V for Vendetta! Rant

[K e r b e r o s]

This was taken from a friends blog, and to protect his sanity I will nethire cite the blog source or the blog site, or use his name in this.

He knows who he is and knows only he is responsible for this article. I do not claim that this is my piece but his. You may read on:

**************************************

I had mixed feelings about seeing V for Vendetta --a near-future story about the rise of fascism in Britain and the terrorist who brings it all down. I had heard it was being touted as an anti-Bush movie, and then read another review which basically said, "don't believe the hype and give it a watch."

So I did. On one level, I was very pleased by it. It was an engaging, engrossing, intelligent and thought provoking movie which I would heartily recommend on that basis alone. It makes you *think* and it makes you feel, and that's the highest compliment I can pay any form of artistic endeavour, art, movie or otherwise. Very definitely one of the best comic book movies I've ever seen, up there with Spider-Man and Batman Begins, and one I will eagerly add to my collection when it comes out on DVD.

And to be sure, parts of the movie were dead on in their message. Other parts... I took serious exception to what they were implying and the analogies they were trying to make. If you haven't seen the movie, stop right here--serious spoilers beneath the cut. SEE THE MOVIE FIRST. You heard me. Go. It is very much worth the price of a movie ticket.

If you *have* seen it, read on...

************************************************

Modern Allegory

I stayed all the way through the end of the credits, just in case there was something else, maybe a cut scene or something at the very end like they sometimes do (for example, Constantine has a scene at the very end of the credits to wrap up one final plot thread). No such luck, but I did take special note of that standard disclaimer. You know, "This is a work of fiction. Any resemblence to any actual people, places, circumstances or events are not intentional and purely coincidental."

...to which I have to call bullshit on. This movie was very *much* intended to have resemeblence to certain people, places, situations and events; I don't think anybody could seriously argue that it wasn't intended as an allegory to the modern day US.

************************************************

History
Here's a little history of the movie and the comic it was based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta

V for Vendetta was made in the early 80s by a British author Alan Moore, and it may interest you to know was intended at least in part as a message and warning against Margeret Thatcher and her hard-line Tory party, who at the time had swept Britain's labor party from power and was instituting some decidedly un-liberal (in the party sense) reforms, closely allying her nation with the US and Ronald Reagan. Alan Moore has dissassociated himself from the movie; I've heard it suggested in Wizard magazine (excellent comic book mag, one of the few magazines I subscribe to) it was because in part because he didn't like the idea that it was being turned into the anti-American allegory.

There were changes to the original comic storyline as well, perhaps to make it more palatable to audiences, though the basic soul of the book and the character is definitely intact. They *did* take at least a bit of the edge off of V; in the comics he was more an anarchist and even outright terrorist than freedom fighter; the movie emphasized the latter while at least slightly deemphasizing the former.

The movie timeline has been shifted twenty years into the future, now set against a backdrop of the War on Terror ("Americas War")... or its aftermath. America gets bogged down, Vietnam style in the middle east, radicalizing the Muslim world (implied if not stated) and causing a wave of devastating terrorist attacks, including some WMD attacks, to be launched against the west. America fractures and descends into civil war, while a neo-Christian ultra-conservative party takes advantage of the chaos and fear to rise to power in Britain on a platform of restoring peace and order and Britain's strength in the world. In the process, they institute a draconian quasi-religious state rule, complete with brownshirt-type secret police, a KGB-type propaganda office and minister, big brother figure, even the equivalent of a Taliban-like ministry of Vice and virtue, which bans any form of song, art or performance it deems seditious.

************************************************

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
Plenty of moments in the movie that had me nodding my head in agreement, others that had me shaking it, and at least a couple that caused me to me recoil in disbelief. So... here's my take:

The Good...

What are the good messages of the movie; the ones that had me nodding in agreement? Fascism usually does start out as democracy, and usually keeps at least a thin veneer of democracy over top of itself for appearances' and PR sake. Hitler, for example, was initially an elected leader. When V tells everyone that if they want to know who to blame for this, they only need look in the mirror, that is also quite true. All too often, people *allow* it to happen, sacrificing their freedoms for security and stability, trying desperately to preserve their status quo or comfortable lives in face of chaos and uncertainty. 3rd, V says that governments should fear their people, not the other way around. That's true... to a point. I'll have more to say about that later.

The movie did a pretty good job of depicting what a fascist society would look like, and I think, what happens to get you there... or at least one possible path to it. It's worth noting, however, that there's another, more common path to fascism, one they missed.

