A Scientist at the Movies Reviews by Greg Paris

The Evaluation System Reviews by Title Reviews by Date

Reviews from Video Reviews of the Classics Personal Background

Title: V for Vendetta

Date Viewed: 3/18/06

Details:

Natalie Portman (Evey)

Hugo Weaving (V)

Stephen Rea

Stephen Fry

John Hurt (The Leader)

Tim Pigott-Smith

Rupert Graves

Roger Allam

Director: James McTeigue

Score: Dario Marianelli

Screenplay by the Wachowski brothers, from the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd

Produced by the Wachowski brothers

Score: +1/2

The Review: Just your typical anarcho-syndicalist revenge fantasy supported by some spectacular cinematography.

V for Vendetta is taken from the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd (back in the 1980's), an artifact I was unfamiliar with until the movie's release, but have since browsed with interest. (It has spawned an unusual website devoted to its analysis and discussion.) The plotting, mood and graphic design of the film are closely aligned with Moore & Lloyd's vision -- down to the occasionally silly and chilling Guy Fawkes mask worn by the protagonist, little say the movie posters which share the stark spectrum of black, white and red. The story is essentially a rehash of the historical Guy Fawkes rebellion, updated into a near-future Britain under the boot-heels of a omnipresent, repressive and totalitarian regime -- intolerant of dissent and subject to the misuse of the power of the police state. What's intentionally chilling is the not-so-circuitous route by which this political state has been reached, as slowly revealed in frequent flashbacks. Young Evey (Portman) accidentally runs afoul of the authorities in an after-curfew expedition, whereupon she meets (and is rescued by) the lone rebel V (Weaving, most of the time in masque). Therein hangs a tale...

Remember, remember the fifth of November,
The gunpowder treason and plot.
I see no reason why gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot. (traditional)

For me, V is a touchstone for current political circumstances and not-so-impossible futures; it's difficult for me to be objective and scientific when I see too many ominous parallels, so I will not try. No matter that the narrative arc is simplistic and explicitly polarized, or that the final confrontation is specifically engineered to have you want to jump onto the screen and join the advancing crowds, I came out of this film with feelings of exultation, satisfaction and adrenalin levels that have been matched in recent years only by Gladiator or Braveheart. This is not a feel-good movie, unless you are sympathetic to the cause. And admittedly, a cause served by violence (or so it seems) would be difficult to attract sympathy in this day and age. But if you pay attention to the acts of violence, a curious pattern will emerge -- something to do with the true initiation of force, by whom, and the specific circumstances. The place of revenge in a just society will remain debatable, for while some would say it is a justifiable response to force, others will decry the violence itself, arguing abrogation of the law and perversion of justice. But when might the law be laid aside? There is a clear difference between anarchy and chaos, a distinction made in the graphic novel but only touched upon peripherally in the movie. This is entertainment, but there is a core of something deeper.

People should not be afraid of their governments.
Governments should be afraid of their people. ("V", in Moore & Lloyd)

A quite moving score, rousing to the end.

Who's going to carry the blame,
Who's gonna take up the campaign,
When the injured streets are bleeding? ("Erin," Antje Duvekot; Solas, Waiting for an Echo)

(9-Apr-06)

Back to the chronological list of reviews