Just saw it. This is sure to be a huge point of controversy. What did you think of it.
I thought it was rad Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
I liked it. I wish I knew more about the comic/graphic novel or whatever it is...but the movie didn't really leave me with any questions. Again, I liked it. Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Hmmm. Psuedo contraversy then? Like anything that mainstream, a controversy where you know exactly what both sides are going to say, and it won't matter either way.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I thought it was very good. It certainly didn't pull any punches.
Posted by Advent 115 (Member # 8914) on :
So do you recomend it?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Just saw it. I have to give it credit for having the guts to be blatantly and unapologeticly pro-terrorist. Frankly, it's a perspective that needs to be presented. I can imagine bin Laden seeing himself as being something like V.
At the same time, the contrast between comic book terrorism and real terrorism is clear. In comic books, the terrorist can be a hero fighting a Hitler-esque supervillian, and blowing up buildings can be spectacular celebrations to save the common man. In reality, as we have seen, people die and little positive is accomplished.
It's good a comic book movie - and somewhat thought provoking. It's not winning any Oscars though.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
Sure. It's well acted and directed. I enjoyed it a lot. Lots of action and interesting dialog. I'd actually see it again.
I imagine it will ruffle quite a few feathers for many different reasons. I'm interested in seeing what the commentary on the movie is like.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
quote: people die and little positive is accomplished.
Well, that all depends on your perspective, I guess. Although you and I abhor the tragedy of 911, I think it's safe to say it isn't viewed universally as a negative.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I just saw it. As we were leaving someone mentioned the reference to the Boston Tea Party that was made in the movie. That was an act of terrorism. However, since we won, it's patriotism. All depends on which side you're on, I guess. I thought it was really good.
Posted by Aryei (Member # 9025) on :
I don't know, I wouldn't be too tempted to call the Boston Tea Party attack an act of terrorism. Presumably our thuggish Sons of Liberty didn't kill anyone in that Party - however there are records of Torys (Loyalists) being tarred and feathered, i.e. executed - for following the british tax laws and not boycotting british goods and generally being loyal to england when things got nasty. So the big event, far as I can tell, wasn't terrorism, it was the small, not quite so flashy ones where we 'enforced' our boycott of British goods in more violent, even murderous ways - as if it was so important that we not pay a tax on paper that we should kill people who try to.
but, then again, all's well now, and we won, and even though we've been jerks sometimes, we've managed to build a republic that stood for the natural rights of man that's lasted over 200 years and even survived a terribly bloody Civil War. so, I guess the message is that even mobster thugs from the 1700s could help change the world for the better :-].
Posted by Aryei (Member # 9025) on :
and I'm sorry I got way off topic. oh, and is V a Terrorist, really, the way we think of Terrorists today? I got the impression that since he made so many plans blowing up these buildings, he wouldn't let people just die in them, unless of course they were on his list for torturing him in that camp. so is he a terrorist or an Ideologue who happens to be really good at getting away with plain old murder? after the comics, and after the movies, I figured it was the latter.
Oh, and the kiss between Natalie Portman 'n Hugo Weaving. I think I gagged worse than I would have if they'd taken the mask off, and that was even with my understanding that that's exactly the sort of messed up romance Evey was headed towards.
Posted by MidnightBlue (Member # 6146) on :
I laughed at that part.
Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I kept hoping he would stick out his tongue at that part Posted by Hari Seldon (Member # 9254) on :
I can't help thinking of OSC's recent World Watch essay after seeing this movie.
The Wachowsky brothers come off as being so ultra subversive and radical, and yet, is there anything in the movie that was really that unique? By my estimation, this movie simply legitimizes the pro liberal, anti-Bush rhetoric that is so pervasive anymore. It paints conservatives in such an evil light its quite laughable.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Spoilers.
Terrorism is a tricky word. Does it always have to involve civilian death? Is it just using fear to bring about your desired goals? If that's true, then having a "police presence" is engaging in terrorism.
In my book, V wasn't a terrorist, at least in the suicide bomber sense, because he wanted to liberate the people from their fear, not bring down another nation through fear. He did not want to scare the people of Britain; he wanted to scare politicians, and they are fair game. Now V may have been a terrorist in the insurgent sense, but even that was mild compared to what we've seen in the media. The last episode of Battlestar Galactica looked like a scene straight out of Iraq.
That said, I'm in a place where I'm not anarchist. I like institutions, even if that means that we have to suffer some bad ones, but I don't have enough vested in our American institutions to get weepy over a building being destroyed.
I did think it was interesting, him executing all of the other participants. I mean, we did the same thing at Nuremburg, and again with Eichmann, except we clothed the whole business in a trial. V was just a person who believed in the dealth penalty. He cut to the quick. And unlike most of the cowards who support the death penalty here, he doesn't any qualms about injecting the victim himself. I don't agree with the death penalty, but the difference between V with a syringe and state licensed executioner with a syringe for the same crimes isn't as far as is popular imagined.
For the most part, I didn't disagree with V's methods. I just have deep problems with his politics.
He was definitely portrayed in a heroic light, for a psycho. Another reviewer said it well, when the character gets and keeps the pretty girl, he is a hero.
[ March 18, 2006, 07:46 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I haven't seen to movie yet, but the graphic novel was one of my favorites.
Aryei, V is a terrorist in the old-fashiondy 19th-century-anarchist sense of the word. In the graphic novel, first you're led to believe that V has his vendetta against the people that tortured him at the concentration camp. Then you slowly realize that his vendetta wasn't so much against them as it was against the government that allowed there to BE concentration camps.
OSC wrote an essay not so long ago comparing our modern terrorists to the anarchists of the 19th-century and wondering if we'd have to go through the same straits to remove them (i.e., two world wars). Worth a read, but I can't find a link.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
I enjoyed the movie quite a bit and thoroughly recommend it. That said, there were several plot holes that were so obvious I wonder why they weren't addressed, but leave it to the Wachowski brothers, I guess.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:By my estimation, this movie simply legitimizes the pro liberal, anti-Bush rhetoric that is so pervasive anymore.
A cartoonist who occasionally lurks at this forum has observed that the film appears to be the sort that will reinforce whatever existing bias you bring to it. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
*lying on the floor in pool of own drool, still frothing at the mouth*
Sooooooooooooo good...
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Of course, it also reinforces the pro-conservative, anti-Bush rhetoric that's becoming more and more pervasive these days.
The government in this movie is oppressive and overpowering. Maintaining a "we know what's best for you" policy, it spies on its citizens, disappears undesirables to secret locations without due process, tortures them in concentration camps, and seeks to control subversive writing, music, and thought. When Bush-supporters complain about this being a slam on the current administration, I have to wonder why they're so quick on the defensive... Remember when right-wing pundits complained about Anakin's "with me or against me" line in the last Star Wars movie? If you really think the cheesy, cliched words of a badly written, power-mad meglomaniac are a reference to something your leader said, maybe instead of complaining about liberal Hollywood you should be wondering why your leader sounds like a badly written, power-mad meglomaniac.
I loved the movie. But, as with just about every movie I've ever seen, I have nitpicks, so the Armchair Directory flies again!
