V Is For Vapid (Don Feder Slams Hollywood Far Left's Paranoid Fantasies Alert)

Frontpagemag.com ^ | March 20, 2006 | Don Feder

[goldstategop]

"V for Vendetta," which opened on Friday, combines all of the celluloid left’s paranoid fantasies – Christian conservatives in charge of a brutal regime, the war-on-terrorism as an excuse for the suppression of civil liberties, homosexuals harassed and killed by conservative Christians, a pedophile priest (who works miter-in-had with the regime) and an attack blamed on terrorists that’s really a right-wing conspiracy.

All that’s missing is a Halliburton connection. For that, we’ll have to wait for "V – The Return."

"V" opens in Britain circa 2020. America has succumbed to plague, civil war, and chaos. (Bush’s fault, no doubt.) The UK is ruled by a fascist regime with strong Christian overtones – the party’s slogan is "Strength through Unity; Unity through Faith." Its symbol is a stylized cross, and its enforcers are a quasi-religious police.

As the film opens, Britain’s most popular commentator is explaining how America’s fall was ordained by its embrace of "degeneracy," as flecks of saliva fly from his mouth.

The Brit Reich is headed by Chancellor Sutler – played by a cadaverous John Hurt (who looks like a cross between Hitler and Kate Moss). Hurt is incapable of delivering his lines unless he’s: A) Screaming B) Sneering or C) on the verge of a cerebral hemorrhage.

In the England of "V," free speech has been crushed. Conformity is ruthlessly enforced. Dissidents and non-conformists are hunted down and eliminated. Torture is a routine. Medical experiments are performed on undesirables. And "1984" indoctrination is ubiquitous.

Enter the mysterious "V" – a knife-throwing martial-arts master in a Guy Fawkes mask.

The movie projects the 17th century Englishman as a prototypical freedom fighter. In reality, Fawkes was a Catholic conspirator who tried to murder James I and most of Britain’s nobility by attempting to blow up Parliament in the famous Gunpowder Plot of 1605. His objective wasn’t constitutional democracy but a return to Catholic rule. But, then, Hollywood never did have much of a sense of history.

That’s only the beginning of "V’’s confusion. One of the characters is a closet homosexual talk-show host (portrayed by British actor Stephen Fry), who shelters Natalie Portman on the run from the authorities.

In his Crypt of the Banned, Fry shows Portman a Koran. "Are you a Muslim?" Portman innocently asks. No, Fry replies, but I appreciate the beautiful illustrations and poetry therein. Does he also appreciate the perspective of the religion-of-peace on the love-that-dare-not speak-its-name? Were there German Jews in the ‘30, who really dug those snappy SS uniforms?

The only reference to Islam has to do with beauty and poetry. "V" has other targets on its radar screen. In terms of bashing the Right and demonizing Christians – with "V," Hollywood is completely in character.

Need a clichéd bad guy? Call central casting for a stock lecherous priest, hypocritical evangelical, repressive preacher or sadistic nun. Whether now or in the past, committed Christians are regularly portrayed as characters who should be committed – fanatical, hypocritical, cowardly, avaricious and lustful. Think "Kingdom of Heaven," "King Arthur," "Saved," "The Magdalene Sisters," "Priest," The Order," "Dogma," "Stigmata," and the movie version of "The DaVinci Code," coming out in May.

As much a staple as the evil Christian is the unprincipled, power-mad conservative politician, general, or businessman.

Starting with "Dr. Strangelove" and "Seven Days In May," proceeding to "The Manchurian Candidate" (both the ‘60s original and the recent remake), "Dreamscape," "The American President," "The Contender" (with Gary Oldman doing his Bob Dole impression), "Bulworth," "The Day After Tomorrow" (where the destruction of America in a global climate catastrophe is blamed on a conservative vice president opposed to the Kyoto Treaty) – well, you get the picture.

"V for Vendetta" is distinguished by envelope-pushing, combined with an unapologetic glorification of terrorism.

The title character (who begins the movie by blowing up the Old Bailey and ends with the demolition of Parliament) is a noble soul – a courageous, long-suffering, philosophical bloke, who appreciates jazz, Renaissance paintings, weepy old movies, and high-cholesterol cooking.

This is Hollywood’s romanticized take on terrorists – far removed from the reality of Koran-happy sadists who plant nail-packed bombs in restaurants frequented by families with young children.

The slogan of "V for Vendetta" is: "People shouldn’t fear their government. Governments should fear their people."

In the real world, beyond the pages of comic books (where "V" originated), there’s no shortage of governments that prey on their people, and people who live in gut-wrenching fear of their rulers – places like Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, and the Peoples’ Detention Center of China.

Here are governments with gulags, medical experiments performed on dissidents, tanks rolling over demonstrators, torture cells and thought-control.

Beijing sells the organs of executed prisoners. Kim Jong Il deliberately starves his subjects while pursuing nuclear weapons. Iran puts out contracts on novelists. When he was in power, Saddam Hussein’s idea of a night on the town was watching a live man being fed into a plastic shredding machine.