Active vs Passive

What the movie depicted was a much more passive form of fascism, where the people aren't necessarily actively supporting the regime, but apathetically accepting of it because they consider their lives at least stable and comfortable and don't want to upset that. This is what can happen when people are more concerned about defending their social benefits and quality of life than their rights and freedoms, and this is the main reason why I don't consider this form of fascism to be a particularly dangerous threat here in the US. As a rule, Americans very jealously guard their freedoms, whether gun rights or free speech, free press or abortions. Nations that are socialist, on the other paw, are far more likely to fall victim to this more passive form of fascism. Why? Because you forget what's important. Because you value your welfare benefits more than your rights. Socialism and heavy social safety nets teach depenency, not self sufficiency, and a reliance on government instead of on onself. *That*, ladies, and gentlemen, is a ready-made breeding ground for what the movie depicted.

And unfortunately... there *is* some evidence of this happening in Britain. London is blanketed with surveillance cameras--fat lot of good they did stopping the subway bombings last summer. There's talk of putting stuff in cars that will allow them to be tracked by satellite, and nary a peep in opposition. The chilling of free speech, and draconian gun control laws that don't even allow you to defend yourself in your own homes unless you use 'proportional force'. Bending over backwards to ridiculous and increasingly appalling lengths to accomodate Muslim sensibilities, like removing piglet or piggy banks from children's books or toy stores. *These* are signs of a society that's increasingly ripe for conquest from within.


Active Fascism

An active form of fascism, on the other paw, is one where the majority of people are wholeheartedly supporting and participating in the regime, wholeheartedly and actively participating in the suppression and abuses of those deemed undesirable. Nazi Germany is the prime example of that. "Active fascism" results basically from popular movements gone horribly wrong, and these tend to be far more dangerous and aggressive regimes than the passive kind.

I mean, if you think about it, in the past, It's typically been disadvantaged peoples, nations or minorities, seeking redress for past wrongs, real or imagined, that are ripe for mass movements; ripe for the charismatic leadership of a Hitler or Mousoullini. Ripe for someone to harness their collective rage and sense of victimization. That's what happened in Germany, it's what happened in Italy. It's what *is* happening with Muslims in large areas of the world. In such cases, their grievances are typically valid; Germany, for example, was humilated and impoverished after WW1, punished severely and even sadistically by Britain and France, stripped of her empire and her very dignity. Italy and Japan felt slighted, and not without reason, denied the rewards due them for fighting on the allied side in WW1. Modern day, you can find fascistic movements underway in Iran, or Venezuela. Don't laugh--that's exactly what's happening down in Venezuela right now; if you want a close equivalent to parts of what the movie depicted--secret police, brownshirts, control of media and glorification of party and leader--you've got it right there. "But that's not religious!!!!" you say? I've got some news for you--communism and hard-line socialism *are* religions in and of itself, especially the radical brand that Hugo Chavez is advertising. They're very jealous religions that brooks no dissent, no faiths or ideologies but their own. And this is exactly why you can call Islamism a fascistic movement as well.

In any event, no matter *how* valid a nation's/peoples/minority group's grievances, no matter how badly they've been treated in the past that does not make them any less evil or dangerous when they fall under fascism's sway. Nazi Germany had plenty of valid greivances. Did that make them any less dangerous or evil for it? There comes a point where those grievances become moot. They have to be fought. And right there is the final message of the movie I agree with: Fascism *should* be fought whereever it exists.

But that in turn begs the question: What *is* fascism? And what are its characteristics?


The Bad...

Before I answer that question, the things about the movie I *didn't* appreciate: making Christianity the bad guy; depicting bishops and priests as hypocritical pedophiles and both them and an army of brainwashed zealots as brownshirts willfully complicit in all the abuses and atrocities committed by the regime. Implying everything only went south because of 'Americas War'--that's 'the US is to blame for everything and all evils' meme that's a little too popular right now; that absolves everyone else of any wrongdoing at all or refuses to acknowledge any evil in the world unless it can be traced back to America. Like they just *had* to stick that plug in there; what happened to Britain was ultimately America's fault.

Then there's the implication that 9-11 was a fabrication (the St. Mary's analogy), both it and the monuments that commemorated it a means to keep the population behind the government and demagogue who runs it as they assume ever more power and control over the nation, enacting draconian laws--i.e., the Patriot Act. Or how about that one-second scene inside of V's underground lair where you see in his art collection a "coalition of the willing" poster with the flags of the US, Britain, Australia with a Nazi symbol plastered right over the middle of it--that's a direct reference to Iraq; *that* made me want to flick off the screen. Finally, the implication that if you vote conservative--Tory, Republican, whatever--you vote for fascism. V himself said that when he was giving his speech to the police commissioner in the St. Mary's memorial towards the end of the movie.


