For those of you out there who loved Brokeback Mountain but wished Ang Lee’s gay-friendly opus had featured a bit more butt kicking than butt ramming, and who felt the stifling period atmospherics of Good Night and Good Luck’s First Amendment defense could have been enlivened with a dash more future-goth posing and David Strathairn speaking truth to power from behind a Guy Fawkes mask, then, finally, at long last, ye olde Reverseblog has a film for you:

V for Vendetta had all the makings of an LOLocaust along the likes of which the world had never seen: a shorn Natalie Portman (snigger), the aforementioned ubiquitous Guy Fawkes mask (chuckle), graphic novel source material (heh heh), and worst of all, an effete swashbuckling hero with killer bangs, who peppers his speech with quotations from Shakespeare and words that start with the letter “V” and inhabits an art-filled tower hideout in which a rotation of classic torch songs and anonymous chick-folk stream from a classic jukebox (Oh dear god, make it stop…)—this looked a promising contender to knock the eye rape that was Ultraviolet off its perch as my worst of ’06 thus far. V for Vendetta couldn’t be good, right?

And, cheesy as it is, it may not be, but I’ll be damned if I didn’t get more than a little bit swept up in the agit-prop fervor of the work, one whose good intentions far outweigh and surpass its execution. This is not to say that V for Vendetta is poorly made—on the contrary, James McTeigue’s direction is, refreshingly, a far cry less flashy than one would expect from a Wachowski brother protégé, hewing closely as it does to a scope of action delineated by actual corporeality that avoids wading too deeply into the waters of bullet-time or extensive CGI work. It’s rather that, given the politics the film endorses, and how surprising their appearance in a blockbuster was, I left wishing that V for Vendetta might have been just a few notches more ingenious. Though, given the relative paucity of free-speech and pro-gay-mongering found in the majority of high-budget action movies, I suppose beggars can’t be choosers. I hate to burden ostensible popcorn entertainment with the mantle of "relevance," but well....V for Vendetta may be among the most openly pro-gay blockbusters ever.

I’ll go out on a limb: packaging this kind of rhetoric in with a rip-roaring (or close to it) actioner is a more important and valuable gesture than the sum of Brokeback Mountain and Good Night and Good Luck. Are those films better? We can leave that up to personal preference (for my part: yes to Brokeback, possibly to GN&GL). But I think that the dissemination of the ideals that these films share may stand a better chance at long term success in the places where they really need to be heard when not worn so openly on the sleeve. Radical polemic is important (though none of these films really are that), but there’s something to be said for the subtle, gradual absorption of unfamiliar ideals engendered by the lulling confines of a blockbuster narrative. As duly noted in the only salvageable sequence of Thank You For Smoking, Hollywood images have power over their audiences: There’s a reason why this shit works, and I dare any homophobe out there to sit down with V and not feel a twinge of outrage in the face of the neo-Fascist government’s persecution of homosexuals—the way this is framed in the narrative, against the backdrop of an unexpected, sun-dappled coming out tale parked three-quarters of the way in allows no other response. They say classical Hollywood manipulates, and well if these are the ends, the means might well be justified.

Joe Arkansas wasn’t buying a ticket to Brokeback no matter how many awards it won, how much money it made. But he might buy a ticket for V for Vendetta and end up confronting some ingrained assumptions—perhaps the, admittedly over-baked, combination of a Fascistic government, societal suppression and the castigation of minority groups might be eye-opening. Perhaps not. It’s all so obvious that part of me did chuckle at V for Vendetta until I stopped to think just how long it’s taken people to come around and realize how fucked we actually are under Bush II. Call me a Northeastern, elitist liberal, but when history weighs in with its assessment of this presidency, I’ll wager a twenty that I get the last laugh. Still a few steps away from the full-on superhomo outing that would have upended the apple cart entirely, V for Vendetta is, nevertheless, surprisingly watchable idea-porn that’ll square well with the lefty set (who among those this administration has alienated doesn’t occasionally wish for a lone hero wearing a Leon Czolgosz mask to enter stage right and correct society’s wrongs?), but I wonder if its effects might not be more widespread. Not quite the head-on confrontation with Conservativism that Brokeback was, though never seemed to really want to be, we may all look back on V with the benefit of hindsight and find it to be the more indicative of, and influential on its time.

