[/if]
V for Vendetta: SubVersive Vindication
[/noprocess][var: 'thisCategory' = 'Action'][if: $thisCategory != 'Author Bio']some spoilers ahead
Your instinctive approach to film will likely determine how much you enjoy V for Vendetta (2006). Delight in the slick action and fierce combat on display in the trailer? Then you’ll be pleased only in spurts: this film’s edge relies more on cutting words than flashing knives. Arrested by propaganda and intrigued by conspiracy? V for Vendetta has plenty for you to chew on, but it’s not nearly as controversial as some declare. Looking for a provoking work of cinematic art that will brand its mark in your mind? Why, then, this should be your cup of tea.
V for Vendetta is a sophisticated comic book adaptation (from Alan Moore’s celebrated critique of British conservatism in the 80s) that lives up to its origins: the film is based on a “graphic novel,” the genre category assigned comic books that pack weightier themes within a thicker binding. Vendetta is itself a fully realized “idea,” something that “V,” the film’s protagonist, claims is greater than any man. This atypical spring film is arresting, not only for its haunting visuals and charismatic characters, but also for its subversive screenplay which raises questions about a number of important ideas. These include biological warfare, media manipulation, combating terrorism, censorship, executive power, and the governments’ links to business.
The Wachowski Brothers are on board as producers along with their assistant director from the Matrix films, James McTeigue, who has taken the reigns of lead director for this one. The film is darkly, yet beautifully shot, with sharp editing to keep the whirling dervish of this mystery/drama/suspense story spinning, all the while interrogating the aforementioned ideas for the viewer’s digesting pleasure as the plot follows V’s next steps to turn this world upside down.
A quick synopsis of the world of Vendetta: a totalitarian government controls England with an iron fist. People are spoon-fed fearful tales of biological warfare and terrorism in order to keep them sedated under the rule of chancellor Sutler, a manic Hitler II who uses religious-sounding spins (“strength through unity, unity through faith”) to enforce his rule. The public wonders about the news they receive but have no means to voice their concern—freedom of speech has been taken away. One bit of news they are constantly fed is that “conspirators” are being rounded up every day to keep the public safe (in reality, these targets are “undesirables”—Muslims, illegal immigrants, and homosexuals—who are covertly taken to testing facilities where they are experimented upon with biological agents to find a “cure” for the next biological weapon).
And then the 5th of November arrives along with V and his violent means of revealing the truth . . . and all hell breaks loose.
“Hell,” that is, if, like Sutler, you’re a fiercely extreme right-wing fascist who distorts the Christian religion to control others. This is just the beginning of the film’s strange mirror of our current culture. As Evey (the astounding Natalie Portman in a career-topping performance), the woman who is caught between fearing V and believing in his dream, says: "Artists use lies to tell the truth.”
The question the film’s artists bring to the table is whether our own world is becoming like V’s. The answer is up to the viewer. Do we “villain-ize” certain groups in order to sway public opinion? Do we ask fear-provoking questions to justify things we would never do during peacetime? Do we feed our economic engine with war? Do we link religious propaganda with politics in order to gain more votes and shape legislation? Does our world fight for the “strong” to retain control, leaving the “weak” to follow meekly in their steps?
“V” (voiced by Hugo Weaving in a dynamic, part-Phantom of the Opera, part-Count of Monte Cristo performance) is this fictional world’s Christ figure, one seeking to save the poor and the oppressed. His true appearance is cloaked by a mask he wears to hide the scars of a fire that baptized his features during a violent escape from a bio-testing facility. During the testing that changed his body’s molecular structure, “his body showed an alarming ability to withstand any virus they infected him with,” somewhat similar to Jesus’ ability to withstand the world’s disease of sin and be resurrected from the flames of death.
V deliberately starts a revolution to erase the injustice he has seen and experienced, claiming that "I, like God, do not play at dice, and I don't believe in coincidences." His purpose is to change the world, and he does this through violence, a means he and Evey question at the same that they employ it as the only means to awaken the world to the “lies politicians use to cover the truth.” Ironically, V’s growing following employs a non-violent way to make their voice heard by wearing replicas of his mask in a grandiose finale.
If this fictional society sounds uncomfortably familiar, it’s with good cause. This movie means to stir the pot, and I applaud its boldness. Some viewers may view V as a terrorist with his own agenda more than a Savior—disparate roles the movie collapses into one. That the viewer often sees this world through the eyes of a government agent (a burdened, but strong performance by Stephen Rhea) who has been assigned to take V down, and whose detective work begins to reveal sympathetic clues that explain V’s actions, only deepens the anti-hero’s ambiguity. (After all, we see those who changed great regimes as “heroes” only after a government has toppled and the victors have written their highly subjective account. If our Sovereign God allows the United States to fall at some point in the future, some other country will replace us as the leading world power with yet another “hero” in tow.)