**MAJOR SPOILERS!!**
Dunno if it was the movie or our theater, but several times the music was so loud I couldn't make out the dialogue. As this movie was mostly dialogue, this was a problem. Seeing V on screen was a visceral thrill. This remains one of my favorite books and Hugo Weaving and Natalie Portman were perfect. And Stephen Fry! Loved all of the casting, come to that. Liked the mention, first thing, of the Boston Tea Party. A reminder that terrorist acts are in the eyes of the beholder. Great explosion. But damn, I miss his "spurned lover" soliloquy with Lady Justice. Could have done without the slow-mo knives, but what the heck. Evey's change from a young-girl-turned-amateur-prosititute to a slightly older BNTV intern worked for me. I thought the little girl with glasses was great. I missed her writing "Bollocks" on the street and giggling at the security cameras, though, but the grafitti was a nice touch and more focused on the story, I suppose. Missed the train assault on Prospero. ("Is anyone there?" "Hello.") and really missed the transubstantiation comment about the bishop, but oh well. But damn it, I was looking forward to his appearance in the bishop's chambers. "Please allow me to introduce myself..." Not enough pop culture references. "I'm waiting for the man." The loss of the party member subplots didn't bother me much. Didn't fit, would have slowed down an already concept-heavy film. Except for the disposition of the leader and Creedy, more on that later. Evey's reaction to V's casual murders was good, as was the "created a monster" line. Whatever his reasons V was a murderer, and it helped to have it acknowledged so the audience could empathize with the confusion of rooting for a terrorist. Evey's torture was handled just right. OK, so she was naked at the end in the comic, but on the big scrfeen that would have been distracting from the emotional moment. V's burns? Unnecessary, I thought, and his Vader-like yell bothered me. No mention of how he blew the place up, either. I really missed Finch's acid-trip investigation, especially his visions. "I'd forgotten how rich the color of your skin was, a thousand special blends of coffee." There were no blacks visible at any time in the movie, making the same point, but there were none in the camps, either. Racism would have been overdoing it? Or there just aren't many black people in England? Also missed his duplication of V's escape, and his discovery of the Victoria line. It was mentioned that bombing by train was a possibility and Finch favored it, but it was never explained why or how it was suggested. It was also mentioned that V must have had an inside man. I wanted the scene of V taking over the computers.
I'm torn on the ending. I really, really liked V putting the choice of the bomb into the people's, i.e. Evey's, hands, and from the moment the leader started his announcement and we saw all the rooms and bars empty, my heart was pounding. Thousands of Vs, marching. Not at all in the comic, but true to it nonetheless. V did not mean to fight the war alone, and a revolution without the people (or dancing) is hardly worth doing. However, the "deal" with Creedy and final fight scene didn't work for me and I can't really say why. Possibly just because it's such a departure from a comic I love, because as part of the movie it probably works, but I had the strong feeling that the W brothers had subdued their Matrixy urges all this time and finally had to cut loose. Didn't like the romantic subplot between V and Evey. Too Hollywood. In the comic he told her he loved her as he died, but it seemed to me to be more like Valerie's note saying "I love you" to whomever found it. He respected her, he admired her, but I never had the slightest impression he was ready to shuck the mask and run away with her. And dammit, why wasn't the train painted? Evey at the end. I still don't know why they left out V's dying line, "First, you must discover whose face lies behind this mask, but you must never know my face. Is this quite clear?" I thought his line about muscles and bones was much less powerful. But I wanted to see her put on the mask and cloak and take over. In the movie, she makes the decision as a person, not as a symbol, and that works -- and the scenes of the people of London becoming V thrilled me -- but I still missed it. I also didn't get the feeling she would carry on as V afterwards. Maybe in this version, V was no longer needed.
Nit-picking aside, this was a great movie and the best adaption yet of Alan Moore's work, even if he disagrees, and I'd better see little gold statues next year.
[ March 19, 2006, 03:51 AM: Message edited by: Chris Bridges ]
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: V's burns? Unnecessary, I thought, and his Vader-like yell bothered me. No mention of how he blew the place up, either.
You know, I originally found myself wondering how he blew up the facility, too, until I realized that there is nothing in the backstory that indicates he did blow it up. It stopped bothering me after that.
Posted by Palliard (Member # 8109) on :
Having now seen the movie: I didn't interpret those as burns. I thought his body had been ravaged by the virus they were concocting, and he was the only one that lived through the initial experiments.
That said, the demolition of the Larkhill camp was glossed over in the movie more than I'd like, given how they made it central to the plot. I would have liked some exploration of how V destroyed the camp when he left. It would really have deepened his character, and taken maybe five more minutes.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aryei: I don't know, I wouldn't be too tempted to call the Boston Tea Party attack an act of terrorism. Presumably our thuggish Sons of Liberty didn't kill anyone in that Party - however there are records of Torys (Loyalists) being tarred and feathered, i.e. executed . . .
Read the last paragraph under "History." The last sentence reads, "There is no case of a person dying from being tarred and feathered in this period."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Spoilers
I very much enjoyed the movie. Two things I missed the most, though, were his little chats with Lady Justice and his 'fireside chats' with the British people, going over how hard they've been working but if they can't just do better, they're fired . I think they did a pretty good job of him 'conducting' the Old Bailey's destruction-the bit of him laughing while it goes up is good, too.
As for how he escaped Larkhill, in the comic it's explained. Since he was the only one to survive the horrible biological testing they're performing on all those people, they give him some...leeway. They want to study him, try to understand how he behaves and thinks after the tests, to try and understand the changes better.
So they let him do strange things with chemicals and earth and gardening (I think gardening), and for quite awhile nothing is wrong. He's making these incredibly bizarre (to the scientists) designs all over his cell, but they can make nothing of it. There's some meaning just beyond the edge of their ability to grasp. Then there is a massive explosion and it turns out that all of these independantly benign chemicals when all put together in this incredibly intricate way form an explosive, and that's how he escaped. Presumably that's an indicator of V's genius, because certainly they wouldn't give him styff when put together (they thought) would explode.
Also thought the Party member sub-plots were good removed. Was a bit strained at the Creedy subterfuge, I think it could have been handled better though of course in the comic V did play Party members off one another.
-------------
As for all the talk about pro-Bush or anti-Bush, it just goes to show that people really strain to link things that are important to them when no real connection exists at all. At the most you can say there is a connection because, if Bush had his way, he would be an awful mustache-twirling villainous dictator who would like nothing better than to fire up a totalitarian regime, but as you can imagine I think that's pretty stupid.
It seems to me the message of the film is one discussing fear and responses to repressive governments. Overthrowing tyrannical governments is, well, what America is about in a big way.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I managed to link the Chronicles of Riddick to US politics...
It's really not THAT much of a stretch.
Anyways, when did the comic come out, anyway? I mean, I'd be more inclined to believe that a movie based on a comic had something to do with the political climate of when it was written as opposed to when the movie came out.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, and incidentally...comparisons between V and OBL are, frankly, stupid. V makes it his business to go about killed authority figures. Party members, military personnel, police. Some civilians get hurt, but they're not his targets. Furthermore, his goals are different as well as his means. His intent is to liberate the British people from an evil governemtn and then let them pick their own. A society in which one can be Muslim, Christian, Jew, homosexual, heterosexual, Communist or fundamentalist with freedom to choose. Now in what way is that similar to OBL? In that he blows things up?
Please.
I didn't view the film as pro-terrorist at all. While the saying, "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter," has a lot of truth to it, does anyone really argue that V isn't the freedom fighter of that particular saying? And that the only people who would call him a terrorist are the ones supporting the dictatorial regime?
Using violence to overthrow a dictatorship isn't really a concept Americans are uncomfortable with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Comic was published in 1988, pH.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Published as a trade paperback in 1988, but if I recall correctly it was written over a six year period from 1982 to 1988. (The Thatcher government was inspiration, pH.)
Posted by Eldrad (Member # 8578) on :
LSM's comment makes a good point; since Thatcher's government was the inspiration for the comic, it shouldn't be a stretch at all to compare the movie to politics at any time, really. Since it was written before Osama bin Laden made his name, so to speak, I really don't think that there was meant to be a comparison between him and V, Rakeesh. That's my interpretation, at least.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Now that was a good movie. My friends were kind of freaked out in the beginning because of the eirie similarities to me and V. I'm a verbocious book lover who is a huge fan of "The Count of Monte Cristo". I'm also tall, deep voiced, a big fan of black, and a hopeless romantic.
