V for Vendetta

[Darth Tater]

Hello, in many ways this story is extreme right wing. That is, it expresses the ideas of Nock, Rothbard and others. One thing I am reminded of is why the gun rights are so important and that its not that the system is broken because the 'wrong' people are in charge but that the system is the problem.

[Art Monk Fan]

It's hard to say without having seen the film, but, regardless of the fact the comic is 20 years old, the film was just made. If the film was adapted in such a way to make overt connections between the fictitious fascist government and the current administration, then AFC has a point. But again, it's hard to tell this without first seeing the movie.

Schluessel's critical reading of the movie, BTW, is no less plausible than the attacks from the left on something as innocent as the Lion King. Remember that it was denounced for showing the villains all as minorities (Scar, they argued, was obviously gay, while the hyenas were Black [Whoopie Goldberg] and Hispanic [Cheech Marin]) and showing the lionesses as falling into decay without the leadership of a straight man (first Mufasa and later Simba).

Literary analysis is almost always agenda-driven these days, from both sides.

:2cents:

[The Evil Genius]

Lock up Skywalker. Who knows how many government contractor he killed when he blew up the unfinished death star.

And we all know that by using the Force, the jedis were trying to ridicule Christianity.

Osama would be proud!

[Big Weirdo]

Is Skywalker liberal? I never knew. I always figured him to be a moderate.

[Darth Tater]

No, Who Del

The moderates would have been the empire.

[Mooka]

are you kidding me? there have been plenty of bad reviews for it..

YAY! let's all support the terrorists who blow up the English Parliament!

Funny AF, I didn't see anything about the actual movie in those reviews; just a buncha politcial nonsense.

[Big Weirdo]

No, Who Del

The moderates would have been the empire.

I understand now. The force is strong within you, Darth Tater. I can sense it.

[Skins24]

:laugh:

Take a guess as to why there haven't been any credible people saying what your and debbie are saying AFC....

Schluessel's critical reading of the movie, BTW, is no less plausible than the attacks from the left on something as innocent as the Lion King. Remember that it was denounced for showing the villains all as minorities (Scar, they argued, was obviously gay, while the hyenas were Black [Whoopie Goldberg] and Hispanic [Cheech Marin]) and showing the lionesses as falling into decay without the leadership of a straight man (first Mufasa and later Simba).

So what did they say about Mufasa being voiced by James Earl Jones?

[TradeTheBeal!]

I understand now. The force is strong within you, Darth Tater. I can sense it.

Star Trek Rules!

Star Wars Drools!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

It's hard to say without having seen the film, but, regardless of the fact the comic is 20 years old, the film was just made. If the film was adapted in such a way to make overt connections between the fictitious fascist government and the current administration, then AFC has a point. But again, it's hard to tell this without first seeing the movie.

Schluessel's critical reading of the movie, BTW, is no less plausible than the attacks from the left on something as innocent as the Lion King. Remember that it was denounced for showing the villains all as minorities (Scar, they argued, was obviously gay, while the hyenas were Black [Whoopie Goldberg] and Hispanic [Cheech Marin]) and showing the lionesses as falling into decay without the leadership of a straight man (first Mufasa and later Simba).

Literary analysis is almost always agenda-driven these days, from both sides.

:2cents:

That's a good post. People are free to interpret stories and movies any way they'd like.

[Art Monk Fan]

:laugh:

So what did they say about Mufasa being voiced by James Earl Jones?

Obviously a hole in their theory -- just one more reason to ridicule the whole idea.

[Destino]

It's hard to say without having seen the film, but, regardless of the fact the comic is 20 years old, the film was just made. If the film was adapted in such a way to make overt connections between the fictitious fascist government and the current administration, then AFC has a point. But again, it's hard to tell this without first seeing the movie.

Schluessel's critical reading of the movie, BTW, is no less plausible than the attacks from the left on something as innocent as the Lion King. Remember that it was denounced for showing the villains all as minorities (Scar, they argued, was obviously gay, while the hyenas were Black [Whoopie Goldberg] and Hispanic [Cheech Marin]) and showing the lionesses as falling into decay without the leadership of a straight man (first Mufasa and later Simba).

Literary analysis is almost always agenda-driven these days, from both sides.

