So, the wife and I rented out our very first babysitter this weekend, and went to see the movie 'V for Vendetta'.
It was excellent.
Now, I don't particularly feel like venturing into spoiler territory, but I had read the graphic novel beforehand and I am in all ways satisfied with the film. It was well plotted, well shot, well acted, well filmed... it held your attention at every point and was full of interest. And it looked damned good. The fantastical elements, particularly those near the end, were a bit much for me, but did not detract significantly from my overall enjoyment.
I did feel a bit bad for Hugo Weaving, who as it was got no "face time". But he was the perfect pick for the long soliloquies. Gosh but that man has diction.
Even the part with Stephen Fry, where the film departed significantly from the graphic novel, was I think an improvement. The graphic novel, after all, was in my opinion one of Alan Moore's lesser works, suffering as it did from being written in two pieces years apart. And from a certain impetuousness which jarred with the subtlety, symbolism and intelligence of his later works.
Ah, and speaking of intelligence - someone on the local talk radio this morning said that they enjoyed the movie, but "it had too much talking in it". In particular, in one scene where V is disclaiming about himself at length, in poetic diction (but clear English), said listener "didn't understand half of what he was saying".
Doubtless a Bush voter.
Which gets me around to my other point.
Reading the various reviews of the film, I was struck by a number - a small number - of reviewers who panned the film "because it glamorized terrorism". Which is not any sort of movie review, really, it's a statement of personal moral opinion.
And it's also rather frightening, in the way that conservative idiots of this nation and around the world are; namely, they are told what to Believe and they Believe it. In the film, the V character is a bomber and a murderer. It's not actually apt to describe him as a "terrorist", inasmuch as he is not trying to terrify the public so much as to inspire them. The public is already quite terrified by their blatantly Fascist government.
But V kills people and blows stuff up. He's not a good person. But then, neither are the protagonists of a great many rather good movies. The Godfather. The Usual Suspects. Unforgiven. The quality of a film, the value of it to inspire thought, is not a function of the moral caliber of the protagonist.
Moreover, the antagonists are significantly more evil than the protagonist, if only by being self-interested rather than self-sacrificing when they commit their murders. And, of course, by the scale of their murders, which are on the industrial twentieth century new nightmare level. V is clearly the lesser of two evils.
Were one to object to the film because it was violent, that would be fine. It is, and those who object to that should avoid it. I am sadly unable to find, at the moment, the Christian movie reviewer who very even-handedly offers demerits to Black Hawk Down and The Hills Have Eyes alike. But that's not the crux of these folks' objection. These are the people who love Red Dawn.
They object to the film because the tactics used by the murderous protagonist against an even more murderous government are the same tactics used by certain evil religious fundamentalists against certain civilians in the real world.
In other words, Terrorism is Bad. It is Bad and anything redolent of it must be shunned. Judgement before thought; in fact, no thought at all. Terrorism Bad. Ugh.
Terrorism is bad. All civilized people agree on that. But those of us of a liberal persuasion prefer to think about terrorism. Why it is bad is self-evident - but why do people use it? How should we stop it? Might there be worse things?
What would it take for terrorism to be justified?
Whereas these sort of conservatives prefer not to think. They prefer to believe. It's easier. Terrorism is bad. Period, no further discussion. No causes, no effects. Bad. Thus I was told and thus I believe.
They forget Red Dawn, of course. But maybe it's not terrorism if the good guys do it.
There are parallels available in the film between the wicked Fascist government (as penned by Alan Moore as descending from Maggie Thatcher) and the Bush Administration. Most particular of these that I saw was the use of "rule through fear", which the Bush administration has excelled at. Be afraid! The terrorists are coming to get you! Booga booga!
But there are also, obviously, even larger differences. Although the Bush administration and their close supporters might want to disappear large numbers of people and establish a theocracy, the idea of their doing so is ridiculous on the face. Evil and corrupt the Bush administration may be, but they are to the Fascists of the film what brook trout are to great white sharks.
Certainly, these same people object, doubtless, because the movie is about revolution at a time when they themselves are obediently supporting an evil and corrupt government. But they don't badmouth the film because it "glamorizes revolution". They badmouth it because it "glamorizes terrorism".
In the end, V for Vendetta is a movie. A darned good one. It entertains and it makes one think. It is not about the real world; it is about issues which one may want to consider. Issues which then, outside of the fantastical context of the film, one might want to also consider in the context of the real world.
Which is precisely what the "baa movie with terrorism bad" crowd can't handle. Considering. Thinking. They have their blanket of belief, and fear it being disturbed by hypotheses and discussion.
Because blind faith cannot be wrong.
- Sun Ra