Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Movie Mix

Anarchism, Hollywood-Style

By Anthony Kaufman, AlterNet. Posted March 17, 2006.


'V for Vendetta' is a pro-revolutionary, action-adventure romp that makes other political films look like 'Little House on the Prairie.'
vendetta
v for vendetta poster
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

If Andy and Larry Wachowski's "The Matrix" trilogy turned millions of Americans on to cyberpunk culture and postmodern theory, then "V for Vendetta," the brothers' latest project (which opens today), might just do the same for out-and-out revolution.

Conceived by the Wachowskis and directed by their longtime assistant director James McTeigue, "Vendetta" is a pop-culture attack on the current administration's multiple injustices -- a big-budget call to rebellion from deep inside the belly of conglomerate Time Warner. Warner Bros.' film unit already got flack from conservatives for releasing "Syriana," "Good Night and Good Luck" and Palestinian suicide-bomber portrait "Paradise Now," but just you wait: "V for Vendetta" is a pro-revolutionary action-adventure romp that makes those films look like "Little House on the Prairie."

In perhaps the most glaring and controversial example of Hollywood's refusal to toe the Bush party line, "Vendetta's" hero is a terrorist -- a violent rebel on a mission to destroy his corrupt government in a blaze of explosives. Is this irresponsible? Does it glamorize terrorism? Perhaps. But for many progressives, whose anti-war protests have fallen on deaf ears and whose activism has been squashed by the powers-that-be, "V for Vendetta" should feel almost cathartic.

Set in the year 2020, "V for Vendetta" takes place in a fascistic London, some time after "America's war grew worse and worse," as one character narrates, "when unfamiliar words like 'collateral' and 'rendition' became frightening." The government is a cross between a full-blown totalitarian state and the current administration's scare tactics: with constant surveillance, a citywide "yellow-coded curfew" that instills paranoia and restricts nighttime movement, and a menacing band of secret police called "Fingermen" who patrol the streets and harass the citizens.

When we first meet Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman), she's about to pay the price for violating the city curfew when a mysterious masked stranger saves her from the authorities with an array of flying swords. Evey's savior is V, an erudite, Shakespeare-quoting burn victim who has literally adopted both the mask and the mission of long-ago subversive Guy Fawkes, who in 1605 plotted to destroy Parliament with 36 barrels of gunpowder. With the help of the young, pretty Evey (the daughter of "activist" parents abducted and killed by the government), V plans to carry out Fawkes' dreams of violent insurrection. "Blowing up a building," he tells her, "can change the world."

If there's any question about the film's political targets, "Vendetta" opens with a ridiculously racist and homophobic screed by Prothero, the Bill O'Reilly-like "Voice of London" who speaks on what appears to be the country's only television channel. "The former United States is the world's biggest leper colony," he spits. "And it wasn't because of the immigrants, the Muslims or the homosexuals, or the war that they started. No," he says. "It's because they're Godless!"

In contrast to Edward R. Murrow's famous signoff of "Good night and good luck," the nasty Prothero ends his ultraconservative broadcasts with the jingoistic "England prevails."

This isn't subtle stuff. In a blatant nod to George Orwell's "1984," "Vendetta's" U.K. is ruled by Chancellor Sutler, a vituperative, "deeply religious conservative" seen Big Brother-like on a large television screen (and played by John Hurt, "1984's" ill-fated everyman). Sutler's ruling philosophy is the politics of fear. "We will show him what terror really looks like," he screams after V's arrival onto the scene.

Sutler's reign also involves media spin and propaganda, a la the Newspeak of "1984." When events begin to spiral out of control, Sutler declares that the government must make the people realize "why they need us," followed by panic-inducing reports of everything from civil war to avian flu. Sound familiar?

Like any classic comic superhero myth, "Vendetta" also provides an origin story for V, which is gradually glimpsed in flashbacks and a police investigation into his past. And not unlike the secret nuclear-testing that spawned Godzilla, or the class oppression that cultivated so many angry inner-city zombies (see "Land of the Dead"), V's transformation into a vengeful killer was the result of a crass abuse of state power involving (spoiler alert) a government plan to create a biological weapon with the help of a nefarious pharmaceutical company. If the political notion of "blowback" ever needed a poster child, V would be it.

