Sunday, March 26, 2006
V for Dystopic Misery on the Silverscreen!
Take Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, Hitler and Nazism in WW2, the Iraqi war, The Bush Administration in general, Guy Fawkes, Zorro, and the Matrix movies, take out all the CORE, PROFOUND meanings, scenes, ideas etc from all of them, add a gorgeous bald Jew, and ..you get V for Vendetta.I'm not bashing at all, just giving you the chemical make up of the movie. Many people say the movie is anagolous to the Bush Administration, but I'm really going to differ here. The story has largely taken ideas from Nineteen Eighty-Four, and added different contemporary historical concepts to it so we can relate things in the movie to different memories we have from the History Channel or CNN.
If it has ANY relation to the Bush administration, I think it's in terms of potential. How if what the Bush administration is doing now escalates further ..the world which exists in V for Vendetta is only inevitable. Which I wouldn't really doubt.
I thoroughly enjoyed the monologues throughout the film, a drama kid's dream. I'm not going to lie when I say I fell madly in love with Hugo Weaving's voice, the actor who plays V. However, I'm glad the Mask remains on the entire time. It became rather attractive after 15 minutes into the movie. Something about a masked man always gets my crank turning. Mystery is sexy, fellows.
Unless its your sexuality, then no.
The parallels with Nazism were groan-inducing at times. For instance, the Leader's position is "Chancellor". He is voted into power. When he gives speeches, he speaks with the utmost passion with those flailing arms ...while the military marches in front of him.
And when you watch the movie, you'll understand what I meant by including the Matrix in the mix.
What's funny is that after the film, the group I was with and I, started discussing the significance of Guy Fawkes day.
"So ..why do they celebrate that day? It was a failure."
"They love Guy Fawkes!"
"No they don't, douche"
"Look, guys, they celebrate the failure of Guy Fawkes to weaken, let alone destroy, the English Government. GOOD GOVERNMENT PREVAILED, BOLLOCKS!"
"But they have fun, don't they? They have bonfires!"
"Yeah, and burn ephigies of the man while yelling obscenities"
"They're British ..what else will they celebrate?"
etc.
It was actually quite stimulating.
Visually, the movie is aesthetically delightful. Some very emphatic, amazing scenes.
There are several extremely memorable scenes as there are lines. The one which had be chuckling went something like .."He was in all the wars, Iraq, Kurdistan, Syria ..before and after". Another scene involved Detective Finch posing perhaps one of the most important questions to those living under a State (ie. everyone), which is that if you knew that the people in your government were the ones behind it all (lies, terrorism etc) ...would you want to believe it?
For me, that was one of the most memorable and climatic scenes in the movie. Because it's exactly what we all should be asking ourselves as citizens of nations. Do we want to believe that our own governments would kill us? Do we want to believe that our government would lie to us? Not want the better for us?
Within the movie there is also a very interesting romance brewing, which adds a human face to an idea so crude, real and passionate. It's the sort of romance based on a mutual understanding deeper than what words could ever convey, as cliche and corny as it sounds. They don't speak of it, they just live it. Through their love for one another they are able to stay committed to an idea beyond their own understanding, really. And if you're like me and like to look deeply into things, then what it seemed to say is that love is always the prevailing idea, concept, feeling. It's love which drives, in any context. I found this to be both too redundant but far too true.
Furthermore, does the movie promote terrorism as the critics and media say it does? No, not at all. What the movie advocates is the idea, as said in the movie, that people should not be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people. Power is within the people, not within the Government. We gave them power, we gave them the authority to do what is needed to satisfy OUR needs. Without us, they are useless. The movie asks the audience to have a look at the State. Is the State really working to meet and secure your needs? Or is it working to secure its power? V for Vendetta asks for a revolution through realization.
It's really a great movie for those who are usually apathetic towards politics. It's a movie which can make one question one's surroundings. No doubt there. It arises several questions regarding political authority, however I wonder if it does it enough. Something was just missing. And I think that that which is missing can be found in the graphic novel. The movie has forced me to go out and get the novel. I hope that when people watch this movie, they also read the book. It's only then can the real meaning of the story come out.
It seemed to be that there was a lot that needed to be said, but no one wants to sit in a theater for 6 hours straight. However, all those things can be found within the book. So, if you're reading this and plan on watching the movie, I implore you to also read the novel. If you truly want something out of the film, read the book as well.
I'd suggest the book before the movie, just because you go in understanding the movie already, what drives the story, the people, V, Evie, etc.
