V for Vague

m15m, best rendition of the film V for Vendetta. Totally. Like, no contest.

This is easily one of the most disappointing films I've seen this year. Now it's on DVD and shrinking it to the little screen doesn't improve it. It could have been brilliant and great. Instead...eh.

No, it's not just the obvious politics of the thing. Well, yes, it is the obvious politics of the thing. If you want to take digs at Bush, fine, have at him, but when it comes to Art (that's right, with a capital "A") you need to look a few moments past the current moment, because once the moment has passed, your "Art" looks like crap.

The graphic novel understood this. It's worth several readings, because you need to wade through it a few times, and even then you miss stuff. Some of the artwork could have been clearer, especially during those scenes where the picture is the only way to identify who is dying at what time. That aside, the plot is great.

Because what the novel understood was what I said, you make a political point without hammering at a particular political moment. You treat your audience as though they have an IQ somewhat higher than the average pea, that they will get it. The novel was written as an attack on Margaret Thatcher when she was PM of England, yet she's not even mentioned. Few (if any) of her politics are discussed. Rather, the author looked at what frightened him about her time in office, and expanded it to the autocratic extreme.

But look at how things came about! In the novel, England rejects Thatcher and elects a liberal government. That government disavows the mere possession of nuclear weapons and complete chucks 'em away. Thus, without nuclear arms, when a limited WW3 happens, England is untouched (physically). The rest of the world goes to bollocks, however, and England collapses into anarchy. And it is from this anarchy that The Leader and "England Prevails" rises.

Get it? Liberal government, unrealistic position, war, government collapse, anarchy, autocratic dictator. That's the progression in the novel. (Even if, later, Moore would reject this as "melodramatic". He also got assumed Thatcher would get tossed from office. Oops!)

There is no such logic, rhyme, or reason to the movie. There's a dictatorship because the plot needs one. Something about "America's war" and an American plague, but talk about vague and WtF. Then there's the Phil Donahue wannabe.... Oh, wait, that's supposed to be Bill O'Rielly? Naw! Ranting, self-rightous monologues like that were Phil's stock-in-trade.

Then there are the little things, like Gordon's illustrated Koran. "Can I not admire the pictures?" (Or some such nonsense.) No, you can't, because your implication is that all copies of the holy Koran are illustated with loverly artwork, which is load of dingo's kidneys. Why not an illustrated Bible? Why not an illustrated Torah? Why not just a collection of forbidden art? No, that's in there to say, "Hey, Muslims are wrongfully oppressed. Just ignore those who have bombed buildings, flown jets into buildings, blown up trains, blown up subways, shoot people without mercy, and all that other stuff. Everyone has extremists. Just look at the 'Christian' dictator I've invented for this film! He's just like Bush, that evil fundamentalist. Evil! Eeeeeevvvviiillll!!!"

And let's not even start on the entire new back story plot, about the government slaughtering 100,000 citizens to create a climate of fear so a dictatorship can step in and "restore" order. Arf!

V, the movie, works best when it hews closely to the novel. Those moments are brilliant and damn near resonate. V, the movie, becomes totally brain dead when it tries to be "relevant". In so doing, it becomes irrelevant (at best) and stupid (at worst, which is to say, most of the time).

I mean, come on! This is a police state, with cameras everywhere, with "Fingerman" patrolling the streets to mug, rape, and murder who they please. Et cetera. Yet, no one notices thousands upon thousands of Guy Fawkes costumes being ordered and delivered throughout the country (or at least throughout London)? Puh-leez! A willing suspension of disbelief is one thing, but swallowing that one requires artificial gravity that would make the Krell proud.

A question to all who think this film is Deep and Makes A Strong Statement: In the novel, at the end, V blows up 10 Downing Street, home of the PM and dictator, and cries for anarchy. His is a direct assault on the fascist dictator. In the film, he blows up Parliament and cries for democracy. Don't you think that since he's gotten the dictator killed, gutted the autocratic leadership, and set the country up for a revival of democracy, that Parliament -- the very seat and symbol of English democracy -- might have been rather, er, important, a symbol of freedom, a rallying point for a new era? Perhaps it shouldn't have been blown to sh*t and gone.

Just wondering.

Consider that Guy Fawkes was a fanatic who wanted to blow up Parliament because he was a "Catholic extremist" who, with "Puritan extremists", wanted to blow up the nation's Protestant leaders and return England to the bosum of Mother Church in Rome. In the book, Fawkes's politics are left at the door and V dons the costume as a symbol of anarchy. In the film, Fawkes is portrayed as some Robin Hoodish hero of the people. Interesting, don't you think, given the real Fawkes's religious bent. He was, in fact, the religious fanatic that the film attempts to portray Bush The Leader as being.

At the end of the novel, the future is decidedly unknown. The country is sinking into anarchy. V is dead and Evey opts to don the costume so that there will always be a V, an immortal you might say, to make sure no authoritarian rises to power. In the film, there's almost a sense of order as V is everyone and everyone is V. Only the seat of British democracy has been blown to sh*t and gone, there is no rallying point, and we're left with this false sense of euphoria. In other words, it is beautiful pap, a slapped on happy ending that Steven Spielberg would have been proud of.

The film illustrates that even when being "brave" and presenting "an uncompromising vision of the future", Hollywood is, at heart, chicken and presumes that the audience is dumber than a bowl full of (dead) mice.