SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : I Will Continue to Continue, to Pretend.... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Sully- who wrote (18719)3/16/2006 3:56:22 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
When was the last time Hollywood produced a movie or TV show where a left wing socialist government was unambiguously portrayed as the evil villain?

U For Update

posted by Ace
Ace of Spades HQ

Dorkafork opines:

<<< Here's a thought experiment: Try to imagine V for Vendetta being released anytime in the year after the Oklahoma City bombing. >>>


Of course you can't, and not just because it would have been distasteful. V is being released just eight months after the 7/7 subway attacks, and the opening scene features him using the subways to blow up Parliament.

No, such a film is unthinkable because it would tend to suggest that Timothy McVeigh was justified. Sometimes blowing up a building can change the world, V says. McVeight thought so too.

No film like this would be released during a Democratic administration. If Hillary! becomes President, do you imagine Hollywood cranking out a movie suggesting domestic terrorism against a left-wing socialist fascist government is justified? Of course not-- because even if in the fictive world of the film, such actions are justified, they would recoil from the suggestion that such acts were justified against Madame President Hillary!'s government.

Hell, even I, as a conservative, would object to such a film. (Unless, of course, Hillary! really did become a fascist tyrant and dismantled the democratic system, which I really don't think she'll do.)

In an era where psychopaths really are blowing up buildings to make some sort of satanic political point, is it a good idea to give such bastards ideological and moral succor by making a movie featuring a noble hero that they may find sympathetic?

The movie suggests that terrorism is justifiable, and it does so through a romantic, charismatic, heroic and noble figure of mystery. Am I crazy to have a problem with this?

Incidentally, the Wachowskis ultimately concluded their Matrix series by suggestig that violence was not the answer. Even when the foes were conscienceless machines that had genocidally slaughtered 99% of humanity and enslaved another .9% (while the remaining .1% had underground raves), the Wachowskis ended the film with a truce. War was not the answer, Neo realized, as did the machines (finally). Peaceful co-existance was the answer, even if it meant that a good number of humans would be left in a comatose captitivity to provide energy for the machines.

So, in that case: War is not the answer.

But in the case of a right-wing government meant to be suggestive of THatcher's England and Bush's AmeriKKKa: War is definitely the answer, baby.

ace.mu.nu



To: Sully- who wrote (18719)3/20/2006 7:19:38 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
    “[My comic] has been turned into a Bush-era parable by 
people too timid to set a political satire in their own
country… [The film] is a thwarted and frustrated and
largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with
American liberal values standing up against a state run
by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta"
[the comic] was about.”
Alan Moore, creator of the "V for Vendetta" comic book

V for vendetta, T for terrorist, and A for "that's A-okay"

Review by Megan Basham
Townhall.com
Mar 20, 2006

I have seen the terrorist and he is me. And you. And all of us. So says Evey (Natalie Portman), an acolyte of V (Hugh Weaving), the swashbuckling savior of future England who disguises himself as Guy Fawkes.

But don’t worry, because being a terrorist is now a good thing. As we’ve been told by the media, one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter…or masked superhero as the case may be.

In fact, according to The New York Daily News’ critic, Jaimi Bernard, even the term “suicide bombing” is now relative. “One person's idea of social liberation through symbolic fireworks is another person's suicide bombing,” she insists in her review of V for Vendetta.

So even though V threatens to detonate a load of explosives strapped to his chest, killing dozens of innocent people at the BBC (oh, excuse me, BFC) if they don’t give him air-time, just think of him as Batman—a little overly-dramatic and conflicted perhaps, but also sexy and an undeniable force for good.

I can see him this way because of all the Wachowski Brothers have taught me. My eyes have been opened, and I am no longer an automaton of the Right-wing religious-military-industrial complex.

Thanks to this “parable about terrorism and totalitarianism” (Roger Ebert) I have been “prodded to think” (The San Francisco Chronicle). And I now think that the Bush administration blew up the twin towers and tried to blow up two other U.S. targets on 9/11 in order to scare Americans into giving them more power. I think that conservatives hate art, literature, and music—especially jazz music—and want to lock it all away because, well, they’re just mean like that.

I think that Catholics are in league with Republicans, and that together it is they, and not radical Islamists, who would like to exterminate all homosexuals and execute anyone that produces material critical of the Church-State. I think it is Christians who persecute people for reading the Koran and not Muslims who persecute people for reading the Bible.

