Americans always seem to need something in times of crisis, and a lot of the time we turn to movies to provide whatever may be lacking in our lives. Often a form of escapism, with Hollywood releases in recent years (War of the Worlds and Cinderella Man, to name a few examples, along with many other superhero movies including the upcoming Superman) film provides what we are missing in this country: a distinct hero. Somebody unquestionably righteous, around whom we can all rally without second-guessing ourselves. The last time political circumstances were so befuddling, in the post-Vietnam era in the mid-to-late seventies, a revolution in cinema was underway and directors responded to audiences needs with the sympathetic anti-hero (for example, Travis Bickle of Taxi Driver, or Colonel Kurtz of Apocalypse Now)an unsatisfactory and perplexing symbol of the general mindset during a time when everything was being questioned. Now, V for Vendetta seems like just what America needs. Revolving around the story of Evie, an outwardly normal girl in a futuristic London who is drawn into the rebel underground and her relationship with a mysterious rebel who identifies himself as V, it brings up a lot of coherent debatessuch as, what exactly is a terrorist? Is a terrorist always evilor is it a matter of opinion? By tying in V's mission to rouse the populace against a tyrannical system dominated by the religious right with the Guy Fawkes story (normally considered unsavory on all parts, Fawkes' motives are reconsidered), and by making the terrorist very sympathetic, in fact, and by stirring our pity for him, the poor mainstream viewers who just wanted to ogle Natalie Portman are thrust into the uncomfortable role of rooting for the terrorist. These days, anyone with a penchant for blowing up government buildings is regarded with something akin to suspicion, and I certainly applaud the Wachowski brothers for being able to pull it off. It's interesting to speculate on audiences reactionbut one thing is certainnobody will walk out of this movie without having contemplated some of the issues presented. V, however, in my opinion, is not an actual terrorist, but a rebel with a cause. Terrorists, like those who caused 9/11, only want to instill terror into the populaceof a nation or a government they despise: sometimes their own, in the case of the Unabomberin order to make a point. V, rather than sadistically tormenting the people, makes them his allies against the oppressive system. All in all, it's rather puzzling, but by the end we certainly feel that V was in the right. By giving us a hero qua semi-unstable megalomaniac who always remains a bit of an enigma (he never removes his Guy Fawkes mask), the film wavers throughout between giving us a hero and giving us an anti-hero. Maybe it's saying it's time to reconsider our previous beliefs and political affiliations, or maybe not. Maybe we should regain our country from the grip of Christian conservatives. Maybe we should blow up the Pentagon(?). You can never be quite sure. One thing is for certainlove prevails in all the twists and turns of the storyit's not, I can state with relief, simply a boring dissection of political issues. All in all, V for Vendetta was not a great film in and of itself. Although Hugo Weaving in the part of V did a commendable job acting throughout, given that you can never see his, none of the performances were particularly moving, and far from life-changingyou felt like they were characters in a movie, which is what they were. It had some memorable lines and astounding camera-work, but didn't provide too many original insights on its characters, or the human spirit, or life in general, nor should it: that's not the point. It's not legendary; it will, however, be remembered for the socio-political questions it raises, and the message it attempts to send out to its audience: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
Review of V for Vendetta