And "V for Vendetta" isn't just about political revolt -- it's also about sexual revolution. After being captured and placed in an interrogation cell, Evey reads letters from a fellow prisoner, Valerie, a young woman who came out of the closet and embraced a forbidden lesbian love affair that landed her and her lover in similarly brutal confines. Another sympathetic character conceals his homosexual identity. And however ruthless V may be, he too is sexually ambiguous -- an effete hero who hides behind a mask, loves "The Count of Monte Cristo," melancholy music, cooking and dancing ("A revolution without dancing is a revolution not worth having," he tells Evey, paraphrasing the slogan of anarchist Emma Goldman as he yearns for a whirl).

The movie's sexual politics are also brought to the fore in a quotation heard over the end-credit music: "This is no simple reform," a woman says. "It really is a revolution. Sex and race, because they are easy and visible differences, have been the primary ways of organizing human beings into superior and inferior groups and into the cheap labor in which this system still depends." The voice belongs to feminist powerhouse Gloria Steinem.

Above all, "Vendetta" should be enjoyed as the first true anarchist movie Hollywood has ever made. Film historians speak fondly of the paranoid cycle of American cinema in the 1960s and '70s ("The Manchurian Candidate," "Three Days of the Condor," "The Parallax View") or the countercultural anti-heroic outlaws of "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Badlands," but nowhere in mainstream U.S. cinema -- and certainly not post-9/11 -- has there been a pop-culture phenomenon that advocates not only overthrowing a corrupt government, but blowing it up. As the film's tagline states, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

Anthony Kaufman has written about films and the film industry for the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune and Utne magazine.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Another movie based on a comic
Posted by: techphile on Mar 17, 2006 12:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
V is based on a british comic book that ran through the 80s. There were 10 volumes in all. t was alright.

In the graphic novel Evey's dad was a socialist and she was almost raped and murdered for comitting the crime of prostitution.

Lastly the comic book was set in a post nuclear apocalytic world

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Another movie based on a comic Posted by: The Damned Yankee
Ambiguous sexuality?
Posted by: mazur on Mar 17, 2006 2:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...loves "The Count of Monte Cristo," melancholy music, cooking and dancing...
Brrr. It seems that the modern idea of male is equated to machism. Why can't a perfectly straight male like to dance (remember before 50's) or cook (almost every Chinese of any sex can cook)? I have the impression that unreasonable or merely stupid societal expectations are to blame for many "conversions" to homo. Suppose a young man likes to dance -- everyone looks at him askance and thinks he's homo, and he begins to think so too... and it's hip and fashionable as well, whereas the sexual pleasure as such is little different.

Got to see the film, though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: bsbremmer
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: mazur
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: Samantha Vimes
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: TagsNOLA
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: ethanay
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: ethanay
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: JimTheAnarchist
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: ethanay
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: xaocoh
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: mazur
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: Ambiguous sexuality? Posted by: vivachavez
support for the mass evolution
Posted by: Jackrabbit on Mar 17, 2006 2:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have yet to see the movie though I am beyond excited having been changed forever by the Alan Moore written graphic novel which reveals all the underpining of a fascist state.
This is a brilliant move for the Matrix makers to bring individualism and revolt to a level of mass consumption, we can only hope that we are witnessing a revolution of representation through the mass media to create the possibility for true regime change...
-Paradox

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

give me, please, a break
Posted by: Daniel Shays on Mar 17, 2006 3:16 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, an anarchists movie starring one of the box offices' brightest young starlets, financed by one of the largest corporations in the media arm of the militaral industrial complex. My gosh, I honestly would have thought that was the antithesis of anarchism, but shoot, what would I know about anarchism compared to some fella who writes for the NY TIMES.

