...uhuh, uhuh, uhuh.

Ed

Ed:

~~ Yes. I believe V had said that you can kill a man, but, you can't kill an idea. --- That's another great thing about the movie: the script itself was almost worthy of Shakespeare...and I believe that most of it was almost verbatim from Moore's original story.

LLAP
J:D

John, I must concur. Though the message of the inherent superiority of capitalism is depicted well in Batman Begins -- it is, ultimately, utilitarian in nature. The message of "V" -- alternatively -- is principled (it has to do with the nature of the importance of ideas).

(Accepted) Ideas are deal-breakers.

Ed

~~ VERILY, VOID VOUCHSAFING VORACIOUS VERMIN.

~~ Finally, my 13-yr-old and I caught this sucker. I'm very glad that I required him to read up on "The Gunpowder Plot" (via Wikipedia) as a condition for going to see it (he really was motivated from the TV 'trailers'). --- After the movie, HE said he was glad that I 'required' him to read such (and proceeded to replace his 'Kong vs T-Rex with Ann centered' desktop-poster with one from 'V' that shows only him in his introduction-scene) --- Clearly, my kid was...'impressed', regardless that he commented 'really not all that much action, but, it was really not, you know, predictable.' He's seen too many movies, methinks; my fault.

~~ 'V' was written by an anarchist-wannabee/believer in the '80's for the 'graphic-novel' aficionados; the days of Reagan and Thatcher, and he was clearly anti-Thatcher/'conservative'. He saw ONLY conservatives (but not 'liberal's) as political-power gatherers inevitably ending up with the Brave-New-World/1984 dystopia 'V' was fighting within Olde Brittania. Great Britain was the apparent (in the story) center of the 'remains' of civilization, yet was ruled by a sophisticated Caligula who used media (and Secret-Police/Gestapo/'Fingerman') to manipulate the populace. --- Can one say "Mafia/Yakuza RULES"? (For that matter, can one say Sin City?)

~~ "V" was a byproduct of experiments (think Mengele) that was a success beyond the experimenters 'control'. At this point, think Frankenstein's Monster; he's now out to 'get-even'...and more. However, he discovers something about his 'revenge'-life-purpose through Evey...where 'more' includes more than he thought.

~~ Some argue that the story is purely 'anarchy'-oriented. Well, think about this: What assassin-wannabee for Hitler was an actual 'anarchic', though anarchy would have resulted? Given a situation calling, nay crying, for 'revolution', even our own Civil War was 'anarchic'. What kept anarchy from (granted: temporarily) occurring was that there was an organized 'taker-over'. It was called 'The Union' (or, 'Northern Yankees'). Without such...some country from Europe would have done so. Actual 'anarchy' begs for some one/group to 'take-over', benevolently or maliciously. Anarchy cannot fend off organized force. Pardon, I'm getting biased here in viewpoints. The French Revolution went one way, the American Revolution went another (not sure what's the diff now, but...)

~~ 'V' wanted personal revenge...and he got it, fer sure. It seems that's what he primarily lived for: GET 'THEM'. But, he did want more. He wanted 'the masses' to see that THEY are the ones allowing the 'system' they live under to control/restrict/regulate them. He had a personal grudge re the top decision-makers. But he also saw that all others don't really 'see' that THEY also should have the same attitude. He planned on eliminating the top decision-makers and just emulsifying the whole system thereafter by then blowing up the very power-structure locations any wannabee followers would have 'iconicly-located' meetings at (re who replaces them as the new 'decision-makers'...think 'the Fall-of-Rome'). Then he met, discovered...and learned from...Evey. As she learned from him.

~~ He got his personal revenge, but thence decided that Evey was the one to decide about...the rest. She clearly was a woman of his own heart.

~~ In a dystopia like that, I have no prob with an 'anarchic' orientation.

~~ 'V' wasn't supposed to be about 'But, what comes next? What was he FOR?' It was supposed to be about ONLY 'what was he AGAINST'! Hello? 'V' wasn't 'FOR' anything; can one say he might have been too busy dealing with what he was AGAINST? Some 'armchair analysts' have said "NO! He could have done more" (uh-h-h, like THEY are doing?) ---  How many people in Auschwitz were 'for' anything, beyond personal survival? This is a silly criticism of the story and its metaphorical intention: that it didn't clarify what it was 'FOR'. Fer Pete's sakes, one might as well criticize Spartacus for not philosophically elaborating about what he was 'FOR'; I mean, really, give it a break!

~~ 'V' was anti-control by others, especially, narcissistic malicious others who 'control' The Law. ---  'Nuff said.

~~ It was a GREAT movie. Probably better than Batman Begins. --- And from *me*, THAT's saying a lot!

LLAP
J:D

Set in post-apocalyptic Britain

Set in post-localised-epidemic Britain...

in a Guy Fawkes mask, a vicious fight ensues

Vee spins and twirls a couple of times and all the thugs drop dead...

here is its failure: Vee seeks to destroy the tyranny and seek his vengeance, but offers no solutions to the question "what then?"

I don't have a problem with that. It's not the anti-Seinfeld, it's not "the movie about everything." No, it's a film about Vee. It's tradgedy.

Here's a man who is damaged goods, they broke his wings. A failure? It's not a story about the beginning of the revolution, it's a story about the end of the tyranny. And what's so wrong with telling that story?

We're clearly told the 'frog slowly boiling' and the Orwellian language change stories. We get the propaganda, dissarming and surveillance and indoctrination of citizens. We're shown how the beautiful lives of a gay couple are cancelled out for being different. We see that there is something about life of higher value than merely being alive.

