DVD Review: V for Vendetta

Last November, I reviewed the V for Vendetta graphic novel. I was generally impressed, but a lot of "dystopia" material came out of the latter half of the 20th century, so by the time I got around to reading Moore and Lloyd's work, I found it hard to be overly impressed. Also, the length of the story and the numerous elements introduced made it difficult to follow at times. That figures prominently into my review of the film V for Vendetta (2005).

First of all, who wouldn't be excited to watch a film starring Hugo Weaving (as "V"), Natalie Portman (as "Evey") and particularly John Hurt (as "Adam Sutler")? I was really looking forward to the experience but at the same time, worried because films almost never do justice to their original print or graphic novel source. This time, I'm not so sure the rule holds.

I mentioned before that I believe Moore was a bit too lengthy in his writing of the graphic novel. It made it difficult for me as the reader to be able to grasp and hold all of the various threads he introduced and have them all come together in a cohesive manner by the last page. As a film where everything had to be introduced, expressed, and resolved in 132 minutes (the film's running time), brevity and economy was forced upon the story, making the movie version of "V for Vendetta" quite a bit more efficient than the print version. Of course, part of the motivation behind cutting down the length was to accommodate modern audiences, both in how long they can tolerate sitting on their bum in a movie theatre, and in appealing to a wider population than might be attracted to Moore and Lloyd's production.

Any film or other creative work is not only a product of the artists involved but of the point in history in which it was made. The graphic novel was written over a period of years in the 1980s while the film version was released in 2005. While the span of two decades didn't overly affect the content of the film compared to the graphic novel (although the film "tightened things up" quite a bit, it was still pretty faithful to its source), the world in the film wasn't quite as dark and depressing as the graphic novel.

It made "V" somewhat less "scary" in the film and it allowed for the police, and particularly Chief Inspector Finch (played by Stephen Rea) to actually portray "good guys" rather than government stooges, wife beaters, and homicidal maniacs.

There were weak spots. I thought it was a little too convenient for Creedy to be able to deliver Adam Sutler, the dictator of the UK in the film, to "V" more or less on command. Someone like Sutler would have had multiple layers of protection and I can't believe someone as paranoid as Sutler would have allowed himself to be put in a position not only to be captured, but spirited away from his stronghold to an underground train station just to be shot in the head.

I understand that "aging" Evey was probably necessary, but in the graphic novel she was 15 years old. Making her an adult took away some of her vulnerability and the "transference" of her dependence to "V" as a father figure after the assassination of her parents (this dynamic is shifted into a "beauty and the beast" type of love story). Yes, I previously acknowledged Portman's star power and audience attraction, and comprehend why she would have been cast as Evey, but it made especially the scene where she had to dress up as a little girl to be used as bait to set up pedophile Bishop Lilliman a little ridiculous.

Not everyone is good at accents. When I first saw Bob Hoskins in the role of Private Detective Eddie Valiant in the film Who Framed Roger Rabbit? (1988), it never occurred to me that Hoskins wasn't an American. In fact, if someone had suggested to me back then that Hoskins was British, I would have bet any amount of money against the possibility...

...and I would have lost my shirt. The guy played the drunken, down-and-out, "cheap detective," brilliantly.

Which brings me back to Natalie Portman who is also a brilliant actress and an asset to this film...but her British accent was awful. First of all, even when she was able to maintain the accent for more than a minute or two, I just knew by listening to her that she wasn't British. Then too was her inability to maintain the accent consistently throughout the film. More often than not, she spoke her lines just like Natalie Portman would have spoken her lines in a dozen other films where she wasn't expected to pretend that she was a native of the UK. Frankly, if the accent was such a problem, Portman should have just ditched it. The story writers could have created a line or two of dialogue explaining her American accent or just ignored it completely and let the story tell itself. After all, who even cares about Arnold Schwarzenegger's accent, regardless of what role he's playing? For the purposes of this movie, Portman's usual speaking voice would have been fine.