I think that the West’s military personnel are the ones who place hoods over innocent people’s heads then mercilessly torture and kill them, and that broadcasts of Islamo-fascists doing so are so much laughable propaganda.

But most of all, in true V style, I think that documents, like buildings, are only symbols, and that burning them can change the world. Therefore, I propose that we storm the National Archives and torch the Constitution—the document responsible for unleashing the Great Evil that is America.

After all, that’s what the Wachowskis want, isn’t it? When [spoiler alert] the English masses gather and cheer as Parliament, that British symbol of representative government burns, aren’t we too supposed to cheer? Aren’t we supposed to want to run out of theater ready to don our Osama Bin Laden masks, ready to confront the world’s biggest terrorist mastermind on the White House lawn?

Oh, but wait, the movie is “dystopian” and therefore has nothing to do with current events. The “yellow-alerts” the vile dictator employs are a coincidence. The campy television show in which vaudevillian Al Qaeda operatives torture busty blondes, suggesting that the threat of terror is as fictional as it is ridiculous, means nothing. The balding talk show host with a pill-popping problem isn’t intended to smear a real person.

And the fact that the script takes glee in constantly referring to the “former United States of America” and “their war” that left them “the world’s leper colony”? Umm, okay, that’s a little hard to explain…let’s just call that comic justice.

I could go into more detail, but really, there is no point. The fact the film’s release had to be postponed when V’s final heroic act of loading explosives onto a subway car in the London underground proved too realistic illustrates how in-sync the Wachowski’s are with actual terrorists. Forget not being worth the price of admission, this ode to Al Zarqawi and his ilk certainly wasn’t worth the price of pretty Miss Portman’s flowing mane of chestnut hair.

But the worst part of Vendetta isn’t the anti-Bush/anti-Blair agenda it pushes so feverishly. It’s the legions of film critics who have lavished that agenda with praise.

To be fair, some admirers claim that it’s only entertainment:

<<< “If you find a way to apply it to George Bush or Tony Blair, it’s only because the film’s themes are so universal.” (Cinema Blend) >>>

But most argue that the ideas it brings up are “important”:

<<< “That it so cannily reflects specific concerns of this moment in history makes it an almost important movie.” (Los Angeles Daily News) >>>


The hangdogs can’t have it both ways. Either the movie has nothing to do with the War on Terror and it’s awful, or it has everything to do with the War on Terror and it’s appalling.

Incidentally, after reading the script, creator of the V comic book, Alan Moore, insisted Warner Bros. remove his name from the project. He told MTV, “[My comic] has been turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country… [The film] is a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neo-conservatives — which is not what "V for Vendetta" [the comic] was about.”

Thankfully, cartoonish acting and a juvenilely self-reverential plot means no one except teenage boys (the ones in the row in front of me kept muttering, “Yeah, anarchy!” as London blazed) and crazed George Clooney disciples will take this movie’s “important ideas” seriously.

Those are the people who are this very moment wailing, “Free speech! Free speech! The Wachowskis have every right to promote their beliefs!” To them I say, yep, they sure do.

And I have the right to unmask them for the ignorant, irresponsible, paranoid filmmakers that they are.

Megan Basham is a film critic for Townhall.com.

Copyright © 2006 Townhall.com

townhall.com



To: Sully- who wrote (18719)3/23/2006 9:26:11 AM
From: Sully-  Respond to of 35834
 
Terrorist Heroes

V for Vendetta’s mixed messages make the comic book seem sophisticated.

By Peter Suderman
National Review Online

Like it or not, comic books are no longer the domain of nerds and adolescents. Driven by the box-office success of adaptations of such four-color legends as Spider-Man and X-Men, Hollywood has positioned the comic-book world as a farm team for its big-screen blockbusters. It was only a matter of time, then, before the world of costumed heroes collided with the film industry's increasingly dominant political consciousness. The result is V for Vendetta, a mildly entertaining dystopian pulp adventure weighed down by some of the most muddled political messages to land on multiplex screens in a long time. Warning: The confused ideas of this undercooked bit of popcorn subversion may cause choking.