...and The Ugly.

Finally... despite V's explanations, I find it very hard to accept that blowing up parliament and Big Ben would be an act of patriotism attended and enjoyed by all citizens. That'd be like blowing up the Statue of Liberty; an attack on everything it--and a nation--is supposed to represent. Yes, symbols *are* important. So why would you attack symbols of liberty and democracy and not the ones associated with the fascist regime that's got a strangehold over you?

Hell, if I was the member of the regime, I'd probably just *let* him do it, expecting everyone to recoil from the very idea and 'rally round the flag' afterwards. History shows that such an attack isn't likely to bring down a government or leader; it's more likely to strengthen it or him.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Continuation

************************************************

Analogies and Allegories
Now, a few thoughts on certain themes of the movie... certain analogies and messages I detected within it.

Guantanamo

Here's another piece of symbolism directly from the movie: The bright orange prison suits worn by inmates in the concentration camp-type places were meant to evoke Guantanamo, and the analogy is utterly ridiculous--we're not keeping political prisoners there, we're not incarcerating those we deem to be societally undesirable (foreigners, gays, Muslims) for use in Nazi-style medical experimentation. we're keeping religious fanatics who fought us in Afghanistan and who have wished us nothing but harm; people whose core ideology holds democracy and human rights itself to be anathema. These are prisoners we captured during an armed conflict and have every right to keep until the end of the said conflict--have hostilities in Afghanistan ceased? "There's no declared war!" you say? Bullshit. Al Qaeda formally declared war on us in 1998. Look it up if you like.

Furthermore, they aren't confined to a featureless cell, they have plenty of rights; they get three square Halal meals, a Koran, and five calls to prayer a day. And as for the 'torture' allegations, I don't consider a woman throwing panties in someone's face to be equivalent to a Soviet gulag. If the worst thing that happens is sleep deprivation and that they get their feelings and Islamic sensibilities hurt sometimes, my response to Amnesty International is, **** off. Al Qaeda and their ilk does far, far worse.

We bend over backwards to accomodate their Islamic identity, and I can just about promise you there's not a single gay among the group (unless deep in the closet even from himself). "I keep a Koran because I can appreciate the beauty of its prose and pictures", that gay comedian said. I'm calling bullshit on that one, given how badly gays are treated in the Islamic world and frowned upon by the Islamic faith.


Gays and "Blackbagging"
`
That brings up my next point. The movie laid on the gay angle way too thickly. The rather blatant message was, "vote conservative and eventually gays and lesbians (and anyone else deemed undesirable) will be 'blackbagged' and kidnapped by government agents, and disappear into concentration camps, never to be heard from again!!!!!" Um... isn't that just *slightly* a leap? To say nothing of a rather blatant scare tactic? I find that rather insulting, in fact. I remember back to the 2004 US presidential elections, when such things were commonplace... 'vote Kerry or there'll be a draft!!!!!' for example. Isn't it funny how we've heard little to nothing about that since?

Now, I don't doubt you could find a few Christians who want to resort to such measures. Fred Phelps and his "God Hates Fags" ilk come immediately to mind. But it is utter slander to claim that he's the future or mainstream of the faith. Most Christians are, as a rule, ambivalent about gay rights; but even those who catgorically don't accept them, they want to *save* us (as they define it), not have us killed or deported otherwise put into concentration camps. The same can hardly be said of Islam, however.

Folks, I don't appreciate people laying a guilt trip on me, particularly one as unfair and one-sided as this, and trying to shame me into supporting/not supporting something. Such reflects a lot worse on you then that which you're trying to portray like this. Such tactics are guaranteed to backfire badly with those you're trying to convince.


Thoughts on Religion

Make no mistake, religious extremism is at the root of many evils in the world. But religion/spirituality *itself* is not. The distinction is important. Too many people think that 'Religious extremism' is a redundant statement; that *all* religion or spirituality is extremism and they condemn an entire faith as evil or 'Jesus freaks'. That's just not true and betrays a profound misunderstanding--or more to the point, a willful refusal to understand--of religion and faith is *supposed* to be about.

Take people like Ghandi or MLK Jr. They harnessed their respective faith as a weapon against intolerance and injustice, bringing about great change to the societies they fought for. They would have been nowhere near as effective *without* their strong religious values; their unflinching belief in their respective faiths. Religion, like anything else, is good or evil depending on the people who wield it and practice it.


