Based on the popular graphic novel by Alan Moore, V For Vendetta's screenplay was written by the Wachowski Brothers (of The Matrix fame) and directed by their protégé James McTeigue. Controversy and criticism followed the film since its inception, from the hyper-stylized use of anarchistic terrorism to overthrow a corrupt government and the blatant jabs at the current US political arena, to graphic novel fans complaining about the reconstruction of Alan Moore's original vision (Moore himself has dismissed the film). Many are valid critiques and opinions, but there's no hiding the message the film is trying to express: Radical and drastic events often need to occur in order to shake people out of their state of indifference in order to bring about real change. Unfortunately, the movie only offers a means with no ends, and those looking for answers may find the film stylish, but a bit empty. --Rob Bracco
RRP: £20.99
Our Price: £2.81 (subject to change)
Editorial
Amazon.co.uk Review
"Remember, remember the fifth of November," for on this day, in 2020, the minds of the masses shall be set free. So says code-name V (Hugo Weaving), a man on a mission to shake society out of its blank complacent stares in the film V For Vendetta. His tactics, however, are a bit revolutionary to say the least. The world in which V lives is very similar to Orwell's totalitarian dystopia in 1984: after years of various wars, England is now under "big brother" Chancellor Adam Sutler (played by John Hurt, who ironically played Winston Smith in the movie 1984) whose party uses force and fear to run the nation. After gaining power, minorities and political dissenters were rounded up and removed; artistic and unacceptable religious works were confiscated. Cameras and microphones are littered throughout the land, and the people are perpetually sedated through the governmentally controlled media. Taking inspiration from Guy Fawkes, the 17th century co-conspirator of a failed attempt to blow up Parliament on November 5, 1605, V dons a Fawkes mask and costume and sets off to wake the masses by destroying the symbols of their oppressors, literally and figuratively. At the beginning of his vendetta, V rescues Evey (Natalie Portman) from a group of police officers and has her live with him in his underworld lair. It is through their relationship where we learn how V became V, the extremities of the party's corruption, the problems of an oppressive government, V's revenge plot and his philosophy on how to induce change.
view from a distance?
Review date: 2008-06-21 Rating: 6 out of 10
I enjoyed this film, I enjoyed the moral ambiguity at the centre of the character V, and I enjoyed the absurdity that many here found irritating. Cliched imagery works because they are cliches - obvious symbols known and (too readily?) understood - but the film works only at a distance: it probably would not merit re-watching, and, as many reviewers have shown here, it doesn't submit well to scrutiny.
It offers a colourful and entertaining warning to the logic of tyranny, but is neither convincing or plausible about the content: fascism of the 1930s European kind in the UK is a notoriously difficult to visualise, partly because it failed even in the circumstances of the 1930s. Slightly outside the cacotopia genre, more convincing portrayals are the surreal movie BRAZIL, which depicts British authoritarianism as an over blown and (still) incompetent bureaucracy, replete with sporting metaphors and shopping malls, again with terrorism at its heart, So too, in a different way the TV series A Very British Coup. But BRAZIL was a commercial failure on release, and A COUP was hardly sci-fi, being basicallt an attack on the British establishment.
The difficulty with main stream sci-fi is that the politics has to be reduced to very crude sign posts or flashbacks - or as in V footage of riots, people in pubs and families on sofas. GATTICA and, to some extent, EQUILIBRIUM are slightly more successful in depicting the context of a totalitarian system, but V DOES try hard to show the banality of evil, and the sense that, superficially at least, it might look rather similar to what we have now.
Much of the imagery here is clever but not seemingly thought through. I was confused (as many reviewers were) by the reference to Guye Fawkes. Only a catholic and a recussant would have seen the attempt to blow up Parliament in 1605 as the triumph of an `idea' worth emulating - many saw Fawkes as indeed as a foreigner working to subvert the English way of life. Perhaps, like V's treatment of Porter, this is a deliberate attempt by the film to confuse its moral purpose - certainly the final stages of the film are impressive and symbolic indeed - but strikingly ambiguous. I was also bothered by the mass grave scenes, partly because they needed more careful placement. I do not object to the referencing of the holocaust, and to an image that returned to Europe as recently as the 1990s in the Balkans, but I wanted to know the moral shortcut that led scientists to do that in more detail - fear does make us complicit in our own terror, but can it by itself strip us of humanity so quickly? Is it so skin deep?
(PS anyone reading this might help me out with a question: the BBC produced in the late 1970s or 1980s a TV drama about a fascist British state - any clues as to what it was called?)