Eyes to See V

Last Friday I managed to get out to the theatres(!) and caught V for Vendetta. Oh happy day! This is a film I've been anticipating for months. Hugo Weaving - Natalie Portman - 1984'esque pulp violence - Wachowski's back to from: I'm so freakin' there, man. And for all of the anticipation and excitment of such a "dangerous" film - it lived up to all the hype.

What an amazing film. V for Vendatta is a great film. Yet more than that, it is such a huge, beautiful slap in the face to religious politics. V is filled with stunning and shocking visuals that would truly be ruined in part if I mentioned them here. These are perhaps not unexpected visuals - but to attempt to describe them in words so poor as my own would truly undercut anyone's first experience with the message of V.

And oh!, what a great message V gives us. A message of violence and peace, passivity and unrest, hope and despair.

I don't think it's much of a shocker that where Guy Fawkes failed V did not. However, I watched the screen, mouth agape and tears streaming down my face as the finale ripped through the celluloid. A friend, if he gets over to Cambridge for the summer, will ask his classmates what they thought of that awesome end of V. I'd love to know myself. As I think about it, I probably would not be as shocked if the White House or the like were similarly...metaphored, as it were. Interesting, eh?

I was thrilled with the content of V. Vendetta could have gone several ways in showcasing great "evils" that the totalitarian regime rallied and coalesced itself against. They could have gone for religion (anti-Muslim) or sex (anti-gay) - and of course the politics thereof. I think it's fantastic that they went with the sex route - because of course I am such a whore for sex. Not to say they left religion alone - Vendetta got in a nice jab when Muslim terrorists were executed for unleashing St. Mary's virus. Furthermore, through the partial focus on sexuality, the film explored the evils of patriarchy and the counterbalancing power and empathy of women. Yet in the exploration of women as equally powerful creatures, men were not ignored. For that I am very thankful. In rejecting one extreme we can so easily (and sometimes rightly) swing to the other extreme. Pleased am I that while exploring extremes, V for Vendetta did not settle just on the far end of the spectrum.

I loved this film.

I think I understand the hatred of George W. Bush now. Obviously there are petty and childish facets of humanity inspiring such hatred, yet I will lean towards the ideal and go from there. Those who hate our President see the promise of something evil, if not evil itself. That V can never be considered a terrorist (by me, at least) is defined in that he acted against evil, abject evil. Let me clarify, I use evil in the sense that disagreeing with the following phrase is evil: "People should not be afraid of their government, the government should be afraid of its people." (Of course Bush says he wages war against those who are evil. Yet what happens when evil fights evil? For while I do not deny that those terrorists dance happily upon the path of life that will end with hot fire pokers shoved up their collective asses, what good is it when evil fights evil? Since childhood we've been taught never to fight fire with fire. Aren't we doing that now? Isn't that why we're in this quagmire [giggidty, giggidty, go!] in Iraq?) Whether Bush is evil or not, many see a promise of evil - which is enough for some to fight against him. Bush is not afraid of the American people and the power they can wield, that much is clear - and personally has become stunningly clear to me in the most recent past.

V for Vendetta has the most intelligent counter to Bush I've ever seen. Yet it goes further that Bush, which defines the film's longevity. V is also a counter against religious politics.

God wove an amazing tapestry of theology that defines itself not only within the confines of the church but in the world. In the Old Testament God, more or less, fought a holy war against the world. In the New Testament, however, Christ rejected that holy war (for His people) with: "Give unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and unto God what is God's." I see that as an establishment of the strictest distinction of a separation of the Church from the World. And it is not surprising that such a distinction is made clear, for within the New Testament a new Covenant is created in which the world ceases to be the end prize for the faithful. As a Christian, I view attempting to be holy in the tenants of Christianity or any religion as a state, as a world in any way is a gross neglect of our responsibility to society. I don't mean to say that if there is a group of nice Christians/Muslims/ect. who want to establish a small religious state unto themselves, they can't. Of course they can. It is the people who decide how they shall be ruled - if they collectively want religion, then let them have it. Yet given our world, our lives are defined by diversity. Because that diversity lives under the on-going experiment of democracy where every voice has the choice to make itself heard, no one religion can exert authority over politics - at least not in America. God may rule His people but He does not rule society. I believe He more or less expressed that in the transition from the Old Testament to the New. The New Testament is a testament (haha!) of sorts to what Christianity is and becomes - a religion not defined, as it once was, by society (Gentiles now instead of Jews - not instead of, but). We can take that to mean, I think, that the Gentiles are everyone. And the inherent logic of everyone is that they aren't in one place. They are everywhere, scattered - here, there, and nowhere.

I am lead then to this question: Why are Christians banding together to fight the world?

Let me rephrase, for often the world does need to be fought. Some Christians, however, seem to be circling the wagons, and have forever been circling the wagons, in order to fight the oncoming horde of pagans/atheists/Muslims/ect from taking over the world. Does not the fallacity of the argument jump right out at you? These so-called Christians seek to fight the world in order to preserve the world - or convert it. As a Christian, I declare quite honestly that I live in a delicious paradox - I am both a part of this world and not. I believe I have something far greater to live for than this world. In the meantime, I get to enjoy the hell out of this world and enjoy all that God gave life to.

And I do so enjoy this world.