V for Vendetta

There must be some correlation between my expectations for a film, and the amount of enjoyment I get from it. I expected V for Vendetta to be a large pile of slightly steaming excrement, full of tedious post-Matrix bullet-time and with very little in common with Alan Moore's original graphic novel. And yet, perhaps as a direct result of my lack of positive expectation, I enjoyed it quite a lot.

First things first: This is no action movie. There are brief action sequences at the beginning and end of the film, but the "From the creators of The Matrix" tag-line is terribly and I suspect intentionally misleading. If you're planning on braving the vast amounts of dialogue in order to enjoy something akin to the classic Matrix Lobby sequence, you'll be let down; this is one of the talkiest films I've seen in quite a while, relying on the talents of its performers rather than flashy set pieces. Natalie Portman does an acceptable job, but the English accent is entirely beyond her at times. She manages to pull off the range of emotions convincingly, but I can't help but wonder why Portman's presence was necessary when there are so many British actresses who could have done just as well, if not better (Rachel Weisz springs to mind). Stephens Rea and Fry both give excellent performances: Rea portraying his weary, increasingly sceptical police officer with a certain likeable charm, and Fry playing a closeted gay television presenter with sufficient pathos and fatherly good-nature. The real star here is Weaving: Despite the fact that he spends the entire film behind a mask, he manages to entertain and engage the audience, brilliantly conveying an impressive range of emotions, despite the fact that the mask is entirely static. James Purefoy reportedly left the role because he couldn't endure the mask, and there's no doubt that this is a benefit to the production. The two most significant villains on offer come in the form of Tim Piggot-Smith and John Hurt. Both turn in fairly two dimensional performances, in fairly two dimensional parts. They're effective enough, but it's a shame the characters are such stereotypes.

James McTeigue does an impressive job with his directorial debut (having previously worked as a second unit director on the Matrix sequels). He injects a certain amount of flair when required, and the direction never really distracts from any of the on screen dialogue. He copes equally well with the larger scale events, and the quieter more character driven moments. The vision of London on offer isn't some neon drenched, Blade Runner-esque landscape and I'm certain that this is the most sensible approach. There are a few nice touches (everyone has a flat-screen LCD TV, for instance) but by and large England looks very much like it does today.

I'm neither massively familiar with Moore's novel (I'll use the carefully selected excuse of having read it many years ago), nor am I such a huge fan of Moore that I've been outraged by previous adaptations of his work; From Hell isn't a bad film, neither is Constantine. Neither of these are particularly faithful adaptations, but they still manage to entertain whilst recognisably drawing at least their inspiration from Moore's original concept. In a recent interview, Alan Moore describes why he's so unhappy with the Wachowski's adaptation and I can understand his objection: this isn't about Thatcher's Britain, and would almost certainly alienate the vast majority of it's likely and intended audience if it was. The film has been criticised as being a post 9/11 parable which is only set it a futuristic interpretation of Britain because its makers were too cowardly to set it in the United States. I'm not sure that this is the case – the film manages to achieve a certain level of resonance given its subject matter, and any film which asks us to identify with, not to mention root for, a character who is essentially a terrorist is a brave one in this day and age. Of course, V is never really painted as the kind of guy who would slaughter innocent members of the public to achieve his goal, and is instead drawn as a noble, crusading swashbuckler, striving to exact his revenge on an oppressive, fascist government, and who can't quite express his feelings for the woman he loves. On paper, however, V kidnaps innocent women, slaughters prominent members of both the government and clergy, bombs historic buildings without a moments consideration of who may be caught in the blast, and engineers a takeover of a national television channel, resulting in the potential deaths of numerous captives, not to mention an attempt at destroying said building (and presumably most surrounding buildings?).

The film seems to ponder various sub-texts, without ever really going into a great deal of depth on-screen. There are the elements of Stockholm syndrome, V's terrorist "activities", the symbolic destruction of major landmarks (in this post 9/11 world, I can't help but think that if the story took place in the US, and focused on a plot to destroy the White House, this would never have been made). The film deals with outlawed homosexuality, touches on the ownership of unacceptable religious imagery, and handles state imposed censorship, but it never really makes you feel like its trying to pin you down and force feed you its message. While it's perhaps a little too underdeveloped or immature to describe it as subversive, it's still a more thoughtful movie than it's credits would have you believe (Joel Silver? The Wachowski's? The Matrix?) and I'd like to think that it would spawn at least some form of intelligent conversation amongst its viewers. I'd thought that this wouldn't do terribly well in the US, but it appears I was mistaken. Whether it can hold its audience for a following week remains to be seen – much of its opening weekend success can likely be attributed to the Matrix effect – but I'm surprised it's already attracted as much of an audience as it has.

I can't help but find most of the criticism that's been directed towards V for Vendetta as slightly unfair. The film doesn't cover the same topics as Moore's novel, but it would likely be panned as irrelevant if it did, or would likely be such a mess of a film that it would be incredibly difficult to follow. There's a lot of talking going on, but I'd like to think our attention spans haven't been reduced so dramatically that we can't concentrate on some well acted dialogue these days. And, yes, this is obviously trying to reference 9/11, Bush, Blair, and various present day horrors/injustices, but is there really anything wrong with that if it's performed in a tasteful, moderately thought-provoking manner? I'd much rather see 9/11 references here, than the heavy handed suggestions present in something as light-weight as Final Destination 3.