Newsfeed
Printer-Friendly ModePortman, Weaving settle Vendetta against future evil
March 27, 2006 —
V for Vendetta is a pretty well-done comic-based movie in a dystopian setting. Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman star as two heroes in a revolutionary time in Britain during what appears to be the relatively near future. While V for Vendetta doesn't do a tremendous amount to cause it to stick out in the mind of the audience amongst the dozens of other dystopian stories that have been crafted, it does most of what it does very well.
Hugo Weaving, who viewers will know best from the Matrix and Lord of the Rings films, is unrecognizable in V for Vendetta, as his face is covered throughout the entirety of the film by a mask of Guy Fawkes, who conspired to blow up the parliament building in the 17th Century. Fawkes was caught, tortured, and executed.
While the nature of the role removes one of Weaving's best features as an actor, his unique countenance and expressions, it is a necessary facet of his role, as the mask is representative of everything his character, known only as V, represents: the faceless populace rising up against the government. Unfortunately, though, unless one was to know beforehand who plays V, Weaving goes unrecognized.
This isn't to say his role is without character. Weaving disappears behind the mask in two ways, one physically and one because of the excellently crafted character of V.
V contains the typical characteristics of a hero in that he is a force in all forms of combat, most notably hand-to-hand, and appears at times to be physically more than human in his ability. However, he is also an intellectual.
Instead of his hideout (another staple of comic heroes) being filled with gadgets and plans, it is filled with pile upon pile of books, a huge collection of artwork ranging from paintings to sculptures, and even a jukebox. In addition to having these items feed his intellectual pursuits, V is also preserving them, because apparently the government forbids such things as art.
I use the word apparently because until relatively late in the movie, we see little of what the government actually does to be designated as totalitarian as the movie makes it out to be. I wondered in the early sections of the movie whether this was due to time constraints, but as the movie went on, it seemed that there was a great deal of time that could have been freed up to help ground the film more in its setting.
This is vastly important in a story of this kind. What would 1984 be if it skipped directly to Winston's struggle, rather than showing us first just how terrible the government in that world is?
Perhaps V for Vendetta worried about being cliche in showing us the ways that the government impairs freedom, but better cliche than a numbing of meaning. This is the film's central flaw, but really it's the only extremely noticeable one.
Overall the film does a nice job, and what the audience lacks in grounding of the story they can imagine, and be shown bit by bit later in the movie, something they shouldn't have to do. But a little imagination never hurt anyone.
V for Vendetta is unlikely to be the poster child of dystopian stories or movies, but it is certainly an enjoyable film, backed by genuine emotions and concerns. The character of V is extremely interesting and is the greatest strength of the film.
Whether V for Vendetta causes the audience to think or simply to sit back and enjoy the spectacle, it nevertheless does a nice job, and I imagine few people will regret seeing it.
