V For Vendetta

[The Wrath]

Anyone else got the DVD yet? I picked it up the other day, and watched it last night. I still like it, and there are still some parts that I find inspiring, but the leftist slant still kinda irks me. And my fiancee doesn't like the fact that it shows girls in their underwear in a couple of scenes, but oh well.

[JMeganSnow]

Yeah, my housemate picked up the DVD, we were watching it when some friends came over and they remarked that they didn't like it because it focusses so much on the oppression of homosexuals. Why does everyone focus on these tiny little disintegrated bits when watching this movie?! Do they do this when they watch OTHER movies? Or is it just that V for Vendetta happened to contain something guaranteed to hit the hot button on just about every knee-jerk twerp out there?

[The Wrath]

No, I don't do that with every movie. Just political ones. Don't get me wrong, I love the movie. I'm just pointing out what I see as the only thematic flaw: it's leftist slant.

[JMeganSnow]

I didn't mean you, Moose . . . thematic flaws are important, because they are intrinsic in the whole of the artwork. The main flaw in V for Vendetta (in my view) was that it was strictly against . . . it wasn't for anything. Personally, I think it's nice to see people being against things that are bad (totalitarianism, at least it wasn't for socialism) given the state of the culture, and that's why I evaluate this as a relatively good movie. I just find it ridiculous that someone could evaluate an entire movie as bad because three characters are gay or there are some boobs on screen for a few minutes. Don't get me wrong: small incongruous or poorly-handled elements detract from the movie, but they do not automatically render the whole completely worthless.

It's kind of like how you can be friends with someone that occasionally tells a white lie or two on the basis of the fact that they are mostly a good person . . . assuming that your relationship is based largely upon the good aspects of their character.

[RationalEgoistSG]

Since when is having homosexuals in a movie a bad thing, "leftist" even? I found the written story of the homosexual woman, the actress, to be one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. Further, homosexuals have been unjustly treated as criminals for much of history, so it made perfect sense for the story to focus on them as one of the first victims of a totalitarian government. Are we to say that homosexuals should be rounded up and imprisoned, or at the very least, cast with moral outrage? On what basis is homosexuality evil in any sense of the word? Because it is not "natural?" Do you think romantic love is natural, something that arises from evolutionary standards? If we were to act according to our "biological nature" we should be having sex with as many people as possible and never even think of using birth control or having an abortion! I find the sex of the person that we love to be completely irrelevant in regard to moral evaluation.

Also, I hardly interpret what happens to the United States in the movie to be some silly leftist smear. In the original graphic novel, we're introduced to a world in which the Cold War became hot. There needed to be an updated version of why the US was out of the picture - so to blame it on the War on Terrorism makes perfect sense. I have little doubt that there was a little bit of leftist intent in that, but WHO CARES?

The movie is a fantastic piece of art, and to focus on minute little details that are so unbelievably unimportant is absurd to me. I can't imagine how anyone who thinks like that can be happy about anything around them, or can really enjoy art for that matter. It seems that there are one too many conservative Objectivists out there.

[ian]

I was pretty bored with it, remember wondering afterwards what all the fuss was about.

All that is left in my mind after all these months was that "V" was a pompous twit and Natalie Portman's acting was very average.

[JMeganSnow]

It seems that there are one too many conservative Objectivists out there.

Jumping to conclusions a bit? My friends and Moose's girlfriend aren't Objectivists.

[LaszloWalrus]

What is a "conservative Objectivist" anwyay?

[The Wrath]

Since when is having homosexuals in a movie a bad thing, "leftist" even? I found the written story of the homosexual woman, the actress, to be one of the most powerful scenes of the movie. Further, homosexuals have been unjustly treated as criminals for much of history, so it made perfect sense for the story to focus on them as one of the first victims of a totalitarian government. Are we to say that homosexuals should be rounded up and imprisoned, or at the very least, cast with moral outrage? On what basis is homosexuality evil in any sense of the word? Because it is not "natural?" Do you think romantic love is natural, something that arises from evolutionary standards? If we were to act according to our "biological nature" we should be having sex with as many people as possible and never even think of using birth control or having an abortion! I find the sex of the person that we love to be completely irrelevant in regard to moral evaluation.

This isn't what I meant. No, I don't think homosexuals should be oppressed. But the two groups in the movie, who are portrayed as oppressed, are Muslims and homosexuals. Now, I don't think we should oppress Muslims and homosexuals. But if you ask any Michael Moore-style leftist (like the Wachowskis), they will tell you that Muslims and homosexuals are already oppressed. This country may not be perfect, but it's total BS to consider either of those groups "opressed." So, while I don't disagree with any ideas explicitly put forth, I think that the way the directors and writers portrayed "oppression" shows that they had a leftist slant. As I said, Muslims and homosexuals should not be oppressed...but it is the left that harps on the civil rights of both groups.

