Film Page: V for Vendetta
About 20 of us from the Austrian Scholars Conference caught V for Vendetta Friday night. It's not everyday that you get to see a great libertarian, even anarchist, film on opening weekend with libertarians from around the country! Here is my review for the film page:
V for Vendetta (2006)
"People shouldn't fear their governments. Governments should fear their people." With this arresting tagline, V for Vendetta announces its two intertwined themes: Governments and the people that fear them. Based on an explicitly anarchist comic book by Alan Moore, the film is somewhat less explicit about its anarchism but entirely clear on the theme of freedom and what it requires. It is fear that keeps the people cowering before their tyrannical government. The masked "V" of the film gets people's attention through spectacular, violent pranks that teach them to distrust and ridicule the government. This film is truly interesting and challenging, with enough ideas to keep people discussing the film for years to come. Rated R for violence. See this review.
Comments (52)
Manuel Lora
Another good line was "The best government records are tax records."
Published: March 18, 2006 8:48 AM
The Economist
The most important lesson was showing the high chancellor as a soulless, humorless man whose only pleasure in life comes from terrorizing his closest subordinates. It makes you wonder why they keep taking orders from him, until they stop.
Published: March 18, 2006 2:45 PM
todd
If you don't read comics cause you think they are dumb, yer probably right, but this one is the exception.
Haven't seen the movie yet,
partly cause its the Watchamacallit brothers, and I hate what they did to the Matrix franchise,
partly cause the comics authour hated the script so bad he made them take his name off the movie and gave them their money back (!)
and partly cause I can't stand sitting still that long, so I never see movies anymore.
But, I might now, since ya'll seem to rave on it so much.
BTW, one of the things Alan Moore was displeased about was they, in his eyes, made the "good guy" more of a liberal, and less of a flat out anarchist who trancended those labels.
Published: March 18, 2006 6:23 PM
tz
Go see V for Vendetta. I saw it Thursday as they had one late-late show at most of the theatres here. Suprisingly free of gratuitous sex and profanity (though I find the pro-homosexual preachiness a bit cloying and it will make Christians who can't see past it hate the movie). The only other movie with such memorable lines and actions and deep plots I can think of is Excalibur.
And I've found comic books to be better material than almost anything else in the popular culture.
Rarely am I suprised by any plotline, but V managed to do it several times through.
The camera managed to get more expression out of a mask than many actors.
This is what movies should be as art.
Published: March 18, 2006 7:21 PM
Cornelius van Vorst
The only overt homosexuality was a few kissing and handholding scenes between two women. I've seen racier stuff on network TV. As for hating it, I have a feeling most conservative Christians would hate the movie anyway; the homophobia just gives them a more self-righteous excuse.
Published: March 18, 2006 11:54 PM
Andrew
The movie closely follows the comic book written for 10-years old. Idiotic story line ('guards dare not to use machine guns to defend the president' and 'to help someone obtain freedom of thought - just torture him/her to experience "out of your body" state') initially makes you think that dictator himself is hiding under the V mask. Still puzzled by the turn of the plot at the very end - when the second in command kills the first to take his place (making irrelevant everything what happened in the movie up to this point).
Published: March 19, 2006 12:17 PM
George Gaskell
Here's what Alan Moore had to say about the dipute with the filmmakers:
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. There wasn’t a mention of anarchy as far as I could see.
I haven't seen the movie yet, but it makes one wonder what the full-bore anarchist version would have been like!
Published: March 20, 2006 9:28 AM
Jon Roth
Andrew, what are you talking about?
It's obvious you haven't read the original graphic novel because it didn't closely follow it at all. Have you seen the movie either? "Still puzzled by the turn of the plot at the very end - when the second in command kills the first to take his place (making irrelevant everything what happened in the movie up to this point)." V used the members of the state to destroy itself. This is much more evident in the graphic novel, but it's still there in the movie.
Published: March 20, 2006 10:44 AM
Scott Fields
I'm unsure where he sees this as American conservatism vs. American liberalism. I really didn't see any examples of American liberalism.