But as to the actual movie, I thought it was wonderfully done. I knew nothing about it at all going into it, so it was a brand new experience, and definately one that I hope to replicate. The whole thing about him being an idea, a concept ... I thought that was brilliantly done. I reconciled that cheesy kiss that way, by thinking that she really is kissing the concept, loving the idea. And the shot's where it showed alllll the masked people flooding down the streets ... gave me goosebumps. And then all of them taking off the masks was very poignant.
I really really just thought it was a brilliant movie that appealed greatly to my intellectual/moral nature.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Since it was written before Osama bin Laden made his name, so to speak, I really don't think that there was meant to be a comparison between him and V, Rakeesh.
That's true about the comic. But that movie was written and produced after 9/11, and is being viewed in an era focused on the spectacle of terrorism. I have difficulty imagining that the Wachowski brothers didn't consider Osama bin Laden when writing and producing it. And you all can correct me if I'm wrong, but so far everyone I've spoken to who saw it made the connection between V and our current War on Terror immediately. The movie really is extremely in your face about how V is a terrorist.
And yes - the similarity is that both blow up buildings. If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
What I didn't like about the movie is how, even though it questioned V's actions, it simply decided to assume he was right in the end. I would have preferred they left the question more open-ended. I also would have preferred it if they showed the civilians and innocents who must have been killed in his attacks. The movie presents V in a way that makes it easy to accept that he is only attacking bad guys. One could easily make a film about 9/11 in the same manner, and paint the attackers as merely out to unite the world against a corrupt power through a symbolic attack on a great landmark - this is what Al Qaeda itself has claimed they were doing on 9/11. But in reality, civilians die in these attacks. And in reality, most governments that are thought corrupt by some are also thought valid by many others. Those elements are not even hinted at in the movie. But this is a comic book movie, so I am probably a bit off base expecting realism.
Incidently, it IS a stretch to consider this movie pro- or anti-Bush. The government in power is not really in any way like the Bush administration, except that they are supposedly conservative. It does paint a pretty negative picture of biased political talk show hosts (O'Reilly) though. You could call it anti-conservative, although more from a libertarian perspective than a liberal one.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As political commentary, it was superficial at best.
As a dystopian rebellion fantasy, top notch.
BTW, as anti-Bush rhetoric, it utterly fails, to such an extent that I can't believe it was intended to be anti-Bush rhetoric. Even if it was the W. brothers.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: As a dystopian rebellion fantasy, top notch.
Yes! Dystopian rebellion fantasy. Exactly my type of movie. That's one of the reason's I liked it. While it did contain some politically charged issues, I didn't feel like that was the purpose of the movie. I think that the purpose of the movie was for me to enjoy it, and enjoy it I did. If the purpose was to make some big political statement or something like that, for me at least, it was a failure. A wonderful failure. Those types of movies tend to annoy me.
Posted by Lord Solar Macharius (Member # 7775) on :
Triple that. Dystopian rebellion fantasy. The message seemed to be (as the comic): fasism bad, don't go willingly. Which is pretty obvious.
For me, I liked many of the more "poetic" tangeants like Vallerie and Monte Cristo. And the symbolism between V and Evey (like V, but different. One born of fire, one born of water), though I wish [SPOILER]Evey had been in V getup at the end, and that Finch had killed V[END SPOILER].
And the movie also had Stephen Fry in it. I mean, A Fish Called Wanda is automatically a good movie for having about ten seconds of Stephen Fry, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy got a pass on Stephen Fry, and you're telling me not to like a movie in which he gets a fully fleshed out supporting role?
Edit: For what it's worth discussion wise, the W brothers (brother/sister now?) wrote their original treatment of V before The Matrix.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
About the OBL and V comparison, I don't really think Bin Laden's intentions were to liberate the American people, like V's intentions were to liberate the British. While the actions were similar, I think the intentions were completely different. If V is like Bin Laden, then so was Timothy McVeigh.
Awesome movie, by the way.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:While it did contain some politically charged issues, I didn't feel like that was the purpose of the movie. I think that the purpose of the movie was for me to enjoy it, and enjoy it I did. If the purpose was to make some big political statement or something like that, for me at least, it was a failure.
I think that like most good movies or stories, it has no single purpose - it's an interesting world and set of characters than can be looked at from a whole bunch of different perspectives. I'm inclined to view it first as a parable about what can happen when a person becomes the embodiment of an ideal. Despite V's abilities, he could not change the world through his own actions alone - but he could change the world by inspiring others to believe in the ideals he represented. That's how one domino can knock down so many others.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Tresopax,
quote:And yes - the similarity is that both blow up buildings. If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
Frankly, yes there is lots of doubt. If someone attempted to blow up Parliament in the dead of night when very few if anyone was actually in it, they would be called a terrorist but not placed in the same category as OBL, who prioritizes for maximum civilian death.
quote:One could easily make a film about 9/11 in the same manner, and paint the attackers as merely out to unite the world against a corrupt power through a symbolic attack on a great landmark - this is what Al Qaeda itself has claimed they were doing on 9/11.
Yes, one could, but such a film would be obviously lying, no matter how many times you say they're similar. Because the al Qaeda attack was not solely on a landmark. It was also on a ton of civilians, deliberately. Such a film would have to ignore that little tidbit.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I'm just sick of women in movies falling in love with their abusers. The last movie I saw, King Kong, had that too.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Frankly, yes there is lots of doubt. If someone attempted to blow up Parliament in the dead of night when very few if anyone was actually in it, they would be called a terrorist but not placed in the same category as OBL, who prioritizes for maximum civilian death.
So do you also think that if Osama bin Laden blew up the Trade Centers late at night when there were fewer people there, he wouldn't be viewed as such a bad guy? Or if he had merely sent planes into Congress instead? I think he'd be viewed as just as much a horrible terrorist either way.
V had to have known there would be civilian deaths when he targeted Parliament. The film did ignore that tidbit. V can claim he was targeting the landmark and not the civilians inside, but it is likely the government and its supporters would claim the exact opposite, and use the media to enforce that view.
And frankly, I'd have to disagree with V if he made such a claim: You can't blow up a building with people inside and then claim "I was just targeting the building, not the people." You're still knowingly murdering those people if you knew they'd be there when you blew it up. Even if you give them a year's warning.
quote:I'm just sick of women in movies falling in love with their abusers.
I think it happened the other way around though. She seemed to fall in love first - and then afterwards he ended up abusing her. Although, I guess you could make the argument that she didn't really love him until after those events caused her to. I got the impression she was in love when she first stayed with him - he certainly was.
A good lesson though - try to avoid having people who wear masks 24 hours a day fall in love with you.
[ March 20, 2006, 02:55 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, Tresopax, I do think OBL would not be viewed as badly by Americans had he targeted WTC at night to minimize civilian murder. We'd still be infuriated and at war, but c'mon, you know as well as I do how much the number 3,000 has been played.
As for abuse...well, was it really abuse? By some definitions it obviously was, yes. In fact by most standard definitions it was, yes. But defining it solely as abuse misses some points, I think.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The abuse of Evey seems to be a parellel almost exactly to his abuse of the nation. They both involved pain, lots of pain, but they both were done out of a genuine concern for the nation in one case, the girl in the other case. He abused Evey to free her from fear, he terrorized Britain to free it from tyranny. Paradoxes both.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
And no, OBL would not be viewed as badly. He would still be viewed as a terrorist, because our ideals do not align, therefore we label his act of destruction as terrorism. But if he had deliberately not aimed at civilians, and publicly stated so, then he would not be nearly as villified. If he had attacked the ideal of America without specifically targeting the people, I might even hold a grain of respect for him. I would still hate him, because I love America. But my love for America is not as vehement as my love for my family. I had an aunt in NYC. She was alright, but the fact that OBL targeted her seriously ticks me off. If his actions and words were such that I believed he sincerely only targeted the ideal, I would hate him for what he did to something I love, but not as much as I hate him now for potentially hurting people I love.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
What civillian would remain inside of Parliament when they know an attempt was going to be made on the building? It wasn't only the midnight timing that ensured nobody would be there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think we're referring here to the Old Bailey, actually. On the second Nov. 5th, fair warning would be considered given, I think. The Old Bailey was different, though.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i don't really think any connection between the government in "V" and the american government, or any connection between V and OBL was intended. it was a movie about a fascist government that was overthrown. to me it was what 1984 would have been if it had a super hero in it. well, maybe not that far, but pretty close.
