Week 3

Week 3

V for Vendetta

     The exploitation of tragedies, pandemics, and the like is something that is seen too often nowadays. Many unjust policies and laws that have been passed have been stated to be "for national security" or "for the children". The way the media covered events such as 9/11 has led to the Patriot Act, which costs U.S. citizens some of their social freedoms. The only real difference here between V for Vendetta and real life is that in V the government is actually responsible for the events that they exploit, and in real life our government merely exploits yet doesn't plan them (as far as we know).  

     In A World at Risk: Unreliable Media and the Culture of Fear, by Monica Martin, some good points are made. An oppressive government doesn't have to focus its people's fears and/or anger at another country. She states, "after the... world of identifiable adversaries was over, [we went] 'from a world of enemies to one of dangers and risks' within a new global order." This rings true in V for Vendetta. Adam Sutler's Norsefire party couldn't really use any foreign countries as an enemy figure, as the US was in ruins and Europe was dealing with a plague. Instead they used America and Europe as a cautionary tale for what could happen in the UK, and several well placed epidemic crises in their own country to highlight the reality of the "dangers and risks" that could occur without the aid of the Norsefire party.

     The way the media in V for Vendetta portrays and manipulates the news is very smart, because it's a very "down to earth" approach that mirrors our own world, as Monica puts it. Nationalism, religion, and discrimination of immigrants are all mentioned in the opening scene's news sequence.

     In addition to its portrayal of the media's/politician's exploitation of tragedies, V for Vendetta also has some Very powerful visuals. For one, the Norsefire Party's banner resembles a cross merged with the Nazi swastika banner. Adam Sutler is very reminiscent of Big Brother in his appearance and of Hitler in his speeches. I do however, think that one on the best visuals in the movie is more related to the plot than to criticism of today's society.      

     A very important scene, both visually and plot wise, is when Evey emerges from V's home after believing she was imprisoned. She walks into the rain, raises her hands in the air, and laughs. At the same time the movie cuts to V emerging from the fire at the Larkhill concentration camp and yelling. Obviously the scenes parallel one another, showing how both characters were essentially reborn. However, there are some key differences that have implications as to what happens after the movie ends. Where V is reborn in fire, which is a single entity that brings destruction, and Evey is reborn in the rain, which gives life and is composed of many small parts.

     I believe that the meaning behind this is that the elimination of corruption in the UK isn't enough to end its dystopia. After everything is brought down, a new system must be rebuilt again. Both V and Evey are symbols of revolution and change for the better, but whereas V embodied the idea of change through anarchy and destruction, Evey will embody the idea of change through creation and cooperation. The phrase she says, "God is in the rain," serves to cement this point. God is a creator and, in a way, a teacher. This will probably be similar to Evey's role at the end of this movie. That's one of the reasons that she doesn't take V's mask when taking up his mantle. The Gunpowder Plot and Guy Fawkes' face are associated with V's destructive goals, not Evey's new ones. In this way, V is very much like Tyler Durden from Fight Club, who had similar anarchist ideals, only V realizes the need for someone else to fill the role for the next stage.

     

"God is in the rain"

     On a final note, I thought it was an interesting idea to use the actor who was the protagonist in 1984 (John Hurt) as the "Big Brother" type figure in V for Vendetta. I didn't recognize him when I saw the 1984 movie earlier this semester.

Children of Men

     Contrary to V for Vendetta, Children of Men uses much bleaker colors, or as Monica Martin puts it "a pallet of grays." This movie is similar to V for Vendetta in that the UK seems to be the only stable country. Public surveillance is rampant, the media distorts reality, and immigrants/foreigners are discriminated against. However, the difference is that in Children of Men the main antagonists are the resistance group (the Fishes), not the government itself (although its also an antagonist). Also, the main character isn't a genetically enhanced killing machine. 

     Theo has a role similar to that of Evey in V for Vendetta. Like her, he's not sure which group to trust and which group is the moral one. Throughout the movie he comes to realize that change can be brought about, and like her he becomes an agent of creation by protecting Kee and her newborn baby.     Something interesting with this movie was the naming of certain things. For example, calling the oppressive policy in this film the "Homeland Act" drew parallels to the Homeland Security Act.

I also liked that the ship in the end is called the Tomorrow, symbolizing hope for a better future.

     One of the most powerful scenes in this movie was during the firefight between the Fishes and the Military. Everyone that saw the baby stopped firing, and let Theo and Kee pass. This, more than the ending scene with the Tomorrow, gives the viewer hope. It shows that humanity hasn't lost its common sense in this dystopian world, and that everyone could recognize the importance of Kee's child. 

     Lastly, I have to say, I loved seeing Michael Caine play a drug dealer. I've never seen him in a role that wasn't "gentlemanly" and seeing him as a joke-cracking hippie was a lot of fun. That guy is one of my favorite actors, and everything he did in this movie was hilarious. With all these depressing movies, it felt good to laugh a bit, seeing him dance to weird music. But then, of course, he died and the movie got depressing again.

The Road

     As bad as an oppressive government can be, total anarchy can be just as bad. John Hillcoat's The Road, based on the novel by Cormac McCarthy, explores a dystopian world where there is no government rather than an oppressive government. Most dystopian films, especially ones as bleak as 1984, make its viewers think that nothing could be worse than the current system. A movie like The Road will make the same viewers think twice. It shows what can happen during total anarchy, and why the idealistic plans of figures such as Tyler Durden or V are imperfect unless they involve more than just the elimination of the current social structure. 

     I think that in a way it comes down to physical oppression vs mental oppression. In a society like the one portrayed in The Road (if that could even be considered a society) the physically strong and well equipped survive, and the weak are killed or hurt. However, those with power have no interest in manipulating their victims' thoughts, only in taking tangible things (and in eating them). So one could say that even though you are likely to meet a gruesome death, at least your mind will be free. On the other hand, in a government like the one in 1984, while you are essentially a slave, your life and death are likely to be relatively painless, and even if you are tortured for thoughtcrime it couldn't be worse than being kept in a cellar while slowly being eaten alive. So, when all is said and done, is no government really better than an oppressive one?

    In this movie we see, in incredibly visceral detail, the atrocities that men commit on other men. The scene that stands out the most in my mind is the one where they discover the cellar full of half eaten people. It was very disturbing, and they almost looked like zombies. Whoever was in charge of visual effects did a very good job. The old man that they came by was very well done as well. The makeup artist managed to make him look even more pathetic, weathered, and downtrodden than the main characters. It really made you feel bad for him, and I almost cheered when Viggo Mortensen's son convinced him to share food with the old man. 

     Of all the films I've seen in this class, this was by far the most tense, the most gruesome, and the most emotional one.