The attacks on homosexualality, Islam, etc. by the ruling government is not neccesarily an indication that there is a defense of those by what we would call "American" liberal organizations. If anything, "V" did not represent any traditional "political organization" that I could conclude from the movie. Further, American "liberals" are far from the only ones that stand against such persecutions by the government.
BTW, I don't view the opposite of "anarchy" to be "fascism". If anything, it's "totalitarianism", of which "fascism" is one path.
My two cents, anyway.
Published: March 20, 2006 12:33 PM
Vince Daliessio
Agree on being puzzled by Alan Moore's assertion (based on reading the script) that there wasn't enough explicit anarchism - other than the totalitarianism, it's the only "ism" shown. The V character exhibits absolutely NO tendency toward "liberalism", whatever that means, unless I missed it - he simply achieves his goals by killing people, blowing up stuff, and commandeering property (of course, only in response to past aggression). Not terribly liberal!
The film ROCKS, and y'all should go see it. The gay rights stuff is important but overall a very small part of the film, and not explicit - if a Christian has a problem with it, they aren't being very Christian, IMO.
Published: March 20, 2006 12:51 PM
Scott Fields
As an aside, I wonder if I'm the only one that had a thought on the police at the end.
As the citizenry is walking towards Parliament, the police are there to keep order and prevent the citizens from grouping. The police are ready to open fire on them (and they are clearly aware they are unarmed), but undecided if they will.
In my mind, I kept picturing all the police with "What would Lincoln do?" statements on their jackets.
Published: March 20, 2006 12:58 PM
ns
The movie is great, but leaves an open question:
What would stop the next governor from becoming the next dictator?
For all we know, the current dictator is killed, and a few govermental buidings are destroyed. That's all.
The people are still the same, no new ideas gained popularity, the taxes are probably still collected and recorded, all the surveilance equipment and contolled tv/radio networks are still there and functional.
The next governor may simply announce "we are now free" and change nothing (except maybe be more careful and leave no witnesses of human experiments and tortures).
Published: March 20, 2006 2:06 PM
Vince Daliessio
(from another thread) I respectfully disagree - the filmmakers didn't show the people, once Parliament was blown up, walking back and creating an anarchist paradise, but that would have been the very definition of anticlimactic. They did show,in a stylized way, the people renouncing the fear that had enslaved them, reclaiming their own sovreignty from the troops of the now-neutralized fascist government. The removal of the masks symbolizes the freedom from fear that Evie evinced after being imprisoned and tortured. Explaining what they did with their restored individual sovreignty is beyond the scope of the film, perhaps a fit subject for another film.
PLEASE?
Published: March 20, 2006 2:13 PM
D. Saul Weiner
I agree that the film was great and that all should go see it.
I would agree that V does not show any "liberal" tendencies. I suspect that what Moore was referring to was that some of the things that the government was engaged in (gay-bashing, focus on "law and order", collusion with traditional religion, etc.) are more associated with conservatism than liberalism. Thus one could infer (wrongly most likely) that V was fighting against the abuses of a tyrannical conservative regime rather than government in general. Note that the tagline says that governments should fear their people, not that they should disappear from the face of the earth.
The notion that the people did not gain any new ideas strikes me as an overstatement; after all, they did revolt. Nevertheless, it is not clear to me what would happen next.
Published: March 20, 2006 2:27 PM
ns
On the second thoughts...
It is possible that this simply was a personal vendetta film, not a "V for Revolution".
Facts contradicting the revolution theory:
- no preparation for a post-revolution life: whoever plans a revolution would probably draft a new constitution, search for future goverment members, accumulate some weapons etc etc.
- killing the doctor involved in the human experiments was certainly justified from the vendetta point of view, but was an unnecessary risk if the goal were a revolution. Ditto for the V's last fight - unnecessary risk.
Published: March 20, 2006 3:36 PM
Artisan
I don't know when this movie is going to show in Europe. Will try to see it.
In France the students are actually trying to revolt against government policy though. At least they're going on the street...
Published: March 20, 2006 3:43 PM
Scott Fields
I'm not so sure movie wise that the ending is that confusing. "Logan's Run" ended in much the same way.
