V for Vendetta

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Who here has seen it? Who liked it? I thought it was a really good movie and pretty cleverly done (Hugo Weaving was fantastic), but... I dunno. There were a couple things I wasn't too sure about. What's the consensus round here?

[Marks of Capital]

Here's my understanding of V for Vendetta: Alan Moore set out to write a book meditating on two extremes: Authoritarianism and Anarchism. Anarchism, as Moore puts it is, "The land of do as you please." Moore did not intend for V to be a hero, but rather to represent one archetype against another.

When Hollywood got a hold of it, they turned it into an action film, turned V into a hero, and made it a metaphor for the Bush Administration. All these changes, Moore did not approve of. He said that the graphic novel he wrote was specifically about Britain, and Americans were using it to make a point about their leaders that they were too afraid to say openly. That is, instead of writing their own story about the US, they misappropriated his story about Britain.

That said, the last act of the movie is pretty awesome.

[GPDP]

Here's my understanding of V for Vendetta: Alan Moore set out to write a book meditating on two extremes: Authoritarianism and Anarchism. Anarchism, as Moore puts it is, "The land of do as you please." Moore did not intend for V to be a hero, but rather to represent one archetype against another.

When Hollywood got a hold of it, they turned it into an action film, turned V into a hero, and made it a metaphor for the Bush Administration. All these changes, Moore did not approve of. He said that the graphic novel he wrote was specifically about Britain, and Americans were using it to make a point about their leaders that they were too afraid to say openly. That is, instead of writing their own story about the US, they misappropriated his story about Britain.

That said, the last act of the movie is pretty awesome.

Pretty much. Politically, the movie is little more than liberal wank material. But yes, the action was pretty spiffy.

[MarxSchmarx]

When Hollywood got a hold of it, they turned it into an action film, turned V into a hero, and made it a metaphor for the Bush Administration. All these changes, Moore did not approve of. He said that the graphic novel he wrote was specifically about Britain, and Americans were using it to make a point about their leaders that they were too afraid to say openly. That is, instead of writing their own story about the US, they misappropriated his story about Britain.

That's a rather pretentious thing for Moore to say. I mean, some times it takes the "foreign-ness" of something to make us see our own situation in a clearer light - in fact this is arguably why science fiction is so successful.

It was a pretty mediocre film to be sure, but I think the way it articulated a "limousine liberal's" criticism of the Bush administration was probably the few parts of the movie I actually thought was well done and seemed appropriate. I didn't see what was so "British" about the plot that couldn't happen in any developed country (there are variants of the guy hawkes thing in every country, each country thinking their own variant is ever so unique), and if people felt it resonated to their own situation, who is Moore to tell them otherwise?

[khad]

Actually, the society in V the comic was a fascist white supremacist dictatorship, which accounts for the justification of the entire narrative, ending in the utter collapse of that society with mass looting and neighbors killing neighbors.

Also, Evie wasn't a liberal journalist but a munitions worker, and at the end she assumes the identity of V, to lead the people as they rebuild from scratch.

What bothered me the most about the film was its one-and-done take on the process of revolution. At least Moore, for all his faults, recognized the need for persistent political work. It's also the only thing that makes V's death speech about the immortality of ideas make sense.

[Tim Finnegan]

That's a rather pretentious thing for Moore to say. I mean, some times it takes the "foreign-ness" of something to make us see our own situation in a clearer light - in fact this is arguably why science fiction is so successful.

It was a pretty mediocre film to be sure, but I think the way it articulated a "limousine liberal's" criticism of the Bush administration was probably the few parts of the movie I actually thought was well done and seemed appropriate. I didn't see what was so "British" about the plot that couldn't happen in any developed country (there are variants of the guy hawkes thing in every country, each country thinking their own variant is ever so unique), and if people felt it resonated to their own situation, who is Moore to tell them otherwise?
Well, it wasn't just that "it was about Britain", it was that the particular content was rooted in the British cultural and political experience. The archetypes which MoC mentioned were drawn up around specifically British incarnations; of British Class War-style anarchism on the one hand, and British National Front-style white nationalist fascism on the other. Trying to shoehorn them into the roles of Liberal Batman and President Doom was not merely a break with the source material, but quite unnatural to the setting. The plot could quite possibly have been transposed to many places, but the content of a film is far more than just the plot, especially one which demands, as this does, a grounding in a credible fictional society. (Not to mention, as Khad says, that they pretty much hacked off the end, turning social breakdown into a bourgeois populist coup.) You can criticise his comments about them being "too afraid", I've no doubt, but this particular point has more substance to it than it may seem.