It's a big dog and pony show. The movie corporation gets to be edgy and controversial and the conservatives employed by subsidiaries of the very same corporation will have something convenient to rail against, to point at and say "See how liberal and out to lunch the Hollywood elite are?" And the hollywood elite and the assorted liberal dumbasses who identify with them will feel smug and self-congratulatory, merely for accomplishing the rebelious act of paying ten bucks to watch a movie. Meanwhile the real world for billions of workers everywhere will become even more grim and perilous.

Maybe it's a good movie and will get some people thinking. But it is, principally, a big-budget mechanism that obscenely squandered a tremendous amounts of resourses, all for the purpose of helping Time Warner garner and even more obscene share of the earth's resources than they already control.

Go ahead and enjoy your escapist humor, liberal. But try to reist the temptation to slap yourself on the back for being such a radical, anarchist sympathiser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: Roverton
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: nothreat
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: mwildfire
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: blingnet88
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: Vedauwoo
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: ethanay
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: Daniel Shays
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: vivachavez
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: ethanay
» RE: give me, please, a break Posted by: deusvolt
A great movie with a call to act.
Posted by: Treksta820@yahoo.com on Mar 17, 2006 3:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This movie is going to be a big hit in the Portland, Or. area. There are alot of people like myself who are tired of the Evil tactics of the current Government, FDA, Big Pharma, and so on. I don't know if it will spark the next Revolution, but It should wake some more people from the, "MATRIX".

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe brave for Hollywood, but with limitations
Posted by: Mal Burns on Mar 17, 2006 3:52 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
V was indeed a comic strip originally published here in Britain in a magazine called "Warrior" (late 1970s and early 1980s). It was a landmark series at the time and warned of the dangers in what was then the politics of "Thatcherism". I had been looking forward to the movie (still unseen as yet - but I can't resist and will) until finding this url...
Alan Moore article

Therein, the original author, Alan Moore (for whom I have great admiration and respect) suggests that many of the darker elements and subtexts have been altered, with the resulting movie bearing little resemblence to the original story. He has vitually disowned it!

A sad state of affairs in the creative world, I suspect that whatever new form the story has taken is still to be commended, especially given the involvement of those behind "The Matrix" trilogy. Still, I feel readers should check out the link and hear what Alan has to say before entering the audiovisual emporium.

Mal Burns

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Isn't there more to Anarchism
Posted by: NIKUZAI on Mar 17, 2006 4:04 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have I missed something here? For a second I thought the article viewed any madman with a bomb as an Anarchist? Those who want to overthrow the State are 'revolutionaries' and not *automatically* 'Anarchist'. Maybe I'm being petty, but then maybe the article is trying to hype this Hollywood blockbuster or a version of Anarchy-lite?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Isn't there more to Anarchism Posted by: onlyhappywhenitrains
» RE: Isn't there more to Anarchism Posted by: dangerouslysane
» RE: Isn't there more to Anarchism Posted by: vivachavez
» The rich don't want anarchy! Posted by: chomsky
Good Lord, it's the Scarlet Pimpernel out of the closet
Posted by: jrmart66 on Mar 17, 2006 5:51 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
ok as escapist fare, it can't be any worse than The Terminator, or any Stallone flick, but the timing could actually be dangerous in that some lunkhead might think "hey, there's an idea" and go out and blow up a McDonalds.
If one MUST blow something up, perhaps the Time/Warner studios would be a good place to start.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I only wish it had been set in a future U.S.
Posted by: zooeyhall on Mar 17, 2006 7:50 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am glad that a movie like this is coming out. However, I only wish that it had been set in future fascist/religious U.S. Even thought the story has its origins in the U.K., given the current state of America it would have been more plausible here. Especially for those of us living here in the belly of the Beast (I am in rural Nebraska, which is even worse--if possible--more like living in its colon) having it set in the US would have been better.

I think that doing this, however, would have been too much for Warner---they knew it would have led to a storm of right-wing denunciations. So they hedged their bet by setting it in another country.

