[I hope this review doesn't give anything away.]
The flick "V for Vendetta" is pretty good, leaning more toward the
"popcorn" end of the good-movie spectrum and less toward the "classic"
end. It's an anarchist dream (one that I wish could be true). What's
most important about it is that it's quite popular with audiences,
showing a dissipation of the "911 syndrome," at least among younger
audiences.
The L.A. TIMES capsule review complains that the image of the future
authoritarian government is a bit sketchy. I'd say instead that it
leaves a lot to the imagination, an imagination fed with "rendition"
and black hoods over government prisoners' heads. As with most
political thrillers, it's really about the present, not the future:
viewers link the elements of the present that show up in the film to
fill out a picture of current reality. I don't know what UKers think,
but it also seems to me to be more about the US than about England
(where it officially takes place). The little glimpses of the "former
United States of America" and its decline into chaos are quite sharp.
To paraphrase a lot of reviewers, is the male lead ("V") a terrorist
or a freedom fighter? obviously, both. (In a serious movie, a hero is
typically impure!) Strictly speaking, V's a horrible person (though
his intentions are good). But that's because he's a product of a
horrible society. The hope at the end is that he was the midwife
(midhusband?) for a better society.
The main hole in the story is that V seems to have unlimited
resources; he can pull almost anything off.
Awhile back I launched a joking sneer at the pretentions of
professional movie critics. One reply was that while anyone can do
movie critiques, that doesn't mean that others will choose to read
them. That's right. The business of movie criticism like a market.
Some people are much more successful as critics because they're more
popular in terms of garnering readers and/or dollars (e.g., Gene
Shalit). Of course, as economists should know, markets often fail.
--
Jim Devine / "There can be no real individual freedom in the presence
of economic insecurity." -- Chester Bowles
