Love it or hate it

Rating: 10/10 (10 January 2009)

I have watched 'V for Vendetta' five times by now, the first time four weeks ago. Every time I discovered some important new aspects I have not realized before. First off I want to state that this has become my favourite movie, as a consequence of this I can give it a 10 of 10 in good conscience. I'm writing this comment as a reply to a comment a user named Traveller wrote back in 2007, although I think he never will read my reply. I believe you'll get my point even without knowing the comment I'm referring to.
Traveller, I totally disagree with your position. The stylistic device of exaggeration is nothing special - It's just as Evey quotes her dad in the movie, "artists use lies to tell the truth, while politicians use them to cover the truth up". I don't believe the point that Sutler is a member of the Conservative Party of England to be of great importance. Of course there have been some efforts in England for the last 20 years that are criticized by the film, but I see 'V for Vendetta' as criticism on the cut down of individual rights and personal freedom in many countries, not especially England. I think it's also a stylistic device, that the film deals with England exemplarily whereas it's meaning is more general. This stylistic device of concretion allows the audience a much closer experience of the plot and identification with the characters. It has been used at another important aspect in this movie: The character of 'V'. There are countless hints in the movie that tell us, that 'V' actually is not an individual but a representation of any person, for instance: 'V' saying "Who is but the form following the function of what", Gordon saying to Evey he was 'V', or the fact that 'V' never takes off his mask. Actually I would have hated Evey for taking off his mask in the final scene, because it would have destroyed this important aspect of 'V for Vendetta'.
Furthermore it isn't right that the hero's skills are never explained. It is being told in the movie that he was genetically modified. It is of less matter to the audience the movie addresses, *how* 'V' manages to "breeze his way through the most advanced security systems". And because we know, that 'V' succeeded to steel some butter from Chancellor Sutler, we can easily imagine that it's not a big deal to dig up some money. In 'V for Vendetta' it is of less matter *how* things are done than *why*. When you're keen on watching bad guys being slaughtered esthetically, watch a different genre, watch movies like Riddick or 300.
It is also wrong that 'V' will "go to any lengths to force his views on people". In his speech on the government's TV channel he calls on the people to follow him *if* they have recognized the government's crimes and they feel ready to stand up against it. The point that 'V' imprisoned Evey is a complex one: On the one hand, you have to say that Evey told 'V' her wish to lose all her fear. In the end of her imprisonment 'V' tells her to "have no fear any more" and to be "completely free". On the other hand, this point erases the illusion of a separation between good and evil: There's nothing good without something evil inside, or: In order to achieve the good, the evil's practices are being used - in our world - not stating whether this is bad or not. This point has a lot of depth to think about.
As you can see, this is *not* a "hollow, ostentatious, politically outdated lump of pseudo-anarchist propaganda" at all, it's just someone missing the opportunity to take a look under the surface, to read between the lines, to think about the input you're receiving. But in my honest opinion, exactly *this* is the main purpose of art: To make people think. Most of all, the topic the movie deals with is not outdated: Ever heard the terms Patriot Act or Thatcherism? I think I even discovered an allusion on 9/11.
The fact that 'V' keeps quoting "the great works of literature" may be less related to the plot. But what's wrong with packing a message into a beautiful quotation? To be honest, most of his quotations gave me the creeps. I think there's nothing to complain about at this point.
You have asked, why "a simple chief-inspector of police" is "investigating a case that has the potential to bring down the whole of society?" The answer is: Because he is *simple*, because he is still a human being. That's exactly what this chief-inspector says about 'V' in the film.
To come to talk to the acting, especially that of Stephen Rea as chief-inspector Finch: I've not experienced him as stricken at all, but as consequently stoical. After all, he is sober and bold enough to question his chiefs. I think this role is played quite well.
Finally I have to admit that I have not understood the relation to Guy Fawkes as well: Yes, he was a man standing behind his idea while facing the death, but I think there were quite a lot of people in history who did so.
I think it is remarkable that 80% of the ratings this movie received are either 1, 8, 9 or 10 of 10: There are very few ratings in between. It seems like you either have to love this movie or you have to hate it. My personal explanation for this is that the people who rated 1 of 10 didn't really understand it - It's not a movie you can just watch, it's greatest trump is that it makes you think a lot. But if you don't notice that, you will think that it's flat and hollow.