My wife and I watched “V for Vendetta” on DVD the other night, and it was OK – nothing that dystopian screenwriters and novelists haven’t done before, just bloodier and with bigger explosions. But I was totally blown away when Evey wandered out of the prison cell only to find V had been her captor all along. So, we took the DVD back the next day, and as I’m driving away from Blockbuster, I had a “What the hell?!” moment. It occurred to me that, during Every’s “interrogation,” we had actually seen Creedy interrogating here. I mean, I could have sworn I actually saw the guy’s face, especially when he gave the instruction to form a firing squad and take her behind the chemical shed and shoot her. My wife says, no, we couldn’t have seen his face because it was only V. So I’m thinkin’ – was the movie so suggestive of Creedy that I believed I saw his face when, in fact, I didn’t; or did the director try to pull a fast one by actually showing us Creedy’s face, then pretending he didn’t? Or did V have his hooks into Creedy earlier than we thought he did? What the hell did I see!?
I forgot if we saw a glimpse of Creedy’s face or not, but I sincerely doubt it – the captor was V the entire time, and everything else was elaborate props and stage sets and special effects he set up.
IIRC - Creedy was at the house where Gordon was snagged and beaten. However, Creedy didn’t capture Evey - Evey ran away and was snagged by someone in full military gear (who we assume is one of Creedy’s men, but after the reveal scene is probably V waiting for a chance to ‘rescue’ her).
Creedy never shows up at the ‘prison’, and the person interrogating her remains shrouded in darkness the entire time. You may be conflating those scenes with the scenes of V talking to Creedy in Creedy’s similiarly poorly lit greenhouse.
Nope, we never saw Creedy’s face. It was backlit the whole time - all we saw was a sillouhette.
BUT, I’m pretty sure we HEARD Creedy’s VOICE. I don’t think that the voice talking to her was Hugo Weaving’s, and I’m pretty good at recognizing voices. (Although my son pointed out that with a British accent, Weaving sounds a whole lot like Liam Neeson, which I agreed with.)
So I think there was a bit of directorial trickery, but no, we never saw his face. Clever, huh?
BTW, I’m going to flag this for a mod to put a spoiler warning in the title, 'cause it’s…you know…spoilery.
Oops! Thanks – I wasn’t thinking straight.
Hmmm, okay, if you guys say so. I just wish I’d had those second thoughts BEFORE dropping the DVD off, so I could go back and look again. I don’t know why my mind specifically put a certain face on the character, unless the director was just very, very good. Yeah, that’s it, very good!
Again, sorry about the spoilers – but the ending was, well, not really worthy of the rest of the movie, IMHO.
I can’t say i completely figured out the twist, but i noticed immediately that the interrogator had the black gloves on that V normally wears. So I guessed it was him. What I wasnt’ sure of was if it was a 1984 twist (with the “anti-government” person actually realing in the protestors) or some other twist.
But the gloves were a dead giveaway, especially w/ how they were lit.
I recently watched it for the second time, and I can tell you that there was no cheating of that kind. No faces at all - I was watching for them.
Not enough. The massive spoiler is in the frickin’ mouseover!
:mad: