Note: What follows is both a combination of a movie review (which when I do it, usually bombs) and a blither about the way cultural elites deal with things they can’t understand, like people of faith (which when I do it, inevitably bombs). So forwarned is, you know: Forearmed.
Read on or don’t.
SNO was up from school last week, Spring Break. Chose to spend it con famiglia, which we all took as kind. Just like old days there, for a bit.
We went to see a movie together, that being one of the things we used to do. “V for Vendetta,” it was. British film. Perhaps you’ve heard of it.
I did a bit of pre-screen research – seemed to be about a “terrorist” fighting for freedom in some futuro-fascist Great Britain. Had some good names on the cast list too. Natalie Portman, for example. Which it’s hard to get too much of her, ordinarily.
The terrorist is the protagonist, like. Blowing up buildings but never killing anyone, except as who deserve it for their crimes. So, yeah: Daring. In a twenty-first century context.
Except that, since this is a film made in Britain’s version of Hollywood, there is a certain degree of artistic license we are supposed to grant. Where to start?
Oh. America’s down the tubes apparently, having lost that “war they started.” But not before bringing it home to Merry Olde. A nasty bug gets loose, lots of people die horribly and in the chaos that ensues certain “excesses” result in the depopulation of immigrants of all flavors. In restoring order, civil liberties are suspended, curfew starts at 10:00 PM sharp, and if you’re out walking about after you’re likely to get disappeared by the English adaptation of the mutawaeen.
Which, as it turns out, is the law enforcement arm of the Church of England.
That’s right – in this post-viral world, England is now an Anglican fascist theocracy. The man responsible is described as a “deeply religious” man. He’s also a member of the “conservative party,” in case that whole religion thing left in any doubt about who the bad guys really are in this movie – in American made films, we usually find out that evil politicians are conservative through a wink and a nod, but “V” spares us having to worry our little heads about it.
The terrorist protagonist is not just a modern-day Guy Fawkes, he actually spends the entire movie in a Guy Fawkes mask, cloak and period hat. Which limits, to a degree, his expressive range: When he’s happy, his mask is smiling! When he’s unhappy, his mask is smiling and he’s throwing knives at people! Sometimes he tilts his head! While quoting Shakespeare!
It gets better. Or, depending on your point of view, worse:
Turns out that the “deeply religious” high chancellor actually unleashed the bug upon his own people, as a clever way of seizing power from the frightened masses, who clearly didn’t know what was best for them, and needed a little bit of killing to bring the point right home. Oh, and just in case you’re still having a problem coming to grips with the terrorist as a good guy – you know: you have been conditioned to think otherwise – we learn that the Archbishop of Canterbury is apparently a church bureaucracy-enabled pedophile. Which is the exact point that I checked out of the plot and focused on technical artistry – which wasn’t all that bad, really.
Even trying as I might to willingly suspend disbelief, the whole weight of all the film’s misplaced moral certainties weighed me down after a while. I had to ask myself: Do the filmmakers not realize that Anglican priests marry?
And while I was on that:
Would no one else look at the death spiraling C of E and think the idea of it as a unifying force (even in a post-apocalyptic England) as risible? The Brits, for better or worse, are for the most part over that whole religion gig.
In an era when cartoonists get death threats heaped upon their heads, does it make sense that the future threat comes not from unassimilated and resentful immigrants, but rather from the same philosophical tradition that brought us the separation of church and state and the Enlightenment?
Do they not realize that the vast majority of modern fascist ideologies are not merely irreligious but anti-religious? Or that many more lives were fed into the insatiable maw of collectivist socialism than were ever lost in their fascist opposition? Or stop to think for a moment that there isn’t a figs worth of difference in practice between the radicalism of the extreme left and that of the extreme right?
Look: I understand that intelligent people can come down on all sides of the issue of faith. I understand that many people might find my own personal religious preferences nothing more than silly superstitions. Some might even look down on me. Having looked at the same sets of facts as they have, and given it no small amount of thought, I find that I am content with their contempt and try to wear their condescension as a badge of honor.
