MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Confusing Opinion For Fact Again?

I’m not sure exactly when Jeff Giles took over David Ansen’s role as critic at Newsweek, but he proclaims this week about V For Vendetta,
“In point of fact, though, “Vendetta” is not good.”
Fact?
I guess it’s going to be an interesting ride, this one. V For Vendetta joins Munich and Paradise Now in the land of examinations of moral ambiguity being confused for radicalism. It would be interesting to see how the media reacted to a film that leaned right and was ambiguous, but I know of none lately.
We live in a country that is gathered in the middle. And we have a media that obsessively demands that people take sides. Now, that is a fact. A really ugly and dangerous fact.
We will have a Democratic president when we have a nominee who is as inflexible as Bush is. But I wish it wasn’t so. I wish we could elect leadership that understands that choices are complex, that there are winners and losers in all choices, and that we must be gracious whether we are winning or losing. Now, that is an opinion.
In my opinon, V for Vendetta no more confuses terrorism for revolution than it accurately reflects either the Blair or Bush governments. The explosions are not the message. The call to waking up, previously offered quite literally on film by Spike Lee, also by The Wachowskis, David Fincher/Chuck P, Alan Ball/Sam Mendes, etc, etc.
V blows things up because the government in the film has such complete control of the country that there is no other way to break through. Most of the terrorism involving Palestine and Israel right now is being generated by people who want to stop the peace process. There is no target defined. Likewise, al Quaida. Not only don’t they have a single country, but their target is cultural, embodied first by the U.S., but it is not a traditional military targetting, except, at times, in execution.
Taking V for Vendetta as literal is as stupid as reading Hamlet as a history lesson.
But that’s just my opinion.
(P.S. Note who is pushing the anti-V agenda… Matt Drudge. Right?)

Be Sociable, Share!

108 Responses to “Confusing Opinion For Fact Again?”

  1. martin says:

    Doesn’t look like a very good movie, but I’ll probably check it out on DVD. Natalie Portman as a lead is frightening, and the W’s haven’t impressed me since the first Matrix. Maybe it will be a pleasant surprise, but the early negative buzz seems consistent (Moore taking his name off it, recasts/reshoots, etc.).

  2. EDouglas says:

    Moore hadn’t read a script or seen a frame when he took his name off of it.. it was more of a personal decision to take a stand against his former publisher and its parent company than anything to do with the quality of the film. And frankly, I think it’s a much better movie with Hugo Weaving than it would have been with James Purefoy, and I think they realized that once Weaving became available.

  3. Arnzilla says:

    “Most of the terrorism between Palestnie and Israel right now is being generated by people who want to stop the peace process.” BETWEEN?

  4. jeffmcm says:

    Oh snap! Dave used the wrong preposition!

  5. Martin S says:

    One problem Dave – no one who made this film is arguing your position. Look at McTigue’s interview at AICN. He says the government isn’t Bush, but then only references UK and Austrailia. What about North Korea, who actually employs tactics used in V? Portman has done the same thing. And David Lloyd has been more than happy to connect the dots.
    It’s apparent – beyond apparent at this point – Horn and Silver decided the best way to sell this film is anti-Bush and everything that goes along with that. Giles took that with him when reviewing this film. And while I wouldn’t say he’s pro-W, (I don’t think that’s possible at Newsweek), he certainly takes offense to the concept of a terrorist having justified moral grounds. He is right that V is played as Hero by the Wac boys.
    What you’re arguing is closer in tone to Moore’s book.

  6. Crow T Robot says:

    Ebert & Roeper both gushed this evening… comparing it to Spider-Man 2 and Batman Begins. Uncle Rog did add that he wasn’t completely sure what the film’s politics are stating about the world today.
    So has anybody figured out a way for me to watch The Sopranos tonight?

