“Artists use lies to tell the truth.”
2006. Rated R. Directed by James McTeigue. Written by the Wachowski Brothers. Based on the comic by Alan Moore. Starring Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry and John Hurt.
.
Previously: Jarhead
When V for Vendetta was announced, it had huge hit written all over it — it was the Wachowski brothers’ first post-Matrix production, based on a popular cult comic book, with a big budget and a well-known lead. However, the movie was largely overlooked, continuing the dimming of the Wachowski’s star. The anti-government theme did not play well with everyone and even more damaging was bad timing — the subway attacks in London prompted the release to be delayed by 6 months to the dead-period of March and ruined the perfect tie-in the release had in November.
Actually, checking on the box office numbers, it did a lot better than I thought (but still not nearly as well as it could have), the Guy Fawkes mask has become pretty ubiqitous on Halloween and it has kind of become a cult classic, but whatever, I still want to write about it. Next time I’ll pick something more obscure.
The film takes place in a future London, where a totalitarian regime has come to power playing on the fear of the people (caused by disease outbreaks and terrorist attacks), slowly taking away individual rights. On Guy Fawkes night (remember, remember the 5th of November), a masked man named V (Weaving) saves Evey Hammond (Portman) from crooked cops and then proceeds to blow up a landmark London building. Evey, as the straight-laced daughter of former revolutionaries, is immediately suspected to be a co-conspirator, and the movie essentially focuses on her relationship with V, and the effect of V’s actions on society.
The plot, not coincidentally, is designed to make you draw parallels to what’s happened in our own country over the past 8 years. Some people were upset that the movie seems to glorify terrorism, but of course, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. It’s unfortunate, but one reason why terrorism is so scary and powerful is because it does affect change, and while clearly V is a sympathetic character, it’s not as black-and-white as it could have been. In any case, that element of the movie did not bother me at all.
Portman is cast very well and does a solid job as the lead but is overshadowed, naturally, by V. Weaving does a excellent job despite being hidden, and the character is so memorable and iconic that it is still surprising the movie is not more popular. Stephen Rea plays the lead detective tracking V and is ideal for the world-weary character. John Hurt has a good look for the Big Brother-type leader of the rulng party and delivers in his short amount of screen time.
Really where the film shines though is in the production — though they did not direct and tapped their former assistant director McTeigue to do it, the Wachowski’s stamp is all over it. It looks great, the effects look great and the atmosphere is perfect for the narrative. It is a tightly crafted, very well-made film and this drowns out the few weak points, V’s silly introduction monologue, for example.
For me, though, what really mades the movie is one sequence, that may seem extraneous to the plot, but is absolutely what elevates the movie to one of my favorites. It’s a heartbreaking, emotional sequence — I’ve seen the movie twice and both times it got a little dusty in the room.
V for Vendetta might not really fit the overlooked and underrated label perfectly, but if you haven’t seen it, it’s definitely worth checking out. Be aware that it is a very visceral film that begs to be watched on a big screen with the sound up. Let’s hope the Wachowskis can get back to making movies like this or the original Matrix and not movies like Speed Racer, which looked like a piece of crap.
Grade: A-
.
If you liked this article, please subscribe to my blog, using the RSS feed or subscribe via e-mail using FeedBlitz or RSSFWD.
Stumble It!.
I agree with you. I liked this film a lot more than most people did. Weaving was particularly good I thought. It has to be very difficult to be emotive without the use of your face, and yet he was.
Do you mean Speed Racer looked dumb so you didn’t see it or that you disliked the visuals when you did see it? Because I have to say, it’s currently at the top of my own overlooked and underrated list, and you’re not really convincing me to see V for Vendetta by slamming it.
You have to realize that half the nation also voted for George Bush, so that’s the kind of mentality we’re dealing with here concerning a movie like “V for Vendetta”.
However, Speed Racer was to quick paced, and too long for most antsy children. I liked the movie but it did give me a headache in the Theatre.
I did not see Speed Racer. But the overwhelmingly bad reviews and poor public reception seemed to confirm what I felt about the trailer, which is that it looked like an awful kid’s movie. I didn’t say it *was* a bad movie, only that it looked that way, but I don’t plan on seeing it.
I don’t know what specifically you liked about it, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say if you liked Speed Racer for any reason other than the visuals, or saw it while on acid, V for Vendetta may not be your type of movie.
I didn’t dislike the movie at all, but, even as a liberal, I’m exhausted by the in-your-face, “the West is selling out their values” angle. Yeah yeah, I know that America’s obsession with fighting terrorism is slowly turning our once-free nation into a police state. I get the point.
On a similar note, as someone whose favorite book is “1984,” I just had the feeling that this ground had been covered before. A totalitarian regime considers individuals with dissenting views a threat to “national security” (i.e. its own hold on power). Understood.
