Review: V for Vendetta (2006)

 Fifteen years on, here's another look back at 2006, which a flick that still has its influence linger to this day--in perhaps some rather mixed ways. 

Before we start, let's talk about Alan Moore. If you don't know, Moore is probably one of the best known names in the field of western comics--and it's fair to say that, along with the likes of Frank Miller, he inflicted an incalculable influence upon that medium, especially in the superhero genre. You might just have heard of Watchmen, which back in the mid-80s was a radically different presentation and approach to the idea of folks dressing up in capes to punch people. Misguided efforts to ape it lead to somewhat of a dark age for US comics in the nineties, which concluded that the rather sober character studies and gloomy atmosphere of Watchmen meant you could have characters aplenty with no other emotion besides 'snarling rage' and guns covered with pouches with more guns attached. 

But before even that was V For Vendetta, Moore's tale of a dystopic Britain in the far future of the late nineties, where the aftermath of nuclear war lead to a fascist resurgence that keeps old Blighty oppressed. As such, a partially superhuman masked anarchist simply known as V recruits a young woman called Evy to both take revenge on a regime that wronged him, and ultimately bring it down. The atmosphere's great, the cast is fleshed out, and there's memorable moments aplenty; Moore does express his own anarchist leanings within, but he had the care to leave enough room for the reader to take it or leave it, as they ultimately come from an upfrontly rather deranged V. It's that kind of ambiguity that I always like, and though the comic was made in response to the Thatcher era, as we'll see, a lot of it still rings true. 

These days, you get debate over whether Moore should still be considered great or just a grumpy has-been. It's true that, despite his genuinely great masterworks, his work over the last two decades has been much more mixed, and some of it (like the latter instalments of League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) quite frankly substituted things like compelling storylines and characters for half-coherent tracts about things he happens not to like. What does grab clickbait headlines often is Moore's attitude to adaptations, which, well, with very rare exception, he happens not to like, and will often declare them rubbish pre-emptively. It's not entirely an unfair approach when you look at how the LOEG movie turned out, or From Hell--but in this case, do I side with this infamously cantankerous bearded pseudo-wizard, or does it rise above that?

Coming from the Wachowskis, and certainly a step up from Matrix Revolutions, the movie follows the general gist of the graphic novel closely enough; the oppressive post-nuclear eighties feel is replaced by a more digital post-terrorism Bush-era bent. Not necessarily a bad thing, and if we're being honest, that angle still isn't entirely irrelevant just yet. Natalie Portman plays our Evey with a British accent that waxes and wanes in believability, and after being accosted by secret policemen is recruited by Hugo Weaving's V also essentially just as in the comic. The first change off the bat is that V is played rather more straight as a conventional freedom fighter--for the most part. There's one rather morally ambiguous sequence played out that feels rather jarring, well-executed though it still is. 

The supporting cast is certainly on point--the dulcet-toned Stephen Fry stands out especially as a TV present that defies the regime in his own way, as does Stephen Rea playing a government agent who begins to turn against it in tune with V's crusade. John Hurt is entertaining and bombastic as the dictator himself, who has a rather larger role than his comic counterpart--though this is the first real disappointment as an adaptation. Said dictator in the graphic novel was ultimately depicted as a rather pathetic and tiny man, compensating for his lack of self-esteem with his fascism, and nearly perpetually standing before screens and computers. It's something I found quite interesting and on point, and, well, frankly one element that rings true today. Hurt I guess makes for a more convincing demagogue, but is ultimately another ranting Hitler-a-like who isn't nearly as fleshed out as they could've done even given the differing mediums. 

Other than that, the film itself is entertaining enough on its own merits, and with some well-done moments here and there. Weaving's V himself in relation to his source material version sums it all up as an adaptation--close enough, though ultimately rather watered down. For the most part it's understandable, and there's only so much you can port over. From the point of view of what Moore precisely wanted to convey ideology-wise I suppose I can see why he might've been disappointed, but for a wider audience, it does the job decently, and as we'll get to, made an impact in its own, very different right. At the very least, it's leagues above the prior Moore adaptations for sure.

 

And yes, there is the matter of subculture that the film struck a chord with, moreso than the comic itself. V's Guy Fawkes mask, as we likely know, became a symbol for various movements trying, in their own way, to 'stick it to the man'--including with types of anarchists themselves, although of a rather different generation and bent to Moore. Occupy, Anonymous, and even more modern throngs of dissatisfied folks...all of them hoping, like V, to tear down the order in their own way. Some of them ultimately were of leanings completely anathema to either the Wachowskis or Moore, but this itself demonstrates just how broad strokes tend to win over the details at the end of the day. 

And that's how this flick pans out--broader in approach than its material, but no less impactful in its own right. That's why while I do understand some of Moore's complaints over the years, I do also think that at some point, one has to accept that ideas, characters, stories, and so on will inevitably take on their own courses beyond the author, be it by other creators or the masses themselves. Not always for the better, but such is the way of things, and these permutations may well be valid in their own right. Ideas, as both versions of V say, are bulletproof--but they're certainly not static. 

So, rambling half-baked efforts at cultural commentary aside? Yeah, the movie's fine, though I'd put it in the 'good but nothing amazing' category. Recently we had a TV continuation of Watchmen which, much like this one, put a new spin on a now rather decades-old comic--and did a passable enough job of it from what I hear. And ultimately, regardless of how all these adaptations and spinoffs remain, the original will always be there, with its place cemented. As long as that's the case, I honestly think there's nothing ultimately wrong with others taking stabs at remixing and restyling such material, provided it's done with respect--as has been done with a myriad of stories over the centuries. Much as Moore might disagree, I'll still recommend his aforementioned printed greats, and while you're at it, this cinematic version gets the job done adequately. Take your pick, and enjoy the fireworks.