I didn't like the ending, but I understood it was the sort of populist stuff the film makers thought the audience would want. In the end, "V" dies, but in the graphic novel, no one realizes this since Evey takes over his role, mask and all. At the end of the film, Evey never dons the mask and even partners up with Finch! At the end, all of the "rioting" citizens take off their masks, revealing ordinary human faces (even the people who had died in the film were in the crowd). I'm surprised that all of London didn't break out into a chorus of We Are the World.

No mass shootings. No atrocities at the film's climax (plenty of them during the film, however). The soldiers, lacking their dictator and his number one henchman to guide them (they're both dead, victims of "V" by this point in the movie), they stand down and just let the crowd sort of wash over them. We know from the much more tame Occupy Wall Street movement that when police and soldiers are confronted with an advancing mob of thousands or tens of thousands, all wearing Guy Fawkes masks, who have an uncertain intent, people end up getting gassed, beaten, arrested, detained, restrained, and shot. Something like that should have happened here, but it wouldn't have been the happy ending the audience wanted to see (or the happy ending the film makers thought the audience wanted to see).

And who was going to be the new leader?

I know what the film was trying to say. It was trying to say that "the people" would run their own lives. However, history shows us that in any revolution (from the American revolution in the U.S. to the Communist revolution in Cuba), the revolutionaries create a temporary state of anarchy when they overthrow the corrupt government, but then the revolutionaries form the basis of the new government. Even if that government is supposed to be by and for the people, eventually, it will take on a life of its own, establish its own priorities, and enforce its own existence.

At the end of the graphic novel, just as in the film, "V" realizes that he isn't the one to be part of rebuilding the nation. He is perfect for introducing anarchy, but rage, hate, and revenge aren't a good platform upon which to build the people's utopia. That's where Evey comes in. But in the novel, she dons the mask, the hat, and the cape and she becomes "V". No one knows the difference but she's a different "V", one who has the capacity for love, tenderness, and hope. Everyone was looking to "V" for the future once he ended the corruption of the past. If Evey doesn't fill the void, then who will?

Beyond the film and the graphic novel (and the Occupy movement for that matter), there is no sustainable "happy ending." After the ending credits roll, in real life, real people will still live on and people tend to form systems, from family systems to governmental systems. That might not make a good movie, but not addressing that reality made the "conclusions" of the stories for "V for Vendetta" ring hollow.

All that said, the film is a worthwhile watch. Given the events occurring in the world today, revolution is hard not to think about. "V for Vendetta" speaks to those thoughts and feelings, so I can understand the popularity of this film. It is well written and except for what I've already mentioned, well acted. I'm glad that I saw the film and read the graphic novel. I just don't believe it would have all ended so well.

Graphic Novel Review: V for Vendetta

I've never seen the film V for Vendetta (2005) starring Natalie Portman and Hugo Weaving (though I should get around to it one of these days) but I just finished Alan Moore's and David Lloyd's graphic novel (originally a ten-issue comic book series) and thought, given the wide use of the Guy Fawkes mask by "hacktavist" group Anonymous and some protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement (which is worn in both the comic book and film versions of the story by the main character), that it was high time to look at the source material for these modern, real-life responses to what we think of as oppression in our world.

The original comic book series was developed and published in 1985 by writer Alan Moore, a self-proclaimed anarchist, and artist David Lloyd. Essentially it is one in a long series of dystopian dramas set in the near future (the late 1990s in the comic book series), this time in England. A nuclear war has destroyed much of the developed nations of the world but left England untouched, at least directly. In response to the war, a totalitarian government has come to power, styled after the Nazis, and has seized total control of the country. Much like Orwell's 1984, omnipresent government surveillance observes the public, while a propaganda campaign continually feeds the citizens the usual "the government is on your side" messages, underscored by threats for thinking otherwise. Headed by "the Leader" who uses organizations called "Nose," "Ear," and "Mouth" as detection and communication conduits, and an information system called "Fate," every aspect of an individual's life is monitored and controlled.

