V FOR VENDETTA, Occupy Wall Street, Anonymous, and Third Way Capitalism

[Stew312856]

The film adaptation of V was so good yet so lacking, Alan Moore disowned the film for cutting his anarcho-syndicalist anti-Thatcherism and making the story a parable about Iraq and George W. Bush from a typical capitalist Hollywood perspective. Anyone else interested in discussing this cultural occurrence in a cultural studies manner akin to Zizek?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Hollywood, like most capitalist industries, is almost entirely geared towards garnering a profit. It's what Horkheimer and Adorno call the "massification of culture" and the "culture industry" where attaining the largest audiences (and therefore the largest sales of the product) becomes the key ideal of the studios and the producers of film which in turn neuters creativity by creating cycles of production that only tackle themes that audiences are accustomed to.

Since anti-Thatcherism and anarcho-syndicalism aren't ideologies that the largest audience (the pro-capitalist sheep in the US) are familiar with they are dropped and replaced by more familiar themes such as a general sense of anti-authoritarianism and corporate/government corruption. You see these themes tackled in a huge variety of Hollywood films such as The Parallax View and Enemy of the State that the producers know are easily recognised by audiences so therefore providing them with a reassurance that there will be a receptive audience to market the product towards.

Essentially... it's all about the money, comrade.

[Stew312856]

You quite adequately identify major contradictions.

I am interested in these nuances and discussing them.

Is the use of the mask inspired solely by the film, the novel, or both?

[GiantMonkeyMan]

Ah, now that's an interesting question.

Without the film, the symbol of V's mask wouldn't have ever reached as popular acclaim as it would have today. Hugo Weaving's performance as V brought an emotion and compassion that is clearly defined as in juxtaposition to the single emotion of the mischievous smirk the mask portrays and that clearly cannot be replicated within the graphic novel. The performance, majesty and importance surrounding the mask becomes a central theme of the film and has clearly shown it is a popular one.

Screen media has also shown its explicit success at reaching a wider audience than print media (it's a sad state of affairs but more people watch TV than read books). It is doubtful that many of those who watched V for Vendetta and purchased the iconic mask ever read the graphic novel. I haven't, and I know that it is only a couple clicks away on some torrent site if I wanted to. People don't need to have read the graphic novels or comics to be able to appreciate The Walking Dead or Iron Man, for example, and understand (through their limited ability as objective audiences) the key concepts of those pieces of media.

And yet....... without the graphic novel there would be no film. ;)

It's a concept called "Intertextuality"; texts can be shaped with influence from or completely based upon a previously existing text which is common enough in all forms of literature (a classic example being Tennyson's Ulysses poem being a retelling of Odysseus). It doesn't, in my opinion, detract from the importance or meaning of either text - the 'original' or the new.

I fear that I've gone entirely off topic. While the iconography of both texts and the themes are similar in the graphic novel and film it is essential to tackle both pieces seperately and from different perspectives. One is a film produced by one of the largest Hollywood production companies and therefore likely to reach a mass audience. One is a graphic novel published initially by a little known British comics publisher. It is evident which is going to have greater cultural impact.

Therefore the popularity of the mask stems from the film adaptation. The iconography and symbol itself is a product of the graphic novel. I hope my rambling made sense. :p

[Stew312856]

Certainly does, I am a big fan of discussions on intertextuality, etc. Moore's novels (comic book does not describe his work correctly) are extremely rooted in post-modernism and inter-textuality (Watchmen was the best example).

The movie is a sunny spring day compared to the original book, which is dark as an Arctic night. In the novel, there is a much more subversive attitude about feminine sexuality and issues of violence against women and gays, while Natalie Portman is simply a shrewish damsel in distress. The original novel's Evey is closer to Lizbeth Salander in the "Dragon Tattoo" novels while Natalie is simply a British version of Amidala.

[Os Cangaceiros]

People who've read the novel (I haven't read it) tell me that the V character didn't represent the "enlightened anarchism" represented by anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism, but rather the total lack of control and authority, or "anarchy" as most people understand it. The theme was the battle between total lack of control/anarchy (personified by V) and total control/totalitarianism (personified by the government V fought against).

