So then there's that.
Finals are, for all intents and purposes, complete, though I will have to turn in a report on my work. So it goes. More importantly, two things:
Following my last final today, Bioorganic Chemistry and grading for a few hours for the undergraduate sophomore organic chemistry course's final, I had the pleasure of not having to pay for dinner for once. That is, Northwestern picked it up for me, as I'd been given the nod to take the prospective graduate students out for dinner with NU picking up the tab. Sometimes, I can dig it. Burgers at Nevin's is a good time. But that's not what inspired me to write this post. What did was what I did afterwards, which was, unfortunately, not picked up by Northwestern as it wasn't at all related to the students. I saw V for Vendetta, and enjoyed what I saw. Without regarding what it maintains the line of the comic books or not, I found it to be quite interesting, and an exciting action movie. Good for that.
What I'd like to take a second to respond to is the amount of bloggers and imdb.com message board patrons that are somehow twisting this into being a decisive attack on conservatives, others callling it an explicitly "anti-American" movie. Honestly, I have no idea what to make of that, mostly the second one. I'm not entirely surprised. Star Wars Ep. III was boycotted by some who viewed it as an explicitly anti-Bush film. Precisely the same sentiment appears to be popular now about V for Vendetta. I'll give them a bone here. At least V for Vendetta is actually somewhat political, and I believe it's mentioned somewhere that John Hurt's "Sutler" character was at one point a member of the Conservative Party of Britain (though two seconds later it makes it clear that he either left or was forced out, invented his own party which overtook both the Conservatives and Liberals in the UK, which is, if anything, a parallel to the NSDAP). Star Wars is Star Wars. But that doesn't justify the comparison. I know many really want this to be anti-American or anti-Conservative, as it then becomes another piece of the vast liberal plot to brainwash children out of making up their own minds, but it's just not. The big bad guys aren't conservatives. Or liberals. They're fascists. They're Big Brother. The Party. Singular and without distinction between conservatives or liberals or anything in between or outside of the relatively narrow conservative-liberal spectrum. It's Big Invasive Government. V's call for revolution against the militaristic, dictatorial and, here's the kicker, fictional government is nothing more than the demand that the citizens of a nation hold its Government accountable for what it's doing, not have to live in fear of being threatened or abducted by the government, and that maybe we shouldn't beat people with rods. The corrolary to that that I've seen in several places, that the movie is a movement for the Gay Agenda (now existing in a theater near you!) because it shows the beating and imprisonment of homosexuals by the government. Two points here. 1) Valerie's imprisonment is in the comic books, so it makes sense to include it here. 2) The point of the scenes with Valerie's letter isn't to convince people to flip their gay switch on, but to suggest that maybe we shouldn't beat people with rods and imprison them for digging on certain types of people.
The allegation that it's anti-American is just plain incomprehensible to me (unless one would like to make the claim that America is a fascist nation or that it should be and this negative depiction of fascism is clearly an attack on what America should be) or that V is a communist (mostly because the term communist has lost essentially all of its meaning because of its general application to people that one disagrees with. The interesting thing here is that I ran into a blog claiming this exact thing which attempted to use the posters as proof that V is a communist. Which is just ridiculous. They're propaganda type posters, but that's really more of a reference to the Big Brother type government. No. the fact that so much red is associated with the posters and imagery is not relevant either, as the V symbol and all the red and black is very clearly a reference to the symbol and colors of the general concept of anarchism. Which isn't communism.)
Furthermore, the "War" that the movie charges America with starting... I'm not counting that as an "anti-American" bit in the film or the book, nor am I willing to give credence to the conclusion that it is the current "War on Terror", more likely deferring to the fact that it more or less makes America a non-factor (which is important to the focus on why the UK is alone in all of this) and adds to the dystopia by tying up the US in civil war.
So:
Good movie.
Action. Some knife throwing. Natalie Portman's in it.
It's not anti-Conservative or anti-American. It's pointing out that totalitarian fascism probably isn't awesome. Essentially, 1984.
V's not a communist. He doesn't propose any other system of government, just that it'd be nice to be able to walk around without a curfew, and that citizens have a duty to hold their governments responsible for their actions.
I don't believe that anarchy is a viable system of government. Don't do it.
Proposing that beating homosexuals probably isn't cool doesn't make this a Gay Agenda (TM) piece.
