The Wayward Cynic

director: James McTeigue
starring: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, John Hurt

Remember, remember, the fifth of November, gunpowder treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot. Guy Fawkes, Guy Fawkes, ’twas his intent to blow up the King and the Parliament. Three score barrels of powder below, Poor old England to overthrow: By God’s providence he was catch’d With a dark lantern and burning match. Holloa boys, holloa boys, make the bells ring. Holloa boys, holloa boys, God save the King! Hip hip hoorah!

It’s easy to come away from V for Vendetta thinking it’s a direct assault on the current Bush Administration (and perhaps the UK’s prime minister as well) and a seemingly glorified account of a terrorist. But to sum up the film with such a narrow focus would be to do V for Vendetta enormous discredit. There will be people who see this and get annoyed at its liberal poke at the “fascist” Bush government, and those who will simply see it as a popcorn flick. I think it works on both levels pretty well, but I think the central theme of the movie transcends a simple critique of the current government. Yes, the content has obvious ties to what’s going on in the world today (Iraq, terrorism, religious intolerance, discrimination based on sexual orientation), but it’s much more than that. V for Vendetta is, quite simply, about the power of the Idea. Wearing the visage of 17th century religious freedom fighter-cum-terrorist Guy Fawkes, the title character “V” becomes a living Idea himself; a symbol the people will never forget and rally behind. V himself says it best: “Beneath this mask there is more than flesh. There is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bulletproof.”

The Idea is something our governments, our religious leaders, and our media can try to suppress and manipulate, but they can never truly destroy it. They can never truly destroy the will an Idea can bring about in a group of people, whether it be 10 or 10,000. What V for Vendetta is truly about is that we should hold on to our Ideas, because they can bring about great, positive change when put to good use. At the same time, it can bring about great horror and destruction as well. Of central debate in the movie is whether or not terrorism is ever an acceptable avenue to voice one’s opinion or bring about change. It is a wholly relevant debate in light of today’s current political and social climates.

Based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore, the film itself is, in a word, great. While it can be incoherent in execution and tends to feel a bit disjointed at times, as a whole it is extremely entertaining, from V’s unforgettably written (by the Wachowski brothers) and delivered (by Hugo Weaving) dialogue to the fight sequences to the epic-in-scale action setpieces at the climax of the film. (I’ve gotta find a fantastic quote from early on in the film that makes full use of the V section of the dictionary. I’ll post it when I find it.) All the acting is first-rate, though Portman’s attempt at an English accent seems on the edge of barely passable. My favorite performance is John Hurt’s raging Chancellor Sutler, a megalomaniacal despot hell-bent on absolute control of his subjects. Irony-in-spades when you consider the star of 1984 is now playing Big Brother in V for Vendetta. The music is top-notch; Dario Marianelli’s score is a great, sweeping orchestral composition, and in the mix are masterpieces from history’s past. I don’t think I’ve ever enjoyed the 1812 Overture quite as much as I did here.

Repeat viewings are a must to fully appreciate what I’ve seen, but I would definitely recommend it to anyone who enjoys a good flick. Indeed, upon further reflection, I think some of the inherent symbolism of the movie is a bit too in-your-face and obvious at times, which wasn’t necessary. The filmgoing audience often isn’t given enough credit. Some, more than others, will be turned off by what they’d view as a “slap-in-the-face wake-up call” mentality of the movie–they’ll focus on the inherent liberalism of a movie bent on portraying George W. Bush as a fascist and glorifying the actions of a terrorist. Some will tend to focus more on what the implications of the film’s central Idea mean to our current government and the media that reports on their actions. Indeed, it forces you to question the true interests behind our current leaders and their actions. Some will focus simply on the fighting and explosions. And it works pretty well as a popcorn flick; fear not. In the end, what I find to be the greatest, single quality that V for Vendetta has to offer is that it will inspire debate and leave you thinking long after having left the theater.