When was the last time Hollywood made a big-budget film about the agony of existence in one of these nightmare states? I know; it’s a real brain-teaser.

The few include "Red Corner" (where China’s "justice system" is not portrayed sympathetically) and "Die Another Day" (even here, the bad guys aren’t the rulers of North Korea, but rogue elements therein – scary thought).

While they carry on about Bush being behind the 9/11 attacks and using the war on terrorism to advance his totalitarian plans, much of Hollywood has the warm and fuzzies for the most corrupt and brutal tyrannies on earth.

Sean Penn flew to Baghdad prior to the U.S. liberation and posed next to a picture of Saddam. Steven Spielberg (whose "Munich" posits moral equivalence between Palestinian assassins and Israeli agents out to get them) once remarked, "The best seven hours I ever spent was actually with Fidel Castro." (Given the quality his recent films, he might be right.)

And, lest we forget, Jane Fonda (star of "Monster-In-Law," now playing on cable), who traveled to Hanoi during the Vietnam War to make propaganda broadcasts, told an audience at the University of Michigan (1970): "I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."

After the war, Fonda called Joan Baez a liar for charging the Khmer Rouge with genocide. (In reality, the Killing Fields were a reclamation project.) The U.S. POWs who said they were tortured at the Hanoi Hilton – also liars, according to Fonda.

Her ex-husband, Ted Turner – who’s gone duck hunting with Castro – has remarked that "communism is part of life on this planet. And that’s okay with me."

In the 1980s, Ed Asner bought "medical supplies" for the FMLN, the Marxist guerrillas who wanted to turn El Salvador into another Cuba.

The aptly named Vanessa Redgrave is a member of the British Workers Revolutionary Party. In her younger days, the mummified Marxist may have shared a bed with the red gravedigger of Cuba. And, in 1978, she teamed up with Fonda to make "Julia," glorifying yet another Red lover: Lillian Hellman. Warren Beatty got off playing John Reed (who thought Lenin was the messiah) in "Reds."

Need I continue? Hollywood has a lot of credibility when it comes to lecturing us on tyranny – about as much as Ted Kennedy does on drunk driving, Bill Clinton on marital fidelity, and Robert Downey Jr. on a drug-free America.

[PBRSTREETGANG]

Are these people really that stupid or are they really trying to spread lies and create another communist nation.

Both.

[Admin Moderator]

Your post in response #36 will be removed because you posted a complete article from USA Today.

This is the third post in the past four hours where you have ignored copyright restrictions.

Review the following before posting again:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1111944/posts

[FreeManWhoCan]

Has anyone here actually seen the movie? I have. Here are my comments.

1) In one scene they show a Koran hidden away from the police. Natalie Portman sas " Oh my, if they caught you with that Koran, they will arrest you!" her friend responds, "I know but I couldn't help having this beautiful book with its beautiful poetry."
2) Theres a truck running around the city listening in on everyone's conversations. They report back to the leader what the "feeling of the masses" are. (ala NSA..)
3) The second in command mysteriously looks similar to Cheney.
4) Years ago in the movie a terrorist attack was supposed have happend in the UK that united the people to fight the terrorists. This of course was all created by the government.
5) In one scene John Hurt (The leader) says that "We have to keep the people in a state of fear so that they have a need for us." Meanwhile you see on the news flashes of "Avian Flu" and other tragedies.

The movie was blatantly anti-Bush but I did enjoy it. I'm a comic book collector and Alan Moore should have asked them to do a movie about "The Watchmen". Considering that the green light came from DC Comics which is owned by AOL-Time Warner, its no surprise. In todays cmoncs SuperMan doesn't even work for the USA anymore. He's more of a United Nations type of guy.

[finnigan2]

"Their take was that his comic book series was in response to Margaret Thatcher's reign of conservative terror."

- I agree with your understanding.
I used to collect comic books and having Alan Moore's name on the cover as the "writer" of the storyline (he never did the artwork) always increased the comics value because his imaginative narratives appealed to the target buyers who were and are mostly teenagers.
Moore developed the original V series as a reaction against the then Prime Minister Margeret Thatcher whose get tough policies against British unions and their leftist supporters were very unpopular among the literati.
I was told by a comic book dealer at the time (but can't confirm) that Moore, who is famously eccentric, was openly gay which might account for the prominently bitter anti Christian tone.
Once the movie hit North America it was almost a foregone conclusion that the left leaning movie review community would pounce on it as being an anti Bush polemic as opposed to a 25 year old anti Thatcher rant and so some 70% of them have been giving it rave reviews just as they did for Fudgepack Mountain.
From the movie reviews that I have read, the movie is basically, like it's source, a Batman like fantasy only with strong political overtones.
While it seems to be doing well at the box office, I suspect it's audience, like the comic book, are mostly teenage mouth breathers and so it's political "message" will be largely lost among the colorful explosions and splashing blood which attracts them to it.

