Spoiler content ahead: general themes and intentions examined, no specific plot elements or character actions discussed.
Probably no single word and all its meanings sums up the movie V for Vendetta. From the definition of vindicated:
- To clear of accusation, blame, suspicion, or doubt with supporting arguments or proof
- To provide justification or support for: vindicate one's claim.
- To justify or prove the worth of, especially in light of later developments.
- To defend, maintain, or insist on the recognition of (one's rights, for example).
- To exact revenge for; avenge.
The hero of V is a terrorist, and not the freedom-fighter, only-kills-bad-people kind. Despite his appearance as a literal caricature of a terrorist, he is much more believeable than the kind one usually encounters in an action movie: he is motivated, like real terrorists usually are, by very personal grievances that only partially justify all of his actions. The movie is not just his revenge, it is about his attempts to justify that revenge in terms of high principles: freedom, justice and truth, while at the same time aware of his own flawed motivations.
But it is not just V trying to justify what he himself does: so are his enemies, constantly reminding each other of their own validity. And so is the movie itself: trying to justify its own revelling in the horror and injustice of the future dystopia and the gory violence of V's revenge by positioning itself as a moral wake-up call about the direction our society -- and American society in particular -- is taking.
Because make no mistake, this is a very American movie. The settings are English and the accents are (poor) English, but the society pictured -- media-led, personality-focussed, a strong current of Christian fundamentalism -- is much more America's own than Britain's. In fact, it's so close that almost nothing has been added; merely exaggerated.
One might call such exaggeration heavy-handed, but that is to misunderstand the nature of a comic book: like the drawings themselves, it is not meant to be a photo-realistic picture of the world, but instead a stylised representation of the most relevant features. That's something the Wachowski brothers, whatever their other failings, understand.
Because this is also, very obviously, a Wachowski brothers movie. The visuals are simplistic and powerful, the imagery and visual themes strong and skillfully pervasive into every corner of the movie, the scope grand. It's not a movie, it is a live-action comic book, and all the more powerful for being unabashed about this. It makes it an uncompromisingly beautiful movie, with believability freely discarded in favour of the more striking image.
In the end, this movie makes its point clear: while symbology may be powerful, the real solution for achieving freedom and justice lies in the will of the people to reclaim it.
Comments
ig
It's not a Wachowski Brothers film. They produced it, but producers really can't be credited for the creative force behind the film. The director gets that - and whilst they directed the Matrix series, they gave this one to their first assistant director (the man who tells everyone to be quiet on set!) James McTeigue. He chose the shots, the sets, the costumes and told the actors how to perform so he gets the blame here.
Secondly, you'll be unsurprised to hear I thought this film was a piece of shit. But not for the reasons you think. To be honest, I'm surprised you liked it. I thought it looked cheap and chips and the sfx were very ordinary. I couldn't believe how low-grade it all looked.
For a film that had a lot to say about the current situation (how portentous of Moore), it felt shockingly out of date. Perhaps it was the ridiculous cop storyline with clunky Stephen Rea walking into rooms going 'Eureka' like he was in The Professionals. Perhaps the pretentiousness of V works in the comic book but just doesn't translate. His extended diatribes were boring and unrealistic (even for a hyper-real film).
Don't get me started on Stephen Fry's performance. Yikes.
Natalie Portman was pretty bad. I'd like to say it wasn't her fault, but I have to admit to struggling to find a film she actually acts in. You can just see her doing 'the acting' as if there's an autocue in front of her. No spontaneity, no rhythm.
It was also very boring. The police investigation was stupid and the 1984 references hammered home far too bluntly, leaving the audience with little to think about. John Hurt goes from oppressed in 1984 to oppressor here? Yeah, I get it already.
Bring on Sin City 2. Now that's how to do an adaptation of a graphic novel.
ig