V for vendetta

On the morning I watched it again on the flight home. If you have not watched it...or did a while ago....do so. I fits the times even better that when it was first released.

I think it's even better than any filmed version of 1984.

I was in Palenque earlier in the year and I met this woman and we got to chatting and I went in her house to use the biffy and she had the mask hanging over her bed.

That mask says something about how people identify themselves in this day and age: we're many people with one face.

As in tens of thousands, would send a powerful message.

And start down in the West Village.. I would LOVE to see the cops try to rein in all those great puppets without looking like damn fools!!

people at our little local movement just starting up came yesterday wearing "V" masks.

:eyes:

It's moves like this that will also really get their attention.

good idea. by time this has happened. people are sick and tired of being treated as 3rd class citizens.

at the protests???

Ahem.....

The medium truly IS the message....eh?

They are made. They offer courses in some colleges about this still, you might one to find a college that still does and take a class on that.

And a memorable chant! And it was all symbolic-y and zeitgeist-y and profound and shit!

This place is to laugh some days.

Not planned -- a family friend (feeling the zeitgeist?) wanted to watch it for the first time in months and it was playing when eldest and I walked in to pick up little bro. Needless to say, we stayed and watched the last 90 minutes!

And yeah, it fits the times perhaps even more than it did when first released...

after all the guards empty their guns at V, he says "my turn", pulls out two knives and throws them, taking out the guys on each side of Creedy. Clearly, if he could do that, he could have just as easily taken out Creedy instead of making the little speech "No, what you have are bullets, and the hope that when your guns are empty, that I am no longer standing, because if I am, you will be dead before you've reloaded."

With Creedy dead, the guards would no longer try to kill him. He would not be mortally wounded, and those dozen guys would not be killed.

Of course, from a movie standpoint, that would take away the whole shooting scene and slow-motion fight, but that would be the logical thing to do. Maybe V wanted to put himself through the crucible of bullets, but why take the chance of being killed and leaving Creedy to oppress the society? Maybe he needed to take out those other guys since they were the core of Creedy's goon squad. Thus he needed to have them empty their guns at his shield or it would have been too easy for him to be shot in the side while trying to dispatch them.

Still, why not take out Creedy and the guy to his right instead of making a little speech? That way he has to absorb fewer bullets and he makes sure that Creedy gets killed.

For me, the fight scene is not the coolest part, the coolest part is when the police leader, for reasons unknown, shouts the command to "stand down! stand down!"

The good guy often has to die at the hands of the bad guy(s)
In order to make things work out right.

(We watched it last night as well.)

Tesha

would have a lot more relevance now than it did when I saw it. I often wonder about Anonymous. They truly are everywhere. I saw masks on people in Hong Kong and other parts of the world today.

I never understood why the comic book series on which the movie was based seized on Fawkes--considered a notorious traitor in England--as its heroic icon.

Guy Fawkes Day ("Remember, Remember the Fifth of November") is celebrated for the failure of Fawkes' plot.

The movie was good, but the attachment to Fawkes has always struck me as contradictory to the theme.

running around in Guy Fawkes masks. most of them likely have no idea who he was nor what he was trying to do that got him immortalized. he was a terrorist. a failed terrorist. a religious terrorist. his motives today would be an Al Qaeda wet dream...

sP

Peope know him (or at least, his mask) only from the movie. He's held up as a hero, despite the historical fact that he was a terrorist.

That's why I have a problem with the association of Guy Fawkes masks with the Occupy/99% movement. Religious zealotry is not what the movement espouses.

is one of the victims of the murderous anti-establishment terrorist-hero in the comic book. Don't know about the movie.

...is administered via a communion wafer.

Tesha

where they can hear audio, the surveillance guys are chuckling, saying "Children's hour at the abbey". then they hear V say "Put it in your mouth" and the bishop screams "I DON'T WANT TO DIE!!!"

V in the movie clearly is using an opportunistic date
but shares no "Religious Terrorist" traits with the
actual Guy.