There were only two times in the movie when i saw a link to todays political climate, and they were the same link. twice they said that the catalyst for the war that gave way to the fascist government was "America's war." i believe one of the exact quotes was "America's war spread to Europe" and it showed a very brief clip of what looked suspiciously like american desert combat gear. apparantly the war on iraq spread to europe, and the british gov't used chemical warfare on itself to scare it's citizens into accepting a facist gov't. so there is your bush bashing, and i thought it was quite humurous. outlandish and unlikely, but humurous none-the-less.
also, i laughed aloud at the look on Evey's face when her captor left her alone in the jail at the end of her imprisonment.
[ March 20, 2006, 05:40 PM: Message edited by: vonk ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tresopax: If anyone attempted to blow up Parliament tomorrow, is there any doubt they would be called a terrorist and placed in the same category of the Osama bin Ladens of the world?
The difference, in my mind, is that V didn't blow up Parliament tomorrow. He waited until a repressive dystopian government enslaved a nation, then he blew it up.
As has been said, there are big differences between V's goals and Osama's, and the fact that tactics were similar does not change that. V was willing to give his life to put power in the hands of the people. Osama is willing to give the lives of countless subordinates while he hides in a cave like a little bitch, with the ultimate goal of putting power into his own hands. Osama would like nothing more than to be the entity that V died fighting.
[ March 20, 2006, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I don't know if I'm the only one, but this movie reminded me of nothing so much as The Professional.
Both were advertised as adrenaline-fuled action extravaganzas. Both had a short scene in the beginning that allowed the hero to show off what a bad ass he was. Then the hero meets Natalie Portman, and basically the entire rest of the movie is a plot-heavy exploration of the nature of the title character and his blossoming relationship with Ms Portman. Then, at the very end, the hero gets one short scene where he kills a bunch of bad guys just before he gets capped, and Natalie gets the denouement all to herself.
The main difference was that the mostly action-free plot in this movie was actually interesting. If it weren't for that, I'd have called them on plagarism. Posted by NinjaBirdman (Member # 7114) on :
Loved the movie!
Possible spoilers in this post, read at your own risk...
V is no terrorist. The Old Bailey was destroyed past curfew, wasn't it? I don't think he purposefully killed any civilians. Actually, was there any evidence that even one innocent civilian was killed during the whole movie by V?
The people of the government were the terrorists. They were the ones using fear to control the populace. They were the ones that killed almost 100,000 people in that wave of attacks.
V only caused terror for other terrorists, the people were almost jumping out of their seats watching V's broadcast... I would almost call him an anti-terrorist.
Am I missing something here? Maybe I have to watch the movie again, or at least give it time to sink in, as I just got home from the theater.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
There was one thing I didn't buy about the film. They seem to have vastly underestimated the power of propaganda. I don't have nearly enough faith in the public to believe that they'd hear one speech and a year of media saturation later would be ready to march on a machine-gun bearing military encampment unarmed. We're talking about people who can't consistenly decide which American Idol contestant to get behind from one week to the next, and whose opinions on political leaders are as likely to come from a Saturday Night Live sketch or a forwarded email as actual research and critical analysis.
I might have believed it if it were a few hundred organized rebels, but seeing all of London come out in their masks at the same time was a little too much for me.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Baron, I don't think people in England are eligible to vote on American Idol.
That'd be Pop Idol.
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I'm talking about sociology in general, not the culture of a particular nation.
In other words, I don't think the future dystopia in the movie had Pop Idol either. Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It can't be a true dystopia without the abominations of Simon Cowell.
I do agree with you though about the power of propoganda.
I got the impression, however, that the government's increasingly strict regulations in response to V kind of proved his point in the minds of the people.
*SPOILERS*
And when random people in the mask started getting shot? I mean, that little girl being gunned down, and the people beating the shooter to a pulp...
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: It can't be a true dystopia without the abominations of Simon Cowell.
Well said!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
These were a people in a very repressed society, with large gaps between the government official haves and the average joe have-nots. Curfews, banned music and words and theater, and I'll bet nearly every family in London (that wasn't "connected") lost a loved one or two to the black bags. It wouldn't take very much at all for this situation to blow up.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Not only that, but the oppresive regime was relatively new. The adults hadn't really grown up with it, it seemed (since Evey was young and still remembered some things before the serious violence and atrocities).
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
So you're saying that repressed societies are more likely to have their citizens rise up with the most extremely slight provocation? It's like saying that women in abusive relationships are more likely to leave their husbands. It gives one some nice warm fuzzies to believe that, but it's just not plausible.
There have actually been repressive societies in the past, and I've never heard of anything like that. As I said, if there were a small group of people with an active leader that had spent the entire year plotting, planning and preparing with them, I could see it. But this is a person whose only contact with the public was a 3-minute speech given a year before the uprising was to happen. For all these people knew, it could have been a government plot to catch conspirators.
When you combine a government that generates so much terror with a system of media that works such a sophisticated spin machine, the people of London didn't stand a chance. 95% of the people that saw the broadcast would have forgotten it within a week. The remainder would either have become convinced that V was evil and dangerous or would have been too scared to try anything.
In any case, for more than London's two or three most psychotically deranged citizens to have shown up to face the firing squad, there would have to have been an overwhelming concensus that everyone was going to do this thing. I honestly don't believe that any 3-minute speech could have generated that kind of critical mass.
It's like the end of The Karate Kid. When you're twelve and you see some kid get a couple months of karate training in his spare time and then win a tournament full of kids who (1) have been doing it their whole lives, and (2) fight dirty, it's a very powerful emotional moment. But it's one you can't let yourself think too closely about or you'll just bust up laughing at the sheer absuridity of it all.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Baron, people in YOUNG repressive societies are more likely to rise up than those in societies where the regime has been in place for more than a generation.
Just like people in abusive relationships pretty much either leave at the first instance of abuse or end up staying far too long.
The point is, the longer you're in an unfavorable situation, the more likely you are to believe that it's the norm, and the less likely you are to do something to change it.
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
(1) This clearly wasn't the first instance of repression, or even the hundreth. Any government who is convinced enough of their hold on a public's will that they've long since released a deadly biological weapon on significant numbers of their own people as a money-making scheme probably have a point.
(2) As I said, I can believe a few people wanting to rise up. What, in this situation, makes you believe that everyone would have risen up simultaneously.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Think pre-war Iraq. That was certainly a repressive society. Many of them had lost family members to Saddam. And the USA did a heck of a lot more than V ever did to incite a coup. But the fact is that a lot of people were comfortable with their lives. A lot of others just went about their lives in quiet resignation. And the minority who wanted to rise up knew it was impractical, even with the most powerful nation on Earth behind them (as opposed to a nut in a mask somewhere).
With all that we did to incite unrest in Iraq, we had to go in there and topple the government ourselves before even the hard-core anti-Saddamites dared join us. And after we completely dismantled the opressive regime they hardly joined the uprising unanimously, as we're still seeing much to our dismay.
So what is it about this society that makes is so radically different than Iraq and every other opressive regime in history?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
For one thing, it's a movie. It's going to speed things up.
