"Thank You for Smoking" beats "V for Vendetta" and I'll tell you why.

[Inland]

I don't know if there's a spoiler in here or not. Read at your own risk.

Having seen both over the weekend, I proclaim "Thank You for Smoking" to be vastly superior to "V" as both entertainment and a political statement.

First, "Thank You for Smoking" is funny and political because it's characters are true and tell their truths in bald, unaffected ways. When the head of the tobacco lobbyist firm is smacking around his people for their failures because "Cigarettes are cool, they're widely available, and they're addictive! They practically sell themselves!" you hear what people really think. When the main character lobbyist moves happily without a whole lot of guilt, it's because he's damn good at what he does and he's proud of his abilities. Evil and tortured souls don't become the front men for products; happy, personable and glib people do. In fact, Garry Trudeau should sue for the obvious infringement of his happy go lucky "Mr. Butts" character. The announcement that smoking an addictive product is a matter of choice is, to him, a proud statement of liberty, like a three martini lunch or cheese on apple pie, not a contradiction in terms.

But "V", unfortunately, fails. True, the government is horrific, but we've seen it done better in "1984". The central dramatic moment of blowing up Parliament is only that: a dramatic moment. It seems to buy into the anarchist "great deed" theory that there only needs to be a huge act of destruction, or an assassination, and the people will have a starting gun. But strangely, it's just a fireworks show, not a revolution. It's just destruction, not a statement, and destroying the house of representative government at that. As a political statement, it's more diffuse than "Thank You", which leaves one thinking about personal responsibility.

[bryant69]

1. I think also V kind of goes out of it's way to nueter itself

By making the character more heroic than problemattic, and by making the government even more villianous.

I need to see Thank you for Smoking

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Gabi Hayes]

2. sorry, not buying premise

I've read a lot about this, saw Buckley, heard Eckhart, etc.,
and I don't buy the idea of a charming protagonist who's a filthy lying cigarette company lobbyist

that's enough for me to not want to waste my time

and I can't remember a single DC roman a clef that stuck me as the slighest bit realistic, aside from All the President's Men

[Inland]

3. Not a roman a clef. It's fictoin.

Like all good fiction, it involves things that never happened, and maybe never could, but illustrate the truth nonetheless. The main character actually dissects himself and his motivations..you can see it working. And it's funny.

[Gabi Hayes]

5. might want to check your dictionary, there: roman a clef

and, like I said, I'm not buying the premise

as "In the Company of Men," I have no interest in people like the one portrayed in this movie, regardless of whether it dissects his character

I hardly ever go to movies anymore, and this would be way down on the list

I've read/heard enough of the dialogue to make me NOT want to see it

but then I didn't like the dialogue in The Big Sleep, Double Indemnity, either, so I could be in the minority here

just my op, that's all

[Inland]

6. I was using it right: a "roman a clef"

ro·man à clef (rō-mäN' ä klā')
n., pl. ro·mans à clef (rōmäN' zä klā').
A novel in which actual persons, places, or events are depicted in fictional guise.



http://www.answers.com/topic/roman-clef

For example, "Primary Colors".

"Thank You for Smoking" isn't a roman a clef. It's fiction, but it isn't fake.

[Gabi Hayes]

7. not always people...mostly places, from what I remember back

from the old days

not that it matters that much

it's fiction, yes, and it's fake, AFAIC, cause the protagonist is way too empathic for me, despite his own self deprecatory manner. that just serves the purpose of making even more 'palatable'

just not buying it; people like him are sociopaths. had way too much of them. charmed out

charm offensive not working

offensive

[alcibiades_mystery]

8. The charming protagonist is much more dangerous than the evil chancellor

The version of power put forth in V is childish and stupid. Power works through happy spokesmen for evil, not raging meanies with shock troops. Or, the less visible form of power is the more dangerous. The power in V is ultra-visible, and therefore can be easilyt dismissed by people who live in our society, where power is damn near invisible. I agree with OP.

[400Years]

9. maybe you should have been in Miami during the FTAA talks

you might be singing a different tune regarding shock troops

[alcibiades_mystery]

10. I'm not saying shock troops aren't a very real part of our mode

of power, but they are hardly the primary way it operates. And don't wsorry boss. I've been batoned and tear gassed enough to know, a-ite?

[cantstandbush]

4. I give it to "V" as the best. It's easier to stop smoking (or never start

than it is to protect yourself and your children from an evil government that can affect every aspect of your life in very harsh and sometimes subtle ways.