If you're going to watch any movie this year, THIS is the movie you should watch. Although the ideas are not new, they just can't be pressed into our minds enough. If these ideas had been embedded into our minds already, then the state of the world surely would not be as it is today.
It's worth the $10.75 at the IMAX on St. Catherines.
// posted by Sana @ 1:43 AM 
Comments:
<< Home
I actually saw this flick the other night in the crammed comfort of a friends living room – instead of the usual intense reading night, the anarchist reading circle I frequent decided to have a light hearted fun night, so we watched this movie instead (oh blessed bit torrent).
*** spoiler ***
Two words: Stockholm Syndrome!
I’m sorry I just couldn’t get past it. Patriarchy in its most explicit and primitive form: the man violently taking over and re-constructing the woman’s universe to suit his own ends. And she submits like a battered kitten.
The movie came off to me like a bunch of romanticized gratuitous violence – glory killings and the like (The signature rose – I mean what the fuk! Let’s talk about self-exaltation). Normally I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this, except normally there’s no façade, no intent, no sub-text, just a whole lot of violence for guys with no sex lives relish about with their salivating friends. Unfortunately not the case with V. No here there’s a weak attempt to lace all of this pomposity with a message that genuinely needs to be let out of the hat, one about states, human potential, and comradery. The problem with messages like those is that if you don’t communicate them right, people associate them with psychopaths in clown masks living in post apocalyptic England, instead of with themselves and the oft-unappreciated possibilities of the promised tomorrow. I say, one-step forward ten steps back for anarchism and revolutionary movements in general. While the rest of us are looking for everyday pragmatic solutions, the next generation of disenfranchised kids will be thinking about costume get up, and bombing world embassies, “for the greater good,” of course.
(Needless to say – this wasn’t the general opinion of the reading circle, and I’m just a wanker anyways)
PS. I heard the guy that wrote the book, actually disavowed the film :-P
*** spoiler ***
Two words: Stockholm Syndrome!
I’m sorry I just couldn’t get past it. Patriarchy in its most explicit and primitive form: the man violently taking over and re-constructing the woman’s universe to suit his own ends. And she submits like a battered kitten.
The movie came off to me like a bunch of romanticized gratuitous violence – glory killings and the like (The signature rose – I mean what the fuk! Let’s talk about self-exaltation). Normally I wouldn’t have much of a problem with this, except normally there’s no façade, no intent, no sub-text, just a whole lot of violence for guys with no sex lives relish about with their salivating friends. Unfortunately not the case with V. No here there’s a weak attempt to lace all of this pomposity with a message that genuinely needs to be let out of the hat, one about states, human potential, and comradery. The problem with messages like those is that if you don’t communicate them right, people associate them with psychopaths in clown masks living in post apocalyptic England, instead of with themselves and the oft-unappreciated possibilities of the promised tomorrow. I say, one-step forward ten steps back for anarchism and revolutionary movements in general. While the rest of us are looking for everyday pragmatic solutions, the next generation of disenfranchised kids will be thinking about costume get up, and bombing world embassies, “for the greater good,” of course.
(Needless to say – this wasn’t the general opinion of the reading circle, and I’m just a wanker anyways)
PS. I heard the guy that wrote the book, actually disavowed the film :-P
I didn't think it was at all patriarchial, the protagonist WAS a woman.
Plus, its through HER that HE is able to reach his own realization ..which proved to be very important in the end.
She never submits to him. She submits to herself, and her past, and her beliefs ..she needed help in realizing this all. Plus, she makes all the decisions to help him ..from the macing to pulling the crank.
DOn't forget ..it's based off a graphic novel, so some of the things are bound to be odd on the screen ..although not as odd when in comic form.
I also don't understand why Anarchists are so for this movie. The movie is not at all against government, but rather totalitarian government. It's not saying the state should be demolished, but that the state should be reformed.
Plus, its through HER that HE is able to reach his own realization ..which proved to be very important in the end.
She never submits to him. She submits to herself, and her past, and her beliefs ..she needed help in realizing this all. Plus, she makes all the decisions to help him ..from the macing to pulling the crank.
DOn't forget ..it's based off a graphic novel, so some of the things are bound to be odd on the screen ..although not as odd when in comic form.
I also don't understand why Anarchists are so for this movie. The movie is not at all against government, but rather totalitarian government. It's not saying the state should be demolished, but that the state should be reformed.
