When I heard that Hugo Weaving would finally be the lead in a movie, I was so excited. Finally this amazing supporting actor would finally get the attention that he deserved in the US. Then I found out that Weaving would wear a mask the entire time. Wah wah. When V for Vendetta hit the theaters, I decided to skip it and wait to watch it, which I did over eleven years later.
I rarely read graphic novels so look elsewhere if you are looking for a comparison of the book and the movie. V for Vendetta is about a dystopian Britain ruled by an authoritarian government that controls people’s movement, cultural consumption and information. The narrator, Evey, played by Natalie Portman, recounts her time with V, a freedom fighter to some and a terrorist to others. Even though she is the narrator, V for Vendetta has numerous parallel storylines from the perspective of an investigator who is trying to stop V, played by Stephen Rea, and V told in chronological order. Evey could not know what happened when she is not present unless we assume that she talked to them at some point, which is plausible, but a narrative flaw. As the chronological story of Evey’s experiences after meeting V unfold, smaller stories are told: historical accounts, people’s personal histories and personal stories being read by either Evey or the investigator.
V for Vendetta simultaneously tells two stories. First, V for Vendetta is a thriller/mystery as the investigator tries to uncover V’s story, which V is telling through his vigilante acts to uncover the government’s sins and sway those who can find the story within his actions. Second, V for Vendetta is an awakening/uprising of Evey, some supporting actors and the tv viewers, who can also be seen as proxies for V for Vendetta’s viewers. Because the secrets are not revealed in chronological order and a lot of places, characters and pivotal events that are well known in the world of V for Vendetta are bandied around casually, but not explained until later, I initially had problems following everything that was going on although I understood the gist of what was happening.
V for Vendetta benefits from repeat viewings because once you know what is happening, you can appreciate the story being told and the way that it unfolds. A large part of the audience probably will not bother so V for Vendetta fails in part by making it complex, but not clear enough for first time viewers to fully appreciate what it was trying to do. Considering that right now, fake news is ascending and a man is about to be sworn in that ran a campaign that sounds like the “Voice of London” in V for Vendetta, a campaign based on excoriating homosexuals, Muslims and immigrants, V for Vendetta feels more like prophesy and less like entertainment so many may be willing to overlook its flaws now.
V for Vendetta is still problematic. I understand that Evey is supposed to be the successor for V and a proxy for us-how an ordinary person can lose fear (of death), be free and stand up against tyranny, but I found her to be the least compelling person in V for Vendetta. I was more interested in other characters, such as V and the investigator, and the stories told in a doctor’s work journal and the actress’ account of her life before and after the fascist government comes to power. Constant efforts to cast Evey and V as a love story just left me cold, especially considering the nature of their relationship.
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
The second time V rescues Evey, he decides to imprison her for a year. I understand that V wanted to rescue Evey a third time, but knew he could not trust her so he had to test her to make sure that she would not betray him again. V is not an entirely sane man, and people who are abused often engage in abuse, but torturing Evey, even if he thinks that she wanted it, is not absolved by her having an epiphany and no longer fearing death; thus no longer fearing what the government could do to her.
Ultimately I could not suspend disbelief to buy the happy ending that V for Vendetta offers, that people would stand as one against the government, radicalized by a policeman killing an unarmed child. Such things sadly happen regularly in Ohio and elsewhere within the US. While I think the solution offered by V for Vendetta is too violent and symbolic to work effectively in real life and should not occur, even desired modest change, rule of law and reform do not occur after the murder of the innocents. If V for Vendetta reflected real life, the people would vote for Sutler again and say that the child was a thug. Sorry, V for Vendetta, real life surpasses the imagined dystopian world.
My favorite aspect of V for Vendetta is the hunger for culture, the enjoyment of music, literature and movies, the human, delightful virus to tell stories regardless of whether or not they are forbidden. Every character has secrets, but even if the character works for the government, feels compelled to tell the stories.
V for Vendetta’s casting is brilliant and adds an extra layer of film history. Rea also played an investigator in a real life authoritarian regime in Citizen X, an excellent historical drama about a serial killer in the Soviet Union. John Hurt, who plays Sutler, the leader of the authoritarian British regime in V for Vendetta, also played the main character in the film adaptation of George Orwell’s 1984.
V for Vendetta is an ambitious, optimistic film that believes that people will awaken to the truth within stories, can overcome fear and death and become free by engaging in a type of virtual reality/performance art, but ultimately it misses an essential truth. How can a world transform into a better place after sheep are willing to follow the wolf that murders them simply because they gather to watch an explosion after engaging in a lynching? V for Vendetta knows that the stories change hearts, not the violent trappings that enable the story to be told. Are the masses responding to the violence or V’s televised revolutionary story?