« The Beatific Vision Of Abel Ferrara | Main | GDMF begins... »
March 28, 2006
V For Vendetta
I'm having trouble organizing my thoughts for this piece on V For Vendetta. I've a whole score of notes, composed over the past day or two, and I'm thinking I may fashion them into a longer examination of the film and its cultural relevance (something I do believe it has, despite its limitations) at some point in the near future. For the time being, though, I'll limit myself to the seed of that eventual essay and focus on the conflict I found myself in the other night, after a second viewing of the film revealed that something was amiss in the revolutionary ideology that had left me so unabashedly enthused last winter.
It's not the ideology that's problematic, necessarily, but that the Wachowskis and director James McTiegue don't have the courage of their convictions. The film, so revolutionary up to a point, is ultimately unable to commit to the concept of noble anarchy espoused by Alan Moore in the original graphic novel. The film wants to support this, and it makes steps in that direction; but at the crucial point, it sidesteps the issue and reduces a legitimately challenging thesis to something of more Orwellian proportions. Granted, Moore's novel was a polemic against Thatcherian fascism that owed much to 1984, and in preserving a great deal of his solution to Big Brother, the film is quite radical. At the last minute, though, the filmmakers take what it is a very gray area and make it distinctly black and white; after aspiring for intelligent provocation, the Wachowskis settle at the end for inspiration.
Indeed, I think that my initial ecstatic reaction is implicit in the film's fault. Simply put, much of the problem lies in how good it makes me feel. It's tempting to embrace the ending because it falls so squarely into line with my own beliefs; who doesn't like to have their personal politics bolstered so bombastically every now and then? When all of English society dons that Guy Fawkes mask and marches on the government at the film's climax, I feel the strength in their numbers. In all of those faceless individuals, I find comfort.
But real revolution is not a comfortable thing, and it would be as irresponsible to let this fault slide as it was for the Wachowskis to cast aside the convictions of their source in favor of agitprop. In giving the masses a symbolic front to hide behind, they are depriving them of the very thing they themselves are advocating. Their protagonist has achieved a deposition, but it is a solution of empty, assumptive idealism. As well versed as he is, V must have neglected to read his Burke.
In the graphic novel, there is no organization of this sort, no symbolic replacement to rise in place of the crumbling fascist government. In making a hero of a terrorist, Moore was suggesting fascism can only be effectively countered by anarchy, but it's important to remember that, although V was thoroughly anarchic, his actions were , by his own admission, not. They were a carefully orchestrated means to an end that was still far off. "Anarchy means without leaders, not without order" he tells his young protege as the streets above them rage with social upheaval. "This is not anarchy. This is chaos."
This distinction, between anarchy and chaos, is what the film needs; what it lacks, in the end, is an acknowledgment of either.
The disparity between intention and execution in the film is troubling one. Indeed, I'm still wondering how much credence I should give to the fact that, in the final frames of the film, all those Guy Fawkes masks are doffed; it's another very appealing moment, especially in the way it transcends the literal reality of the film.
On the other hand, it's very easy to hold the filmmakers accountable for the scene immediately prior to the the climax, in which V is given an action-packed last stand. One could dismiss this sequence as a bone thrown to the studios, who needed some action with which to lure mainstream audiences; but upon further consideration, the scene reveals itself as a bundle of contradictions, wrapped up with some very reductive screenwriting that narrows the scope of V's titular vendetta from the societal to the merely personal.
I could delve into the manner in which this same scene was properly handled by Moore, but my intention in writing this piece was not to create a laundry list of difference between the graphic novel and the film. In fact, having just read the novel again, I'm struck by how much the Wachowskis and McTiegue got right - not only in their adherence to detail, but in their divergence from it. I'm tempted to write another few paragraphs about the many elements that did live up to my expectations, all the things I can still sincerely admire about the film (already I can feel my natural enthusiasm rising, threatening to take itself out of check!). But, as far as this post is concerned, I think it's enough to say that I do admire it, even in the face of this criticism, and that I want to see it a third time, even though I'm aware of its flaws.
Posted by David Lowery at March 28, 2006 01:41 PM
Comments
it's like you opened up my head and took out my thoughts on this film, and arranged it into a logical discourse. nice post.
