I am a HUGE fan of movies. Perhaps mostly as an outlet for my imagination, or maybe it’s just addictive brain candy, in either case, I have spent a lot of my life making the movie industry rich. Some of my choices to pay money for movies can be anything from political motivations to pure entertainment. I’m pretty sure that like you I choose movies that look interesting or intriguing to me first, the wife second (she likes those sappy flicks), then maybe, just maybe, if one comes out and raises a lot of hooplah.
“V for Vendetta” is such a movie.
As someone who reads blogs frequently, I head over to the Counter Terrorism Blog as much as I can. Mostly I read because it helps me focus on Homeland Security issues. But I was interested in this article. In it Andrew Cochran writes about a movie I’m interested in watching.
He states:
What are the Warner Brothers studio and parent company Time Warner thinking? They’ve released a movie, “V for Vendetta,” that is simply a pro-terrorism movie. Sure, it hides behind an attractive theme of “revolution” against a totalitarian government, but the methods it promotes are right out of the Al Qaeda 9-11 attack handbook by blowing up London landmarks and justifying it as resistance: “Blowing up a building can change the world.” The fact that this movie is also anti-Christian, with a modified cricifix employed as the symbol of the government, only adds to my distaste and my disappointment in TW.
Does that sway you to see it or not?
I know everyone on planet earth is hypersensitive about terrorism. ESPECIALLY HERE. But, even if this movie “glorifies terrorism”, do you think banning or not producing films would help society? If so, does that mean you are for some kind of pro-socialism movement which would lend itself to censoring just the things that would deprogram a behavior of civil unrest against a government?
Would that do anything besides spawning more terrorism?
Sure, a ficticious movie glorifies a central figure as a hero. Sure, critics who HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE, say that it’s about terrorism in London. But, does that mean just because it’s not liked, or glorifies terrorism or terrorist acts, that we should outright censor a public from viewing the film?
I will be the first one to admit that Hollywood has been producing A TON of propoganda type films. They are liberals and you take what you can get. I vote with my money and films that don’t appeal to me do not get my hard earned funds. That being said, too many people shy away from the advocation of personal responsibility and turn to laws that legislate behavior as a means to force responsibility and that is no way to legislate or run a country whose principles are freedom.
Terrorism is an awful way to get your point across, no question about that. However, fictional stories that open your eyes and make you think, question, and ponder are not necessarily bad things. Movies are marketing. With any marketing comes your personal choice of “Do I? Don’t I?”
No one says you have to, but, I would rather watch and view controversial subjects to ponder it’s significance, than not have the freedom to see movies, read books, that someone, some where deemed was bad for me to read.
That’s not freedom, that’s communism.
Stumble it!
About the Author: 33 year old "Lone Wolf"-type recently married to a woman much smarter then he! Born and raised in Minneapolis, Minnesota, I've traveled all over the countryside, and lived in many places. Currently I'm a full time student attempting a Bachelor's in Network Security. I have a ton of hobbies, and if I list them all, Aaron will charge me per character! ;) Motto - "Observe, ponder, get involved, and laugh while doing it!"
Add New Comment
Viewing 4 Comments
Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
I'm totally with you on the "if you don't like the movies then vote with your wallet" train. There's room for things that you both like and don't like in the media and you can avoid the things you don't like pretty easily with technical marvels like the V chip, responsibility, and the power button.
I think this leads to a much bigger issue though: people as a whole don't want to think critically anymore, and a work of art that challenges their viewpoints is a risk to that. Art exists to confirm as well as to offend, and if you only choose to stick to one side you will never get the full effect.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
We need that always in this country. This movie is said to fall in line with "A Clockwork Orange" and "1984" using images and references that are very subjective in nature. But if 9/11 hadn't happened, no one would be squaking about this movie "promoting terrorism"... The same could have been said for "Clockwork" promoting rape.
Besides, is it really promoting "terrorism"?? I guess the terrorists on 9/11 did succeed if people are so freaked out about terrorism we are lowered to debating this movie!!... If anyone read the history what this movie is based on, besides a comic, it has its roots in the true story of Englishman Guy Falkes trying to blow up Parliment in the early 1600s. He wanted to do it because Britian was persecuting everyone that didn't conform to their brand of religion and way of life. If he had succeeded, he'd probably be seen as a freedom fighter today -- and he is in many ways.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.
The people is only attacked verbally and asked to take back responsibility. So it's more a revolution than terrorism. But of course supporters of any given system will call revolutioneers terrorists.
Add New Comment