Secondly, we likely need to distinguish between a "revolt" and a "revolution".
A revolution is ultimately a change in belief. A revolt is the "throwing off the shackles" moment in a society. It's the physical manifestation of a "revolution".
In several instances throughout the movie, you see the "revolution" is in progress in the consistent growing "disbelief" in the state's re-assurances to it's citizens.
The "revolt" itself does not mean you have to use violences against the state, until the state chooses to use violence against it's citizens (and it's not even required, then). The "revolt" occurs when you realize they no longer have power over you. Or, you realize they never HAD power over you. Evey had this realization when she was ready to die versus giving in to her "captors".
No, I have no doubt that both a "revolution" and a "revolt" had occured.
Published: March 20, 2006 3:51 PM
Scott Fields
Of course, Patrick Henry summed this up over two centuries ago.
Give me Liberty, or give me death!
Published: March 20, 2006 3:57 PM
ns
A better word to describe the film would be "mutiny" - a popular coup aganst the current governor vs "revolution".
There was no evidence that the protesters demanded any political changes besides replacing the current governor & his policies.
And not much hope that they'll get anything beyond cosmetic changes.
Published: March 20, 2006 6:51 PM
Scott Fields
Though, at first an issue of semantics, the argument of "revolution" vs. "mutiny" plays more into the fundemental argument of "freedom fighter" vs. "terrorist".
From the stance of the government in place in this movie, "mutiny" is likely applicable. The key issue would be whether the government had "legitimate authority" to begin with. Is authority that was granted under false premises "legitimate"?
Also, as past history has taught, the victor writes the history, and thus whether this was a "revolution" or not.
Published: March 20, 2006 7:33 PM
Vince Daliessio
Manuel Lora writes;
"Another good line was "The best government records are tax records.""
Charles Adams "A History Of Taxation" (available at Mises Media), in a segment about taxation during the Middle Ages says EXACTLY the same thing, leading one to wonder, if one weren't already wondering - are the Wachowskis Misesians?
Published: March 20, 2006 7:44 PM
The Economist
The final scene where the mob rushes the soldiers is the abolition of the government. It is an act of widespread disobedience. The officers panic and scream into the radio for orders, but the orders don't come, so the soldiers are left to think for themselves and do the only thing that makes sense to them: put down the guns and let the mob trough.
The state cannot exist unless people follow its commands. Once they stop obeying, it's finished.
Published: March 20, 2006 10:09 PM
Artisan
I don't know when this movie is going to show in Europe. Will try to see it.
In France the students are actually trying to revolt against government policy though. At least they're going on the street...
Published: March 21, 2006 3:04 AM
Reactionary
"In France the students are actually trying to revolt against government policy though. At least they're going on the street..."
The French students are net tax consumers who are protesting government attempts to liberalize the labor market.
Published: March 21, 2006 8:34 AM
tz
The final scene parallels something in reality, and one a neocon is incapable of remembering in history (when did mere protest end a tyranny was the question at hand). The fall of Ferdinand Marcos. The scene there was a microcosm where a Catholic Nun stands in front of a tank saying "I am your mother and your sister and your daughter", daring the tank or those in it to do anything.
The very, very, hard part is what to do after the tyranny is gone. The USA had that problem, even under the articles of confederation. Liberty can only retain a foothold when it is unthinkable, or at least very inconvienient to do evil or vice. And tyranny is merely the use of one set of vices to repress another set of vices, as well as all the virtues.
But let me recomment on the homosexuality in V. The problem wasn't that there were overt scenes, the problem was exactly the opposite. One of the key plotlines is the discovery of a testament of a Lesbian who discovers her inmost being is being a Lesbian. A religious conversion. An altar call at a revival with different form. Same with the Comedian (and what is the correct name of that "Benny Hill" music?). He is not a closet muslim with a beautiful gay work in his hidden room, he is the reverse. The Norman Rockwell thanksgiving picture, except with two mommies or two daddies. That is not representative of the movement. Yet the movie required some repressed minority to transcend the terror.
