V for Vendetta
I went out and saw V for Vendetta the other day. It is a decent movie - not great, perhaps; I wouldn't recommend if you were going to see one movie in your life you would make it V for Vendetta. But I would certainly recommend it if you were only going to see one movie based on a comic book this year, you should go see V for Vendetta.
I feel a bit bad in even mentioning that, because calling it a movie inspired by a comic book puts it on the same level as Superman or the X-Men. Which isn't quite right, because V for Vendetta is not really like the Supes or the X-men movies; this is not a movie about extraordinary, magical people. None of the villains in this film have superpowers. The main character, Evey, doesn’t either; it is kept somewhat vague whether V does or not.
Speaking of V, I think Hugo Weaving does a very good job of conjuring up a character quite literally without a face in the movie; V wears a mask at all times. And it is well the character does not have a face, because the character himself is so ambivalent. The movie does a good job of not portraying him as either hero or villain, but rather striding the line between. He is somewhat reminiscent of Erik in The Phantom of the Opera, but where as I think one could always say Erik was the villain - if a romantic one, I'm not so sure one could say the same thing of V.
Where the film is at it's strongest is, IMO, the scene where Natalie Portman loses her hair. I won't say more than that, except to say anyone who thinks she is always wooden should check out that scene, because she acts the hell out of it, to the point of almost chewing scenery.
Where it fails, is, IMO, where it is too heavy handed: there are a lot of scenes of the government that pretty much conjure up the Nazi party and Hitler giving speeches in a very blatant way, and I think this weakens the film because the "poor common folk being duped by an evil, evil man" plot somewhat weakens the idea that all people should be able to decide their leader; someone arguing pro-fascism could easily point to Sutler and say, "This is what happens when the plebs attempt to choose a leader." The story itself is overly idealistic and simple and shortchanges the anarchist philosophy that V has. And the setting, despite English landmarks, does not seem very English to me.
But overall, I think it as a movie that should be seen. It is a movie that inspires thought, if nothing else, and we had interesting conversations about it afterwards. And it is a movie that makes me thankful to have a mostly democratic government - even at it's worst, there's never just one guy in charge.
That is the real problem with systems where there is only a singular person or body weilding power; it removes meaningful opposition, and without meaningful opposition there is no one to stop someone from doing anything they want. And for all that people complain about how congress is a pain when it it is deadlocked, I think it is at it's best when it is split, with neither side having a large majority, because it requires both parties to work together to pass something. Maybe changes will be slow, but they will be passed by the majority of the people, and not just because one person or one party wants it. And that idea, to me, is important, in a way I can't quite vocalize, so I guess I should stop here for now.
One last thing: I wonder why this movie got an R? There is a lot of violence, but quite a bit of it is hinted at off-screen, and the fight scenes in there are not very bloody beyond the occasional spray of blood. There is no sex, and the language is - well, not really bad enough to merit the rating. I wouldn't rank it as any worse than Revenge of the Sith, which managed go get a PG-13.
I feel a bit bad in even mentioning that, because calling it a movie inspired by a comic book puts it on the same level as Superman or the X-Men. Which isn't quite right, because V for Vendetta is not really like the Supes or the X-men movies; this is not a movie about extraordinary, magical people. None of the villains in this film have superpowers. The main character, Evey, doesn’t either; it is kept somewhat vague whether V does or not.
Speaking of V, I think Hugo Weaving does a very good job of conjuring up a character quite literally without a face in the movie; V wears a mask at all times. And it is well the character does not have a face, because the character himself is so ambivalent. The movie does a good job of not portraying him as either hero or villain, but rather striding the line between. He is somewhat reminiscent of Erik in The Phantom of the Opera, but where as I think one could always say Erik was the villain - if a romantic one, I'm not so sure one could say the same thing of V.
Where the film is at it's strongest is, IMO, the scene where Natalie Portman loses her hair. I won't say more than that, except to say anyone who thinks she is always wooden should check out that scene, because she acts the hell out of it, to the point of almost chewing scenery.
Where it fails, is, IMO, where it is too heavy handed: there are a lot of scenes of the government that pretty much conjure up the Nazi party and Hitler giving speeches in a very blatant way, and I think this weakens the film because the "poor common folk being duped by an evil, evil man" plot somewhat weakens the idea that all people should be able to decide their leader; someone arguing pro-fascism could easily point to Sutler and say, "This is what happens when the plebs attempt to choose a leader." The story itself is overly idealistic and simple and shortchanges the anarchist philosophy that V has. And the setting, despite English landmarks, does not seem very English to me.
But overall, I think it as a movie that should be seen. It is a movie that inspires thought, if nothing else, and we had interesting conversations about it afterwards. And it is a movie that makes me thankful to have a mostly democratic government - even at it's worst, there's never just one guy in charge.
That is the real problem with systems where there is only a singular person or body weilding power; it removes meaningful opposition, and without meaningful opposition there is no one to stop someone from doing anything they want. And for all that people complain about how congress is a pain when it it is deadlocked, I think it is at it's best when it is split, with neither side having a large majority, because it requires both parties to work together to pass something. Maybe changes will be slow, but they will be passed by the majority of the people, and not just because one person or one party wants it. And that idea, to me, is important, in a way I can't quite vocalize, so I guess I should stop here for now.
One last thing: I wonder why this movie got an R? There is a lot of violence, but quite a bit of it is hinted at off-screen, and the fight scenes in there are not very bloody beyond the occasional spray of blood. There is no sex, and the language is - well, not really bad enough to merit the rating. I wouldn't rank it as any worse than Revenge of the Sith, which managed go get a PG-13.