that this is so late but I was trying to figure how to make a good contribution to the discussion.
Interesting point, History Major. Funny how nobody said anything earlier when I asked where the line was drawn between terrorism and patriotism/fighting oppression. I was thinking the other day that it's odd.......the conflicts in the Middle East between the Israelites and the Palestinians and the American Revolution started more or less the same way.......soldiers firing at essentially unarmed civilians.
An excellent point, Stormy Pinkness, our founding fathers were indeed 18th-century terrorists. As my 8th-grade history teacher usted to say: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter."
With all due respect, I believe that my characterization of the patriotic acts that we hold so dear as forms of terrorism is correct. Believe thi si something i know a little bit about. What would you consider the Boston Tea Party? Loads of a commodity were dumped into the harbor, how is that not terrorist? Granted it is not on the form that we are seeing today. You say that they left instad of stand up to the government, which is true, but after they had settled they still formed organizations that planned on uprooting the british government from their country. Have you ever heard of the Sons of Liberty or read Johnny Tremain? I have a feeling that people do not like to categorize the founding fathers acts as terrorists because that puts it in a negative light. Not all terrorism is bad. Terrorisn does not just refer to buildings being blown up or people being killed, it refers to anything that terrorizes. It could be words or actions.
Uh-huh, good point there. But what if the Powers That Be that run things in said places of oppression don't want to let you leave? I think there are plenty of Cubans, North Koreans, etc that can relate to that feeling.
Plus, leaving England is not an option
for the people in the story. Pretty much everything outside is a wasteland, or not there anymore.
And don't forget that America was a British colony! The colonists rebelled, and a new country was formed with the Declaration of Independence!
Post a Comment