Besides, they did that weird bit at the beginning were they made out that Guy Fawkes was some heroic freedom fighter, when the whole point of the V mask was to riff off the iconic "Vote for Guy Fawkes (http://www.diary.cadenza.org/media/vote-for-guy-fawkes.jpg)" poster- a classic of the dark, ironic humour that the anarchists have historically been a dab hand at- which pretty much summed up the extent to which the producers really did not Get It. Nobody here actually likes Guy Fawkes. Even the Catholics, whose side he was on, are kind of embarrassed about the whole thing, and certainly don't regard him as some laudable William Wallace-style martyr.

Still,

That said, the last act of the movie is pretty awesome.
Which is why it's sitting on my shelf. http://forums.civfanatics.com/images/smilies/mischief.gif

[ColonelCossack]

I think the first half's good, but the second half isn't really satisfying. I still enjoyed it though.

[Tablo]

It was a fun movie, but there isn't anything of real depth to be pulled from it.

[L.A.P.]

I liked the film a lot, and the plot is a lot better when you look at the film as a piece of art not political propaganda.

[praxis1966]

Well, I understand that the filmmakers may have taken a lot of liberties with the source material, but I still thought it was a great flick... It's about the most famous movie in the last 20 years that has any kind of anarchist orientation, even if it is only in the aesthetic. Besides, it was the first movie me and my leftist partner of over 8 years saw in the theater together... So yeah, commie romance, lulz.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I thought it was really dumb, honestly. And no, I haven't read the graphic novel.

[W1N5T0N]

I think it was a good movie, seeing as V isnt some billionaire superhero fighting for the poor or whatever...and granted, its hollywood, so you gotta cut it some slack there. I really like that ANON is copying the mask thing...:thumbup1:

[thefinalmarch]

I really like that ANON is copying the mask thing...:thumbup1:
Anonymous is unorganised, heterogeneous (as many anons who perform "brave acts of resistance" against the government try to reconcile their actions with their anti-capitalist views as do those who reconcile their actions with their libertarian, liberal, conservative, or quasi-fascist views) and insignificant.

Anonymous is not something to support.

[W1N5T0N]

Care to give me any argumentative insight to you point of view? Because atm, i still support them.

[thefinalmarch]

Because atm, i still support them.
Despite:


the unsavory-at-best politics of a sizable portion (majority?) of "anons"?
the racist, sexist and homophobic views of, and language used by a sizable portion of "anons"?
the lack of any coherent ideology or platform of Anonymous?
its lack of organization?
its comparative lack of real-life presence?

[W1N5T0N]

the racist, sexist and homophobic views of, and language used by a sizable portion of "anons"?

So you are arguing that Anonymous is no more than some kind of para-cybermilitary right-wing organization? Sounds more like a smear campaign coming from you....Mind you, Makhno's enemies tried to accuse him of anti-semitism and attacks against Jews, only to crack his credibility and drag what he stood for through the mud....


the lack of any coherent ideology or platform of Anonymous?

Whats wrong with not having a "coherent ideology?" I strongly doubt there is a coherent ideology on RevLeft. The only thing we have in common is that we struggle against capitalism (except for the the anarcho-capitalists). Anonymous struggles against control and censorship of the internet by gvts and corporations. So, in a way, aren't there certain parallels? Anonymous seems to me pretty anti-authority. LEFTIST anti-authority, from their slogans and website proclamations. And i guess, when everyone is wearing masks of a comic about the struggle against a fash regime, i doubt they are rightwing at all. I personally oppose the state censorship of software and internet, so i find myself agreeing with their ideals...


its comparative lack of real-life presence?

