One thing I wish V for Vendetta had been able to do differently

[leftofthedial]

I really liked the movie and appreciated the fearless political parallels.

But I wish they'd have had a phony second political party instead of strict, stalinist one-party rule.

A gang of comfortable, overfed clueless political foils to endorse the most egregious policies of Hurt's party and to passivley take the blame for anything that goes wrong would have been delicious.

[wakeme2008]

1. How do you know there wasn't a second party at one time

until they were labeled as Terrorist Lovers and imprisoned.

[leftofthedial]

2. I think keeping the appearance of a second party

(as we have currently in Murka)

is in the long run a more sustainable model than is naked totalitarianism. It allows the "intelligentsia" to endlessly belabor the meme of "democracy" rather than become insular and ultimately nonviably insane trying to rationalize life and totalitarian rule as happened in the Soviet Union. Pure totalitarianism unavoidably becomes an absurdity and drives society to a psychotic state. (Capitalism, on the other hand is much more efficient in that it starts out as psychotic right from the start. Different topic.)

In the world of V, there undoubtedly was a second party at some point in the past; the film is rooted in current reality. But I think the creation of a "Harlem Globetrotters-Washington Generals" partnership/congame is the model a true would-be Big Brother would choose.

[radfringe]

3. I confess

I haven't checked out the movie - I have the idea of what it is about.

last night a commercial for the movie came on - my partner asks "does that look like anything we want to see"

me: yes, the republicans hate it

my partner: then we definitely have to see it!

[noahmijo]

5. There is a scene that I think gays will definitely appreciate even though

it is a sad one...:(

[leftofthedial]

7. The central relationship in the film

(aside from Evey and V) is a lesbian relationship.

Another key character is gay.

Gays are persecuted relentlessly, much as one might imagine they would be if the religiously insane right were to overtly seize power here.

[Lisa]

24. in Britain, homosexuality was only decriminalized in 1967 ...

A lot of English people watching the film today would remember what things used to be like, before "consenting adults" were recognized. The scenes where the police were breaking down the doors and arresting gay or lesbian couples aren't too far off the mark.

[noahmijo]

4. There couldn't have been a second party at the time in the movie

The primary leader of the country was Chancellor meaning he has absolute authority and Democracy is abolished hence even the notion of an oppositional party would've meant treason.

[leftofthedial]

6. that's what I'm talking about

I think a true aspiring totalitarian party would:

a) not invest the figurehead (Hurt in the movie) with actual power. Orwell had it right in 1984. By the time of the book, Big Brother was purely symbolic.

b) create a system with an impotent "opposition" party. This would allow the country's political discourse to focus on the superficial "differences" between the parties. It would allow the populace to believe they were "free." It would provide a foil against shom the rulers could argue the "logic" of their positions and would also create a perpetual scapegoat when things go wrong.

It also would be more closely reflective of the current political climate.

[noahmijo]

8. I would've liked to have seen that too in a way

I was just commenting on how I think at the period of where the movie was set the idea of a secondary even a mild oppositional party would've been impossible being that even as an ordinary citizen you could not question ANYTHING the government did.

Now a thought that just crossed my mind was it would've been cool if maybe through flashbacks they showed the liberal party being dissolved and its members being jailed for treason ect.

[leftofthedial]

19. they were pretty clear about the ruthless extermination

of all opposing viewpoints.

[Skinner]

9. Yeah! That's what we need!

More media attacks against Democrats! Lord knows they don't trash us enough!

[leftofthedial]

10. exposing the mechanisms by which Democrats have been

effectively neutered as a viable opposition is hardly an attack.

fearing discussion of what's wrong so that it can be remedied is a sign that one has already surrendered.

[Skinner]

11. It's a movie.

And a good one, IMO, that makes a lot of interesting points and should make a lot of people think.

I am well aware of the problems facing our party, and the negative consequences of the pathetic timidity of our party leaders -- It's pretty much the biggest topic of conversation here on DU. But I guess I find it pretty frustrating to see someone aguing that what would have made the movie really great is if they figured out some way to attack my party in the process. The relentless negativity here can be pretty irritating sometimes. And I'm fairly certain I am not the only person here that feels that way.

[rockymountaindem]

13. You aren't the only person who feels that way

Most of us who do don't bring it up much, but we're really pissed about this crap. I'm glad to know the owner of the site feels the same way.

[leftofthedial]

16. You're right. I think we should all get off our high horses

and support Joe Lieberman as he leads the party into a glorious new future!

Nothing wrong here. Nothing to see. Dems support the illegal invasion and occupation. Move along. Macht nichts. Dems support the bankruptcy bill that effectively turns Murka into a "company state" that will eventually drive millions of people into multi-generational poverty and even more into perpetual thrall to corporations. BFD. They're just playing it "smart." Dems can't even support one of their own who has the courage to call a spade a spade and a crime a crime. Nothing to criticize here. May we suck the toes on your other foot now king george?

