What the F$#K?!? I'm Harry Potter?

"Go See 'V for Vendetta'"

I saw it, I loved it, and I recognized the importance of it. Following is a review by someone who shares my sentiments...

Message delivered:

There's no mistaking the political statement in V for Vendetta, in which the hero is also a terrorist.

Steve PersallPublished March 16, 2006

V for Vendetta is the boldest political statement against the Bush administration since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Even Michael Moore wouldn't prescribe bombing government facilities as a cure for dubious leadership. A futuristic setting in England doesn't disguise the film's rabid intent.

James McTeigue's movie will be branded as irresponsible, even dangerous, by some viewers, although if the past in any indication, the ones who don't see it will yowl loudest. All those knee-jerk critics need to know is that the film's hero is a terrorist.

V for Vendetta audaciously proposes that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, and the difference between good and evil is mostly semantic.

The film is based on a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by David Lloyd; the book was released in 1989 to protest the political atmosphere of the Margaret Thatcher years.

The plot has been reworked to post-9/11 sensibilities by Andy and Larry Wachowski, who wrote their first draft before The Matrix made them famous. Alan Moore has distanced himself from the production; an adapted dud such as The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen can make an author skittish.

Or perhaps he guessed a firestorm lay ahead and didn't want to answer for other authors' ideas. The Wachowski brothers are notoriously reclusive, making this a cut-and-run protest of sorts. V for Vendetta will reignite those claims of disconnect between the film industry and the real world that George Clooney eloquently doused at the recent Academy Awards.

The movie begins with a flashback to 1605 when Guy Fawkes unsuccessfully conspired to blow up Parliament, and was captured and executed. "Remember, remember, the fifth of November,'' the poem begins. But people have forgotten by 2019 when a mysterious figure wearing a cape and eerie Fawkes mask plots an explosive reminder.

Hugo Weaving "Agent Smith'' in the Matrix trilogy wears the mask throughout the film, yet his elocution of the Wachowskis' rich, rebellious dialogue creates a fuller character than expected.

He calls himself V, explained with delirious alliteration to Evey (Natalie Portman), whom he rescues from a trio of lecherous government goons. V takes Evey to a rooftop to witness his masterpiece, blowing up the Old Bailey courthouse on Nov. 5, 2019, to protest a totalitarian regime. She becomes his accomplice, both pursued by grim inspector Finch (Stephen Rea). V vows to complete Fawkes' mission and blow up Parliament on Nov. 5, 2020.

The screenplay stacks the cards in V's favor, with vaguely familiar polemics about strength, unity and faith in God spouted by blustery Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt) and a TV commentator ranting like Bill O'Reilly. Color-coded curfews keep dissent down; the media is a spin-control tool; and a Ministry of Objectionable Materials hides books, works of art, even a jukebox from citizens. Possessing a copy of the Koran is reason for execution, lumping Muslims into the same undesirable group with homosexuals and anyone who disagrees.

"The security of this nation depends upon complete and total compliance,'' Sutler says, and we're urged to hiss.

Such words speak much louder than violent actions in V for Vendetta. This is a film about ideas, not entirely popular ones, that could topple a government faster than bombs if enough people took them to heart. The finale of McTeigue's movie, when V's vendetta spreads to the masses, is so revolutionary that I wondered how this movie ever got made, much less distributed by a major studio (in this case, Warner Bros.).

Does it endorse terrorism? Not as much as it decries politicians using fear to rule. More semantics. The future, the film loudly declares, is now.

V for Vendetta
Grade: A
Director: James McTeigue
Cast: Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, John Hurt, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, Sinead Cusack, Tim Pigott-Smith, Roger Allam
Screenplay: The Wachowski brothers, Andy and Larry, based on the graphic novel by Alan Moore and David Lloyd
Rating: R; violence, mature themes, profanity
Running time: 131 min.

The Great Moral Debate: Religion Today Column for Week of March 12-18

I really found this interesting. Feel free to offer any nuggets of wisdom yourselves.

Religion Today is contributed by the University of Wyoming's Religious Studies Program to examine and to promote discussion of religious issues.

The Great Moral Debate
By Paul V.M. Flesher

The biggest ethical debates in American society have been issues where there is not an obvious right or wrong, where one side is not definitely good and the other side obviously wicked. The most difficult moral struggles our society has faced over recent decades are ones where Christian churches have been prominent on both sides. This was certainly true for the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s and the Women's Rights movement of the 1970s. For both of these, churches were on the forefront of both sides of the debate. Why was this? How can Christians who all follow the teachings of Jesus Christ disagree so passionately over the practice of those teachings?

At the risk of oversimplifying these difficult ethical issues, I want to suggest that they are actually part of a larger moral debate that has been going on since the start of Christianity and probably will continue until its end (and perhaps beyond). I refer to the debate between moral principles and moral answers.

What do I mean by "moral principles and moral answers"? In the gospels, Jesus presents most of his ethical teachings as principles. Usually they are given in the form of short, wise sayings, such as "Love your neighbor" or "Judge not, and you will not be judged." Other times they are given as parables, such as when the young man to whom Jesus said "Love your neighbor," responded by saying, "Who is my neighbor"? Jesus then told him the parable of the Good Samaritan.

A moral answer comes by applying a moral principle to a particular circumstance. For example, an acquaintance angers me. Should I hit him? The application of the moral principle "Love your neighbor" gives the moral answer that I should not. In this particular situation, the answer is "do not hit!" (which is what I tell my six-year-old several times a week).

So what is the Great Moral Debate? Over the years, generations, and centuries, Christians have taught both moral principles and moral answers. Moral answers serve well for guiding behavior when the answer is already known. (I know I'm not supposed to hit others.) But guiding behavior by moral answers requires learning lots of circumstances and the appropriate moral answer. What happens when one encounters a circumstance for which there is not a learned answer?

Moral principles, by contrast, are more flexible, and one principle might cover a number of situations (including unexpected new ones). Loving my neighbor, for example, would also indicate that I should help people in trouble, as well as refrain from hitting them.

The problem with moral principles is that they come without clear instructions. There is no clear-cut delineation of circumstances in which to apply them, for instance. When the young man asked Jesus who his neighbor was, he was expecting a clear definition. Instead, Jesus answered by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan. Jesus thus increased the possible definitions of "neighbor" rather than limiting them.

So how does the distinction between moral principles and moral answers address our opening question of why serious Christians take opposing sides on ethical issues? The difference comes from whether the Christians respond to an issue with a learned answer or with the application of a principle.

To the question of whether women should take a speaking role in worship services, for example, the apostle Paul gave the moral answer that women should keep silent in church. Today, many Christian denominations have looked at the issue again and applied the moral principle of equality -- of everyone being equal in the eyes of God. In those denominations, women have become ministers, priests and in some, even bishops. Both sides gave a Christian response to the issues, but one side gave a moral answer while the other applied a moral principle.

In America's newest moral dilemma, about the role of gays in our country's social and legal life, different Christian denominations are again on different sides. One Christian church, the Episcopalian, is even the protagonist in the debate. But watch for the Great Moral Debate behind the scenes, the one between moral principles and moral answers.

Flesher is director of UW's Religious Studies Program. Past columns and more information about the program can be found on the Web at www.uwyo.edu/relstds.