Secondly, this was a free London, used to freedom, that had a repressive government imposed on them. They welcomed it out of fear, but when the government became terrifying the populace was forced into action. Subtle goads like a playful terrorist who made the humorless government look like fools helped, and the thousands of masks provided a release for anarchic behavior that gave many of them a taste of freedom. Finally, the excessive force used against relatively harmless activities, culminating in the shooting of a little girl, resulted in widespread rioting.
This is not a society that has long been repressed under one regime or another, like the Russian or Muslim countries, when the new bosses never differ much from the old bosses. This was a society that knew freedom and representative government, a government that had to answer to its constituents.
There are already plenty of people complaining loudly about our enemies being treated in a fascist manner in this country. I assure you, if liberties here were curtailed in such a manner to the point where homosexuals and other undesirables were being "vanished" there would be an uprising no matter how damn powerful their spin was.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Then why hadn't there been one already? If this place was such a powder-keg (which it may have been in the comic book but did not appear to be in the movie), two questions come to mind.
Why would this 3-minute speech have been the stimulus to uprising?
And more importantly, if these people had such a hair-trigger, what about it would have convinced them to live another year under the iron fist of government before doing it?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Why did the Boston Tea Party trigger a revolution? Why did the people of Petrograd suddenly start rioting in 1917? Why didn't the people of France storm the Bastille five years earlier, or ten years later?
Obviously those are simplistic. There were many factors that led up to every uprising in history. But there had to be some point when the people said "enough." In this highly romanticized story, it was hope and theatrics in a society that had repressed both.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why did the Boston Tea Party trigger a revolution?
Because Britain over-reacted and punished Boston too severely for the Colonies' taste.
The best thing for V's revolution would have been if the troops opened fire on the mask-wearing crowd.
Not so good for the crowd, of course.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
*** SPOILER ***
Ultimately, I think the killing of the Chancellor and his right hand man was what ended up allowing a revolution. It was that which prevented the soldiers from receiving an order to stop the protests. Presumably, had the government still been in control, the soldiers would have fought the crowd of masked men. Yes, there would have been quite a massacre, but there's no reason to believe it would have led to the downfall of the government any more than any other major protest does. However, when the troops failed to act, it became clear to everyone that the government no longer had control, and thus revolutionaries could revolt at will.
If Saddam and his advisors had been murdered, leaving no one in command of the government, spontaneous revolution probably could have occurred there too, if timed right then.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Because Britain over-reacted and punished Boston too severely for the Colonies' taste.
The point was, there were many different things that led to that uprising. But when you look up how it started, you hear about some guys dumping tea in a harbor. If that hadn't triggered something, another equally incidental event would have.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
The same thought occured to me. In the government potrayed in the movie, all the power could be centralized in one room. Essentially, there appeared to be very little beuacracy. When that little beaucracy is eliminated, as was done, the government crumbles. The question of course, is who picks up the pieces?
EDIT: In response to Tres
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The point was, there were many different things that led to that uprising. But when you look up how it started, you hear about some guys dumping tea in a harbor. If that hadn't triggered something, another equally incidental event would have.
True. I think I was getting at the fact that it was actually an action by the tyrant - one buttone pressed too many - that led to it. There were lots of things that could have done it, but the direct cause was an action of the tyrant, not the protestors.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I'm not saying that revolutions don't happen. I'm saying that V's actions could not possibly have incited the rebellion in that kind of society. We're not talking about people getting fed up and rioting independently. We're talking about a guy making a 3-minute speech. He could just as easily be a government spy as a revolutionary hero. He could just as easily be dead as alive. And yet every person in all of London is so moved by his speech that they wait a year and then, without any co-ordination amongst themselves, dress up like this stranger and storm the enemy stronghold. Not one person in all of England feels strongly enough about revolution to create a resistance movement, but every single person in London feels strongly enough about it to go to war unarmed dressed up like God-knows-who based on a broadcast that, by all available information, was made by a dead lunatic?
And it didn't have anything to do with the Chancellor being killed, either. When these people left their houses, the Chancellor was still alive. And when they got to Parliament, even the soldiers didn't know he'd been killed, so I don't know what difference it would have made to the revolutionaries.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Were a whole lot of publicity-gaining stunts from the comic book left out of the movie?
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Yes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I thought so, and kind of read them into the plot. The reaction to the Benny Hill-like sketch with the Chancellor (hysterical, by the way) and the reaction to the masks suggested it to me. But a montage might have been helpful.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
My point about it being a young government is that yes, there was oppression going on for just under a generation, but it didn't seem like the black-bagging had gone on for more than...I'd say a decade, at least not on a large scale. Evey was twelve when her parents were taken away, wasn't she?
-pH
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Baron, I think you're missing a lot of it.
For all we know there were revolutionary cabals meeting in secret who took this opportunity to adapt a better symbol. All we know is we have a repressed society under increasingly harsh rule, with many citizens taken away without warning or explanation. We have a government preaching fear and "we know best." Odds are within a few years a revolution would have happened one way or another. Then we have the thing that repressive governments hate: someone making fun of them and getting away with it. Someone making them foolish and, worse, ineffectual, and getting away with it. This is the sort of thing that provides hope. For the next year, the government cracked down even harder, making V's words that much more meaningful. Here is what we voted for, here is what we welcomed in. Gordon's show wasn't particularly funny, but the fact that he actually did what Wasn't Allowed was cathartic. And then he disappeared, and the people saw again that they had no freedom, no rights, no liberty. And then the masks arrived. Clearly V was not dead, as the government had said he was. They were not in control anymore, even if in just this slight manner. Criminals and anarchists wore the mask and ran wild, and who's to say people didn't put one on in the privacy of their homes and get a taste of freedom. Remeber; it was mentioned several times in the movie, during the party member meetings before the Chancellor, that the citizens were talking about V more and more. You make it seem like he popped up once and then a year later everyone suddenly decided, "Hey let's go assault Parliament." When I watched the movie, I saw growing unrest. The harsher the government's reaction, the more appealing V appeared and the weaker the government appeared. When the girl was shot the riots began; not because of something V did, but because the tension of the situation broke and the people had had enough. And the masks provided something that made it that much easier to confront the soldiers in public; anonymity. If things went bad a rioter could duck around a corner, drop the mask and cloak, and be a normal bystander. Anonymity encouraged uprising where they might have been none if the rioters feared arrest and identification.
But enough of this. The movie worked for me, and the sight of thousands of Vs was an electric thrill, the only addition to the comic I felt was truly in the original spirit. Apparently it was too unlikely for you and I doubt anything I could say would change it.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
quote: For all we know there were revolutionary cabals meeting in secret who took this opportunity to adapt a better symbol.
I chose not to believe this because if it's true it's an example of cheap cinematic trickery that would have spoiled the whole movie, not just given me a little snicker at the ending. That would be the classic deus ex machina, like when the Enterprise gets in an inescapable situation and Geordi says something about subspace that saves the day, or when the fantasy character is confronted by the ultimate evil and suddenly casts a spell that overcomes it. Bringing something like that out in the end that the audience hadn't been informed of is classic bad storytelling, and I liked the movie enough not to believe that they'd pulled that trick.
quote: Gordon's show wasn't particularly funny, but the fact that he actually did what Wasn't Allowed was cathartic. And then he disappeared, and the people saw again that they had no freedom, no rights, no liberty.
Again, one of the most interesting things about the government in this dystopia was their control of the media. It had been established how easy it was for them to explain away things like the disappearance of a television host in a completely plausible way that would not give cause for unrest.
quote: Remeber; it was mentioned several times in the movie, during the party member meetings before the Chancellor, that the citizens were talking about V more and more.
This is part of what strains credibility. Sure, if there's a charismatic leader that has direct, constant contact with a group of people, I can understand that they'd keep talking about him for a year. But I can't even remember who Jon Stewart interviewed last week on The Daily Show. One short speech that has been convincingly explained away by an omnipresent media with no evidence to the contrary does not make people talk about it more and more over the course of a year until they're finally ready for a riot.