Rightly or wrongly, I still consider the U.K. to be a much more progressive place then the U.S. Lots of Brits will probably disagree with me on this, but if you could hear and see some of the incredible attitudes out here in the Midwestern U.S. you would agree with me.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Nooooo! Posted by: Allison
» RE: Nooooo! Posted by: zipper696
Anarchism
Posted by: Chuck0 on Mar 17, 2006 1:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Most anarchists I know are looking forward to seeing this film. Anarchists in different cities have been organizing groups to go see the movie. Yes, the movie was made by Hollywood, but let's chill out about that folks. There are many things wrong with Hollywood, but there are also many talented folks putting out movies like this.

I can't complain if hot stars such as Natalie Portman are portraying anarchists. It's about time that we got some positive treatment by the big media.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

the real question is...
Posted by: Ghoulman on Mar 17, 2006 2:04 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... will Alan Moore bother to see the flick? ;p

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Anarchist films
Posted by: onlyhappywhenitrains on Mar 18, 2006 3:23 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I've not yet seen V for Vendetta (don't forget to read the original comic book by Alan Moore and David Lloyd!) - but I have just watched The Anarchist Cookbook (2002). While watching it I wasn't sure exactly what it thought it was about, nor whether it was a good portrait of anarchism or not. But by the end I thoroughly enjoyed it - it is a very funny, very original, very interesting dark comedy. It works on several levels - political allegory and slapstick side by side. And reading this interview with writer/director Jordan Susman made it clearer where he was coming from with the film:

'"Animal House, Battle of Algiers and Duck Soup," Susman replies when asked what films influenced his script for Anarchist'

(The notorious Cookbook is not really that central to the film as a whole).

So, any other recommendations for films about or embodying anarchism?

Here's hoping that V for Vendetta at least sparks off greater public interest in anarchist ideas. No gods, no masters!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

what?
Posted by: Daniel Shays on Mar 18, 2006 3:56 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have an awful smug, cocky tone for somebody making such a stupid, inane point. You pretty clearly have problems with your reading comprehension skills, because nothing I wrote implies any sort of causal relationship between ten dollar movie prices and the continuing downward spiral for the planet and society. All I said was that a bunch of people paying Time Warner ten dollars to see an "anarchist" movie was going to do nothing to meaningfully improve anything in the world.

I'm assuming you aren't actually illiterate, but merely were chomping at the bit to attack my post, and so conveniently seized on some aspect of it that could be misrepresented. Fortunately for me, you even quoted what I wrote, though, so anybody able to navigate written English at a fifth or sixth grade level can see for themselves that I didn't imply any causal connection at all.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Puh-leez
Posted by: aakeeler on Mar 18, 2006 9:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the NY Times review: "The more valid question is how anyone who isn't 14 or under could possibly mistake a corporate bread-and-circus entertainment like this for something subversive."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Valid changes
Posted by: ceti on Mar 18, 2006 10:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The graphic novel itself is a bit unwieldy. From what I've heard some of the main criticism of the movie is that it has been too faithful to the comic in that there is too much expository dialogue. Well, if people come expecting to see an action flic but are then exposed to some big ideas, it's all for the good. I myself liked the ponderous dialogue scenes in the Matrix more than the action segments which got repetitive and went way overboard.

Also, the background changes are valid. Things have changed (or have they?) since the early 80s when the comic first came out!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Valid changes Posted by: dangerouslysane
Another left wing wet dream!
Posted by: dikaiosyne on Mar 19, 2006 6:43 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess the left wing anti-war movement can use this film to vicariously live out their fantasy of a takeover of neo-con America. It will probably make a little money due more to gratuitous violence andwatching a Hollywood starlet get her locks shorn from her well rounded head..... and perhaps a nude scene to boot? Just as with the spate of anti-establishment cinematic screeds of late. They'll get some accolades from their peers and perhaps a few awards and then fall into obscurity. A few folks will rent DVD's from the local Blockbuster or Netflix. It will generate a little outrage from the right and then all will be as it was. The right rules and the left spews.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

shinyfish
Posted by: shinyfish on Mar 20, 2006 9:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"Uneasiness and fear grip our hearts, we seek and find their presumed cause outside us" Herman Hesse, "A Child's Heart"

Vedauwoo, Money does not drive the world. Look deeper.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

first 'true' anarchist movie
Posted by: patriot9 on Mar 20, 2006 12:58 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
...perhaps, with one huge flaw: no serious anarchist philosopher or practitioner is concerned with violence. In reality, anarchists support a world where human interaction is organized around the principles of freedom from coercion (violence is clearly coercive) and cooperation or mutual aid among all members of a community.