I was surprised by how blunt the writers of V For Vendetta were. I happened to watch Farenheit 911 that day and was definitely moved by the message of V. That being said, I was incredibly disappointed with the pacing and tone (mostly due to the dialogue) of the film. I just didn't find it to be entertaining. Now, Batman Begins was great... had a message and was a kick-ass film

I concur, Clarence. Good film. Relevant popcorn films are exactly what we need right now...

The free pass given to V for Vendetta by a majority of film critics absolutely baffles me. Are we so bereft of ideas for a truly oppositional cinema, are we so dependent on Hollywood to throw us the meagerest scraps of innocuous, warmed-over liberalism that we must laud a compromised studio-produced mediocrity that panders to rather than challenges audiences? Is this considered progress? It all reminds me of watching in dismay as many critics gave Fahrenheit 9/11 the go ahead because "it might unseat George W. Bush" (and we all know how well that plan went) without considering the irreperable damage the film caused political filmmaking and audience expectations of political filmmaking. In V we have a film that destroys any possible "relevance" it might contain by foregoing representation of current political and cultural realities (which would've involved, you know, complexity), instead relying on a "fascist dystopia" setting as the battleground for warring ideologies. Nevermind that this strategy produces a simplistic good v. evil dichotomy that effectively eliminates grey areas; nevermind that the American empire is not fascist (this seems more like a liberal wish/fantasy to transforms his powerlessness into a badge of martyrdom rather than the tactical failure it is) but a capitalist-imperialist-militarist empire much more difficult to depict through action film conventions; nevermind that this reflects back nothing to the spectator of the true state of the nation in 2006. Put all that side for the moment and recognize the basic recuperation the film sets into play to neutralize any revolutionary effect it might impart -- that the film makes the struggle over government corruption and dominance look so easy as to practically not need mass participation. Don't worry, another strong daddy-figure will take care of things, figure out all the messy details that will provide instantaneous liberation. This is the same major problem of Moore's work -- the spectator is never meant to feel his or her own personal responsibility as a citizen of the capitalist-imperialist-militarist empire -- for that, the film would actually have to critique its own status as a commodity within that very system, which of course it would never do, happy punch-puller and bottom-line worshipper that it is. No major audience assumptions gets challenged by V when its major points are that homophobia and fascism are cruel (the film doesn't even shed new light on the Bush Administration's fear-baiting, militarism, and media manipulation) and I gaurantee its impact, like Fahrenheit's, will ultimately be minimal. How can it not be when it supposes a top-down messianic solution to bottom-up, concrete societal problems?
The next issue of RS will deal with the nature of subversive cinema (can I reveal this yet?). That seems an important project to me. Because if V is now considered subversive, the possibility of a populist, subversive American cinema with the true intent of challenging the assumptions and beliefs of its audience is in major trouble.

mjr - all valid points, well taken. And I don’t necessarily disagree with any of them, in principle or theory. But I do think your argument could benefit from the addition of a hair more pragmatism. Simply put: the kind of cinema you're describing isn't selling tickets now, and aside from the rare exception never has. I’m all for the truly subversive, for oppositional cinema, but let’s be realistic, that’s not where the majority of folks go to get their ideological spoonfeeding so forgive me if I take some small pleasure in the idea of a smattering of warmed-over liberalism in a movie that put up a decent gross its opening weekend. Warmed over or no, given the climate (especially in relation to homosexuals, though recent polls suggest attitudes continue to shift for the better—perhaps because of, or in the wake of mass-market entertainments?) I’ll take it.

