V for Vendetta
I saw V for Vendetta last night.
It was absolutely fantastic-- I was riveted the entire time. For starters, I thought Hugo Weaving was fantastic as V. In a movie where the mask could have so easily been a stumbling block for the audience, Weaving used his body-- curious, genteel hand guestures, a measured gait, the slant of his shoulders-- to add a depth and a life to a character that could have easily fallen flat. I have to say, though, that I had a hard time at first following V's discourse. I have a tendency to follow lips in dense conversations, and the mask offered me no help in that arena. It took me a few scenes until I could relax my ears enough and let it all sink in.
I was pleasantly suprised at Natalie Portman's performance-- surprised, I say, because for all her promise, her most recent movies have all seemed to be her best impersonation of a surfboard. She does need to work on her British accent, though. It's so uneven that half the time, she sounds like an East-Coast girl plunked in the middle of some nondescript period piece. There were some really good bit parts, as well. Sinéad Cusack, who played Dr. Delia Surridge, stuck out for me, in particular. And oh! Stephen Fry was in this movie! I love Stephen Fry.
The themes came across loud and clear. What I was pleased about is that even with so many hot button issues given voice (homophobia, interracial marriage, fascism, government corruption, censorship, abuse of police authority, biological warfare, torture camps, etc.), the screenplay didn't collapse. I've seen so many films with great ideas, but they expressed outrage over so many things that in the end, it felt shallow and thin. This movie didn't-- in part, I think because the victims were so human. A couple sleeping in bed, the two women next door, a little girl playing on the street-- not self-styled martyrs, but people you might bump into at the grocery store. The stories were masterfully woven together, connected, and I thought it was a fantastic screenplay.
The central issue, though, is terrorism. I can see this movie being widely dismissed simply becuase it does not portray V to be a monster-- that is, it gives him sympathetic qualities. He is not a vigilante because of any baseless extremism or lust for power. He, and those he encites to action, act because the ruling government has violated and oppressed to the point where violence is the only tactic with which to break through the country's sedated stupor. After all, what's the use in civilized discourse when all dissent is hideously squashed? The most striking point is the attacking of buildings, of symbols, which will, for many Americans, recall 9/11. Although there is one noted difference between V and Al Quaeda-- V does not attack innocent bystanders, only those in power that are directly responsible for atrocities. But seeing a terrorist in a different light? I suspect this will be too much for many. Those that aren't actively enraged by it will likely leave the theater going, "eh, I didn't get it, but weren't the explosions cool?" Although the movie does not shy away from showing V as an extremist-- in one twist, he is revealed to be behind Evey's torturous imprisonment. I kind of saw it coming, but the impact was startling nonetheless. He chose for Evey-- he used her sympathy for him to mold and shape her in his own image. Regardless wether he did it out of love or for reasons relating to his cause, he wronged her.
I think that one of the themes that will spur thought is the theme on censorship. The parallels of the government-controlled TV station to FOX news and Lewis Prothero to real-life hateful pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh was all too clear. And it's true-- FOX news and the GOP are obviously sleeping together. The result is that millions upon millions of Americans get fed lies, blatant lies, by forceful commentators who bully and stamp out dissenting opinions. If anything, I would like to see people question their news source, and the methods in which the news is delivered.
If I had any criticism, it would be that the climactic action sequence fell a little flat for me. I mean, I get that it was the Wachowskis, the creators of BulletTime, that did this movie. Still, seeing what appeared to be trails of smoke following V's swords was a little overdone for me. But overall, I was really, really pleased with this film.
And the explosions? Okay, they were really cool.
This is likely one I'll be getting on DVD.
Tonight, I have a few errands to attend to, and I have to call the vet. I spilled Jacques' meds this morning, and though I have enough to last until his last dose on Sunday, he's still sniffling and sneezing. He looks loads better-- eating, drinking, excercising, but he can't seem to shake the sniffles. That worries me.
Overall, though, I'm just tired. Tired and cranky. I want a hot shower and to pull on my PJs and to eat comfort food and to crash out early tonight. Grah.