And if more people come to associate the mask with
V than with the Guy, then maybe it becomes valid to
use the mask to represent V's ideals?

Tesha

well, it reinforces a common thing in today's world. people forget REAL history (or never bothered to learn/know it) and replace it with junk that is foisted on them in the movies. hell, there are people out there that think Twilight is real and so is Star Wars and the LOTR Trilogy.

Remember, remember the 5th of November? not because of a movie...

sP

If it weren't, Democrats would still be portrayed
as the party of Southern lynchings and Republicans
would be the friends of the African Americans.

Tesha

Ignoring history is always perilous.

is as it is written and taught by those in control.

And I know there is elite history, history of labor, women's history, new history, etc. I recommend Howard Zinn as a good intro to new history...a popular history is all but elite history.

also oral history, mythology etc. I recently gave some thought and came up with an idea, that to share a future with people, you need to share a common history.

And they use quite a few of the same primary sources.

means originally telling a story. Greece was an imperialist culture, and imperialist cultures are big on "objective" and "universal" history. They have often big troubles listening and hearing and respecting the stories of local indigenous peoples. As Dostoyevsky said, people tend to hate those that they have wronged. Also academic historians have sometimes problems understanding or remembering that lots of the local primary sources are for various reasons secret histories never written down and shared with only those that can be trusted.

Of course I could recommend michelle foucault's work, but at this point why bother?

Thanks for the reminder though...did not find one book in Mexico, so shall order it in English

about sexual history of Ancient Greece, but that was a long time ago.

The ideal of objectivity is a weird one, what is meant by objectivity, and why is it held as an ideal, ie. ethical axiom? What are the metaphysical and paradigmatic presuppositions behind the ideal of objectivity.

I've read also Heraclitus and other Greek philosophers, Derrida, Heidegger, etc.; Schrödinger, Bohm and other quantum physicists - etc. etc., about nature of time and consciousness and memory etc.

This discussion brought to my mind what a professor of anthropology/study of religions specialized in shamanism said in one of his books. In his field studies in Siberia he had been allowed to participate in shamanistic rituals, but the shamans had told him that some things should be kept secret and not published, and for this professor his ethics of science made him respect those wishes.

KNOW that true objectivity is a platonic ideal, never to be achieved.

Pop culture heroizes the Fawkes mask and it's iconized even here.

Maybe I should start watching 'Twilight.' :eyes:

The way that gays reclaimed the word gay after it was a positive adjective having nothing to do with sexual orientation then a slur about same?

Historically people have adopted all sorts of symbols (verbal and visual) that in some way externalized their ineffable thoughts and feelings. Tea Bags? The Boston Tea Party wasn't just protesting the tax (as teabaggers claim) they were protesting many of the same things OWS is protesting: Corrupted governance, wealth accumulated in the hands of a very few through the efforts of a great number, lack of direct power over the systems that ruled their lives.

I doubt OWS would have ever made that connection with what they are trying to accomplish. So the Tea Party would not have occurred to them naturally (grass roots not astroturf)

Visual Language is not a rational language. It is about a symbolic connection with no regard to the historical "facts". Teabaggers wanted the weight and authority of history, so they adopted a symbol that spoke to that.

Anonymous want to align themselves with a graphic novel character who used the Guy Fawkes mask and not with Guy Fawkes himself.

They have the benefit of a 3rd party (albeit fictional) using the mask first, blurring the direct connection with Fawkes.

Gay might still mean happy, frivolous and free spirited to you, but I doubt it.

They dressed him up brightly (source of the word "guy"), perhaps masked him, then set him to be hung, drawn, and quartered.

If he was masked, then we are seeing a death mask as a symbol of rebellion. A mocking of those who crush change to maintain their power. The mask itself now a symbol of rebellion and the need for Change, a reminder of what they do to those who demand change, and that such is repugnant.

The most important part of the film aside from Edie learning to be Free is the end when the Unified People march upon authority, peacefully, and in a single act, sweep away the old. The power always has been, and always will be, Ours.

