V for Vendetta and the decline of civility
Finally got around to seeing the film V for Vendetta on Wednesday night at Rohan/Vandel's place. Considered purely as a film, it is a very fine achievement, excellent in every department.
As per normal with comic book films, I have not read the original comic book. Looking up the Wikipedia(tm) entry on the original comic, I am struck by how the things that annoyed me about the film are alterations from the comic.
First of all, the original comic keeps to the longstanding convention in "it could happen here" fiction of not identifying the dictatorial ruling Party with any existing mainstream political party. The film version is basically a long smear on the Conservative Party. The film comes across as being very much created by "no one I know votes Conservative" types who can project anything they like on people who are just evil Others with whom they have no social contact or serious intellectual engagement.
This is in stark contrast with, for example, West Wing which, although in some respects represents liberal Democratic wish-fulfillment, always incorporated Republican/conservative writers/consultants and was good at sympathetically portraying conservative/Republican viewpoints. Hence its popular and critical success.
Conversely, The Reagans failed dismally because similar "no one I know votes Republican" types decided that they would be so clever in creating a series about a conservative icon without bothering to involve any conservatives. The same folk would never dream of, for example, doing a biopic of Harvey Milk without any gay people involved.
The V for Vendetta film's approach that the real threat to our liberties and democracy is conservative Christians is just tiresome. As a gay man, I have more reason to be annoyed with conservative Christians than most, but that meme is just ridiculous. (It is worth pausing here and considering what the original Guy Fawkes actually wanted.) After all, it is a British Labour government that went all the way with Dubya and has enacted controversial security legislation. (Tony Blair is notoriously a Christian, but hardly a right-wing one nor someone who threaded his politics with his religion.)
As a gay man, I also have more reason than most to be annoyed by the film's implicit turning any issues with Islam into just the West being beastly. It is not among Christians where attitudes towards gays are hardening or being expressed in violence--such that Dutch gays have shifted to voting conservative by a 2-to-1 margin. The question: If our anti-gay religious right were predominantly Muslim and violent instead of Christian and merely reactionary, would the U.S. left be throwing gays under the bus? is about a genuine issue.
But what struck me was how easy it was to let all that annoyance wash over me and just enjoy the film. Which is, of course, its own statement of how the descent into nasty-minded, and ultimately petty, propaganda was an extraneous betrayal of the film's genuine merits.
As per normal with comic book films, I have not read the original comic book. Looking up the Wikipedia(tm) entry on the original comic, I am struck by how the things that annoyed me about the film are alterations from the comic.
First of all, the original comic keeps to the longstanding convention in "it could happen here" fiction of not identifying the dictatorial ruling Party with any existing mainstream political party. The film version is basically a long smear on the Conservative Party. The film comes across as being very much created by "no one I know votes Conservative" types who can project anything they like on people who are just evil Others with whom they have no social contact or serious intellectual engagement.
This is in stark contrast with, for example, West Wing which, although in some respects represents liberal Democratic wish-fulfillment, always incorporated Republican/conservative writers/consultants and was good at sympathetically portraying conservative/Republican viewpoints. Hence its popular and critical success.
Conversely, The Reagans failed dismally because similar "no one I know votes Republican" types decided that they would be so clever in creating a series about a conservative icon without bothering to involve any conservatives. The same folk would never dream of, for example, doing a biopic of Harvey Milk without any gay people involved.
The V for Vendetta film's approach that the real threat to our liberties and democracy is conservative Christians is just tiresome. As a gay man, I have more reason to be annoyed with conservative Christians than most, but that meme is just ridiculous. (It is worth pausing here and considering what the original Guy Fawkes actually wanted.) After all, it is a British Labour government that went all the way with Dubya and has enacted controversial security legislation. (Tony Blair is notoriously a Christian, but hardly a right-wing one nor someone who threaded his politics with his religion.)
As a gay man, I also have more reason than most to be annoyed by the film's implicit turning any issues with Islam into just the West being beastly. It is not among Christians where attitudes towards gays are hardening or being expressed in violence--such that Dutch gays have shifted to voting conservative by a 2-to-1 margin. The question: If our anti-gay religious right were predominantly Muslim and violent instead of Christian and merely reactionary, would the U.S. left be throwing gays under the bus? is about a genuine issue.
But what struck me was how easy it was to let all that annoyance wash over me and just enjoy the film. Which is, of course, its own statement of how the descent into nasty-minded, and ultimately petty, propaganda was an extraneous betrayal of the film's genuine merits.