The Critic's Critic: V for Vendetta

Posted by David Wilcox on 05.01.2006

Two V's = one W, for Wrong.

Jeff Giles' review of V for Vendetta in the March 20, 2006 edition of Newsweek cuts to the chase fast - a thousand times faster than any of film's obfuscating monologues from V himself:

"V for Vendetta" will get its share of dismissive reviews—probably more than enough to convince hard-core fans that the movie was simply too smart and dangerous to be given safe passage. In point of fact, though, "Vendetta" is not good.

First of all - V for Vendetta aside - defensive criticism is pretty cowardly. People don't read reviews to find out what other critics are saying - we go to Rotten Tomatoes for that. This is your opinion, Mr. Giles, not a meta-opinion. If there was any strength in your conviction that this movie sucks, you wouldn't feel the need to justify it by pointing out your firm fit within the majority.

And here's the kicker - I agree with Mr. Giles. V for Vendetta is not good. And the film's share of dismissive reviews - which is a minority share, for the record - is indeed likely to be interpreted by hardcore devotees of the Wachowski brothers et al. as misinformed, jaded, close-minded, etc. But again, Mr. Giles, that's not how to start your review. You're eroding public confidence in your opinion by saying that you have very little yourself. Okay, next gripe:

...what we're dealing with is a lackluster comic-book movie that thinks terrorist is a synonym for revolutionary…it contains dialogue likely to offend anyone who's not, say, a suicide bomber.

And a shot rings across the bow…yet misses the boat entirely. V (Hugo Weaving) is no terrorist. It is the express goal of terrorists, in the contemporary sense of the word, to TERRORize a civilian population - most often by killing members of that population. Their actions typically serve an ideologically fueled goal - be it Islamic fundamentalism, communism, or simple anarchy. Do these criteria apply to V?

First of all, V's M.O. is nighttime demolition - so we can infer that he at least tries to avoid civilian casualties. Secondly, V has not terrorized the London populace - he has rallied them against the true targets of his campaign - its neo-totalitarian government.

Yet V defines his ideology in opposition to that government - unlike contemporary terrorists, he doesn't seem to embrace any cause of his own. In other words, he's kind of like today's Democrats - no true agenda, but you can be damn sure it's far away from that of the Republicans. But bollocks to critics like Giles who attempt to brand V a terrorist. The government V attempts to overthrow is indeed vile and venal and all those other v-words. Although he doesn't seem to pretend his efforts won't incur any "collateral damage," he is no mass murderer.

Yet V's insurrection and theatrics thinly mask what V literally stands for: vengeance. As a subject in a bio-weapons test gone awry, V is out to get the government that tortured and disfigured him. The fact that his enemies are part of an evil totalitarian regime is convenient, because it lightens the load of garnering allies. But would V wear the likeness of Guy Fawkes (the Briton who attempted to blow up Parliament in 1605's "Gunpowder Plot") and start the all-too-romanticized revolution if he wasn't so pissed off that the government damaged him dermatologically? Probably not - and that makes for one selfish, tunnel-visioned revolutionary with no cause, but rather an anti-cause.

The likely retort to my criticisms will be that V's lack of an agenda stems from his desire to empower the populace to start their own government and rule themselves fairly. While that's an admirable goal - hey, down with dictators - it's too bad V seems to forget something: that NEVER works. The revolutionary spirit will persist after the revolution, the inevitably unhappy will continue to revolt, and stagnation will ensue. Leaders - however democratic but by necessity authoritative - are needed.

V would be the most likely candidate - hell, by the end of the film half the country is wearing his garb like 4th graders on Halloween. But V seems to foresee the chaos that will ensue after Parliament is blown to bits and true to his irresponsibly revolutionary and selfish spirit, he effectively commits suicide after etching the names off of his "To Kill" list. Because vengeance is his, V doesn't stick around and lead the masses through the wreckage of the revolt he started. We aren't left to worry about that wreckage either, because in V for Vendetta, all that matters is revolution for revolution's sake. But terrorism, Mr. Giles? Not in this film's thesaurus. Maybe you should check yours.