:hi:

that the Fawkes character opposed a future fascistic, state-imposed religion that, among other things, oppressed gay people, much like what was feared during the Bush Junior, or especially the Reagan eras. This was called the Norsefire Regime. I don't know if the real history of Guy Fawkes follows the comic book that closely.

It's interesting to note that Anonymous used Guy Fawkes symbolism to oppose Scientology, which also fosters the oppression of gay people and attempts to convert them.

but read the book few days ago. I trust a friends opinion that the movie is second rate compared to the book. Couple comments:

Alan Moore who wrote the book is a self-confessed anarchist (and a ceremonial magician!). It would not be good art if the main character and the message or moral of the book was not ridden with inner contradictions and veil of mystery, questions left unanswered - who and what is behind the mask? When seeing that Anonymous campaign against scientology used Guy Fawkes masks from their book (draw by Lloyd) he commented that it gave him a warm feeling.

The greatest traitor in the book is Justice - after the main character has blown up the Parliament building, his next target is house and statue of Justice - lady whom he has loved and who has betrayed him, selling herself to Money and Power, so betrayed by his first love, the whoring Justice, the main character confesses love to Anarchy and blows up Justice.

The Guy Fawkes Day has acquired also customs and meanings critical of the politicians at the top of the pyramid hierarchy - not only the doll of "Guy" is "celebrated" and destroyed, but also those of Thatcher, Major, Blair etc.

To me, the movie is a *FAR BETTER* representation
of our political ideals than is the novel. I have
no stomach for anarchists, "black bloc" assholes,
or their ilk so the V of the comic has little appeal
to me, but the V of the movie is very appealing and
I'm certainly up for restoring Democracy to our
country and helping to spread true δημοκρατια worldwide.

Tesha

I thought the graphic novel was overlong and pretentious as hell, like most of Alan Moore's work.

Now I want to see the movie also.

As for Black Block, it's not a black and white issue - nothing really is. About a decade ago when there was big demonstrations in Goethenburg Sweden (also Bush being present little before 9/11) - the social democratic paradise many DUers admire - officials had promised to work with demonstrators peacefully and in good trust. Demonstrators were promised an old school for accommodation and meeting place. To their great surprise the people in the building were suddenly surrounded by police in heavy gear, causing trouble and hurting people. Black block came to rescue, broke the police lines and many got out and avoided arrest and police brutality. Many of those following non-violent principles expressed gratitude and admiration for Black block self-defense and solidarity.

But the cost was and is high, too many martyrs shot and killed by police, in Goethenburg, Genova and elsewhere.

Don't hate anarchists (don't hate me! :)), not even Black block, don't hate at all. If you must hate, then just the structures that cause police and other oppression mechanisms to hurt us. Hate Wall Street and greed and fear.

I often find that the Black Bloc and their seemingly-
random violence against property completely destroys
and overwhelms the message of peace protests, econ-
omic justice protests, racial justice protests, and
other similar events.

Do they serve a purpose? I'll believe you when you
tell me they have in the past, and the way things
are going, they may yet again serve a purpose, but
right now, they mostly serve the propaganda needs
of our enemies.

Tesha

is not the way we want to proceed. Certainly not in current situation and hopefully the old regime can fall relatively peacefully, as did the Soviet Block in 1989.

As for relation between V for Vendetta aesthetics and ideals and Anonymous vs. Black block, I've heard that there was an exchange of words in one Occupytogether planning event, when some anarchists accustomed to Black block tactics criticized the strict principle of non-violence. The members of Anonymous present at the meeting - in my book Anonymous is at the core also a militant anarchist movement - threatened to publish the names of those not agreeing with tactics of non-violence.

to look at them as if they were written like a regular comic book character, and not a one-off graphic novel, where the character takes on multiple identities and can be in more than one story.