The V in the movie (which I have seen) seemed like a violent liberal, not an anarchist.

[Belleraphone]

V for Vendetta is a great movie against fascism and more reactionary forms of capitalism, but it didn't really present Anarchy as a viable alternative. Basically Anarchy in V for Vendetta is this:

BOOM BOOM EXPLOSIONS CHAOS RIOTS YEAH I'M SO FUCKING HARDCORE.

[Ocean Seal]

People who've read the novel (I haven't read it) tell me that the V character didn't represent the "enlightened anarchism" represented by anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism, but rather the total lack of control and authority, or "anarchy" as most people understand it. The theme was the battle between total lack of control/anarchy (personified by V) and total control/totalitarianism (personified by the government V fought against).

The V in the movie (which I have seen) seemed like a violent liberal, not an anarchist.
I haven't seen the movie but IIRC V says something like this isn't anarchy when eevee refers to a chaotic scenario. Something akin to this is the land of take as you please not anarchy but chaos.

[Zav]

I haven't seen the movie but IIRC V says something like this isn't anarchy when eevee refers to a chaotic scenario. Something akin to this is the land of take as you please not anarchy but chaos.
In the movie, 'Anarchy' is said once.
Fitch: "It's just what he wants."
Sidekick cop: "What?"
*scene cut to a shop robbery where robber wears a V mask.*
Robber: "Anarchy in the UK!"
*Robber fires gun at ceiling.*
*facepalm*

The entire point of the comics was lost in the movie, and now right-wing Libertarians enrich Warner Brothers by buying V masks to try and save Capitalism. Were I Alan Moore, I would be severely depressed. I might also try to re-release the comics, if I can. *In the very unlikely event that you read this, hint hint?*

[Stew312856]

People who've read the novel (I haven't read it) tell me that the V character didn't represent the "enlightened anarchism" represented by anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism, but rather the total lack of control and authority, or "anarchy" as most people understand it.

Alan Moore is on record and writes in the introduction about V and his relation to Anarcho Primitivist thought.

[GiantMonkeyMan]

You could read the film in an entirely different way; that it is not the film itself that misses the point of anarchism but the characters within the film. It happens enough in real life. When people discuss anarchism they instantly turn to black bloc tactics of smashing windows and therefore think of a very different sort of 'anarchy'.

The man using the mask to rob the store and the little girl using the mask as she spray-paints the 'V' symbol both don't really understand anarchism as a concept like V might be driving towards. However they do understand that defiance towards authority is a key ideal and therefore act in the way they think anarchy will benefit them most. Their ignorance is a product of the fascist society they emerged from.

One key thing that the film (and I'm assuming the novels as well) doesn't tackle is how society evolves post-destuction of parliament. Fascism has been toppled through mass civil disobedience but no real hint is given towards what structure would replace the totalitarian one they tore down and many facets of the fascist government would still be in place. Being somewhat of a cynic, I'm just going to assume that it reverts back to the same capitalist democracy that allowed the fascist party to come to power anyway. :rolleyes:

[bcbm]

People who've read the novel (I haven't read it) tell me that the V character didn't represent the "enlightened anarchism" represented by anarcho-syndicalism/anarcho-communism, but rather the total lack of control and authority, or "anarchy" as most people understand it. The theme was the battle between total lack of control/anarchy (personified by V) and total control/totalitarianism (personified by the government V fought against).

nah its pretty clear its anarchist as in anarchism, not like anarchy in the uk


I haven't seen the movie but IIRC V says something like this isn't anarchy when eevee refers to a chaotic scenario. Something akin to this is the land of take as you please not anarchy but chaos.


Evey: All this riot and uproar, V... is this Anarchy? Is this the Land of Do-As-You-Please?
V: No. This is only the land of take-what-you-want. Anarchy means "without leaders", not "without order". With anarchy comes an age or ordnung, of true order, which is to say voluntary order... this age of ordung will begin when the mad and incoherent cycle of verwirrung that these bulletins reveal has run its course... This is not anarchy, Eve. This is chaos.