Posted by: brad at March 30, 2006 08:17 AM
I understand where you're going with this but I don't neccesarily agree with you about the ending. You can't deny the fact that there are indeed times when large groups of people can come together and get it right. For instance just this past week look to all the organized student and worker walk-outs in protest of the current wave of immigration legistlation. Also, over the course of the current war America, Britain and other European countries have mounted some of the largest protest ever recorded in history. All without chaos or violence. Also see that one glorious moment in the progressive anarchist movement when protest actually shut down the WTO convention in Seattle (there was some destruction but it was organized with purpose, not chaotic.)
I'd like to mention something about the mask: in most training for protest they teach you to wear a scarf or bandana over your face to avoid having pictures taken of you by the government. Now that doesn't mean the filmmakers had that in mind but I thought it was worth noting.
The only thing I found idealistic about the ending (and this is where your comfort argument comes into play) is that the military/police would lay down their guns and nightsticks. Now THAT is fiction.
Posted by: jmj at March 30, 2006 09:41 AM
Groups of people can get together and get things done, there's no doubt about that. But what are they accomplishing in the film? How does it relate to what V is doing? It's a miasma of intentions - all honorable, I suppose, and it's understandable that the filmmakers wanted to give the audience something to believe in, but it just doesn't hold up, as a whole, to any serious reflection.
The biggest problem is the masks. If the public had taken it upon themselves to make them, that would have been acceptable - it would be an individual appropriation of a symbol, like the graffiti pictured above. But the fact that V mails them out to everyone is just unforgiveable. It's completely contradictory. Imagine if Che Guevara had handed out Che T-shirts to all his followers.
Posted by: Ghostboy at March 30, 2006 01:23 PM
I didn't find the mailing of the masks and cloaks to out of character myself. The problem I have with your arguement about it is you see it as a self-obsession on the part of V. An ego of sorts. Remember however that V himself is wearing a homage that represents governmental overthrow and associates not with the person, but the idea itself. Therefore his distribution of those items wouldn't be a self service or a way to further his popularity or his position, but rather represent the awakening of the idea in all those who were wearing it.
If the population had actually taken to making them and wearing them as you suggest, they would really be showing their identification with V the man and not the idea behind V.
Posted by: Raikus at March 31, 2006 11:43 PM
Just saw V. And while I have similar issues with it, I think my biggest problem is its depiction of the government. The bad guys are turned into Nazis -- they're really obviously evil, and that takes the movie's future out of the realm of possibility and into fantasy.
I wrote a bit more about this at my site (wintermute.com.au), but I want to quote from what I wrote:
"1984's ending is far more confronting, and makes the whole story much more satisfying for it. But instead of seeing Winston Smith walking out of his cell thinking all is right with the world, we are Winston Smith, walking out thinking all is right."
Anyway, your post has made me curious to read the graphic novel now. It appears as though much of what I was looking for in the movie is actually in the comic
-p
Posted by: peter at April 1, 2006 05:15 PM
Raikus - are they really showing their support of the idea behind V by wearing the masks?
It's a circular argument, and I suppose if one wants to come out of it in support of the film, one must be content with the fact that V spurs the public to do something. What that somthing might be is where the various problems emerge, but in as much as its a vehement cry against apathy, the ending certainly works, and works well.
Peter - the government leader in the comic is still a right wing fascistic theocrat, but he gets his share of introspective moments; he gets to tell his side of the story. John Hurt's scenery chewing version is about as one-sided as they come - and the filmmakers deprive his comeuppance of the bleak poetic justice Moore managed to orchestrate.
Posted by: Ghostboy at April 5, 2006 02:47 PM
Hey David,
You're absolutely right, for such a radical film it certainly gets away without saying all that much. This is probably one of the reasons why it hasn't been crucified by conversatives critics, and has received a lot of flak from Anarchists (see political section):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta_(film)
Personally, I thought this was mostly a feel good movie. There was much more focus on bringing the story to life (like the excellent Valerie scene, the speeches, Dominos, etc), than on getting through a political message.
Sure it jabs at the current administration, but it's far from preachy and is probably like that so it doesn't alienate too many people. Radical film? Yes. Sanitized and censured? Sure. Entertaining. You bet.
Posted by: Chiron at April 16, 2006 05:51 PM