V for Vendetta may be--why hedge? is--the most subversive cinematic deed of the Bush-Blair era, a dagger poised in midair. Unlike the other movies dubbed “controversial” (Fahrenheit 9-11, The Passion, Munich, Syriana), it doesn’t play to a particular constituency or polarized culture bloc, it’s working on a deeper, Edger Allen Poe-ish witch’s brew substrata of pop myth. Cultural conservatives will loathe it without seeing it (they love not having to leave their houses to lament the latest installment of civilization’s decline and fall) once they hear of and read about the movie’s disturbing political parallels (a fascistic TV host with a witty resemblance to Berlusconi, fertilizer explosives a la Timothy McVeigh; torture, renditions, and subway bombings; black hoods that will be forever associated with Abu Ghraib).

Yet lots of cultural liberals with educated tastes will find it anxiety-producing and irresponsible too, not only because they’re more comfortable with humanistic stories and documentary techniques than with pop spectacle (as Kael discovered whenever she praised upstart movies like DePalma’s Carrie or The Warriors and received letters from profs and Ph.D couples complaining about her soiling the New Yorker’s space on trash), but because V for Vendetta doesn’t just depict a 1984’s dystopia--it advocates radical remedy, and illustrates what it advocates with rhapsodic, operatic, orgasmic flourish. It follows the course of its own logic to its Kubrickian conclusion, but this isn’t a clinical exercise, like Kubrick at his most voyeuristically detached.

This movie is fully engaged. Its masked, caped vigilante is both Batman and Joker, nocturnal enigma and nimble trickster, the Count of Monte Cristo, Zorro, and the Phantom of the Opera tucked into one suavely tormented frame, the antihero’s secret lair a gothic sanctuary equipped with its own Wurtlizer jokebox on which Julie London’s Cry Me a River sultrily plays. The river of tears is the Thames, on the bank of which sits London’s House of Parliament, the movie (based on Alan Moore’s graphic novel) drawing its inspiration from Guy Fawkes and the foiled Gunpowder Plot to destroy Parliament on November 5th, 1605, a day celebrated annually in Britain with fireworks and parties.

In V for Vendetta, monochromatic tyranny so oppresses, represses, and depresses Britain in its totalitarian condition that the only proper way to honor the memory and insurrectionary spirit of Guy Fawkes is to finish what he started. V for vendetta, v for violence, v for vindication. The return of the repressed with a vengeance.

I read that the movie is about anarchism. Alan Moore is an anarchist, and is unhappy with the movie because it was watered down, with the main character turned into a liberal. See link for more info.

...if he had done a period piece about the real Guy Fawkes and the plot to blow up Parliament, it would have made much better cinematic viewing....but I'm partial to flicks about English history so I cant claim to be altogether impartial...heh

To say that the politics in "V for Vendetta" are watered down... or that the main character V is a "liberal" is utterly asinine. So-called anarchists who dis V for not putting forth clear anarchist politics are mere dullards. This film is reaching millions of people who have never had a political thought before, and it gets to people without preaching. It is like a giant building block in the project of resistant culture. We should happily accept it for what it is, instead of picking it apart. It was an amazingly courageous thing to make a picture like V at this point in history.

An excerpt from the speech given by V when he takes over the fascist controlled television station:

"There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance, and depression. And where once you had the freedom to object, think, and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillence coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. "

I didn't say it was watered down. I said that Alan Moore said it was watered down. Specifically, he said the movie watered down the story he wrote for the comic book.

I haven't yet seen the movie. When the V comics were out, only read the first two issues before giving up on it. American Splendor was more my speed.

See:

http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2006/03/1725687_comment.php#1726353

Alan Moore, who wrote the original graphic novel V for Vendetta, has been continually sited as not liking the movie, and complaining that V is not portrayed as an anarchist in the film. Both left and right critics mention the fact that Moore has denounced the Wachowskis’ film. However… the man who illustrated the graphic novel, David Lloyd, LOVES the film, saying "Watching some of the scenes was like seeing a painting I've done come to life." Lloyd, approves of the film and has also said the Wachowskis were great fans of the novel. If the man who created ALL of the visuals for the graphic novel gives a thumbs up to the film, then who’s to argue?

But that’s not really the point. The POINT is the message the film delivers, and it does so without asking anyone to embrace a particular philosophy or political stance. I’m GLAD the Wachowskis didn’t make V an anarchist, instead they made him a freedom fighter that appeals to EVERYONE - small d democrats (those few who still have integrity), socialists, anarchists, artists, commies, libertarian republicans, and folks who don’t identify with politics at all. There is NOTHING “liberal” about the anti-hero V, and there certainly isn’t anything “liberal” about the politics of the movie. Followers of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry (the haunted tree) will HATE this movie just as much as the idiots who follow the republiklan party. That those on the so-called “left” join in the dissing of this film indicates just what a mess we are in.

