V for Vendetta

Remember, remember, the 5th of November
Gunpowder treason and plot
I know of no reason, why the gunpowder treason
Should ever be forgot...

The best thing I can say about the Wachowski brother's and James McTeigue's interpretation of the Alan Moore/ David Lloyd graphic novel is that it takes everything I love about comic books and the imagery that comes with them, and marries it to an anarchist agenda I cannot bring myself to empathize with completely. In the process, it is one of the most audacious movies made in recent times. (Incidentally, read with abandon - I am mostly avoiding spoilers in this horribly long review.)

The worst thing I can say about it is that this is Rang De Basanti on steroids, and anyone who felt his or her "Indianness" awaken on watching RDB needs to watch this movie to understand the true nature of the mythic revolutionary. Oh well... I think I made a statement I'm going to be flogged by readers for... better explain...

Background - History

Guy Fawkes was a co-conspirator in the Gunpowder Plot of 1605 - a plot to blow up both houses of the British Parliament so as to destroy the rather anti-catholic James 1 of England (aka James VI of Scotland). Fawkes, the main man behind the idea was foiled, caught, tortured, and hanged to death. Posthumously, he became something of an icon of the anti-government protest.

Foreground - Fiction

V for Vendetta (and I speak of the movie here, rather than the graphic novels, which I haven't read but know vary in some ways from the movie. The essence however, is undiluted) is the story of a mysterious man called only "V" who wears a cape, and a Guy Fawkes mask. He was the creation of a mysterious government "research" program (of the kind Joseph Mengle ran for the Nazis). For what was done to him, he is bent on destroying the rather Orwellian government that has taken over a alternative future England where the state rules all under a dictator, and individual freedoms do not exist.

The tale starts with a rather grandiloquent V (Hugo Weaving) effecting a rescue of one Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) from members of a secret police called the Fingermen. He takes her with him to witness the blowing up of the Old Bailey and then drops her home. From here begins a strange relationship, one where V strives to make Evey see his point of view (which she initially rejects, and is then "persuaded" to accept). That relationship forms the narrative core of the movie.

Almost incidentally, V is also going around killing those responsible for his creation (a pedophile priest, a brash newscaster, and a somewhat repentant scientist) , using his seemingly limitless resources to conduct "public awakening campaigns" and eventually planning and executing the downfall of the tyrant.

This downfall is publicly announced in the second chapter of the movie where V takes over the state run TV station where Evey works, on the 5th of November (as opposed to a radio station in Rang De Basanti) and announces to the world his intention of fulfiling his adopted role model's dream by blowing up British Parliamentup on the next 5th of November. A promise and a potent call to revolution... a promise fulfilled in the grand finale.

Subtext - Allusions

It astounds me how rich and tongue in cheek this movie is when it comes to subtext. First of all, the many connections/ similarities. Sit back, and enjoy the metaphors.

We kick off on a nice coincidence - Dumbledore's phoenix in Harry Potter is named after Guy Fawkes.

The ruse of using a train to blow a significant building - seen Batman Begins? The police officer trapped in a system he cannot overhaul, but staunchly sticking to the truth - Commissioner Gordon, anyone? Or perhaps even the cop from The Mask - this one certainly has a superhuman on his hands!

The allusions to present-day America - at one point a discussion ensues on whether "blowing up a building can change the world". Another snippet vaguely blames the condition of this alternate world as being the result of "America's war". The symbol of the government is a strange red double crucifix... allusion to Red State, Christian Fundamentalist America perhaps?

Toward the end is a scene that cannot help but remind us of Boromir's departure from The Fellowship of the Ring. Both Tolkein and this movie took this motif from the ancient Viking tradition of putting dead warriors on a snakeboat, setting it on fire, and then adrift.

The artwork is beautiful; the concentration camp like setpieces work (that Natalie Portman was born in Israel is another poignant fact) and Evey's torture and final realization of "freedom", intercut with the tale of the persecuted lesbian actress also work beautifully.

Then there is the "Jay Leno" character that mocks the tyrant and pays severely for it - and eventually pays the price for possessing a Holy Quran in a world where it seems is banned. And for being a homosexual to boot. In another triumphantly smart subtext the music V pipes into the public broadcasting system - said act reminding me of The Shawshank Redemption - is by Tchaikovsky; a gay man.

Comments on Guantanamo Bay and a what if question about Gay rights - both aimed at America? Most certainly.