The left is certainly guilty of tactical failure, but I think there’s more than a bit of painfully self-righteous ideological purity that we could pinpoint as a root cause for our current dire straits as well. Two nice real world examples illustrate: just recently NARAL shunned a Democratic challenger to Rhode Island’s incumbent Republican senator Lincoln Chafee preferring to endorse the Republican because Chafee’s record reflects a stronger pro-privacy bias, regardless of the fact that he works as an enabler (however quietly) of a regime whose overall project is aimed at limiting private reproductive rights. Second, the lauded Voting Rights Act of 1965: while it has led to greater access to the political process for a host of minority groups, certain (pure) interpretations of some of its key provisions around drawing electoral district lines are clearly and directly responsible for the ongoing Republican majority in Congress. More minorities in Congress, sure, but at the price of an ideological majority that could advance their agenda. Sticking to one’s guns is laudable, but I think striking a balance between ideals and the reality of the playing field is key.

And I know, I know—this sounds like a defeatist argument, but I truly don’t believe it is. I/we/Reverse Shot/lefties can still strive for the high ground, but if we cede the middle we will continue to lose. Period. V FOR VENDETTA is certainly flawed in many of the ways you suggest, I won’t deny that. But I don’t know if I find it productive, especially given the mode of address it chooses (the action film—and this is key, key, key to my positive appraisal) to blast its warmed-over liberal intentions simply because they’re not liberal enough. GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, sure—who is that preaching to, except the choir? But, I still think about Joe Arkansas buying his ticket for V at the Regal Fayetteville 12, and coming out feeling a little differently about some things. How’s that for idealism?

I also think you’re coming down a bit hard on allegory (that Bible still seems to be selling well…), but I think that might be a nice discussion to save for the next Reverse Shot….

A response to some of the points you make in the last part of your response to my first response:

"[C]oming out feeling a little differently about some things." Which "things"? Your phrasing unintentionally(?) illuminates the major problem with V, the heart of its contradictory status as both message movie and studio blockbuster -- it's about "things," not complex realities or even political issues, just broadly represented, soundbyten "topics." If anything, the Hollywood blockbuster incorporates current events in order to renew its vocabulary and "relevance," but what it gives back is negligible. V may be a reflection of the collective consciousness, at least the anti-Bush side, but it's also a reflection of the substanceless rhetoric that has now defined mainstream political discourse. And even if it's mirror-art, it's certainly not hammer-art. How will Joe Arkansas come out "feeling a little differently" about the "things" V simplistically depicts? There's always the "if one person changes it's all worth it" argument, but I don't buy that. Maybe some young, graphic novel collecting goth will begin working for MoveOn.org after watching the film, who knows, but macroscopically I truly believe -- and maybe it's my own hardcore political stance talking here -- that V and its mainstream ilk are actually damaging in their aesthetic and ideological safeness. It's the same problem with the Democratic party (which, on a personal note, I completely reject as any sort of opposition to the Bush Administration and capitalist-imperialist-militarist corruption) -- "Sure, Kerry stinks, even SUPPORTED THE WAR, but it's about beating Bush this election" = "Sure, it's a big-budget studio-produced reinforcement of patriarchal values, Christian mythology, and individualistic capitalism (possibly fascism -- the masses follow V as unthinkingly as their former totalitarian ruler) using generic formula that does nothing to challenge cinematic conventions and the audience's relationship to illusionistic spectacle, but . . . it's against Bush."

I must sound like a raving lunatic by now, but I'm just perplexed that critical analysis goes out the window for major releases, as if marketplace ubiquity could ever trump compromise and self-contradiction. I'm not against allegory at all (I loved Dogville -- let the conversation REALLY begin), but I'm against V. Is it a huge film that due its political "relevance" starts dialogue in a manner the choir-preachers never can? Yes, agreed. But it's a short-term gain versus what will be a long-term loss in bringing real issues to public awareness. That's what coddling inevitably brings.

