646 of 738 people found the following review helpful
A powerful, subversive and thoughtful adaptation of Moore's classic graphic novel,
Alan Moore's decision to want his name off the final credits for the film adaptation of V for Vendetta now makes sense. Moore has had a hate/hate relationship with Hollywood and the film industry in general. They've taken two of his other works in The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen and From Hell and bollocks'd them up (to borrow a term used quite abit in V for Vendetta). Outside of Watchmen, Alan Moore sees V for Vendetta as one of his more personal works and after reading the screenplay adaptation of the graphic novel by The Wachowski Brothers his decision afterwards was to demand his name be removed from the film if it was ever made. Part of this was his hatred of the film industry for their past mistakes and another being his wish for a perfect adaptation or none at all. Well, V for Vendetta by James McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers is not a perfect film adaptation. What it turns out to be is a film that stays true to the spirit of Moore's graphic novel and given a modern, up-to-the-current news retelling of the world's state of affairs.
V for Vendetta starts off with abit of a prologue to explain the relevance of the Guy Fawkes mask worn by V throughout the film and the significance of the date of the 5th of November. I think this change in the story from the source material may be for the benefit of audiences who didn't grow up in the UK and have no idea of who Guy Fawkes was and what his Gunpowder Plot was all about. The sequence is short but informative. From then on we move on to the start of the main story and here the film adheres close enough to the source material with a few changes to the Evey character (played with skill that more than makes up for her Amidala performances) but not enough to ruin the character. Caught after curfew and accosted by the ruling government's secret police called Fingermen, Evey soon encounters V who saves her not just from imprisonment but rape.
Right from the start the one thing McTeigue and The Wachowski Brothers got dead-on was casting Hugo Weaving as the title character. Voice silky, velvety and sonorous, Weaving infuses V with an otherworldly, theatrical personality. Whether V was speaking phrases from Shakespeare, philosophers or pop culture icons, the voice gave a character who doesn't show his face from behind the enternally-smiling Guy Fawkes mask real life. I'd forgiven the makers of this films for some of the changes they made to the story and some of the characters for keeping V as close to how Moore wrote him. Once V and Evey are thrown in together by the happenstance of that nightly encounter their fates became intertwined. Portman plays the reluctant witness to V's acts of terrorism, murders and destruction in the beginning, but a poignant and emotionally powerful sequence to start the second half of the film soon brings Evey's character not much towards V's way of doing things, but to understanding just why he's doing them. This sequence became the emotional punch of the whole film and is literally lifted word for word from the graphic novel. I heard more than just a few people sobbing in the theater as the scenes and story unfolded.
The rest of the cast seemed like a who's who of the British acting community. From Stephen Rea's stubborn and dogged Chief Inspector Finch whose quest to find V leads him to finding clues about his government's past actions that he'd rather have not found. Then there's Stephen Fry's flamboyant TV show host who becomes Evey's only other ally whose secret longings have been forbidden by the government, but who's awakened by V's actions to go through with his own form of rebellion. Then there's John Hurt as High Chancellor Adam Sutler who's seen chewing up the scenery with his Hitler-like performance through Big Brother video conferences (an ironic bit of casting since John Hurt also played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of the Orwell classic 1984). I really couldn't find any of the supporting players as having done a bad job in their performances. Even Hurt's Sutler may seemed over-the-top to some but his performance just showed how much of a hatemonger Sutler and in the end his Norsefire party really were in order to stay in power.
The story itself, as I mentioned earlier, had had some changes made to it. Some of these changes angered Moore and probably anger his more die-hard fans. I count myself as one of these die-hards, but I know how film adaptations of classic literary works must and need to trim some of the fat from the main body and theme of the story to fully translate onto the silver screen. The Wachowski Brother's screenplay did just that. They trimmed some of the side stories and tertiary characters from the story and concentrated on V, Evey and Inspector Finch's pursuit of both and the truth. This adaptation is much closer to how Peter Jackson adapted The Lord of the Rings. As a fan of Moore I understood why he was unhappy with the changes. But then Moore is also an avowed perfectionist and only a perfect adaptation would do.
Already critics on both sides of the aisle have called V for Vendetta revolutionary, subversive, daring to irresponsible, propagandist. All because the film dares to ask serious questions about the nature and role of violence as a form of dissent. But the granddaddy question the film brings up that has people talking is the question: terrorist or freedom fighter? Is V one or the other or is he both? Make no mistake about it, V for all intents and purposes is a terrorist if one was to use the definition of what a terrorist is. The makers of this film goes to great lenghts to describe throughout the film just how Sutler and his Norsefire (with its iconic Nazi-like symbols and fundamentaist Christian thinking) party rose to power in the UK. Partly due to what seemed like the failed US foreign policy and its subsequent and destructive decline as a superpower and the worldwide panic and fear it began as a result. V for Vendetta also ask just who was to blame for allowing such individuals to rule over them. V has his reasons for killing these powers-that-be, but he also points out that people really should just look in the mirror if they need to know who really was to blame. For it was the population --- whose desire to remain safe and have a semblance of peace --- gave up more and more of their basic liberties and rights for a return to order. If one was to look at the past 100 years they would see that it's happened before. There was the regime of Pol Pot in Cambodia, Milosevic's Greater Serbia, and the king of the hill of them all being Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Inner Circle.
Another thing about V for Vendetta that will surely talked about alot will be the images used in the film. Not just images and symbols looking so much like Nazi icons, but images from the current events sweeping the globe that has been shown time and time again in the news and written about in magazines and newspapers. The film shows people bound and hooded like prisoners from Abu Ghraib. The reason of the war on terror used time and time again by Sutler to justify why England and its people need him and his group to protect them by any means necessary. V for Vendetta seems like a timely film for our current times. Even with the conclusion of the film finally accomplishing what Guy Fawkes failed to do that night of November 5th some 400 plus years ago, V for Vendetta doesn't give all the answers to all the questions it raises. For some I'm sure this would be something that'll frustrate them. So much of people who go to watch thought-provoking films want their questions answered as clearly as possible and all of them. V for Vendetta doesn't answer them but gives the audience enough information to try and work it out themselves.
In final analysis, V for Vendetta accomplishes in bringing the main themes of Alan Moore's graphic novel to life and even does it well despite some of the changes made. It is a film that is sure to polarize the extreme left and right of the political pundits and commentators. But as a piece of thought-provoking and even as a politically subversive film, V for Vendetta does it job well. It is not a perfect film by any respect, but the story and message it tries to convey in addition to its value as a piece of entertainment mor than makes up for its flaws. V for Vendetta more than continues the current crop of seriously done comic book fillm adaptations (Batman Begins, X2, Sin City, and A History of Violence) but it also shows that Alan Moore's work can be adapted well to the screen when given to the right people. It may not be perfect and it may not make Alan Moore happy, but it comes close and more than makes up for LXG and From Hell.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-3 of 3 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Sep 29, 2008 11:49:51 AM PDT
D. Mikels says:
Posted on Jan 31, 2009 1:42:44 PM PST
Posted on Oct 12, 2009 9:21:16 AM PDT
K. M. Smee says:
Very descriptive review. I learned some stuff about the film I didn't already know.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›