Just saw V.........

[june]

Hello All,

I'll give it a C+. We'll talk about this after everyone has seen it. I know I have "MOVIE BURN-OUT!" But I need more action!!!!!!

[Burke Strickland]

...I need more action!!!!!!

Sounds like you and Alicia Bridges have something in common there.... :>) referring to her 1970's disco hit "I Love The Nightlife" where she sings "I want some action ... I want to live!", and repeats the word "action" quite a few times in the course of the song. Actually she was referring to dancing, and I have a feeling that isn't what you want to see in movies like "V". :>)

Before I even opened it, when I saw your name on the thread, I was thinking "June sure has seen a lot of movies lately". I'll be interested in finding out as the discussion progresses whether your reaction to "V" was truly "burnout" or just a real lack of "action" in the film.

Burke

[Chris D]

Ah, bummer to hear! One way or another, I want to see this movie. I have high hopes.

[Azeke]

Ah, bummer to hear! One way or another, I want to see this movie. I have high hopes.

:agree:

[june]

Movie Burn-out!

Hello All,

This just means we go to the theather & rent/buy many films. I didn't hate "V" I just needed more action less story. We need to make up a new catorgory for films. "30% action, 69% drama, 1% love story."

[Nick M]

Saw it and I enjoyed it.

A great political film about society slipping from democracy into totalitarianism through the government's use of fear, the use of "Terrorism", and how a single person can spark change. Fantastic subject matter (and opinion) quite relative to our current trends of society (especially if your views lean towards those of a Libertarian like mine). It's 1984 injected with Hollywood.

Worth atleast a rent. I plan on picking it up when it comes out on DVD.

:35: out of :5:

[Chris D]

Good to hear, Nick!

[purplepeople]

I rate it the same as Nick. A little more perhaps because I found myself snickering out loud when others were not.

The question is how the underlying political message will be received in different places. I know that, over sushi, there was a lot of talk about how it will affect the climate in both the UK and the USA. Someone even mentioned that this will have an effect on our recently elected Conservative minority.

A very provocative agenda movie...

ensen.

[Chris D]

Interesting. I really can't wait to watch this movie. But Jensen, did you find that it really was an agenda movie, as opposed to a movie intended to stir debate, not further a particular agenda? To compare, I would say that the Matrix series were intended to ask questions and stir debate, not push any particular message.

[Nick M]

I think hard-right movie-goer's will view this as an agenda-driven film (as seem to be any films/books which question authority).

[purplepeople]

As with any movie that can generate debate, it is the timing that is provocative. So no... there is no such thing as an obvious agenda. But the themes play well in current society so the fact that it is released now instead of 5 years before or 5 years from now is what makes give it an agenda.

By the same token, if Brokeback Mountain had been released in the USA during the big gay marriage protests, then I also would have said that it was an agenda driven film.

Nick, I don't think my reaction is limited to right-wingers. In fact, I am a left of centre Canadian, which would probably make me a bleeding heart in the US.

I just found the movie to be critical of many current western policies. In my view, anyone in power would like to hold onto that power. By definition, an extremist in power (left or right) just uses extreme methods to achieve their ends. The problem, as pointed out by the film, is that when an extreme situation is allowed to continue by the society, bringing it all back to the centre often requires another extremist.

ensen.

[wkhanna]

Maybe it is just pandering to the latent guilt of the ‘Baby Boomer Generation” who gave up ‘sit ins’, VW micro buses and bell-bottoms to Armani’s and 401Ks?

Please excuse me, I am the penultimate cynic.

[Nick M]

penultimate

I had to look this one up! :lol:

I'd definetly agree with purple that there is an underlying political message, and that it will be interesting to see how different people react. Especially those who support their current leaders because they are fearful of [Insert Fear Here] and support increasing the governments power while decreasing the rights and power of the people.

Then again, I think the people who support big brother are probably too dumb to understand the themes of this film anyways... :rofl: :takecover:

[Shane Martin]

I think hard-right movie-goer's will view this as an agenda-driven film (as seem to be any films/books which question authority).

Actually I'm considered Reaganish right and to be honest I didn't see the comparison. It's moreso about a totalitarian society and what one can do to move away. If it's "conservative" then it's extremely extremely extreme right wing stuff.

support increasing the governments power while decreasing the rights and power of the people.

And you realize that the right side's views are not big government rather smaller government. Reducing the power of the people is more "big business" than anything and this doesn't matter who is in the majority.

This right winger had no issues with the movie because it's an extremist at best view and was written some years back. The novel is some 20 years old.

I thought it was a killer film but don't go into it looking for action otherwise you will be dissapointed. I was riveted the entire time. This was fantastic!

This is what a comic movie should be. Intelligent and not comicish.

[Nick M]

And you realize that the right side's views are not big government rather smaller government. Reducing the power of the people is more "big business" than anything and this doesn't matter who is in the majority.

