V for Vendetta
I don’t feel the need to write about every movie I see. Doing so would bore everyone, for one thing, but also I figure this is a forum that doesn’t typically require my voice. That being said, I’m compelled to offer up some points about this one. I’ll try not to spoil, but if you’re the sort who doesn’t want to know anything about a movie before seeing it, well, fuck, you should know better than to read a review.
Pajiba’s recent review of V for Vendetta summed it up towards the top with the words “fucking brilliant”. I rather think a more accurate condensation of the movie is “brick to the face”. Contradictory as this may sound, describing it that way isn’t meant to deter anyone from seeing it… quite the contrary.
Let me explain.
First of all, the film is visually striking. The obvious comparison to the green tinted underworld feeling of The Matrix is a completely valid one. I’m reminded too of the chiaroscuro of Dark City, or of Blade Runner, but less dirty. It’s a wonderful mix of black, white and muted greys, slashed through with bright color. The special effects are thankfully kept well reined and tasteful for the most part, but the most obvious effect they did create - a sort of contrail for V’s knives - was actually sort of distracting, I thought. Still, given my well known proclivities, I was very much impressed with the atmosphere and technical aspects of the film. The boldness of the presentation markedly reinforces the content of the film’s story.
The actors were good across the board, fitting to their roles. Hugo Weaving did a fine job of not sounding like a masked Agent Smith or Elrond, while maintaining the impact of his voice. Of course, everyone knows that Natalie Portman is a great actress (in spite of George Lucas’ attempts to destroy her), but her work here brought me back to the first time I saw her in Léon - The Professional. Léon is among my very favorite movies, so it’s no surprise that I was captivated by her portrayal of Evey.
As far as the story goes, the first word that sprung to mind as I walked from the theater was “unsubtle”, and I’ve come up with no better term since then. It’s been written here and there that the movie wound up as a thinly veiled commentary on the Bush administration and Tony Blair’s government in England. Let me say it outright: there’s no veil of any kind. It would be quite false to claim that bashing Bush was the point of this movie, but there’s nothing hidden about the fact that someone is extremely displeased with the handling of 9/11, the GWOT and so on. In one scene a character reveals his secret cache of banned historical artifacts, where we see a flag on the wall emblazoned with “COALITION OF THE WILLING”, against a mashup of the British, US and Nazi flags. I call that unequivocal.
Also, the oppressive regime of V’s England is pretty clearly the product of warped Christian Fundamentalism, having banned Islam, Homosexuality, and anything prurient (unless you’re powerful) along with freedom and dissent. This has it’s own echoes, certainly.
You can go too far with the analogy, and I feel that a number of commentators have, as with claiming a clear implication that the 9/11 attacks were staged. Even in a movie as blatant as this, I’m not sure that analysis is borne out. Still, there’s no denying that the vision we see here is meant to look familiar to those of us who are regularly distressed by what we read in the news, and see happening in the world around us.
Whether the film ends on an encouraging note or not is left to the viewer, but I feel comfortable saying that there is a purposeful glory to the violence throughout the film. In what seems to be the only really subtle point (or perhaps it’s merely muddled), it’s not clear if we are meant to reject this attitude or revel in it.
At any rate, I think the most interesting question raised by V for Vendetta in my mind comes down to whether people are likely in this world to be moved by subtlety or cleverness, or if a brick in the face is the only thing that will get their attention. Perhaps there’s a metaphor there, another level of the debate between the use of diplomacy and the use of violence as a means to an end.
Tuesday, April 4th, 2006 @ 6:58 pm 
April 4th, 2006 at 11:00 pm
I’m sorry, my first thought with your last paragraph was the “to spank or not to spank” movements.
Beyond that totally unrelated thought of mine, one could argue that everything springs from something violent, or more simply, something powerful. Power is then translated differently: whether it be popularity, money, or might. This may explain why causes want a celebrity figurehead. It is deeply unnerving that causes my be ignored until a movie star decides that they are a good idea and despite being the butt of late night comedians, I love the fact that celebrities are becoming more focal in their support. Hell, if it works, I really don’t care how something gets done.
And that may be the framework for any movement. Once you are desperate for any momentum and you are without a powerful figurehead, one needs to make one.
Of course violence doesn’t mean you achieve anything either.
J and I will be in Wisconsin/almost Minnesota this weekend. I think I’ll find a theater so I can finally see V for Vendetta. The only thing I think is sad about films of (potentially) this nature is that people will still walk away from it thinking that it’s just a movie.
In a way, and feel free to punch me for saying it, Reality TV may be *ack* a good thing. Suddenly unimportant nobodies are on the telie experiencing something. They are more believable that a story preformed on the big screen possibly because their humanity comes through ever more strongly with their bumbling speech patterns.
April 6th, 2006 at 9:12 pm
Been meaning to respond, but just now got around to it.
I think there’s a sizable body of philosophy dealing with the nature of power and authority and where it ultimately derives from. I’m certain that examples can be found of theories which define physical dominance to be the root of all power and authority, even those which are (or typically thought to be) outwardly benign (or ought to be), such as the authority of a parent over a child.
I’m not particularly comfortable with that reasoning, personally. I find it kind of simplistic and don’t see it borne out in my experience. I think that much authority derives from somewhat less tangible sources, like “respect”, and I don’t feel like respect must necessarily be founded (any number of degrees removed) on some sort of physical power relation. I think it’s cynical and also dangerous because such a theory is too easily misunderstood to imply that since physical power is buried somewhere in the matrix of all power relations, that it is therefore proper to make it the foremost expression thereof. This, of course, I patently reject (as I’m certain most of us here do).
I think it’s likewise naïve to posit that violence ought never to have a place in human discourse. I actually do believe there are justifiable acts of violence. I think it’s very simplistic to assume that the same metrics apply to wars as to individual altercations — e.g. the face that I’d beat the hell out of a guy to prevent my wife from harm doesn’t mean that I implicitly support a war against a nation which ostensibly threatens our nations security. The rub comes in that “ostensibly” part, of course. It’s typically very obvious when I am personally threatened. As the number of people in the equasion scales up, the clarity decreases, and other factors enter the argument. I’m getting off track, but I wanted to assert that I consider violence a sometimes necessary evil, with defined limits, but don’t believe it ought to define our relationships, either personally or as groups (including groups as large as a nation).
In the case of the subject of the movie, again, without giving too much away I hope, I think that violence is justifiable in the sense that oppressive governments may well need to be violently overthrown, particularly if avenues to nonviolent change are not left open. However, there’s some degree of motivational confusion going on here. As the title states, V is out for *vendetta*. Obviously, the net result is that an oppressive regime is resisted (and possibly overthrown, although it’s not perfectly clear that this is the outcome). But it seems at times that the political rebellion is secondary to the primary motive, vengence, that drives V to kill, maim and blast.
I’m not certain it matters. Sometimes, as you indicate, the result is more important than the manner in which it’s achieved. That being said, and perhaps I’m merely being a romantic in a situation where pragmatism is more apt, I tend to feel like our motivations do matter, and that achieving something just through unjust means ought not to be our goal.
In the final analysis, I suppose it’s a matter of greatest good, as so many things are — if the ultimate just outcome serves millions, while the unjust actions have been relatively limited, I suppose it would be silly to condemn the actors, but I think it’s an distinction worth noting, and it’s definitely a theme in this film.