Movie Review: V for Vendetta
Published March 23, 2006
Once in a lifetime a movie comes along that makes you want to change the world around you. Makes you stand up and scream. Makes you burn the mother down. V for Vendetta is not that movie. It could have been that movie and but instead settles for a more apathetic response; less "let's burn shit" and more "I'm going to blog this." It's a call to arms for the lethargic and disaffected generation. There will be no masses of disenfranchised youths storming the White House in Guy Fawkes masks; but it's sure going to make Technorati buzz.
The near-future world, created by director James McTeigue and producers the Wachowski brothers, is scary as hell. It's post-apocalyptic but not in the traditional sense. There are no monsters, ghosts, or zombies. Instead, those clichés are replaced by London, quarantined and under totalitarian rule. It is the remains of a social apocalypse, if you would. Basic human rights and diversity replaced in the name of security. Is it a tale of the future or a history of the present?
The telling is quite simple. V, played by the seemingly ever present Hugo Weaving, is out for revenge against the government that took everything from him. He is mysterious, aloof, and driven in his quest. Joined by an introverted subversive Evey, V seeks to release the world from its bonds of oppression through violence, vengeance, and alliteration.
This film will draw attention. Opposition and condemnation from the far right as a pro-terrorist piece of left-wing smut and will be hailed as a tour de force from the left as a call to action. Political commentators and TV producers will love it, as it will be another example of how the anti-Bush, anti-American elite controls Hollywood. I give it three days 'til Ann Coulter talks about how the 2020 London of the film looks like a Utopia where being Muslim or homosexual is a crime punishable by death.
The day after I saw this film, I was sitting in a greasy spoon restaurant having breakfast. The TV was running CNN and coverage of the Belarus elections were the topic of the day. State controlled media, protestors being labeled as security threats, rigged elections. I couldn't help but think I had just seen that movie the night before.
- Movie Review: V for Vendetta
- Published: March 23, 2006
- Type: Review
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Thriller, Video: SF, Video: Drama, Video: Action
- Writer: DJ Freq
- DJ Freq's BC Writer page
- DJ Freq's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
"For me the dichotomy of freedom and security was the most interesting discussion of the film."
But you fail to mention why security was so strong. The events take place after a major war. War disrupts and distorts everything. You must keep that into perspective.
1st,
I hardly think that 59 million people is "no one" voting against bush. It's not like he won a commanding majority. what got me about this film was the people who were obviously clear that the media was telling them bull...and yet there wasn't an outcry until V..
2nd
Security and freedom are not naturally mutually exclusive. This is why i find the discussion so interesting. The reason of high security is irrelevant if it results in a loss of freedom. I would have liked to see some more of the general population/average joe dealing with this.
It was funny how everyone seemed to have a voice against Bush, but no one was willing to go to the polls and vote for someone else.
When it came down to the choice it was one where people thought they were better off with the devil they knew than the devil they didn't. They could count on Bush to function in a certain predictable and relatively harmless way. With Kerry the potential for far worse government was too high.
Dave
" It was funny how everyone seemed to have a voice against Bush, but no one was willing to go to the polls and vote for someone else."
It's because of the pathetic 2 party system crap. Bush v. Kerry, which is the lesser of two evils??
I HATE THAT STUFF! You should vote for candidates who match your political beliefs, not just which one of the two you dislike less!
AND THERE ARE OTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!!
I suspect most liberals beliefs align more with Ralph Nader, but oh no, can't even think of voting for him because a vote for Nader is a vote for the GOP.
I think most ultra-conservatives, especially bible belt ones, align with Constitutional Party Candidate Michael Peroutka. Here you had anti-war, ultra conservative, bible quoting candidates who fits the profile of the ideal prez for these types, but oh no, can't vote for him, because then Kerry might win.
Vote for the person who matches your political beliefs the best, REGARDLESS OF WHICH PARTY THEY BELONG TO, especially if it's a "third" party. Geez, what an original concept which shouldn't be original in 2006 (or '08).
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/45390)
"The public and government seem to realize that the big boss is overbearing but there's no indication that he retains support beyond a Bill O'Reilly clone."
I couldn't help but think about the 2004 presidential election. With all of the Kerry support and all of the Bush bashing, Bush STILL got re-elected. It was funny how everyone seemed to have a voice against Bush, but no one was willing to go to the polls and vote for someone else.