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.
