V for Vendetta

I think a few editing hiccups are forgivable, but for me it was just too consistent of a problem. In combination with a lot of the blocking, it just came off incredibly sloppy to me - and not in that intentionally-sloppy-is-the-style way. It felt very processed. I harped on the editing a lot, but it alone wasn't my biggest reason for condemnation, it was that the film was rarely seamless. When everything was combined together, the threads, so to speak, were constantly showing.

I do agree that it was a noble first effort for McTeigue (and certainly a daunting one at that), but I'm still at a loss for the unanimous praise it is getting.

I do think that the film's ideology is applicable to any time period, but to not think of it in regards to contemporary politics is foolish, I think. The original story arch may have been written 20 years ago, but the film's projection of the arch certainly incorporates more recent global politics. I think it transcends 2006 politics considering how broad the concepts are, but the way in which the Wachowski's framed it all is certainly reflective of the last few years.

Well for one, and this really was a complete breaking point for me, but Evey's entire imprisonment was silly to me. Not in its events, but in the way in which McTeigue brought it all together. The flashback from the note she finds (in a rat's hole in the side of a concrete wall) was incredibly disorienting in its integration and on top of that, her story itself was written rather haphazardly I thought. Her narrative was silly and unrealistic to me.

I found a lot of the shots very silly. The biggest offender was of course the rediculously out of place rain drop shot, followed immediately by the repeated cuts to V's Vader-esque scream in the fire. The dominoes...her changing him...their kiss... oh, and it didn't help that I couldn't think of anything other than that Blind Melon video whenever I saw the little girl (that isn't the movie's fault though).

I actually did enjoy the fantasy of it and I thought that when it did mix that fantasy with political satire well, it did it very well. The constant interruptions ruined it for me though. I really dug the first 40 or so minutes, but the remaining running time it just kept slipping away.

That's just it, though. I don't think it was engaging. For it to be engaging, it'd have to be far more introspective and diagnostic than it was. It was a collection of superficial political statements that may inspire dialogue amongst the viewers of the films, but it never opened a line of dialogue between the film itself and the viewer. That is to say, it was a completely one dimensional offering that never showed more than it wanted to.

Maybe I just wanted more from this movie than other people did. I wanted to see a much more intimate look at V and the very nature of revolution. I wanted to see a 360 degree portrait of a tortured revolutionary, not an Etch 'n Sketch drawing of a terrorist from only one angle. I wanted the before and the after.

To me the movie was just like a censored document released from the government. There was enough material left in to satisfy the basic needs, but all the interesting bits were covered by black bars.

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

I don't agree. For one, Alan Moore wrote the story early on, and his concepts were so broad that they really couldn't (and shouldn't) be applied to specific, real-world politics. It would be like trying to compare an abstract painting of the Eiffel Tower to the real thing. I think those who try to apply it to real world politics will ultimately lose sight of what the film really is, and they'll judge unfairly. This isn't supposed to be a commentary on the state of affairs today, or even a warning of where things are going. It's a fictional story set in the near-future, for the purpose of telling a story about a revolutionary, and to examine the concept of revolution and reaction. That's all.

Oh, and although the Wachowskis did use some real footage of riots, they were surprisingly well-behaved in terms of real-world application. I mean, think of how blatant it could have been...

Wow. I completely disagree. The editing in that segment was top notch, the story was extremely compelling (and I liked how they separated parts of it with Evey getting thrown around, to kinda tease you for the next bit of the narrative). The way she got the notes was a little disorienting, but it was an unimportant plot device (so, deus ex machina). And there's something to be said about Evey's expression of emotion in that segment. It was found nowhere else in the film.

The superfluous slow-mo rain drop scene was neat, but you're right, also out of place. I really liked the visual juxtaposition of her standing in the rain versus the image of him standing in the fire. Symbolic, and powerful each in their own way.