  7. lazarus says:

    Have to agree with Poland about taking it too seriously. It’s a “nightmarish vision of the future”, but does anyone really believe it would ever get that bad? I think the point of the film is to say, terrorism would be the only option a concerned citizen would have if things were to get to that totalitarian point, so keep a vigilant watch on who you put in places of power.
    I don’t have a problem with DP’s choice of words re: Israel and Palestine. You can go back and forth about who’s right and who’s wrong, but the bottom line is that both sides have killed WAY too many innocent people, and you it’s tough to differentiate between doing it with suicide bombs on buses or tanks in villages.
    I hope this money scores big time at the box office, and allows other edgy or challenging films to be made. Unlike Fight Club, which was a black comedy and poorly marketed by Fox, this one isn’t shying away from being serious about going for the jugular. Hopefully many young, impressionable minds will go into this looking for fun and wind up getting a not-too-subtle lesson about what happens when civil liberties are seriously curtailed. It may not be Orwell, but we’re in a different age. It would be nice to see the medium have a positive effect. And before any right-wingers jump in, getting people to ask questions–about themselves, their government, etc.–is NEVER a bad thing.

  8. anghus says:

    yeah, drudge and fox news are going to go apeshit.
    theyll pull out the same ‘hollywood is irresponsible stuff’ and lionize the heartland against the film. i cant imagine controversy is going to help this film. people are so shell shocked right now by this political mess america seems to be in right now.
    everyone i know that has seen V sings its praises. im looking forward to it.

  9. Lota says:

    whilst purchasing other graphic novels at the weekend, I noticed a prominent display of V is for vendetta and the teens talking about it.
    Loved the g.n. so look forward to the movie. if crazy conspiracy theorists like Drudge slam it, it must mean it’s good.

  10. Chucky in Jersey says:

    Regal Cinemas — the largest US theater chain — has been selling advance tickets to “V for Vendetta” the past 2 weeks. That tells you it’s shaping up as a major release for Warner Bros.
    When Matt Drudge and Newsweek attack this movie prior to its release, it’s a sign that the right wing is running scared. [Newsweek is owned by the publishers of a pro-war/pro-Bush newspaper.]

  11. Nicol D says:

    “if crazy conspiracy theorists like Drudge slam it, it must mean it’s good.”
    Drudge isn’t the one who is making paranoid fantasies about fascist Christian/Catholic governments torturing gays, Muslims and not allowing dissent.
    More on this when more have seen the flick.
    It’s amazing what you can find in Chinatown.

  12. James Leer says:

    Yes, Lord knows that a fascist government has never rose to power in Europe, tortured gays and religious minorities, and outlawed dissent.
    Oh, wait…

  13. jeffmcm says:

    On the subject of paranoia, I’m curious to know if the government in the movie is actually given Catholic iconography. Aside from the crosses seen in the trailers, which are hardly specifically Catholic.

  14. Nicol D says:

    Oh you mean the National Socialists who also went on to kill 3 million Polish Catholics?
    Or were those deaths okay because Catholics are oppressors and they were just rising up for the worker?

  15. Nicol D says:

    Jeff,
    Thew flag flown is the Cross of Lorraine. It was flown by Joan of Arc…it was used in the resistance to the National Socialists…it is also explicitly used in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
    If the Waschowskis know this, they are propagandists. If they do not, they are ignorant of history in which case thier opinions should be deemed equally ignorant and simplistic.
    Also one of the villains is a pedophillic Catholic priest (surprise, surprise).

  16. jeffmcm says:

    You’re such a team player Nicol.

  17. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, if the movie was anti-Catholic, why would the character of V pattern himself after notorious Catholic conspirator Guy Fawkes?

  18. James Leer says:

    Nicol, what in the world would make you think I’d condone the killing of Polish Catholics? Is it because I’m a Democrat? I seriously wonder how your mind works.

  19. jeffmcm says:

    Still, James, you’ve got to admit it’s better than contending with five ‘u r so dumb’ posts.

