V For Vendetta

Does the film V For Vendetta, as critic David Denby wrote in The New Yorker, celebrate terrorism? Is V a terrorist?

It depends on your perspective. To the fascist government of the film he certainly is; and his activities, his "crimes", closely mirror those of latter-day terrorists. There's also the fact that he wears a mask of Guy Fawkes, an early-seventeenth century English soldier who was tried and executed for attempting to blow up the British houses of Parliament.

So what separates Fawkes -- and V, who has an identical plan -- from the terrorists (read: Islamic extremists) of today?

Freedom.

Fawkes sought religious freedom, not oppression. I am by no means claiming that his and his co-conspirators plot was just, but there is a marked difference. I'm unsure, having the regrettable character flaw of not being British, whether most people in the UK consider Fawkes a terrorist, but I suspect that's the case. Yet one must remember (remember, the 5th of November) that to the oppressed citizens of the film, Fawkes can easily be seen as more of a hero, more of a martyr, than a terrorist.

A symbol.

And just like a Che Guevara T-shirt or poster, the symbol has taken on a meaning all its own (in the case of a Che T-shirt, usually that its wearer is a twenty-something, unemployed slacker who smokes a lot of grass). So forget about whether or not Fawkes was a terrorist, and let's focus on V.

No, V is not a terrorist. He is a freedom fighter. When you live in a democracy, grassroots campaigns, signed petitions, peaceful sit-ins and the like are all fine and dandy, but how can one hope to bring about change in a society where those who criticize the despotic regime are locked up and never heard from again?

Answer: blow shit up.

Violence is the only way in which to fight against tyrannical rule. Or am I way off base here? Am I being completely obtuse?

And while, yes, the filmmakers* purposefully included many similarities and allusions to the current American presidency, this by no stretch of the imagination means their message is to blow up the white house, and I sincerely fucking hope no one walked away from the film with that idea. One piece of controversial dialogue is as follows:

...A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given
power by people. A symbol, in and of itself is powerless, but with enough people
behind it, blowing up a building can change the world.

And yet V, instead of massacring thousands of innocents, first blows up a deserted monument, then has the gall to go on television and detail his ultimate goal, giving fair warning and ensuring that on the eve of its fruition no harm will come to those who don't deserve it.

Is he a terrorist? Absolutely not. Does the film celebrate terrorism? Don't be bloody ridiculous.

I'm inclined to believe that anyone who would label the film as such is someone who would support totalitarian rule, someone who would willfully cede his basic rights of freedom.

Seriously, who in their right mind would argue that it is wrong to rebel against tyranny? Word to Luke Skywalker.

The genius of V For Vendetta is that it prompts us to ask these questions, demands of us to question the morality of its titular character. It's not an easy film to watch; it definitely isn't your typical big-budget FX-fest; and neither does it provide easy answers. As V says to Evey when she asks what he hopes to accomplish, "There's no certainty - only opportunity." In other words, freedom only guarantees freedom; but given the alternative, that's enough.

Say what you will about The Matrix films and their pseudo philosophy, but Andy Wachowski and his sister Larry deserve a ton of credit for the wonderful script they crafted, based on Alan Moore's graphic novel of the same title. I've never read the graphic novel (and summarily my geek cred may be revoked), but the film feels like an Alan Moore story. Sucks to that worthy for refusing to have his name attached to the project.

Hugo Weaving plays V, a man whose face we never glimpse; and, hidden behind a Guy Fawkes mask, it is remarkable how well his character is developed. Hiding the face of one of your film's main actors is a big no-no, which is why, if you've seen the Spider-Man films, Peter Parker spends a considerable portion of the two films face uncovered. This makes perfect sense from an expository perspective; which is all the more reason to praise the filmmakers of V... for triumphantly creating an absorbing character out of a man with the visage of a mannequin. This is in part due to the impressive dialogue he's given (probably from Moore's original writing). Call me a sucker for alliteration, but V's first meeting with Evey instantly became one of my favorite all-time cinematic moments:

Voilà! In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran, cast vicariously as both
victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of
vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this
valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to
vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the
violently vicious and voracious violation of volition...

The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain,
for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the
virtuous...

Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose, so let me simply
add that it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Evey: Are you like a crazy person?

I'm quite sure they will say so.

That absolutely kills me.

Even better than Weaving, though, is Natalie Portman. This is her film, and in my opinion the best performance of her career. Evey Hammond is the real protagonist, and her gradual journey from run-of-the-mill citizen to enemy of the state is a marvel (can I say the 'M' word here?) to behold. Her British accent is outstanding, too, by the way.

There is not one weak link as far as the film's actors are concerned. The character of Inspector Finch, in particular, is extremely well-written, and Stephen Rae deserves praise for his portrayal of a man whom we dislike at first, but for whom we begin to take a liking to as he himself begins to experience his own catharsis. Similarly intriguing is Stephen Fry as Gordon Deitrich, a man with a secret to hide. Perhaps my favorite surprise was seeing the legendary John Hurt play Chancellor Adam Sutler, the autocratic ruler. It was Hurt who played Winston Smith in the adaptation of George Orwell's classic novel, 1984, and watching him assume the role of Big Brother is jarring, albeit in a good way.

I have only two criticisms. The first involves a scene in which a large number of dominoes fall to reveal -- surprise, surprise -- a large red 'V'. This works symbolically, and interspersed with scenes of the other characters is actually somewhat chilling, but in the context of plausibility it is unrealistic and borderline laughable: an idea which would have been suitable for the movie's trailer, but which deserved to be edited out of the film.

My second criticism has to do with the plan which allows the film's final, memorable scene to occur. It's too goddamn convenient, too easy, if you ask me.

But perhaps that was intentional. In a film that doesn't hide its political analogies, it is apt that V's goal relies on complacent and misguided ignorance towards security on the government's part.

[Roger Ebert moment]

This is one of the year's best films.

4/4*_*



*It remains to be seen how much of a part, directorially, the Wachowskis had on the film. I'm not trying to take anything away from James McTeigue, but given the tone and style of the film, I'm hesitant to call it his.