This skillfully made film will shock and unhinge some of its viewers. Despite how uncomfortable I was with some of the movie’s depictions of our faith, the creators of V for Vendetta have good reason to present this horrific, futuristic world as ruled by a seemingly “Christian,” conservative extremist. In the current American mind, Christianity is far too often linked with a political or religious agenda rather than real spiritual renewal. Those in the conservative right have learned how to use Biblical rhetoric to sway the masses, determining who and what is good and evil for the American public. Certain groups are demonized, judgments administered, and we find ourselves in a war supported by the idea that we are fighting “evil,” a battle that the “virtuous” U.S. will actually never be able to win. In V’s world, as in ours, it seems that a new god has been created, one who supports “righteous” governments instead of one who cares for those who have chosen to follow him (regardless of what government leads them). To point out just one memorable example of this fatal way of governing, recall Constantinople and Constantine’s enforcing of Christianity as the only religion . . .
Jesus has His revolution, but it is one of the heart. It does not happen by way of government regulations or state-enforced religion. Nor does it involve a stringent moral code: He knows we could never live up to such a standard. He came for the poor in spirit (including Roman Centurions, Samaritans, and prostitutes – some examples of “undesirables” in His own time) who are seeking to know the Truth. He didn’t come with violence, but He did come with a sword, one that pierces the heart and still divides us today. Those who believe in Him wear His face of righteousness and look forward to the day when He will reign victorious, when governments and politics will collapse in His presence.
But until that day, we are left with the quandary of how we can realize some of that future kingdom of peace today. The idea that such dramatic change requires violence is a notion I will leave you to either Verify or Void.
Posted by Mike Sullivan at March 23, 2006 10:18 PM
Comments
I vote void. I compare V's methods to Machiavelli rather than Christ. What excuse for his treatment of Evey if not the ends justifying the means? He is certainly not a blessed peacemaker.
Excellent thoughts and well written, Mike.
Posted by: Bill Stevenson at March 25, 2006 12:31 PM
Thanks Bill. It's interesting how we view V's treatment of Evey. While we feel the decision of one human to "force" another to a certain viewpoint by extreme means is not blessed, how often have the persecutions and/or deaths of believers been God's means to accomplish His goals (the spread of the gospel is often multpilied throughout history by fierce consequences - whether by Roman rule in the time of Christ or in Asia today where the church is growing despite being outlawed by communism). God does not consult the individual believer to determine whether facing persecution or death will increase or diminish his or her faith in His purpose (regardless if their heart is prepared for it or not). He does what He sees as necessary to accomplish His will.
Once again, V mirrors (imperfectly) Christ with the line "I, like God, do not play at dice, and I don't believe in coincidences," revealing his view of himself as occupying a "god-like" position within the story. While his goal is freedom/vengeance (depending on how we look at it), he acts without question as if He were God's sovereign hand in Evey's life. But V is our Lord and Savior, so his actions are more brainwashing and abusive than freeing.
With this scenario, the film gives us, as believers, a possible perspective of one who doesn't trust God or follow the Lord. He or she could see God like V if they were to read Job, and wonder if God is only a chessmaster, moving the pieces as He deems necessary. What gives God the right to justify His actions to kill Job's children and disease his body? To know Him and trust Him better? So He can say He is God and Job is not? Why do His ends have to be the justification of all the sin and suffering on earth?
For those who have/are persecuted for belief in our Lord, they have weighed the price and been willing to pay it. They trust God and rest their faith in Him; they love Him regardless of how He enacts His will (even if their families or their lives must be the price).
Perhaps a new question is, while Evey in the end loved V and was willing to have suffered to see through his eyes, are we willing to do so for our Savior? Paul often prayed that he would know "Christ in His sufferings" so that we would know and understand Him better. But what if this prayer were to result in a different, harder way for us to experience God's grace and love than we're willing to pay? Would the end justify the means for us?
Posted by: Mike Sullivan at March 29, 2006 2:23 PM
Ok, somehow between proofing and submitting, some of my wording was changed (sorry if I offended anyone). I meant to say at the end of paragraph 2, "But V is NOT our Lord and Savior, so his actions are more brainwashing and abusive rather than freeing." And in paragraph 4, I meant to write "Paul often prayed that he would know 'Christ in His death and sufferings' so that he would know and understand Him better." Once again, I apologize for the mistakes.