They did alot of symbolism mixed with plot. He never would have set up all those dominoes in the story, but the entire scene was visually symbolic not only of cause-and-effect, but how it relates both to a government takeover (with one piece always still standing), and a revolution set in motion. That scene was a good bit of ending, very powerful: so the silliness, for me, was forgiven. It reminded me the skull symbol Frank Castle left in fire in The Punisher, but the dominoes actually symbolized something other than just dominoes falling to look like an image.

If I remember correctly (someone help me), neither of these really happened in the original novel. I didn't care for the kiss - it was too "old Hollywood adventure romance" for me - but whatever. His whole thing about loving her could have been left out, because it undercut their entire relationship. I think it was an attempt to make V come off as a real person, with real feelings, so that the audience wouldn't take him for complete fantasy. But it backfired. That was my biggest gripe with the film.

I meant that it was engaging in the area of ideas, but being so far removed from reality, it really doesn't need to be engaging in the area of application. What I mean is, I think the majority of film-goers will take this from the film: "That was a really enjoyable movie, and it reminded me that I should question my government, and that I have the capacity to act." These ideas will be forgotten in a few days, of course. But at least there are some interesting messages here to get you thinking (and remember, getting you to think is not the same thing as getting you to act).

Make sure you don't assume that, because you didn't find it engaging, then others shouldn't either. You're an intelligent guy, but not every film-goer is. You said that people should just already know the rhetoric the film presents. But it's folly to assume such. Some people just don't give this stuff any thought, and it's nice to see a film come along once in a while and deliver (even in some small, superficial way).

Again, I can only re-iterate that the original graphic novel was written in 1986, which is somewhat far removed from the representation of reality we expect today. It was inspired by the formula of old black-and-white swashbuckler films, mystery serials, and the like. Alan Moore built his story with symbolism, not with reality. V himself isn't really even a character, but the human representation of the concept of revolution. Symbolism.

And in terms of complexity of ideas, and less-than-formulaic organization, I'd put this film over The Matrix any day of the week.

One of the brothers is getting a sex change...according to a review of VfV on NPR. I thought that was interesting. They wont be called the Wachowski Brothers anymore, theyll be called the Wachowski siblings, or Wachowski brother and sister.

I can guarantee you you did. High expectations are a good place to start if you want to get let down repeatedly in life.

What, in 2 hours?

Were you brought up on a steady film diet of Kurosawa or something? Hollywood doesn't give you 360 degree portraits of ANYTHING these days. More's the pity, but that's life.

Back on topic.....I have to ask. Have you read the VFV OGN?

If not, go do so. Immediately. Then go see the movie again. For people like you, I think the two products really need to be consumed in tandem to satisfy your extremely intellectual bent.

V for Vendetta was unbelievably brilliant... I really loved it!

__________________
"Directing ain't about drawing a neat little picture and showing it to the cameraman. I didn't want to go to film school. I didn't know what the point was. The fact is, you don't know what directing is until the sun is setting and you've got to get five shots and you're only going to get two." - David Fincher

I can't express how awesome this movie was. I saw it opening day and nearly shat my pants upon exiting the theater. It blew me away. I knew it was going to be good but I never imagined it would be that good. Hugo Weaving is my new hero.

__________________
~People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people~

I don't think the whole film is as heavily flawed as you feel it is, but I do agree it has several flaws that made it fall short for me. You touch on some here.

I'd say firstly that the point of stories, of film, of performance - is to revive a truth or provoke an emotion. I think the film failed in some aspects, succeeded in others. No, it introduced no new idea. But that doesn't make it useless. If we forget an old idea, does it matter if we hear it again? Perhaps it's good to remind us. Hence the old "day that will never be forgot" rhyme.

For our own good, we need to remember. Some people don't want to hear it, some people don't need to hear it. Better to blare it on a megaphone and risk retelling it to someone who's rolling their eyes, if it means you'll get 10 more who freak out and listen.