[Unam Sanctam]

I dare Hollywood to produce a similar movie with Moslems instead of Christians as the bad guys...

[php5]

Thanks for the details...though everyone's bashing it here, I have a feeling most of us will see it anyway, "just to see how bad Hollywood really is..." and yet enjoy the flick.

[Fintan]

On the bright side, at least it'll keep the DUmmies busy panhandling so they can see the movie.

[Frank T]

Could such a movie actually be made? Without fear of reprisals, that is? The insurance would go through the roof.

[Frank T]

Nope.

[ko_kyi]

"I would think that if you understood what communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists."

That is pretty dang funny, considering that atheism is a cornerstone of Communism.

[NRA1995]

"Hold me like you held me on Naboo!"

[NRA1995]

I saw all three LOTR movies in the theater without being subjected to rude people and cell phones. If they are re-released for theatrical viewing, by all means go....even if you have to complain to the usher about someone's cell phone, it's highly worthwhile, compared to TV viewing

[Frank T]

"4) Years ago in the movie a terrorist attack was supposed have happend in the UK that united the people to fight the terrorists. This of course was all created by the government."

Shades of Paul Craig Roberts. He's the "conservative" who thinks Bush will orchestrate the detonation of a nuclear bomb off the coast as a ruse needed to launch a pre-emptive war on Iran.

I should put "thinks" in quotation marks as well. I suspect that these kinds of people, and their leftist cousins, understand the truth behinds such episodes, when they happen.

If you are Paul Craig Roberts, you probably understand very well that the Iranian regime is such that it will try something major. But you also believe that the costs - whatever they are - of going to war are greater. So if you are intelligent enough to know that the Iranians have the capability to make nuclear weapons and have the motive to get someone to set one off near American, but you don't want a war in response, you do a pre-emptive launch yourself: claim that the American administration is setting up this ruse, for what you fear the Iranians will quite possibly undertake. And when it DOES happen, you have the appearance of some sort of credibility, and undermine the war response.

Same with the leftists and terrorism. They *know* its Muslim jihadists who are behind bombings these days, but if another "big one" happens, they'll try and make it out that the government - whether in Britain or in the US - is really responsible.

It's all about undermining - their version of pre-emption.

[Frank T]

All atheism was for, in bringing about Communist regimes, is as a mechanism - sweep out the old regime/religion via imposed "atheism," then yo-yo back to something akin to the old regime, but without the previous religious political structure, and worse liberty violations.

[billbears]

Saw it this weekend. Probably the most powerful anti-state movie I have ever seen. Conservatives will be able to see past aspects of the movie and see the underlying lessons ("People shouldn’t fear their government. Governments should fear their people."). It has nothing to do with the 'left' or the 'right'. Yes the 'right' is attacked in this movie but the underlying idea is that no party for any reason should have this level of control. Safety is valued more than freedom. Party faithful OTOH will never see the movie and yet complain about it endlessly

[redheadtoo]

For all of its pretensions this movie sounds like another Hollywood mad-slasher in a mask movie. Stand aside Jason a new cold blooded killer is in town.

[pjd]

Saw it this weekend. Probably the most powerful anti-state movie I have ever seen. Conservatives will be able to see past aspects of the movie and see the underlying lessons ("People shouldn’t fear their government. Governments should fear their people.").

I haven't seen this yet, but I tend to agree with you.

Just because we happen to have a Republican president at the moment, we interpret the "People shouldn’t fear their government. Governments should fear their people." theme as being anti-Bush. But if this same movie was released during the Clinton years, we would all be cheering.

If that's the true theme, then we should be cheering.

[dljordan]

I liked the movie, especially the part where "Dear Leader" gets whacked.

[discostu]

Actually I did some reading on that and Alan's disagreement has nothing to do with the final product. Apparently he decided shortly after the rights were sold that Hollywood is just stupid so he didn't want to have anything to do with the movie, wasn't going to discuss ideas with them, wasn't going to be on set, wasn't going to watch it, they could do whatever they want just don't bother him. Then during some interview one of the Wackowskis made the comment that they had Alan's full support, that's when he got mad and demanded they remove his name, he was OK with them ruining his stuff (which he apparently assumed was bound to happen) the problem was when they implied he was involved with the production when he had refused to even have coffee and chat with anyone involved.

The movie is actually pretty good. Like most hard left moonbat stuff it's preaching to the choir, so if you're not in the choir the anti-Bush parts are pretty ignorable. Makes a lot more sense the first time through than the graphic novel did, they dropped all the stuff that indicated maybe V was just nuts and the stuff that set him off might not have actually happened at all.

[backhoe]

I saw all three LOTR movies in the theater without being subjected to rude people and cell phones. If they are re-released for theatrical viewing, by all means go....even if you have to complain to the usher about someone's cell phone, it's highly worthwhile, compared to TV viewing

Appreciate the info- thank you.