V is for awesome
V For Vendetta might be one of the best films I've ever seen in my life. More on that in a bit.
I know I haven't blogged much since I got back from my trip...so let me take you up to date...it snowed here this weekend. And by 'snowed' I mean that mother nature took one massive wet, white dump all over Edmonton, snaring both traffic and emotions in a tangled, frustrating mess. I snapped when I shouldn't have. I was snapped at for unnecessary reasons. We're sorry. It's ok now.
Last friday, I worked a show for the mighty mighty D.O.A., where I finally met, for the first time, the legendary Joey 'Shithead' Keithly. What a professional, polite and extemely level-headed punk. It was both an honor and a privledge to work with the band (who were completely fucking killer, by the way)...and it reminded me in a sense to not forget where I came from. I am a punk, through and through. I might dance all ravercore and listen to a brazzilion kinds of different music, but in the end...I'm punk, and I don't feel akward admitting it. I have politics and attitudes that don't fit elsewhere into a nice, neat package...namely those which I decided several years ago were a little...much to reconcile.
These were mostly those surrounding anarchism, a tenet that I held close to my chest with a strange passion that I had trouble placing. It was about 'knowing' right from wrong, just from unjust; about when to fight and when to lie down. it was about love and commitment and art and fun and making fun of the man in a public (and sometimes destructive) way. It was about creative thinking, beyond democracy and body politics and I saw proof positive in the Situationists, in 1968 France, in the "Enrages" and the student protests that changed modern European history.
But then something happened; I lost my way. I lost the energy that it takes to make change. I lost the dream, the drive and the push to make my world better. It was something in the way that people voted. That Bush got re-elected. That Albertans simply don't give a fuck. That we deny artists the right to work; and that we deny their value to society. I was just as surprised as any to have a hollywood blockbuster-type film get my mind jogging around these concepts again, around the value of aesthetics in revolution and the need to make revolt fun, peaceful, and because we want it.
Is this too much to ask? To want? The greatest changes in human history haven't come through nonviolent means...Ward Churchill notes that pacifism is a pathology, a state of mind, not a set of beliefs or actions. This state can be warped into a defense mechanism whereby we arm ourselves to defend the greater good, so to speak...but would you do it? Would I do it? I can't decide. I couldn't then, and I'm no closer to deciding now.
I guess it's the same question soldiers must ask themselves...is it JUST to die for your country? Is it JUST if the reasons you are fighting are fabricated for someone else's profit? Is it patriotic to want a change? I love Canada, but not because of the mounties or the 'tolerant' government, but because of its culture and people. But if I was asked tomorrow to take up arms in a struggle against real or imagined enemies, I'm not sure I would.
Does that make me a bad person? A bad citizen?
Seeing V for Vendetta last night made we wonder just that. In the movie, a mysterious assassin starts picking off key members of the 'council', and breaks into a TV station to deliver a message that one year from that night, a revolution would oust the corrupt, neo-facist government, led by the people. He does this all dressed as Guy Fawkes, a 15th-century anarchist in his own right, who tried to blow up Parliament in London as a statement against the protestant/strong arm of the government; he was later hanged for his crimes. The character 'V' embodies this position and person, ruthlessly offing all who stand in his way...which is where I'm confused. Do the ends justify the means? Not just in the film (in which they do), but in general? Do we arm ourselves against a peaceful government because of the threat of it turning ugly? Would a government do that, in these times?
Desperate times often call for desperate measures...but governments should fear their citizens...gah, I'm drowning in cliches. Help me.
posted by Eli at 2:03 PM
3 Comments:
You raise some really interesting questions and points regarding society and the government that controls it. A couple points to consider:
1. A government is a necessity because most people aren't intelligent enough to coexist or rule themselves humanely. Unfortunately, the problem inherent is that anyone who wants a position of power, ie. a position to control others, is indicative of a superiorist rather than altruistic personality.
2. In an extreme case where a government is corrupt enough to warrant change, few individuals are intelligent enough to actually bring about said change, again illustrating the fact that government is a necessity because few can rule justly. Those that can, if they are of noble intention, would decline the offer of power.
I think oftentimes the government does things that seem wrong to liberal minded people, but the truth is, they are necessities done for the benefit of all. Human nature left unchecked is a disaster waiting to happen.
Great post though, and no, I don't know you, so hi, how's it going? I just stumbled upon your page through linkage.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
oh, i just saw the film too and it's got my brain all a-flutter with thoughts. i'm undecided too about whether the 'ends justify the means' and the larger issue of violence as a means to radical change. i gotta read "pacifism as pathology" to get some thoughts straight on this.
i think V's means of getting Evey to come around (for example) are definitely questionable and much more tricky and subtle that the issue of say, do we take up arms in a direct action struggle?
anyway, and i think that (as a response to above commenter) the issue is not so much that people are not 'intelligent' enough to rule ourselves or to bring about change. i think the issue is more about how people are scared and/or disillusioned and/or disempowered and/or without access to means, resources etc. and/or divided amongst themselves. such things play a much larger role i think in our ability to get our shit together and bring about large-scale revolutionary change.
and i think any rhetoric that refers to things being done by people in power for the "benefit of all" is very dangerous.
(spell-checked this time). xo
Post a Comment
<< Home