Hence all the imagery in the film reminiscent of things we know of that happened decades ago that, because they aren't occurring in our day to day lives, we forget. Holocaust images, etc.

Do you honestly say those images weren't horrific enough in the film? Because I think they were. Do you say those images don't need to be used again, are "old hat?" Or do you want them to be even more awful and intense to get the point across?

Seeing anything reminiscent of human suffering upsets me, and it was in the film in multiple ways, I think to the point of knocking us on the head because, as you said, the film was taking itself way too seriously. And it definitely provoked me. Did it tell me something new? No. Did it remind me of something important I want to remember? Yes.

To taking itself too seriously and undermining itself throughout - I totally agree. There are character arcs and issues that get thwarted/misdirected because of a single message that comes early, but having not read the book, I query you brains on whether it's in the book -

Someone asks V about always taking things as a joke, and his comment implies he treats things in his anarchic, Joker way if they're "serious." The irony being that when the FILM does this, it undermines itself, but it makes a deliberate point to do it.

So here's the thing. If someone gets up to tell a serious story and cracks jokes at itself along the way and makes a farce to prove a farce, do you take it seriously?

More often than not, no. But that's what the film ended up doing, and this was definitely a major flaw.

__________________
life without movies is like cereal without milk. possible, but disgusting. but not nearly as bad as cereal with water. don't lie. I know you've done it.

Agreed.

I think you're talking about the conversation between Evey and Dietrich in Dietrich's home, right after they watch the clip of his show.

I wouldn't say the irony is bad. See, there's an expectation that a serious issue must be taken seriously. When you apply the seriousness of the story to the real world (the horror of the government killing people to obtain power, V's willingness to kill for revenge, etc), you feel that these should be taken seriously. And the film does, but at the same time, makes a mockery of the whole thing by romanticizing it. Am I on track? Is this what you're talking about?

Perhaps there is something to be said about the tools required to combat fear and survive reality. The soldiers in Vietnam used to use silly words like "ganked" and "iced" and "kaputzed" for killed, because it made the reality psychologically easier to cope with. In the film, you've got these images of a wearing a dangerous mask in the middle of a totalitarian state, and actually playing in the street. When you're happy, you're not as easily susceptible to fear. I mean, hell - V is free of fear, and he's doing serious work, and he's smiling all the time. He's debonaire, and he makes light of things (which is why he's so effective). I think that's a deliberate image of irony, and I think the overall theme is an appropriate one - not a flaw.

Actually, I had incredibly low expectations for V for Vendetta, but nice attempt.

You're essentially saying the movie was good because it maintained the same level of quality as the rest of Hollywood blockbusters. I don't even agree with that. It is certainly possible, Hollywood or not. Hell, Batman Begins did it last year and did it exceptionally well.

Nope, I haven't. But, I don't think having to read the source material should be a requisite for enjoying the film. If the filmmakers decide to adapt their movie from an original source, it is their job to do just that - why should I cut them a break for not doing that?
If you were to view each contributing segment of oppresion on its own, yes it would be horrorific, but when it gets lumped in a manner that can't properly join it all together, it loses its impact for me. They needn't be more graphic to be any more effective, they only need to be consistently worked into the film.

For me, watching the movie was like driving doing a street and hitting all the red lights. Any time it gained enough speed to start cruising again, bam, red light.

Good satire can do just that, V for Vendetta just wasn't good at what it was doing. :-\

Okay, I know what you mean. I think one example was right after the Inspector starts to consider that his government might be responsible for these atrocities, which is a heavy train to get moving, it cuts to something unrelated. Or right after Evey's "imprisonment/rebirth," she leaves. Those were like hitting dead stops, making the momentum falter.

Still, I have to re-iterate that the source material was difficult to cut down and translate, and it wasn't a perfect story to begin with anyway. Sure, they should have made changes to keep the flow. But once you start making change after change after change, then it isn't V for Vendetta anymore. This is why these kinds of things are so difficult to adapt.