"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under." --Ronald Reagan
Reagan was right. I'm not Christian, but nor would I ever wish to live in a faithless nation or society. To be without faith, to *not* believe in something greater is to have no pride, no direction, and no sense of purpose as a people or individuals. It is to be weak and vulernable to those who would wish us ill. Our strength--or anyone elses--ultimately lies in the strength of our values and our sense of pride as a people or nation, of which faith *does* play a role. That's not fascism. That's simple patriotism. I respect other faiths and those who practice them, even if I don't share them. I may not practice them, but to be American means you defend to the death their right to have them--and except them to do the same in return. There's only one faith, folks, that in its current mainstream holds all others to be infidels and subhuman. And here's a hint: It's NOT Christianity.


"No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. --Ronald Reagan
Right again. And to have Will and moral courage requires you to believe in something greater, something grander, otherwise what's your motivation to achieve great things? It doesn't necessarily require you to be religious, but it *does* require spirituality.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

Finishing

And now... the million dollar question:

************************************************

What is Fascism?
Fascism itself can be a little difficult to define directly, so it's easier just to detail the characteristics of a fascist regime. For no matter what their flavor, fascist regimes generally have a few things in common: one-party rule. Control of media and information flow. Veneer of democracy. Secret police and brownshirt-type enforcers, suppression of dissent, abuse and oppression of dissenters. Disrespect of human rights. Intolerance of diversity. Indoctrination: Glorification of the state, party, leader and/or cause coupled with demonization of an enemy--giving people a cause to love, and one to hate.

Now a little more detail on each of these:

1. One-Party Rule; Balance of Power

Fascism results in part from a severe tilt of power towards government--or more specifically, a single-party government where all other parties/ideologies are repressed or actively attacked. Fascism requires unquestioning and absolute loyalty to a person or party and brooks no dissent, no contrary opinions. But the opposite can be equally bad--too much power in the hands of the people results in mob rule; where opinion polls decide policies and enacting needed reforms or new laws becomes impossible. This is what I was getting at when I said that I agree that governments should be afraid of their people... to a point.

I mean, look at what's happening in France right now. Massive street protests and strikes, all to defend a horrifically bloated and completely unsustainable social and jobs system that will, if not reformed, destroy their economy. People fighting for their right to what... state supported idleness? The "job security" of 23% unemployment among youths and nearly 50% among immigrant youths? The right to stay in a job for life no matter how low their productivity or bad their performance gets? This is the other extreme from fascism... a form of mob rule. In this case, the result is an utter inability to enact needed changes and reforms because the people are way too comfortable with their benefits, their 35 hour workweek, their six-plus weeks of vacation and a social safety net that pays them well even when they're *not* working, refuse to part with a cradle-to-grave welfare system.

As in all things, you need balance. Or more to the point.. checks and balances not only between the various branches of government, but between the government and the people they represent as well. The people need to be able to get rid of a government peacefully, yet the government also needs the ability to do things that are unpopular but may still be right. As another example, take enforcement of new civil rights laws and anti-segregation rulings in the American south in the 50s and 60s. They were very unpopular with the vast majority of the people there, and there was even a threat of a popular insurrection over them. Enacting them required a very strong federal government and leadership willing to defy popular opinion and enforce its will--the will of the Supreme Court and President and Congress. Enforcing them even required federal troops for a time and a willingness to face down governers who were willing use state National Guard to openly defy the order to desegregate. Would anyone now argue that the federal government's actions were fascist? Of course not. They were there to defend rights, not take them away, after all.


2. Control of Message and Information

Fascism doesn't simply result from an ideological or religious bent. It doesn't result from wearing your faith openly (as many seem to think), or even result from belief in ideological or religious supremecy. It results when the practicioners of an ideology or faith decide they will allow no *other* ideology, faith or point of view a voice or a place in their society. It comes about when, as Penn so correctly reminded me during the Penn & Teller show I saw in Vegas, "[they] don't just want to control your actions, they want to control your thoughts'. The way you do that is to actively suppress other points of view; not even allow them to be heard. Try to control the message and the and dissemination of information; indoctrinate your people with the same message over and over: give your people an ideology to adhere to, and one to hate; something (or someone) to direct their anger and outrage at, something else they can blame for all the ills of their lives... something other than themselves, or their government. It was much easier to do back in the 30s, when radio and print were the only way for news/information/propaganda to be disseminated. It was much easier even a decade ago when big media with a liberal ideological bent held a stranglehold and monopoly on the reporting and dissemination of information and news. But nowadays... it's nearly impossible to do. The internet sees to that. Even China, which tries to control all content and input on their own private internet, can't keep a lid on it completely.

