V For Vendetta Opens Today

[LowerCaseRepublican]

For those of you are movie fans (or people that listen to the talking heads discuss this film), you'll know that the adaptation of Alan Moore's classic "V For Vendetta" starring Natalie Portman comes out today.

 

The story is basically a dystopic England in the grips of a fascist authoritarian government. Out of the shadows comes a mysterious man only known as V. He saves a young girl named Evey (Portman) from attack and may have a possible ally. All the while, bodies have been piling up within the ranks of the England's fairly new but powerful government. All the murders are connected, far deeper than any mere affiliation with any governmental branch. These killings are vastly encompassing, but acutely personal. It is a vendetta: In a totalitarian state, the government has the people convinced that a single "terrorist", V, would have them under siege. But V would stand to say that he is showing the people that they have been under siege by their government. V is out to avenge individuality, and reclaim freedom for the people, even at the expense of their happiness. We are all in prison, and he is "showing us the bars". The line of good guy/bad guy blurs pretty well.

 

A lot of people are whining that this is the glorification of a "terrorist" which shouldn't happen in this time period and some believe that this story was written recently. Alan Moore actually wrote it in the 1980s. The two guys who made the Matrix actually had a script for this film but didn't make it until after their Matrix success. Having read the original comic story from the '80s, I can't wait to see this film tonight.

 

Anyway, just wanted to get some other peoples' opinions on this issue (not that movie is good or not -- that's a time for another thread...or this one as long as there is no spoilers) Do you see the production of this movie as "glorifying terrorism"?

[Gene Honda Civic]

Isn't the book about the Thatcher administration?

[WCSox]

Do you see the production of this movie as "glorifying terrorism"?

 

No, but release of this adaptation is obviously targeting the "Bush is a fascist" demographic.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Isn't the book about the Thatcher administration?

Supposedly it is an allegory written by Moore based on his perception in the 1980s so it could be a critique of the Thatcher administration. I'd think that he took that truth, spun it with some Brave New World, 1984 etc. etc. and this was the result. It makes for a really interesting discussion on what exactly a "terrorist" is and when is that bad/good because there is a thin line between terrorist and freedom fighter.

[Gene Honda Civic]

No, but release of this adaptation is obviously targeting the "Bush is a fascist" demographic.

Highest.Grossing.Movie.ever.

[Flash Tizzle]

Anyway, just wanted to get some other peoples' opinions on this issue (not that movie is good or not -- that's a time for another thread...or this one as long as there is no spoilers)  Do you see the production of this movie as "glorifying terrorism"?

You can't exclude acts of terrorism within 'V for Vendetta' from the storyline. Foxnews may suggest otherwise, but as you alluded to, the fascist government basically limits personal freedoms within the film. Portman and the masked figure are fighting a just cause.

 

Beyond the plot, I have no idea what else happens in the movie, or to the extent the new regime controls society. I heard there are numerous Nazi comparisons. People shouldn't expect the terrorism begins because 'V' says, "hey, you illegally wiretapped my phones--now I'm going to blow up the English Parliament!"

[WCSox]

Highest.Grossing.Movie.ever.

 

Not in the red states.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

You can't exclude acts of terrorism within 'V for Vendetta' from the storyline. Foxnews may suggest otherwise, but as you alluded to, the fascist government basically limits personal freedoms within the film. Portman and the masked figure are fighting a just cause.

 

Beyond the plot, I have no idea what else happens in the movie, or to the extent the new regime controls society. I heard there are numerous Nazi comparisons. People shouldn't expect the terrorism begins because 'V' says, "hey, you illegally wiretapped my phones--now I'm going to blow up the English Parliament!"

It is a very hypothetical society. Basically Britain's government is one of the few survivors of the Cold War MAD and the government ushers in a whole lot of authority and really limits personal freedoms (the walls where they can see in a la 1984, etc.)

 

Moore's book does an excellent job of keeping the viewer questioning "Is what V is doing for a just cause or just the ravings and antics of a lunatic madman?" The line is really thin and Moore's idea for the comic does an excellent job in keeping the viewer guessing and really leaving it up to a lot of interpretation. V is quite an anti-hero in some respects (a la Frank Castle as the Punisher, etc.) and kinda adds to the discussion of when is violence just and when is it considered "terrorism"?

 

But Moore wasn't involved with this film. After problems with "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" and "From Hell", he's washed his hands of Hollywood. So, the co-creator of "V For Vendetta" is doing the movie. If it stays faithful to the comic, this movie is going to be f***ing awesome.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Just got back.

 

*** out of ****.

 

Excellently done, storywise. They took a few liberties with the plot (and took out my favorite speech) that deviated from the comic, but overall, it was pretty good. The glorification of V as a hero was paired nicely with segments where his intentions came into question and the viewer came away at parts with trying to know if what he was doing was "freedom fighting" or "monstrous terrorism".

 

A really good fantasy story that gets people thinking about these issues and how they're defined by media/culture. Definitely worth seeing.