That piece of language you cite was actually wholly intentional. From my perspective, I like the idea of a movie that might precipitate an unexpected ideological queasiness that could engender confusion, and eventually the crisis that I think we both want. We’re looking for the same ends, just different means. V FOR VENDETTA may be a movie about “things” as you say, but at least its not about “(no)things.”

I should have noted that I’m especially thinking of this effect in light of the film’s handling of homosexuals, much less so in its anti-establishment poses. By singling out homosexuals as the one “deviant” group actively oppressed and punished by the John Hurt regime, I think the film cleverly plays off the binary between (yes, simplistic) good/evil that Hollywood convention relies on. The film just doesn’t allow Joe A. homophobe the opportunity to sit in his seat and think to himself, “Well, this government is pretty bad, and I support its downfall because I align myself with the hero, but I do agree with their position on taking the gays, rounding ‘em up and using them for horrible experiments.” Joe may not even consciously realize what’s happened to him (movie magic!), whereas I guarantee he stayed away from BROKEBACK exactly because he was expecting a conversion call. That’s where I think the potential value of V lies, and I’ll freely admit that I’m perhaps being a tad optimistic.

And let’s not underestimate the power of ubiquity. (Perceived ubiquity, after all, is one of the last few threads that allows the myth of the conservative majority to continue propagating). Of course I’d prefer a host of truly politically complicated works to steam their way through theatres across the country changing minds from coast to coast, but the odds are stacked far against that happening any time soon. Sometimes it IS just about electing Kerry and beating Bush, and I think we have to take these small victories and actively build upon them for incremental changes, rather than steadfastly demanding the ideological coup d’etat which I think we both know isn’t in the offing.

I’d even go so far as to say that given the film sparked the dialogue that we’re having right here—one I think is wholly necessary—and that folks will read it and consider the issues at stake it’s already done a fair bit of good, at least in our little corner of the blogosphere.

Warmed-over liberalism? Here's a movie that portrays the administration as a fascistic, fundamentalist propaganda machine; the mainstream media as an arm of the government; the war on terror as a big fat lie; the terrorist V as pure blowback creation; the current Iraq War as the prelude to the collapse of the U.S.; the citizenry as a narcotized mass of nodding nitwits; and violence as the only solution to snapping the masses out of their slumber (Marcuse would've loved the ending). Put aside the contradictions and ambiguities the movie skips over: these are some of the most radical messages to be contained in any American movie—Hollywood, indie, whatever—since that sum'bitch Reagan was in the White House.

Sure it foregoes "representation of current political and cultural realities," but so did WILD BUNCH, LITTLE BIG MAN, MASH, etc. Do we assail those movies for using metaphor to express their oppositional politics?

Is it simplistic? Of course it is. It's pop, it's in thousands of theaters, and it was designed to be the #1 movie over the weekend (call it agit-pop). Is it brilliant? It's not, and my eyes are wide open to the film's problems. But I just can't get on board with the view that it "reflects back nothing to the spectator of the true state of the nation in 2006," or that just because it won't start the revolution means it's part of the problem. Yes, dystopia is easy, but making dystopia recognizable is less so. V for Vendetta does that, encapsulating and rousing a half-decade's worth of indignation, making Sutler's government seem familiar and our own seem alien. For that it deserves credit.

To Clarence -- it seemed to me that the film's anti-homophobia was so embarrassingly blatant that anyone harboring prejudice against gays and lesbians would just outright reject it, regardless of the fact that the villain he's supposed to hate is a fundamentalist homophobe.

As for your statement "Sometimes it IS just about electing Kerry and beating Bush, and I think we have to take these small victories and actively build upon them for incremental changes, rather than steadfastly demanding the ideological coup d’etat which I think we both know isn’t in the offing." Basically, this goes back to something you said before about the ends justifying the means. I don't subscribe to this line of thought because, well, it can lead in dangerous directions, both in political arena and the cinematic one.