Of course, by this definition... it would be fascist to try to mold public opinion by being very selective about what you report or let people hear. Our supposedly objective and neutral Mainstream Media has been caught doing this time and time again over the last couple years. The difference is now, thanks to the blogsphere and alternate media, they can be caught and called out on it. Monopoly no longer, and this is one reason it would be much harder to get fascism in a modern, well-wired nation. It's much, MUCH harder to control the flow of information and what people are exposed to.

Here's another corralary: I consider political correctness a form of intellectual fascism, since it limits speech, suppresses debate and kowtows to certain favored cultures and groups at the expense of others. Symptoms include things like purging Piglet or Piggy Banks from stores/public sight for fear of offending Muslims. Denying protest permits or confiscating certain messages. Trying to shout down or otherwise silence any dissent from a party line is also fascistic, and I've got news for you, folks--I've seen a hell of a lot more of that coming out of the left than the right over the past few years. And most recently... booksellers and major media knuckling under to Muslims and refusing to stock anything that shows the Danish cartoons.


3. Brownshirts

You need an army of devoted, unthinking, unquestioning enforcers charged with the upholding and attacking anyone who dares deviate from the party line. Note that we've gone a little more high-tech than Hitler's thugs in the mid-to-late 30s, as this can be done electronically nowadays. But if you still want the old-fashioned approach, you can check out the religious police in Iran or tribal areas of Pakistan, the state security apparatus of North Korea, or Hugo Chavez's street-level enforcers.


4. Suppression of dissent and dissidents.

I really don't think this needs much discussion. *Any* alternate viewpoints is threatening to a fascistic regime because then the people might start to think differently than they're supposed to, and threatens their hold over the people. Protests attacked and broken up. Members of opposing parties arrested and thrown in jail. Pictures and words of dissenters kept out of the media. Enough examples of that worldwide, unfortunately, in all the nations I've already mentioned.

Put another way, if you can scream your leader is fascist in front of cameras, in front of national television, in front of the white house or even camp out outside his vacation home without fear of arrest, then you are *not* living in a fascist state. If you can stand before the president and tell him to his face that "I have never felt more ashamed or frightened by the leadership in Washington, including the presidency" and have the president *himself* silence the boos so you can continue, then you are very far from fascism.

On the other hand, if you, your group or party routinely tries to shout or shut down opposing viewpoints, well, then... it's *you* who is behaving like a brownshirt, not the people you're trying to silence.


5. Intolerance of Diversity.

There are the obvious forms of diversity. Race, orientation, religion, etc. But there are other forms of diversity that are under attack as well--*ideological* diversity. Diversity of thought and viewpoint are equally or more important to the health of a nation and democracy than the number of people of different races who live there.


6. Demonization of an Opposing Group

This actually is coupled with the previous one: A fascistic regime or movement needs an antagonist, someone to *hate*, as was stated earlier. Whether it's Jews, or Christians, or Israelis, or Americans (or conservatives, or Bush, since the movie was clearly directed at them). I don't just mean dislike, I mean blind, unyielding, unreasoning hatred that is totally intolerant and disallows *any* consideration of their views or viewpoints and makes you willing to resort to any lengths to hurt them. *That*, to me, is fascistic, no matter who it's directed at.


7. Veneer of Democracy

You have at least *appear* to have a popular mandate to the outside world, if only for PR's sake. Even Saddam had elections to prove the people were 100% behind him (and according to the vote, they were! ) Venezuela recently had elections as well. Mr. Chavez and his party won in a landslide--don't let the fact that only 20% of the eligible electorate voted in the election (due to a massive boycott by opposition parties, citing intimidation by Chavez supporters and widespread electoral fraud) convince you that he's not a popular leader.

************************************************

Left vs Right
Make no mistake, folks. Fascism is not the exclusive province of the right; there is very much a left-wing form of fascism as well--Veneuzuela is a prime example. Hell, you could make an argument that communism is a form of fascism, since it meets all the above criteria. Left wing fasicsm generally involves a mixture of socialism/communism, anti-americanism and political correctness, an unreasoning hatred for all things capitalist or conservative and a strong belief in ideological surpremecy of the left, plus active efforts to suppress or outright attack anyone who doesn't toe the party line. I've seen at happen at anti-war rallies where counterprotesters are physically attacked. I saw it in the 2004 elections when attempts were made to sabotage republican voting efforts. I see it now in attempts to enforce political correctness or in the double-standards applied to different faiths.