[Sixiang]

Hollywood, like most capitalist industries, is almost entirely geared towards garnering a profit. It's what Horkheimer and Adorno call the "massification of culture" and the "culture industry" where attaining the largest audiences (and therefore the largest sales of the product) becomes the key ideal of the studios and the producers of film which in turn neuters creativity by creating cycles of production that only tackle themes that audiences are accustomed to.

Since anti-Thatcherism and anarcho-syndicalism aren't ideologies that the largest audience (the pro-capitalist sheep in the US) are familiar with they are dropped and replaced by more familiar themes such as a general sense of anti-authoritarianism and corporate/government corruption. You see these themes tackled in a huge variety of Hollywood films such as The Parallax View and Enemy of the State that the producers know are easily recognised by audiences so therefore providing them with a reassurance that there will be a receptive audience to market the product towards.

Essentially... it's all about the money, comrade.
Yep. When I was at an Occupy rally, I saw plenty of people in Guy Fawkes masks. Many of them were Ron Paul-ites, carrying signs such as "Ron Paul 2012" and "End the Fed." I think they were missing the point, but V to them meant fighting corrupt big government, missing the point of leftism that's supposed to be in there.



The entire point of the comics was lost in the movie, and now right-wing Libertarians enrich Warner Brothers by buying V masks to try and save Capitalism. Were I Alan Moore, I would be severely depressed. I might also try to re-release the comics, if I can. *In the very unlikely event that you read this, hint hint?*
Yeah, see what I said above. Here's a conversation I had with some people from my group of students.

Student A: What's with all of these masks?
Me: It's supposed to be a mask of Guy Fawkes, but they're most likely emulating a character in a movie.
Student A: Who's that?
Me: He was a Roman Catholic Englishman who tried to blow up the parliament building with a group of some other Catholics because they didn't like the Protestant English monarchy and government at the time.
Student B: No. [to student a] He fought for freedom. Always remember that. He stood for freedom. [to me] Keep your shit short.
Me: *laughter and walk away to something else because Student A lost interest*

This idiot of an uninformed anarchist actually that Guy Fawkes stood for some anarchic freedom. He was a fucking monarchist. He just wanted to replace the Protestant monarchy with a Catholic one. Blowing up the parliament building is not enough to establish him as a great anti-authoritarian proto-anarchist in my opinion.



You could read the film in an entirely different way; that it is not the film itself that misses the point of anarchism but the characters within the film. It happens enough in real life. When people discuss anarchism they instantly turn to black bloc tactics of smashing windows and therefore think of a very different sort of 'anarchy'.

The man using the mask to rob the store and the little girl using the mask as she spray-paints the 'V' symbol both don't really understand anarchism as a concept like V might be driving towards. However they do understand that defiance towards authority is a key ideal and therefore act in the way they think anarchy will benefit them most. Their ignorance is a product of the fascist society they emerged from.

One key thing that the film (and I'm assuming the novels as well) doesn't tackle is how society evolves post-destuction of parliament. Fascism has been toppled through mass civil disobedience but no real hint is given towards what structure would replace the totalitarian one they tore down and many facets of the fascist government would still be in place. Being somewhat of a cynic, I'm just going to assume that it reverts back to the same capitalist democracy that allowed the fascist party to come to power anyway. :rolleyes:
Interesting analysis. I suppose its likely that that would happen. Perhaps the closeted, underground intellectuals like V would pull out all of their old artwork and texts and share them with people to show them what we had been missing, too. Or maybe my idea that people will want to share that sort of thing for the better of society is just childish communism. :shrug:

[brigadista]

interview from 26 nov 2011

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/nov/27/alan-moore-v-vendetta-mask-protest?newsfeed=true

[x359594]

Thanks very much for your contributions to this thread GaintMonkeyMan. At last we have some nuanced film criticism to read.