V: People should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people.

director: Fernando Mereilles
starring: Ralph Fiennes, Rachel Weisz, Pete Postlethwaite

A magnificent film by City of God director Fernando Mereilles, The Constant Gardener tells the story of a husband and wife separated by brutal tragedy but eventually reunited through the husband’s discovery of not only a far-reaching conspiracy to commit crimes against humanity, but also the life’s work of his wife–and, therein, he finds a connection to her that transcends any mortal coil. Look at me, I sound like a film critic.

If you want to try and classify what kind of genre The Constant Gardener fits into, you’ll have a tough time, though my guess is most will call it a thriller wrapped in the love story of Fiennes’ and Weisz’ characters, the former a British diplomat, the latter a political activist investigating the involvement of global pharmaceutical companies in African drug trials. It’s difficult to describe the setup to the film, as it involves the biggest plot point of all, so I’ll avoid that, but what I will say is that the film centers on Fiennes’ character picking up his wife’s investigation into the aforementioned phamaceutical companies, and their relation with the government he works for. Intercut along the way are flashbacks to moments with his wife, and they are just as much a part of his “investigation” as the work he’s doing in Africa trying to track down leads and discover just what she was working on. Fiennes’ character has a prediliction for gardening–constantly, you might say (o cheerio, good chap, that was spot-on!), and it’s the very apparent metaphor for his investigation. What I find particularly interesting about his character, Justin Quayle, is that Fiennes isn’t playing the rugged, heroic everyman out to save the world character so often found in suspense thrillers. He’s no less driven, but he carries himself with a quiet intensity that can be just as powerful as an over-the-top superhero-type portrayal (the image below notwithstanding).

Gardener’s visuals range from the stark whites and greys of Europe to the rich palatte inherent in Africa, and taking it all in is just as important as delving into the plot itself, which has the writing of novelist John le Carré to thank for its often-dense exposition (though it’s by no means boring). I think many viewers will get turned off to that, and find the entire movie somewhat tedious to get through. But, I think that’s a matter of taste. It has elements of many different genres, and it’s probably chiefly a mystery-action thriller, but you’re not going to find explosions, gun battles, or car chases (well, there is one chase) here; it’s about the quest Fiennes’ embarks upon, fueled by the rediscovery of the love he has for his wife. And I don’t mean it to sound like a chick flick (but it can certainly work on that level). But listen, this movie won’t be for everyone. It’s not a popcorn flick, it’s not an event film, it’s not meant to dazzle your eyes and ears. If you appreciate the art of film itself, I think you’ll love The Constant Gardener.

director: Florent Emilio Siri
starring: Bruce Willis, Kevin Pollak, Ben Foster

Hostage is never quite what it appears to be on the surface–not quite the standard hostage movie its advertised as being. Based on external appearances, what seems to be in another long line of cliched hostage dramas turns out to be a pretty engrossing and exciting flick, worthy of some kudos solely for its relative originality. Bruce Willis stars as a disgraced hostage negotiator trying to save two families in Hostage. It will be difficult to speak in great detail about the plot without ruining some of the story points, so I’ll avoid it, but suffice it to say that there are some pleasant surprises (plot-wise) along the way that make Hostage more than a run-of-the-mill hostage thriller.

Right from the creative opening credits does the flick catches your attention, setting up the opening sequence quite nicely as we first meet hostage negotiator-cum-hippie Willis, combing his substantial beard. That’s not to the say the sequence is low-key–it’s anything but and the tension is full-force. Also apparent is the director’s Florent Emilio Siri attraction to sweeping crane and helicopter shots which, along with the slightly overdone music, can make for some unnecessarily dramatic camera shots. Slow motion seems to be another favorite of his, and although used sparingly, it doesn’t work when it is used.

Nevertheless, the movie’s strengths outweigh its faults, and this is most apparent in its characters and plot. It’s based on a best-seller, so the screenwriter obviously had some good material to work with, and it shows. For the most part, none of the characters act as the cliched stereotypes you’d expect to see in this genre. Again, I can’t get into too much without revealing major plot points here, but it’s refreshing to see characters that don’t fit the mold you’ve seen in countless action thrillers of the past. And the plot itself takes you places you never thought it would. As I said, the flick isn’t as conventional a movie as you may think, based on its trailers and commercials. Hostage is a pleasant surprise and worth a watch.