 JH:
I think, probably, the most interesting area of V for Vendetta is
taking a fresh look at what terrorism is and what it stands for. We
have been kind of led to believe, in the present situation, that
terrorism is utterly disgusting and certainly I’m not arguing for a
minute that it’s the right way forward, but then I wouldn’t say that
any kind of warfare is the right way forward, personally. I don’t think
that war has ever led us into anything that is a positive conclusion.
But what it does suggest is to at least take a look at the reasons for
terrorism, and that it’s usually not without reason. I think the film
is probably suggesting that we look at it more seriously, that we
address it more seriously, that it is the only effective way that
certain areas of modern society can make their voice known, whether we
like it or don’t like it. That has to be treated seriously it seems to
me.
How was it for you guys to take part in this project? It has been raising some serious questions.
JH: “It has raised some serious questions. That’s a good this is it not?”
SR: “It’s nice to be
doing a film that’s actually addressing something that might impinge on
our lives and might have some effect and might drive some people mad.
It’s actually seldom, although there are some good movies out at the
moment that are trying to address what’s going on now, so maybe we have
turned a corner. Syriana, and even Munich,
I think, is a very good movie. You know, it’s actually addressing what
terrorism is and how it can come about. The government has this
responsibility that it does sometimes drive its citizens crazy.”
Do you as actors feel an obligation to been in films like this at this particular time in history?
JH: “I’ve never been
an actor that has particular ambitions to play a particular part in a
particular type of film, and I’m always intrigued with what somebody
throws at me. And I thought, ‘This is absolutely fascinating.’ It’s
extremely unusual that an American company should choose to make a film
in which America is a leper colony and England is a fascist state and
use it as a premise to say, ‘Take these things as a possibility and
what then?’ and try to argue a thesis through that. It’s things we are
all trying to talk about. It’s just breaking it down and saying, ‘Have
another look. Have a look at it this way.’”
Would you agree that cinema nowadays reflects a lot of political consciousness as it did in the 70s?
JH: “Anything
that can help us to break it down and look at it all over again is a
good thing. I think, probably, the most interesting area of the film is
taking a fresh look at what terrorism is and what it stands for. We
have been kind of led to believe, in the present situation, that
terrorism is utterly disgusting and certainly I’m not arguing for a
minute that it’s the right way forward, but then I wouldn’t say that
any kind of warfare is the right way forward, personally. I don’t think
that war has ever led us into anything that is a positive conclusion.
But what it does suggest is to at least take a look at the reasons for
terrorism, and that it’s usually not without reason. I think the film
is probably suggesting that we look at it more seriously, that we
address it more seriously, that it is the only effective way that
certain areas of modern society can make their voice known, whether we
like it or don’t like it. That has to be treated seriously it seems to
me.”
Do you think a subversive approach like this is the only way to get the questions into the mainstream at the moment?
JH: “I think that’s what is interesting, this is a mainstream film.”
But a
subversive approach seems like the only way at the moment to get
questions about terrorism and the humanisation of terrorists, to accept
that they are human beings and not just some evil entity, into the
mainstream, because these are things which are currently taboo.
JH: “Exactly. That’s
exactly what it is trying to do. And probably by using the kind of
ethics, or different, or lack of ethics, whatever you want to call it,
of the graphic novel, there’s a very different look at it. It’s a very
different use of constructing an imaginative world from which you can
make an argument. It isn’t, in a sense, an intellectual approach as one
would normally consider it.”
SR: “It’s
interesting to see English people as terrorists rather than
balaclava-clad Irish folk. That’s subversive in itself, to say, ‘You
may need to do this yourselves, eventually.’ And actually you did have
a guy called Guy Fawkes who did it, for reasons of civil liberty, way
back then.”
Is the film a warning to audiences that we’re sleep-walking into this kind of fascistic situation?
SR: “It’s a warning
to government, isn’t it? Not that they’re going to pay any attention.
There’s an anger. The Wachowskis have an anger about what’s going on in
America, a real anger, and they want to contribute to a debate.”
JH: “Yes, and it’s not only the Wachowskis. It’s the only time I can remember in my life where I don’t have a single friend, a single friend,
who could be regarded to be pro the present administration. Every other
president or administration that I can think of always had friends that
would defend it, to a certain degree. They defended Nixon, they
defended Reagan, even Ford had his defendants, you know? This is the
only administration I can think of that’s like that.”
Do you think a
lot of Americans feel disenfranchised to an extent because of the way
the last two elections were gerrymandered?
JH: “Hugely. It’s a
massive embarrassment apart from anything else. Yeah, I do. And I think
it’s out of that the Wachowski’s anger comes. And they feel they can do
something about it. They feel that they are doing something about it.
You know, it’s going to put the cat among the pigeons, and that’s not a
bad thing it seems to me.”
Was there any nervousness amongst the team involved in the film after the London bombings?
SR: “You know, when the London
bombings happened, I thought, ‘My God, this movie won’t come out.’ Then
I got a phone call that we were going to do some re-shoots and I
thought, ‘Maybe we’re going to change the end.’ It never even occurred
to them. That’s why I think they’re so courageous. They just said,
‘Let’s go on.’ I don’t think they were nervous at all. And it certainly
was not the reason for postponing the opening. I think it made it more
important to do it, really.”
JH: “Probably.”
 |
Show/Hide comment form
