0 Votes
V for Anti-Bush?
The new Wachowski brothers movie, V for Vendetta, appeared in theaters this weekend, but it is not just the big budget action film it appeared to be. The pageant unfurls in a futuristic England dominated by a hyper-religious ‘High Chancellor’ who has crushed freedom to maintain ‘order.’ This stylized repressive government has also banned homosexuality, expunged all foreigners, and made owning a Koran a crime punishable by death. Against this tyranny comes ‘V,’ a caped vigilante and former victim of Nazi-like government torture.
The movie, which is based on a comic book series released between 1982 and 1985, has already been labeled by some as a fairly ‘obvious’ attack on the Bush administration. Several references to a deleterious American war appear throughout the film as does apparent video footage from Iraq. Others believe the ‘High Chancellor’ is a none-too-flattering caricature of Bush himself. Is the movie industry offering us a bleak image of the future if things continue on the same track, or is ‘V’ a film-industry snipe at Bush bereft of subtlety?
Similarly tagged OmniNerd content:
- Women Now Allowed Into Combat Roles, by VnutZ 4 months ago
- How would you reduce the deficit?, by Travis 5 months ago
- 512 Paths to the White House, by markmcb 7 months ago
- Don't Mess With... Massachusetts?, by Jackson about 1 year ago
Print Friendly
Write an Article
give me a break by bradsmith
Though people may wish that this movie was an "obvious" attack on the Bush administration, they need to re-examine the movie. First off, the comic book was based on Margaret Thatchers conservative party in the 80’s. The statement that the High Chancellor is a caricature of Bush is also a stretch. The Chancellor looks like more of a cross between Hitler and Thatcher. While their are some references to America’s War in the movie they are only there to give a time reference, indicating that the movie is set in the future. In no way is America’s War the cause of any of the movies events.
I thought the movie was 1) intense and 2) thought provoking. To attribute the this movie to the current administration would be no different than to compare the administration to works like 1984. Does our society fall prey to fear mongering? yes. Are civil liberties often revoked in the wake of such fear? yes. Do governments seek to cover up information by use of spin? yes. Do all of those apply to our government? yes. But they also apply to most governments…so let’s not make this a "your not patriotic" moment, the movie isn’t aimed at Bush. It’s aimed and you and me. Besides…last time I checked…Bush hadn’t engineered a deadly virus and released it on his constituents so as to claim power over them…..but that was just the last time I checked.
give me a break. It’s a movie about ideas….ideas that would make for a far better discussion than "is Hollywood dissing the Prez?" That story isn’t there…it just makes for good ratings on cable news stations that have a fan base that get riled up real easy. At least talk about the real controversy of the movie….is terrorism an acceptable means of political discourse?
Other Movies and Propaganda by PowerPointSamurai
Ok. So it’s debatable whether this movie is directly intended as a swipe on Bush or not, but it’s really pretty obvious there is a general trend going on.
I don’t know why they just can’t make movies, especially good thought provoking movies, without resorting to trying to jam a political agenda down our throats. Sure, controversy and intrigue drive their business. Making thought provoking and exciting movies is how they make their living. Got it.
Aside from Good Night and Good Luck and other not so subtle attempts to make people think of the McCarthy era, and crazy conspriracy theory mongering movies like Syriana, even mainstream movies had little embedded messages.
I remember watching documentaries on the making of the original Star Wars_, and they were talking about how the films were totally different than the cynical, hard edged films of the day and advocated such out-of-style elements as religion, honor, heroes, and had a message of good triumphing over evil. The movies were timeless because there were no references to contemporary pop culture or politics. They transcended and defined the era, rather than being influenced by them so transparently. Contrast with Star Wars: Episode III, Revenge of the Sith, where despite George Lucas’s weak denials, was widely regarded as a thinly vieled slam on President Bush {1}, {2}, {3}, {4}np.html. Although the special effects and acting were good in the movie, Lucas betrayed the vision he had in all of the other movies and anchored the last movie to a contemporary setting for a petty political swipe and then made a weak attempt to deny it. If you don’t believe me or any of the aforementioned articles, watch it again and listen for familiar little expressions in certain contexts.
I wonder if some of the Hollywood producers making these films sees the irony in making movies about a government that controls the media and uses "mind control" while they are the ones perpetrating essentially that. So what happens when someone the aforementioned media moguls like gets into power? As at least one other poster has pointed out, the "left" can be as militant, authoritarian, and oppressive as the right.