Movie Maven

V for Vendetta
Starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, Stephen Rea
Written by: The Wachowski Brothers
Directed by: James McTeigue
Official Website

(Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman. Photo by David Appleby, courtesy of V for Vendetta's website)

It’s occurred to me that about 90 percent of the movies I'd viewed in the past few months always came with phrases like "critically acclaimed," "Oscar nominated," and "moving." I consider myself a discerning movie viewer, but after a while, "moving" becomes incredibly exhausting. Sometimes, I just don't want to be moved.

And darnit, sometimes I want to see something blow up.

I was not disappointed, of course, in V for Vendetta, the first really divisive movie of the year. Columnist James Wolcott thinks it's "the most subversive cinematic deed of the Bush/Blair era." Salon reviewer Stephanie Zacharek thinks it's a load of "bullocks." The film is based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd. A masked man known only as V (Hugo Weaving) stages a one-man assault on totalitarian England in the not-too-distant future, which is ruled by an evil dictator, sadistic police and creepy clergymen. His mask is based on the visage of Guy Fawkes, the man convicted and hanged of attempting to blow up Parliament in the 17th century. Fawkes, along with Edmund Dante from The Count of Monte Cristo became the inspiration for V's quest, and complicates the question of whether this man is indeed a freedom fighter, or merely a terrorist.

I viewed it this weekend as these movies should always be seen: in a packed multiplex full of rowdy adolescent boys. Many things blow up. There are decapitations, poisonings, fires and fancy sword-play- all for the makings of some serious brain candy.

And yet there's something different about V for Vendetta. While some of the scenes meandered into classic kick-butt action movie, it was also a meditation on the fragility of independence, and the pervasive nature of fear. England is how it is in 2020 because of a devastating world-wide imperialistic war (which the Americans started, nudge, nudge) and the ravages of a global plague. A terrified and desperate public turned to a dictator for the semblance of security, while allowing their rights to be trampled underfoot.

This is sounding vaguely familiar...

It's a little heavy-handed perhaps, but it's asking important questions in a time where these questions are desperately needed. And it's not quite as simple as bad government against good crusader. V strikes a rather terrifying figure. He plays horrible mind games with his young protégée Evey (Natalie Portman) and uses panic-inducing tactics to bring supporters to his side. Weaving understands this, and imbues V's voice with a ambiguous aspect that can be alternately charming and very creepy. One begins to wonder what V's version of England would look like, and there is an increasing sense of dread of what might come after his glorious revolution.

The plot sometimes threatens to fall into cliche (the romance between V and Evey was not in the original graphic novel, and appears to be thrown in almost as an afterthought here,) but McTeigue and the Wachowskis still manage to keep it on track. Stephen Rea does a wonderful job as the Chief Inspector Finch assigned to catch V. Probably the best scene in the movie is when Finch mulls over his situation in a chilling soliloquy and montage. Portman more than makes up for Queen Amadala, making Evey first a willfully ignorant stooge and then a cold, calculated soldier in V's revolution.

I fear I've already given away too much, so I'll stop blathering and leave the rest to you. I tend to veer more of the side of Wolcott's opinion. It is the most subversive movie I’ve seen in a while, I think partly because it's wrapped up in an action movie package and geared to mass appeal instead of the peacnik, liberal, Sundance crowd. It's also quite a wonderful, engrossing movie, despite it's shortcomings.

Plus they blow up Parliament. And that's just freakin' cool.