So that's that.
Now. The important thing:
How the hell is the US out of the World Baseball Classic?! We're not supposed to lose. We did, essentially, everything we could to rig the damn thing, putting ourselves in an opening pool with Mexico, Canada and South Africa and structuring the tournament such that we wouldn't even have to think about facing any of the really threatening Latin American teams until they'd killed each other off. I just... what the hell.
That said, this thing is amazing. I'll be watching it until the end, and loving it.
10 comments:
Man, even with all those steroids we can't win.
So, what I've read of criticism of V for Vendetta is that the comparison it seems to draw with radical Islam just doesn't settle well. Of course, I've read people who said the original comic book just wasn't that good to begin with, so whatever. The entire premise doesn't seem too interesting to me anyhow.
One of the reasons given, though, for disliking the movie, is that it comes out at a rather sensitive time. Seven months ago, people attacked London by detonating bombs in buses and the subways. V also attacks London by bombing the subways, but in the movie he's the hero.
Just drawing the comparison they did.
I'm glad the US is out. In fact I hoped from the beginning that Cuba could win so that a bunch of people we don't know will have beaten baseball.
Anyway, I don't love it. In part because I have maintained that the right thing to do is to just play in the Olympics and because everyone is saying its awesome and I can't watch any of the games.
And people actually think that about the movie? That's wierd. I thought it was an excellent modern day adaptation of Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice."
Kind of. It's a somewhat important point that V appears to kill a) the people who actually were involved with his torture and b) people who are trying to kill him at the time, that is, to escape. The bombing of Parliament is done when no one's actually there, and while Islam is mentioned, I got the impression that Britain had outlawed it entirely. While this may be the feeling of current radical Islamists, there have been a variety of anti-Muslim violent incidents in the U.S. and U.K. and there have been laws passed that, while they affect all religions appear to be targeted at Muslims (France's headwear controversy). I'd call it a pretty long stretch to say that it endorses radical Islam though.
And indeed, it does come a shorter period of time than I'd thought after the subway attacks (though in the film, the entire subway system has been out of use for some time, and I believe V remarks that he had to dig up the track and lay some of his own over a span of 12 years), and it was delayed to some degree (though not much. The makers intended for it to be released on Nov. 5, 2005; Guy Fawkes Day.) The thing is that V is a copycat, but of a very specific incident, which tends to draw away from the parallel to recent incidents. Furthermore, I'm of the belief that just because there are parallels to terrible things in art doesn't make it invalid. One could certainly take it as an endorsement of the subway bombings, though I'd disagree with one if one did, as the parallels to the Gunpowder plot are pounded into our heads and the overall point is the idea of V as vigilante, a theme which appears in hundreds of other films and will continue to be in hundreds of films after V for Vendetta. The parallels just much more strongly line up with a take on fascism or (particularly with the concentration camp) Naziism than some kind of endorsement of Islamic terrorism. Might radical Islamists see V for Vendetta as some kind of vindication? Sure. But they see endorsement wherever they look, so it's more or less irrelevant.
My take on the sensitive time thing is that we're more or less always going to be at a sensitive time. There'll always be some horrifyingly terrible crime committed, and I'm not sure the proper reaction is to censor everything so that we never refer to it.
Oh, and I do believe that V is an anti-hero, though in the sense that most of the negative "Boycott V" things I've read have used. That is, he is the main character and one does begin to sympathize with his angle, but one must overcome the fact that he's just not acting morally. Then again, most of Sin City involves the same kind of theme, so whatever.
I thought the theme of Sin City was grizzled good cop bones insanely hot eight year old girl. What's so immoral about that?
First of all, who is saying that this is a gay agenda film, communist, etc.? Are a lot of people saying this or just some isolated bloggers?
Anyway. Ryan, you said, “V's call for revolution against the militaristic, dictatorial and, here's the kicker, fictional government is nothing more than the demand that the citizens of a nation hold its Government accountable for what it's doing, not have to live in fear...”
First, I don’t think that the fact that the government is fictional is the “kicker” in your argument that it’s not anti-american or anti-Bush. You could make an anti-American movie with a fictional gov. This isn’t, though.