To EV -- Actually, everything you cited is warmed-over liberalism. Comparisons of Bush to Hitler; the outcries over his administration's connections to the Christian right; Fox News' out in the open support of the Republican cause; the rising awareness that government policies have not only generated terrorism but are also fighting terrorism in the wrong places, e.g. the Iraq War; all of these have been liberal talking points for a while now and they have found their way into popular entertainment without making so much as a dent in the public consciousness. V has surely brought together all these bullet points under one razzle dazzle big top -- it's sad that we're expected to be so contented with the faint awareness Hollywood has taken nearly five years to express when most people who don't need to be manipulated to form opinions were onto the bullshit on 9/12. Anyway, the effect of the film will be slight. And I believe this because I disagree that the film makes "dystopia recognizable." For example, the film's use of the Holocaust imagery Spielberg made appropriate and sterilized for mass spectatorship in the torture and concentration camp scenes bears no relationship to the real-life cruelties of Guantanomo and Abu Ghraib (and significantly, there is not a single Muslim in the film -- still too risky a representation to undertake in a blockbuster, it seems) and will not be able to jostle or raise righteous indignation in a contemporary mainstream audience that is, let's face it, awfully jaded in its response to onscreen violence. And anyway, what's it to react to when dystopic allegory (I wouldn't call it a metaphor) has been buried deep into the ground by its reactionary leanings (the messianism, the unilluminated fascism of the "narcotized mass of noddling nitwits" -- what audience wants to relate to a film that panders AND condescends to it in such a way? -- all the recuperations I mentioned in earlier responses). The film doesn't make our own government seem alien because its portrayal in the film is so hyperbolic and standard-issue totalitarian movie regime that it has nothing to do with the much more subtle machinations of capitalist empire that form the true foundation for Bush's "mandate."

Oh, by the way, V is being distributed by Warner Bros., a branch of Time Warner. TW until recently owned Hughes Electronics Corporation, which, in a merger with Raytheon forms Raytheon Industries, a prime manufacturer of missiles for the United States Army. God knows what Warner Bros. is connected to now, but just thought people should know that the minds behind the The Matrix were part of a conglomerate responsible for blowing up Afghani homes, at the very least. I don't mean to be nasty about this, I really do think it should serve as a reminder that the major studios are in league with major business interests, which often take part in the business of war.

All this political spectralizing is well and good and everything, but the movie was still bad. He wore a cheesy Eyes Wide Shut mask through the whole thing. The middle section, with Natalie Portman's incarceration, was pretty good and got me involved, but the rest of it was just trash. I would call it a faux action movie, or an inaction movie, or just ridiculously dull. And so let me get this straight, he liberated the country by convincing everyone to dress alike, like him? I expected to really like this movie and agree with the writer here who asked why the critics would give such an unsatisfying movie a free ride. Ooooh, Spoiler Alert! He even gets himself killed in the last act. How 14 year old boy is that? I read Roger Ebert's review, and he didn't even have anything good to say about it but still gave it three stars and two thumbs up.

So V is distributed by WB, a branch of TW, that until recently owned HEC, which merged with Raytheon and as RI made missiles for the USA. I really, genuinely don't mean to be nasty about this MJR, but that sounds like warmed-over liberal conspiracy talk to me. The same connect the elliptical dots strategy that your warmed-over pin-cushion Michael Moore likes to employ. Yes, it's all about conglomerates and corporate interests, and yes I wish it wasn't, but to chalk everything up to capitalist machinations is to limit the conversation to that which can be mastered by a Marxist POV. To expect any dystopian critique of governmental intolerance, etc., to address a more revolutionary need for mass participation and a sea change of anti-capitalist agitation is both limiting to art and discussion and a bit naive about revolutions and social change. I don't mean to weigh down your ideology with history, but there aren't too many examples of long-term bottom-up societal solutions that weren't just as corruptible as what came before. Power corrupts, and manipulates, and in the wrong hands does some terrible things, and I don't see anything wrong or counterproductive with popular art that explores this, however broadly or unsophisticatedly.