But in this case, the naked display of these cinematic prejudices goes a long way towards demonstrating that, even for educated people, the things we don’t understand – like faith – we eventually come to fear. Because otherwise, I simply don’t grok the part where mainline Christianity becomes a threat to anyone. The faith mainly teaches a philosophy of good life, and how to lead it. It’s a focus on the love of one’s God – if you prefer, you might label that notion “an organizing force that not only cares about us but also the difference between what we label ‘good’ and what we know of ‘evil,’ “ or even “something more important than the instant satisfaction of each of our own desires.” It’s a focus also on love of one’s neighbors, humility, charity and turning the other cheek. These used to be embedded and accepted cultural values, which guided us even when we didn’t quite live up to them. They were values in fact that enabled the tolerance of heterodox ideas on morality – “if it feels good, do it” Рwhich are now used by our cultural elites to hold us in contempt.
For the record, I do not submit that I am better than anyone else because I go to church. But I will testify that, for my own part, I am a better man than I might otherwise be. And if anyone out there is still afraid of me for that, I can only offer this up in my defense: I go fairly regularly, and if they’re talking about seizing the reins of government, planning immigrant pogroms, crucifying gays or somehow wresting from women the control of their uteruses, then I must be missing those meetings.
Most of all the movie just made me a little sad. I think I understand those people who genuinely fear the beliefs I hold dear. I’m always surprised at how little they understand me.
I think you give the “general public” too much credit for analytical thinking. While you and your readers might venture into the territory of actually thinking about what a movie means, I believe most people who go to these types of movies don’t possess the logic functions to see more than a shoot-em-up movie. They go to be entertained and will likely miss any finer points of a possible message.
Having said that, I hadn’t planned to see this movie anyway. I try to limit my movies to historical adaptations and light romantic comedies. I steer clear of these kinds of movies simply because the world is a dark enough place while we are living in it, in the here and now. Why would I spend $10/ticket plus “treats” to be scared or feel disillusioned when I can read it for free in the newspaper everyday?!
Myself, I have no use for organized religion. Used to, many years ago. For me now it’s more about a personal & private relationship with God and owning my own spirituality, on my own terms. Suits me.
Kris,
For reasons that are mostly not your fault, I growl while reading your first paragraph, and I’m trying to think why.
Maybe it’s because of all the extraordinarily educated intellectuals I know who disdain “the general public” and their inability to make the kind of finely tuned analyses that People Like Us do. The ironic thing is that most of these people would, seeing this movie, luxuriate in the warm bath of having their prejudices confirmed, all the while congratulating themselves for their rare depth of understanding.
I just can’t stand to hear the average person denigrated for not “possess[ing] the logic functions”, when so many who do, don’t much use them. In this I am not referring to you, and I am truly not trying to pick a fight.
Captain Lex,
I like this post very much. I’d venture that, to the extent that the story has been tweaked recently for greater “relevance”, it reflects the tendency of its authors to reframe the world’s conflicts on familiar and comforting terms. When the bad guys are overbearing religious conservatives (our kind), they can see themselves as the sensitive rebel. They generally prefer not to write about bad guys who’d be just as glad to kill the sensitive rebel as the deeply religious conservative.
“In this I am not referring to you, and I am truly not trying to pick a fight.”
JPS – didn’t take it personally and didn’t sense an impending fisticuffs. Sorry I made you growl first thing in the AM
To be honest, I was tempted not to include the first paragraph in my post as it is written; I wrestled with rewriting it. I’m not comfortable with the idea that it’s about “People Like Us” because I don’t pretend to be an intellectual or better than the average person. Frankly, if I’m considered to be “The Average Person” I count my blessings for flying under the radar so to speak.
That said, I do still believe that the average person goes to movies to be entertained and isn’t interested in a finer message or a broader context than that which is on screen. And I don’t exempt myself from that category – which is why I limit my movies as stated above, with the rare exception here and there. Because I DO like to think about movies, sometimes, but mostly I view them as escapism.
Lex always gives us much to ponder and digest.
There’s ignorance of religion and then there’s antipathy, which sounds like what the movie suffered from. I’m agnostic myself but have no desire to impose my beliefs on others, and I try to respect others’ beliefs as long as they respect mine.
Ignorance works both ways, alas. There exist sincere religious individuals who think people like me have no restraints preventing us from going on killing sprees, or stealing anything that isn’t nailed down, or even littering. Somehow I manage to lead an ethical life anyway. You are quite right, the persistent and willful ignorance gets … tiring.
Kris,
Thanks for the cordiality of your response. Your point, that most of us seek mainly entertainment value in movies, is a good one. (I do too.) I feel a little guilty for my somewhat knee-jerk comment.