There is an excellent site established specifically to respond to this movie: http://aforanarchy.com/

Don't let hollywood tell you what to think - Educate yourself!
http://infoshop.org/

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

umm...
Posted by: trianglej on Mar 20, 2006 7:25 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
'As the film's tagline states, "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."'

Umm... if an ideal government is self-government (or lack thereof), then wouldn't we be afraid of ourselves?

perhaps this has greater philosophical ramifications than originally intended...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: umm... Posted by: GypsyIntent
smo-q
Posted by: smo-q on Mar 20, 2006 8:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have just seen V. I was moved. You are all welcome to be as cynical as you'ld like, and dismiss this film because it was backed by coporate behemoth Warner Bros, but as stated in the film, words and ideas are hard to kill. Many words and ideas are presented in this film which will open some eyes, and start minds to thinking about the actions of their media and governments. For this alone the film is priceless.

There are several self professed "right wing" people who have chimed in on this thread. To them I have 2 things to say: 1. It is stated quite clearly in either the preamble of the United States Constitution, or the Declaration of independance (my ignorance in not knowing which does in no way negate it's truth) that We the People of The United States of America possess not only the God given right but the OBLIGATION to overthrow our government if it no longer serves We the Peoples best interests. It should be clear to anyone who still retains the ability to think objectively that our government has sold us down the river in favor of the so called "elite" ie. coporations, central banks, etc. It is indeed time to take back OUR country. 2. To all of you conservatives, or so called "neo-cons" (the new con) your days are numbered. "to everything there is a season", and yours too will one day come to a close. Nothing is forever. Just for clarification I do not call my self a "lefty" or a liberal I am a registered and proud Libertarian.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: smo-q Posted by: GypsyIntent
» RE: smo-q Posted by: funtime42
» RE: smo-q Posted by: PmK
Interesting to Note
Posted by: GypsyIntent on Mar 21, 2006 10:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Natalie Portman, who played the heroine of this movie, was stopped by police officers when trying to cross a tunnel in New York City. Israeli born and with a shaved head, she apparantely looked suspect enough that she was actually asked to take the bridge instead of the tunnel. How that makes sense I am not sure, but I do think it is quite ironic, given that the reason for her shaved head was her role in this movie, which clearly is denouncing this nation's culture of fear and overzealous and misguided attempts at attaining "security". I believe this simply would not have happened 9.10.01 or before.

This is not my beautiful home, this is not my beautiful country. "Self...How did I get here?"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I'm sick of puritanism.
Posted by: Patches Anarchie on Mar 21, 2006 10:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Let me start with this: I didn't like "V", and I feel that for the most part, it is meaningless -- to Anarchists, and to the the world at large.

But I'm sick and tired of people dismissing anything pushed by a corporation. I'm sick of this idea that something must be made by disorganized, penniless youths to be truly Anarchistic. That dogmatism is for fascists, commies, and Christians. Anarchists take everything case by case, and look at it from every angle.

Listen! The film echoed current themes. It spoke of rising up, and the power of people. It spoke of fear-driven governments. But the message I was left with was this: War=Bad Democracy=Good Shit-Blowing-Up=Cool. It means very little, and will probably spark self-congragulatory liberal debate and a much larger conservative backlash, and even larger corporate profits.

AND I CAN DEFINITELY RELATE TO THOSE WHO ARE PISSED ABOUT HAVING THE IDEAS WHICH YOU BELIEVE IN CARELESSLY THROWN AROUND IN A WATERED-DOWN FASHION. THEN USED BY A FASCIST CORPORATION TO MAKE A HUGE PROFIT.