-> thumbnail


Your points sound little more than vague conspiracy theories.
(Maybe anonymous are even funded by FOX?)

Anonymous is not one "coherent" organization anyway, it's many people adopting their get-up and technique...

[AnonymousOne]

Despite:


the unsavory-at-best politics of a sizable portion (majority?) of "anons"?
the racist, sexist and homophobic views of, and language used by a sizable portion of "anons"?
the lack of any coherent ideology or platform of Anonymous?
its lack of organization?
its comparative lack of real-life presence?


Hello. I think some of your views are mistaken and represent a few misunderstandings.

1. The Internet is a real thing. It exists. In reality. A presence online doesn't mean something doesn't exist in real-life. Our actions affect real Gov'ts and real corporations.

2. We need to define Anonymous. This is where it gets tricky because we have to realize that despite what most media commentators say 4Chan != Anonymous. Also, /b/ != 4Chan. If you actually go to the irc for AnonOps and hang around, I guarantee you that you will not see anything homophobic, racist or sexist. Not to mention, although some Anons hold thse views, (I'm sure there are at least a few closet racists/sexists and homophobes anywhere) that doesn't mean you shouldn't support direct action being taken against Gov'ts and corporations.

Some industrial workers are also homophobic, racist, and sexist, do you no longer support the working class?

3. Could you explain what you mean by "unsavory"? I'm sure there are a few people here that might have "unsavory" politics to you. Are there many right-wingers or capitalists in Anonymous. I've been participating for about two years now and I come across maybe 10 (although it could be as little as 1 who I've encountered 10 times :P). The reason why we don't have many Caps in our ranks is because we attack corporations. All. The. Time. Also; This:



Anonymous Declares Non-violent War Against the Global Banking Cartel
The Anonymous Manifesto:
* We are a decentralized non-violent resistance movement, which seeks to restore the rule of law and fight back against the organized criminal class.
* One-tenth of one percent of the population has consolidated wealth in unprecedented fashion and launched an all-out economic war against 99.9% of the population.
* We are not affiliated with either wing of the two-party oligarchy. We seek an end to the corrupted two-party system by ending the campaign finance and lobbying racket.
* Above all, we aim to break up the global banking cartel centered at the Federal Reserve, International Monetary Fund, Bank of International Settlement and World Bank.
* We demand that the primary dealers within the Federal Reserve banking system be broken up and held accountable for rigging markets and destroying the global economy, effective immediately.
* As a first sign of good faith we demand Ben Bernanke step down as Federal Reserve chairman.
* Until our demands are met and a rule of law is restored, we will engage in a relentless campaign of non-violent, peaceful, civil disobedience. * In our next communication we will announce Operation Empire State Rebellion.

[thefinalmarch]

So you are arguing that Anonymous is no more than some kind of para-cybermilitary right-wing organization?
Nope. There are obviously those who are bigoted and those that are not. My position is that anonymous is not a homogenous group, and that it should not be almost unquestionably supported.


Whats wrong with not having a "coherent ideology?" I strongly doubt there is a coherent ideology on RevLeft.
Individual members of revleft don't posit that revleft is a by-and-large homogenous group whose individuals share the same interests and platform. Being a regular visitor of *chan imageboards myself, I've had the chance to observe the many political viewpoints of different anons. From my experiences, I have seen that there are as many anons who oppose and "resist" such states as the US because they believe it is socialist as there are those who do so because they believe it serves the capitalist class. It could be argued that, as of late, there seems to be a general rise in the influence of libertarianism on anonymous. Of course, anecdotal evidence means nothing.

...then again, you seem to be a fan of anecdotes yourself:



Anonymous struggles against control and censorship of the internet by gvts and corporations. So, in a way, aren't there certain parallels? Anonymous seems to me pretty anti-authority. LEFTIST anti-authority, from their slogans and website proclamations. And i guess, when everyone is wearing masks of a comic about the struggle against a fash regime, i doubt they are rightwing at all. I personally oppose the state censorship of software and internet, so i find myself agreeing with their ideals...
There are many reasons why someone might be "anti-authority". Not all of these reasons are leftist in nature.


