Skip to main content

And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there?

V for Vendetta
(2005)

(SPOILERS) In terms of iconography, the Wachowskis’ adaptation of Alan Moore’s 1980s broadside against Thatcherism has been of undoubted significance. As a movie, it is much less impactful, if not to say clumsy and ill-conceived. V for Vendetta’s sub-1984 messaging hits a number of easy targets in its raging against fascism while simultaneously flirting with anarchy (targets, to be fair, that Moore was also easily hitting). As a consequence, it come across as rather weak sauce, depicting a totalitarian regime too indebted to previous illustrations of the same to have much resonance in its own right, while as a production it’s too slick and glossy to ever really dig into what a horror show that would be (or is). And it has a happy ending!

Of course, you could legitimately bring the charge that the material itself is conceptually flawed, however much Moore may have harangued the movie, sight unseen, for being repurposed to fit the Bush era (with the benefit of hindsight, I don’t think this element really feels that glaring, aside from a few references to Islam). Which goes to Moore’s rather endearing take that there are more than superficial differences between party positions. Fair enough, during the early 80s it would have seemed there were, with vivid demarcation between left and right and very evident attacks taking place on the former’s ideals. But where Moore holds his hand up to naivety for believing Thatcher would be supplanted by Foot in 1983, his credulity really comes into question with a later quote, not much more than a decade old, one that suggests his magician’s hat hasn’t granted him that much additional insight, in between casting spells and putting his name to dubiously motivated “provocative” fare such as Lost Girls.

With regard to the arena of conspiracies, Moore’s was a very familiar position of the “trust me, I’ve looked into this” variety, in tandem with the patronising one of characterising “believers” in diminishing terms (you know, the sort of thing Blair might say). He commented that “the main thing I learned about conspiracy theories is that conspiracy theorists actually believe in the conspiracy because that is more comforting” (this is probably the standard “insight” cited into those afflicted with such a paranoid condition, and we must count ourselves fortunate there are prevailing wise heads like Alan’s to set us straight). Summarising, Moore asserted, perhaps through casting the runes, perhaps through crystal gazing, that “the truth is far more frightening; no one is control, the world is rudderless”. I wonder if he feels the same after the past six months have unfolded at a pace globally.

The consequence is that Moore’s V for Vendetta regime is as comfortingly fragile as any given slice of a nominally two-party system, ripe for a strong leader with a flair for the theatrical and Architect-levels of verbosity to topple it. Which is to say that V for Vendetta only ever feels rather facile, the Wachowskis playing at political engagement when it isn’t really their forte. I do wonder, however, that Moore’s envisaged a transgender protagonist when he first came up with the idea in 1975, and whether this may have factored in to their keenness to develop the project. Certainly, Lilly’s “admission” that The Matrix really was about transgenderism, as has been mooted over the past couple of years, seems like an opportunistically applied commentary, particularly given the gamut of their existential fascinations, from reincarnation (Cloud Atlas) to a literal expression of the loosh system via reptilian aliens (Jupiter Ascending). I’d be more credulous if they foisted such a subtext on, say, Speedracer, since on the face of it, it doesn’t seem to be about anything very much at all

Delia Sturridge: This could be the dawn of a new age. Nuclear power is meaningless in a world where a virus can kill an entire population and leave its wealth intact…

Moore accused the film (or rather, the script) of having been defanged of its original intent, and it’s certainly true that the Norsefire Party are caricatures, embodied by one-time Winston Smith John Hurt in the spirit of Big Brother. It’s also the case that V has been made more straightforwardly dashing, a little mind-control on Evey in her own best interests aside.

Nevertheless, the addition of the St Mary’s virus is interesting, as an artificially-engineered bioweapon enabling the totalitarian regime to come to power (in the comic, Norsefire were simply elected). Okay, for the purposes of the movie, it is real, but nothing ever perfectly sets the scene (although, one might read “Imagine a virus. The most terrifying virus you can. And then imagine you and you alone have the cure” differently, if one puts the emphasis on “imagine”). The Wachowskis as facilitators of predictive programming? They had, after all, ushered into common vocabulary the “crazy” idea that we are all living in a false reality, one that has persisted for two decades and doubtless serves someone’s agenda. So why not this? (Notably, Roger Ebert’s review sets the film in 2020, although this isn’t stated anyway outright.)

V: Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was fear… Fear became the ultimate tool of this government.

Such nefariousness at least earns V for Vendetta points (as do false-flag attacks on a school, a tube station and a water treatment plant) for insidious design. Unfortunately, any impulse to “realism” is seriously hampered by the inept Hollywood realisation of Britain, complete with, as Moore rightly ridiculed, “eggy in a basket” for breakfast. The movie is both visually polished and crude in content, with dialogue such as “Our job is to report the news, not fabricate it. That’s the government’s job!” Subtle. Other gems include “He’s a terrorist. You can’t expect him to behave like you or me”, “Now, would you care for a cup of tea with your egg?” and “I don’t have to be a Muslim to find images beautiful”. V, a glutton for verbiage and deliberate diction, observes at one point “I enjoy them as much as any bloke”. Because that’s how English people speak.

