Cory 2006-08-06

From Summa Bergania

From: David Bergan

To: Cory Allen Heidelberger

Date: Aug 6, 2006 6:15 PM

Subject: Re: V for Vendetta -- review and response

---

Hi Cory,

I doubt that this will amount to a word-for-word rebuttal, but at least I will share some main points. I didn't expect a couple of off-hand remarks about a movie that was at least 6 months out of my mind to fuel a 2000-word dissertation, but I should never underestimate the yield of Cory, a keyboard, and free time.

Your essay brought back other things to mind about why I didn't like the movie... my friend Ethan and I had had a lengthy discussion about it when it was still in the theaters (he liked it too). And of course, movie critiques are highly subjective. No philosopher would ever expect that he could "prove" the greatness (or ineptitude) of a dramatic performance... even though enlightened minds often find several favorites in common (ie Groundhog Day). So all I have to offer is my own humble opinion in contrast to yours.

Why V for Vendetta is a 1-star movie (out of five)

I. Uncourageous

Their primary target was what? Fascist dictators? Huzzah. Boy, how are they going to portray a totalitarian government as evil? That's a nut that hasn't been cracked. Seriously... could it get any easier? At least The Constant Gardner (bad as it was) took a shot at something a little more subtle and insidious.

It cannot be denied that this is a political movie. It's not "just a story" that happens to be set in a situation that might apply to politics. It's not a Lord of the Rings where the focus is on personal bravery and the antagonist happens to be fascist just to tell the story. It is quite plainly making a specific political statement, and I just see no point to standing up and joining the brays of applause on something so obvious and generic as the observation that dictatorships are bad. As in Scott Foundas's review of Crash, V for Vendetta was engineered to raise a social issue where the public is unanimously on their side (even racism is less lopsided as fascism)... which makes it all the more dangerous as a vehicle for smuggling in their secondary targets. You trick the audience into approving/admiring your movie on the whole and then you introduce specious propaganda on an unrelated topic to work on their minds.

II. Irrelevant

There have been dictatorships in the 20th and 21st centuries... but how many Christian ones? Even conceding Mussolini, and probably a handful of small island nations here and there, the significance remains small. No matter how you choose to quantify that significance (number of lives affected? discrimination within their countries? people put to death by the state?), Christian dictatorships are vastly overwhelmed by their Muslim and atheist counterparts. Take us back to pre-Enlightenment Europe and you might have a case. But as is, the movie is anachronistic by at least 200 years. Might as well make a movie designed to gain political support against the evils of slavery... which would be 100 years more current.

Hate Christians, or hate Christianity, you still have to admit that en masse, Christian nations learn and adjust to virtue. Pagans, atheists, and Muslims can't say as much. The whole world used to be covered in monarchies. Christian nations have learned and moved on, where the Chinese still censor the Internet for anti-Mao statements, and Cubans will only achieve freedom if they pry it from Castro's cold dead hands. Moreover, no Western mind can fathom the Muslim Taliban who were bent on returning to 14th century customs (and politics). Similarly, the whole world used to allow bigamy, slavery, and discrimination... which can still be found in Saudi Arabia and India... and not in Christian America or Europe. We don't have a caste system.

Again, exceptions are bound to come up to such a broad rule (and it's only too easy to point to flaws in human nature)... but in general, Christian nations have morally progressed, where many of the others have not. And as Chesterton points out in a chapter from Orthodoxy, he is a Christian because Christianity is inherently democratic. CS Lewis also wrote that of all governments, theocracy is the worst (combining power with the assurance that you are acting on behalf of the Almighty). And although you may be able to find a modern Christian theologian or two against democracy, you'll find one or two thousand modern Muslim theologians with that opinion. Even though it is impossible to predict the future with certainty, it is highly highly unlikely that a Christian dictatorship would arise out of any Western nation... certainly none are on the cusp.

III. Unnecessary shots at Christianity

But let's take the Christian out of Christian dictatorship. Is the movie relevant simply as a warning against dictatorships in general? It seems impossible to read it that way since nearly all the evil actions the government sponsors are fanatical Christian ones. Persecuting a lesbian, outlawing the Koran, bribing priests, etc. Like I alluded to in I., even though dictatorship is the obvious target of the movie, Christianity is the intended target. Of course, the movie isn't so honest as to attack Christianity directly like Antony Flew or Bertrand Russell. The script doesn't attack Jesus or the creeds, but rather puts up a despicable Christian example... and blows him up. Even if V, Evey, or the lesbian can be construed as examples of Christ (I don't doubt your analysis there), there is certainly no visible correlation. Chesterton agrees that what makes Christianity Christianity is its concern for things larger than one's self. ("Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land.") But the filmmakers will have none of that association... in an interesting paradox of worldviews, the heroes willing to die for something greater than themselves are mere humanists who don't believe in an afterlife and probably don't even believe in universal morality.

There are no accidents in short stories, and where the story could have just as easily made the persecuted lesbian a persecuted poet speaking her mind against the government, it chose the former for obvious reasons. The poet could explain the background of the experiments and persecution just as well, and give as much hope to V/Evey. So why make her crime lesbianism (a current hot political topic associated with American Christians) instead of the crime of Voltaire? Would you argue that that is the best possible way to write in that character for the sake of the story? It is clear they wrote it for political motivations, and that's where I consider it dishonest... because it works a prejudiced anecdote like that into the movie, designed to make you feel a certain way, without discussing both sides.

And the same can be said about the instance of the Koran. The TV personality could just as easily have been arrested for having Animal Farm (which actually would have more relevance to dictatorships and England). From such script choices I can see all too well the real message from the Weirdo Brothers.

I could also criticize other little movie things, like Evey's lack of personality, the contradiction that V imprisons Evey to teach her of freedom (thus becoming the thing he wants to blow up), and the script's predictability in that the Parliament actually does blow up at the end of the movie. I would have preferred Evey to use her own conscience and decide that while revolution is needed, it would be done with words, not bombs. That would also strengthen the connection to the original gunpowder plot, both being foiled. All in all, I have no desire to see the movie again, and would not recommend it to anyone. There wasn't anything fruitful to be gleaned, and it doesn't have much entertainment value. Which is why I consider it a 1-star movie.

Interested (as always) in further discussion.

Yours,

David

PS By the way, interesting that you mention Gregory Boyd. He spoke at Augie once, and Melita intermittently visited his church... once with me. I read one of his books in college, too. Anyway, after the Augie presentation (October 2001) where he spoke of evil in the world, Andrew Ellsworth, Michael, and I all remarked that he has a very similar personality (and physical build) to you. Very energetic, intelligent, and articulate... and used to be an atheist, too. Some consider him a heretic for his concept of "open theology"... that God does not know the future with certainty. There was a ruckus on whether or not to kick him out of the Baptist denomination and an evangelical theological society. (Don't remember the verdict.) He and John Piper have had several excellent debates (both through email and in public) on that and other issues. You and Erin would really enjoy him if you get the chance to meet or hear him in person.

PPS Do you have your atheology available? I'd be interested in reading it again. Feel free to update/comment it too, if necessary.

PPPS I just checked my word-count to be around 1500. I guess I underestimated the verbal quantity of my own feelings about the movie, too.

--David Bergan

"I wish I had never been born," she said. "What are we born for?"

"For infinite happiness," said the Spirit. "You can step out into it at any moment..."

-CS Lewis (The Great Divorce)