:2cents:

"from the left?" Who on the left actually presented that crap as a plausible review? There are academic papers written on all pop culture aimed at pointing out hidden signs of bias even pornography. That is what you do in certain classes in college - you look deeper and try to find arguments to make about society.

This isn't an academic piece aimed at evidence of social bias - this is a review asking that you not see the picture because it is purposefully aimed at insulting our country, our government, and promoting terrorism. There is a difference between literary analysis - which must have an agenda, to this political swipe.

The differences are exposed when the writer asks you not to see the film.

Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are Nazis?

You familiar with too much literary analysis that asks you to never view the source material?

[Art Monk Fan]

"from the left?" Who on the left actually presented that crap as a plausible review?

I believe it came out of Harvard and ran in the NY Times. I'll see if I can find a link for you.

There are academic papers written on all pop culture aimed at pointing out hidden signs of bias even pornography. That is what you do in certain classes in college - you look deeper and try to find arguments to make about society.

This isn't an academic piece aimed at evidence of social bias - this is a review asking that you not see the picture because it is purposefully aimed at insulting our country, our government, and promoting terrorism. There is a difference between literary analysis - which must have an agenda, to this political swipe.

The differences are exposed when the writer asks you not to see the film.

Think about our troops fighting and dying in Iraq, before you decide to give your dollars to this film. Do you really think they are Nazis?

You familiar with too much literary analysis that asks you to never view the source material?

I'm a grad student in English Lit. so I read a lot of literary criticism. And yes, it is very politcal these days and often purposely outrageous -- the more outlandish, the more likley you'll get published.

And yes again, some P.C. departments will advise you against ever exposing yourself to certian materials and points of view. It's sad, but true.

[Burgold]

I'm not sure, but some of this "It's a rightwing political bash movie" sounds like the thoughts of a person or group with a guilty conscience. The guilt forms a paranoia in which you think everything negative refers to your groups actions. If you see every act of evil as one that reflects the group you support, you should perhaps reflect on why you are supporting that group.

[Destino]

I believe it came out of Harvard and ran in the NY Times. I'll see if I can find a link for you.

I don't doubt it was every written. As I said these kinds of things are common place in college. They are argument papers that are done at least partly to teach or engage in critical thinking.

I'm a grad student in English Lit. so I read a lot of literary criticism. And yes, it is very politcal these days and often purposely outrageous -- the more outlandish, the more likley you'll get published.

And yes again, some P.C. departments will advise you against ever exposing yourself to certian materials and points of view. It's sad, but true.

Do you think that PC departments that present this mindset are crossing the line from academic arguments to political statements? I do. The purpose of a literary analysis is to see the same work in a different light - thus we can read many different takes on the same work. One that argues the source shouldn't be viewed goes against the whole purpose and acts to restrict critical thinking and open discussion.

[Air Force Cane]

Really? Schlussel and I are the ONLY ONES bringing up these issues?

Try to do a google search before betraying your ignorance. I can post all day long articles bringing up the same points I have made. If you are too biased to see it that's your problem.

Here is a LEFTIST stating proudly that it is a hit piece on the current US government:

www.chud.com

"It’s shocking that a film like V For Vendetta, in which the hero can be described in no other terms but terrorist, has been made by a major movie studio, which is itself a part of a major, world-dominating corporation. Either the folks at Warner Bros and Time-Warner weren’t paying a lot of attention or they just don’t think that a movie will make any bit of difference at this point. I couldn’t disagree more, and I have to tell you that if I was still actively working as a political organizer I would be standing outside theaters showing V and handing out anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War pamphlets to exiting moviegoers. Sure, this film is about a fictional fascist state that denies its people basic liberties and makes them live in fear, and sure it’s set in the London of the future, but there’s no hiding the fact that the film’s timeline is one that begins today."

[jrockster21]

Man...the righties are getting so paranoid these days. Attacking a science fiction film?? Holy crap. That is on McCarthy-istic levels.

[Air Force Cane]

to avoid spam I won't post about 20 more links restating the premise.