Bah! You don't even begin to comprehend "pissed."

[rockymountaindem]

20. Oh, I understand "pissed" quite well.

I'm pissed at people like you who continually make an "example" of Joe Lieberman who scores much higher from the ACLU on social issues than any Republican.

http://action.aclu.org/site/VoteCenter?page=congScorecard

If we could replace 20 Republican Senators with Joe Lieberman clones, there is no doubt in my mind that the left would be better off. I'd vote for Lieberman any day ahead of my Senator Wayne Allard. And if Lieberman types are the only kind of Democrats who can win in certain areas, that's not half bad.

Oh, I'm pissed... at people who continually spout the "there's no difference between Dems and Repubs" line. That's a pile of crap that costs us votes. But that doesn't seem to matter to people like you who value feel-good purity over progress, slow as it might be.

[leftofthedial]

22. there IS a difference between repukes and many current Dems

repukes are scum

Many Dems are traitors

All hail the party of Lieberman!

he's a champion of civil liberties

as long as they don't interfere with king george's war

He also used to rack up impressive scores on his environmental record too!

And now the ice caps are melting.

If we don't die in a gulag first, we may all choke to death breathing king george's air, but we can take heart in those impressive scores.

Nothing about any of this makes me "feel good."

I only wish there was one iota of evidence of the "progress" of which you speak.

meanwhile, I would indeed trade 20 repukes for 20 Lieberman's. He's preferable to Frist et al. Williingness to make that trade is not the same thing as sudenly being unable (or unwilling) to discern the shades of gray in his record and being willing to criticize the things he does that I do not like. Or would you just rather all of us who disagree with Joe and the other "pink tutu Dems" just shut up and go away? How would your beloved ACLU rank that?

[leftofthedial]

15. I didn't mean I wanted them to "attack" Dems

rather, I wish they would have exposed the results of continuing down the path of faux opposition, just as they emphatically showed the results of continuing down the path of neocon fascism and institutionalized RW corruption.

I think we are in violent agreement. Cool to see a "mainstream" film that can't be easily pigeonholed (like F911, Syriana or Goodnight and Good Luck could) as the political work of a political activist filmmaker with a political agenda.

And cool to have a place to talk about it.

[CrownPrinceBandar]

12. Basically, its not what Alan Moore intended....

Even though he has scrubbed his name from the script, the germ of his story is still there. And I respect the Wachowski Bros. for keeping it there, more than I'll ever respect them for Matrix Unloaded or Matrix Revolutions.

The story is about Margaret Thatcher and the Tories, not about Bush and the Republicans. An impotent opposition may have made it a better allegory for OUR current situation, but thats not how it was written. It was written in the shadow of the Falklands and the Poll tax.

edit: forgot to spellcheck

[leftofthedial]

17. the movie was written when Clinton was President

the movie was not made in a vacuum. It would have been irrelevant to make a movie that commented on 80s politics, unless that commentary was intended to resonate with a contemporary audience. This did. And did very well.

Thatcher's Tories, even more than the Reagan gang, presaged the rise of the neo-theocons in America, which made it convenient. Also, the insane successes of the neo-theocons in America made the extremism depicted in the film far more believable and not even remotely speculative or improbable. In fact, many of those excesses have already come to pass.

If they had intended to regurgitate the comic book, they would have just printed a copies of the original book and marketed them. The point of a movie adapted from another medium is not to be unerringly faithful to the original. It is to make a good and currently relevant movie, which they did.

[rockymountaindem]

14. Sometimes a movie is just a movie.

I don't see why you have to bring this into it.

[leftofthedial]

18. the political stuff in the movie was just a figment of our imaginations

we should focus on the righteous asskicking, knife slashing fight scenes and the bitchin' explosions!

Ooh! Bright lights! Shiny things! Loud noises!

[rockymountaindem]

21. That's not what I meant.

I may be from Colorado, but I'm not some slackjawed yocal :sarcasm:

I mean that a movie which is supposed to parallel and *exaggerate* Thatcher's Britain isn't going to be exactly what you might like to describe America in 2006. I'm sorry they didn't rewrite the story just to please you. You must be awfuly disappointed.

[leftofthedial]

23. they rewrote parts of the story to make the parallels to today stronger

and to make the movie a better work of "entertainment."

I'm from Colorado myself and I never thought of you as "slackjawed."

Do you believe it is fundamentally inappropriate for someone to say "I wish the (filmmaker, musician, author, etc.) would have done X"?

:shrug:

maybe I need to rethink my slackjawed assumption. Okay, that wasn't nice. :spank:

We should go somewhere, have a beer, debate this topic, and find out that we agree on 99.9% of stuff.

I'm awfully disappointed these days, but not in V for Vendetta. It was a very pleasant surprise.