V for Conspiracy
Of course, it was hard for the editors of www.againstwot.com to resist a trip to see the (relatively) new, ‘V for Vendetta’. And despite the fact that earlier reviews had said just about everything there was to be said about the movie, it was even harder for us not to write up a few thoughts about it for the blog.
For those who missed it entirely (and we couldn't really blame you) 'V' is based on the comic book of the same name which depicted a dystopian future England. There, under the fascistic leadership of a High Chancellor Adam Sutler, (portrayed in suitably Hitlerish style by actor John Hurt), people eek out a stunted existence battered by a brutish security state and relentless government propaganda. Into the frame steps the mysterious man behind a Guy Fawkes mask, who unleashes a devastating assault on the state and its institutions, eventually leading to the overthrow of the regime.
David Denby of the New Yorker is dismissive, claiming that 'V's' fascism is simply derivative of the dark vision of George Orwell's 1984. That is partially true, as AWOT friend, Phil Cunliffe, writes in his review, the film "succeeds in producing a stylized depiction of London that is at once futuristic and reminiscent of the grim visions of mid-twentieth century urban dystopias." Likewise many of the characters have a distinctly nostalgic aspect for those familiar with more contemporary Londoners. And as Cunliffe goes on to say, the authoritarian regime depicted is, however we might sometimes feel, a vastly exaggerated version of anything we have experienced in the last few years.
Yet 'V' does contain a novel element which resonates with the particular authoritarianism we currently experience, in that the regime's self-justification is based not on a nationalist self-aggrandizement but on the fact that they protect, and have protected, the population from chaos. Although V (the avenging hero) makes the point early on in the film that, "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people,” the London population featured is not nearly as afraid of their government as they are of plague, famine or terrorism. “England Prevails” exclaims the chief propagandist of the regime (who at least one editor thought bore a striking resemblance to Christopher Hitchens) as he signs off from his broadcasts. The term ‘prevails’ suggests mere survival as much as it does a glorious victory fought for and won. Of course, the manipulation of public fears by elites has played a role in many totalitarian regimes whether real or imagined. But what is striking here is that the ruling cabal seems to have no wider purpose for which it makes use of fear. They seem just as afraid and atomized as the population they rule. It is unclear whether this echo of contemporary politics is intentional, or whether the filmmakers are exhibiting a lack of political imagination. Perhaps the only dictatorship we can now imagine is not one that invents a tradition and takes it to manic extremes, but one that attempts to preserve and stabilize the present, that crushes all beneath it in a response to the dangerous possibility of change.
'V' presents yet another example of the conspiratorial character of our moment. Sutler has been brought to power on the back of a terrorist incident which he himself instigated. There is nothing new here, popular culture abounds with such tales (even the most recent series of 24 puts the president in the frame). And others have pulled it off better than 'V'. The creepy atmosphere of Jonathon Demme's tongue-in-cheek remake of 'The Manchurian Candidate' was far more subtle, really grasping the suggestive power of conspiracy. But 'V' goes one further. How does the main character bring down the regime? By instigating a conspiracy of his own making, setting up the British people, almost despite themselves, as dominos in his explosive plot to end tyranny. This is not people power versus totalitarianism but an ability to manipulate greater than that of the regime. The hero succeeds by out-conspiring the conspirators.
'V' is good fun, an escapist adventure, and for the Anglophiles in the crowd, it is a much more interesting take on the UK than the normal Hollywood 'upstairs-downstairs' fare. Furthermore, in the way that it echoes contemporary politics, it captures something of the zeitgeist and in so doing allows us to reflect on our situation. But, as Cunliffe reminds us, we should not look to popular culture for analysis of our moment. At best cinema can provide us with a thought-provoking representation of the world in which we live; the heavy work of changing it must take place off-screen.
For those who missed it entirely (and we couldn't really blame you) 'V' is based on the comic book of the same name which depicted a dystopian future England. There, under the fascistic leadership of a High Chancellor Adam Sutler, (portrayed in suitably Hitlerish style by actor John Hurt), people eek out a stunted existence battered by a brutish security state and relentless government propaganda. Into the frame steps the mysterious man behind a Guy Fawkes mask, who unleashes a devastating assault on the state and its institutions, eventually leading to the overthrow of the regime.
David Denby of the New Yorker is dismissive, claiming that 'V's' fascism is simply derivative of the dark vision of George Orwell's 1984. That is partially true, as AWOT friend, Phil Cunliffe, writes in his review, the film "succeeds in producing a stylized depiction of London that is at once futuristic and reminiscent of the grim visions of mid-twentieth century urban dystopias." Likewise many of the characters have a distinctly nostalgic aspect for those familiar with more contemporary Londoners. And as Cunliffe goes on to say, the authoritarian regime depicted is, however we might sometimes feel, a vastly exaggerated version of anything we have experienced in the last few years.
Yet 'V' does contain a novel element which resonates with the particular authoritarianism we currently experience, in that the regime's self-justification is based not on a nationalist self-aggrandizement but on the fact that they protect, and have protected, the population from chaos. Although V (the avenging hero) makes the point early on in the film that, "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, governments should be afraid of their people,” the London population featured is not nearly as afraid of their government as they are of plague, famine or terrorism. “England Prevails” exclaims the chief propagandist of the regime (who at least one editor thought bore a striking resemblance to Christopher Hitchens) as he signs off from his broadcasts. The term ‘prevails’ suggests mere survival as much as it does a glorious victory fought for and won. Of course, the manipulation of public fears by elites has played a role in many totalitarian regimes whether real or imagined. But what is striking here is that the ruling cabal seems to have no wider purpose for which it makes use of fear. They seem just as afraid and atomized as the population they rule. It is unclear whether this echo of contemporary politics is intentional, or whether the filmmakers are exhibiting a lack of political imagination. Perhaps the only dictatorship we can now imagine is not one that invents a tradition and takes it to manic extremes, but one that attempts to preserve and stabilize the present, that crushes all beneath it in a response to the dangerous possibility of change.
'V' presents yet another example of the conspiratorial character of our moment. Sutler has been brought to power on the back of a terrorist incident which he himself instigated. There is nothing new here, popular culture abounds with such tales (even the most recent series of 24 puts the president in the frame). And others have pulled it off better than 'V'. The creepy atmosphere of Jonathon Demme's tongue-in-cheek remake of 'The Manchurian Candidate' was far more subtle, really grasping the suggestive power of conspiracy. But 'V' goes one further. How does the main character bring down the regime? By instigating a conspiracy of his own making, setting up the British people, almost despite themselves, as dominos in his explosive plot to end tyranny. This is not people power versus totalitarianism but an ability to manipulate greater than that of the regime. The hero succeeds by out-conspiring the conspirators.
'V' is good fun, an escapist adventure, and for the Anglophiles in the crowd, it is a much more interesting take on the UK than the normal Hollywood 'upstairs-downstairs' fare. Furthermore, in the way that it echoes contemporary politics, it captures something of the zeitgeist and in so doing allows us to reflect on our situation. But, as Cunliffe reminds us, we should not look to popular culture for analysis of our moment. At best cinema can provide us with a thought-provoking representation of the world in which we live; the heavy work of changing it must take place off-screen.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home