That being said, I see my comrades at eachother's throats over who's more borgeois. Throwing all consideration out the window over the petty quasi-religious anarchopunk mantra: "If it was in any way connected with big-business, it is worthless". Maybe you don't know what an artist is, or what a corporation is. An artist is someone who wants to express him/herself, and be appreciated by the greatest number of people, with as little personal compromise as possible. As an Anarchist, I could not say that I would go to a corporate label to get my music to the masses, if it were practical. And a revolutionary? A revolutionary has the exact same goal, with more emphasis on not compromising. And the corporation is the same. They want to make they greatest profit, with as little compromise as possible. They don't want to publish anti-capitalistic works, but if public demand corresponds, they'll do it.

So, it is very possible for a great work to squeak pass the capitalist dam.

I don't wanna hear this "you've got a computer, you're no anarchist", "it was funded by a corporation, the writer's work means nothing", "how much were your shoes? where'd you buy your coat?" regressive bullshit.

Go pay 6 bux to see the movie! Your six means nothing on top of the billions they make! Revolution won't come with the long-term abstention of revenues from %1 of the population. It'll come by the decisive actions of the masses. Get out there! See. Discuss. Experience.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe?
Posted by: Patches Anarchie on Mar 21, 2006 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That quote isn't necessarily contradictory to an Anarchist theme depending on what that is meant to say.

Anarchists believe that the state's role is to keep people from understanding that they don't need the State. Therefore, their realization is a threat to State power and government's should fear their people.

In all likelihood he meant it in a democratic, pro-statist fashion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Maybe?
Posted by: Patches Anarchie on Mar 21, 2006 10:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
That quote isn't necessarily contradictory to an Anarchist theme depending on what that is meant to say.

Anarchists believe that the state's role is to keep people from understanding that they don't need the State. Therefore, their realization is a threat to State power and government's should fear their people.

In all likelihood he meant it in a democratic, pro-statist fashion.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Watch out for the slanderers.
Posted by: yorimoto on Mar 23, 2006 1:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The movie is only so-so but it retains some of the powerful messages from the book which is one of the greatest most compelling graphic novels ever written. What I hope will happen is that everyone will read the book now. Trust me even if you never read "comic books" you'll enjoy this. It is actually on par with some of the great works of fiction of the last couple decades and it is dead serious. Everyone watch out though for the slander starting to be heaped on it by the right and the chickensh*t alarmist media. TIME defenders of the status quo that they are,twisted the story and its message all to hell. Calling it a story about a TERRORIST every chance they got and implying that V runs around London just blowing stuff up at random. If a person escaped a concentration camp after watching thousends of people be murderd and then started blowing up Nazi government buildings and symbols of power while at the same time harming few if any civilians, the only ones who would call him a terrorist would be the Nazis. Without giving much away that is a very apt comparison to V's story. Now compare that to real terrorists blowing up hotels shrines and commuter trains trying to cause as much carnage as possible and it's obvious to any thinking person that V's not trying to spread terror. He's just fighting a brutal facsist government with no respect for the individual. What would TIME have him do? Start a letter writing campain? Anyway please read the book. Go out of your way to. It's such a beautiful and powerful story. It can open your eyes and your heart.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dumb as ever
Posted by: PmK on Mar 23, 2006 11:27 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This dude does not know what he is talking about. Number one, Bush does not have Secret Police but a left wing theory *cough communism* did. These liberals always want to point toward the wire tapping and Bush lately but they don't want to talk about Jimmy Carter wiretapping. Also, these people so misunderstand what anarchism is that they use it willy-nilly.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Epiphanies, from a Hollywood movie? W0W.
Posted by: Monde on Apr 3, 2006 12:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
TO THOSE who mock this flick for the 'hypocrisy' of it coming from one of the Big Six media congloms, to those who mock it for simple-mndedness, for deviation from Alan Moore's script, I must say - I never dreamed I'd ever have to disagree with you before for any of these reasons. But I do. And here's why.

Warner ran this movie. There had to be a reason. If they bought our revolution and commodified it, SO WHAT. I came to realise it doesn't matter. It can work for us. Some folks only pay attention when it's simple, sexy, exciting, and most of all: non-didactic.