-> thumbnail
Key word: comparative. Acquaint yourself with a dictionary.


Your points sound little more than vague conspiracy theories.
(Maybe anonymous are even funded by FOX?)

Conspiracy theory (n.)

A hypothesis alleging that the members of a coordinated group are, and/or were, secretly working together to commit illegal or wrongful actions including attempting to hide the existence of the group and its activities. In notable cases the hypothesis contradicts the mainstream explanation for historical or current events.
Nope. I smell a strawman.


Anonymous is not one "coherent" organization anyway
Exactly. Interesting though, how you voluntarily ignore anonymous' lack of homogeneity when it comes to the politics of its constituents.

[thefinalmarch]

A presence online doesn't mean something doesn't exist in real-life.
I never made such an equation. I just observed that Anonymous has a comparatively lower presence in the physical world than most other sizable protest and anti-government groups.


2. We need to define Anonymous. This is where it gets tricky because we have to realize that despite what most media commentators say 4Chan != Anonymous. Also, /b/ != 4Chan. If you actually go to the irc for AnonOps and hang around, I guarantee you that you will not see anything homophobic, racist or sexist. Not to mention, although some Anons hold thse views, (I'm sure there are at least a few closet racists/sexists and homophobes anywhere) that doesn't mean you shouldn't support direct action being taken against Gov'ts and corporations.
That's a very narrow definition of anonymous. Since anonymous is not a consolidated group, individuals can only 'align' with anonymous. By definition, any individual can align with anonymous and take actions in its name (which is exactly what happens). You will find these individuals all over the internet, but they are primarily concentrated in the origin of 'anonymous' itself; the *chans. And whilst you are correct in saying that anonymous is not equal to 4chan, it must also be realized that 4channers and self-styled anons, are not mutually exclusive either.

One shouldn't unquestionably support actions against governments and corporations taken in the name of anonymous either. These actions need to be viewed within the subjective political context of the anons in question. "Why are they taking these actions?" "How does taking these actions further their own subjective interests?" Support for individual actions is fine, after an analysis of the subjective interests of the anon(s) involved and the action has been determined to be pro-worker in nature.


Some industrial workers are also homophobic, racist, and sexist, do you no longer support the working class?
The working class is the only social force that can bring about communism. I understand that false consciousness exists. The class interests of the working class are objective. The interests of individual anons, however, are by-and-large subjective.


3. Could you explain what you mean by "unsavory"?
Reactionary.


I'm sure there are a few people here that might have "unsavory" politics to you. Are there many right-wingers or capitalists in Anonymous. I've been participating for about two years now and I come across maybe 10 (although it could be as little as 1 who I've encountered 10 times :P). The reason why we don't have many Caps in our ranks is because we attack corporations. All. The. Time. Also; This:
Again, not all anons are anti-capitalists. There are ancap and right-wing libertarian types (as well as other pro-capitalist types) who, as Winston said, adopt the general "get-up and technique" of Anonymous to further their own subjective political interests. It's also likely that you don't encounter many capitalist types who align with anonymous simply because you are involved and interested in the more anti-capitalist "operations", and thus you have a lower probability of establishing any degree of contact with pro-capitalist anons.

[Tim Finnegan]

I watched this again a couple of days ago, and I have to say, it did seem to have more political substance than I remember, if only as a short-term call to popular resistance, rather than any real consideration of or the role of the state in society. (The lines "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people." struck me as summing up the departure rather neatly, in that it assumes the bourgeois state to be, in itself, a legitimate construction.) Perhaps I'm just viewing this through the lens of the Arab Spring and the various European protest movements, which make it seem more like a broadly convincing call to arms, if a heavily stylised and romantic one, rather than just a political bedroom-ceiling fantasy?

[redhotpoker]

Christian attack on V for Vendetta;

kB4eTinKJVA

[Tim Finnegan]

Christian attack on V for Vendetta;

kB4eTinKJVA
"The League of Extraordinary Men starring Johnny Depp."

Sooooo good. :laugh:

[W1N5T0N]

Wow, this guy can really tell scary stories...im sure hes some kind of christian dominionist. "Diabolic Propaganda" my ass. This guy is talking so fast i can't even comprehend all his sh*t. Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law? Welcome to revleft XD

The funny thing is that everything from 17.00-18.00 would comply with this dude's views...