The gay agenda argument is ridiculous anywhere, whatever, but Ryan, just because Valerie’s imprisonment is also in the comic books doesn’t prove that its not a gay agenda thing. And I dont think they’re trying to “suggest that maybe we shouldn’t beat people” because they’re gay; it should be clear to all reasonable people that imprisoning gays in concentration camps is wrong. I think that detail is just another parallel with Nazi policy, showing the viewer that this is an oppressive fascist gov. that violates humans rights.
Yeah, V's not a communist. You say, “He doesn't propose any other system of government, just that it'd be nice to be able to walk around without a curfew, and that citizens have a duty to hold their governments responsible for their actions.” It’s interesting, in the book, there’s a lot more emphasis on anarchy, and how you have to destroy, tear everything down, to eventually create something new. And how what society needs right now is anarchy and violence.
There’s not a direct comparison with radical Islam, but there is a reference to violence and terrorist tactics in general, and for a lot of people it reminds them of the terrorists of our times, violent extremist Muslims. Yeah, Ryan, I didn’t notice any mention of Islam, but that doesn’t matter, there’s no direct reference, but that’s not the point. It’s about terrorism. Just like it’s really hard to see the camps without thinking of Nazis, I suppose, you could take the terrorism in the movie and draw a parallel to any group that uses terrorist tactics—and the most visible one in our media right now is radical violent Muslims. Ryan, you say “I'd call it a pretty long stretch to say that it endorses radical Islam though.” I don’t think anyone’s saying it endorses Radical Islam in particular, are they? It’s just a parallel: both are about dying for an idea, using terrorism to shake a brainwashed public to revolution, etc. “The bombing of Parliament is done when no one's actually there,” you say, yes, this is true, but I had the feeling that people died, if not in that bombing, maybe in the tv station raid, etc. Anyway, the question is, when is terrorism appropriate.
“V also attacks London by bombing the subways, but in the movie he's the hero.” He’s the hero because he’s fighting for a good idea – freedom from fascism.
“One could certainly take it as an endorsement of the subway bombings, though I'd disagree with one if one did, as the parallels to the Gunpowder plot are pounded into our heads and the overall point is the idea of V as vigilante...”Again, it’s not an endorsement of those subway bombings in particular. Why do you keep talking about “endorsement”? It is, I think, making us think about when it is okay to use terrorism. Okay, yeah, there are all kinds of parallels to the gunpowder plot, whatever. That’s the starting point. But the author of the comic book and makers of the movie are making bigger points. Just because he’s copying the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder plot doesn’t mean that it rules out any interpretation that has to do with bigger questions about terrorism (discussions about the London subway bombings, for instance, even though its no endorsement), fascism, freedom, etc.
Okay, now this confuses me. “That is, he is the main character and one does begin to sympathize with his angle, but one must overcome the fact that he's just not acting morally.” What’s morally, here, Ryan? First you say all he’s trying to do is suggest that it’s not a crime to love the same sex, or that no one should have to live in fear of their government. Are these noble ideas that should be defended in any way possible? It’s interesting, in the comic book, they don’t play up the vengeance factor as much, like he doesn’t kill the chancellor. Interesting how he’s both a vengeful killer and a freedom fighter.
First, I don’t think that the fact that the government is fictional is the “kicker” in your argument that it’s not anti-american or anti-Bush. You could make an anti-American movie with a fictional gov. This isn’t, though.
I never claimed it was the kicker in my argument. It very well could be an anti-American movie with a fictional government. But it isn't. And the fact that the government is fictional to such a degree as to be a caricature of itself is pertinent.
it should be clear to all reasonable people that imprisoning gays in concentration camps is wrong.
Genocide happens. Sometimes, as in the Nazi regime, that's directed at gays. So evidently it's not clear to everyone that that's the case.
Yeah, Ryan, I didn’t notice any mention of Islam, but that doesn’t matter, there’s no direct reference, but that’s not the point.The film mentions several times that the Islamic religion has been outlawed (the Strength through Purity, Purity through Faith posters suggest that an official religion that's exploited for reasons of patriotism has been established). The talking points guy doesn't conceal his disdain for Muslims as a threat to Britain Prevailing and Dietrich is executed for owning a Koran.
How did you miss all of that?
It’s interesting, in the book, there’s a lot more emphasis on anarchy, and how you have to destroy, tear everything down, to eventually create something new. And how what society needs right now is anarchy and violence.Why is anarchy and violence needed? What does that get us? Revolution and anarchy are not necessarily linked. I liked the movie more, in this instance, because it seems more hopeful, and V isn't necessarily dooming the people of Britain to a life of anarchy and violence. He's simply giving them a choice other than the Party.