I coulda sworn she asked V directly. I was trying not to do a spoiler, that's why all the roundabout. Heh, sorry!

You're kinda right about the romanticizing, but I still feel there's something about the type of humor used. The type of humor used belittled the things going on. It makes it campy, goofy.

If you're watching a war movie and a soldier uses a silly word, is he deliberately being funny? Of course not, and we know he isn't. If we were to actually see someone crack up laughing or dance through a field of dead bodies in that situation we would know he had lost his mind, and we would feel awful and sickened.

So I know that you mean people use humor to deal with something, but isn't V way past that point? He dealt with it a long time ago. I dunno, sometimes he just seemed flippant and it felt like he was making light of his own mission. Almost like a kid acting up with a principal in the hallway. Other examples ...

I'm thinking specifically of the flashback of the Doctor and her experiments. Those didn't seem chopped up or mixed up and messy. I know what you mean about the mess though, but I felt they were graphic enough to get the point across. They weren't done as well as they could have been, but they still did the basic job.

Satire ... those instances in V didn't even seem like satire sometimes. They just seemed like somebody's kneejerk reaction - ooh, that'd be good, let's put that here! And no one had the common sense to rewrite or pull something out.

Ok, here's the deal with this, and what I mean about the humor, but I think you know what mean in terms of the "not doing it well":

I know what you mean, but you have to remember something: V is literally more a concept than an actual person. That's how Alan Moore designed him. In that sense, he exists on the stage as well as above it. Which is why I didn't like how they attributed love to him, which I thought undermined his entire symbolic persona, and the perfection of his vendetta. So, I guess what I'm saying is, V represents revolution as both a grave, necessary, and celebratory action. For him, the vendetta exists not because he's mad about what they did to him, but because actions denote reactions. He's doing this because it follows necessarily from everything that was occured prior. You can't say that V never takes his mission seriously, because it is a serious mission to correct serious injustice. But I would say that because V is free of fear, and is not bound to interpret the situation in a grave manner, he's thus capable of actually succeeding in his fight.

I also liken his character to old romantic heroism, which is an obvious connection. Edmund Dantes. Robin Hood. These heroes laugh brazenly in the face of injustice, which is a way to make a mockery of the "seriously evil" villains. That's why I think you have to absorb the film in different ways. Parts of it disgusts you much like Schindler's List (though not to that degree), but parts of it also provide this old-Hollywood sense of hope and heroism. Although that's an unrealistic, romanticized way of dealing with reality, the story never claimed to be reality in the first place. Ultimately, the film throws Edmund Dantes out of the black-and-white movies and into the "real world," and the great irony is that - even in the face of tangible, real world threats - the cheeky heroism of the protagonist still prevails.

And as per the concept of revolution, the film (and the book, more so) examines also the concept of propaganda. The Nazis were a real threat in the 1930s and 40s, but the American government represented the war in a heroic, good guy/bad guy kind of way, which inspired patriotism and war support in this country. On the other side, the Nazis used blatant, guided propaganda of the same ilk to gain support as well. Fitting, then, that during Vietnam, real war images and information actually aided the antagonism in the US toward the war. So, perhaps there really is a connection between the romanticism of an idea, and the amount of support it garners. Can a revolution succeed - or even get started - if you're grounded in the debilitating fear that reality is impersonal, and that you could fail? Or do you need to cast away that notion, even if it is true? I would argue that V himself represents that romantic device which inspires and conducts a successful revolution.

Oh, and a few comments on the "bad" example of irony you listed. I think they showed his hands in that scene as a device to trigger a plot development. He has a background, and this is how we are introduced to that background. I don't think it was meant to lighten the seriousness of the situation. And the apron...well, that's just good visual design. The character is, in some dark way, still representative of a refined gentlemen, and to have him wear an apron sends a visual cue to the viewer to uphold that "gentlemanly" aspect.