It was absolutely fantastic-- I was riveted the entire time. For starters, I thought Hugo Weaving was fantastic as V. In a movie where the mask could have so easily been a stumbling block for the audience, Weaving used his body-- curious, genteel hand guestures, a measured gait, the slant of his shoulders-- to add a depth and a life to a character that could have easily fallen flat. I have to say, though, that I had a hard time at first following V's discourse. I have a tendency to follow lips in dense conversations, and the mask offered me no help in that arena. It took me a few scenes until I could relax my ears enough and let it all sink in.
I was pleasantly suprised at Natalie Portman's performance-- surprised, I say, because for all her promise, her most recent movies have all seemed to be her best impersonation of a surfboard. She does need to work on her British accent, though. It's so uneven that half the time, she sounds like an East-Coast girl plunked in the middle of some nondescript period piece. There were some really good bit parts, as well. Sinéad Cusack, who played Dr. Delia Surridge, stuck out for me, in particular. And oh! Stephen Fry was in this movie! I love Stephen Fry.
The themes came across loud and clear. What I was pleased about is that even with so many hot button issues given voice (homophobia, interracial marriage, fascism, government corruption, censorship, abuse of police authority, biological warfare, torture camps, etc.), the screenplay didn't collapse. I've seen so many films with great ideas, but they expressed outrage over so many things that in the end, it felt shallow and thin. This movie didn't-- in part, I think because the victims were so human. A couple sleeping in bed, the two women next door, a little girl playing on the street-- not self-styled martyrs, but people you might bump into at the grocery store. The stories were masterfully woven together, connected, and I thought it was a fantastic screenplay.
The central issue, though, is terrorism. I can see this movie being widely dismissed simply becuase it does not portray V to be a monster-- that is, it gives him sympathetic qualities. He is not a vigilante because of any baseless extremism or lust for power. He, and those he encites to action, act because the ruling government has violated and oppressed to the point where violence is the only tactic with which to break through the country's sedated stupor. After all, what's the use in civilized discourse when all dissent is hideously squashed? The most striking point is the attacking of buildings, of symbols, which will, for many Americans, recall 9/11. Although there is one noted difference between V and Al Quaeda-- V does not attack innocent bystanders, only those in power that are directly responsible for atrocities. But seeing a terrorist in a different light? I suspect this will be too much for many. Those that aren't actively enraged by it will likely leave the theater going, "eh, I didn't get it, but weren't the explosions cool?" Although the movie does not shy away from showing V as an extremist-- in one twist, he is revealed to be behind Evey's torturous imprisonment. I kind of saw it coming, but the impact was startling nonetheless. He chose for Evey-- he used her sympathy for him to mold and shape her in his own image. Regardless wether he did it out of love or for reasons relating to his cause, he wronged her.
I think that one of the themes that will spur thought is the theme on censorship. The parallels of the government-controlled TV station to FOX news and Lewis Prothero to real-life hateful pundits like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh was all too clear. And it's true-- FOX news and the GOP are obviously sleeping together. The result is that millions upon millions of Americans get fed lies, blatant lies, by forceful commentators who bully and stamp out dissenting opinions. If anything, I would like to see people question their news source, and the methods in which the news is delivered.
If I had any criticism, it would be that the climactic action sequence fell a little flat for me. I mean, I get that it was the Wachowskis, the creators of BulletTime, that did this movie. Still, seeing what appeared to be trails of smoke following V's swords was a little overdone for me. But overall, I was really, really pleased with this film.
And the explosions? Okay, they were really cool.
This is likely one I'll be getting on DVD.
Tonight, I have a few errands to attend to, and I have to call the vet. I spilled Jacques' meds this morning, and though I have enough to last until his last dose on Sunday, he's still sniffling and sneezing. He looks loads better-- eating, drinking, excercising, but he can't seem to shake the sniffles. That worries me.
Overall, though, I'm just tired. Tired and cranky. I want a hot shower and to pull on my PJs and to eat comfort food and to crash out early tonight. Grah.