what can a poor boy do

[wattsu]

Every once in a while, a film comes along that I'm not expecting. This is no small task, considering that much of my social life is planned around movie release schedules. More to the point, however, I love finding movies I wasn't planning on going to see originally and I love it even more when they turn out to be really good.

Case in point: V

Comments

[stevencwatts]

Thanks for the mention, but I think you may be oversimplifying my point. I didn't want (or expect) the movie to hand all of my answers to me. I just thought that it grazed the surface in ways that, while the audience could find depth, I wasn't convinced it was entirely present in the film itself. To me, this had the depth of, say, Matrix Reloaded. A bit, a few interesting questions, but not mind-blowingly so. I would've felt more comfortable if the movie had at least attempted to point out that V might not be a hero, that his actions might not be right, that the ends don't justify the means. I think all of those things you got out of it aren't things the movie presented, but rather things that you inferred from it. Congratulations on giving it more depth than it could give itself.

That said, I liked the movie. A solid B+ by my rating system, which is no slouch. I just thought it took itself too seriously at times, and the plot exposition was sloppily produced on more than one occasion. A good movie, IMO, not a great one.

Also, I liked the "bullet-time" sequence. In a stylized comic movie such as this you expect at least one overblown action sequence, and it delivered. I particularly enjoyed the motion trails of the knife. Excellent way to show a comic device in a stylized movie fashion. (Not to be confused with "The Hulk", which showed a comic devise in a poor, poor fashion.)

[wattsu]

But surely there has to be something there in the first place for me to infer something more from it. That's the great thing about art - it's inherently subjective. Like I said, everyone is going to come away from this movie feeling something different. You and I did not have the same experience - we can agree on a lot of things, but we came away with different experiences and conclusions. Art means different things to different people, and it's as much a reflection of the beholder as it is a force unto itself.

Therefore, I saw the movie as reflective in many ways not only of the world around me but reflective of myself, and this caused me to infer greater emotional weight from it. The great thing is that neither of us is wrong.

With regards to the simplification of V's nature - yes, I will grant the film was pretty clear in its assertion that he was a hero. But these are the simplifications one must make in adapting a graphic novel that is hundreds of pages long into a 2.5 hour movie. In order to create a cohesive narrative for a different medium, certain ideas will have to be forsaken in the pursuit of others. I'm prepared to forgive the movie this, because it at least manages to plant a tiny seed of doubt in your mind, and that's more than a lot of movies do.

[stevencwatts]

Really? I didn't see a seed. V was a hero. Period. I was never convinced that the movie put forth a genuine effort to explore his character from more than one angle. And given the fact that the entire movie focussed on his character, you would think they would have had plenty of time to slip in a line or two.

Anyway, yes, art is subjective. I'm happy you found depth in it. I'm not arguing that people can't get depth, I'm commenting that the movie had very little of its own to offer. I can look at Duchamp's "Fountain" for hours and get tons of meaning out of it. Tons of art critics, scholars and students do this every day. (Trust me, I minored in Art History).

But in the end, Duchamp didn't intend it to have that meaning. It was not created with that meaning in tact. I can't argue with the meaning that people get from it (and uhh, good for them), but I can comment quite fairly that all Duchamp meant it as was a toilet seat, a jest at the modern art scene. He wasn't trying to make a profound statement, nor were the Wachowskis. And while I admire Duchamp for a lot of reasons, he doesn't strike me as a visionary for turning a urinal on its side, no matter how many people think it's deep.

The Wachowskis held this movie with such high regard, it took itself so shamelessly seriously, that I would have liked to see that reflected in the script. I can't quite say the movie itself measures up to how OMG PROFOUND they thought it did. If they had thrown a bone or two to acknowledge other sides, I would have felt at least a little bit more comfortable with it. C'mon Bryan, you're on the Forensics team. One of the cardinal rules is to recognize the other side. They ignored it. It's intellectually bankrupt in this way, making a film that presents one side and glorifies itself for it.

[wattsu]

We can argue about this all night, but ultimately it comes back to the same thing: I took something different away from it than you did. Neither of us is wrong.

Moreover, I am not entirely sure I buy the argument that the "other side" is not represented. Hell, a good chunk of the first half-hour is devoted to showing the government's ideology machine in action, and if you've ever done some study in political theory and ideology it's not hard to fill in the blanks.