  20. Lota says:

    Nicol D Catholics, protestants and atheists have been at the helms of governments that were totalitarian and killed people–doesn’t mean they represented the relgion and V for Vendetta doesn;t necessarily representing on a particular religion simply based on the cross used.
    Plenty of Nazis (national socialists who were not socialists or democracy-driven folk) actually were catholic. they didn;t kill poles for being Catholic, they killed them for not being Aryans! nazis killed 2-3X as many Jews as Catholics and killed Gypsies who were neither Jewish or Catholic and killed hundreds of thousands of atheists from Germany to Russia.
    the Nazi symbol–the swastika was taken from a very ancient symbol that did not mean hate or death–so becasue the Nazi commandeered that symbol doesn;t mean they represented what it orginally meant in Sanskrit etc.
    same with the cross.
    A cross has negative and positive meanings for many people–doesn;t mean the W brothers are trying to tar the image of the cross.
    The official Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands for heresy, bullied Indians and many “colonial” cultures for not accepting Rome. many of my indian relatives remmeber the way they were treated by ministers and priests and they see the cross as a sign of oppression. But they like Jesus.
    No symbol for religion is free from the blood of oppression at some point throughout history–they picked a cross likely in the origins of the story since it is more historically prevalent to English-speaking people, especially in the last 1000 years with the wars between the Catholics and protestants, and the war of both Catholics and Protestants agains the Anabaptists, and the official chruch pogroms against the Jews and the Islamic people who had settled in Spain from the middle ages.

  21. jeffmcm says:

    I would actually argue that the Cross of Lorraine, which Nicol is correct in noticing, was chosen to make for a cross that would look more like a swastika, and not for any particular historical reasons. Notice also the red and black color scheme.

  22. Nicol D says:

    James,
    I have no idea what you condone. I do not know you.
    You made the glib Hitler reference, not me. I would not make a glib Hitler reference justifying the imagery of the film if it showed the fascist government with a Star of David on the flag.
    As to why they use the Guy Fawkes mask?
    This is again why the film is ignorant at best and confused propaganda at worst.
    Hey, at least Michael Moore gives interviews.

  23. Lota says:

    if there is any historical reasons used for the cross of Lorraine, it may be for the reason that the corss has been adopted by a variety of groups throughout the ages–originating in byzantium most likely, then later as a Royalist (nationalist for some) symbol, and also as a symbol of resistance–like the French underground in WWII after Alsace was annexxed by the Nazis.
    The Lorraine cross has been used in so many countries for so many reasons, it actually is a good symbol to pick–it could mean damn near anything.
    Better than picking a crucifix or a Jewish star or a crescent moon I’d say.

  24. Blackcloud says:

    “The official Catholic church slaughtered hundreds of thousands for heresy . . .”
    Hmmmm, actually, the Church itself killed very few, if any, for heresy, since said heretics were, in that great Orwellian euphemism, “relaxed to the secular arm.” It was the state who killed most of the heretics. But back then, it was often hard to tell the state and church apart. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult.
    As for hundreds of thousands heretics killed, probably not. Such numbers have been greatly exaggerated; say, of witch burnings or executions carried out at the behest of the Inquisition. Unless you’re including the religious wars and pogroms and Reconquista and everything else. Which would make the death toll high. But those weren’t deaths for heresy.

  25. Lota says:

    Church was head of state in many European countries–the EU historical archives actually put the number in the millions (I’ll have to get that for you Blackcloud since you are a historian) but they are including the religious wars declared on groups of dissident people, and the laws that were advised via Cardinals/bishops in England, France, Holland on dissdents. then the later church-sponsored death orders on the anabaptists by the Lutherans and the Presbyters.
    When I typed heresy (meant people perceived as geenral dissidents) I didn;t mean official court charges–those were rendered only for important people like judges and bishops by the catholic church.
    The EU has a good social archive on it. I used to read their archives when I did mediation/negotiation work in the EU that was related to terrorism since so much of it has a religious element. It never ends.