“Lex always gives us much to ponder and digest.” Second that, emphatically.
I also took my son to see “V for Vendetta”. He had said he wanted to see it, and I knew it was directed by the Wachowski brothers, who did the fine MATRIX films. Gotta say the cinematography was great, and Natalie Portman is stunning.
But the film’s barely concealed contempt for any other worldview than the transnational elite’s really bothered me. It just seemed like nasty anarchist propaganda elegantly wrapped in a compelling visual package. If you didn’t know British history, you might even be tempted to swallow the tranzi meme without question.
The truth is that Guy Fawkes was indeed a traitor, and ordinary Englishpeople immediately recognized him as such. Far from the folk hero this movie makes him out to be, by trying to blow up the Houses of Parliment, he was a threat to the ordinary person’s rights and liberties.
Guy Fawkes’ Night is actually a holiday celebrating of the FOILING of the Gunpowder Plot, not the treason of the plotters. Who were all members of the nobility, BTW.
Nobility =cultural elites= people who want to do your thinking for you?
Hmmm…
“I feel a little guilty for my somewhat knee-jerk comment.”
Not at all – sparks the most interesting discussions when our feelings come from the gut (with proper editing for sensitivity, etc…).
And I wouldn’t be anything but cordial here – my own personal standards demand it, as I know the good Captain’s do as well. Wouldn’t want to be banished, sometimes this is the highlight of my day.
I know…I need to get out more.
Thanks fot the review Lex but if I can’t understand the advertisement I ain’t paying to watch it.
my $0.02: I don’t like to watch movies that defy the laws of physics like “The Matrix” or this V” for ….”, nor can I appreciate movies that defy the laws of nature like “Brokeback Mountain” or “Bambi”. Plus, I’ll believe in aliens when I see one. Deja vous- we already had this conversation when Lex commented on the recent academy awards….
CT Kris- seeing how we are all being honest here, I “feel” compelled to comment on your last para of your original entry #1. Lately, you do seem to have gone out of your way to expound on YOUR personal regard for “organized” religion (nil). Having read your past entries you seem to have a particularly special problem with Roman Catholicism. All of this is revealing but remember that some of us may in fact, be Catholic, or whatever and it pains us to “feel” diminished.
Personally, as a combative type “A” warrior, it makes me want to shoot off both barrels but I haven’t because, well… Ms. Kris- I normally agree with you on most other things you discuss.
Geez. Ain’t I sensitive old brute? Who’d want to poke me in the ribs?
B2
“Lately, you do seem to have gone out of your way to expound on YOUR personal regard for ?
“Lately, you do seem to have gone out of your way to expound on YOUR personal regard for “organized” religion (nil).”
B2 – First, I apologize if any comments I might make about organized religion offend – none is meant. Organized religion, to me, covers HUGE territory and is not limited to Christianity.
Also, I’m not sure I recall mentioning my feelings on religion very often; perhaps you are confusing me with someone else? And I don’t feel I went out of my way on this post, since Lex mentions his church-going and his thoughts about it in this very post – “…For the record, I do not submit that I am better than anyone else because I go to church…” as well as a dissection of the religious overtones of the “V” movie. Just added my 2 cents, for their worth.
I have a healthy admiration and respect for people who can devote themselves to their faith – for the record my in-laws are extremely devout Roman Catholics and 2 finer, more caring people you’ll never meet. For my husband and myself, our personal experiences have brought us down a more spiritual path, rather than an organized one.
Sorry for being off-topic Lex.
“Personally, as a combative type ?
“Personally, as a combative type “A” warrior, it makes me want to shoot off both barrels but I haven’t because, well… Ms. Kris- I normally agree with you on most other things you discuss.”
Thank you for your restraint B2. I too would consider myself a “combative type A warrior (non miliary of course)”; I hope I showed the same restraint and conviviality in my response.
Oh and thank you for the compliment…great minds think alike
*LOL at B2’s closing lines*
From my observations around the blogosphere, I’d say you’re definitely a (sensitive, old) brute.
As to poking in the ribs, I’d certainly be tempted… just to see what you’d do. *bratty grin*
It occurs to me (finally, and pace JPS) that the Wachowski brothers may have chosen the tyranny that they did for far more prosaic reasons than mere bigotry: On the one hand, it’s highly unlikely that offended Anglicans or conservative British politicians are going to raise a fuss/issue a fatwa than others might do, and 2) there’s no sense offending all of their friends in Hollywood by creating an enemy of collectivist socialism.