I really want to read your review in the other thread, so I'll try to get to that tonight if I can.

More comprehensive thoughts later, but for the moment...

It was blatant. Apart from the fact that the government apparently hates muslims and homosexuals, a banner reading "The Coalition of the Willing" with a swastika superimposed over American and British flags is clearly visible in Deitrich's basement. Also, Evey's parents are shown prostesting a war in a flashback, handing out fliers on which the words "Middle East" can be clearly seen.

Does it have general themes about fascism and revolution? Sure. But though it may have been written some time ago, it was re-written more recently, and I don't find it unreasonable to assume that a couple of these things were slipped in during production. If not, we're looking at some pretty stunning coincidences.

Movies seem to roll with the times, don't they? I recall in 2002 and 2003, the theatres were full of brave warrior movies, even fantasy genres like LOTR and Star Wars glorified the warrior fighting for a noble cause.

But lately, we have things like Good Night and Good Luck and V for Vendetta. Movies about resisting a corrupt and dangerous establishment. Maybe art really does imitate life.

__________________
My name is Maximus Decimus Meridius, commander of the Armies of the North, General of the Felix Legions, loyal servant to the true emperor, Marcus Aurelius. Father to a murdered son, husband to a murdered wife. And I will have my vengeance, in this life or the next.

A fair point, though movies about warriors fighting in a noble cause are always around. That's a pretty broad theme, whereas some of the things in V for Vendetta were far, far more specific; things that wouldn't have made as much sense 5 or 6 years ago, and probably won't make as much sense 5 or 6 years from now. That's one of my primary complaints with the film; that it dates itself with such naked, specific politics.

Or tries to affect it.

in reference to the graphic novel, like i mentioned in Movie Tab II, although Alan Moore was born in Northampton, England, he did wink to the struggle of some against the British, in his mentioning an independent Scotland and a Scottish National Army (directly refering to the existing Scottish National Party) - in the foreword to his novel, he explains he finds the novel's main theme relevant to Thatcher's Britain. so yes, the Wachowskis modified the original target some, though maintaining the reference to racism, anti-homosexuality, imperialism, etc...
so, i think it's all a matter of interpretation, but the movie doesn't have to be categorized as one that lets you think but not act - actually, it can let you do both.

__________________
We're a generation of men raised by women. I'm wondering if another woman is really the answer we need.

OK, I'm not reading what everyone's writing because I'm busy and don't have the time right now, but I must voice my opinion: This movie was AWFUL.

I saw a late show on Friday night - talk about a bedtime story to put me right to sleep! There were a few minutes where I almost did doze off. I don't get the love for V for Vendetta - I call it B for Boring. I had no idea it was going to be so bad for me - I like the Matrix movies and I like Hugo Weaving. Lucky for him, he never had to show his face.

Even as an activist for gay rights, I was not moved by the silly scene involving lesbian teenage girls. Nothing won me over. I think it's one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

Staring at a rock for an hour can inspire the very same actions, should we be praising rocks as well?

Anything can be the motivation for thought or action - the fault of V for Vendetta is that it clearly has an agenda, which is nothing to be scolded on its own, but the structure and execution of that agenda are riddled with cracks that undermine its intentions.

Compare it to other recent political films that use fabricated characters and events to talk about real people and real events; Syriana and The Constant Gardner. Two films that were very staunch in their beliefs and yet made no blatant attempts to be a direct call-to-arms. They proposed their realities, created completely self contained story lines that were reflective of issues we face and then let the viewer decide for themselves the impact those ideas have on our reality. The problem with V for Vendetta is that it attempts to make that decision for the viewer.

I've no problem with a film that is confident in its message, the problem is that in the case of V for Vendetta its confidence led to repeated attempts to convince the viewer beyond a shadow of a doubt that its intentions were just. On its path to its own conclusion it tries time and time again to prove to the viewer that it is on the right path and these constant and blatant sign posts just make the journey all the more tideous and eventually uninteresting.