[Gene Honda Civic]

You'll appreciate this thread, Apu.

[NorthSideSox72]

** out of ****

 

Had some great ideas, and painted a few striking pictures. Some excellent visuals and, at times, strong dialogue. But overall, this movie was disjointed in the extreme. Any sense of style, flow and momentum were non-existent - and I think those things (particularly momentum and energy) would be necessary for a film like this to work. It was, not surprisingly, strident in its message. It was also downright ham-handed in putting this situation squarely on Bush's shoulders, as much as is possible without actually mentioning his name.

 

The message here is important - our personal freedoms are being eroded in the name of a crusade. And its true. But this film was only occasionally successful at accomplishing that.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

** out of ****

 

Had some great ideas, and painted a few striking pictures.  Some excellent visuals and, at times, strong dialogue.  But overall, this movie was disjointed in the extreme.  Any sense of style, flow and momentum were non-existent - and I think those things (particularly momentum and energy) would be necessary for a film like this to work.  It was, not surprisingly, strident in its message.  It was also downright ham-handed in putting this situation squarely on Bush's shoulders, as much as is possible without actually mentioning his name.

 

The message here is important - our personal freedoms are being eroded in the name of a crusade.  And its true.  But this film was only occasionally successful at accomplishing that.

It isn't an anti-Bush movie. The source material was written in 1983. The Bros. had wanted to make this flick but couldn't get big investors etc. until after the success of the Matrix movies. For Christ's sake, the guy who wrote the source material was British, so if anything it is more of a commentary on any government that tries to usurp liberty in the name of security -- and how people usually just go along with it. They took out one of the speeches he gives (for time reasons since the movie is already 2+ hrs. long) that is in the comic that hammers home this point:

 

"In fact, let us not mince words… the management is terrible! We’ve had a string of

embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This

is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You

who gave them the power to make decisions for you! While I’ll admit that anyone can

make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century

seems to me to be nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious

incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted

without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workplace

with dangerous and unproven machines. All you had to say was “No.” You have no

spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company."

[NorthSideSox72]

It isn't an anti-Bush movie.  The source material was written in 1983.  The Bros. had wanted to make this flick but couldn't get big investors etc. until after the success of the Matrix movies.  For Christ's sake, the guy who wrote the source material was British, so if anything it is more of a commentary on any government that tries to usurp liberty in the name of security -- and how people usually just go along with it.  They took out one of the speeches he gives (for time reasons since the movie is already 2+ hrs. long) that is in the comic that hammers home this point:

 

"In fact, let us not mince words… the management is terrible! We’ve had a string of

embezzlers, frauds, liars, and lunatics making a string of catastrophic decisions. This

is plain fact. But who elected them? It was you! You who appointed these people! You

who gave them the power to make decisions for you! While I’ll admit that anyone can

make a mistake once, to go on making the same lethal errors century after century

seems to me to be nothing short of deliberate. You have encouraged these malicious

incompetents, who have made your working life a shambles. You have accepted

without question their senseless orders. You have allowed them to fill your workplace

with dangerous and unproven machines. All you had to say was “No.” You have no

spine. You have no pride. You are no longer an asset to the company."

 

And that was one of the best parts of the movie.

 

The source material was obviously not about Bush, but the way the movie was presented, it was "America's War" that was the turning point - showing images from Iraq (and mentioning that conflict multiple times). It was, unquestionably, a statement about western politics today, and more particularly the current set of US foreign policy doctrines. Ergo, it was about the policies being pursued by the west under the guidance of BushCo.

 

Note that I did say that the points they tried to drive at are important, and the US (including its voters) has gone astray. I agree. I see little in this Administration's record to defend. I just think this film did an inconsistent, lackluster job of getting to that point. The point isn't the problem, the film's presentation was.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

And that was one of the best parts of the movie.

 

The source material was obviously not about Bush, but the way the movie was presented, it was "America's War" that was the turning point - showing images from Iraq (and mentioning that conflict multiple times).  It was, unquestionably, a statement about western politics today, and more particularly the current set of US foreign policy doctrines.  Ergo, it was about the policies being pursued by the west under the guidance of BushCo.

 

Note that I did say that the points they tried to drive at are important, and the US (including its voters) has gone astray.  I agree.  I see little in this Administration's record to defend.  I just think this film did an inconsistent, lackluster job of getting to that point.  The point isn't the problem, the film's presentation was.

They did take on a whole lot. But for 2+ hrs., I think they did do a pretty good job. They stayed pretty faithful to the source material with what V was doing (was he a freedom fighter or just a madman bent on revenge) The main thrust of the comic story was "Is V an insane terrorist who has completely made up reasons for doing what he is doing or is he a freedom fighter against a government gone amok?" I think they were trying to hit that rather than go full throttle into "V is a great guy!"

