V for Vendetta
This past weekend, I got the chance to catch this movie and it was fantastic. The violence and CGI wasn’t overdone like Matrix Revolutions. Natalie Portman was hot. Most importantly, the message was spot-on.
For those of you who haven’t seen the trailer, the general gist is this: it’s about 20 years or so in the future and, due to a series of biological attacks, the English have sacrificed their freedom for security; a guy wearing a mask blows things up and fights the totalitarians. A lot of folks will love this movie only because it can be viewed as a critique of the Bush Administration. I loved it because it reminds us of why people yearn for freedom.
WARNING! DANGER! WARNING! ABOUT TO SOUND LIKE THE AXIS OF RIGHT + CANNON!
Liberal, movie critic, Roger Ebert took issue with two elements of the movie. The first is the protagonist’s assertion that governments should be afraid of their people. He asserts that in “an ideal world” both should “exist happily together.” Secondly, he dislikes that Parliament is a target of the protagonist’s vengeance. As Rolly Poley so aptly puts it, surely “his enemy is human, not architecture.”
It’s probably the libertarian in me, but I think that it’s absolutely essential that the government be afraid of all of us. The right kinds of government are there to serve their citizens and, should they do otherwise, it’s essential that they tear it down and put up one that will. It’s that tension that (theoretically) keeps the government honest and open. I understand that Mr. Ebert is trying to convey a noble sentiment; that peace is preferable to violence. I just have to believe that freedom is more important than peace.
So, if you’re trying to decide what to do this weekend, you should definitely check out this flick. It’s compelling, funny, and thoughtful. I loved it and I hope that you do, too.
posted by Iconoclast @ 8:25 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
I thought the movie was remarkable.
Here is my comments on your post.
First,
"A lot of folks will love this movie only because it can be viewed as a critique of the Bush Administration."
I, however, do not view it as a critique of the Bush administration (because all administrations and politicians of the present are in a position to give in to the image of government that the movie is critiquing).
I see your point and I fear that anyone who views this as a Bush attack is the same type of person that would accept Michael Moore as the pure truth instead of a much distorted, propagandized view of the truth as those on the right do to the truth themselves (deny it or not). There are a couple of issues that point to a Bush critique.
The first is the school house scene where the president goes on reading much like the 9/11 scene which has been depicted. However his later reaction to the school children - i gotta sign that abortion bill - shows that this is not a pure reflection on the conservative standpoint (unless for human alone). This is my primary concern about people who try to interpret art as a concrete/direct reflection of truth. Art merely serves as a place where 'rational/factual' interpretation is ignored for a 'feeling.' As I say this, I can only think back to the movie and one of the characters’s 'feeling' about the plot.
The second supposed direct indirect reference would be to the biological attack that was planned on the government and pinned on an outside source. Many critics of the Bush administration and conspiracy theorists have suggested that 9/11 was 'let' happen for the eventual gain of those in power. I have not researched the directors or the comic book (I think) which the story came from, but I believe that this is a warning against the possibilities that are rooted in present circumstances- not a statement saying that this really happened or may have happened. I think, again, of another part of the movie and its suggestion that you can't count out possibilities (as shocking as they might be). I do not believe that our president would do such a thing for his own gain (even if he was to benefit by it) because I have great faith in humanity and that, as misled or manipulated as many view him and those in power, I believe the God-loving man in him would not harm his own citizens to such a degree. Let's face it, he couldn't fake how pist off he was after the attacks, and as much of a Utilitarian he may be, I just think that would be too mucked up.
I think to address your ‘Roger Ebert’ comments; we must look at who Roger Ebert is. Roger Ebert’s job is to critique movies in both a ‘reasonable’ and appealing manner. His job is to keep his show’s ratings up (and provide some honest criticism from his point of view as another human). If my job was to critique golfers every day, then eventually I would start to nitpick. I believe his comments are nitpicks. I love critiquing art but at the same time, it is what it is and we must appreciate it as a whole for what the artist is trying to present (as I am forced to do occasionally with Nickelback).
He asserts that in “an ideal world” both should “exist happily together.” This would work in a colonial homestead community where riots would work (like Moe in the Simpsons actually leading a riot to success in Springfield). But I cannot imagine getting a gang of people from Warwick going to the mayor and accomplishing much without arrests. The problem with our democracy is that it is now micromanaged. Those at the top act as CEOs of the big companies. As much as democracy claims to listen to the little man, nowadays letters from citizens are most often only used for political gain or speeches (or to gauge public opinion much like the trucks in the movie). Sometimes on the Congressional level, certain cases do get a response, but overall frustration by the populous only serves to fuel adjustments in next years reelection campaign and how to continue what you are doing without completely turning off the electorate. Sure, you probably view me as too cynical but I will take that. I DO BELIEVE that many politicians believe and some actually do try to work for their constituents but this so often involves quid pro quo along with keeping power to continue to get things done. This gets into the whole issue of passivity which could be a whole other entry. My point is that the government fearing its people would be part of an ideal democracy even if some schlep who reviews movies does not think so (sorry Roger). Instead, protesting is often enforced by riot police; and dissenters are thrown in prison instead of negotiated with. I agree there are a few scumbags who get out of hand (anarchists perhaps and others) but police brutality is not a fair response to all, i.e. stepping off a sidewalk and being thrown in a paddy wagon. Unfortunately, most Americans don’t vote or participate, and others are so frustrated they have given up hope, while still others are just caught up in commercial society to the point of not wanting to leave their glass bubble, while still others work 2 or 3 jobs and have no time for participation in democracy when they have to feed and clothe and shelter and pay sick bills for themselves and their family. And voting for two choices based on which one you dislike, as many do, hurts democratic causes as well, not to mention the need for campaign finance laws which have been forgotten (sorry, I actually acknowledged legislation here).