My disagreeance with the film isn't because I disagree with its politics or its message, just that its so clearly one directional. The whole thing, for me, is just preaching to the choir. The only thing it leaves up for debate is whether V is a revolutionary or a terrorist. A good debate that is crippled because the movie proposes this question almost by accident. It is the film's shortcommings that introduce areas of conflict in its story, it wasn't the intention of the filmmakers to have those shortcommings in the first place.

My review, since the boards won't let me post a new thread yet....and that only because I left my old account behind.

So onwards.
===================
V for Vendetta

Some critics have been panning V for Vendetta for a whole host of problems, accusing it of a range of things from lack of cinematic skill and coherence to a "vacuous" script.

I always wonder, when critics pull out their knives, if they are simply reacting in dissapointment to absurdly high expectations. With a movie like Vendetta, I could easily see that this was the case: it is, after all, the latest movie written by The Wachowski Brothers of (also-controversial) Matrix fame.

Let's start with what VFV is NOT. It is NOT a masterpiece; it will not change American cinema in the same way The Matrix did. It is NOT a popcorn movie, bristling with special effects (a la The Matrix trilogy). It is NOT a comic-book movie in the vein of Spidermans 1-3, Batman Begins, X1-3, The Incredible HUlk, or Elektra. It is NOT a quick cash-in on a comic book with a cult following: if it was, it surely would have spent more of its running time on martial arts, gun battles and explosions, and less time on exposition, plot, drama, and character development.

Finally, VFV is NOT an easy movie to forget, or an easy movie to wrap your head around.

It *is* a thoroughly enjoyable film, unique in its thoughtfulness, honesty and emotionally resilience. It *is* well-written and mostly true to the source material, although comic book purists may try to crucify it for key departures from Alan Moore's original graphic novel.

I want to spend time addressing the movie from a few different angles: first, as an adaptation of Alan Moore and David Lloyd's original work (because the comparisons are inevitable). Second, as a movie in its own right. Third, I want to touch briefly on the personalities behind the movie: the Wachowskis and Alan Moore, and their respective handling of the film. Finally, I want to examine what a few critics have said about the film so far, and explain why I, for the most part, disagree with their nitpicking.

By now, you have probably heard that the original graphic novel that serves as the source material to this film was spawned from Thatcherite Great Britian in the 80s. It was also projected forward to an alternate-history 1997. The screenplay has been updated to resonate with modern times, and projected slightly forward to 2020, with subtle and not-so-subtle references to global pandemics and biological weapons (bird flu anyone?), corporate, government and religious corruption, and American imperialism. In this sense, the source material has been updated in a way that makes sense, given that it is designed to resonate with a modern audience (although some themes, such as the repression of gays, were held over from the original novel and amplified by the recent life-imitates-art legislation against gay marriage).

VFV is not a perfect adaptation of the source material; but it is damn close to it, and the source material gets better treatment than any other comic book I've ever seen, Alan Moore's charicteristic villification of the film notwithstanding. Where the Wachowski's deviated in major ways in the plot (V declaring his love for Evey, whole characters dissapearing or changing sexual identity, a slightly ridiculous mass-mailing program that renders an army of V's at the film's climax), they managed to capture the essence of the graphic novel, most appropriately with respect to the titular character V.

The movie suffers from an audience's poor attention span - but to be fair, were it to be a direct scene-by-scene translation of the book, with all the necessary additional storylines and subplots that render the story on paper so tight and compelling, it would probably be a 20-hour film. The necessity of cutting out all the extra leaves the viewer with only the vaugest inkling of the source of V's power (which is explained in great detail in the book), a misunderstanding of Evey's past (also explained), the importance of the relationship between Evey and Stephen Rhea's character, and Evey's importance to V (both crucial to the respective character arcs).