The fact that movie wasn't banned means the neocons are terrified of it. They get very, very quiet about anything that scares them - ever notice that? But just you watch. Warner is a BIG metacorp. Metacorps own our government. Warner, by running this film, sent a message to Washington: Stop it with the torture, the fascism, the totalitarian hubris and threats and terror. People aren't liking this. They are realising that a government can create a disease and then offer us the cure - which is just as bad or worse.

Even if the motive in this happening is only because dead people and people imprisoned in camps and those who know anyone killed or imprisoned by their own government do not make good customers...it hardly matters. The point is that it WAS DONE.

And V for Vendetta is my new favourite movie of all time, winding its intelligence deftly around the pop culture so well the seam-lines don't always show. Genius. I forgive the Wachowskis for those awful Matrix sequels.

The time for speaking truth to power is finished and the time to wreak power FROM truth is now. Time for strikes, not marches, and by "strikes" remember what can be meant is refusal to participate, not necessarily "violent" strikes as took place in the film. Let's hope it never comes to that, but if it does, by everything sacred to us, we must be ready to survive it, or perish. I am throwing away my stupid post-punk hipster "irony-is-king/I-hate-everything" attitude, or at least enough of it so that the balance beam hangs in a relative balance with the leftover remains of my hippie idealisms. Then, instead of fermenting, stewing in my own juices... I'm going to go out and foment.

Foment! You have nothing to lose but everything you ever found important in life if you don't.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hollywood is Racist !!!
Posted by: 777 on Aug 6, 2006 4:22 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood !!!

Hollywood movies are generally meant for white people .... the movie industry was never meant for Latinos & Blacks nor Asians or any mixed race people and the funny thing about this is that the Jews helped support the racism in the film industry!!!

The film industry in Hollywood only sees white people....... until you have more ethnic movie producers.... that is what Hollywood will always be a Racist Haven for White Film and TV producers.

You have a few good Latino and Asian, Black actors in Hollywood. and hundreds that you don't ever see.... but Hollywood has pretty much filled there quota on Latino and Black, Asian actors and actresses ......no matter what they tell you or try to sell you...your eyes don't lie and neither does the camera...but white people do every day in this industry and they don't have to change there racist ways because they have the industry in the palm of there hands just like anything else in this country.

"Hollywood and the Movie and TV Industry belongs to "White People" and was never meant for anyone else....just like the clothes for "Tommy Hilfiger"...where never meant for "Blacks to Wear"

People of all ethnic backgrounds in this country are brain and whitewashed and the actors and actresses are too... they don't see the big picture!!!...the big picture is that the movie and TV Shows were meant to advertise White Men and White Women!!! and to glorify there image all over the world...and this is an inside thing.... something you will not read in a book or find anywhere else ....why do you think that most of all the casting calls are mainly cast by race and ethnicity?

Well .....take a strong look at how all the movies are being created to today when they have beautiful Latino or Black and Asian women in movies and TV and very few at that.. who are they coupled up with?....well lets see?...hum.. Ok "White Men" you will very rarely see it the other way around. The Movie and TV glorify White Men as the bread winners voted the worlds Sexiest and the Wittiest and Romantic Adventuress, Responsible and Caring.

And when they show a Latin and Black guy or Asian guys on TV ....well lets see?...he is Funny, Comical....A bad guy or a thug and just a Karate fighter and also as your Traditional Side Kick!!!.

If you think That ... I am full of crap and negative for stating all this... you just turn on your TV or just go to the movies and you tell me what you see....remember your eye's don't lie neither does the camera !!!

A solution to all this above? quit supporting there ratings and there movies and rental movies and just get regular basic cable and save your money instead of making these people "Become Richer" who don't want to see you on the TV succeed ... and when you hit white people in there pockets then you will see a change ...see Asians and Latinos and African Americans and all other ethnic races of people you have the power ...it is at your finger tips to a remote to your TV set you can make a difference.

If you don’t …it will get worse!!! Don’t Support there Ratings or Films “Hollywood Will Go Broke!!!”

Send this letter to Everybody you know and don’t know!!! Send it all over the world!!!


777

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement