V For... Vitriol?

Let me begin this post by sharing an example of what this blog isn't.

For a few years my family received a magazine called "Plugged In" from a Christian organization that shall remain nameless. This magazine claimed to act as a guide for parents to control what their children take in from modern culture. Fair enough- I certainly don't favor children being exposed to slasher flicks or pornos at age 6. But the tacit purpose driving this magazine was most definitely legalism; in their reviews of popular music they often counted the number of swear words present on an album. Is this Christian stewardship? What sorts of things should we be letting our children absorb?

I propose that the answer lies not in isolating ourselves from culture but engaging it and seeking to enlighten the darkness. If a movie has a thought provoking message that conveys truth or at least seeks it, is it worth the sex scene thrown in? Largely I feel this is a matter of personal conscience. I know the sins I struggle with and do not seek to aggravate them; at the same time I refuse to discount things of worth because they confront me with uncomfortable ideas.

On to today's review, which the astute reader will gather is about the new Wachowski brothers' film "V For Vendetta". I saw this last Sunday, so it has had about a week to soak in. I'd like to discuss the many good points of the film, its minor caveats as cinema, and then engage it on a philosophical level, because I think that its message is provocative but quite flawed.

I say as a preemptory statement that the action in "V For Vendetta" is very good. Any fan of the Matrix can tell you that the Wachowskis have a decent grasp on how to do action. As much as I try to keep from revealing plot points, I don't think it gives too much away to say that, cliche as it may sound, watching stuff blow up to the 1812 Overture is pretty sweet. Excepting a bizarre effect added to V's blades near the end (I should interject to note how glad I am that V fought with knives- huzzah!) the fighting stayed within the realm of good taste.

There, I had my paragraph about the action. But "V For Vendetta" goes well beyond an action movie- reflecting on it, I remembered very little of the stunt work, etc. The plot is tight and somewhat labyrinthine, essential to a movie that is at heart about political intrigue. A note: some of the twists could have been pulled off more subtly- some of my group found themselves guessing the surprises well before they happened. Symbolism abounds in the movie, and for the most part is done well. The writing is servicable, often witty. V's opening speech, one long alliteration using his eponymous letter, waffles between sounding extremely contrived and brilliant. On final analysis, it was memorable enough to be a good thing.

"V For Vendetta's" acting stands out as above par, at least for an action movie. Poor Hugo Weaving, trapped behind the face of Guy Fawkes for the entire movie. Yet he does admirably well, using body language to convey what he cannot with his face. Natalie Portman mangaged to not annoy the heck out of me, which is a step in the right direction for her. The supporting cast is littered with old hands of British acting- John Hurt as the deranged despot and Stephen Fry as a television host give strong performances. But, in my opinion, the standout of the entire movie is Stephen Rea, who plays the chief inspector hot on the trail of V. What a refreshingly hard boiled performance he gives- his weariness and inner turmoil shine through splendidly. Why have I not seen him in more movies?

All in all, taken from a cinematic perspective, I would give "V for Vendetta" somewhere in the ballpark of 7-7.2 out of 10. Better than average, better even than good, though not quite on the threshold of great.

The central moral ambiguity of "V For Vendetta" intrigues me. Many people talk and talk about perspectives on terrorism- one man's terrorist is another's revolutionary. If anything, I think the movie didn't go far enough in exploring this ambiguity; I read an interview with the author of the graphic novel, who had his name removed from the movie credits, and he stressed the shades of gray he attempted to show in his work. "V For Vendetta" sacrifices this because the movie is more intent on ramming its ideology down the audience's throat than exploring moral subtleties. Instead of being about the questionable ethics of freedom fighting, V stands as a testament to liberal smugness and ends up like a watered down 1984 or Farenheit 451. Do we really need another vision of dystopia telling us that fascism is bad? Moreover, the obvious hints toward the current American administration are at best irresponsible. Goodness knows I'm no fan of Bush, but I find no grounds for suggesting that he will suddenly sieze power and ruin personal freedoms. Jumping Jehosaphat, the guy's a Methodist! Also, I think the very idea of a (true) Christian as fascist tyrant is patently ridiculous. How in the world did he rise to power without somebody saying, "Hey, you might want to examine your actions in the light of Christ"? I wouldn't have minded so much if the movie clearly seperated the leader's lust for power from his veneer of faithfulness, but the filmmakers seem content to swamp the baddies with plenty of Christian imagery. This is actually related to what I see as a bit of a plot hole. How does England, for all intents and purposes a completely secularized nation, suddenly fall into the hands of a Christian zealot? Tsk tsk, Wachowskis.

That leads to the other unfortunate realm of preachiness of "V For Vendetta", its relentless pushing of homosexuality as admirable. Here I am wading into dangerous territory, which I fully acknowledge and accept. Let us differentiate between what I believe about homosexuality and where I think the movie goes wrong in its handling of it. I have no problem coming up against gay and lesbian characters in movies. No, I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, but neither do I run and hide from it (I actually would like to see it so I can make an informed judgment about it). Use your vast mental capabilities to distinguish my views about the practice in general from my views on how it is used in the movie.

Despite its obvious ringing endorsement of homosexuality, I would actually argue that "V For Vendetta", in its goodhearted way, does damage to helping people see gays as humans (something that I readily confess many conservative Christians need to do). The homosexuals in the movie are used mostly symbolically, to stand for all repressed people. But they are largely without actual dimension- they are too busy being martyrs for the cause to be actual characters. The filmmakers obviously want to score a blow against the people they see as tyrranical bigots, but they fail to move beyond the symbolic. In many ways they take the typical detached liberal stance- say you care but make no effort to help. I hate the erroneous comparison of the gay rights movement with the black civil rights movement of the 60's (hmm... I see another post emerging from this one), but in this case they really do remind me of those Northerners who condemned the South but did nothing to really help the plight of blacks.

I guess the thing that strikes me as odd about the agenda of the film is that it so desperately wants the audience to agree with it. A movie made as a protest against thought policing which nonetheless attempts to manipulate its audience into believing a certain absolute viewpoint is devious and contradictory indeed.

Additionally, for a movie which strikes such an anti-bigotry stance, "V for Vendetta" comes across as awfully prejudiced. Certainly I am annoyed that not one sympathetic, sincere Christian was portrayed among the vile hypocrisy of the administration. The movie would have us believe that a nation ruled by Christians would support only mindless loss of freedoms and the systematic slaughter of poor, innocent homosexuals. A somewhat tenuous position.

Overall the movie succeeds philosophically when it sticks to asking questions, but becomes heavy handed when shoving the answers down the audience's throats.