V: Would you dine with me?
Evey: Now, on the eve of your revolution?

The picture is riddled with clunkers and howlers, and while some of the performers struggle manfully to overcome such limitations (Stephen Rea, Roger Allam), others (Rupert Graves especially) seem to be doing their best to let the spirit of Dick van Dyke live on.

Thematically, V for Vendetta is a ponderous and didactic stodge. The shopping list of the persecuted “immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates” represent autopilot signposting, as does Fry’s sensitive but closeted TV presenter (the less said about his Benny Hill style on-air rebellion the better). These are exactly the rote buttons pushed to identify nominal sides and barriers, although that may just be me looking for comfort. There’s a very “pat oneself on the back” quality about its authoritarian targets that renders the studious righteousness inert and banal.

However, there are some good scenes. I really like the poisoning of Sinead Cusack’s former detention centre physician (“Is it meaningless to apologise?”: “Never”). Also, the contrast with her flashback elite-poised view of test subjects (“They’re so weak and pathetic. They never look you in the eye. I find myself hating them”) is quite telling. And the sentiment that “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people” is very commendable, but better delivered in less sterile and uninspiring trappings than this. Particularly when it is followed by such glibness as “Beneath this mask is an idea. And ideas are bullet proof”.

That, of course, is the glibness that makes it ideal fodder for Occupy or Anonymous, and easily appropriated by Mr. Robot. Weaving (replacing Purefoy for reasons never fully explained) provides a highly memorable performance at the centre of an otherwise indifferent movie, so it’s no wonder V had an afterlife that dwarfs the picture itself. Because otherwise, there simply aren’t enough flashy distractions from the leaden performances, dialogue and plotting.

James McTeigue graduated to the big leagues after serving as first assistant director for The Matrix trilogy. It has been suggested he was ghost directed here, but I don’t think we need to doubt this was his unengaged work (his subsequent movies have borne that out). The action lacks the choregraphed perfection of The Matrix (both in terms of performer moves and camera moves). And if Adrian Biddle’s cinematography (his final film) is fine for what it is, the contrast really should surely have been between the grit of an oppressive regime and the flamboyance of V. Instead, they’re all of the same cloth.

As for Natalie Portman, she’s weighed down by a very bad cut-glass English accent and a general air of blandness, despite the MKUltra chic she brings to “bravely” shaving her head for the role (this sequence borrows plot points from The Ipcress File; the climax will do likewise from A Fistful of Dollars). The effects work is variable, be it Portman standing in CGI rain or V’s flame-on flashback. It isn’t hard to see why Moore isn’t keen on Hollywood messing with his work, what with his having been co-opted for overblown action (The Extraordinary League of Gentlemen), BLM (Watchmen TV) a Depp vanity project (From Hell) and low-hanging fruit political statements (this). All the same, for a V for Vendetta adaptation to impress, his original would have needed a lot of work.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.

I think you’re some kind of deviated prevert.

Dr. Strangelove  or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964) (SPOILERS) Kubrick’s masterpiece satire of mutually-assured destruction. Or is it? Not the masterpiece bit, because that’s a given. Rather, is all it’s really about the threat of nuclear holocaust? While that’s obviously quite sufficient, all the director’s films are suggested to have, in popular alt-readings, something else going on under the hood, be it exposing the ways of Elite paedophilia ( Lolita , Eyes Wide Shut ), MKUltra programming ( A Clockwork Orange, Full Metal Jacket ), transhumanism and the threat of imminent AI overlords ( 2001: A Space Odyssey ), and most of the aforementioned and more besides (the all-purpose smorgasbord that is The Shining ). Even Barry Lyndon has been posited to exist in a post-reset-history world. Could Kubrick be talking about something else as well in Dr. Strangelove ?

She was addicted to Tums for a while.

Marriage Story (2019) (SPOILERS) I don’t tend to fall heavily for Noah Baumbach fare. He’s undoubtedly a distinctive voice – even if his collaborations with Wes Anderson are the least of that director’s efforts – but his devotion to an exclusive, rarefied New York bubble becomes ever more off-putting with each new project. And ever more identifiable as being a lesser chronicler of the city’s privileged quirks than his now disinherited forbear Woody Allen, who at his peak mastered a balancing act between the insightful, hilarious and self-effacing. Marriage Story finds Baumbach going yet again where Woody went before, this time brushing up against the director’s Ingmar Bergman fixation.