V for Vendetta is more than simply surprisingly good - it's a brilliantly conceived and executed commentary on the sort of ontological and ethical responses available to individuals who realize they now reside in a fascist state of their own making. The movie does endorse terrorism, but the endorsement is complicated, since the terrorism is carefully crafted for symbolic effect, with only minimal related death dished out along the way, and even these deaths appear to be reserved for evil-doers or a few members of the police force whose "legitimate violence" keeps the fascist extremists in power. I would love to discuss it further, and I might soon, but I want to give it a week or so for folks to see it before I start reviews or comments predicated on plot spoilers, but let me provide a dorky, academic tease: V for Vendetta offers one of the best pop culture demonstrations of the difference between biopolitics and a "form of life" that exceeds biopolitics. There are plenty of brilliant and well-crafted scenes in the movie, but of all of them, no bit of dialogue is as profound as the one that runs through and follows the torture of Evey (Natalie Portman), which touches on the intangible inch, the smallest of undecidables, that ill-named thing that exceeds the desire for and experience of survival.
Comments (11)
I wholeheartedly agree with the assessment: the movie was brilliantly done, and if at times the script seemed to clobber you over the head with points that greater writers (like Orwell) make in more subtle fashion, it was a small price to pay for a modern exploration of how the media and individual fear combine to allow absolute power its ability to corrupt.
Posted by Mark Madsen | March 20, 2006 3:00 PM
Posted on March 20, 2006 15:00
Interesting. Did you catch Le Cobert?
Posted by Matt | March 21, 2006 10:54 PM
Posted on March 21, 2006 22:54
No, what did I miss?
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | March 22, 2006 12:25 PM
Posted on March 22, 2006 12:25
Nothing really.
Posted by Matt | March 23, 2006 2:38 AM
Posted on March 23, 2006 02:38
hi Ken,
I haven't seen the film and am unsure if I'll catch it before it leaves theaters. If you don't mind and have time at some point, I'd love it if you could unpack this: "the difference between biopolitics and a "form of life" that exceeds biopolitics." I find that provocative and it touches on ideas and thinkers I'm really interested in but unsure what to do with (or how to understand).
Best wishes,
Nate
Posted by Nate | March 23, 2006 10:11 AM
Posted on March 23, 2006 10:11
Ken,
I saw it and loved it. I wept at the end. Really. You are completely right about 'more than life' and exceeding biopolitics. I don't want to say more yet either because much of the thrill came from not knowing what would happen.
Posted by Jodi | March 24, 2006 8:54 PM
Posted on March 24, 2006 20:54
Nate, I'm going to give it to Wednesday, then I'll elaborate more, complete with spoilers.
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | March 26, 2006 9:12 AM
Posted on March 26, 2006 09:12
I agree, brilliant film from both a cinematic and philosophical standpoint. I also agree with Mark that it was very unsubtle about its message. But then, perhaps it needed to be. My girlfriend, for instance, didn't seem to grasp the point of the film when I felt sure she would.
If I had any money I'd go see it again, just so I could make sure I got everything out of it.
Posted by Jon McGee | March 31, 2006 3:17 AM
Posted on March 31, 2006 03:17
I find it interesting that the character has to wear a mask. I know the significance of who's face it is and the fact that he is modeled after the terrorist who attempted to blow up parliament, but I find even greater significance that to successfully build a character that can battle the fascist government he must hidden behind an emotionless mask... I would be very interested in seeing how that the emotionless retaliation ties into the musselman of the fascist government. I haven't had the opportunity to see the entirity of the movie yet but it will be interesting to see how it develops. Would love to hear some feedback!
Posted by Ken Hendrix | March 31, 2006 10:25 AM
Posted on March 31, 2006 10:25
Ken, what are you up to these days? Email me, man.
The mask is a pretty fascinating component, even theatrically. I was blown away by how well Hugo Weaving was able to communicate affect without ever showing any of his own face, or even his own skin. Thoroughly impressive in its own right. But it's also this sort of face without a face component, not unlike Derrida' visor effect, in which we see a figure that is both not our hero and yet is our hero. So he's reduced to a kind of figurality, but it's this reduction to pure figure that supposedly makes the identification work. I have some doubts as to whether it does or not, doubts that I think actually make the movie stronger because of the failure of identification contained therein, but as I keep promising to out them, I'll post them sometime this week. Maybe today, we'll see.
Posted by Kenneth Rufo | April 4, 2006 6:40 AM
Posted on April 4, 2006 06:40
Yeah I totally agree about the whole figurality. This brings up questions of the "other" to me. Have we created a character that creates the "space between" existance and non-existence. And is that where all of our effective and affective historical myth is create?
Posted by Ken Hendrix | April 13, 2006 2:01 PM
Posted on April 13, 2006 14:01