March 12, 2006

“V” for “Vile” – Hollywood Still Doesn’t Get It

by MsUnderestimated — Categories: Bush-Bashing, Hollyweird, Hypocrisy At Its Finest, Media Bias8 Comments

The commercials for this movie, “V for Vendetta” make it look like a slick, action-packed thriller about good defeating evil. Well, that depends on what your definition of “good” is. I had heard that the movie was about the softening the image of evil-doers, or actually putting that mask on those who are really the ones doing good.

So, I was not surprised to read a review today about the true message behind the movie – I was, however, surprised to see the review was in the online edition of Newsweek! The article by writer By Jeff Giles is titled “Anarchy in the U.K. – ‘V for Vendetta’ tries talkin’ about a revolution.” Here are some excerpts from the article:

March 20, 2006 issue – V for Vendetta” will get its share of dismissive reviews—probably more than enough to convince hard-core fans that the movie was simply too smart and dangerous to be given safe passage. In point of fact, though, “Vendetta” is not good. The film may spark interesting debates—about the nature of terrorism and governments, about the inalienable right of artists to shock and provoke—but what we’re dealing with is a lackluster comic-book movie that thinks terrorist is a synonym for revolutionary.

Vendetta2.jpg

“Vendetta” is based on an ’80s-era graphic novel rife with outrage over Margaret Thatcher’s England. But, as adapted by the Wachowski brothers and directed by their protégé James McTeigue, the movie plays like a clumsy assault on post-9/11 paranoia. It references “America’s war,” uses imagery direct from Abu Ghraib and contains dialogue likely to offend anyone who’s not, say, a suicide bomber. Buildings are symbols, V tells a haunted young woman named Evey (Natalie Portman), after saving her from some vile, rampaging cops: “Blowing up a building can change the world.” The filmmakers have insisted that V is not intended to be a hero. Which is bollocks. The movie grants him absolute moral superiority from beginning to end. Sure, Evey tells him he’s a monster—and then tries to make out with his mask. In a movie, when the pretty girl falls in love with you and stays in love with you, you’re a hero.

Now, with all the other anti-American, pro-terrorist movies out there, this one just falls in line with the rest. But it also reminds me that Hollywood still doesn’t get it. That crap doesn’t sell. And as a recent article Drudge pointed out just today – “Are stars burned out?; Studios question ShoWest promo ops…,” even Time (gasp!) gets in on this – “In the Wachowskis’ bizarre V FOR VENDETTA, the hero – yes, hero – wants to blow up London…” Breitbart’s AP article from last Thursday reveals the truth in numbers – “World box office dipped 7.9 pct to 23 billion dollars last year : study.” How long will it take for Hollyweird to learn its lesson? Probably never, because it appears they still think they’re the ones wearing the “good” mask; so, in their eyes, what is there TO learn?

Oh, well. Guess this means I am more easily able to predict my movie-going habits for a long time to come, which leaves me more free time to watch “24.”

Also seen at RightontheRight, Stop the ACLU, Jo’s Cafe, and Amy Proctor’s place.

Expose The Left has a piece on it today, as does Right Wing Nation.

  • alex

    Would you have your panties in a bunch over this movie if it took on an opposite foe, and the hero was fighting an oppressive communist state (as opposed to the right-wing nazi-like police state portrayed in this movie)?

    Would that movie be “pro-terrorist?”

  • http://www.msunderestimated.com MsUnderestimated

    You need to read up on American War History.

  • alex

    Would you have your panties in a bunch over this movie if it took on an opposite foe, and the hero was fighting an oppressive communist state (as opposed to the right-wing nazi-like police state portrayed in this movie)?

    Would that movie be “pro-terrorist?”

  • http://www.msunderestimated.com MsUnderestimated

    You need to read up on American War History.

  • alex

    First of all, this was based on feelings of “what if” in regards to slippery-slope senarios…drawn out of policies in place in England under Margret Thatcher in the 1980's. NOT on anything in American history.

    But if you want to bring up American war history, I'm game. History shows us fighting several different types of enemies and ideaologies, in several different ways.

    The best example to bring up is the war for independence from the British Crown – were the American revolutionary fighters terrorists? Under your definition, are we to say that movies like “The Patriot” are “pro-terrorist” because much of the fighting style against the British was unorthodox, guerilla style and fighting against the army of a nation that claimed soveriegnty over the land?

    History also shows us fighting against opposite ends of the idealogical spectrum. Take, for example, the right-wing facism known as “nazism” durring WW2 (which is close to what the England of the future had become in “V for Vendetta”). Or the left-wing oppression known as “communism” durring the Cold War.

    The point is, for you to label a futuristic movie as “anti-American, pro-terrorist” because of the subject matter and idealology they chose to portray is downright ridiculous. Especially given that in “American war history” we've successfully fought against several different idealolgies for our freedom, including one that is closely aligned with what is portrayed in the movie.

    Rag on the movie all you want about the timing, showing an act, that in modern times, could be construed as terrorism…or playing a two-second clip of real news footage from Iraq; but given the situation portayed in the future in this movie, are you saying you wouldn't cheer the same act if the ideology portrayed wasn't extreme right-wing, but instead extreme left-wing?

  • alex

    First of all, this was based on feelings of “what if” in regards to slippery-slope senarios…drawn out of policies in place in England under Margret Thatcher in the 1980′s. NOT on anything in American history.

    But if you want to bring up American war history, I’m game. History shows us fighting several different types of enemies and ideaologies, in several different ways.

    The best example to bring up is the war for independence from the British Crown – were the American revolutionary fighters terrorists? Under your definition, are we to say that movies like “The Patriot” are “pro-terrorist” because much of the fighting style against the British was unorthodox, guerilla style and fighting against the army of a nation that claimed soveriegnty over the land?

    History also shows us fighting against opposite ends of the idealogical spectrum. Take, for example, the right-wing facism known as “nazism” durring WW2 (which is close to what the England of the future had become in “V for Vendetta”). Or the left-wing oppression known as “communism” durring the Cold War.

    The point is, for you to label a futuristic movie as “anti-American, pro-terrorist” because of the subject matter and idealology they chose to portray is downright ridiculous. Especially given that in “American war history” we’ve successfully fought against several different idealolgies for our freedom, including one that is closely aligned with what is portrayed in the movie.

    Rag on the movie all you want about the timing, showing an act, that in modern times, could be construed as terrorism…or playing a two-second clip of real news footage from Iraq; but given the situation portayed in the future in this movie, are you saying you wouldn’t cheer the same act if the ideology portrayed wasn’t extreme right-wing, but instead extreme left-wing?

  • alex

    You need to stop being a coward and deleting comments, and engage in debate.

  • alex

    You need to stop being a coward and deleting comments, and engage in debate.

© 2012 MsUnderestimated All rights reserved - Wallow theme v0.46.5 by ([][]) TwoBeers - Powered by WordPress - Have fun!