The official site for the film:
http://vforvendetta.warnerbros.com/

I finally saw this. It was good, and a lot of "fun". I can see why Alan Moore didn't want to be associated with it. It's an action flick with its politics "hidden". It allows people with divergent political sentiments to map their ideologies onto the text.

I've read some comments on it here and there, and on the V site's board, and there are a lot of people who get the message from the movie that, in order to get us out of our present mess (as they see it), a single man, a hero, will have to lead the way. That's an anti-anarchist message.

A few conservatives have argued that it's not really about Bush. or anything political at all.

Many argue for reformism. That's the dominant interpretation of the movie.

Some think it's about Nazis, not the UK. Some thank goodness that we still have the freedom to protest.

Many are moved by the movie, but, lack a coherent way to do anything with this feeling. They want to buy the DVD. They want to buy the mask.

Someone on the V guestbook wrote: "V was not about anarchy, V was about freedom, a freedom that no man gives up without a fight."

Another wrote: "If this movie touched you, take the responsibility to find out for yourself what is going on and vote accordingly. After all, it is YOUR government."

I saw the movie. It was good for what it is. I wanted to sneak in the movie since I figured it was fitting for a movie like this. But I didn't bother doing that, that's okay.

To me the movie was a fantasy-drama and fiction. I doubt some revolutionary/terrorist guy is gonna blow up buildings while acting like an orchestra director with music playing in the streets. And in real life the mask would be laughable. Of course the movie is from a comic book.

I just thought the movie was excellent. Excellent because unlike other films with michael moore and the recent ( In my opinion ,political spin) "world trade center" It is one of those movies that "questions" rather than preaches to viewers about the current nature of our society. It questions the very foundation of our morals of "right" and "wrong". So in someways I can understand why it would be disturbing to some people. In other ways it can be very liberating, we see how V representing not just himself but all of us can shape and change how the world sees things. he is not a hero, but
a symbol of "the people" and seeing him in action was very impowering. I think the main goal of the movie was to get us to question our values and the things we assume are the "right" ideals. There is alot of symbolism tied in with the movie that I love.....V is a very significant word....."V" day representing of awareness for violence and oppression against women...V for the Veitman war when the american government forced soliders to go to war .....V day representing the end of hitlers dominion and nazi germany...this movie has a way of connecting everything together in a beautiful , classical, way It tuggs at
your concience...and leaves you to make the final decsion.

Why does Save Our State praising the film V? Do they know it is about anarchism? Are SOS anarchist? I doubt that. been to several SOS rally, they do hate the anarchist. also, they are endorsing Art Olivier who is a Libertarian. Libertarian is just an anarchist capitialist.


From SOS:
Chelene Nightingale aka Patroitic Nightmare: I mentioned this film after I saw it in the theaters! Loved it! My favorite line "People should not fear government, government should fear people." Being politically active, this film really spoke volumes. It is on DVD - go rent it!

It was enjoyable, but of course it was watered down. After all, it was a major production, as much as you little punks like to think you're subversive...also, some subtlety would've been nice, it was pretty in your face, which gives no credit to the viewers. It's more fun to figure things out yourself, and the lessons tend to stick better that way.

Also, I was slightly irritated by the fact that Guy Fawkes was used as an icon...he was a fanatic Catholic that was upset with the government of England for not being Catholic!

Fascists also saw themselves as allied with the people, and opposed to the government. That was, until they got into government. Then their nationalism took over. This parallels a lot of the sentiments of the "patriot" movement, and the far right, like the MMP.

They liked the movie because it wasn't an anarchist movie. It was not really anti-government as much as it was pro-populism.

Also, with 9/11 and the war, a lot of so-called libertarians have basically become fascists.

I was always annoyed by this Open Source guy, Eric Raymond, who called himself a libertarian. He's a gun nut type. Anyway, lately, he's become an anti-Arab anti-Islam racist, and very pro-war. That's not really a "libertarian" position, or it wasn't until recently. Libertarians used to be anti-war isolationists, against the death penalty, and for open borders.

What's really happened is that the term "libertarian" has been adopted by right wing people who don't like the government, to distinguish themselves from leftists who don't like the government. For a while, they even called themselves "anarchists", but after being criticized by anarchists who pointed out that government is necessary to maintain capitalism and the military (which many "libertarians" like), they started to use the term "minarchists."

Bob Black said it best in the 1970s: libertarians are just Republicans who smoke pot. They also advocate renting prostitutes, underpaying people, porn, gambling, selling body parts, and a lot of other things that are distasteful, but can become businesses.