April
07 , 2006
V for Vendetta
– A Controversial Political Thriller
Although it is based on the
comic serial and graphic novel by that very name
- V for Vendetta - the film adaptation of the story
contains little than can be classified as comical
or that fits into the formula of science fiction.
It is rather an action-packed thriller, a message
movie, with numerous subplots that demand full focus
of the audience for the entire length of 132 minutes
to comprehend clearly the fast-moving sequence of
events and, more importantly, the subtle aspersions
on the current state of affairs in the United States.
Set in the year 2020, the film unfolds in a shadowy
England beset by a repressive totalitarian regime.
Subjected to incessant surveillance, the people
have become conditioned to obey the despotic ruler
who promises protection from the threat of terrorism
in return for the citizenry’s surrender of
their civil rights. Hope for the suppressed masses
rests with a swashbuckling swordsman, who calls
himself just V – the letter standing for Vendetta
in his vocabulary. It invokes the memory of Guy
Fawkes who had 400 years back - on November 5, 1605
to be exact - attempted to blow up the British Houses
of Parliament but was caught and executed. V hopes
to succeed where Guy Fawkes had failed. A mix of
the Count of Monte Cristo and Zorro, he wears throughout
the film a Guy Fawkes mask, perhaps more of a freedom-fighter
than a terrorist bent on blowing up the Parliament
and doing away with the regime that had robbed the
citizens of their civil rights.
His resort to violence provokes hate while his motive
endears him as a freedom fighter. He may thus be
classified as a typical classic anti-hero. Yet,
he is a hero in terms of the prevalent film pattern.
When a young woman is attracted to him and remains
attracted, despite calling him a “monster”
at one stage, and his image as a freedom fighter
does put the brand of ‘hero’ on him.
But, the author, Alan Moore, has left V’s
actions “morally ambiguous” so that
readers could consider for themselves whether his
deeds were heroic or atrocious.
In the film, however, the crimes he commits are
not portrayed but their effects are shown not always
in a negative light. He is featured as a terrorist
with the manners and deeds of a hero.
I wouldn’t like to relate the sequence of
events as unfolded in the film since the readers
of this piece might want to enjoy the story in theatres.
But, I do want to mention the references in the
film to modern day events and symbols; for instance
the war on terror, the war in Iraq and the parallels
to elements in the current US administration in
general. The film skewers leaders of the current
world scene.
Some notable references are mentioned below:
• The black bags worn by prisoners in the
film draw a reference to the black bags worn by
prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay
in Cuba.
• Loud speakers announce in the film that
London is under a yellow-coded curfew alert - similar
to the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System.
• One of the forbidden items in the basement
of a British TV producer is a propaganda poster
with mixed US, UK flags with a swastika and the
title “Coalition of the Willing” - a
reference to the Coalition of the Willing formed
for the Iraq War.
• The British TV in its scare-mongering ventures,
on behalf of the despotic rulers, talks about avian
flue as a pandemic –an obvious reference to
the current media hype in the US about the impending
avian flu.
• The British media is portrayed as subservient
to government dictates and talk-show hosts sounding
like Bill O’Reilly and Rush Limbaugh.
• “Fear the terrorist” is the
mantra drilled into the minds of the people of Britain
of the year 2020, a thinly veiled reference to America’s
present situation. As a counter to this, the film
makes the poignant observation: “People should
not fear their governments, governments should fear
their people.”
• It is hinted in the film that the ultra
rightwing, totalitarian government came to power
in Britain when America’s war, presumably
an expanded war on terror that Britain was deeply
involved in, spiraled out of control.
• The film raises the query whether ends justify
means. This draws attention to the controversy surrounding
the Patriot Act that gave a veneer of legality to
eavesdropping, phone tapping and other secret service
liberties with the civil rights of citizens.
Critics have generally appreciated the film for
being daring and insightful and have called it the
most politically charged movie since Fahrenheit
911.
But, one cannot also escape the impression that
the script writers and the production team have
weaved into the story sub-plots which do not appear
quite essential to the thrust of the main theme.
While it has some memorable dialogues (for instance:
behind the mask is an idea and an idea is bullet
proof), it carries some labored dialogues too. The
hero, or anti-hero if you will, explains his mask
and the idea behind it in the following words:
“This visage, no mere veneer of vanity of
vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant,
vanished, as once vital voice of the verisimilitude,
now venerates what they one vilified. However, this
valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, these
venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and
vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious
violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance,
a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the
value and veracity of such one day vindicate the
vigilant and the virtuous.”
An irate critic called the film “V for vile,
vicious, vacuous, venal, verminous and vomitaceous.”
On the other hand, many would find the film as a
high caliber thinking person’s action film.
-arifhusaini@hotmail.com