The coup itself wasn't what bothered me. It was the fact that they rallied the coup around a person that the government showed itself to be quite capable, from a PR standpoint, of dealing with. There wasn't any back-and-forth on the point in the movie to explain how V won in this respect. He made one statement, which was about as much trouble for the government as if Urkel had thrown sand in the face of Bruce Lee. Then he spent the rest of the movie bumping off some people he didn't like, building an elaborate and convenient faux-prison adjacent to his house, and getting down to the funky tunes in his basement. If he'd really wanted to incite unrest, he could have thrown the people the occasional bone, but he didn't seem too worried about it.
I won't say these people shouldn't have rioted, but I will say there's absolutely no reason anyone would have remembered V a year later with any more passion or clarity than we remember the dudes that sang "Who Let the Dogs Out."
quote: And the masks provided something that made it that much easier to confront the soldiers in public; anonymity. If things went bad a rioter could duck around a corner, drop the mask and cloak, and be a normal bystander.
Yeah, after they'd scooped up their lungs and intestines. When you're marching on a heavily armed military with nothing but a mask and a cloak, anonymity isn't high on your worry list.
Again, I liked the movie. But if the filmmakers wanted me to believe that an entire city rallied around some looney in a mask like the kids at the end of The Dead Poets Society, they could have given me a little something more to go on.
But, as you said, you've probably been a fan of the story for longer than most of us have known it existed. I'm sure I'll like Silent Hill when it comes out next month, despite any weaknesses, so I guess this would be a good place to agree to disagree.
[ March 21, 2006, 01:30 AM: Message edited by: Baron Samedi ]
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: I won't say these people shouldn't have rioted, but I will say there's absolutely no reason anyone would have remembered V a year later with any more passion or clarity than we remember the dudes that sang "Who Let the Dogs Out."
Baha Men, or something like that, wasn't it?
And I see it plausible that all the people were waiting for was some sort of symbol, which was exactly what V was. They showed government posters having the "V" sprayed on them throughout the year, and also I remember the government referring to "The terrorist group 'V'". So either the government gave V a lot more credibility then he deserved, or there was other stuff going on, other people doing things in his name. Also, remember that the government said he was dead, and then still payed the utmost attention to his threats concerning Parliament. They showed very publicly that V was still out there. Perhaps if there had been no government attention payed to it at all past that one day, it would've blown over like the Baha Men, but imagine if the government had said the Baha Men were terrorists, had died, but were still a threat, and outlawed their music. I'd go out and get me a CD.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
correct me if i'm wrong, but i got the impression that people didn't really believe the news. like when they were trying to explain away one of the deaths some guy in a bar said something along the lines of "can you believe this bullshit." so all of the PR that the gov't was trying to push on the people wasn't working.
regardless, i find it mildly ammusing that the riot at the end was what you found to be the most unbelievable part of the movie. i mean, the movie asked us to suspend disbelief on many occasions (which i willingly did). i don't see why, at the very end of the movie, you would go, "wait a minute, that couldn't happen" when almost nothing in the entire movie could have happened to begin with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:i don't see why, at the very end of the movie, you would go, "wait a minute, that couldn't happen" when almost nothing in the entire movie could have happened to begin with.
Because the thing at the end was the point of the movie - the idea that someone could spark such a revolution through those actions. If that's not believable, then the movie as a whole is not believable.
We all know getting bit by a radioactive spider isn't going to give you super powers. We suspend disbelief for that.
But if Peter, at the very end of the movie, were to decide to kill MJ to keep the Goblin from using her to get to him, no one would believe it.
I tend to think it worked, but there's definitely something different about the thousand Vs than the rest of the stuff we have to disbelieve.
Posted by Zemra (Member # 5706) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: V was willing to give his life to put power in the hands of the people. Osama is willing to give the lives of countless subordinates while he hides in a cave like a little bitch, with the ultimate goal of putting power into his own hands.
Osama Bin Laden reminds me less of V and more of Zapp Brannigan.
quote:Leela: Captain Brannigan, we really need to talk to you about our mission.
Zapp: Whatever it is, I'm willing to put wave after wave of men at your disposal.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
personally, i found it hardest to swallow the fascist gov't in the first place. i mean, just because there is a terrorist attack doesn't mean that the people will suspend all of their liberties and almost completely disband their gov't in order to protect themselves. i think there would have been other, more effective responses along the lines of forming alliances with other countries for protection. of course, the british gov't is the one that started the virus, but the people would have still looked elsewhere for help, instead of giving up all of their freedom. IMO of course
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: i don't see why, at the very end of the movie, you would go, "wait a minute, that couldn't happen" when almost nothing in the entire movie could have happened to begin with.
That's the thing, in 20 years or so, who's to say that stuff won't happen? Since it's set in the future, it could happen. There is no way to know for sure that it won't, therefore we suspend judgement on whether or not it is to be believed. But when we see something that strikes us as wrong, something that affronts our understanding of 'the way things work' in a time-less, universal sense, that's when we judge it as unbelievable. I saw the flood of Londoner's in mask's as improbable, but I was willing to suspend judgement on belief, again on the grounds that I don't know everything that was going on. As someone said, I suppose my mind filled in the blanks, and made it plausible, if not likely.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
i guess i just didn't figure it to be that far in the future, to where there would be that many unknowns. i thought that it was based on the current political climate, with the war on iraq progressing and spreading into a world war (which i don't see taking 20 years to happen).
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by vonk: personally, i found it hardest to swallow the fascist gov't in the first place. i mean, just because there is a terrorist attack doesn't mean that the people will suspend all of their liberties and almost completely disband their gov't in order to protect themselves.
.....
I thought that the government in place in the movie was more of an extension of what was already there. Like maybe what would happen if the Christian Right busted out some...large machine guns, or something. All at once. The group itself would already have been there and been influential, but they would've all of a sudden gained a lot more oomf.
Like the government in Handmaid's Tale. In the story, I think, the religious group took over all at once and then started eroding away at people's rights, freezing women's bank accounts and whatnot.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
was the small group of people that were in meetings with the chancellor the parliament? correct me if i'm wrong, but i thought it was much larger than that and elected by the people. given, i don't know terribly much about the british gov't, but i didn't think what was illustrated in the movie was anything like what is in place now. i assumed it was a complete rearranging of the gov't powers in a relatively short amount of time with almost no complaint from the people, presumably because they were so affraid of the virus that they would accept absolutely anything at all.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
coughHitler!Nazis!cough
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It wasn't JUST the virus, though. There were all kinds of crazy things going on, and America was tearing itself apart, too.
And I don't remember if the group of people the chancellor met with were Parliament, but I do remember them saying that they'd created the office of Chancellor.
-pH
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Was America really tearing itself apart, or was that just part of the propaganda?
If it was a lie, it looks like their media spin machine got to you too. Pretty clever folks, eh? Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I'm being brainwashed!
No, I thought there was some other mention of America having issues before that government came into major power.
-pH
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
some of the flashbacks that weren't part of the media protrayal mentioned america's war, but i thought that meant the war on iraq. but on the news they did say a bloody civil war was going on in america's midwest, but that could have been false.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I just realized something kind of ironic about this movie.
The guy that played Chancellor Sutler in V also played Winston Smith in the film adaptation of 1984.
Sometimes we're our own worst enemies, eh?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I haven't seen the movie yet, but I do plan to see it. This week, probably. That said, I want to clarify something:
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: Think pre-war Iraq. That was certainly a repressive society. Many of them had lost family members to Saddam. And the USA did a heck of a lot more than V ever did to incite a coup. But the fact is that a lot of people were comfortable with their lives. A lot of others just went about their lives in quiet resignation. And the minority who wanted to rise up knew it was impractical, even with the most powerful nation on Earth behind them (as opposed to a nut in a mask somewhere).