The movie was written very much for our contemporary society at that time. It was heavily allegorical to a lot of the things that the US and British governments were doing. especially things like the Patriot Act. Moore wrote the actual graphic novel more as an anti-Thatcherism piece. So they deal with with different flavors and aspects of fascism, and I personally think that both do an amazing job at each of their main ideas.

I was an 'independent' through much of my younger high school and college years, and watching V with my friends and putting it together with current events got the wheels turning in my head, which eventually led me to becoming a liberal. And I read the GN about a year ago when I started getting into them, and it was another great and completely different experience for me. So I would definitely check out the film as well.

:-)

I wholly agree with you.

:hi:

Fawkes is a logical popular "hero." This happens often. Mexico has lionized Cuauthtemoc ho lost.

V wears a mask of Fawkes and uses some of the same method, of blowing up buildings, although empty ones, except at Jordan Tower, but otherwise it does not continuously dwell on Fawkes or repeatedly say "huraah for Fawkes".

This has bothered me since the first Paultards started playing up the whole Guy Fawkes thing.

It's also an allusion to the power of one person, an "everyman", to smash an entire system, with one action.

cried. It stuck a nerve in me.

I cry everytime the protesters break the police line at the end and I dont usually cry about anything.

character -- mostly because I loved the name, but I also loved the movie.

It's on my right upper arm with "FREEDOM" above it and "FOREVER" below.



My then 19 year old goddaughter wore the complete V regalia to the protests last winter at Madison:



I don't think anyone suspected that V was a teenaged girl.

The film is about someone trying to bring down, through violent acts, a totalitarian government that uses religion and fear to attack minorities and oppress its people.

You're really saying the USA is closer to that in 2011 than in 2006 when it came out? (Or are you talking about another country, eg the UK, where it was set?)

That said a certain justice has said now what we have... Fascism came to the us in 2000

but you haven't yet said what you think is 'right'.

You just said "I(t) fits the times even better that when it was first released". That was 2006; this is 2011, with a Democratic president, and a Democratic Senate. In what specific way does VfV fit the present day better than 2006? 2000 is not an answer; 2006 was closer to 2000 than 2011 is, and specifically the 2006 president was still there because of the 2000 Supreme Court actions. Obama is not; he was elected fair and square. 2000 seems to strengthen my case, and weaken yours.

And police response. I will say this, which I am sure you will not like, a letter behind a name means didly squat when that name does not share your interests. Power elites come to mind, a term rarely used in the united states.

This, after we thought, or HOPED, that we had CHANGED that in the last election.

Never heard of it!

Talking about who Guy Fawkes really was completely misses the point!

What about a discussion of Evie's lengthy imprisonment, and the communications she receives
in her cell? The idea of V deciding to show her just how much stronger she is than she has
been TRAINED to believe she is? The LOVELY caricaturing of Bush and Cheney?



This kind of exacting thinking is really just kinda annoying to me; we're talking about
art here, not a historical document! Is poetry required to be absolutely true, line for line?

To those who don't get it, all I can say is, I don't get THAT!

That movie is one of the FEW contemporary films made in the last 4 decades or so to actually
speak to the REALITY of our times... much like the first Matrix film made by the Wachowskis,
who also penned the screenplay for V.

And it's lovely, and strong medicine for ennui... poetic as hell!

K&R!

Perhaps a less-disparaging way to refer to those who point out the historical truths is 'fact-based' or 'reality-based' thinkers.

To point out the movie's historical flaws (principally, making a murderous traitor an iconic hero) is not to disparage the ideals espoused.

The movie had a great message--one that shouldn't have to rely on a comic book's very wrong and very distorted version of history.

But I cannot in good conscience withdraw the words I originally used, as it was indeed my intention
to disparage and ridicule the sort of two-dimensional thinking I was discussing.

Perhaps I should refer you again to my line questioning whether poetry needs to be TRUE line for line?