As a movie standing on its own, VFV is - let me just be clear on this - damn queer. Only from a comic book could you get a the idea of a bloody Fawkesian antihero with an obsession for the letter V and a penchant for spouting Shakespeare. Furthermore, the fact that Warner Bros was brave enough to produce a movie that features the violent destruction of not one, but two political landmarks of the modern world is enough to set this movie apart. The fact that the titular character is clearly a deranged (if brilliant) terrorist/provocateur who kills without mercy or remorse is an even longer shot. Add in the juxtaposition of a movie about a neofascist UK with the movie's promotional posters, which feature a WWII-era American propoganda-ish theme, and the whole situation gets even more wierd.

Whether it is a wierd that works will be entirely up to the viewer and, I suspect, most primarily the viewer's political leanings. The film asks big questions - unfortunately for impatience moviegoers, mostly via lengthy exposition - about the nature of freedom and responsibility, meaning and madness, justice and revenge, the proper relationships between the government and the governed, the line between genius and madness, and the distinction between Good and Evil. For people open to pondering these questions, the movie will provide some food for thought and, at best, a moment (perhaps many moments) of reflection on our current society - but for those who would rather not be critical of the world around them (easy to spot by their dogmatic insistence that this movie *is not intelligently critical of the world around them*) - the Blue Pill is definitely the best choice.

If you can get passed the strangeness of the film, you're in for a good time. The major character-development and expository middle is bookended by luscious action sequences, and the performances are solid across the board - particularly in the case of V, whose veering between genius and madness is brilliantly delivered through Hugo Weaving's expressive gestures and body language. Ms. Portman gets down on her knees and sobs uncontrollably, showing more emotion than I thought she was capable of - and bringing a crucial emotional intensity and rawness to the film. She is the Yang to V's necessarily inexpressive Yin. Although her sobbing is almost preferable to her unpredictably wavering accent (why wasn't Kiera Knightly put in this role?).

The cinematography is overwhelmingly satisfactory, with a rich use of light and shadow on V's mask that actually seem to change his expression at key moments (as when a creeping shadow highlights an eyebrow, suggesting its elevation). Without being an expert in the field, it certainly appears that the cinematographers did everything they could with what they had to work with, to good effect.

The film is not without flaws. Admittedly, some of the blatantly political messages in the film - including a Nazi symbol superimposed over a "Coalition of the Willing" poster in a closeted gay man's basement - are so partisan as to be ludicrous. But that symbol in particular didn't exist in Moore's original work (perhaps one of the reasons he called the screenplay "imbecilic"), and is an add-in by the ridiculously politicized Hollywood. The film is weaker for its occassional blatant playing to the radical left's point of view.

Apart from these major missteps, this film, more than any other I've seen recently, is open to interpretation - is V a sympathetic character, to be pitied? Was Evey's character change forced through indoctrination and brainwashing, or did his harsh treatment truly set her free? Midway through the film, V says "An artist is someone who lies in order to tell the truth." We are left wondering - were his "artist's lies" justified in attaining his goal? Are the filmmakers'?

Speaking of the filmmakers, much has been made about a few key people behind the film - Alan Moore, for one, who has dissasociated himself with the work, calling it nasty names at every opportunity. A folower of film culture or Alan Moore will know, however, that this is not unusual. No doubt Mr. Moore would be much less popular as a comic book author if he cozied up to the Big Bad Evil Institutional Hollywood.

On the other hand, I can understand a bitter dissapointment at seeing your own concepts less-than-fully-realized on the big screen - but if that were the case, I'd think Moore should still be making a bigger stink about League of Extraordinary Gentleman than V for Vendetta. It's important to realize - and one only realizes this after reading V for Vendetta, the book, as penned by Moore, as well as LoEG, Swamp Thing and Miracleman - that Moore is an excellent writer, better than the Wachowskis, and any of his material will suffer under the pen of a less-accomplished craftsman. Why he doesn't already understand this and take it in stride is beyond me.

