"Please sir... I want some Moore"

V for Vendetta

—1. Overview
—2. Cast and Crew
—3. Photo Pages
—4. Trailers, Clips, Etc.
—5. Spiritual Connections

If Hollywood gave us a new Romeo and Juliet, but the end saw the young lovers alive and living happily ever after, we would not accept it. For those few who might not be familiar with the play, I’m confident that it would still ring false. There are ways in which source material can be tampered with that—even if one hasn’t read the source—muddle the story and leech from it the important qualities that made it worth adapting in the first place. Sadly, this is the fate of V for Vendetta, a great story obscured by its transition from literature to silver screen. The story’s grandeur is masked, much like its titular character, and we barely get a glimpse of the depth beneath.

In the year 2020, it seems, the United Kingdom is at the mercy of an oppressive regime that faked an attack on its own soil, provoking fear from outside that allowed the country to be taken over from within as people traded security for liberty. Young Evey (Natalie Portman) encounters the Anarchist V (Hugo Weaving), who intends to blow up Parliament and bring revolution. Moreover, he seeks a very personal revenge against those who tortured and wronged him, so he stalks the darkness like a cross between Batman and Neo, haunting the city like the Phantom of the Opera and training his female protégé.

Portman and Weaving deliver decent performances based on what they have to work with, but it isn’t enough. The “Stephens� (Rea and Fry) are also quality actors and pleasant to watch. The problems lie elsewhere. For instance, Natalie Portman’s opening narration quotes something V once told her; “Remember, remember, the fifth of November.� Only a few minutes later, he’s delivering that quote to her, and there hasn’t been enough time between the two deliveries to give either the resonance needed. It’s this poor pacing that is reflected throughout the film, with equally pitiable editing choices, awkward transitions, and weak use of the film’s music score. This isn’t a horrible film, but it just feels soft where it could be strong. Under the eyes of Andy and Larry Wachowski, James McTeigue’s directorial debut feels very limp.

I only read Alan Moore’s well-respected graphic novel once, back in the 80s, so I did not carry the baggage of plot comparison with me to the theatre. Indeed, I had to consult wikipedia.com to recall the plot points of the novel, after the tepid cinematic experience made me doubt my memory of its source. Even reading an online Cliff’s Notes-type version of the original story conveyed a better sense of flow than the film. The changes to Moore’s tale involving how the evil government comes to power seem like obviously shoe-horned critiques against the current U.S. administration, perhaps even playing off the modern myth that the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were staged. While I’m certainly not opposed to intelligent criticism of this or any administration, this imposition and others on the story just seem to distract us from the tale itself. Also imposed is the inevitable romantic love interest between Evey and V, which seemed out of place in the film even before I went back and verified that—yep—it wasn’t in the book. Note to screenwriters: if you have brilliant source material, don’t jack it up with cheap Hollywood expectations.

The film deals with intolerance and prejudice, but sadly this comes across as far more preachy than poignant. First of all, the only bigotry really emphasized seems to be homosexuality, with only a few passing mentions of religious oppression. The overemphasis on one issue, versus the illumination of racial and socioeconomic issues, makes the movie seem like it has only one axe to grind, rather than a multi-faceted story to tell. Brokeback Mountain dealt with this complex issue in a very thoughtful way; V for Vendetta’s emotional appeal seems juvenile and reactionary. There are valuable points to be made here about violence toward those who are different from us, and about legislating morality rather than gently influencing by way of setting positive examples, but they are just not transmitted well in this narrative.

Toward the conclusion of the film, V sends out thousands of his face masks to people all throughout the city. Thus, thousands of people are wearing his mask on the night he plans to blow up Parliament. Little girls are wearing them as they play. Others are using the masks to rob poor convenience store owners… and there you have it: the man who is out to bring down the government for committing atrocities in the name of its god, now has acolytes robbing from unrelated businessmen and committing acts of thievery, violence, and who knows what else in HIS name. Talk about a hypocrite. (Yes, when I checked, the mask ploy was not in the original story. Even the moral example of the central character is muddled by the film version.) At the end of the film, as the crowd pulls off their masks, the forced imagery that follows is so syrupy it made theatre-goers groan audibly. V is not the right hand of justice, he’s ham-handed justice.

And let’s not forget the glossed-over torture that V commits against Evey in the film. Does she love him because he’s a charismatic revolutionary, or because of Stockholm Syndrome? It’s easy to enjoy this character with his style of speech, his Matrix-moves, and his anti-big-government talk, but in the end his methods are no better than right-wing, rights-violating Jack Bauer on 24, or even the abusive soldiers at Abu-Ghraib. There are a lot of complex issues that opposing forces in the film treat with pedestrian reactions, and—if we’re lucky—at least the shallow characterizations might provoke post-film talk about what the deeper issues are. I think I prefer conversation happening in light of a film, versus in spite of the film, but I'll take good discussion either way.

V’s goal is to create a symbol that will instigate change; it’s unfortunate that the change will ultimately only consist of who’s in charge, rather than actually achieving a new way of thinking. What is the difference between terrorism and revolution? What methods are acceptable to foment change? Who does vengeance belong to? Should we love our enemies and bless those who persecute us, or let violence beget violence? When is it appropriate to take action to protect loved ones, family, or our ideals? V says that “People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.� Is this true? Wouldn’t an ideal government be made up of representatives of the people, and neither would have to fear the other? These types of pithy phrases pepper the film and don’t get to the heart of the issues or the ideal.

As second-unit director for the Matrix films, McTeigue has an eye for the fight scenes and they are enjoyable on a surface level. However, the ways in which the sequences are spaced and the plot is paced are aspects he definitely needs to improve upon. For a good film about a man with singular vision bringing down a pharisaical, totalitarian, Orwellian brave new world, rent Equilibrium. For a decent adaptation of an Alan Moore story, see From Hell. If you feel compelled to see this movie, just realize what you’re really getting is actually "M for Mediocre." In V for Vendetta, an evil government regime twists news and events to create a distorted version of the real story; it's unfortunate that the Wachowski brothers, or the evil Hollywood regime, has done the same thing with Alan Moore's rich, lustrous tale. Perhaps someday the man who helped reinvent the comic book medium several decades ago will have a great movie made from his groundbreaking work.

That’s a revolution V should really get behind.