It's also at least worth mentioning that the source text was allegorically critiquing the Thatcher administration, and that this might complicate our or the film's desire to easily extend the critique to the Bush/Blair era.

I do not offer a conspiracy theory, Eshman, I offer fact. And the major fact is -- as much as we would like to forgot about it or, if we squint a little, pretend the elephant in the room just isn't there -- that the major studios are aligned with corporate interests, many of which take part in the media manipulation and arms manufacturing we can reliably state are direct lead-ins to the rampant militarism of United States political policy. Here's another example that might illuminate this point: people talk about the revolution in networking and communication fostered by a public forum like myspace.com, but fail to ackowledge that site's parent company, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. So while it might seem cutting edge that one can listen to the new Yeah Yeah Yeahs track on their myspace page before the album comes out, and that the free availability of the track might make it known to a wider audience beyond the play-it-safe confines of MTV/mainstream radio, that page also creates advertising revenue for a corporation that unabashedly serves as a spin machine/propaganda arm of the Bush administration. But most can't or won't see this troubling contradiction. That content is so often divorced, in the public consciousness, from the economic system in which it circulates spells disaster for media literacy and analysis. I understand that certain people -- especially those who still retain romantic optimism for the subversive power of Hollywood film (and I, at times but with reservations, can be one of those people) -- would like to believe that cracks and frissures in the filmic text alone occasion revolutionary rhetoric. If anything, one of the biggest problems in film criticism is the failure to acknowledge the systems of power and profit that often compromise even the most progressive of texts -- or, at the very least, the acknowledgement of the monetary recuperation (for possibly shady corporate masters) of what a particular film might have endangered ideologically.

I don't expect my concerns to be shared -- "idealistic" and "naive" are the most popular words leveled at such thinking. That's too bad, because I don't think one must necessarily take up a "Marxist POV" to understand the conflicts -- which apply to filmmaking as much as to our lives overall -- that result from living within a capitalist economic system. And while I don't have many societal solutions of my own (except anarchy -- there, I revealed my romantic side), the long-term possibilities you easily dismiss as "just as corruptible as what came before" don't have to be Marxist either. My last response was written, in part, to shed light on something that is often completely ignored in film criticism, but I think it's boring and a waste of energy "to chalk everything up to capitalist machinations." In any case, considering film in such terms certainly doesn't "limit the conversation" -- let the conversation be opened up by a new angle from which we can understand art and entertainment! I sure don't see even leftist film critics examining the intersection of capital and moviemaking.

As for V (the catalyst for this whole discussion!) and its beginnings as an allegory about the Thatcher administration, this seems to be a further instance of the film's overgeneralizing tendencies, that it can, with a few alterations perhaps, be mapped onto the activities of several different corrupt governments, across eras and oceans, without much difficulty in translation. I'm glad it's imparting some big lessons, though: "Power corrupts, and manipulates, and in the wrong hands does some terrible things." Shrug.

forgive my late posting:
"This is the same major problem of Moore's work -- the spectator is never meant to feel his or her own personal responsibility as a citizen of the capitalist-imperialist-militarist empire -- for that, the film would actually have to critique its own status"===alan moore, an actual anarchist, and an incredibly intelligent (catch the alliteration, this is "V for Vendetta" we're discussing) has disowned any involvement with the film you should know. don't implicate him in your critique. if anything his works address directly that which you criticize.
Further: "Maybe some young, graphic novel collecting goth will begin working for MoveOn.org after watching the film" Yes, a whole mode of art must be reduced toa cliche. and by the by, most of moore's works were comic books, not simply "graphic novels" but they're only read by teenage goths anyways. alan moore is far more intelligent and incisive into the contemporary world than most filmmakers discussed on these pages but, hell, he's only a cartoonist.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but I meant Michael Moore, not Alan Moore.