Based on an anti-Thatcher graphic novel by comic book hermit-auteur Alan Moore, the film was written and produced by the Wachowski Brothers (Bound, The Matrix). Here, their flair for dark, elegant imagery and outlandish action is once again on display, nicely capturing the comic's atmosphere of barely-subdued dread.

Despite the fact that the notoriously strange Moore (he is a practicing magician who claims to worship a Roman snake deity) has disowned the adaptation, the pairing of the creators is apt: Like Moore, the Wachowskis are reclusive, eccentric characters known for bringing a heady aesthetic to pulp material. V for Vendetta is certainly no exception. As with the Wachowskis' Matrix sequels, the script is sopping wet with ponderous philosophical exchanges. For these brothers, dialog isn't so much about clarity as it is about polysyllabic posing and flexing.

Unsurprisingly, the film's backstory has been rigged to promote a slew of contemporary causes.
Vendetta takes place in a futuristic, totalitarian Britain where, after the implosion of the U.S. and a series of bioterror attacks on major British targets, a fascist regime with theocratic overtones rules in malevolent, dictatorial style. In this future, the British Conservative Party, led by the bombastic High Chancellor Sutler (John Hurt), has sprouted a pronounced authoritarian streak. Not wanting to depart from the long history of dystopian fascist states in 1984, Brave New World, and Fahrenheit 451, they roll out the greatest hits of futuristic fascism: revoking privacy rights, banning most art, restricting homosexual activity, disseminating lies and propaganda through the media, and generally treating the citizenry with total disdain — all in the name of God and country.

Lurking somewhere in this fog of fascist clichés is V (Hugo Weaving), the costumed vigilante whose swashbuckling anti-government exploits drive the film forward. Weaving plays V as both shadow-bound menace and zany philosopher, alternating between clashes with evildoers and mundane domestic duties — both of which can be used as fodder for his convoluted philosophical musings. Clad in a cape, a wide-brimmed hat, and a Guy Fawkes mask, he blows up public buildings and assassinates government figures, all in the name of...well, something that the movie never quite makes clear.

Ostensibly, V's mission is one of liberty. He decries the discrimination, lack of privacy, and, eventually, outright violence committed by the government. But the Wachowskis' script strays off on so many useless tangents that it's hard to get worked up about V's declamations on freedom.

The Wachowskis take every opportunity to stroke their pet issues. Government sponsored homosexual discrimination figures heavily in the film, but for all the time devoted to the subject, it provides very little significant plot movement. It's strongly hinted that America's downfall was caused by its military presence in Iraq. The British government uses a color-coded curfew system as a method of keeping the citizenry in check. None of these elements does much for the central mystery, but they inject themselves into the proceedings with annoying regularity.

The film seems to have a special disdain for religion, portraying the British state as a sneering den of religious hypocrisy.
A government puppet figure blasts the U.S. for being "godless," blaming America's downfall on "God's judgment." In one totally outrageous moment, a priest tries to rape a young girl. In cased anyone missed the point that religious belief is just a tool for manipulation, the government continually preaches "Strength through unity, unity through faith." The film has only sympathy, though, for those who want to keep a Koran around — provided he or she ignores its religious instruction and simply "appreciates its beauty." Sacred texts, we are to understand, are great just as long as no one actually pays any attention to what they say.

On the subject of terrorism, the confusion reaches almost frenzied levels. Governments that attack their own people are bad, of course, but the proper response to it is apparently to — surprise — attack one's own people. "Blowing up a building can change the world," V says, and somehow we're supposed to sympathize with him when he wants to use London's subway system to blow up prominent buildings.

It would be one thing if the Wachowskis had constructed their narrative in a way that allowed organic integration of these issues. Instead, they seem to have poorly retrofitted Moore's original story, ripping out sizable chunks of his plot to make room for their pretentious gabbing.
Particularly noticeable are the changes made to Chancellor Sutler. In the movie, he's a fire-breathing Hitler caricature, the sort of Saturday-morning cartoon villain you expect to see shaking his fist and yelling, "I'll get you next time..." Moore's graphic novel made him an honest believer in the necessity of fascist rule to preserve his beloved country — a far more compelling, complex enemy. Changes like this abound, and they are telling: V for Vendetta may be the first movie to come off more one-dimensional and cartoonish than a comic book.

— Peter Suderman is assistant editorial director at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. He maintains a blog on film and culture at www.alarm-alarm.com.

nationalreview.com

en.wikipedia.org