I don’t think anyone’s saying it endorses Radical Islam in particular, are they? Yes. Which is why I attempted to say that it doesn't.
but I had the feeling that people died, if not in that bombing, maybe in the tv station raid, etc. Anyway, the question is, when is terrorism appropriate. V does kill people at the TV station. The police trying to kill him, and the guy that refused to evacuate, citing the expense of the station. It differs from the terrorism in the news in that the civilians are never actually targeted.
Why do you keep talking about “endorsement”? I keep talking about endorsement because that's the problem people are having with it. Apart from bloggers, the New Yorker's review concludes that V for Vendetta could be seen to endorse Islamic terrorism. I'm saying, and you seem to have missed this, that it's not.
Just because he’s copying the Guy Fawkes Gunpowder plot doesn’t mean that it rules out any interpretation that has to do with bigger questions about terrorism (discussions about the London subway bombings, for instance, even though its no endorsement), fascism, freedom, etc.I agree, mostly as Guy Fawkes' intentions (being a Catholic terrorist whose plot was to kill him some Protestant leaders) differ greatly from Vs.
What’s morally, here, Ryan? Presumably, killing and injuring people not involved with his vendetta, as well as kidnapping and torturing Evey. Yes, she gets something out of it, but then the definition of an anti-hero is one that the audience sympathizes with while using questionable means or acting in some way immorally.
Are these noble ideas that should be defended in any way possible? I never suggested they weren't.
like he doesn’t kill the chancellor.He doesn't kill the chancellor in the movie, either. Creedy does.
Creedy does? oh whatever, I was making out with my date during that scene.
ZING
what do you mean, you never claimed that the fictionality of the government was the "kicker" to your argument? you said.. "I know many really want this to be anti-American or anti-Conservative, as it then becomes another piece of the vast liberal plot to brainwash children out of making up their own minds, but it's just not. The big bad guys aren't conservatives. Or liberals. They're fascists . . . V's call for revolution against the militaristic, dictatorial and, here's the kicker, fictional government is nothing more than the demand that the citizens of a nation hold its Government accountable" with fictional italicized, so i assumed you meant, the kicker in your argument. What kind of kicker did you mean?
point taken on the genocide/violence towards gays point. But I still don't think the author of the comic book, or the makers of the movie, are saying that it's wrong. I mean, they think it's wrong, but they're not "suggesting" it's wrong, they're not trying to teach the audience something about tolerance.
Okay, yes, islam is mentioned in the movie. but I think the parallel Hal is talking about --the one people will draw-- is based on people thinking, "hey, this V guy practices terrorism and comes across as a hero.
Extremist muslims practice terrorism. This movie is saying terrorism is okay! So it's saying Muslim terrorist tactics are ok. Two thumbs down." It has nothing to do with the Koran being outlawed in the movie's plot.
"Who said revolution and anarchy were necessary?" V, in the book. He doesn't insist on it in the movie. That's all i was saying.
and about this morally/immorally stuff--yes, it's "questionable," exactly. That's what the movie wants us to think about. so when you say, "he's just not acting morally," it's assuming too much, I think.
What kind of kicker did you mean?
The last in the series of terms describing the government in V for Vendetta that will be left off by people who are trying to make it either an attack on conservatives or America. The most important one. Now, one could say that the government has parallels to existing governments, but that's a matter of interpretation. One which I think would be forced in this case.
But I still don't think the author of the comic book, or the makers of the movie, are saying that it's wrong. I mean, they think it's wrong, but they're not "suggesting" it's wrong, they're not trying to teach the audience something about tolerance.I agree.
Okay, yes, islam is mentioned in the movie. but I think the parallel Hal is talking about --the one people will draw-- is based on people thinking, "hey, this V guy practices terrorism and comes across as a hero.
Extremist muslims practice terrorism. This movie is saying terrorism is okay! So it's saying Muslim terrorist tactics are ok. Two thumbs down." It has nothing to do with the Koran being outlawed in the movie's plot.
I agree, but I'm taking that a step farther and yes, agreeing that the fact that the Koran is outlawed has little to do with that connection, but pointing out a further connection that's been made.
Get a room.
Post a Comment