  26. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, I look forward to continuing this debate in about five days.
    I don’t have a problem with the Wachowskis making a film in which the bad guys are religio-fascists. It may be propagandistic, but that doesn’t mean it’s not true.

  27. Blackcloud says:

    The problem with numbers is that it’s very easy to be sidetracked by them, so that you get into silly arguments over whether X was really so bad because it didn’t kill as many people as believed. Whereas the main point is that X was bad because of what it was, not how many people it killed. Numbers do matter, but they’re not the only thing that does.
    Lota, I figured you weren’t using heresy in a technical sense. I objected because I think terms should be precise, because if they’re not that is the first thing people will use as an excuse to chuck out the whole argument, its overall merits notwithstanding. I think you’d agree with that.
    “Church was head of state in many European countries–” I’m curious to know which ones you have in mind. The Papal States come to mind, and various territories in the Holy Roman Empire which were ruled by prince-bishops (like the one Mozart worked for). What else? I’m not saying you’re wrong; rather, that the union of Throne and Altar made it such that it didn’t matter if the church was de jure in charge, since de facto was often just as good. It didn’t matter to the Huguenots or Jansenists if it were Louis XIV or the church hierarchy trying to exterminate them. What mattered is that someone was trying to exterminate them.
    Funny, innit, how an argument about a movie from 2006 can wind up in 1506? Personally, I think that’s pretty damn cool.

  28. Lota says:

    pretty damn cool? Maybe pretty damn CYCLIC.
    I hope we can make a better future history for ourselves. Oprah’s trying, dammit.

  29. Blackcloud says:

    Oprah, LOL. That made my day.

  30. Lota says:

    You being in History etc–did you see Oprah and other luminaries on PBS “African American Lives”? It was a very good show.
    Oprah was very funny when she was about to get her DNA testing results “please don’t tell me I’m not Zulu”. she threatened to have a mental breakdown if she was not Zulu. She’s not Zulu.
    But she is ~ 12% american indian. party ON. Richest 12%-er indian on this damn planet for sure.

  31. Nicol D says:

    The problem with contemporary secular hatred of Catholics and the Catholic Church is not one of whether or not the people who were Catholic or the church itself did something wrong; it is one of being balanced.
    LOTA presents an argument that seems more rooted in proving the concept that Catholics are ‘evil’ than he/she is with actually giving a balanced view of history.
    Has the church done things that were improper?
    Of course.
    But when you grossly overstate what the church did by inflating numbers and making broad statements, many of which are myths that have been disproven you present a skewed view of history.
    You also confuse official church policy and doctrine with the individual acts of clerics who were not operating under Catholic philosophy.
    Have Muslims not committed atrocities? Marxists? Women? Natives?
    There is not one group in history that cannot lay claim to being victimized or being the victim. History is not that facile.
    Catholics have done wrong…they have also been one of the most persecuted groups in history.
    LOTA’s sloughing off of the 3 million Polish Catholics is sad. Have you bothered to even read some of Hitler’s views on Christianity and Catholicism or do all of your views come from ‘Hitler’s Pope’ and The Da Vinci Code?
    During Elizabethan England, Catholics had property taken away and had virtually no rights at all. The ‘clink’ was a place known primarily for its torture of Catholics. In North America during the previous century Catholics were routinely targeted by the Ku Klux Klan and discriminated against for getting work. The original slang for KKK was “Koons, Kikes and Katholics”.
    Lets also not forget that it was not the Catholic Church that instigated the Crusades contrary to popular myth.
    One thing that is true is that History is written by the winners. Modern academic philosophy comes from a secular neo-marxist/feminist world view which can only succeed in demonizing Catholics as something out of the Black Legend.
    This skewed view of history is the root of bigotry. Films like V traffic in it.
    As for the Cross of Lorraine in the film; anyone who does not think that was chosen for its Catholic/Christian roots is ignorant. The film does not exist in a vacuum. Other symbols in it are of the Quran and the Catholics/Christians persecuting homosexuals. It is ironic and humourous when one considers that the places on the earth right now where it is most dangerous to be a homosexual is in Communist Cuba/China and Muslim countries.
    Yet the Waschowski’s, who are millionaires do not have the courage to tackle this. Instead they set their sights on…London and Christians/Catholics.
    I couldn’t care less if the film targets George Bush. He’s a big boy. He can take it.
    But when a couple of millionaires who live in a bubble and refuse to answer questions make broad generalizations about contemporary events and play into paranoia and fear with stereotypes that is hardly courageous…it’s rather sad.

