Just got back from seeing V for Vendetta. It's a movie you'll find that stays with you long after you've left the theatre. Rife with parallels to the world of today while set in the near future it's a film that fills you with conflicted and uneasy feelings. Did I like the movie? I thought it was brilliant!

The message was clear - a commentary on totalitarian regimes, and the people who don't venture beyond the comfort of complacency and allow those in power to commandeer their lives. Maybe it's a clarion call for people to wake up and be interested in our governments; to question and hold accountable those whom we elect to govern our nations. Also a comment on definitions - terrorist vs freedom fighter. Words we've been made painfully aware of for the past 5 years since the strife of a far away land made its presence felt on a continent a world away. Is V a terrorist? Yes, but only to the corrupt government which is the focus of destruction. To the people he is a freedom fighter, the leader of their revolution.

Another uneasy theme is that of the end justifying the means. For V this is plain and clear but for the audience it's far more complex. Violence as a means to an end is difficult to justify, even as revenge (perhaps even more so as revenge). Then there was what V did to Evey - did he torture and brainwash her into believing in his cause - or did he simply strip away her complacency, her comfort, until she had nothing left to lose but her dignity, her pride, her sense of self and found it was a line she would not cross.

It's also a comment on media - the mechanism of spin that is the mouthpiece of the state. How people are fed what the state wishes, decrees, allows them to hear. How news reports are slanted to achieve the desired effect. Hmm - is it any wonder the movie was panned so viciously by major newspapers? The Washington Post "V for Vendetta is a piece of pulp claptrap; it has no insights whatsoever into totalitarian psychology and always settles for the cheesiest kinds of demagoguery and harangue as its emblems of evil." (full review here); New York Times ""This future-shock story about a masked avenger at war with a totalitarian British regime sags when it should zip." (full review here) for example. Maybe I'm just jaded. I take all my news with more than a grain of salt. The Toronto Star review even goes so far to say that "this is not the movie, and these are not the times, for sophisticated arguments." the sophisticated argument being that everyone is a terrorist until they become the government. Maybe this is not the movie, but why are these not the times? Who determines the "times" when we can question and debate these sophisticated arguments.

There has also been some panning of the main character being masked. Is not the use of the mask in theatre a practice that first began in ancient Greece? To me, the performance was masterful. To be able to convey emotion and evoke empathy from the audience all without facial cues takes considerable skill and artistry. I also felt Natalie Portman delivered her character well both as everywoman Evey, then Evey the victim, and finally Evey the politically aware revolutionary. It's interesting how both Evey and the Inspector (played by Stephen Rae) go on a journey by such different paths and end up in the same place. As the chancellor, John Hurt, played him a little over the top. But perhaps the actions and behaviour of any dictator seem over the top to the rational masses.

V for Vendetta - violent? yes. verbose? yes. thought-provoking? yes. must see? yes! yes! yes!