Yet authentic heroism today is so rare, that there is far more virtue in being an authentic homosexual than in being one of the corrupt christians who can only go along in not getting along. The hero can find the line between good and evil and correct any error, the follower will be through the gates and far into the abyss and not notice they are violating every clear precept of their alleged faith "for a greater purpose".
Published: March 21, 2006 9:52 AM
CK
Yakety Sax is the song used in the Benny Hill homage.
http://www.discoverynet.com/~ajsnead/allsongs_1/yaktysax.html for a midi version. ( Midi is anarchic of chorus )
Published: March 21, 2006 4:31 PM
Astrolabio
Great film. Unluckily libertarianism is so unknown in Italy that it will be surely considered a leftist movie (but,instead, V knows the concept of private propriety, hehehhe) or a no-global movie.
Published: March 22, 2006 7:29 PM
Mathieu Bedard
"In France the students are actually trying to revolt against government policy though. At least they're going on the street..."
I tried to correct your comment;
In France COMMUNIST students are actually trying to revolt against a SLIGHTLY LESS COMMUNIST government policy. At least they're going on the street, BURNING, STEALING, AND VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY AND SCREAMING "DOWN WITH CAPITALISM".
Published: March 23, 2006 4:33 AM
Manuel Lora
From TCS Daily:
I have not read the book yet, so I'm not sure how much more radical it is (probably a lot more). It's on my Amazon wishlist now :P
Published: March 24, 2006 8:33 PM
Ken Kinzer
Just saw the film and I appreciated the overall tone of the movie... Standing against coersion, authoratarian rule, and for equal rights for minorities. I was also thrilled to see the masses stand unafraid against the "all powerfull" state. However, are we really in danger of a totalotarian Christian government?
People living in predominatly Christian countries throughout the world are free to chose their own faith or lack thereof. While the only totalitarian states maintained by religionist are in nations dominated by non-christian religions (often Islamic).
Christianity is the brotherhood of "whosoever will", all Christians exercise there free-will in accept the gospel message, and understand that not everyone will.
While I applaude the film makers concern with individual liberty, it is the secular fundamentalist that is the greatest threat to liberty. It is'nt the church that silences free speech with political correctness, and it is'nt the conservative christians that advocate the redistribution of wealth.
Published: March 27, 2006 11:58 PM
drs
It depends which Christians you mean. There are plenty who are perfectly willing to push for the government to enact sodomy laws and decency statutes. I have no doubt that if the Falwells and Robertsons of this world came to power they would use draconian tactics against non-christians probably based on a selective reading of Luke 19:27 (I don't own a Bible so I am doing this out of memory) a passage which could easily be interpreted as Jesus advocating death for non christians. Homosexuals and heretics would suffer the same fate here that they do in the most radical Islamic countries. In a state the form of oppression (whether theocratic, fascist, democratic or Marxist etc.) is quite incidental. A powermonger driven by any ideology can use it to further butchery of bloodchilling proportions. Sweeping changes in public attitudes are not unknown throughout history, there is no reason to think the public could not reach the required level of tolerance to allow the rise of a "Christian" theocracy. While I think any true Christians would reject this state of affairs, they would find themselves greatly outnumbered. At the heart of any state lies the desire to dominate and crush the individual will, Ayn Rand, whatever her faults did the world a great service by creating the character Ellsworth Twohey (sp?), he is the ultimate personification of what makes a state tick. This desire for domination can be reconciled with any number of ideological positions and from this we get the state. If the public can be made to accept vast state powers we get totalitarianism. Given the right conditions, (and the movie implies that Britain ran into a period of chaos) a Christian totalitarianism is as plausible as any other.
As for the movie, I thought it was great. While I would have appreciated more explicit support of anarchy, that might have ruined the film by making it too didactic. At any rate it was the best cinematic rendering of the struggle between man and state I have ever seen.