I'm sorry it annoys you that this annoys ME... but there really are a LOT of literalists here who don't
understand sarcasm unless you put a drippy SARCASM icon next to it, f'rinstance... and as I CLEARLY stated in my
earlier post, I find such limited thinking infinitely annoying--mostly because it becomes necessary to
defend one's choice of words and basic intent endlessly, in order to endlessly explain what seems to me extremely
obvious to anyone whose critical thinking skills include a basic understanding of poetic nuance.

Here, as illustration, is another example of art that is highly inaccurate: Salvador Dali's paintings...
doggone it, people's heads don't just unravel like that! And watches that melt all over the place, that
just doesn't make sense!

Or Franz Kafka's stories! Let's face it, NO ONE has ever turned into a giant bug overnight!... that just
never happens!

See what I'm saying here? Or not?

And btw, if the movie didn't rely on its own source material, however historically inaccurate that source
material may have been, then I guess its "great message"--which I totally agree with you WAS great--why,
it wouldn't have existed at all, would it?

Read the book. Alan Moore did not like the movie at all. He said this:

that it was about fascism, anarchy & England just fine.

And I will add this, with good reason most authors do not like movie versions of their work... unless the movie rights include a right for them to go over script.

...because of the battle between liberals and neocons. It was cathartic to see a comatose nation wake up--as someone helped them to
see that "something is very wrong with this country". Then to have the neocons and their propagandists and sociopathic behaviors lose--and
the people win--was very healing.

What's wrong with slanting the movie that way? Isn't the goal to appeal to an audience. Liberal vs. neocon is the current American reality
right now.

I thought the movie was genius. The book was great, but it was but a springboard form which "V for Vendetta" was created. The movie never
pretended to stay true to the book--and nor did it have to, to be successful and poignant.

The comic was seriously flawed. Fortunately, the nuclear warfare (which Moore himself admitted was a mistake) was replaced with the St. Mary's virus in the movie and that stupid bit about the inspector gaining omniscience after using LSD was wrong on so many levels.

Moore complains about people adapting his work for the movies. Umm, isn't there more than a little adapting for Moore's own work? The Charlton characters became the Watchmen, God knows how many characters went into the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, and in writing Lost Girls, took Alice from Alice in Wonderland, Dorothy from Wizard of Oz, and Wendy from Peter Pan. And about the copyright violation regarding Peter Pan's Wendy that the Great Ormond Street Hospital claimed, Moore essentially gave them the finger.

Moore's a great writer. He's also a hypocrite and has no right to complain.

but thanks

enlighten us. what is this about.

The themes of anarchism vs fascism.

like they treat their colonies. i don't think there's any risk of that here. unless... i don't know... we invade canada and start using them as slave labor or something.

"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."-Benito Mussolini. I think he knows more about what Fascism is then your source does.

you don't even know who frantz fanon is.

However, he is wrong on what Fascism is. It has a definition, Mussolini gave that definition. Just because we don't like something doesn't mean we can label it Fascism. Maybe, you should read up on Fascism some, because you clearly don't know what it is. The colonial powers of Europe were not Fascist ans they way they treated their colonies, while terrible, was not Fascism. There hasn't been a Fascist state since the fall of Pinochet, and even he is debatable.

mussolini was a ridiculous dumbass caricature of a human being and fanon was a serious person that everyone takes seriously. the problem with mussolini's definition of fascism is that it is vague enough to basically apply to every capitalist society ever. as there has never been a capitalist society without a state apparatus to enforce contracts, protect property rights, settle disputes between capitalists, etc. so that is why mussolini's definition is unhelpful.

