V for Validation

Saw V for Vendetta last night. It was, to misuse Graham Greene’s terminology, an entertainment, more The Third Man rather than The Power and the Glory. There is, to be sure, no mistaking its power, but it is the power of a cartoon.

The New York Times was not very kind to the movie; Manohla Dargis was little more than snide. (The wonderful Janet Maslin, James Agee’s true heir in the art of discovering saving graces in even the worst movies, has unfortunately migrated to the book reviews.) Dargis asks:

Is the man in the mask who wants to make Parliament go boom Osama bin Laden or Patrick Henry? Or just a Phantom of the Opera clone who likes to kick back to the cult sounds of Antony and the Johnsons? Your guess is as good as mine, and I’ve seen the film.

I share her views about the unresolved ambiguity in V’s character, as played by Hugo Weaving; I found it disconcerting to hear the elaborately enunciated phrasing of "Agent Smith" (in the Matrix trilogy) issue from the Guy Fawkes mask V wore to hide the mutant within.

The otherwise agreeable David Denby in the New Yorker was not snide, but he didn’t find much to recommend in the movie. His lead was a cutting summary:

"V for Vendetta,” a dunderheaded pop fantasia that celebrates terrorism and destruction, is perhaps the ultimate example of how a project with modest origins becomes a media monster.

It’s true; V for Vendetta has the compelling inner logic of a comic book; that is to say, it follows the logic of images. The destruction of the Houses of Parliament in London makes for great visual, but the logistics behind it (apparently, V’s bomb-laden train and the new tracks he built over several years did not require the work of more than one man) are loopy — or at least a fantasy.

But on the whole, my own take on the movie is closer to the generally positive if still-somewhat puzzled reviews in the Boston Globe, by Ty Burr, or the Houston Chronicle, by Amy Biancolli. Burr writes:

"V for Vendetta" wants you to wonder how much of this sounds familiar, and, worse, how much of it might become familiar with a few twists of history’s tail. Then it wants you to root for the masked man who plans to blow it all up. Is he a terrorist or a freedom fighter, and what, exactly, defines the difference? The Wachowski brothers think they know. Anyone who gives thought to the matter may respond with one of their screenplay’s favorite words: Bollocks.

The set piece of violence that caps the movie is like illicit sex: Exciting while it lasts, and then you hate yourself in the morning.

Biancolli is the first (at least in the eight or so reviews I’ve read this morning, courtesy of Rotten Tomatoes) to raise the possibility that, on one level, the movie is a retelling of Beauty and the Beast.

V atomizes the Old Bailey courthouse in the movie’s opening spectacle, and he plans something similar for Parliament. He also plans to eliminate a long list of fascist nasties who had abused him in the past, a tragic back story being the key to every anti-hero. He is exquisitely, rapturously lonely — lonely in a minor key, with roses. When he rescues a woman (an impassioned Natalie Portman), she becomes his accomplice, then his prisoner, then his friend. He grows to love her in his silent, wounded way (despite torturing her later on: minor point). But still, he never removes his mask. She cannot transform this Beast.

PS. How could I have ended my post without so much as a glance at Natalie Portman? (Well, I had to rush to work.) Portman is a magnetic presence;  she is the movie’s emotional core, the fragile repository of the audience’s sympathies.  (I had problems with the consistency of her English accent, though.) Without her, it would have been a completely different movie.

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Readings in Media

4 responses to “V for Validation

  1. ubaldo

    the confusion rests in the blurring of the comic book’s (and Alan Moore’s) original theme which is fascism vs anarchism. anarchism, being fascism’s true polar opposite.

  2. Well, Alan Moore did say he was distancing himself from any movie based on his works because they always muck it up. Look at LXG, which was a really, really bad version of the comic book. So if one were to judge V, I suppose one should read the comic book. (I must admit I haven’t read it myself.)

    P.S. Hi Sir John! You don’t know me but I once worked for you at Manila Times during Katrina Legarda’s term.

  3. Well, don’t be a stranger! Drop me a line.

    As for V, I was reviewing it as a movie, not as a famous comic book, or a movie freighted with the fame of a famous comic book. I actually liked it, but as a movie, not as a political manifesto or a template for political action.

    Very interesting site you have; I’d like to link to it, if I may.

  4. Hi sir!

    That’s true in that V the movie should be separate V the comic book. I just find it totally ironic that Moore’s messsage had been garbled in translation (like in the “phone” exercise). But then again, that’s Hollywood for you, all soundbite. 😉

    And though I’ll be honored to link with your site, I’m kind of embarrassed as I separate my work self from my blog self. (I actually work with the rival newspaper.)

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s