Also, I hardly interpret what happens to the United States in the movie to be some silly leftist smear. In the original graphic novel, we're introduced to a world in which the Cold War became hot. There needed to be an updated version of why the US was out of the picture - so to blame it on the War on Terrorism makes perfect sense. I have little doubt that there was a little bit of leftist intent in that, but WHO CARES?

I don't care. I still like the movie. But in the talk show host's secret room is an interesting poster. It has a hybrid British-US flag with a swastika on top, that says "Coalition of the Willing to Power." How can you consider that anything but a leftist smear at the United States? I understand the need to explain the downfall of the United States, but that poster is completely unnecessary and serves no purpose other than to take a jab at Bush and Blair.

The movie is a fantastic piece of art, and to focus on minute little details that are so unbelievably unimportant is absurd to me. I can't imagine how anyone who thinks like that can be happy about anything around them, or can really enjoy art for that matter. It seems that there are one too many conservative Objectivists out there.

I'm not conservative. I would call a right-wing slant too, if I thought there was one.

[orangesiscool]

I was wondering how other people reacted to the Old Bailey explosion, as for me I burst out laughing (triumph like, not mocking or of belittling). Of course I was smiling as soon as he said for the music his speciality was percussion but that he would use the whole orchestra. I actually have yet to finish the 2nd half of the movie.

[miz astrid]

I intended to see this movie in the theatre, but managed not to, unfortunately. I thoroughly enjoyed it at home.

I have a question for Moose though:

Now, I don't think we should oppress Muslims and homosexuals. But if you ask any Michael Moore-style leftist (like the Wachowskis), they will tell you that Muslims and homosexuals are already oppressed. This country may not be perfect, but it's total BS to consider either of those groups "opressed."

Do you not think that homosexuals being deprived of the right to enter into a marriage contract is oppression? While certainly there are worse examples of oppression, I do think this is an example, however slight. And while I don't think the government should be involved in issuing 'marriage licenses' I do think that consenting adults should be able to enter contracts regardless of their sexual orientation. My assertion then is that homosexuals in this country are oppressed. If someone cares to explain how this doesn't constitute oppression I'd be glad to hear it.

[mweiss]

V for Vendetta

“Behind this mask, is more than just flesh… behind this mask, is an idea”

Rarely does a film come along that makes me sit up and take notice for it’s philosophical message. V for Vendetta is such a film. Here is one solitary man, who stands alone against a corrupt future government, and single-handedly manages to topple a corrupt dictatorship with many parallelisms to pre-WWII Germany.

That he does it through the clever use of his mind is what makes this story refreshingly unique.

This film is set about 20 years into the future. A plague has killed nearly 100,000 people, America has been reduced to civil war, and England has emerged victorious, or so it’s leaders claimed. But they live in an era where all civil liberties have been given up for their own protection. In their Parliament is a madman (who seemed not terribly unlike the madman we currently have in our White House) who asserts authority of the religious right-wing. Anyone with deviant behavior or ideas is put to death. It is a total surveillance society.

Our masked character, masked, because of the burns he suffered while at the hands of one of these ‘concentration camp’-like facilities where they locked people up like rabid animals and performed cruel experiments- carries out his vendetta, with a calm, implaccable certainty of self-confidence and the brilliance of more than a decade of devoted study of his enemies, and systematically, one by one, he eliminates these corrupt government officials, one by one.

Early in the story, he befriends a young woman who worked in some unimportant position at the TV network, by saving her from what would have been certain imprisonment and death for violating the curfew put in place by this totalitarian dictatorship. Upon dispatching her attackers with theatrical aplom fitting of a fine martial artist, he invites her to be present at a “concerto” of a very different sort, which he would orchestrate. So began a very intriguing relationship.. and her loyalty was about to be discovered.. and tested.

A terrorist, as so-called by the national media, but a liberator and freedom fighter to the oppressed, “V”, as he called himself, was the epitomy of a man who used his intellect to neutralize his enemies and who moved a nation into revolution. His broadcast, all over national television, was remeniscent of John Galt’s speech at the end of Atlas Shrugged, in some general ways, as he informed the viewers that their government’s time was up, and that on the 5th of November, things would change. He became an underdog folk hero to many, as could be seen later in the film, when thousands of people, wearing the same mask, marched on Parliament.

It was a powerful and inspiring film, and it was also a warning to government, that it should not seek to steal the People’s liberties in the name of perceived safety, that such deals are raw deals and the People can only lose if they accept such terms.

I think this is one of the more worthwhile films, with a less overused plot and a dark, but true hero. I highly recommend it.

Edited January 19, 2007 by mweiss