Good Violence/Bad Violence
It seems there's a lot of controversy about "V for Vendetta", the new movie from the Wachowski brothers, who created "The Matrix". It is apparently some kind of not-so-subtle commentary on the post-9/11 domestic and foreign policies of the United States.
Whatever.
It will most likely confirm the beliefs of those who are already convinced that the U.S. is really, truly, on the verge of collapsing into fascism, like, any day now. For those who don't necessarily think that giving the government the authority to listen to phone conversations between someone in the U.S. and known terrorists abroad represents the dawn of the Fourth Reich, the movie will hopefully simply deliver an entertainingly dystopian vision backed by copious amounts of wire-fu.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer movie critic William Arnold contemplates the psychological premise of the movie, which is essentially to get us to root for a terrorist. He proclaims the result "fun" and "cheeky". He doesn't go as far as to endorse the political message of the film or the tactics of its protagonist. In fact his remarks could be interpreted going in the other direction. But in the end that argument is disingenuous, akin to saying, "Of course terrorism is totally wrong, but it's still fun to imagine what it would be like to be in Al Qaeda".
Interestingly, Mr. Arnold is also the critic who excoriated "Sin City" for wallowing in violence. "Sin City" was violent, yes, even horribly so. But one can't deny that its message was that evil is, well, evil, and will be punished, even if it takes a flawed and somewhat evil man to deliver that justice. But that lesson was lost on Mr. Arnold, who, in grasping for a suitable analogy to convey his disgust, tied the movie to the mentality of those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
So violent movies he doesn't like get compared to rogue U.S. troops. But violent movies he does like get compared, approvingly wink wink, to Al Qaeda.
Whatever.
It will most likely confirm the beliefs of those who are already convinced that the U.S. is really, truly, on the verge of collapsing into fascism, like, any day now. For those who don't necessarily think that giving the government the authority to listen to phone conversations between someone in the U.S. and known terrorists abroad represents the dawn of the Fourth Reich, the movie will hopefully simply deliver an entertainingly dystopian vision backed by copious amounts of wire-fu.
Seattle Post-Intelligencer movie critic William Arnold contemplates the psychological premise of the movie, which is essentially to get us to root for a terrorist. He proclaims the result "fun" and "cheeky". He doesn't go as far as to endorse the political message of the film or the tactics of its protagonist. In fact his remarks could be interpreted going in the other direction. But in the end that argument is disingenuous, akin to saying, "Of course terrorism is totally wrong, but it's still fun to imagine what it would be like to be in Al Qaeda".
Interestingly, Mr. Arnold is also the critic who excoriated "Sin City" for wallowing in violence. "Sin City" was violent, yes, even horribly so. But one can't deny that its message was that evil is, well, evil, and will be punished, even if it takes a flawed and somewhat evil man to deliver that justice. But that lesson was lost on Mr. Arnold, who, in grasping for a suitable analogy to convey his disgust, tied the movie to the mentality of those involved in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
So violent movies he doesn't like get compared to rogue U.S. troops. But violent movies he does like get compared, approvingly wink wink, to Al Qaeda.
<< Home