For someone who knows nothing about the comic book could anyone her give a synopsis of what this character and story is all about?
From the trailers I’ve seen, it looks like some sort of Zorro type, outlaw-hero character who goes around in a ceramic mask. I have to be honest, I thought the mask looked so silly that I couldn’t work up any interest in seeing the movie. What is it about this comic book that is appealing to people? I’m not asking that sarcastically, I’m sincerely trusting that there must be more to it than what there appears to be in the trailer and I’m curious.
It’s a Guy Fawkes mask, and I believe Fawkes was a revolutionary figure in England who tried to blow up Parliament on November 5th (don’t know which year), but was caught. V (no real name ever given) is also a revolutionary – call him a freedom fighter, or an anarchist, or even a terrorist – in a futuristic England under fascist rule. (You have to understand that the comic was published in the early '80s, when Margaret Thatcher was in charge and things looked bleak and scary for England’s working class.)
V is very much an antihero: he kills people, he bombs buildings, and more, but you end up cheering for him in light of the corrupt and self-interested government figures he targets. The film should stir up some interesting controversy when it comes out, as I’m sure Faux News types will lambast it for being “pro-terrorist.” The tagline for the movie so far is “People shouldn’t be afraid of their governments. The governments should be afraid of their people.” Again, kind of hot-button issues in this day and age.
Ahh…Guy Fawkes…got it. I lived in England for three years when I was a kid. I remember Guy Fawkes Day. It was kinda sorta like Halloween but not really. Kids would make straw dummies of Guy Fawkes and then go around collecting money (“Penny for the Guy?”) then they would have bonfires and burn them. Good times.
From what I remember, Guy Fawkes is considered a bad guy in England…not a good bad guy or a romantic outlaw, just a bad bad guy. Of course, I was only in grade school so maybe I only got the grade school, company line on the dude.
Still, I guess it’s a pretty daring icon to choose to represent an anti-hero and the edginess of an anti-government guerilla does make for a rather pleasant tension in the current political climate. This might be worth checking out.
Diogenes, if I were going to recommend one graphic novel to you, it’d be V for Vendetta. The Guy Fawkes icon is deliberately provocative: while you cheer for V, you don’t necessarily feel good about yourself for doing so. V is pretty clearly an insane megalomaniac who takes a sadistic delight in controlling people. The novel has possibly one completely sympathetic character in it. The politics are really, really interesting.
Seriously, if V lived in the DC Universe (which would have been a HORRIBLE idea), he wouldn’t be considered very different from the Joker, and any superhero worth his cape would be out gunning for him. Luckily, V For Vendetta has nothing to do with superheroes at all.
It’s just that this misuse pisses me off to no end. I’m not ashamed of the fact that I read comic books; DC shouldn’t be ashamed of the fact that they make them.
Well then if you want to get technical, you are wrong too. Since V For Vendetta was originally published as separate issues (“comic books”), the collected edition that Corii read would be a trade paperback using the industry vernacular, not a graphic novel. Graphic novels are typically original stories published in a squarebound, staple-less format, while trade paperbacks are collections of pre-published material.
What? What’s that I hear?
Yes, yes, I think so. I think somebody got SERVED!
V is not Zorro. V is a Machievellian clown pulling intricate pranks in order to bring down a government. Non Spoiler example- V breaks into broadcasting headquarters. Rather than transmit a standard revolutionary speech, or footage of illegal and corrupt behavior by government leaders, V pretends to be the head of a large business meeting with an employee- mankind. While various images display on the screens behind him, he reminisces over the first day man came down from the trees and applied for a job. He talks in general terms about some of the good work man has done. But, he stresses how disappointed he’s been lately. He’s even thought of firing man. In the end, he decides to give man a second chance.
V never says ‘The fascist government isn’t nearly as powerful as they want you to think. They could never stand against a full scale revolution.’. The fact that he made it into such a high security area and that his message is on the air already proves that point. He doesn’t brandish a gun and declare war on the establishment. He just tells a subtle and instructive joke.
V isn’t a warrior. He’s a prankster.
BTW- For anybody familiar with White Wolf’s Vampire The Masquerade, the Malkavians are based on V- madness that gives insight into the true nature of things, pranks that can bring the target an epiphany or destroy their lives.
I find V himself to be very sympathetic. He’s a romantic, yes, in that he believes that one man acting alone can change the world. He sees a problem and sets about taken action to alleviate it. And he does so unburdened by a desire not to kill or destroy. He’s fighting for the individual, for art, for expression, and for freedom.
But hell, I’m halfway to an anarchist in the first place. Ask me where I’m going to put the spider tattoo someday.
Yes, he is, by all means, a terrorist. And that’s going to be explosive in the current political climate. But he’s also clearly the hero of this film. The parallels are going to be too blatant to miss. One of my friends expects to be photographed coming out of the theater.
Here’s a thread I started less than a month ago, with links to amazingly positive reactions (SEE NOTE BELOW). Not just “This is a really good movie” reaction, but “This will be one of the best movies of the year!” reactions. I don’t trust these guys when they don’t like something (Wells especially was a real asshole towards all 3 LOTR movies, and Peter Jackson in general) but my experience has been that if either one of them DOES like something, I almost always agree. That BOTH of them are raving crazy about this movie makes me certain that I’m going to love it. Maybe I won’t, but my anticipation level is at the highest level now.
I hope it’s really popular, especially among the 18-40ish range, and gets lots of press. We need more movies that piss off the right-wing. I’ll pay double just for the pleasure.
NOTE: Those articles are in the archives now, so the links in that post is out-of-date.
I think he’s somewhere in between. He doesn’t seem to care too much about the people, but more about fighting for his anarchist ideals. He does some horrible things. And I don’t think he fights for the individual, because
When he imprisons Evie, he deindividualizes her. He breaks her will so he can reprogram her. He himself cannot be an individual, which is why she can become what he is in the end.
But I don’t think he’s as chaotic or evil as the Joker. He does pay lip service to how destruction has to end at some point so there can be rebuilding, though I don’t remember him actually doing anything constructive.
I guess that the story is set in the right place at the right time that he is able to be the good guy.
It would be interesting to see him in the same room with Rorschach.
Weighing in on the graphic novel vs. comic issue, I think it’s both. Graphic novels are comics of a certain kind. It may have been written serially, but it’s put together and ends up as pretty much a novel.
Hey, I helped organize a West-coast anarchist conference back in the nineties. I get the anarchism thing (although I’ve obviously left it behind me these days). It’s not his anarchism that makes me call him unsympathetic: it’s what he does to those close to him. He is, to use anarchist vernacular, a vanguardist, someone who believes it’s appropriate to dominate, manipulate, and hurt other people to teach them a lesson, while keeping himself above and free from others (he never lets anyone get close enough to hurt him without his having engineered the whole thing).
He’s not an anarchist at heart, because he isn’t willing to let other people have a say in the dream. He wants to end the game of chess by knocking the pieces off the board, not by removing the players and letting the pieces do what they will.
Of course he’s not consistent in his megalomania, which is why the audience cheers for him. He’s a complicated, flawed character who’s very compelling, romantic, heroic, idealistic.
he is incapable of being the one who will rebuild … that’s why he had to die, and why he groomed Eve—because she cannot destroy or kill, but she can be the one to rebuild.
face to be sure I got it right.