Our champion Ebert (Roger too likes sarcasm), also apparently “dislikes that Parliament is a target of the protagonist’s vengeance. As Rolly Poley so aptly puts it, surely “his enemy is human, not architecture.” This is a preposterous critique. I vomit at this criticism. Did he sleep through the portion of the movie where V talks about ‘ideas’ and their role? Ebert needs to read some Foucault and get a clue. As much as many leaders believe they are in control and have historical agency, they are very much the product of the establishment from which they have developed, with all its restraints and abilities. The Parliament is an icon for the British of that type of control. The house of commons, in this case, has failed the people, and some sort of iconoclastic behaviour is needed. At least that is my interpretation. Like you said, “the right kinds of government are there to serve their citizens and, should they do otherwise, it’s essential that they tear it down and put up one that will.” Again Ebert is overly critical and nitpicks.
“I loved it because it reminds us of why people yearn for freedom.”
The situation of the movie involves numerous moral decisions from V who is seeking revenge but also to save the world. THIS CARICATURE COULD EASILY APPLY TO CONSERVATIVES AS WELL AS LIBERALS AND TERRORISTS IN THEIR WORLD VIEW (ALL WHEN PUSHED MIGHT GO TO EXTREMES FOR THE CAUSE OF FREEDOM). THIS IS THE BRILLIANCE OF THE MOVIE. I think the key is V’s ability to put the situation in others hands at the most critical time, instead of championing himself as the savior. V questions his motives along the way while many people with the type of power he exudes have one goal in site and don’t question along the way??
The movie occurs 20 years from now. I think of it more as a warning than an all out critique of the present. How about a critique of a potential future (EVEN IF DEMOCRATS OWN OUR GOVERNMENT FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS!)?
For instance, in the British life presented in the movie, V is for Vendetta would never have been allowed. For this I am glad to live in the USA right now where I can go see such a movie and use it to promote educated discussion (although some might question the educated part – but I apologize for posting an unpopular post – I still love you all!).
However, the movie brilliantly calls into judgment the role of our leaders, every passive citizen, and the media. It confronts issues including, use of fear in the media, political power struggles based on selfish motives, over-involvement of the church in government, the existence of some corruption in the church that should be critically evaluating shortcomings of the government from a pious perspective, the marginalization of homosexuals and the social impact that it can cause (whether you are for or against marriage here – there is still social ramifications), the great power the government has in its ability to manipulate what is known to the public, basically all the hot-button issues today, government response to crisis, biological weapons and disease, torture, etc. The danger is for liberals to put these together in a Michael Mooravian way against one man instead of recognizing the dangerous possibilities of the current situation and preventing it (not like Democrats for their own gain, but) for the gain of the everyday citizen.
The question of war in the cause of freedom is so loaded - I don’t know where to begin. I have struggled with it, as I hope all reflective persons in our time have. Look at how our country was started, by a bunch of go-getters looking to stop governmental pressure and manipulation. In the end, the tables were turned. The relation between freedom and peace is a catch 22 for humanity. If there is complete peace in our modern world, than freedom likely does not exist (1984esque?). If there is complete freedom, than peace does not exist (Lord of the flies). So, what is someone who wishes to live a just life supposed to do?
We all have to answer that question ourselves and don’t let V or big brother tell us what to do, but instead our heart and rational judgments free of attachment to worldly things.
I personally do not believe terrorism or war is the answer – but where is the line drawn?
Like V., we must always be questioning those pulling the lever and whether it is for the good of all and whose hands the lever should be in. Long live freedom and peace.
A side note:
I think the brilliance of this movie (beyond social critique) is the ability of one character, V, to manipulate other characters from knowledge of their inevitable reactions. I always enjoy a movie where one character has this kind of ability, i.e. Pirates of the Caribbean, Seven, etc. So did V know what Natalie P.’s character would choose? How can his goals be selfish if he dies? Could our President’s goals be matched with V’s – both seeking freedom for the world? What makes their goals different from the inhumane and appalling efforts of the guy in 7 to rid the world of sin?
I intend only for this to produce reflective thought and debate. I am sorry if anyone believes reading this was a waste of their time.
PS: In positive light of Roger Ebert after bashing him a little (although personal attack is unintended, he said Being John Malkovich was one of top ten movies of the nineties. I agree.
Artists lie to tell the truth.
Sorry for a couple of typos.
human =humour
there is=there are
Sorry for the tardiness of my reply. I wanted to do it justice, but I probably won't.
*First, glad you loved the movie and it's awesome that you liked it enough to put up this good a comment on it.
*I think that you're right on in saying that Ebert has gotten bored and is nitpicking. I don't watch nearly as many movies as this guy, but I still think that you'd have to be a pretty cold fish not to be moved by this movie.
*I'm really glad that I'm not alone in finding his "parliament critique" odious. I almost vomitted when I read it myself. It just goes to show that he didn't get the heart of this one.
*I also loved V's choice at the end of the movie. It was a great commentary on the importance of agency and self-determination.
*Just a fantastic job with your take. Def not a waste of time. I've seen the movie twice and both times I walked out of the theatre talking about the issues in the movie. That's the highest praise I think you can give a movie like this.
You were too easy on me... Where is the conflict?? HAHA, thanks for the props.....
Post a Comment
<< Home