His ideology is not very well defined and the differences in the various Fascist movements does show how fractured a group it is. The Nazis and the Italian Fascists really had a lot of differences. You are correct his definition could apply to any capitalist state, so let me ask you. How do you think we should define and use the term Fascism, since it is very vague. I do think you raise a good point, I'm just wary of the way some people use the term to mean anything they don't like. I'm not saying you do that, but certainly I've seen even some leftists do it.

fascism is a form of militant social-democracy. contrary to what people say, about fascism being the other side of the coin of communism, it is actually the other side of the coin of social-democracy. a political movement by the middle classes that aims to preserve class society by smoothing over - suppressing by any means necessary - the contradictions of class society. that is why the one thing all fascist regimes have in common is virulent anticommunism.

will ultimately serve the needs of the 1%. We are halfway there now, and people don't even realize it, becuase over half of our tax revenues are being spent by the Pentagon or black ops.

is the extreme right end of the political spectrum, just as communism often characterizes the extreme left end of the spectrum. Fascists are always anti-communist, this is what motivated both Hitler and Mussolini and the movements that supported them. Also, anyone who tries to characterize fascism as being like communism because it often includes the term "National Socialism" is ignorant of history.

hijacking the system in order to socialize the losses and privatize the profits is another, and it is not true capitalism. Fascism may be thought of as a type of socialism, but it is socialism only for the benefit of the extremely wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

it was called dictablanda for a reason

Corporations are treating the US like they have treated other countries all these years, and the slave labor is already here.

And the end of labor rights are just part of our vivid imaginations. I recommend you read the 14 points of fascism.

the typical western wage is too high, there isnt anything especially "fascist" about it.

When state laws reflect the interests of capital this is the classic definition. So I guess you are all for the re-imposition of the Stewart industrial code? Re-read smith, a capitalist if there ever was one, and what he wrote on living wages.

there is no classical definition of fascism! the bourgeois state necessarily governs in the interests of the bourgeoisie! read a book some time! jesus!

Wealth of nations..

I'd say it is you who needs to read a few books. Perhaps gramsci's prison notebooks are in order

Oh and what side are you on?

and lots of energy is wasted in rather pointless battles over meanings of words.

However, I would not say that it is incorrect observation that the neocolonialism or capitalist/neoliberal globalization with IMF and World band as spear heads have now turned to devour their original base of strength, former imperialist powers of Europe and USA. People in OECD countries are getting their first taste of the bitter medicine that they've dealt to the peoples of 3rd world.

like was attempted in CIA backed coups of countries in the southern cone, but seems to be trying to be applied now (at least since 2000).

but since america was never encumbered by the parasitic residue of pre-capitalist times, america is actually super-duper capitalist.

things that go well beyond the acting.

And the stupid V masks (and the Munch Scream ones too) are counter-productive.

:thumbsup:

Perhaps you're looking for too much in a movie, an entertainment and just another consumer product for sale.

Half the protesters think that they're V. As a story set in the future, it is OK. As a real-life model for how protests should be conducted, that movie is NOT something any self-respecting Democrat should support.

But those of us capable of symbolic thought... I could, but won't, recommend a course in symbolic thought or the history of cinema and how it can represent a zeitgeist... But I won't. Why bother?

By the way...SYMBOLS are just that... SYMBOLS.

once in a while to let someone own a differing opinion without a lecture why you think they're intellectually deficient, lol.

and needs to be lectured. They can own all the opinions they want, but when they start lecturing us about what we should be doing I'm fine with lecturing them back on where their thinking is deficient.

People keep telling the OWS movement that they should be more like teh Tea Party, well here you go. When pushed over the edge people, en masse, may ultimately resort to force.

I see no reference here to the Tea Party but that aside, perhaps you're right, a successful movement might be modeled after a comic book or the romantic fantasy film adaptation of the same by Warner Bros, lol.

when we act, we act as One.

But do carry on.

Re-read the op...capturing zeitgeist, perhaps google the word up in an online dictionary, does not mean anybody is using a train under Parlaiment to blow it up. That is just silly in the extreme.

perhaps give 'intellectual insecurity' a lookup, it might ease some of those tensions associated with thinking denigrating the intelligence of others somehow makes you smart.

That's why it's different as a story than it would be if it were put literally into practice. I have to say, I found the casual attitude in the film towards violence somewhat disturbing even before anyone appropriated the images for political action. Reminds me too much of the Weathermen and current right-wing radicals, not to mention the French Revolution.