Besides, that’s so been done before. Well, not in the movies, but you know.
So: Never ascribe to malice what you can lay at the door of venal cowardice.
“I go fairly regularly, and if they?
“I go fairly regularly, and if they’re talking about seizing the reins of government (No, but we are citizens and being responsible people should promote & vote for those we deem to be the best candidate), planning immigrant pogroms (No, but if you’re here illegally you should be deported, no matter you’re orgins), crucifying gays(Not interested in that but it’s still wrong & I don’t appreciate having my face rubbed in it, AT ALL), or somehow wresting from women the control of their uteruses(Right, but there is a very distinct difference between a uterus and a human life), then I must be missing those meetings.” Yeah, I’ve missed them too Lex.
Kris,
“Gently-gently B2″
You have made your opinions/feelings known on organized religion before in the comments which are fine, but why bring it up at all? I never heard Lex call for a roll call on religious affiliation or lack thereof.
fbl,
re- “As to poking in the ribs, I?
Kris,
“Gently-gently B2″
You have made your opinions/feelings known on organized religion before in the comments which are fine, but why bring it up at all? I never heard Lex call for a roll call on religious affiliation or lack thereof.
fbl,
re- “As to poking in the ribs, I’d certainly be tempted… ”
Why, I’d cover up and go tee-hee-Hee like the Pillsbury Dough Boy….
B2
I too resent being fed propaganda under the guise of entertainment. Years ago, I took my boys to an animated movie where the bad guy was a blonde “surfer dude” chopping down the rain forest. Recently, I saw the movie “Winged Migration”; absolutely beautiful photography. Only problem was that birds migrating in Eastern Europe were faced with terrible pollution and, those migrating in North America were being shot at left and right. But ah… those birds lucky enough to call Africa and Western Europe home flew free! The movie was produced in cooperation with Air France!
B2,
Your response made me go “tee-hee-Hee!” LOL
“I never heard Lex call for a roll call on religious affiliation or lack thereof.”
B2 – and here I thought this was an open comments section to encourage dialogue and debate. I stand corrected. I’ll try to be more circumspect in my comments in the future…
“…the Wachowski brothers may have chosen the tyranny that they did for far more prosaic reasons than mere bigotry…”
Indeed. And perhaps for the most “artistic” of reasons. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time:
The muckraker Upton Sinclair sincerely believed that anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent of murder:, until their attorney Fred Moore ?
“…the Wachowski brothers may have chosen the tyranny that they did for far more prosaic reasons than mere bigotry…”
Indeed. And perhaps for the most “artistic” of reasons. It certainly wouldn’t be the first time:
The muckraker Upton Sinclair sincerely believed that anarchists Sacco and Vanzetti were innocent of murder:, until their attorney Fred Moore “…told me that the men were guilty, and he told me in every detail how he had framed a set of alibis for them.” Sinclair continued, “I faced the most difficult ethical problem of my life at that point. I had come to Boston with the announcement that I was going to write the truth about the case.”
“My wife is absolutely certain that if I tell what I believe, I will be called a traitor to the movement and may not live to finish the book,” Sinclair wrote Robert Minor, a confidant at the Socialist Daily Worker in New York, in 1927.
http://theanchoressonline.com/2005/12/29/sacco-vanzetti-guilty-after-all/
Maybe the Wachowski brothers fancy themselves bold defenders of individual rights against eeviilll Anglican theocracy. Or maybe they’re just very good dhimmis who are being extra careful not to offend the wrong people. Just sayin’. Hard to tell.
Must be a nuance thing.
Go into the light, children. All are welcome, ALL are welcome!
Kris-
I didn’t mean to attempt to stifle you with my last, I just was being upfront. Please, write what you want. I’d feel terrible if I thought you were being circumspect on my account.
B2
B2 – I was being snarky.
It is never my intention to offend or upset anyone, except to provoke further thought. In case you haven’t guessed, I’m fairly opinionated and I’m not shy. But I do try to be sensitive without editing myself too much.
All is forgiven on both sides – yes?
Douglas Kern says:
Try on the Mask. It’s “cool”….
http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=032306B
Now, see, that’s a review…
Kris- re “All is forgiven on both sides – yes?”
Why of course darling.
B2
B2 – “Why of course darling.”
Thank you. My heart’s aflutter now…darling indeed.