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.


Popular posts from this blog

You were this amazing occidental samurai.

Ricochet (1991) (SPOILERS) You have to wonder at Denzel Washington’s agent at this point in the actor’s career. He’d recently won his first Oscar for Glory , yet followed it with less-than-glorious heart-transplant ghost comedy Heart Condition (Bob Hoskins’ racist cop receives Washington’s dead lawyer’s ticker; a recipe for hijinks!) Not long after, he dipped his tentative toe in the action arena with this Joel Silver production; Denzel has made his share of action fare since, of course, most of it serviceable if unremarkable, but none of it comes near to delivering the schlocky excesses of Ricochet , a movie at once ingenious and risible in its plot permutations, performances and production profligacy.

He’ll regret it to his dying day, if ever he lives that long.

The Quiet Man (1952) (SPOILERS) The John Wayne & John Ford film for those who don’t like John Wayne & John Ford films? The Quiet Man takes its cues from Ford’s earlier How Green Was My Valley in terms of, well less Anglophile and Hibernophile and Cambrophile nostalgia respectively for past times, climes and heritage, as Wayne’s pugilist returns to his family seat and stirs up a hot bed of emotions, not least with Maureen O’Hara’s red-headed hothead. The result is a very likeable movie, for all its inculcated Oirishness and studied eccentricity.

No one can be told what the Matrix is. You have to see it for yourself.

The Matrix  (1999) (SPOILERS) Twenty years on, and the articles are on the defining nature of The Matrix are piling up, most of them touching on how its world has become a reality, or maybe always was one. At the time, its premise was engaging enough, but it was the sum total of the package that cast a spell – the bullet time, the fashions, the soundtrack, the comic book-as-live-action framing and styling – not to mention it being probably the first movie to embrace and reflect the burgeoning Internet ( Hackers doesn’t really count), and subsequently to really ride the crest of the DVD boom wave. And now? Now it’s still really, really good.

Well, something’s broke on your daddy’s spaceship.

Apollo 13 (1995) (SPOILERS) The NASA propaganda movie to end all NASA propaganda movies. Their original conception of the perilous Apollo 13 mission deserves due credit in itself; what better way to bolster waning interest in slightly naff perambulations around a TV studio than to manufacture a crisis event, one emphasising the absurd fragility of the alleged non-terrestrial excursions and the indomitable force that is “science” in achieving them? Apollo 13 the lunar mission was tailor made for Apollo 13 the movie version – make believe the make-believe – and who could have been better to lead this fantasy ride than Guantanamo Hanks at his all-American popularity peak?

Haven’t you ever heard of the healing power of laughter?

Batman (1989) (SPOILERS) There’s Jaws , there’s Star Wars , and then there’s Batman in terms of defining the modern blockbuster. Jaws ’ success was so profound, it changed the way movies were made and marketed. Batman’s marketing was so profound, it changed the way tentpoles would be perceived: as cash cows. Disney tried to reproduce the effect the following year with Dick Tracy , to markedly less enthusiastic response. None of this places Batman in the company of Jaws as a classic movie sold well, far from it. It just so happened to hit the spot. As Tim Burton put it, it was “ more of a cultural phenomenon than a great movie ”. It’s difficult to disagree with his verdict that the finished product (for that is what it is) is “ mainly boring ”. Now, of course, the Burton bat has been usurped by the Nolan incarnation (and soon the Snyder). They have some things in common. Both take the character seriously and favour a sombre tone, which was much more of shock to the

You think a monkey knows he’s sitting on top of a rocket that might explode?

The Right Stuff (1983) (SPOILERS) While it certainly more than fulfils the function of a NASA-propaganda picture – as in, it affirms the legitimacy of their activities – The Right Stuff escapes the designation of rote testament reserved for Ron Howard’s later Apollo 13 . Partly because it has such a distinctive personality and attitude. Partly too because of the way it has found its through line, which isn’t so much the “wow” of the Space Race and those picked to be a part of it as it is the personification of that titular quality in someone who wasn’t even in the Mercury programme: Chuck Yaeger (Sam Shephard). I was captivated by The Right Stuff when I first saw it, and even now, with the benefit of knowing-NASA-better – not that the movie is exactly extolling its virtues from the rooftops anyway – I consider it something of a masterpiece, an interrogation of legends that both builds them and tears them down. The latter aspect doubtless not NASA approved.

Drank the red. Good for you.

Morbius (2022) (SPOILERS) Generic isn’t necessarily a slur. Not if, by implication, it’s suggestive of the kind of movie made twenty years ago, when the alternative is the kind of super-woke content Disney currently prioritises. Unfortunately, after a reasonable first hour, Morbius descends so resignedly into such unmoderated formula that you’re left with a too-clear image of Sony’s Spider-Verse when it lacks a larger-than-life performer (Tom Hardy, for example) at the centre of any given vehicle.

He doesn’t want to lead you. He just wants you to follow.

Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (2022) (SPOILERS) The general failing of the prequel concept is a fairly self-evident one; it’s spurred by the desire to cash in, rather than to tell a story. This is why so few prequels, in any form, are worth the viewer/reader/listener’s time, in and of themselves. At best, they tend to be something of a well-rehearsed fait accompli. In the movie medium, even when there is material that withstands closer inspection (the Star Wars prequels; The Hobbit , if you like), the execution ends up botched. With Fantastic Beasts , there was never a whiff of such lofty purpose, and each subsequent sequel to the first prequel has succeeded only in drawing attention to its prosaic function: keeping franchise flag flying, even at half-mast. Hence Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore , belatedly arriving after twice the envisaged gap between instalments and course-correcting none of the problems present in The Crimes of Grindelwald .

So, you’re telling me that NASA is going to kill the President of the United States with an earthquake?

Conspiracy Theory (1997) (SPOILERS) Mel Gibson’s official rehabilitation occurred with the announcement of 2016’s Oscar nominations, when Hacksaw Ridge garnered six nods, including Mel as director. Obviously, many refuse to be persuaded that there’s any legitimate atonement for the things someone says. They probably weren’t even convinced by Mel’s appearance in Daddy’s Home 2 , an act of abject obeisance if ever there was one. In other circles, though, Gibbo, or Mad Mel, is venerated as a saviour unsullied by the depraved Hollywood machine, one of the brave few who would not allow them to take his freedom. Or at least, his values. Of course, that’s frequently based on alleged comments he made, ones it’s highly likely he didn’t. But doesn’t that rather appeal to the premise of his 23-year-old star vehicle Conspiracy Theory , in which “ A good conspiracy theory is an unproveable one ”?

I have done some desperate, foolish things come 3 o'clock in the morning.

Sea of Love (1989) (SPOILERS) It’s difficult to imagine Sea of Love starring Dustin Hoffman, for whom Richard Price wrote the screenplay but who bowed out over requests for multiple rewrites. Perhaps Hoffman secretly recognised what most of us don’t need telling; there’s no way he fits into an erotic thriller (I’m not sure I’d even buy him as a cop). Although, he would doubtless have had fun essaying the investigative side, involving a succession of dates on the New York singles scene as a means to ensnare a killer. Al Pacino, on the other hand, has just the necessary seedy, threadbare, desperate quality, and he’s a powerhouse in a movie that, without its performances (Ellen Barkin and John Goodman may also take bows), would be a mostly pedestrian and unremarkable entry in the then burgeoning serial killer genre. Well, I say unremarkable. The rightly most-remarked-upon aspect of the murder mystery side is how unsatisfyingly it’s resolved. Sea of Love is so scant of r