Published: March 28, 2006 12:29 AM
Mark Groblewski
"V" - is more than a movie - it is the best cinematic complement to world wide political strife today, particularly the political arena of the US. The "voice of 'V'" is the voice of the Protection of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and something VERY, VERY lacking in the United States of it citizinry to participate in our government. The Right Wing Christian Fuldamentalist "American Taliban" Movement is slowly but surely taking over "our" government
" for the people and by the people", quite simply because we as a nation united DO NOT participate. Blow back,the power of the Christian Right, the failure to realize the importance of Spiral Dynamics in all of the world is and will lead us to this future "Orwellian Nightmare", because this country is lacking and willing to exercise the "V" that exists within all of us! Contrary to what many believe it is all the churches and all the united religions ( in all countries), and not keeping the church seperate from state, that is pushing the WORLD into "organized" chaos. Look around everyone - over and over again we elect the same people standing for the same principles ( but we all forget that the principles of the elected change with the wind and the funds of the lobbyists), and NOTHING CHANGES except the GROSS LOSS OF FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY AND AROUND THE WORLD. Wake up America, and wake up world - "V for Vendetta" is a precursor to our future - the only problem being is we have no "V's" to save us from ourselves, but ourselves! Who might I ask has the courage?
Published: March 28, 2006 8:52 AM
Paul Edwards
Can someone help me remember the part in the movie i might have missed: What inspired the enlightenment of the people? Was it that little bit of TV time that V got in conjunction with the exploding building? I liked the movie, but i missed how the ideas necessary to build a resistance were conveyed to the minds of the people. Thanks!
Published: March 28, 2006 12:28 PM
D. Saul Weiner
Paul,
I don't think this aspect of the film was developed fully, though one could also point to the TV parody scene as a time when people learned that they could make fun of the regime and that perhaps it was not as awe-inspiring as previously believed.
Published: March 28, 2006 2:28 PM
drs
I think the enlightenment stemmed from the emergence of a hero who explicitly questioned the legitimacy of the state. His few minutes on TV coupled with his promise regarding the next November 5 set in motion a willingness among the people to think for themselves. Remember that he tells them to look in the mirror for who is to blame. It is almost like John Galt's speech (except much shorter) in that it served as the catalyst for the average person to stand up to the regime. Not to compare Moore (if indeed that part was in the graphic novel, which I have not yet read) to Rand, I am sure neither of them would appreciate the comparison. I think the message is that if people are willing to get over their fear and see the state for what it really is it can't survive. Oh and the best bit of dialouge in the movie was when V explains that the stuff in his home is not stolen because theft implies ownership, and the state can't own anything. Bingo.
Published: March 28, 2006 2:46 PM
Paul Edwards
I liked the bit about the real butter. The masses live without it, but V steals it from the political elite, who never go without such things. There were lots of little points true to life.
Published: March 28, 2006 3:36 PM
Juan
- are the Wachowskis Misesians?
I highly doubt it. I think the W. brothers are far-left ideologues, at least judged by 'The Matrix' - an anticapitalist, militarist, racist rant.
I didn't see this movie - it has not arrived here yet (Argentina). But I image that this one (Vendetta) may very well be targeted against the current american government. This
some of the things that the government was engaged in (gay-bashing, focus on "law and order", collusion with traditional religion, etc.) are more associated with conservatism than liberalism.
sounds telling. Granted, an anti-government movie is by definition anarchistic but I would bet some money that the kind of anarchism the W. brothers like is NOT private-property-based.
Published: March 28, 2006 5:19 PM
Roy W. Wright
'The Matrix' - an anticapitalist, militarist, racist rant.
I didn't catch any of that in The Matrix.
Published: March 28, 2006 9:31 PM
T. Swanson
I found the gay politics offensive, but enjoyed the remaining elements of the movie. A free society doesn't have to be and I contend can't be one submersed in deviancy.
Published: March 28, 2006 9:54 PM
some guy
Roderick Long, who I consider one of the smartest anarcho-capitalists there is, might contend differently. He writes a lot of really brilliant stuff regarding the relationship between a free society and elements of cultural for-lack-of-a-better-word leftism.
Published: March 28, 2006 10:27 PM
Juan
There was no fighting of battles in 'The Matrix' ?
'Good' against 'Evil' ?