With all that we did to incite unrest in Iraq, we had to go in there and topple the government ourselves before even the hard-core anti-Saddamites dared join us. And after we completely dismantled the opressive regime they hardly joined the uprising unanimously, as we're still seeing much to our dismay.
So what is it about this society that makes is so radically different than Iraq and every other opressive regime in history?
An uprising took place after the first Gulf War. Saddam crushed it. Additionally, your example can't be extended to "every other oppressive regime in history," because there have been plenty of both uprisings and revolutions in human history.
I have no idea whether or not the movie is believable, because I have yet to see it, but I don't think your example works in any case.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
I didn't mean that no one in history has ever revolted. But you'll see that if you keep reading past the post you quoted (or before the post you quoted, or even everything in the post you quoted)...
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
One thing to consider that might help with the suspension of disbelief over the end scene: Perhaps at first there was just a small group of legitimate revolutionaries that actually took to the streets that night. But then once this small crowd started forming many others started showing up as well. These secondary participants might be less bold revolutionaries, they might be more or less neutral participants that just want to see what's going to happen, and are enboldened by the anonymity offered by the masks etc... and various other reasons. Riots tend to grow exponentially once they start, not necessarily from people all supporting the riots, but just cause a crowd tends to draw more and more from every angle.
At the same time you can just look at it as this: it's a movie, and it made for a very powerful scene, if 3 people showed up instead of all london it wouldn't have been nearly as powerful.
What I think is an interesting discussion would be this: What would be better for the revolution overall? 1) The existing ending without violence that showed the government's weakness and failure to both stop V and stop the citizens from violating curfew etc... 2) A violent bloodbath that further galvanizes the general populous albeit at the cost of many individual lives.
Additional points that I thought were interesting about the movie and haven't been discussed in-depth here yet:
Is V a terrorist? He does work with fear as his main tool, but since he is trying to instill fear into the government, and ideally free the general populous from fear does that qualify him as a terrorist? (assume the ideal that he never actually hurt anyone but only destroyed property, except of course those government officials that "deserved it") Keep in mind that even if you remove the title of terrorist he would still be considered a vigilante.
I think it is an interesting look into how a person can be so consumed by an ideal so as to forget actual human companionship, and how the re-discovery of that interaction can serve to soften their will and/or galvanize it depending on the situation.
In that light: if you remind a terrorist that they have a wife and children at home is that likely to discourage them from a suicide bombing because they will be losing that personal connection, or will it make them more determined in order to create a "better world" for their loved ones?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I avoided reading too much of the other stuff because I'm avoiding spoiling the movie for myself. I did read the entire post I quoted, though.
However, you were still wrong to say that there was never a revolt in Iraq. There was. Again, I'm not disputing the validity of the point -- I can't, because I haven't seen the film. All I'm saying is that the logic in the post I quoted is predicated on an invalid example.
Posted by Baron Samedi (Member # 9175) on :
Show me where I said there was never a revolt in Iraq. I said before Gulf War II people weren't ready at that time to revolt just because some stranger (America) told them to. That was the analogy to the movie I was going for, and whatever had happened in their history wasn't relevant to the topic.
The time that they had revolted before was when we had an active troop presence in the area and they thought we had their back. Again, it took more than just us saying "go for it, dudes" to set them in motion.
But I've gone through all this before. It's there if you want to read it, and I'm not going to keep repeating myself.
Posted by Bubba the Hutt (Member # 9273) on :
It has been said that V's 3 minutes speech wouldn't get the response it did. The reason it is feasible is because V said things that the people already knew as facts. He told them things they already knew in their hearts.
Also, I’m sure it had occurred to many others to revolt, he simply gave them a means by which to revolt. The masks he provided served more than just the purpose of giving people a way to support their newfound cause, but also wearing a mask gives people a sense of anonymity, freeing them to do things they normally wouldn’t do, typically things of a violent nature (take the KKK for example).
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: So what is it about this society that makes is so radically different than Iraq and every other opressive regime in history?
Baron, I think this is the quote from you that is causing much of the disconnect.
I know you've indirectly revoked this statement by saying that you don't think every situation is the same and/or just like this, but your initial statement did indirectly claim just that.
It's a valid contention that there is some question as to what would cause a society to rise up against its oppressive government. Would further opression cause more or less active unrest? (will people's outrage outweigh their fear?) Is it easier to rise up against a newly formed government or an established one? etc...
I think each situation is going to be different depending on any number of circumstances, the history and current state of the area, the state of the rest of the world etc...
The earlier failed revolt in Iraq absolutely does have an impact on why this time around the populus may not have been as receptive. Yet it can't be the only factor, as failed revolts before the French revolution didn't stop it from succeeding when the real thing came along.
I think it would be best to accept that yes, there may be some doubt as to whether this actual event would happen irl, but one also has to accept that it IS a possibility. We get glimpses of this society in a very complicated movie that has plot jam packed in everywhere possible. Maybe it's intended that V actually made weekly broadcasts to the populus. Maybe there were already other subversive organizations that latched on to V as a figurehead for their freedom fighting. Maybe society was on the very edge of revolt already, and just needed that last straw of outrage/encouragement.
Even if V only ever made the one broadcast and just blew up the Bailey prior to the end it's obvious that those acts were enough to get people somewhat unsettled... throughout the main of the movie it is seen that people are growingly dissatisfied with the government (there is frequent "V" grafiti, people are less trusting of official news, and generally growing in unrest...)
Additionally, as someone brought up before that the government seemingly has a great control over the media and could mask things such as the death of the "good" talk show host just after his controversial episode. No matter how effective the coverup is, when immediately after such a public and political statement was made, if that individual dissapeared from the public it would be noticed and people would understand at least in part what was going on. Even if they claimed that he had just been fired, it might be enough to incense people.
Basically, we know there is a lot of other stuff going on in the background that we just don't have time to fit in the movie. If every facet of the government and civil unrest was layed out it would be 12 hours long and boring, if informative.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Originally posted by Baron Samedi: There was one thing I didn't buy about the film. They seem to have vastly underestimated the power of propaganda. I don't have nearly enough faith in the public to believe that they'd hear one speech and a year of media saturation later would be ready to march on a machine-gun bearing military encampment unarmed. We're talking about people who can't consistenly decide which American Idol contestant to get behind from one week to the next, and whose opinions on political leaders are as likely to come from a Saturday Night Live sketch or a forwarded email as actual research and critical analysis.
The people in the movie apparently watched the "British Television Network" constantly. After the first incident they saw boldface lies issued on TV as facts (later refuted by more of V's activity). If you recall, the BTC began the whole story with an absolute lie, that demolition crews were responsible for destroying the Old Bailey. When V hijacked the TV, he proved this absolutely false, and I imagine people noticed. You don't give them enough credit. Furthermore, they each were mailed a mask and cape through the "British Freight Company" (currently Royal Mail?). By the end, it is pretty clear that the government is lying to them and is not to be trusted.
quote:95% of the people that saw the broadcast would have forgotten it within a week. The remainder would either have become convinced that V was evil and dangerous or would have been too scared to try anything.
No offense, but... no.
quote:I honestly don't believe that any 3-minute speech could have generated that kind of critical mass.
The whole point was that it wasn't a three minute speech that should make people rise up, it's the idea behind that, which is stronger than one man, stronger than one speech. The people of London surely on some level felt repressed, with the CCTV surveillance, curfews, soldiers everwhere. A three minute speech can just be the spark on a tinderbox of pent-up feeling.
quote:Think pre-war Iraq. That was certainly a repressive society. Many of them had lost family members to Saddam...But the fact is that a lot of people were comfortable with their lives. A lot of others just went about their lives in quiet resignation.
