V for Vendetta

[AldaForPresident]

murlough mentioned discussing this film in a separate thread so as to not hijack that one.

Here's the thing about V for Vendetta - and I'll make the disclaimer that I haven't seen the film, nor do I have any interest in seeing it - is the portrayal of a totalitarian religious government (however thinly veiled of an analogy it may be to Bush and his staff) necessarily a knock on that particular religion?

Honestly, as a ultra-hyper tolerance flag-waver, I was surprised I didn't take more issue with those elements in the film, but they didn't stand out as much to me as the right-out endorsements of terrorism that it kept hurling at me. That's what I meant by offensive. Really, it's not a huge factor - of course, the government persecutes homosexuals, a not so thinly veiled dig at the Bush administration, and the Koran is illegal to own. Also, the virus the government created that killed so many people was blamed on "religious extremists." It's never really specified what religion, that I remember anyway, although it's not difficult to figure out.

Let's imagine what would happen if we had a "Christian government" hell-bent on imposing its morals on others. I actually don't think that would be such a good thing.

I think it would be a horrible thing. Absolute separation of church and state is my personal preference.

But I don't know if the criticism of an admittedly bad application of religious principles is one and the same with a criticism of the religion itself.

As bad, heavy-handed, and irresponsible as it is, I don't really think that's a mistake V for Vendetta makes. It might be the ONLY mistake it doesn't make. There's a bit of discussion about religion and vague references to faith on the government's crest that they show all the friggin' time, and in itself the party symbol looks like a cross. It seems to me that it's the portrait of what happens when people apply conservative Christian beliefs in the worst possible way. Whether or not people will comprehend that, I don't know. Personally, I'm also unable to discern anything after all the anvils that were dropped on my head.

[AldaForPresident]

"Contined." Shoot me. V for Vendetta says it's okay.

[-TheWanderer-]

Well since the story was written oh, say, about 20 years ago or so, I don't think they take any shots at the current political office-holders in the U.S.  V for Vendetta is based off a Marvel Comic series from the 70's or 80's

[bethany]

Well since the story was written oh, say, about 20 years ago or so, I don't think they take any shots at the current political office-holders in the U.S.  V for Vendetta is based off a Marvel Comic series from the 70's or 80's

True, but that's the graphic novel, which is a separate entity from the film. Alan Moore himself said this:

As far I'm concerned, the two poles of politics were not Left Wing or Right Wing... It seemed to me the two more absolute extremes were anarchy and fascism. This was one of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism...

So it would seem that even Moore thinks the film trod a little too heavily on the territory of American left vs. right.  

[AldaForPresident]

Well since the story was written oh, say, about 20 years ago or so, I don't think they take any shots at the current political office-holders in the U.S.  V for Vendetta is based off a Marvel Comic series from the 70's or 80's

The story originally, I'm sure, couldn't have anything to do with the Bush administration. The movie, however, is meant to be seen as a direct parellel to it. It's not remotely subtle and I'm sure the story's been twisted to fit the current political climate.

For the record, my problems with the movie aren't really the attack on the Bush administration in and of itself. I don't have any problem with that, actually - what I take issue with is the horrible way in which it's executed and the constant reminders that, carried out by "good" people with good intentions, terrorism is perfectly acceptable and maybe even necessary.

[bloop]

I'll just say, what you're finding disturbing and unenjoyable is precisely what I found to be at least slightly thought-provoking - something I didn't expect.  Where is that fine line between inappropriate terrorism and freedom fighting that also, like terrorism, employs the strategies of guerilla warfare and the underground?  I think the primary difference may just be the cause, or what history says about it after the fact.  Fighting an oppressive government is just - I just wasn't sure of some of V's tactics.  It just seems that you could take your problems with the movie and apply them against revolutions that were, from my perspective, noble in a few ways.  If it was meant to apply to Bin Ladin and his cronies, I didn't catch that kind of a direct line.

It was not subtle, and that was certainly a flaw, but on the other hand I didn't expect much of anything based on a graphic novel to be subtle.  Also, as much as I don't personally like the "religious right" in this country, I don't like that the film put words into their mouths by saying this is the kind of thing they might really go for in government, or at least passively allow it to happen.  In addition, I have to admit that it pained me to see such beautiful landmarks blown to bits.  Finally, something did seem slightly clumsy about it, and it seemed too unbelievable even for a comic movie (I mean, a basically secularist place like the U.K. going theocratic - c'mon).  I'll have to read the original sometime.

[AldaForPresident]

I can certainly agree that it was thought-provoking and discussion-worthy in terms of the theme, and I don't mean to come across as being someone who thinks violence is never justified or that there's never a time to use it. I felt like the heroes of the film, however, took it a few steps too far. They talked a lot about how governments shouldn't use fear to govern, and of course I agree with that, but then they turned around and used fear as a tool to get what they wanted, also. Maybe there IS no other way in that situation, but the way it was handled made it seem like it was always the first option, and there was never any real hesitation about whether or not it was the right thing to do, when in reality it would be agonizing. I know it's just a movie based on a graphic novel, but I found it ridiculous that it took itself so seriously and made such sweeping generalizations about the nature of right and wrong in a totalitarian climate when it would actually be so much messier.

(I mean, a basically secularist place like the U.K. going theocratic - c'mon)

I harped on this throughout the entire movie. All the stuff I disagree with aside, it was an idiotic premise.

[bloop]

^Maybe a big reason I liked it was that I got past that so fast.  I was like "yeah - this would never happen.  Even the religious right doesn't want this to happen, for the most part, in this country", then I just played a little pretend.  Also, while it was perfectly clear that we were to sympathize more with V than with his adversaries, it is not clear from the movie that all of V's actions are virtuous.  He seemed misguided to me throughout.

[AldaForPresident]

I flip back and forth between being the kind of movie-watcher who can just suspend disbelief at the appropriate moments and being a nitpicky asshole about it. At the points I needed to get past it, I already hated it so much I chose not to, I suspose. So maybe it's just me. (My "grade" of it in the film journal thread is based solely on how much I enjoyed it, as always. If I had to grade it without taking all that into account...a C or C- would be what I would give it, I guess.)