V For Vendetta

Dunedin, Edinburgh, on March 20th, 2006
I'm sorry that I can't agree with the other contributors- V for Vendetta is a simply awful film. I have rarely seen such ham-fisted acting performances (particularly Natalie Portman who remarkably nearly tops her Star Wars performances), presumably explained away by the producers as part of the 'comic book style' of the film. It is just impossible to look at this film with anything but disdain, none of which is generated by the supposedly 'controversial' subject matter. Indeed the saddest part of the whole project for me is the knowledge that the Wachowski brothers probably feel they have made a profound political statement- for those thinking of seeing the film, let me assure you that the politics is remedial level and about as subtle as a brick through a window. In fact it is just plain crass, barely raised above a title of 'one of the worst film ever' by a Benny Hill homage and vintage special effects of London blowing up. Sadly these (and an expectedly decent Stephen Fry peformance) are not enough to make this film worth seeing. I saw it on the basis of a review describing it as "entertaining trash"- I'm afraid I can rate it is as nothing greater than simple "trash".

Tim Pendry, Tunbridge Wells, Kent, on March 19th, 2006
We saw the controversial ‘pro-terror’ film “V for Vendetta” this weekend – and we can see why much US conservative opinion might be horrified. This is a very British film in tone albeit one with Hollywood production values. There are very few concessions (though some important ones, especially about gender) to accepted liberal American political attitudes. It is deeply rooted in a text that was commenting on the chaos of the 1970s, the period in which the alleged coup plans against Harold Wilson were born, as much as it was an extreme projection of Thatcher's conservatism into a return of fascism. It is also a fantasy rooted in real places – Belmarsh, Larkhill, Leeds, a children’s school subject to a terror attack, recognisable family homes – and in recognizable institutions, including a British Television News that could be Sky TV or BBC1 and a police force that is often more realistic than that in many ‘gritty’ TV dramas. It lurches from realism to extreme fantasy in a way both seamless and disconcerting. It is also courageous and oddly moving for a fantasy – it references fascism, religion in politics, racism, state terror, censorship, specifically the war on terror. “America’s War” and “rendition” are also referenced. It is specific about the troubled relationship of art and politics. It could be footnoted with profit. The established printed media seem embarrassed by it and a common reaction is to try and dismiss it as poor quality or weak rather than wicked – this is the reaction of reviewers in both the New York Times and the London Times. What is disturbing is that the film is saying something very unequivocally. Despite all attempts to legislate glorification of terrorism out of existence, this film says that terrorism is not necessarily good but is ultimately permissible and even necessary as a tool of politics against extreme and violent authoritarianism. Its message is really that simple. Not even the “excuse” of occupation is used. All the players in the game are indigenous English, not even British. The script says that the possibility for people power to be exercised against real tyranny may rely on the political will of a terrorist to take on state terror in kind and that this inhuman Will has to be forged on an anvil of pain. It is that challenging. It is a sign that we still live in free societies that it can be made and distributed. Fortunately, it is just a film. See it and think.