************************************************

Chain of Events... already broken.
The movie delivers a warning, and a chain events that leads to fascist rule; one that starts with a (staged) 9-11 type attack and necessarily leads to fascism. It was a twenty year or less path. But here is where the analogy fails: in the space of five years, Bush has gone from 90% approval ratings to one of the more reviled presidents in history. Republicans stand a chance of losing control of Congress this fall, and there's talk of impeachment proceedings if the Democrats regain the House and Senate. The Patriot act has been under constant attack for years now; parts of it have even been struck down by the courts. Gay rights have increased during Bush's tenure, not decreased, and he's constantly lampooned by comedians--there's aboslutely no danger of Trey Parker & Matt Stone ("That's My Bush"), Jon Stewart or Jay Leno being arrested for ridiculing the president, unlike that closeted gay talk show host in the movie. Just in the past few weeks, there have been mass protests by students and hispanics over immigration; illegal immigrants marching in LA numbered in the hundreds of thousands and went completely unmolested. None of these are the signs of a nation that's tilting towards fascism. At least, not the right-wing kind.

************************************************

11th of September vs 5th of November
Further, let's remember something: unlike the St. Mary's event in the movie, we *were* attacked on 9-11. It wasn't a conspiracy. It wasn't staged. It wasn't a fluke. And it didn't come about just because Bush was in office. We had war declared on us, and we were forced to declare (or at least give) war in return, not only on the people who had carried out the attacks but on the people and nations that gave them sanctuary, on the very conditions that gave these people rise. Afghanistan is about the former. Iraq is about the latter. "Americas War"--in itself a misnomer; these people have declared war on the west and liberal democratic values--is in itself a war against fascism--Islamofascism. And *that* is the ultimate reason why I'm a Bush supporter--he recognizes this conflict as a war against fascism and fights against it. I can't say the same for the left or Democrats right now.

************************************************

Wartime Restrictions
With all the uproar over NSA wiretapping and the Patriot Act, This can't be said often enough: We are at war. At war with enemies determined to wreak death and destruction upon us on mass scales; whose ultimate goals are nothing less than the subjugation of the entire world under Islamic law (look up Al Qaeda's manifesto and declaration of war if you don't believe me). And for those of you who scream that the Patriot Act and NSA Wiretapping means that the government is abusing power and we're turning fascistic, you might want to look back in time to past wars to see what was done then:

During WWI, WWII and the US Civil War, restrictions *were* made on certain freedoms and civil liberties, and sometimes they crossed into outright abuses. The mass internment of Japanese citizens in WW2 ranks high on the list of shameful wartime acts. During the US Civil War, Abraham Lincoln, one of our most revered presidents, ran roughshod over the constitution in his efforts to keep the union together. Entire states under martial law, high-ranking confederate sympathizers--including elected officials--jailed without charge or trial, especially at the beginning of the war, suspension of habeus corpus, the works. I am *not* saying that all of this was okay, what I'm saying is that the usual rules don't apply in wartime; fighting wars *require* some sacrifices and a degree of restriction of certain thnings for both practical and sensible reasons. And please note that none of these changes were permanent, once the war ended they went away.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

************************************************ And this finishes it right here

Moralizing
Finally, for those of you worried about attempts to moralize legislatively; to enact religious values via control of congress and the presidency, look back to the 1920s and prohibition. That was very definitely an attempt to assert hard-line Christian morality over the entire nation, and it failed utterly, *because* people who are used to having personal freedom do not take kindly to that kind of intrusion into their personal lives. Prohibition just resulted in a thriving underground liquor scene--speakeasies, gin mills, rotgut rooms--and gang wars over who would control them. Did this signal the advent of a theocracy or fascism in this country? No--in the long run, it set them and their supporters back and moved us forward.

************************************************

So having said my long-winded piece, I leave you all this warning and final word: There *is* a fascist threat in the world today. A couple of them, in fact. But if you're looking at Conservative Christians in the US ala V for Vendetta, you're looking in the wrong direction and ignoring the far greater threat.

V is right in that fascism needs to be recognized and fought whereever it exists. He's also right that it would be something we would *allow* to come about if we're not careful. So it's time to recognize fascism's current forms and not close our eyes to it out of anti-americanism or political correctness... or because of personal dislike for a president who fights against it.[/quote]

 

[Kamikazie]

x.x

3 1/5 posts full of info...all i know is V for Vendetta kicked ass, and thats what im sticking to

 

[Icarusintel]

Read it all. Pretty interesting and it definitely hits on all the problems I had with the movie along with a few things I missed but agree with. I mean, while it was a damn good movie, it was clearly an attempt to capitalize on the current situation and press certain views upon the general population.