It would take a fringe ideologue to believe that this movie, made by a transvestite director dating a former porn star does not have political overtones.

from another leftist website: www.mydd.com

"V for Vendetta may be--why hedge? is--the most subversive cinematic deed of the Bush-Blair era, a dagger poised in midair. Unlike the other movies dubbed “controversial” (Fahrenheit 9-11, The Passion, Munich, Syriana), it doesn’t play to a particular constituency or polarized culture bloc, it’s working on a deeper, Edger Allen Poe-ish witch’s brew substrata of pop myth. Cultural conservatives will loathe it without seeing it (they love not having to leave their houses to lament the latest installment of civilization’s decline and fall) once they hear of and read about the movie’s disturbing political parallels (a fascistic TV host with a witty resemblance to Berlusconi, fertilizer explosives a la Timothy McVeigh; torture, renditions, and subway bombings; black hoods that will be forever associated with Abu Ghraib). Yet lots of cultural liberals with educated tastes will find it anxiety-producing and irresponsible too, not only because they’re more comfortable with humanistic stories and documentary techniques than with pop spectacle (as Kael discovered whenever she praised upstart movies like DePalma’s Carrie or The Warriors and received letters from profs and Ph.D couples complaining about her soiling the New Yorker’s space on trash), but because V for Vendetta doesn’t just depict a 1984’s dystopia--it advocates radical remedy, and illustrates what it advocates with rhapsodic, operatic, orgasmic flourish."

Do you still want to maintain this is NOT a political piece- and I am the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who believes it is?

If so, I can keep posting all day long articles that agree with me..

[Burgold]

I think he doth protest too much.

[Destino]

Really? Schlussel and I are the ONLY ONES bringing up these issues?

Try to do a google search before betraying your ignorance. I can post all day long articles bringing up the same points I have made. If you are too biased to see it that's your problem.

Here is a LEFTIST stating proudly that it is a hit piece on the current US government:

You pointing out the opinions of wingnuts - and calling everyone else bias. Irony at it's finest.

You know in truth I'm not the least bit surprised that leftist wingnuts see a fascist state as representative of the US. They've been crying fascism for years and have convinced themselves that the US is some sort of police state. That we the people have all been fooled and that the government boogymanis behind every act of violence and that it is all aimed at forcing us to vote for them. Complete and total lunacy.

What surprised me is to see the right wing jump on the same band wagon in this case. To agree with leftist wingnuts that a piece of fiction written a good while back - is representative of the US. The US is a free country my friend - fascism is not welcomed here.

I'm wondering if maybe you don't find right wing fascism all that alarming - because if that was the case then your objection would make sense. Burgold made a good point - "If you see every act of evil as one that reflects the group you support, you should perhaps reflect on why you are supporting that group."

[SkinInsite]

Was there an uproar when the comic came out 20 years ago?

The script probably was written 5 years ago.

The movie was filmed 2 years ago.

And now all the wingnuts come when it's going to be released?

[jrockster21]

It would take a fringe ideologue to believe that this movie, made by a transvestite director dating a former porn star does not have political overtones.

Dude, you have some serious issues, AFC.

Do you still want to maintain this is NOT a political piece- and I am the ONLY PERSON IN THE WORLD who believes it is?

If so, I can keep posting all day long articles that agree with me..

You and the rest of the political whackos (right and left).

[Prosperity]

If AFC says one thing, you would do well to do the opposite, he is wrong atleast 90% of the time.

[TradeTheBeal!]

Really? Schlussel and I are the ONLY ONES bringing up these issues?

Try to do a google search before betraying your ignorance. I can post all day long articles bringing up the same points I have made. If you are too biased to see it that's your problem.

Here is a LEFTIST stating proudly that it is a hit piece on the current US government:

www.chud.com

"It’s shocking that a film like V For Vendetta, in which the hero can be described in no other terms but terrorist, has been made by a major movie studio, which is itself a part of a major, world-dominating corporation. Either the folks at Warner Bros and Time-Warner weren’t paying a lot of attention or they just don’t think that a movie will make any bit of difference at this point. I couldn’t disagree more, and I have to tell you that if I was still actively working as a political organizer I would be standing outside theaters showing V and handing out anti-Bush and anti-Iraq War pamphlets to exiting moviegoers. Sure, this film is about a fictional fascist state that denies its people basic liberties and makes them live in fear, and sure it’s set in the London of the future, but there’s no hiding the fact that the film’s timeline is one that begins today."

I fear you may have been educated in excess of your intellect. You need to restrict your access to additional information as you are failing to process it thoroughly. As a result, defining yourself by what you can't understand instead of what is real. Buy a dog and a frisbee and go to the beach, seriously.

[TheREALJBird]

I have no aspiration whatsoever to see this movie