Although writer Alan Moore had his name completely removed from the film adaptation of his comic book "V for Vendetta," his fingerprints are all over it. For full disclosure I must confess that although I am a huge comic fan, I am only a relatively recent Moore fan. I have read his DC Universe stories (LOVED "Whatever Happened to the Man of Tomorrow" and "Killing Joke" is THE best Joker story ever) and "Watchmen" (which is arguably his masterpiece). Still the movie "V for Vendetta" contains many of the same trademarks of Moore's other comic writings. Notably, the story takes a traditional comic book style setup, a masked vigilante motivated by the horrors of his past, and twists them to show the underlying philosophies and potential for darkness. Other stylistic elements common to Moore's work include recurring background man-on-the-street characters (the people watching TV), signs and graffiti with important messages, dialogue from one scene flowing into the next, dense dialogue, and not a wasted frame that doesn't add layers to the story.
"V for Vendetta," the comic, is on my to-read stack and now I am even more eager to read it because even though the movie seemed very much like an Alan Moore story, it also seemed very much like a Wachowski Brothers story. The creators of "The Matrix" are responsible for writing and producing this movie and, like their previous trilogy, this movie contains lots of stylized and cool looking fight sequences, dystopian futuristic design, and lots of talkin' 'bout ideas and philosophies.
This last element is not a bad thing. In fact, it's probably my favorite thing about the movie. I am interested in reading the comic to see what ideas are in Moore's original story and what was added by the Wachowskis. Watching the movie, one can very easily take it as a commentary on current events. In fact, much of the media is portraying it that way. However, the comic was first published in the early 80s so I feel that many people need to heed J.R.R. Tolkien's advice about not confusing applicability with allegory. If Moore was writing in response to anything, it was much more likely that he was writing against the administration of Margaret Thatcher. (After writing this, I am told by others who have read the comic that quite a bit has been changed. Moore's story is apparently about absolute opposites of complete facism against complete anarchy. The Wachowskis have changed much of the story to be an anti-conservative, anti-Bush "fable"). Comics 101's Scott Tipton provides a nice rundown of the comic for those interested.
Which brings me to another caution one must consider when looking at the film. Moore and his story are British, not American. One will gain much out of this movie if he has a basic understanding of British history, particularly the topic of Guy Fawkes, his failed revolution, and the "holiday" that bears his name. The movie opens with Fawkes and a poem about him, the main action takes place on Guy Fawkes Day, and V's mask is Fawkes' face.
Before I attempt to tackle some of the "message" of the movie, allow me to comment on some of the more concrete elements of the movie. The overall look of the movie is one I really dig. It has a futuristic look without being over the top about it (there are no flying cars). I was reminded of the feel of many 80s sci-fi movies which I felt was appropriate considering that is the decade that the comic was released in. The color schemes reflect the oppression found in the movie. The movie is bit too long and perhaps too talky. It started to really drag in the middle, but it does pick up at the end. A bit more editing would not have been a bad thing.
Hugo Weaving does an excellent job of creating a lead character whose face we never see. Throughout the entire movie, Weaving is behind an unmoving mask. He effectively uses his voice and body language to create the character of V. His alliterative introduction is fantastic! Natalie Portman, or Padme as I am fond of calling her, is good as Evey. I am somewhat sick of this movie being promoted simply as "the movie Natalie Portman shaved her head for," but you can see it happen here folks! I like her better with hair. The rest of the cast is solid too.
V is an intriguing character. Though he is portrayed as a kind of superhero, he is actually a terrorist. I found myself amused by him and at times, almost wanting to like him, but then he would commit another act and I would be aghast at his actions (particularly what he does to Evey). I could not really relate to Evey either for many of the same reasons. The only character I was really able to connect with was Finch (Stephen Rea), the investigator looking into V, but I felt that he was not given enough screen time to really be the anchor that he is. He begins to question his government and the lies it hides behind, but he still tries to do the right thing (at least until the end).
Now, on to the "meat" of the movie. I hesitate to do this because there is a lot to ponder in this movie, and I definitely would like to watch it again (or several more times) to gain a better understanding of all of it (like "The Matrix"). However, I do know that much of the philosophy of this movie didn't sit right with me because it is not true. The movie is filled with moral relativism. It raises questions (or at least attempts to) about the nature of terrorism and freedom. What makes the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter? The movie seems to say that it's just a matter of perspective. This bothers me. Using this philosophy, one could say there is no difference between the American revolutionaries who instigated the Boston Tea Party and the 9/11 plane hijackers. I cannot equate the two. Doing so would mean that all morals are equal and that there is no right and wrong. This is false. There is right. And there is wrong. There is truth. And there are lies. The movie jumbles them all up and at least somewhat, leaves it up to the viewer to decide what is correct.