England (and much of the world) was clearly suffering following this vague "war" that is hinted at. There was a "viral attack" that killed thousands. There was poverty, uncertainty, fear. The ruling party offered a new way for the people to live, a way that would restore England to its former glory, and did - it is, after all, one of the world's more prosperous nations, at least based on small hints in the film.

Moreover, the ideology was clearly outlined throughout the film. Look at all the propaganda posters scattered throughout, touting such slogans as STRENGTH THROUGH UNITY, UNITY THROUGH FAITH. The country is strong so long as its people are united, and the people are united because of a deep-rooted belief in their country. Therefore, we can see the party clearly operates on a nationalistic sense of consciousness. We get this idea reinforced through the constant barrage of uber-nationalist rhetoric that the government channel shows.

So, where does this leave us? We can already develop a fairly accurate picture of what the government's "side" would look like - the people of the country were panicking, scared animals following the war and the virus. A superior, charismatic leader - not unlike the "hero" that Mussolini wrote about - and a government of like-minded individuals took over and brought stability and strength back to the country. The argument they would therefore have to make is that in order to protect the people, the people must surrender their rights to the government, because they simply do not know how to handle them. By limiting the peoples' rights, they strengthen the country and protect its people. Moreover, they can justify the eradication of those who are unlike them by saying these people are seditious and looking to overthrow the government which was so hard-fought for. The hell of fascism is that it's often done with the sincere belief that what one is doing is right.

So there you go. Based solely on small hints in the movie, I have managed to figure out and understand exactly where those who oppose V's actions are coming from. I'll grant you that this is more work than I probably should have done, particularly at this late hour. But it's not hard to understand how the government would have gotten to where it was and why, nor is it hard to understand why people would continue to support it until someone led the way.

Which brings me to yet another point: is V really any better? Is he not simply shepherding the "simple" people into believing an anarchistic fantasy? Note how quickly they flock to him, based only on one or two events. What, exactly, separates his vision of the world from that of the Party? Are the people so weak-willed they're willing to believe anyone who says they should believe them? What sort of statement does that make about the people of the world? One could argue that the movie even makes a strong case for the importance of individual thought as opposed to following a charismatic and powerful leader, regardless of whether that leader is the "good guy" or not.

There. Two different viewpoints and I haven't even broken a sweat yet.

I don't think anyone can really claim that V for Vendetta was "revolutionary". Profound, I can make the argument for that. But I'll be the first to admit these are not new ideas that are being presented. Then again, they aren't claiming to be new ideas either. And yes, I will grant you that it does not go out of its way to show opposing or differing viewpoints. But then again, how many tales of a lone hero liberating his fellow people do? When did we ever think Luke Skywalker or Batman could be bad guys?

(Yikes, the whole thing won't fit in one post. Continued...)

[wattsu]

But then the question remains, why are we both being so critical of this movie? Is it simply because it was hyped as being so political? Is it the at times uncomfortable parallels that can be drawn to modern political extremism? Or is it simply because deep down, we know that it's challenging our belief structure, or even simply outright saying that it's wrong? It seems a little ridiculous to get so introspective over a movie starring Hugo Weaving in a porcelain mask, and yet here we are.

The bottom line for me is this, and it trumps everything else: the movie made me feel. It made me feel things that not a lot of other movies do. It made me think about certain things more deeply than I normally would. In short - it engaged me on a unique emotional and mental level. Maybe it's just a matter of seeing the movie on the right night at the right time in my life. But I'm willing to forgive what it isn't because of what, to me, it is.

Now does this mean I'm going to cast aside all that I am to worship a comic book movie as holy writ? Of course not. That's absurd. Besides, if I had, it would have been Spider-Man 2 (insert flippant emoticon here). But it's given me a lot to think about, and clearly a lot to talk about.

So maybe I'm overreacting a bit. It's not perfect. I'll admit that. But I haven't said nearly this much about a movie in a really long time, so it clearly has to have something on the ball.

I think I'm totally getting the DVD.

[stevencwatts]

But then the question remains, why are we both being so critical of this movie?

Because it took itself so freaking seriously and failed to deliver. I already addressed that question. I don't mind when a movie isn't deep, but it bothers me when it thinks it is. ;)