The last allusion I feel compelled to talk about, is the Phantom of the Opera-esque love between V and Evey. This is enormously understated, and therefore doesn't hurt.

Quality - Audacity

Did I say it was an audacious movie? Hugo Weaving does a beautiful job of playing a character whose face is never seen (not even for shock value, as Darth Vader's visage was revealed in Return of the Jedi). His voice modulation, while frequently reminiscent of Agent Smith, is fantastic. Kudos to the Wachowski's for not giving in to the temptation of showing us his ravaged face (not unlike Spielberg resisting the temptation of "going to the other side of the hill" in War of the Worlds, the flaws of that movie notwithstanding).

Natalie Portman - the audaciously bald, hot teen pin-up Natalie Portman - is also magnificent in this movie. She seems to channel reservoirs of angst and depth you would not have noticed in the many wigs and costumes of Padme Amidala.

But the central audacity of the movie is the glorification of a terrorist as the protagonist, and a terrorist that does not go to any length to differentiate himself from Al Qaeda/ Osama at that. What's more, from the title onward, the movie does not pretend that V's mission in life is some sort of a social emancipation project. It is a personal Vendetta, and if society benefits in the end, so be it.

(In this I am reminded of Gulzar's Maachis - Om Puri telling Chandrachur Singh that he is not fighting for some future generation, but for himself, right by the railway tracks - Maachis was a so much more mature movie than Rang De Basanti!)

Texture - Uneven

A lot of times, the movie does something jarring, which makes us reject the reality it is trying to draw us into.

It begins with V's introductory speech to Evey which I alluded to earlier, which seems to comprise almost entirely of words starting with "V". Smart? Certainly... and I appreciate the vivacious verbal calisthenics. Plus it serves to establish that V is some sort of insane genius; but since V shows his obsession for the letter V only that once, and speaks somewhat normally thereafter, it seems a jarring indulgence.

Then there is the compulsive behavior on the part of the director to cram as much imagery into the movie as he possibly could. Depth and layered meaning is good - but too much of it is a distraction.

Finally, there is the trademark "bullet-time" action setpiece in the catacombs of London, where V finally confronts and defeats the tyrant and the man who makes the tyranny possible. Why? Why? Why? Agreed, this is a Wachowski movie - but do you have to allude to the Matrix? Its like Karan Johar playing a snippet of the Kuch Kuch Hota Hai title track in the middle of "Sooraj Hua Maddham" in Kabhie Khushi Kabhie Gham (said error being the least of that crapfest's problems).

It surprised me that such distractions were enough to make a rather accomodating scifi/ fantasy/ superhero freak to ask questions like - How did V get all the means to do his work? How did one man rebuild a train track? How did he live, escape detection, buy groceries, collect collectibles, find Evey at the TV Show Host's place, and so on...? I left the theatre frequently in my mind, and was hardly kept engaged and wide-mouthed.

Denouement - Reaction

This is a difficult movie to digest and to write about. I worship at the altar of the Wachowski's for making such an in-your-face, don't-give-a-fuck-for-propriety-and-political-rectitude movie... for not changing the essence of the source material (which dates back to a pre-Berlin Wall collapse, pre-9/11, pre-Afghanistan and Iraq reality where "terrorist" wasn't the taboo it is now - when it was even looked at with the kind of fascination afforded to "revolutionaries"). I admire their gusto in not changing this or that and making it milder and therefore more contemporary. I love them for not apologizing for V being a terrorist, or for him being a terrorist for a personal vengeance. (which was RDB's big mistake in my eyes).

I also love - LOVE - the mythical element in the movie. I love how it at least asks you to forget rationality and enter a world where a hero cannot be stopped by bullets. "A man can be killed... an idea lives on".

But this is an uneven movie. As it concludes in the spectacular explosion watched by an entire mob of people dressed as Guy Fawkes, you aren't really sure what they are trying to say - which is probably honest, because V comes across, net net, as an avenging anarchist.

Coda/ Epilogue

That's that then. I love this movie, while simultaneously rejecting its core principle - "People should not be afraid of their government, Governments should be afraid of their people" - I believe fear should be removed from the scene. So sue me for an idealist.

I insist you go and watch this movie - it is fuel for the brainfire. And as the program known only as the Oracle would say - Make up your own damn mind!

Peace... Out!