If the ambiguity that the movie (or at least much of the media surrounding its release) claims to have were actually there, I might admire it more. I like a story that raises questions for the audience to think about but doesn't tell the audience what they should think. I feel that this movie attempted to do this or wanted to give the air of doing this, but I couldn't help but be bashed over the head with the typical "Conservatives are bad. Liberals are good" rhetoric. And it is not thinly veiled at all.
One idea I can agree with the movie on is the importance of words and their meanings. V and others make reference to how the meaning of words changed as freedom was eroded. This reflects the importance of language. I read this last summer and now I cannot find the author of this quote (I believe it was Francis Schaeffer. I was reading a lot of Schaeffer at the time and this sounds like him but it may not be), but it says:
If you can control how people talk, you can control how they think and what they believe.
Take a look at Noah Webster's original 1828 dictionary and compare the definitions to a contemporary one. Then compare the underlying philosophies of then and now and you will get the idea that this person and this movie are making. We need to be willing to guard our definitions as closely as our freedoms.
This movie challenges many of our ideas and definitions about the nature of terrorism. I think that challenging ideas can be a good thing, but we must use careful discernment in how we process this. We still must think for ourselves and not allow a movie, book, etc. to tell us what to think and believe.
In reading other people's opinions about this movie today, I have noticed many unwarranted superlatives being used in both directions. Some claim this to be among the worst movies ever. Many claim it to be among the best. One message board post I read claimed "I hope this movie changes the world." I couldn't help but laugh. Despite claims of being revolutionary, this movie in the end is simply another manufactured Hollywood movie. Entertainment Weekly's Owen Gleiberman relays this thought better than I can so I will close with that:
Coming out of V for Vendetta, a friend of mine called it ''radical'' and ''subversive.'' He was awestruck with disbelief that a film with a harlequin terrorist as its hero could actually be released by a major American studio. I was awestruck at his naïveté in a world where fight-the-power anarchy is now marketed as a fashionable identity statement — by the corporations that helped raise a generation on bands like Rage Against the Machine, by the armchair-leftist bloggers who flog the same righteousness day after day. V for Vendetta has a playful-demon vitality, but it's designed to let political adolescents of every age congratulate themselves. It's rage against the machine by the machine. Entertainment Weekly, 3/15/06
And to those interested in reading some of Moore's work, "Watchmen" is better. Here's praying they never turn it into a movie.
This movie has given me alot to think about and I'm sure it has done the same for you. I want to hear it. What did you think about "V for Vendetta?"
"Using this philosophy, one could say there is no difference between the American revolutionaries who instigated the Boston Tea Party and the 9/11 plane hijackers. "
There is no difference, that is the point. Its conflicting as an American ( not assuming you are), I know, but obviously they are comparable. The USA's forefathers, would've fallen under todays defintion of TERRORISTS. There is right and wrong, we as Americans are just being coaxed into believeing what we are doing is right. As I said, it is a vbery conflicting situation as an American. I understand now, that (much through reading between the lines and personal research) that most if not all of our governments decisions revolve around oil, and the precurrment of oil. We HAVE to have this energy. I feel the way we HAVE to keep our empire in control of the Worlds oil despicable. But I still enjoy my gass guzzling SUV; I enjoy drinving my car to work everyday by myslef with the radio blasted; I enjoy every other modern convenience the US has to offer. So I am conflicted, as obviusly are you. So I find myself asking what do I do? What is the right answer? I feel I must leave this country at some point. I can't keep ignoring what our country is doing. How are any better that Hitler. They are blinding us to the horrors of what is really going on.
"Using this philosophy, one could say there is no difference between the American revolutionaries who instigated the Boston Tea Party and the 9/11 plane hijackers. "
There is no difference, that is the point. Its conflicting as an American ( not assuming you are), I know, but obviously they are comparable. The USA's forefathers, would've fallen under todays defintion of TERRORISTS. There is right and wrong, we as Americans are just being coaxed into believeing what we are doing what is right. As I said, it is a very conflicting situation as an American. I understand now, that (much through reading between the lines and personal research) that most, if not all of our governments decisions revolve around oil, and the procurrment of oil. We HAVE to have this energy. I feel the way we HAVE to keep our empire in control of the Worlds oil, despicable. But I still enjoy my gas guzzling SUV; I enjoy driving my car to work everyday by myself, with the radio blasted; I enjoy every other modern convenience the US has to offer. So I am conflicted, as obviusly are you. So I find myself asking what do I do? What is the right answer? I feel I must leave this country at some point. I can't keep ignoring we any better that Hitler and the Germand who blindly followed him. They are blinding us to the horrors of what is really going on.
