Before I saw V for Vendetta, I was determined to judge it on its own merits. The graphic novel is a dense and complex work, and there's no way to make even the best of all possible movies without cutting plot corners and simplifying themes. Not to mention that it's been impossible to avoid the controversy surrounding Alan Moore and his reactions. So I wanted to put as much of that out of my mind as possible and to see if the film stands or falls on its own merits. Unfortunately, my answer is a maddening "yes and no." I'm going to talk about spoilers, so maybe we'd best move to the other side of the jump.
NOTE: I wrote this before I read Greg's review, and although I echo a couple of his points, I've decided to run this as written rather than write around them or replace them with "What Greg said."
The first thing that struck me in the movie is its odd pacing. It starts with the requisite action scene, as V rescues Evey (Natalie Portman) from the Fingermen, and then we see the destruction of the Old Bailey, but in between there's talking, talking, talking. Exposition is necessary in a film, but it should never slam the breaks on it. V's opening monologue, voluminous in violet verbosity, was far more likely to have come from the pen of Stan Lee than Alan Moore. When V takes Evey to the Shadow Gallery, the film slows down even further, as V explains himself at even more length.
Outside of the relationship between V and Evey, we never get a full enough view of the government or life in this England of the future. The government uses 1984-ish slogans, and some of the imagery leans very heavily on the color black with red highlights, so the movie falls back on its audience's recognition of film dictators. Although it seems to like the trappings of authoritarianism, the government gives little or no demonstration that it's particularly heavy-handed. Although V tells us that a government should be afraid of its people rather than the people being afraid of the government, we see no real indication that these people are afraid of their government. V takes over the airwaves, and the film shows a family, people in an old folks' home, and patrons of a pub listening quietly. No one seems particularly concerned that they're seeing anything they're not supposed to. Nobody considers turning off the TV in fear. Even more, when TV host Gordon Deitrich (Stephen Fry) features a segment on his show ridiculing the government's leader (which is funny), no one's concerned. Deitrich, who certainly should know better, expects a slap on the wrist. His audience sits and laughs. In a truly authoritarian society with jackboot thugs as enforcers, the public doesn't have the luxury of a good laugh at the dictator's expense, and they know it.
So then, what is V fighting for? He tells Creedy, the head of the Fingermen, that Creedy can't kill him because he's an idea. But if the government and the society don't look so bad, what is that idea? That a government should be nicer to its constituents? That nobody likes jackboot thugs, anyway? It's not entirely clear. When the tens of thousands of citizens show up in London in their own V masks (which V sent out en masse--where does he get his resources, and doesn't a government with its hands around the necks of its populace have the ability to trace a damn package?), the message they're sending is muddled. I guess they're supporting a coup to replace the existing authorities with a V cult of personality.
I said in the beginning of this review that I was intending to keep the comparisons with the comics to a minimum, but I can't keep them out completely. The centerpiece of the film, as it is of the graphic novel, is Evey's imprisonment, torture, and awakening. The portrayal of the imprisonment is perhaps the most moving part of the film, but Valerie's letter doesn't quite connect. Since we haven't really seen the extreme punitive nature of this state, we don't get the feeling that Valerie is one of countless similar stories. We haven't seen the government crack down on gays and lesbians, so the film didn't lay the groundwork necessary to make this a powerful story. We feel sorry for her, but it's not clear how this relates to Evey or to the movie as a whole. But the aftermath of Evey's experience is more troublesome. In the comics, V has a fair amount of room to explain himself and his actions. Not everyone who reads it is convinced of his explanation, but at least his intentions are understandable. The movie doesn't (and can't, really) give him as much room, so we're mostly left with, "Trust me, it was for your own good." (My wife was also bothered by the fact that, although even V's skin was burned off in the fire that destroyed Larkhill, he somehow was able to save Valerie's toilet-paper missive. Alas, not even Moore and Lloyd give us any help there.
The performances were adequate. I like many of the actors, so I was happy to see them, but I didn't really think they inhabited their roles. Natalie Portman is very appealing, but I'm not sure she was strong enough to carry this film. Although Hugo Weaving brought a lot of life to V despite the fact that he was hidden behind an inarticulate mask, he couldn't overcome his lack of facial movement completely. John Hurt was suitably overbearing as Adam Sutler, and Stephen Rea plodded through as Edward Finch, but neither rose above the lines in the script. And I always enjoy seeing Stephen Fry, even if he was saddled with the albatross of delivering the "eggy in a basket" line.On the plus side, except for my complaints about the fight choreography, the film looks great. David Lloyd has every right to be proud of how his visuals were brought to life. I'm not at all surprised that he's had no problem getting on board with the film.
Despite my best intentions, I don't know how much of the original work I brought with me into the theater. Although I tried not to make comparisons between the two media, I'm not sure how much my knowledge was able to fill plot holes that would leave a non-comics reader wondering. My wife, though, hasn't read the graphic novel but didn't seem to have any trouble following along. So I'd give the movie a warmed-over recommendation. It'll keep its audience distracted for a couple of hours. And that's all director James McTeigue ever claimed to want.
Posted by Doug at March 19, 2006 10:12 PM