Both dems and pubs have those who like big government with lots of power. It's really a seperate scale than that of conservative/liberal.

That said, the conservative right is constantly trying to impose it's views on others, and thus many republican leaders support rights smashing legislation. They attempt to impose "traditional family values" on everyone. These extend all the way from censorship of the media to laws regarding what two consenting adults are allowed to do with one another behind closed doors. They also tend to impede scientific advancement due to it's razor of truth that "coldly" cuts through some of man's ancient fables. Pubs also tend to give much greater power to the police, judicial courts, and military. On the economics side, they usually oppose the rights of blue-collar guys to form a collective bargaining group which preserves equal-rights amongst the socio-economic classes. With the current US administration you can also add in giant big-brother packages like the Patriot Act. This seems like a prime recipe for squashing the little man to me!

The story about Republicans reducing spending is well, just look at our current debt and investments from certain asian countries (not to mention the results of those investments). And when it comes to the environment, most conservatives aren't into conservation. They seek to open more "protected" lands up for development/resource gathering along with rolling back and stunting the progress of environmental protection standards.

I think your average US Republican leans more towards the statist end of the scale rather than the libertarian side. I'd also venture to say that your average shmuck who is living in fear of poultry diseases released by Muslim Marauders are not going to be homosexual tree-hugging hippies. That said, I'm also willing to bet that there are alot more non-republicans that can tell us exactly how many zeroes follow the nine in nine-trillion.

I wonder if those intelligent-design zealots will be lining up for their sugar-water vaccine when the west nile aviation ebola virus attacks... :rofl: Of course they will, just as they will vote to hand the reigns over to Washington to "keep everyone safe".

[Shane Martin]

most conservatives aren't into conservation. They seek to open more "protected" lands up for development/resource gathering along with rolling back and stunting the progress of environmental protection standards.

That's not a traditional conservative opinion though. Liberals are the ones who want to 'save the world, the whales, yadda yadda".

That said, the conservative right is constantly trying to impose it's views on others, and thus many republican leaders support rights smashing legislation. They attempt to impose "traditional family values" on everyone.

The liberals are doing the same thing trying to pass anti family values legislation as well imposing their views on us as well. It's a 2 way street.

Regardless this thread is headed down a path that will head to lockdown. Politics is a no no so I think we should end it and move on my friend. I think we both agree that the movie is extremely good and riveting.

[Nick M]

I've always got a kick out of the words conservative and conservation. One is the root of the other yet they have so little in common. Sometimes I see conservative campaign ads with families laughing outdoors, and a grandfather fishing with his grandchildren. What they don't show is the the three-headed catfish loaded with tumors and mercury that the grandfather throws back, or the giant refinery in the background... :lol:

I can't think of a single democrat proposed law that is "Anti-Family" and goes after traditional American families (trying to think of even one!?). Democrats definetly support non-traditional families along with attempting to provide them with the equal rights they deserve, but none of this legislation seeks to punish or deny the traditional family it's right to exist. The same can't be said for many conservative agendas. The democrats support "live as you will", while the conservatives attempt to enforce "live as I say" (regarding family). Most of these republican guidelines are religiously motivated as well, making them even more inappropriate for our supposed free and open society with a seperation between church and state. As far as principle is concerned, it's no different than muslim countries requiring women to cover themselves. I don't like these kind of laws.

Regardless, it's still an enforced way of life by the government which to get back to my original point is yet another control that Big Brother has over our lives (and has been given up by the majority willingly).

The movie itself has a political base and theme which is bound to stir discussions which should be civil given our company.

[purplepeople]

See how easy it is for this film to stir up political discussion. That is its agenda, which the filmmakers have so plainly laid out in the open.

Imagine this same little conversation happening now in a million places... which may be about right since that many tickets will have been purchased by now.

It may not change governments but it will polarize society even more and thus bring about change sooner. Whether this change will be a move back to centre or a deeper entrenchment of the right-wing power base will depend on what the people do with their options next time around.

ensen.

[Chris D]

(sitting on a tiny air base in Turkey in frustration, waiting impatiently to see this movie so I can join in the discussion)

[Alaric]

Oh , boy.....

perhaps Mr. Mosher would care to explain "hate-crime" legislation. The far left only believes in liberties that goosestep to their agenda. "Non-traditional" families??? Would a flat tire be non-traditional transportation?
As for an "enforced" way of life-why is it the far left insists all will agree with them after proper "education"? Those who disagree with radical socialists apparently lack sufficient knowledge. They can't possibly have just come to a different conclusion .

P.S. Last I heard , the age of consent in MA is twelve. Does that make me unenlightened or just the father of a six year old girl?

[Nick M]

No, in Massachusetts you can't sleep with a 12yr old... :rofl: I believe it's 16 when both people are under 18, and 18 if one person is older than 18.