 

Yeah, it was a condemnation of any government that usurps authority in the name of security and the masses that allow essential liberty to go by the wayside in the name of being secure and in that they were kinda wishy washy at getting the point across -- but I think it was also a commentary on what differentiates a freedom fighter from a terrorist. There is a pretty thin line there and I think the film was trying to ride that line to get people discussing "Yeah, V may be an anti-government terrorist but is what he is doing good?" and "Is V really motivated by political reasons or just mere revenge?" You know, when do violent methods against a government become good or bad? With that discussion, I think they really hit the nail on the head and leave a lot for the viewer to ponder.

[WCSox]

It isn't an anti-Bush movie.  The source material was written in 1983.  The Bros. had wanted to make this flick but couldn't get big investors etc. until after the success of the Matrix movies.  For Christ's sake, the guy who wrote the source material was British, so if anything it is more of a commentary on any government that tries to usurp liberty in the name of security -- and how people usually just go along with it.

 

Nobody said that it was an anti-Bush movie. But I'm sure that the current political climate in this country had a lot to do with the timing of its release. The investors are looking to capitalize on the anti-Bush target market, plain and simple.

 

I'm sure that it's a really good flick, but I'm not going to contribute towards Hollywood's anti-Bush campaign. I'll put it on my Nexflix queue sometime next year.

[CrimsonWeltall]

We should make this into a movie.

-Yeah but what if people think this parallels the Bush administration?

OK, we'll wait 4 years until he's out of office.

-But what if another politician who likes big government wins the presidency in 2008?

You're right. I'll just set this script aside and we will make it whenever a libertarian candidate takes office AKA NEVER

[WCSox]

We should make this into a movie. 

-Yeah but what if people think this parallels the Bush administration? 

OK, we'll wait 4 years until he's out of office. 

-But what if another politician who likes big government wins the presidency in 2008?

You're right.  I'll just set this script aside and we will make it whenever a libertarian candidate takes office AKA NEVER

 

You're right. It's just coincidence that this movie and Syriana were adapted into film format recently.

 

:rolly

Edited March 18, 2006 by WCSox

[BigSqwert]

You're right.  It's just coincidence that this movie and Syriana were adapted into film format recently.

 

:rolly

I guess I should stay home until they release Passion of the Christ 2 - Electric Boogaloo. Don't want to keep supporting the Hollwood liberal elite.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

Nobody said that it was an anti-Bush movie.  But I'm sure that the current political climate in this country had a lot to do with the timing of its release.  The investors are looking to capitalize on the anti-Bush target market, plain and simple.

 

I'm sure that it's a really good flick, but I'm not going to contribute towards Hollywood's anti-Bush campaign.  I'll put it on my Nexflix queue sometime next year.

Actually the Bros. had a script written in the early 90s but couldn't get enough people behind it because they hadn't really earned their chops (i.e. the popularity of the Matrix movies) It isn't so much that there is a Hollywoood anti-Bush bias but that they finally got to make the movie they had a working script for.

[WCSox]

Actually the Bros. had a script written in the early 90s but couldn't get enough people behind it because they hadn't really earned their chops (i.e. the popularity of the Matrix movies)  It isn't so much that there is a Hollywoood anti-Bush bias but that they finally got to make the movie they had a working script for.

 

I understand that, but I think that the current political climate also had a lot to do with the funding for this movie. Investors have a more-numerous target market for this picture than they did back in the '90s. The same could be said for Syriana.

[bmags]

I understand that, but I think that the current political climate also had a lot to do with the funding for this movie.  Investors have a more-numerous target market for this picture than they did back in the '90s.  The same could be said for Syriana.

 

well that's because you're silly. This type of story is pretty classic, and would do well at any time period.

 

but everyone is out to get bush, you're right.

[LowerCaseRepublican]

SPOILERS ENTAILED IN ARTICLE!!!!!

 

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49340

 

Former Project Arkansas, Richard Mellon Scaife "conservatives" off the starboard bow!

 

Some Bush cultists are calling it a neo-Marxist, terrorist supporting, left wing propaganda apology for terrorism. My personal favorite was the allusion to 9/11 in the article.

 

::sigh::

[WCSox]

well that's because you're silly. This type of story is pretty classic, and would do well at any time period.

 

Not as silly as somebody who watches "Snakes on a Plane."

 

So, I guess it's just coincidence that movies like Syriana and Jarhead came out during the Iraq War? :rolly If you believe that, I have a bridge over in Brooklyn I'm looking to sell.

Edited March 20, 2006 by WCSox

[Rex Kickass]

How many of these movies that you're railing against have you actually watched?

[Controlled Chaos]

I haven't seen it, but here's a take from the other side...

 

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

Mar 20, 2006

Review by Megan Basham

 

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.

 

 

Defending the REAL meaning of the Constitution

 

This book provides the first ever clause-by-clause examination of the complete Constitution,

revealing its real meaning according to the original intent of the Framers.

Save 20% and support Townhall.com!

 

 

 

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.