Published: March 28, 2006 11:42 PM
drs
I don't think the W brothers' political beliefs are entirely relevant. Orwell was a socialist, but "Animal Farm" and "1984" are masterpieces of anti-statism and most libertarians hold them in high regard. And from what I understand Alan Moore is some type of private property anarchist (though it is possible I am wrong). With this in mind I say we can all enjoy this fine cinematic achievement. I must express respectful disagreement with T. Swanson, I see no threat to freedom from gays by nature of their sexual orientation.
Published: March 29, 2006 12:37 AM
Juan
A central feature of the plot is the deadly struggle between machines and 'man'...Now, in libertarian plots, machines are usually tools used to further man's wealth. OTOH the 'machine-as-enemy' is a leftist/labor union/green classic.
The part about racism is more subtle, but it seems to me that the majority of the 'heroes' in the movie are...How should I put it ? Not so white ? And I don't think that any of the cops is a Negro ? Is any of the 'bad' guys an 'afro-american' ? I admit I may be reading to much in that regard, but still...
Anyway, I don't think 'The Matrix' praises individualism. The 'good guys' are a gang/army/nation of shabby looking people fighting against technology. The world of skycrappers and comfortable jobs at the office is not what these 'good guys' want. They supposedly want 'truth' and 'truth' is that skycrappers don't exist. They are a computer simulation...
The movies are supposedly about freedom, right ? Well, in the 20th century the worst enemies of freedom have been the socialists. Is there any mention of them in those movies ? Even some mention in a metaphoric way ? I don't think so. And it doesn't surprise me because I think it's naive to expect a really libertarian movie being produced in Hollywood.
Orwell's 1984, for instance, despite being the work of a socialist, is a far more sincere political story. The main force behind totalitatianism right now is the left and hang me if the W. brother's movies are honest about it.
Published: March 29, 2006 12:44 AM
Roy W. Wright
A central feature of the plot [of The Matrix] is the deadly struggle between machines and 'man'...Now, in libertarian plots, machines are usually tools used to further man's wealth. OTOH the 'machine-as-enemy' is a leftist/labor union/green classic.
Your analysis is very shallow. Matrix Revolutions portrayed the machines (specifically the programs running in the Matrix) as ranging from good (consider Sati and her family, for example) to evil (Smaith, etc.), with grey in-between (the Merovingian could be an example of this). The trilogy ends not with the defeat of the machines, but a ceasefire and beginning of mutual understanding. There is a significant conversation between Neo and one of the senior leaders of Zion about the irony of fighting against some machines while depending upon others.
Anyway, I don't think 'The Matrix' praises individualism.
Does being inside the Matrix represent some kind of individualism? Is leaving it for Zion anti-individualistic? I don't think the movies make a big statement either way about individualism.
The 'good guys' are a gang/army/nation...
I believe the word you're looking for is voluntary society.
...of shabby looking people...
That's just realism.
skycrappers...
Heh. :P
Is there any mention of them in those movies? Even some mention in a metaphoric way?
Oh, definitely. How can you not see the Matrix itself as an involuntary collective?
Published: March 29, 2006 2:28 AM
Roy W. Wright
"Smaith" should, of course, read "Smith." And the "them" in the last quote is referring to socialists.
Published: March 29, 2006 2:32 AM
Juan
>>OTOH the 'machine-as-enemy' is a leftist/labor union/green classic.
>Your analysis is very shallow.
Thank you :). Still I believe it easily applies to the first two episodes.
Does being inside the Matrix represent some kind of individualism? Is leaving it for Zion anti-individualistic? I don't think the movies make a big statement either way about individualism.
So, you believe that it's possible for a honest piece of political fiction to pass no judgement about individualism ?
>>The 'good guys' are a gang/army/nation...
>I believe the word you're looking for is voluntary society.
Not at all. I'm purposedly using the words gang/army/nation. A gang is a voluntary association wich does not abide by the NAP regarding third parties. The same is almost always true for armies and 'nation states'.
Once you get past the movies' special effects and the cheap metaphysics, the bottom line is this : A guy quits his job at the office and 'voluntary' joins an army. The nice and just army, of couse.