Still waiting to hear about a democrat proposed law that attacks the rights of a traditional family to exist. There isn't one as far as I know. The only one I can think of is Gun Control (which I strongly oppose) which really isn't directly related to family. Most conservative laws regarding "family" seek to enforce their opinions on others. "Live as I say" instead of "Live as you will". Conservative laws give more power to the government in the ethical and judiciary/enforcement sectors. As is said in the film, the government should live in fear of it's people - not the other way around.

How would hate crime laws attack a traditional family? As far as I know traditional families are not racist. They are man/women relationships rather than man/man or woman/woman.

[Burke Strickland]

OK, that's it for the "back and forth" on political opinions.

The age of consent in Massachusetts is spelled out in Chapter 272 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, and that is a factual matter, not a political opinion. However, how that detail of the law pertains to the film "V for Vendetta" is elusive -- it appears it is under discussion to make a political point beyond an appreciation of "V for Vendetta". So let's drop it, and all other personal opinions about political labels and politics at large that are beyond the scope of a discussion of this particular movie.

This forum is NOT a political blog. Keep the discussion focused on the movie itself, or this thread WILL BE CLOSED AND REMOVED.

Burke Strickland
Moderator
HT Guide Forum

[Nick M]

Yeah it got sidetracked there but I couldn't resist when the next course hit the table... :B

Alaric you can PM me if you wish to discuss this further.

Sorry, my bad... :nono:

[Alloroc]

Hi,
Just saw this last night and I have to say it was a great movie. I was enthralled from start to finish.

I can understand how this thread can easily turn into a debate about partisan political standpoints, but I agree with Burke that this is not the point of this thread.

However, political origins cannot be avoided when discussing it. As you probably know it was based on 80s Thatcher conservatism and having grown up in this part of the wold during that time - it was not a good time at all. Ireland was directly impacted by her policies on Northern Ireland, but that's for a different discussion.

My only point is that the movie and original comic portrays a tale of how democracy can be manipulated and the citizen exploited to ultimately create a totalitarian, fascist regime.

I used to collect the Warrior comic(and 2000AD!) in the 80s and V was my favorite strip from it and later the graphic novel came out. It was a great story but differs, in parts to the movie. Most notable difference is in the movie V is a freedom fighter(terrorist, depending on your point of view) whereas in the comic, he was portrayed as an anarchist. Alan Moore positioned the story of V as not being about Fascism vs. Democracy, but Fascist vs. Anarchism, the two extreme ends of the political spectrum. Oppression vs. Absolute Freedom, which means Freedom without Political Leaders, where people rule themselves. However, the movie avoids any mention or serious discussion of Anarchism as a political ideology, which was the heart of the book’s politics.

I loved the story. It was perfect for a teenager riddled with angst. God I remeber, reading Warrior, listening to Zep, Purple or if I was really pumped up, Anthrax or even Celtic Frost! :-y

Anyhow, Moore’s villains were full-blown fascists modeled on the Nazis, members of a party called Norsefire, complete with racial-purity laws and aggressive persecution of homosexuals. Such elements perhaps gave Moore’s story a universality and resonance well beyond a critique of Thatcher conservatism.

Anyhow back to the movie. The script was snappy and intelligent. There was also a distinct lack of the type of sloppy action scenes one has come to expect these days, they were fast, classy and very exciting.

I really enjoyed watching actors like John Hurt, Stephen Fry and Stephen Rea. Hugo Weaving was perfect as the verbally acrobatic and theatrical V and Portman delivered a very convincing portrayal of Evey.

What's not to like about this movie. Nothing from my perspective, but for your average everyday hardline conservative (neocon if you must) or fascist(note; I do not consider them the same), well, they may be a bit upset(boohoo) by the ending! :W

My conclusion, I would say that this is an accomplished, surprisingly edgy and provocative mainstream thriller with some points to make about terrorism and whether violent rebellion is justified to overthrow a fascist system.

[George Bellefontaine]

Very interesting and well presented post, Vincent.

[Alaric]

OK, that's it for the "back and forth" on political opinions.

The age of consent in Massachusetts is spelled out in Chapter 272 of the General Laws of Massachusetts, and that is a factual matter, not a political opinion. However, how that detail of the law pertains to the film "V for Vendetta" is elusive -- it appears it is under discussion to make a political point beyond an appreciation of "V for Vendetta". So let's drop it, and all other personal opinions about political labels and politics at large that are beyond the scope of a discussion of this particular movie.

This forum is NOT a political blog. Keep the discussion focused on the movie itself, or this thread WILL BE CLOSED AND REMOVED.

Burke Strickland
Moderator
HT Guide Forum

My info came from an (obviously) outdated and now very suspect Farmer's Almanac-I cede to the moderator's wishes , and agree I got WAY off-track.

[Alaric]

I also find Mr. Mosher to be brighter than the average bear. I tend to lean too far towards the provocative and realize this has been an issue in too many of my posts. This shall be the primary consideration when posting in the future . As my dear departed mother said " If you can't say something nice....." I will do my best to heed her advice.