Iraq was a secular society. They weren't under Sharia Law like Afghanistan. While some terrible atrocities did occur--particularly to minorities--most people, like you said, were comfortable with their lives. In any case, the situation there and the fictional England in V are completely separate cases.
quote:And more importantly, if these people had such a hair-trigger, what about it would have convinced them to live another year under the iron fist of government before doing it?
The whole point of the yearlong wait was that England needed time to boil to a revolution point. There was no hair-trigger that V instantly snapped with one speech.
quote: We're talking about a guy making a 3-minute speech. He could just as easily be a government spy as a revolutionary hero.
V would have been a lousy government agent for a government so bent on controlling the unified message delivered to the people. V's actions were disastrous to that strategy, revealing its lies to the populace. Some--like Evey, who worked at BTN--already knew that the news was full of lies: "she blinks a lot when she's reporting a story that she knows is a lie."
quote:Dagonee: Were a whole lot of publicity-gaining stunts from the comic book left out of the movie?
Some. The order of events was shifted (Parliament was attacked first, then Old Bailey, then the newsroom takeover 6 months later).
quote:Baron again: It had been established how easy it was for them to explain away things like the disappearance of a television host in a completely plausible way that would not give cause for unrest.
Not in the context of the public KNOWING that they're being lied to.
quote:I won't say these people shouldn't have rioted, but I will say there's absolutely no reason anyone would have remembered V a year later with any more passion or clarity than we remember the dudes that sang "Who Let the Dogs Out."
You don't think you'd remember Osama bin Laden's face a year after 9/11 if the media didn't keep reminding you? C'mon, man!
quote:vonk: personally, i found it hardest to swallow the fascist gov't in the first place. i mean, just because there is a terrorist attack doesn't mean that the people will suspend all of their liberties and almost completely disband their gov't in order to protect themselves. i think there would have been other, more effective responses along the lines of forming alliances with other countries for protection. of course, the british gov't is the one that started the virus, but the people would have still looked elsewhere for help, instead of giving up all of their freedom. IMO of course
The US Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act just after 9/11 in such a hurry that they didn't even read it. What if a hundred thousand people had died?
Also, what England turned into after the St. Mary's virus could hardly be called a "disbanding."
quote:It has been said that V's 3 minutes speech wouldn't get the response it did. The reason it is feasible is because V said things that the people already knew as facts. He told them things they already knew in their hearts.
I think I like you, Bubba the Hutt.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:vonk: i don't really think any connection between the government in "V" and the american government, or any connection between V and OBL was intended. it was a movie about a fascist government that was overthrown.
The way I look at it, there was a definite intention on the part of the filmmakers to implicate the current America to some degree.
First, in Dietrich's gallery, you can see a poster of an American flag and a British flag joined together with a swastika and the words "Coalition of the Willing."
The movie makes reference to America's war in Iraq, as well as "future" wars in Syria and Kurdistan.
When people are disappeared in the movie, the police use black hoods similar to those made famous by the Abu Graib torture scandal.
A couple references to "Yellow" terrorist alerts
In the film, leading members of the Party own stock in the pharmaceutical companies that produce the cure/vaccine for their own created virus. Several top officials in the Bush administration own big portions of the big-pharma companies responsible for anthrax, smallpox, and the avian flu vaccine. (In particular, Donald Rumsfeld, the former CEO of G.D. Searle, a company that has since been sold to Monsanto. Rumsfeld also owns millions of dollars of stock in the company that produces Tamiflu, the avian flu vaccine that has not been shown to be effective, yet is still being pushed.)
The pill-popping pundit image seems a lot like Rush Limbaugh (coincidence?: Rush Limbaugh's show has been sponsored by "Clean Shower" shower cleaner)
The original story was a reaction to Margaret Thatcher's government, but the film clearly needs to be viewed in a contemporary context. I have a feeling that, as I've only seen the film once, I missed a bunch of relevant tiny details from the Wachowski brothers. The backgrounds of the panels in the comic were full of hints, red herrings, and allusions to literature and culture. I don't think the Wachowski brothers would have done it any differently. In fact, I wish I could compile a list of all the items in the Gallery of Shadows (and Dietrich's stash).
Remember remember the fifth of November Gunpowder, treason and plot. I see no reason why gunpowder, treason Should ever be forgot...
The movie doesn't really, as some pundits have claimed it does, glorify terrorism. It presents the viewer with a character in V and allows him or her to judge, just as Evey is forced to judge him after he reveals that he has been her captor. Evey makes the decision to accept his idea and the "freedom" he has given her. In an interview, the comic's author said:
quote:...At which point I decided that that wasn't what I wanted to say. I actually don't think it's right to kill people. So I made it very, very morally ambiguous. And the central question is, is this guy right? Or is he mad? What do you, the reader, think about this? Which struck me as a properly anarchist solution. I didn't want to tell people what to think, I just wanted to tell people to think, and consider some of these admittedly extreme little elements, which nevertheless do recur fairly regularly throughout human history. I was very pleased with how it came together. And it was a book that was very, very close to my heart.
One bit of advice from the movie: "People shouldn't be afraid of their government, government should be afraid of their people."
As a couple of you (Mostly the Baron), have said, you doubt that the public would have come to watch. Probably a sizable number people would stay home, given such a choice. I would go though, and I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one.
quote:ChrisBridges: Of course, it also reinforces the pro-conservative, anti-Bush rhetoric that's becoming more and more pervasive these days.
I just wanted to say that I didn't notice that you had said this my first time reading through the thread, and I wanted to give you a . These days a lot of cool conservatives aren't behind Bush.
(edited because I misnamed one character)
[ March 22, 2006, 01:34 AM: Message edited by: Nato ]
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
I honestly don't believe that any 3-minute speech could have generated that kind of critical mass.
"Four score and seven years ago..."
In fewer than 300 words delivered over two to three minutes, Abraham Lincoln invoked the principles of human equality and redefined the Civil War in a speech given at the dedication of a cemetary where he wasn't even the main speaker, and 243 years later people are still inspired by it.
Believe what you like. But I'd appreciate it if you'd stop underestimating people.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
The Kennedy inaugural did some work, also.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Fantastic movie.
I'm a little surprised at the Baron's skepticism in the actions of the British people.
You ask the difference between the British in this movie and other societies that have put up with repressive governments. The British people have been free for hundreds of years. They have a long history of removing dictatorial power and investing it in the people. A longer history than America in fact, on that score. It's not hard at all to believe that after a decade or two of repression, still knowing well their memories of how a free life used to be, that when someone cracks open the door they will all walk through.
Were someone to blow up the Supreme Court building then go on TV to explain that the people should all meet him at the steps of Congress the next year, and during that year assasinations happened left and right of high level officials, you wouldn't forget. Nothing can make you forget.
No matter what the plausible explanations are, when visible members of the establishment start dropping off left and right, in a government you ALREADY don't trust to begin with, you're going to wonder, and with every lie they feed you the resentment would grow stronger and stronger, until all you needed was a single match to ignite the tension, and V was the match.
It's not hard to believe the people would gather, anymore than it was easy to believe that people gathered in Chicago in I, Robot to fight the robots who'd taken over the city. Or hard to believe that protestors gathered in Alabama to protest segregation and racism.
Posted by Shepherd (Member # 7380) on :
I loved that part in I robot, when they all have like bats, moltov cocktails and chains, and your just thinking, "MORONS!!!, They're robots who can throw cars, your not going to win this one! GET SOME GUNS!!!"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
A lot of them had guns. They mowed down the front line of robots, but there was a surprisingly small amount of people with guns in Chicago. Might have been a sign of the times though, it was Chicago in the future, maybe they'd cleaned up the crime problem and less people had guns.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
. I think they did a pretty good job of him 'conducting' the Old Bailey's destruction-the bit of him laughing while it goes up is good, too.![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Well said!
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
I'm being brainwashed!