Posted by: Mike Sullivan at March 29, 2006 2:29 PM
Mike, do you think Evey was "willing" to suffer to see through her pal's eyes?
Posted by: Paul M. at March 29, 2006 2:30 PM
Good question Paul. If she had known what she would have to go through, I'm not sure if she would have made that first step to see from V's perspective. But to see through someone else's eyes is always a loss of self (whether through physical, mental or emotional pain to get there). Taking up a cross and living for someone else by our own means is extremely hard (and living for God impossible without His help).
It would be interesting to imagine how many in scripture would have been willing to sacrifice if they knew the journey ahead (and if the Holy Spirit were not involved) to see through God's eyes. One strong example is Jeremiah. Would one called by God today believe if he or she knew they would see no one receive the gospel (or repent) for 40 years, meanwhile having to contine to speak when everyone wants to kill you? Jeremiah, in Chapter 20, falls into his own dark questioning, faltering between doubt, faith and doubt again:
vs. 7 "O Lord, you deceived me and I was deceived. You overpowered me and prevailed. I am ridiculed all day long; everyone mocks me."
vs. 11 "But the Lord is with me like a mighty warrior; so my persecutors will stumble and not prevail."
vs. 14 "Cursed be the day I was born! May the day my mother bore me not be blessed."
Praise be to God that He has given the means to see through His eyes, not by our strength, but by His Son's. His longsuffering and perseverance is our example that faith in God can result in seeing through new eyes and loving with a new heart.
Posted by: Mike Sullivan at March 29, 2006 2:50 PM
So essentially, you aren't reviewing this film so much as mining it for a critical perspective on the relationship between contemporary Xianity and big government in a "Christian" nation.
That right?
Posted by: Randall Smith at March 30, 2006 4:41 PM
I guess it became that at the end, Randall. My review segued into allowing the film to be more of a centerpiece to discuss my "ideas" instead of chewing more on V's (or the Wachowski bros'). But from a review standpoint, I did applaud the film's boldness as well as its direction, editing, screenplay and acting (it's in there more towards the beginning than the end of the review). It's a good film to unhinge the door of the brain, but I guess I allowed it more to open my heart. What did you think of it as a film?
Posted by: Mike Sullivan at March 30, 2006 6:36 PM
That's just it -- I haven't seen the film yet,and am looking at all of these reviews to try to get an idea of whether or not it's a film I'd like to see. In other words, is it worth it? I'm having trouble from that perspective, answering the question.
And, BTW, I think that using a film to unhinge your brain like that is a good thing. ;-) I guess sometimes I feel that these reviews end up being more like a written experiment in either apologetics or cognitive therapy. That is, they feel more like blog posts and less like movie reviews. I know my own reviews (both print and online) have fallen prey to that phenomenon.
Posted by: Randall Smith at March 31, 2006 1:25 PM
Randall, for a quick summary of the film from a cinematic approach, I pulled some of my comments from the review:
"Looking for a provoking work of cinematic art that will brand its mark in your mind? Why, then, this should be your cup of tea."
"V for Vendetta is a sophisticated comic book adaptation (from Alan Moore’s celebrated critique of British conservatism in the 80s) that lives up to its origin."
"This atypical spring film is arresting, not only for its haunting visuals and charismatic characters, but also for its subversive screenplay which raises questions about a number of important ideas."
"The film is darkly, yet beautifully shot, with sharp editing to keep the whirling dervish of this mystery/drama/suspense story spinning, all the while interrogating the aforementioned ideas for the viewer’s digesting pleasure as the plot follows V’s next steps to turn this world upside down."
"“V” (voiced by Hugo Weaving in a dynamic, part-Phantom of the Opera, part-Count of Monte Cristo performance)"
"As Evey (the astounding Natalie Portman in a career-topping performance), the woman who is caught between fearing V and believing in his dream, says: "Artists use lies to tell the truth.”"
"This skillfully made film will shock and unhinge some of its viewers. If this fictional society sounds uncomfortably familiar, it’s with good cause. This movie means to stir the pot, and I applaud its boldness."
If these comments on the film do not intrigue you enough as a recommendation, then I would say don't bother seeing it. But if the content and questions presented are important to you and you'd like to see the ideas presented in an artistically stylized way, go for it and let me know what you think.
Posted by: Mike Sullivan at March 31, 2006 1:47 PM