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

We live in a twilight world.

Tenet (2020)
(SPOILERS) I’ve endured a fair few confusingly-executed action sequences in movies – more than enough, actually – but I don’t think I’ve previously had the odd experience of being on the edge of my seat during one while simultaneously failing to understand its objectives and how those objectives are being attempted. Which happened a few times during Tenet. If I stroll over to the Wiki page and read the plot synopsis, it is fairly explicable (fairly) but as a first dive into this Christopher Nolan film, I frequently found it, if not impenetrable, then most definitely opaque.

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.

You can’t climb a ladder, no. But you can skip like a goat into a bar.

Juno and the Paycock (1930)
(SPOILERS) Hitchcock’s second sound feature. Such was the lustre of this technological advance that a wordy play was picked. By Sean O’Casey, upon whom Hitchcock based the prophet of doom at the end of The Birds. Juno and the Paycock, set in 1922 during the Irish Civil War, begins as a broad comedy of domestic manners, but by the end has descended into full-blown Greek (or Catholic) tragedy. As such, it’s an uneven but still watchable affair, even if Hitch does nothing to disguise its stage origins.

My name is Dr. King Schultz, this is my valet, Django, and these are our horses, Fritz, and Tony.

Django Unchained (2012)
(MINOR SPOILERS) Since the painful misstep of Grindhouse/Death Proof, Quentin Tarantino has regained the higher ground like never before. Pulp Fiction, his previous commercial and critical peak, has been at very least equalled by the back-to-back hits of Inglourious Basterds and Django Unchained. Having been underwhelmed by his post Pulp Fiction efforts (albeit, I admired his technical advances as a director in Kill Bill), I was pleasantly surprised by Inglourious Basterds. It was no work of genius (so not Pulp Fiction) by any means, but there was a gleeful irreverence in its treatment of history and even to the nominal heroic status of its titular protagonists. Tonally, it was a good fit for the director’s “cool” aesthetic. As a purveyor of postmodern pastiche, where the surface level is the subtext, in some ways he was operating at his zenith. Django Unchained is a retreat from that position, the director caught in the tug between his all-important aesthetic pr…

James Bond. You appear with the tedious inevitability of an unloved season.

Moonraker (1979)
Depending upon your disposition, and quite possibly age, Moonraker is either the Bond film that finally jumped the shark or the one that is most gloriously redolent of Roger Moore’s knowing take on the character. Many Bond aficionados will no doubt utter its name with thinly disguised contempt, just as they will extol with gravity how Timothy Dalton represented a masterful return to the core values of the series. If you regard For Your Eyes Only as a refreshing return to basics after the excesses of the previous two entries, and particularly the space opera grandstanding of this one, it’s probably fair to say you don’t much like Roger Moore’s take on Bond.

I mean, I am just a dumb bunny, but, we are good at multiplying.

Zootropolis (2016)
(SPOILERS) The key to Zootropolis’ creative success isn’t so much the conceit of its much-vaunted allegory regarding prejudice and equality, or – conversely – the fun to be had riffing on animal stereotypes (simultaneously clever and obvious), or even the appealing central duo voiced by Ginnifier Goodwin (as first rabbit cop Judy Hopps) and Jason Bateman (fox hustler Nick Wilde). Rather, it’s coming armed with that rarity for an animation; a well-sustained plot that doesn’t devolve into overblown set pieces or rest on the easy laurels of musical numbers and montages.

Anything can happen in Little Storping. Anything at all.

The Avengers 2.22: Murdersville
Brian Clemens' witty take on village life gone bad is one of the highlights of the fifth season. Inspired by Bad Day at Black Rock, one wonders how much Murdersville's premise of unsettling impulses lurking beneath an idyllic surface were set to influence both Straw Dogs and The Wicker Mana few years later (one could also suggest it premeditates the brand of backwoods horrors soon to be found in American cinema from the likes of Wes Craven and Tobe Hooper).

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 system when Burton did it (even…

Twenty dwarves took turns doing handstands on the carpet.

Bugsy (1991)
(SPOILERS) Bugsy is very much a Warren Beatty vanity project (aren’t they all, even the ones that don’t seem that way on the surface?), to the extent of his playing a title character a decade and a half younger than him. As such, it makes sense that producer Warren’s choice of director wouldn’t be inclined to overshadow star Warren, but the effect is to end up with a movie that, for all its considerable merits (including a script from James Toback chock full of incident), never really feels quite focussed, that it’s destined to lead anywhere, even if we know where it’s going.

Doctor, eh? You’re not in the best of shape yourself, though, are you?

Doctor Who  Season 26 – Worst to Best
I’m not a big Seventh Doctor fan. For me, Doctor Who pretty much ended with Season 23 (and not because it was awful: see here). Yes, there have been a few nu-Who reprieves (mostly notably Matt Smith’s first season), but the McCoy era flaunted an abundance of sins, from a lead who wasn’t up to snuff, to a script-editor messaging his social conscience wrapped in a breeze block (or bilge bag), to production values that made any given earlier era look absurdly lavish in comparison. And then there was the “masterplan” (which at least lends Season 24 a rather innocuous and relatively inoffensive quality by contrast).

Nevertheless, on the occasions I do return to the era, I’m always minded to give it a fair shake. And while that resolve inevitably crumbles within minutes, under the duress of cold harsh reality, it has, at times, led to a positive reappraisal (The Happiness Patrol, and, to an extent, perhaps unfathomably, Time and the Rani). So we’ll see ho…