Popcorn Politics

In the past week, I viewed the film V for Vendetta. Before going into the movie I talked to my parents and they asked me to make sure I told them how I felt about it on the basis of the negative reviews it was receiving. This actually started out as the e-mail I sent back to them when I got home. It started as a short review but then slowly morphed into a slightly longer piece. So, without further ado, here is me doing my best to write passionately. I know it’s long, but please try and make to the end. Before that though, if it isn’t obvious, I really loved the movie…

In an effort to understand people’s issues with V for Vendetta, I decided to come home and read a few of the negative reviews of it. It seemed like the two major pieces of dissatisfaction lies in two camps. The first is the idea that it is dissent via pop culture. The second point that comes up over and over is the fact that it is entirely heavy handed. There is no real way to persuade a person that it is indeed a false claim, because that is simply not the case. The film is in fact a heavy-handed, blatantly obvious piece of pop-culture dissent.

As for the first point, the idea that it is a less valid voice due to its backing by a film studio, more aptly a film corporation, this seems somewhat unfounded. Film, as a medium has a long history of using its power and voice to make statements. Are the issues raised in Apocalypse Now any less valid due to its release by Paramount? Hell, Fahrenheit 9/11, an oft praised piece of political dissent, was put out by Lions Gate Films, the very same people who brought us high-brow fare such as Saw I and II, as well as The Punisher. When it has felt like it, pop-culture has been the greatest place for people to make a message know. Why? Well, now more than ever, it is the best place to reach people. When people have started following "Dancing With The Stars" closer than they follow the things that really effect them and their country, it seems to me that the best way to say something is through those very same fast cuts and highly stylized shots. Of course, the way Hollywood manipulates our fashions, the way we talk, or what we love, is certainly a little dodgy, but should we really put that burden upon a film that managed to slip through the cracks? The Matrix brothers have used their own power in Hollywood to play the very system they work in. They used their name to push a film through that is highly critical of a government that is not too fond of trash talking. Which brings me to the trash talking, itself.

Most of the reviews have criticized its blatantly obvious caricature of the American state of affairs. I, personally see no wrong in that. Did they lift scenes almost directly from Abu Gharib? Absolutely. I think its obviousness is necessary in these times. For a group so happy to bash Bush, the bulk of the media seem only pleased when doing so under the radar. Newspaper articles drop little disdainful references here and there. Also, most media outlets seen as "Liberal" has praised the Daily Show for being a wonderful piece of political satire. This sort of thought has always made me think back to the days when I was first learning what exactly a piece of satire was. To make sure I wasn't crazy, I looked up the definition. I found this: “Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity." (American Heritage) While the Daily Show undoubtedly falls heavily in to the "caustic wit" end of the spectrum, V for Vendetta can easily fall into this spectrum as well. No more or less obvious than the Daily Show, there is a strain of firm tongue-in-cheek running through the film. (Exhibit A: The cartoonish Guy Fawkes mask V wears.) To put to use my philosophy training, one can turn to Richard Rorty for a fine definition of an ironist. While he is not necessarily my favorite, his definition really does the form of criticism good. In his essay, Solidarity and Objectivity he says, to paraphrase, that an ironist is a person who radically doubts the system and set of words that men use to justify their actions and their lives. I think this quite clearly places V in the realm of satire, and no matter how serious its accusations, we should not let this fact escape us.

This is a time where everyone from the dreaded George W Bush to Bill O'Reilly literally swing their heavy-hands at me on FoxNews, I think it was downright brave for a studio to take a chance on a film that swings a heavier hand back and makes absolutely no apologies about it. While the terrorism message is a gutsy move, it must be remembered that this was a Thatcher-Era comic book. This was a time when the actions of V was the act of terrorists not the act of The Terrorists, that shape shifting blob which the "Coalition Of The Willing" has created. The film is an over-the-top cautionary tale. This could be a bit much for a group of reviewers who must be discrete in the governmental defiance, but for a society and culture that apparently needs to hit in the face with our own faults, "V For Vendetta" is a perfect film at perfect time. What might shock and startle timid reviewers in the perfect, to make a necessary Matrix connection, proverbial “red pill” for these times.

Whether everyone would like to admit it or not, we are entering the very same situation that occurred during the Vietnam War. People really are becoming displeased with the actions our country is taking. People are slowly realizing what we did might have possibly have been unnecessary. Our children, our husbands and wives, their children, their husbands and wives, are now dying not because of a dictator contained in his country but due to the over-zealous actions of a government. After the State of the Union Tim Kaine gave his rebuttal to the State of the Union address from the posh, pastel, and pillared interior of his home in the Virginia Commonwealth. For a young person like me, his words, no matter how powerful they might have been, were delivered from his ritzy house in the traditional flat Democrat speaking style. We wonder why the Democratic Party always seems behind? It is because we have lost everything this movie contains. We've lost our fire, we've lost our guts, and most importantly we've lost the down-home brashness that has attracted so many people to the Republican Party. The film ultimately asks for dissatisfied, disaffected populations not to simply leave your woes to the ones you say you trust, but to pick up your causes and do something about them yourself.

Up until now, most political pieces of art have seemed to take subversive approach: be subtle about it and perhaps a few people might catch on and marvel at just how clever you are and maybe tell their friends about it. This is as easy to love but also easy to dismiss as too abstract in the eyes of those who never really learned how to dig into the words and images of a subtle piece. This is dissent made for the hoi polloi, something that borrows its aesthetic and messages from more recent counter culture movements like punk or hip-hop. The whole world has become more in your face and this movie is moving right along with it. It's not intended as a low budget piece of high-art, it is meant to be more a big-budget cattle prod for an apathetic nation.

So, anyways, that's all I have to say about that. Perhaps these are the ramblings of a still idealistic youth, but if this inspires just one of the people who made Ohio a "red-state" to see that there is something truly unfortunate happening, then I think the film might have served it's purpose. I think the final scene as well as the song in the credits makes the films motive clear. I'm not about to give it away to you, so you should most likely go see it. Plus, on top of all of this debate, the movie is just damn exciting and well done as an action-thriller/superhero movie alone. Who doesn't like popcorn alongside their political dissatisfaction?