Children of Anarchy

I didn't read comic books as a kid, even though my uncle worked for Marvel Comics and wrote issues of Wolverine and Conan the Barbarian. I have always been a lover of words and not images--I think most of the thrill of reading lies in the not knowing. However, a trend in the movie industry has been to adapt comic books and graphic novels to the screen rather than create original pieces of cinematic art. One of my favorites is the film V for Vendetta, and I had always heard the graphic novel was better than the movie. The main differences make for intriguing thoughts.

Many of the issues in the graphic novel and film are similar, such as fascism, mind control, the targeting of the "other" such as homosexuals and minorities. The biggest difference between the two is the idea behind them, which is ironic considering the main character, V, is just that: an idea. In the film, V fights for freedom, an American ideal. In the graphic novel, V fights for anarchy.

Uh oh, that's scary. Anarchy. Lawlessness. While there is a tone of bad-assery which lends itself gracefully to the graphic novel genre, it also brings up an issue which people seem to be scared to face. Let's explore this by asking a question: why did the film turn V from an anarchical antihero into a democracy-lovin' fool? Ignore the fact that the film was set in Britain but was American-produced. V, a character who seems so inspirational and thrilling in the film alone, pales in comparison to the ruthless murderer and vigilante of the graphic novel. V loses his power in the translation.

I'm not saying that anarchy is the way to be. Democracy seems to work out decently enough. But here's the deal: in a world where everything is controlled, everything is watched, it would be nearly impossible for the transition from dictatorship to democracy to happen without chaos. Ideas and empires are not built automagically, they are the result of rebellion and unrest.

Think of the film now. While the end of the film is inspirational in its show of solidarity against "the man," it must also be observed that the people basically transition from following one person to another. V is an amazing and attractive character, but he also becomes a sort of second dictator. Sure, his ideas are inspiring and earnestly wish for freedom and equality for all men, but the crowd in the film is just as easily led to his ideas as they were to the Big Brother regime. There might have been stirrings of feeling, but not the passion it would take to overthrow a military dictatorship. In some ways, people need chaos and lawlessness to figure out a path for themselves, free of other peoples' perscription of right and wrong.

Anarchy seems like a scary, insurmountable thing. Our country is huge, and if lawlessness ruled the day we would have a very difficult time getting along, to be sure. However, it would offer something which hasn't been available to us since the American Revolution, and it is this: independent thought. Today, we are swayed so often by other peoples' opinions, the news, pundits, our government, and other people in "authority" that we don't know how to think for ourselves. It's so difficult to keep a rational mind when there is so much irrationality being spewed. Our government was built upon ideals of the Enlightenment, but that sensibility has disappeared to be replaced with arguments between people whose thoughts are rarely even their own. Anarchy offers a clean slate, a break from the safety of clear answers and the ability to hang out in the grey zone.

I'm not saying that we should be anarchists. I'm saying that democracy is only truly valid if the people participating in the system are really thinking about what "freedom" means. It shouldn't be something we listen to others about or accept as truth, but something we fight for and fight to understand every day. Only when we are actively participating in an insightful discussion which can lead to productive ends will our system of government work.