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 ( Read more... )
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 ( Read more... )
I have no problem with "in extreme circumstances, the NF could make it". They would have to be pretty extreme, since even the 1930s Depression was not strong enough for any sort of fascism to be more than fringe in any part of the Anglosphere or Northern Europe. What I object is to turning what was Norsefire (not an obviously Christian name, but we can let that pass) into a wing of the Conservative Party. It is simple nasty, small-minded, self-inflating bigotry. There is a (good) reason the tradition existed of not engaging in such identification in "it could happen here" fiction.
I may think Jonah Goldberg's identification of "Liberal Fascism" is nonsense on stilts, but I certainly understand the entirely reasonable resentment that it has successfully tapped into about wild overuse of the abusive identification in the other direction. A certain civility (not to mention truthfulness) is called for in such matters.
Reply
Ahh my deductive speculation was correct!
What I object is to turning what was Norsefire (not an obviously Christian name,
Well, Nazism did do a sort of crossover with Nordic paganism and imperialist Christianity at the same time.
.. but we can let that pass) into a wing of the Conservative Party.
And if Enoch Powell achieved power?
This said it probably would be an even better story if there were redeemable conservatives within the system...
Reply
V for Vendetta is about Tyranny vs Everyone Else. It doesn't care what your political philosophy is, just so long as it isn't about totalitarian dictatorship. And if it is, then you are The Enemy. Just as, if you are a totalitarian dictator, your enemy is everyone else.
It's not about conservatives per se, it's about a totalitarian dictatorship using conservative messages to impose that dictatorship, over liberals and conservatives alike. A story with many antecedents, as you've noted.
Reply
Reply
Reply
It is precisely in order to make "it could happen here" fiction work as being about tyranny that the tradition was you did not slander an existing mainstream political party in that way.
Reply
Besides, Suttler was portrayed as a ‘conservative fundamentalist’, who was in the conservative party until he could start his own ultra-conservative party and take over in a not-very-subtle analogy with another dictator whose name starts with A... and ends in ...tler.
Reply
Mussolini came from the (radical wing) of the Italian Socialist Party.
Hitler had army and occult connections but was never associated with any mainstream conservative Party prior to joining the Nazi Party.
So, that does not work either. Fascism (and Nazism) are radical and reactionary, but not conservative.
Reply
That is the point, the radical, reactionary and totalitarian parties are neither socialist nor conservative, but they will happily use talking points and appeals to both to get their actual desired result: All Of The Power For Themselves.
Reply
So why smear an existing Conservative Party in that way?
Particularly since Fascism and Nazism only got their chance when support for mainstream liberal-conservative Parties collapsed? (In large part due to seeming inadequate in the face of a threat from revolutionary socialists with a record of violence.) Historically a strong Conservative Party is the biggest single barrier to Fascism/Nazism, which makes the film's smear all the more reprehensible.
They were, each of them, using patently conservative appeals to family and nation and fear of the different. The Nazi's called themselves ‘Socialist’ too, and if a dog calls itself an eagle, it still can't fly.
They also co-opted a whole lot of Left rhetoric as well, and their political methods were based on methods pioneered by the Left.
The notion that Fascism/Nazism is a pure Right phenomenon is a tactic of (Stalinism in particular) to avoid all sorts of embarrassing connections and parallels.
So, to summarise, the film's smear of the British Conservative Party:
(1) Does not come from the original comic.
(2) Has no basis in past history.
(3) Has no basis in current history (especially given the Conservatives have been in opposition for quite some time: how much artistic "courage" does it take to smear the opponents of the governing Party handing out the arts grants?)
(4) Is not artistically necessary, or even desirable.
(5) Goes against the established tradition of "it could happen here fiction" of not so smearing a current mainstream Party
(6) Undermines the analogy to Hitler and Mussolini.
It is just a smear, and a contemptible one at that.
Reply
And I thought I said that they use progressive rhetoric as well as conservative, in order to achieve their aims. They will talk to the poor and talk about the unfairness of the upper classes. They will talk to the rich and talk about the need for social stability. They will, in Yes, Minister fashion, talk conservative when they want to act radical, and vice-versa. They are neither left nor right, but largely orthogonal to both.
You are getting worked up over things which were done for valid reasons. The timeline was that Labour was ruling when biological attacks took out the US (Nuclear strikes in the comic). In the comic, there was general chaos which Norsefire emerged from, but the film adaptaters thought this was too much to explain, so they had it that the Norsefire core had worked their way into positions of power, and engineered a Kristallnacht false flag attack, which led to the population choosing the Conservatives, which weren't the conservatives anymore, the Norsefire cuckoo having hollowed it out and replaced it with itself.
Part of the differences between this and Fascists in the '30s is that it seems less likely, at the moment, that a new movement could rise in that fashion now as it did then. More likely to subvert an existing party. And when things are violently changing, then the party to subvert is the one of tradition and stability.
But if you're determined to be offended, then there's not much I can do to dissuade you, I suppose. I don't see it, myself.
Reply
What I am saying, is that Fascism and Nazism largely occupied the political space that mainstream liberal-conservative Parties were squeezed out of. If mainstream liberal-conservative Parties remain strong, Fascism and Nazism remain fringe phenomena.
You are giving the film a back-story it does not present in order to give them an excuse.
There is simply no reason to have the Sutton regime come out of the Conservative Party except as a smear. Which, I would point out, Alan Moore did not do: presumably because he is too historically literate.
It is a huge smear to imply that an existing mainstream political Party would gestate an authoritarian dictatorship. It would have been simplicity itself to say that a previously fringe Party shot to strength and then power in the chaos. After all, that is what actually happened in all the actual cases of fascism.
Reply
And I suspect that a large part of that was playing to conservative Americans feeling like the GOP had been hijacked by fundamentalists and wannabe tyrants in the Bush administration.
But like I said, if you're determined to be offended, not much I can say will stop you.
Reply
That is plausible, it does not make it any better.
There really is a reason why the previous tradition was that you did not finger existing mainstream political parties in 'it could happen here' fiction. There was no reason to break the tradition other than to smear the existing mainstream Right in UK (and, indeed, perhaps) US politics.
Reply
(2) Enoch Powell was hardly much of a fascist. A strident "Little Englander", but really, that is not the same thing.
(3) if there were redeemable conservatives within the system...
Thank you for making my point for me.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment