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

[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. ;)