Again, I didn’t dislike the movie. I thought it was well-acted, and it was entertaining. But my favorite movies and books make me look at things in a different light or consider a point of view that I had neglected. This movie certainly didn’t do that for me.
I agree this movie was far better than its fate, but I must comment on one of your phrases.
One, lazily throwing out the canard “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is just plain wrong on many levels. What freedom were the 9.11 hijackers gunning for? How about the suicide bombers in Iraq who go to funeral processions and pull their triggers? Do they really want freedom? Or perhaps the freedom to indiscriminately kill?
Secondly, the original story, from what I understand, was hatched during Margaret Thatcher’s reign, when the author thought England was slipping into a police state. Yeah, that really panned out. Good forsight.
Christian, I think indirectly, you provided an excellent example of why the cliche is so on point.
Those men, as abhorrent as your or I may see their acts, are heroes to many people, and while it’s indefensible, they are fighting for “freedoms”. Al Qaeda essentially wants freedom from Western interference (No U.S. military in Saudi Arabia, freedom from what they believe is Israeli oppression, etc.) and I think it’s pretty clear what the Iraqi suicide bombers what — freedom from the U.S. invaders.
When we drop bombs on millions of innocent Iraqi civilians, many there see us as terrorists, but many Americans would say we’re fighting for democracy. Same thing for when we overthrow governments — Iran, Chile, multiple Central American countries, etc.
That’s the point — whether you consider someone a hero or a villain depends on what side you’re on.
Finally, and I don’t want to turn this into a politics blog, but one thing to consider about England is that they have by far the highest proliferation of CCTV cameras of any country in the world.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6108496.stm
Sorry, I think moral relativism is a slippery slope. Just because an Al Qaeda thug thinks he’s fighting for freedom, doesn’t mean he is. A sociopath may think killing an innocent will silence the voices in his head. Doesn’t mean there are actual voices in his head, nor that his position is sound.
Good point about the CCTV cameras, but I think my bigger point was that the original story had a ‘the sky is falling approach’ that time has proven mostly inaccurate. It’s like the raving that went on during the Clinton years, and the raving going on now during the Bush years. With a few years behind us, those prognostications of doom will likely look overblown.
Movies and politics do intersect, and keeping them distinct – and polite – is a chore! I try to do that on my site, and I bet I’m not always successful despite my efforts.
[...] V for Vendetta was good, The Incredible Hulk is not as good as The Hulk, The Happening is [...]
“Sorry, I think moral relativism is a slippery slope. Just because an Al Qaeda thug thinks he’s fighting for freedom, doesn’t mean he is. A sociopath may think killing an innocent will silence the voices in his head. Doesn’t mean there are actual voices in his head, nor that his position is sound.”
Christian, you missed the point being made a second time. You are looking it from our side without understanding that from their point of view, they are fighting for freedom. He may not be fighting for freedom, but he believes he is, and that is the point being made. Nobody is saying that his position is sound, but from his point of view it is, just as ours is to many of us. If you do not grasp this this time, do not reply, because it will just be irritating if you just claim that they are not fighting for freedom again.
Earlier you said: “One, lazily throwing out the canard “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” is just plain wrong on many levels. What freedom were the 9.11 hijackers gunning for? How about the suicide bombers in Iraq who go to funeral processions and pull their triggers? Do they really want freedom? Or perhaps the freedom to indiscriminately kill?”
On many levels? Like the many levels you listed here? [end sarcasm], all you have done is appealed to emotion repeatedly and haven’t supported your original premise.
Also, the point about when the story was hatched, it doesn’t matter, we are all fully aware that countries often deteriorate into situations like this (just look at the past), this story seems to have borrowed heavily from G. Orwells “1984″, who’s predictions were also wrong, so? Does this take away from the story? Does this ruin the message conveyed? Of course not.
Second to last, Britain isn’t just the country with a staggering 14 million cameras, where the average person is seen on 10 cameras a day, there are also more and more monitoring initiatives being put in place. For instance, listening devices are being tested, they will be placed in town centres into lamposts e.t.c and will secretly monitor conversations. Just how much privacy will be taken to stamp down crime? So far, crime figures have not been affected. Laws for minor crimes are getting more and more painful, like dropping litter and spitting carry quite large fines now, not to mention the new strict sentences that are being put in place to prevent people carrying knives. I’m afraid the future IS bleak.
Finally, this movie was brilliant, excellent cinematography, Weaving’s performance was phenomenal as someone mentioned, it is very hard to convey emotions so well when masked, he did it so well. The movie carried itself all the way to the end, not a dull moment. Also, to the author, I personally liked the ‘V’ monologue at the beginning, and the delivery was exceptional.
Ciao.