It's really hard to tell sometimes, though, how many of the people who use the Guy Fawkes image today take it metaphorically or truly believe in that kind of violence as a political tool.

On our present where violence is casual. In fascist societies it does become casual.

Symbols though, guy kills purely bad characters or henchmen, and uses torture to teach a lesson to eve. I find that problematic, but given our casual use of state violence.

:-)

As to those wearing them masks. I hope they can tell difference.

with my son. He's all into the occupy movement now :-)

While I enjoyed the film, I thought it took a great British utopian novel and turned it into an American rant against Republicans (which is why Moore wanted nothing to do with the film).

And Natalie Portman is hawt!

Here is another one...... watch Idiocracy and then V for Vendetta.

Remember remember..........

that a shitpile like that goofy-ass comic-book film would be held up as worthy of merit and symbolic of anything at all. Dimwitted nonsense.

Did you know the bard himself was considered a hack?

Jaysus the arrogance!!!!!!!!!!!

And of ALL people here at DU you have the absolute LEAST right to accuse anyone of arrogance. "Jaysus" indeed. :eyes:

And that is the frigging point. What FUTURE generations will call ART might, in fact, will differ from what you, at the present time, consider art.

This is the history of well...ART AND LITERATURE. By the way kindly re-read the op and find your paper dictionary and look up zeitgeist. Other movies that capture it are in different ways Restrepo, the Matrix and to a minor point the first make of batman this decade. This is about symbols, but do carry on.

By the way here is a little challenge, without taking a course on religious symbols try to read any of the MAJOR MEDIEVAL cathedrals. Reims would work. I am betting that since you are not tuned to it's symbols you will have a hell of a time readying it. Why? Neither you or I are hooked to that society.

But go on...comics by the way are seen as more than puerile by those who study culture by the way. I am guessing you will not deign yourself with teenage pursuits, never mind these are no longer purely teenage pursuits.

I buy anywhere from thirty to fifty floppies a month, in fact. I also play with miniature soldiers and sit at a table pretending to be a half-orc several times a month, so "teenage pursuits" do not, in and of themselves, bother me.

And seriously, nadin, you are not the only person here who knows what "zeitgeist" means. Just get off that kick, for goodness' sake. I'm arguing that we should choose our symbols and deeper meanings from sources more appropriate than a bad adaptation of an overrated comic written by a guy who (dead serious here) thinks he's a chaos magician.

The "V for Vendetta" crap is about dumb kids trying to look cool and the availability of cheap Chinese-made masks licensed by Warner Brothers than anything else, IMHO. Your mileage may vary -- such is the nature of symbols.

Go on and roll your d20. Hope you get a crit...but on this you really don't get it, and that's ok.

You are as predictable as ever.

"It is indicative of just how puerile and artistically void our society has become..."

I imagine when we make absolute statements based merely on subjective affectations, then using both as a measure of cultural mores, we indicate many other things also.

I'm suitably chastised. :hi:

and look at what it has done for the 1% movement.

One indication of how puerile and artistically void our society has become is look how you are attacked for having a differing opinion, unless being a put-down artist is now considered 'artistic', lol.

Wonderful graphic novel, mediocre film; although I do think Rupert Graver and Stephen Rae both had stand-out cast performances for their smaller roles.

I will say that with most action thrillers, we simply watch the sound and light show. V for Vendetta almost always has something going on that is actually interesting, inviting us to decode the character and plot and apply the message where we will. So in that, I think it's a step or two above the Wachowski brothers mundane and oh-so-unber-trendy snooze-fest The Matrix.

The movie wasn't quite good enough to make it to my DVD collection, however the graphic novel is nestled next to The Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns as the only graphic novels I've enjoyed enough to purchase.

On Edit: Opps-- Regardless of my review, a wonderful and inspiring message I believe we should all take to heart to one degree or another...

I will have to find the novel and read it...

As is, it made the flight more bearable.

but as politics go pure fantasy, the world does not work like that.