On that day in 1605, Guy Fawkes was discovered
in a tunnel beneath Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. He and his
co-conspirators had engineered the treasonous "Gunpowder Plot" in response
to the tyranny of their government under James I. Fawkes and his fellow
saboteurs were hanged, drawn and quartered, and their plan to take down
their government never came to pass.
In the spirit of that rebellion, in remembrance of that day, V vows to carry
out the plot that Fawkes was executed for attempting on November 5th in
1605: he will blow up Parliament.
As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious past, she also discovers the
truth about herself – and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of
his plan to ignite a revolution, bringing freedom and justice back to a
society fraught with cruelty and corruption. |
|
Someone somewhere I’m sure is saying something about how
much this movie didn’t live up to its graphic novel counterpart. I’ve never
read the graphic novel, so I can’t comment except to say to that person,
“Hey. Shut up. Go read the graphic novel then.”
I went into this film not
really knowing what to expect. I wasn’t even sure it was based on a comic
book until I saw the “DC Comics” graphic in the open. When I saw that I
knew I was in for something I would probably enjoy. Comic books seem to be
the last bastion for a certain style of storytelling that I enjoy
immensely. The style mostly revolves around an ambiguity in the main
character’s morality. We are enticed to be on their “side” simply because
they are the focus of attention (and in this case the worse of two evils is
presented clearly), but their motives and actions are questionable. Sure
it’s fun to watch Indian Jones find gold things and kill Nazis or to watch
the good tornado chasers thwart the evil tornado chasers, but it’s also fun
to question the ideals of the character the film maker is dropping in your
lap saying “Here’s the good guy.”
There are a few
“suspension of disbelief” issues. It’s a movie based on a comic book, so
I’m already ready to accept a lot of hooey as truth. Two things really
rubbed me the wrong way though. Near the beginning V uses some sort of
concrete sealing gun to seal a door. When it happened I was like “woah that
was cool,” but the gun never reappears and there is little other technology
of the kind laying around in this not-so-far-in-the-future future. The
other that struck me as odd is the big brother-esk government can’t find
Natalie Portman when she leaves V and just starts walking around. I’m sure
they didn’t stop looking for her. They found her easily enough the first
time. They even try to explain it with a story about her at the supermarket
and that somehow when V changed her outlook on life it changed her enough
that no one would recognize her. Cheesy.
The plot of the movie resembles what most liberals would consider to be a
wet dream. One guy is wronged by the government, he gets mad, and somehow
gets the entire country to unite in toppling that government. Basically
imagine a 1984 government with a George Bush-esk hyper-conservative
religious right-winger gone awry mixed with a genetically enhanced masked
idealist. What you get is a heavy-handed political story with style and
violence. Add a misplaced dash of romance, british accents, numerous
references to Bonfire Night and there you have it. Oh and the dykes. |