It's just not true that Vee doesn't "give a rat's arse" about his beneficiaries. Infact, he gave so much care to it that he leaves his final climax entirely to them to take or leave. The protagonist is a human scar, unfit for a land of milk and honey.

Harrison Bergeron, if you've seen it, and Atlas Shrugged, if you've read it, are exactly the same when it comes to this. Vee doesn't mean to rebuild mankind and errect new idols but to tear down the old idols- not unlike D'Anconia, Danneskjold, and Gault.

You want to know what happens next? The new regime? That, my friend, is another movie.

"I don't think V gave a rat's arse what replaced the system he tore down.."

Bloody selfish egoist!
.....................................

Thinking about it, the last twenty to thirty minutes of the film were probably the best.

The rest of the film was less well conceived.

I did enjoy the film but technically it felt very choppy. It seemed strange that V would spend so much effort planning and conducting the theatrics of his attacks, yet the film makers would couple big beautiful scenes with what looked like shots stolen from old Columbo episodes. It also felt strange to have a hero that is supposedly against tyranny participate in kidnapping and torture.

Bill Sipes

... I don't think V gave a rat's arse what replaced the system he tore down - in fact if memory serves, he said something to the effect that once he'd removed the fascists from power, whatever system replaced them was up to the citizenry to create.

I have bought the 'graphic novel' (read comic book) for this movie, and so far it comes a lot closer to positive sense of life and heroic values. Not so much on the brave and intelligent slogans.

Idoni

I just saw the film.

I was between disbelief at how unreal and cheap the film looked to utter captivation at how much thought and care went into this film in trying to a) convey a positive sense of life while
b) defying tyranny in a heroic manner while
c) using brave and intelligent slogans to remind people to think for themselves.

However, all said and done, I am sad at what this film might have been.

I agree with Robert. Unfortunately "V" didn't seem to know what he wanted to replace the tyranny of Government with - apart from "mob" power.

I'd chime in but Joe M. beat me to all my talking points.

---Landon

It all basically comes back to fight or flight.

Robert said: "... but what to do when the smoke cleared?"

Well, I think that's been covered once or twice. I believe it inevitable that order ought to arrive from chaos. It's one of the fantastic human traits that we triumph over adversity.

It's true, there is a fault with a movie based upon anarchical principles. I'll be the first to argue that anarchy is no way to live, but I will always follow up with the added argument that it is necessary.

I cannot agree that there is a failure in a movie that inspires so much passion at the resistance of tyrrany. But I would instead say that such a film is specifically designed to target the current mindset of the masses.

I have long considered it one of my personal goals, nay, DUTIES to guide the restructure of our civilization should such an anarchical event come to pass. Oh yes, I said duty! And I mean it with every fiber of my mind!

I sit and wait, leading now by example, of how life can be lived in almost complete and total happiness and joy. But I assure you that if the people were to revolt, I would wait no longer. I would jump on my soap box (do they still have those?) and scream daily at the top of my lungs the GOSPEL of rationality. I would expose the corrupt ideologies that have led to the now ridiculous way of life that human beings have embraced as a result of their unwillingness to think and break from their programming.

But that's just me.

Idoni

You cannot steal from censors, you can only reclaim.

... but what to do when the smoke cleared?

As I said, that is the movie's failure. I have only applause for the rest of it.

Marcus said: "I was intrigued by the trailer for the film, but I also wondered if it didn't just promote anarchy. Even the logo of "V" is very reminiscent of the "A" symbol of Anarchy"

I agree that there is a signifigant amount of symbolism that points to anarchy, but even if you are a minarchist, if caught in a similar situation, how many would not attempt the same? Fuck, I'd blow shit up in that fascist regime without the human experimentation and not think twice about it.

Idoni
Remember, remember the 5th of November.

It's more like (little) a is for Anarchy. The Anarchist undertones are subtle - but they are there.

"I still think that (and hope that) this kind of story can have a positive effect on some part of audience that wants to look further a field."

I think so. For once in a Wachowski movie the over-the-top fight scenes occupied about 1/10th of the celluloid so there is actually a message there to tickle the neurons with. Such a shame that question posed by V goes essentially unanswered.

I only became convinced of the Anarchist overtones in the final 10 minutes of the movie. If you see it, you'll have to think about why the final scene is happening to know what I mean.

I think it was worth seeing, especially seeing as it only cost me $5 'cause there was a Spring Break special on to bump up business in Lawrence over Spring Break (all the students have left).

Thanks for the review Robert.

I was intrigued by the trailer for the film, but I also wondered if it didn't just promote anarchy. Even the logo of "V" is very reminiscent of the "A" symbol of Anarchy.

That is a common problem of these dystopian stories, like "1984". They know what they are against, but they don't know what they are for - or what they are for is in fact just as flawed as what they are against.

I still think that (and hope that) this kind of story can have a positive effect on some part of audience that wants to look further afield.

You're right on the money, Robert. Moore is a self-proclaimed anarchist, even better, "is also a practising magician, having become a gnostic in the mid-1990s, and part of a performance art group, the Moon and Serpent Grand Egyptian Theatre of Marvels."

The latter fact I would never have suspected from his work alone; many a great classic comic comes from his pen, and his stories are inventive as well as fun. His ABC comics line alone is fantastic, with a respect for reason as well: His hero Tom Strong is an inventor/adventurer and his Jack B. Quick stories are a fun romp featuring a child genius who toys with quantum physics for laughs!

"he can't have a solution if he views O'ism as fascist, at best, he's caught in a contradiction."

Or he could be an anarchist. In fact, if the movie accurately reflects the book, I'd bet $10 on the fact that he is.

Given Moore's attack on Objectivism as fascist, I'm surprised he gets that much right. But of course, he can't have a solution if he views O'ism as fascist, at best, he's caught in a contradiction.