I don't doubt that a lot of it comes of all askew because it was originally a graphic novel. Nonetheless, I’m not sure that the paternal relationship between the protagonist and her ‘enlightener’ can be overlooked. How much sanity is there in a revolt devised by folks that beat other folks to the brink of submission -- to test them of course. Sounds like Darwinian revolutionism to me. Whether or not she was obedient is irrelevant to his final cause, or even his awakening, "a people's revolution should be sanctioned by the people," (totally misquoted) sub-text: “in particular those people from whom I stole their humanity.” Although she did save him of her own freewill, I doubt that this was enough to make her an unconscionable bloodthirsty terrorist – no, first she had to be broken down to the battered kitten state aforementioned. Undoubtedly such extreme cases may be needed for such extreme revolutionary tactics, but for some reason, at least on an ethical level, I think such conditions should come from the state, or the enemy – not your so-called papa.
As for this being, or not being, an anarchist flick, or storyline even, judging by your justifications I still think your missing the point with this anarchy thing.
As for this being, or not being, an anarchist flick, or storyline even, judging by your justifications I still think your missing the point with this anarchy thing.
..IT WAS JUST A CLICHE STATEMENT,CONOR.
thanks.
bahahahahhhhaah.
And Chuk, the idea of Anarchism is big. I've got one view of it, you've got another. Maybe that's the problem with it.
And I still didn't see the relationship as being a paternalistic one. *shrug* ..to me that would be looking into it too much. I highly doubt the author thought to himself "hmm ..i'm going to make this an entirely patriarchial relationship to further bring down womankind".
I've been having issues lately with my fellow Feministas.
thanks.
bahahahahhhhaah.
And Chuk, the idea of Anarchism is big. I've got one view of it, you've got another. Maybe that's the problem with it.
And I still didn't see the relationship as being a paternalistic one. *shrug* ..to me that would be looking into it too much. I highly doubt the author thought to himself "hmm ..i'm going to make this an entirely patriarchial relationship to further bring down womankind".
I've been having issues lately with my fellow Feministas.
# posted by 
: 1:07 AM
: 1:07 AM
anarchism may be a big idea -- but so are a lot of ideas, and there are plenty of views that can do many a big idea plenty of disservice. as agents of discourse, the responsibility is upon us to treat such ideas with the utmost charity; some views are kinder than others.
as for the author maybe not thinking consciously of the fact that he's contributing to the systemic oppression of women, i doubt that many ‘oppressors’ ever do (the scare quotes are there for some supplemental reason I don’t feel like going into here; needless to say, I feel uncomfortable calling ignorant people oppressors.). (i know that this can be defended against with a, "well you can read anything into anything, can't you?" To which i would respond, yes, and undoubtedly those power plays are always present in any text, however, in the case of mr.V and his little lolita, i think it's painfully blatant.)
oh and conor… DUHHHHHHH :-P
as for the author maybe not thinking consciously of the fact that he's contributing to the systemic oppression of women, i doubt that many ‘oppressors’ ever do (the scare quotes are there for some supplemental reason I don’t feel like going into here; needless to say, I feel uncomfortable calling ignorant people oppressors.). (i know that this can be defended against with a, "well you can read anything into anything, can't you?" To which i would respond, yes, and undoubtedly those power plays are always present in any text, however, in the case of mr.V and his little lolita, i think it's painfully blatant.)
oh and conor… DUHHHHHHH :-P
isn't it just a general rule of thumb not to use cliche's in writing?
....yeah
....yeah
# posted by : 5:48 PM
: 5:48 PM
Anonymous ..yeah, if you're using Orwell's layout. lozl. *shrug*
And chuk, fair enough ..although I still don't agree. But agree to disagree. you and i need to have a talk over coffee soon.
And chuk, fair enough ..although I still don't agree. But agree to disagree. you and i need to have a talk over coffee soon.
gosh anonymous -- not if your being ironic... or was that supposed to be ironic...
... yeah.
we absolutely do sana -- i'll call you this week.
... yeah.
we absolutely do sana -- i'll call you this week.
you have my home or cell? Cell's out of minutes.
I'll need a break this weekend for sure ..yay 25 pages to be written!
I have a love/hate thing for corn pops. So good, yet they kill the top of your mouth.
gah.
Post a Comment
I'll need a break this weekend for sure ..yay 25 pages to be written!
I have a love/hate thing for corn pops. So good, yet they kill the top of your mouth.
gah.
<< Home
