V for Vicious Cycle
Went to see V twice this weekend. I had promised both people trips, they did not overlap, and I was happy to pay the money twice. In turning the film over in my mind, I stumbled across a new paradigm that may be old hat to my illustrious readers, but it struck me as true and deep.
Some want to paint the film as American Liberals vs. American Conservatives. The film certainly draw some auspicious connections, but in reality strays quite a bit down the path.
I wrote this Sunday morning:
The filmmakers upgraded the war (from the graphic novel), and used some ties to current situations, but nothing more involved than that which could be used as a framework. The political framework of the government was not representative of any major political party in power in any major First World country. It was an extreme, taken to extremes, to prove a point. Any serious connection to current events would have to be made by the viewer, and would lead to a discussion far beyond the point of the film. Political discussions inevitably devolve into partisan corners and pointless bickering, because such conversations (like religion, the other taboo topic) are deeply personal, and woefully inadequate over the faceless and anonymous internet.
[b]Why I loved the film is that it points out that an imbalance in the system (of human interaction), which is ALWAYS dynamic...the system is never settled...will find a way to correct itself. Too much freedom (the opposite of V) leads to anarchy and chaos, and forces the people to find a viable social contract to prevent the excesses from destroying innocent lives. But that's not what the film is about. V is about the pendulum on the other side...too little freedom, too much control...and the effects on the human psyche and soul. As before, an opposite reaction occurs, and humanity finds a way.[/b] I found the film hopeful. It certainly keeps to the philosophical underpinnings of the Matrix trilogy. I loved that the film celebrated the individual, through art, through expression, through outrage.
I was happy I wrote that before I read an interview today where the author validated my opinion, stating that V (the novel at least) is about anarchu vs. fascism. Two ends of the spectrum. It did teach me that I know very little about the history of societal contracts and the psychology that drives them. The film did explicitly state the universal law...for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to much more than physics.
As Martin Luther King stated...hate can not drive out hate. It merely multiples it, breeds it. Only love can drive out hate. Love begets love.
Sappy, but I appreciate any film that allows me a glimpse of the divine.
For what it's worth, the film is also very well made, features two awesome performances (Stephen Rea and Hugo Weaving), and a good one from Natalie. It is ballsy and wears it's intentions on it's sleeve. With some sweet action scenes :)
Some want to paint the film as American Liberals vs. American Conservatives. The film certainly draw some auspicious connections, but in reality strays quite a bit down the path.
I wrote this Sunday morning:
The filmmakers upgraded the war (from the graphic novel), and used some ties to current situations, but nothing more involved than that which could be used as a framework. The political framework of the government was not representative of any major political party in power in any major First World country. It was an extreme, taken to extremes, to prove a point. Any serious connection to current events would have to be made by the viewer, and would lead to a discussion far beyond the point of the film. Political discussions inevitably devolve into partisan corners and pointless bickering, because such conversations (like religion, the other taboo topic) are deeply personal, and woefully inadequate over the faceless and anonymous internet.
[b]Why I loved the film is that it points out that an imbalance in the system (of human interaction), which is ALWAYS dynamic...the system is never settled...will find a way to correct itself. Too much freedom (the opposite of V) leads to anarchy and chaos, and forces the people to find a viable social contract to prevent the excesses from destroying innocent lives. But that's not what the film is about. V is about the pendulum on the other side...too little freedom, too much control...and the effects on the human psyche and soul. As before, an opposite reaction occurs, and humanity finds a way.[/b] I found the film hopeful. It certainly keeps to the philosophical underpinnings of the Matrix trilogy. I loved that the film celebrated the individual, through art, through expression, through outrage.
I was happy I wrote that before I read an interview today where the author validated my opinion, stating that V (the novel at least) is about anarchu vs. fascism. Two ends of the spectrum. It did teach me that I know very little about the history of societal contracts and the psychology that drives them. The film did explicitly state the universal law...for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. This applies to much more than physics.
As Martin Luther King stated...hate can not drive out hate. It merely multiples it, breeds it. Only love can drive out hate. Love begets love.
Sappy, but I appreciate any film that allows me a glimpse of the divine.
For what it's worth, the film is also very well made, features two awesome performances (Stephen Rea and Hugo Weaving), and a good one from Natalie. It is ballsy and wears it's intentions on it's sleeve. With some sweet action scenes :)
posted by Chuck | 5:43 PM
1 Comments:
I like the movie a lot - and I like the book even more. The movie does a couple things very well: it shows that a "free" society can devolve into a fascist society fairly quickly; it states that individuals are complicit in the actions of their government; and it demonstrates that a fascist state preys first upon people already marginalized by society.
They tie-ins to our current politcal climate are clever, if not especially convincing - but they don't have to be. Like any good science-fiction dystopia, the England of Norsefire is timeless, and can be extrapolated from any political regime.
I was fascinated by the differences between movie and book. The movie inserts a "hook," a bit of secret history explaining how this evil government came to exist; the book doesn't suggest that such a plot point is necessary. I found the endings to both a bit unsatisfying - but the movie, more than the book, glossed over the unresolved problems (with a little uplifting music and a Nathalie Portman voiceover.)
I also missed, in the movie, the contrast between V (the violent agent of change) and Evey (who is explicitly cast as a non-violent "alternative" in the book.) On the other hand, the movie humanized V far more than the book did.
Plus, stabbings. Gotta love the stabbings.
Post a Comment
<< Home