Thanks for this.

 

[xcellerate]

i'm sorry, that's WAY too much reading.

I hated the fireworks and the magical bulletproof vest, those are my only problems.

 

[Niosis]

Incredible movie, but you make some EXCELLENT points that I wholeheartedly agree with. Well, 95% of it anyways.

I've been wanting to say much of this but lacked the time to sit down and type it all out.

I really wish you'd reveal your friend's blog, I want to give him a hug.

 

[WhiteZero]

...and The Ugly.

Finally... despite V's explanations, I find it very hard to accept that blowing up parliament and Big Ben would be an act of patriotism attended and enjoyed by all citizens. That'd be like blowing up the Statue of Liberty; an attack on everything it--and a nation--is supposed to represent. Yes, symbols *are* important. So why would you attack symbols of liberty and democracy and not the ones associated with the fascist regime that's got a strangehold over you?

Hell, if I was the member of the regime, I'd probably just *let* him do it, expecting everyone to recoil from the very idea and 'rally round the flag' afterwards. History shows that such an attack isn't likely to bring down a government or leader; it's more likely to strengthen it or him.

Wow... how can you totaly miss the point behind that?
The government was corrupted. The blowing-up of parlament was the "cleansing" of said corruption.

 

[French Ninja]

...
I love your friend.

 

[Steven]

Is this you're school assignment?

 

[15357]

...and The Ugly.

Finally... despite V's explanations, I find it very hard to accept that blowing up parliament and Big Ben would be an act of patriotism attended and enjoyed by all citizens. That'd be like blowing up the Statue of Liberty; an attack on everything it--and a nation--is supposed to represent. Yes, symbols *are* important. So why would you attack symbols of liberty and democracy and not the ones associated with the fascist regime that's got a strangehold over you?

Hell, if I was the member of the regime, I'd probably just *let* him do it, expecting everyone to recoil from the very idea and 'rally round the flag' afterwards. History shows that such an attack isn't likely to bring down a government or leader; it's more likely to strengthen it or him.

I fully agree. That V was nothing more than a evil terrorist that justified his actions on his feelings and ideals.

 

[Asknoone]

Well numbers, your nought but a wannabe facist who makes every dire attempt to get the point across. "I WANNA BE A FACIST FOR XMAS D:!"
And so, I knew you'd say what you did. Ding, dang, doh.

 

[15357]

what?

EDIT: nvm. You are absolutely correct. I am a wannabe facist who makes every dire attempt to get the point across. Ding, Deng Dho. :E

But anyway, I do believe in everything that I say.

 

[Asknoone]

Naw, I think you just like to pretend you believe in the things you say you do

Kinda like Solaris and his persistant "Look, at me! I'm jumping up and down...I am a Socialist! No really, I am. I am."

 

[DeusExMachina]

A wannabe socialist and a wannabe fascist? Damn, I smell a sitcom .

V's even more of a terrorist in the comic. Moore keeps it ambigous for the reader to decide if V was right by what he did or if he was a terrorist. Whichever is up to the reader.

 

[StardogChampion]

Finally... despite V's explanations, I find it very hard to accept that blowing up parliament and Big Ben would be an act of patriotism attended and enjoyed by all citizens. That'd be like blowing up the Statue of Liberty; an attack on everything it--and a nation--is supposed to represent. Yes, symbols *are* important. So why would you attack symbols of liberty and democracy and not the ones associated with the fascist regime that's got a strangehold over you?

Like someone said before, the government in the comic/film isn't a democracy. That's more than slightly obvious. Maybe he should watch it again.

Kinda voids a lot of the randomness your friend is writing about.

 

[Direwolf]

While I appreciate its just analysis for analysis' sake, he does have to lock it into a certain interpretation to do so. The "history" presented in the movie is sketchy at best, and really consists of only a sentence or two.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Some of his points I agree with, because I felt the film was way too crude, too heavy-handed in its handling of certain things and really pushed its message on you, removing much of the comic's ambiguity. But it's very clear he's got an agenda just as much as the film has, and he's twisted a lot of things to fit. For a start, in the film, St Mary's was probably actually terrorists. I felt considerable unease at the 9/11 parellel but since it turned out V was just playing them all off against each other...he might easily have been lying, claiming that it was all a conspiracy, or maybe he even believed it. I didn't feel the film demonised religion either. It demonised those who would use it as an excuse for evil...