[praxis1966]

Yeah, I only got about two minutes into that video before I got sick of the lack of citations for the Moore quotes. On the other hand, he's not completely out of line with the way a lot of fundamentalist Christians think. I've seen them on IMDb praising the totalitarian regime in the film for it's caging of LGBT people, for instance. They view the thing as a tragedy and all the people V kills as martyrs... There's never any accounting for the pedo priest, however, unless it's to say, "Well, only Catholics do that and they're devil worshipers, too..." Of course, they usually spell "they're" either "their" or "there," so maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

[Rooster]

There's never any accounting for the pedo priest, however, unless it's to say, "Well, only Catholics do that and they're devil worshipers, too..."

Yeah but... he was Church of England (Protestant).

[Tim Finnegan]

Yeah but... he was Church of England (Protestant).
It's all very Anglo-Catholic, though, so to a lot of Americans it probably looks Catholic enough to write off as much the same thing. I doubt a lot of the fundies draw much of a distinction between them to begin with.

[praxis1966]

Exactly. It's all a bunch of Evangelical American crazies making these interpretations. Notice the guy in the video had an American accent. They can't tell the difference because the get-up is similar and weren't paying attention in their high school history classes when the topic of the origins of the Anglican church came up.

[Josephine Garfunkel]

I thought it was a lovely film. Entertaining, if not super deep. I love the "ideas are bulletproof."

[CaptainDDC]

I enjoyed the graphic novel far more than the film. However, I do think the performances in the movie are very good and the ending is highly entertaining.

[Diello]

Yeah, I only got about two minutes into that video before I got sick of the lack of citations for the Moore quotes. On the other hand, he's not completely out of line with the way a lot of fundamentalist Christians think. I've seen them on IMDb praising the totalitarian regime in the film for it's caging of LGBT people, for instance. They view the thing as a tragedy and all the people V kills as martyrs... There's never any accounting for the pedo priest, however, unless it's to say, "Well, only Catholics do that and they're devil worshipers, too..." Of course, they usually spell "they're" either "their" or "there," so maybe I'm giving them too much credit.

I heard more than a few right-wingers praising Rorschach's ideology after the Watchmen film came out.

[Public Domain]

I only watch it for the final playing of the 1812 Overture.

Rewind, play.... Rewind, play.... Rewind, play...

Graphic Novel was muuuuuch better.

[Diello]

Graphic Novel was muuuuuch better.

Still, it wasn't nearly as bad as League of Extraordinary Gentlemen or From Hell; Alan Moore film adaptations seem to be trending upward in terms of quality.

[human strike]

Despite:


the lack of any coherent ideology or platform of Anonymous?
its lack of organization?
its comparative lack of real-life presence?



The first two are two of the best things about anonymous and the third is stupid; how do you know people who act under the banner of anonymous don't organise in "real life"? How could you possibly know? They're anonymous...

[thefinalmarch]

The first two are two of the best things about anonymous and the third is stupid; how do you know people who act under the banner of anonymous don't organise in "real life"? How could you possibly know? They're anonymous...
Anonymous' mode of "organisation" is rather ineffective and Anonymous itself is largely irrelevant to actual class struggle.

[praxis1966]

I heard more than a few right-wingers praising Rorschach's ideology after the Watchmen film came out.

You and I both. It's hilarious to me sometimes how lacking in self-awareness the right in the US is. Most of the time, they don't even know when they're being made fun of or criticized when it comes to the popular media. As another example, I heard that at least at first The Colbert Report had a rather sizable right wing following... :lol:

[Zav]

It was a good movie, but it was really watered down. The only mention of Anarchy references the "Anarchy is chaos" definition that every Anarchist knows is false, but I didn't expect much more from a mainstream Hollywood film. It's still worth watching for the action and a few good lines. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to post links to pirated material, but if anyone hasn't seen it, here you go (http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/6502430/V_For_Vendetta_2006_BluRay_720p_%5BMP4-AAC%5D_%28oan%29).