Related articles and links |  1 of 4

Does "V" stand for "victory," "virtue," or "vile" and "vapid"?

Some members of the Christian media are treating V for Vendetta as an offensive and "vile" piece of work, while others are celebrating it as a film about moral responsibility, featuring an inspirational Christ figure. Who's right?

There's no denying that the plot is made of volatile elements. The famed graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd was composed as a fantasy commenting on the policies of British prime minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s. But Larry and Andy Wachowski have joined with newcomer James McTeigue to update the story—and their revisions have resulted in a subversive, dangerous tale.

V, the rebellious hero played by Hugo Weaving (The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings), is winning viewers' affections by lashing out against this fascist authority. Donning a Guy Fawkes mask, he strikes back at the empire, using knives and explosives. Natalie Portman portrays the disillusioned citizen who just might learn to be a terrorist herself, and together they aim higher and higher, until London's Parliament building becomes their ultimate target.

Liberation stories are usually cause for celebration. And the government in this fantasy is certainly oppressive and cruel, practically begging its citizens to revolt. But these heroes are awfully quick to embrace violence, without much talk about other forms of protest. Should this behavior be encouraged? (Vendetta's filmmakers sidestep the issue of whether bombing buildings might claim innocent lives.)

Many critics defend Vendetta as a timeless sci-fi tale, and it does have the basic structure of a myth about the consequences of oppression. But the filmmakers have gone to too much trouble to make it clear who they hate and what they want viewers to do about it. Can we agree with the storytellers, that fascism is evil, even if it is carried out under the sign of the cross? Sure. But are they guilty of encouraging their own brand of intolerance? Absolutely.

Vendetta's storytellers associate their villains with resistance to Islam, with enforcement of "homeland security," and with objections to homosexuality. It leaves no middle ground: If you are associated with these things, Vendetta implies that you are also in favor of censorship, bigotry, hate, torture, and Holocaust-style executions. While it isn't hard to find evidence of abuses of power in today's democratic governments, it's a bit of a stretch to compare England and the U.S. with the Nazis, and to suggest that we're just a hair's breadth from routinely executing those who are not conservative Republicans.

If you're bracing for the May release of The Da Vinci Code, which portrays the church as a conspiracy to dupe humanity, well, this V beats Da Vinci to the punch, revealing the church as a partner-in-crime with a devilish government. And, of course, the bishop is reveling in pedophilia behind the scenes. Here's another film campaigning for "tolerance" while it wants us to believe that unfortunate exceptions are, in fact the rule. It reinforces cruel caricatures and throws fuel on the fire of intolerance toward Christians. There is no attempt made to suggest that Christianity might be, at heart, about something more desirable than oppression and sexual prejudice.

Is it a coincidence that V's Zorro-like signature looks suspiciously like an inverted version of the symbol for anarchy?

Russ Breimeier (Christianity Today Movies) is impressed by some things and dismayed by others. He writes that McTeigue and the Wachowskis do well with the source material by "punching up the dialogue" and focusing on ideas instead of resorting to "non-stop, sloppy action." He also notes that the filmmakers "pull some strong performances from the leads. Portman shows impressive emotional range … Weaving also pulls off a difficult part …"

next page... |  1 of 4

share this page

March (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50