I don't agree with many of his assertions. That anyone's fighting much of a war, for one. Did you know it was recently (pretty much conclusively) proved by our intelligence services that there were only ever 4 London Bombers and they were acting entirely independently of any terrorist organisation? I disagree with his assertion that germans in Nazi Germany generally supported the state, since there's still huge historical debate over that. I disagree entirely with a lot he said about Guantanamo - if everyone in there's your actual bona-fide terrorist how come hundreds of them haven't been charged with anything at all, let alone tried? How come there are huge numbers of people, including children and families, protesting for the release of their fathers/husbands/whatevers? I'm not willing to get into an argument about it, but indefinite incarceration without charge is definitely very totalitarian.

Talking of which, what he thinks is 'fascism' is actually 'totalitarianism'. Fascism is by definition a right-wing movement, though he is right about left-wing totalitarianism.

And offers no real argument about wiretapping and so forth, despite bringing it into the piece, save 'we are at war and worse things have been done already'.

In short, he brings a whole load of unneccessary and often innacurate stuff into the piece - as if really, his opinions on V were merely an excuse to push his own political opinions on the reader. Which is exactly what the film does.

 

[CptStern]

sigh ..reading far far far too much into the movie ..the stories were written decades before the war on terror

it's no coincidence these themes are present in the moive as Alan moore made a list of things he wanted to bring into the comic before writing it:

During the preparation of the story Moore made a list of what he wanted to bring into the plot, which he reproduced in "Behind the Painted Mask":

Orwell. Huxley. Thomas Disch. Judge Dredd. Harlan Ellison's "Repent, Harlequin!" Said the Ticktockman, Catman and Prowler in the City at the Edge of the World by the same author. Vincent Price's Dr. Phibes and Theatre of Blood. David Bowie. The Shadow. Night Raven. Batman. Fahrenheit 451. The writings of the New Worlds school of science fiction. Max Ernst's painting "Europe After the Rains". Thomas Pynchon. The atmosphere of British Second World War films. The Prisoner. Robin Hood. Dick Turpin...

the fact that it uses modern day devices is just secondary ..it's just an attempt at grounding the storyline by using real world allegory .....also cant help but think that this rant is more of right wing guilt trip than anything else ..you're seen as the new fascism so naturally popular media is going to pick up on this ..just go with the flow, because the majority of criticism is justified. In other words: stop being a pussy and take your beating like a man

 

[Dr. Nelly Lemon]

I was going to link the blog.. but then I thought how much that would annoy you. Damn concience!

 

[DeusExMachina]

And don't forget this was written during the Reagan/Thatcher era.

 

[dream431ca]

I loved the movie. You have to have something contraversial in movies sometimes.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

..
In short, he brings a whole load of unneccessary and often innacurate stuff into the piece - as if really, his opinions on V were merely an excuse to push his own political opinions on the reader. Which is exactly what the film does.

At times I wondered if he forgot he was doing a movie review. :/

 

[TwwIX]

V has a bigger penis then you have!!!

 

[SAJ]

Alan Moore has dissassociated himself from the movie; I've heard it suggested in Wizard magazine (excellent comic book mag, one of the few magazines I subscribe to) it was because in part because he didn't like the idea that it was being turned into the anti-American allegory.

For the record, Alan Moore has been unhappy with every film treatment of his work and in the end decided he would have nothing to do with any of them (film rights for Vfer were snapped up in the late eighties btw).


PS; In the original book, the rise of facism backstory involved a labour government coming to power on a nuclear disarmament ticket thus saving the country from the effects of world war three.
A scenario that would have any American scratching their heads in disinterested confusion, so it obviously needed updating and bringing back into the realm of the possible.

 

[DeusExMachina]

A scenario that would have any American scratching their heads in disinterested confusion, so it obviously needed updating and bringing back into the realm of the possible.

Why would we be disinterested or confused? Unless they explain it in the movie, anyone who hasn't read the comic wouldn't understand.

 

[SAJ]

Why would we be disinterested or confused? Unless they explain it in the movie, anyone who hasn't read the comic wouldn't understand.

By and large, an American teen audience is very unlikely to be interested in and/or entertained by the finer points of twenty year old, fictional foreign politics.
So, for the domestic audience you include a scenario that namechecks something that engages them.

 

[DeusExMachina]

I hope you're not just suggesting it's only an American teen audience. I read the comic when I was 13 and understood it quite well.

 

[SAJ]

I hope you're not just suggesting it's only an American teen audience. I read the comic when I was 13 and understood it quite well.

I am singling out American teens, purely because they are the demographic that the film-makers need to engage and entertain inorder to make their money.