The other bit of gossip is the idea that Larry and Andy Wachowski, responsible for the screenplay, actually ghost-directed the picture while putting James McTeigue (who worked with them on all three Matrix movies) symbolically at the helm to keep them out of the limelight. Whether or not this is true - and this reviewer finds the idea highly unlikely - James McTeigue did a fine job on a very challenging film, given that it was his first time in the director's seat.

Some critics disagree. Naturally. That is, after all, their job - to disagree when everyone else is agreeing. That, in fact, is precisely the feeling I get reading the comments of various naysayers about this movie - that they dislike it and/or are panning it for one of two reasons:

1) They don't like the politics in the film and are trying to find excuses to pan it without coming out in support of the Bush administration - because they know that position is untenable (recognizable by their absolute insistence that their reasons for disliking the film are not because of politics)

2) They are one of these curmudgeonly miscreants who hate the things that everybody else likes, and therefore, must stand in opposition to everything that is "popular", because "popular" is somehow "lowbrow" and they must make themselves feel superior out of a inherent insecurity.

These are complex diagnoses, I realize, for film critics who happen to write a nasty review of a truly unusual film. To be fair, I admit the possibility that someo people simply don't like the film, for whatever reason. I can accept that - tastes differ, especially in films, and I have no need or desire to pan those who pan the movie.

On the other hand, I do appreciate it when people can articulate the reasons behind their dislike of a certain movie - and few of these aforementioned critics do a very capable job of that. Most of them throw up vague reasoning related to the editing, blocking, the film's failure to fit into what their "ideal film" should be like, the failure of the film to live up to their expectations, the failure of the film to properly "pace" and lead them from a low to a high (strangely as though the film were responsible for giving them an orgasm), or the failure of the film to adhere slavishly to its source material.

All of these sort of vague, hand-wavey complaints fail to hit home with me, because I strongly sense that they are ingenue screens thrown up to mask a more deep-rooted disagreement with the film's politics, messages, or themes. Some people have gone so far as to deny that the film even HAS politics - as though the film were running for president - and then gone on to complain that they film didn't have a clear enough message, didn't answer the questions it raised, etc. Ohers staunchly insist that the film is TOO clear-cut and tries to impose its message on the viewers. The fact that these contradictory claims exist (oftentimes issuing from the mouth of the same speaker in different breaths) demonstrates a real frenzied hunt for the "proper" criticism that will stick.

This absurd complaint that the film doesn't have a strong enough message reveals the speaker's own lack of grasp of the film's subtlety - or perhaps, worse, their discomfort with and dislike of subtlety. That frightens me, because if they are unable or unwilling to deal with a film that presents and conveys messages and themes with subtlety, perhaps it is because they are too accustomed to a steady diet of propogandistic messages already. This theory, however paranoid, would certainly fit with the aforementioned fear that those who most strongly dislike this movie are those who support (and are accustomed to swallowing the propoganda from) the current neo-conservative US administration.

A lot of critics run into trouble by analyzing the movie as though it were strictly a literalistic narrative, when in fact it is a heavily symbolic allegory. They evaluate it as if it were a Syriana when in fact it is more like one of Aesop's Fables. And like any good fable, when things are ambiguous or seem to lack explanation, one really needs to go back to the original text - in this case, the original graphic novel which, by the way, most naysayers of the movie characteristically refuse to read, stating stuffily that the film should be able to stand on it's own, as though the righteous purity of their dissaproval of the movie might be tainted if they happened to read the book and like it. Needless to say, this sort of closemindedness is not only frustrating, it further betrays critics' alternative agenda - they are looking not for what they can gain or share with others, but for how they can most convingly oppose.

In the final analysis, however, no amount or number of naysaying critics, conservative or liberal, can numb the poison of V for Vendetta's cautionary tale. More than action, more than romance, V for Vendetta is a movie about ideas, and ideas are bulletproof.