Anyone belonging to virtually any group one might consider oppressed, including people of color and the LGBT community, has long since been rounded up, put in camps, and ultimately eliminated. It is out of one of these camps that the anti-hero known simply as "V" has emerged. It eventually comes out that V is a brilliant but mentally disturbed person who was "created" in one of the camps; a victim of chemical and psychological experimentation (sort of a fusion between Batman and the Joker). Over a period of years, almost everyone associated with his camp (which has since been destroyed) has been eliminated. Finally, V in full mask and regalia, "goes public" with the rescue of a 15 year old girl from government police who were about to rape and murder her. As his sometimes unwilling protege, Evey descends into V's shadowy world, learning all but his greatest secrets and even unwittingly, trying to counterbalance his darkness with her drive toward the light.

The story is complex and even a little confusing at parts and I won't attempt to recount the plot in any sort of detail. At first, it seems as if V is attempting to murder those last few who could possibly identify him from the camp, but once they are gone it becomes clear that he has a much greater agenda; to disassemble all organized government control of the populace and to throw England into a state of chaos and finally anarchy. Obviously this is something of a reflection of Moore's philosophy (hopefully exaggerated given the level of violence employed by V), sort of an anti-version of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (fortunately Moore isn't nearly as long-winded and boring as Rand).

Through a long series of twists and turns, V goes increasingly higher up the governmental chain of power, destroying the video and audio spy devices, empowering the population (through threat of mass murder) to take back control of their lives and holding them responsible for voting their oppressors into office and then following their orders (interestingly enough, a very libertarian perspective, speaking of Ayn Rand), with the final goal of completely destroying the governmental infrastructure, leaving only human beings to pick up the pieces.

V's tactics against not just his enemies, but the people he's supposedly freeing are equally as brutal. I was constantly reminded of just how dangerous and insane V was, and how at any moment, Evey could be his next victim. At one point, he abandons her on the street and only after she re-establishes herself with another protector (only to watch him be murdered), does V enter her life again...without her knowledge. Believing she has been imprisoned by the police for attempting to kill the man who murdered her lover, V tortures Evey in an apparent attempt to get her to betray...V. She endures it all and continues to refuse to "confess," even when she believes she will be killed. Finally, V reveals himself and tells her that he has been putting her through these trials to free her from the "prison" of her mind (I was reminded of the Matrix (1999) and how the mind creates illusion, prison, and freedom inside the machine).

But Evey has a very special purpose and there is a sort of logic to V's madness. He knows he is the destroyer, but that's only one-half of the task at hand. Once government has been reduced to ashes and rubble (literally), someone has to assume the mantle of V and rebuild (again, reminiscent of the end of Rand's novel). V (the original) allows himself to be morally wounded but remains alive long enough to give Evey her final instructions. He dies but the reader is only allowed to see different versions of how Evey imagines removing his mask. Only Evey knows for sure that V is dead. His true face is never revealed.

Then, in donning the Guy Fawkes mask and appearing as "V" to the public, do we realize that everyone has the capacity to be a "V" in some fashion. In Evey's case, it was as the rebuilder, the one who gives a future to a fragmented humanity. I suppose this is why people in the world today sometimes wear "the mask" during protests, to represent the opposition of oppressive organization and the power of the people to fight back.

I don't know if Moore meant to suggest anarchism as a sustainable social movement or if this was all allegory to (once again) expose the dangers of totalitarianism and particularly politically and socially conservative totalitarianism. In any event, after every revolution, when every oppressor has been killed or exiled, whoever is leading the revolution becomes the next dictator. Maybe that's why V had to have a more benign successor. V himself, given the lakes of blood in which his hands were soaked, would certainly have been no kinder to England than the government he obliterated.

Was it worth my time to read? Relative to the impact V for Vendetta continues to have on modern protest movements (maybe just the Guy Fawkes mask at this point), yes. However as social commentary, this story has been told, before and since, about a million different times in a million different ways. It didn't seem like anything new. Dystopian stories are like street cars. There'll be another one along in five minutes.