Published: March 29, 2006 6:09 PM
Tyler
I thought V for Vendetta was awesome!! it capures the idea that the government is cerupted by power which I think holds true to this day. And besids V looks hot in black!!!!
Published: March 31, 2006 1:00 PM
Martin
There are a couple of lines that should lead narrow minded people to think that some of the latest acts of terror suffered in the world (9/11, 3/11, London Attack) might have been self commited by governments in order to take advantage of the situation. There is a particular line on destroying symbols that really reminded me about the WTC and scared me a little bit.
I mean, though the movie is about anarchysm and libertarianism, sometimes it seems to be anti-american and pro terrorism.
I really expected to celebrate V as a flagship cult movie like The Matrix for example, but there are weird lines on the script that may confuse people.
Published: April 8, 2006 2:37 PM
Denver
I have mixed feelings about the movie. As a Christian, I didn't find it at all "pro-homosexual" as one reviewer here wrote. I would defend their rights to individual choices as much as I would my own. That their choices are different from mine is not germane. At all.
But my reservations about the movie are more historical; it makes a hero of a man who, in the remains of the Empire, we burn in effigy because he was a traitor to our protestant monarch and parliament. I know, artistic license and all that, but if you're aware of the so-called "english martyrs" and the long history of revisionism on this subject, this sticks in your craw.
OTOH, I saw it as the only serious error in an otherwise good movie. (Not that there may not be others, I just don't know everything)
I disliked the brothers glorification of violence, especially in the closing scenes in the underground; it seems to give the lie to their "liberal" perspective, and it's just an un-necessary marring of the overall effect.
In any case, I'd thoroughly recommend it.
Especially for westerners, because this is exactly where our civilisation is going, and our post-9/11 governments are leading the way.
I'm also a fan if the unintended irony, particularly almost quoting Jesus: "Do not fear those who can only destroy your body"
Lovely.
Published: April 16, 2006 8:16 PM
Peter
When the practice first started out, it was the Pope that was burned in effigy. (I don't know when it became mistaken for Guy, but it must be fairly recent). I'm sure it's not the author's intent to make a hero of Fawkes per se (Fawkes wasn't trying to destroy the state, just install a Papist leadership; V, like Moore, is an anarchist - at least in the comic; I haven't seen the film, but Alan Moore wanted to disassociate himself with it because he said they'd wrecked the anarchist character), only his actions (trying to blow up parliament, that's heroic! It's an English saying that Guy Fawkes was the only man who ever entered parliament with good intentions)
[Also, note that James, unlike many parliamentarians, was not a Protestant; C of E is Catholic, just not Roman Catholic]
Published: April 16, 2006 11:16 PM
Denver
Peter: Thanks for that. Good points. I enjoyed the film mostly because it seems very Orwellian in taking what I see happening in the US (patriot act, a President who's redefined his office as Emperor, i.e. makes law with stroke of his pen, tortures, etc) and transposing it to Britain so it won't be so threatening (to the audience or the censors?).
Just as Orwell transposed '48 to get '84.
It also makes one wonder just how worried he really was that his novel would upset the powers that be? A thought that had not occurred to me until I saw the movie and started down this train of thought myself.
Published: April 17, 2006 8:27 AM
Kevin
Personally, I think the Wachovski brothers are arrogant and high handed in the way they treat OTHER people's creations. This MAY not be self evident to people that are not familiar with the source material but merely applaud the pyrotechnics.These gentlemen are NOT artists NOR creators and they make ENORMOUS sums of money from ENORMOUSLY popular source material.
If they are SO certain they are better creators than the authors they should create something on their own.
Also when V kills the doctor-did anyone else catch that she stated she knew HE was the murderer when she was handed one of "his" roses?
If he raised them BEFORE the hospital he wouldn't remember it and told her he could not remember his past. If he raised them IN the hospital it would seem a LITTLE less like a hellhole. The "Scarlett Carsons" were not referenced to him and would not have been a telling piece of evidence to the doctor.
Published: October 21, 2006 9:00 PM