  32. jeffmcm says:

    When did the Marxists win history?
    Nicol, you’re an intelligent person with an interest in history and culture. That’s why your incessant self-pity and tunnel vision are so frustrating.
    It may well be that V for Vendetta is clicheed and propagandistic. It’s obviously critical of political alliances with religious entities. But the leap to accusing the filmmakers of bigotry is a big one, and speaks more to your prejudices before seeing the movie than anything else.
    I also am a little perplexed by your statement about Communist and Muslim countries; while I would be interested to see films about repression in these parts of the world, obviously the Wachowskis are making a movie for Western audiences in a speculative, and not literal, way. Communist and Muslim governments are too far removed for American moviegoers to be interested in wanting to reform.

  33. jeffmcm says:

    Oh yeah…who actually did start the Crusades, then? I know it’ll be a complicated answer but I don’t see how you can sideline the Church totally from that era.

  34. Blackcloud says:

    “When did the Marxists win history?” They didn’t, but they did win a fair share of the history departments. I suppose that’s what he means.
    “Modern academic philosophy comes from a secular neo-marxist/feminist world view which can only succeed in demonizing Catholics as something out of the Black Legend.” That’s very ironic, but there’s nothing unusual about strange bedfellows.
    I speak out of turn since I’ve neither seen the movie nor read the source material. But I find something discomfiting in the premise, namely that you react to the political regime of the day and imagine it somehow transforming into the reincarnation of the Third Reich. To my mind, this reductio ad naziam is not very helpful either as a critique of the present or as a postulate of the future.
    “The Da Vinci Code” is rubbish. Entertaining. But rubbish nonetheless. Can’t wait to see the movie.
    Lota, nope, didn’t see that special with Oprah (though I did hear about the blood test stuff). I don’t watch much TV these days. Hell, I don’t even watch the History Channel. Probably because I think Homer spoke more than he knew when he said, “Ahh – the Luftwaffe, the Washington Generals of The History Channel.” Just substitute Nazis for Luftwaffe, and you get the idea. Probably why I don’t study German history. As I was saying, reductio ad naziam . . .

  35. Lota says:

    Nicol i have no idea what in Sam Hell you are talking about.
    i slough off no one’s suffering, so don;t sport with my intelligence.
    you seem to imply that catholics suffered More. JEWS & ROMANY & EVERYONE ELSE ALL DIED IN THE SAME CAMPS. Relatives of mine (part of my family went to europe/immigrated) who were sent to camps were interred because of their skin tone–they were called animals acc. to the one surivivor, my grandmother’s sister, now deceased. They weren’t interred for being catholic even though they were indeed Catholic, and Polish nationals. When a german officer is telling you are a aberration of nature he could give a shit what church you go to.
    Try to get beyond your Catholics are persecuted mantra–everyone else in the camps was on the same one way ticket.

  36. Blackcloud says:

    I’d like to go on record as stating that a sequel to “Elizabeth” strikes me as a bad, bad idea. It fits, since it’s sort of about history, just like this conversation.

  37. jeffmcm says:

    I liked the first one, but I only saw it once, so I guess that means I didn’t love it. I also recall a lot of critics who preferred it to Shakespeare in Love (to tag back to another long-running thread on this blog…amidst all the discussion over Saving Private Ryan and SIL and Thin Red Line, this is the movie that got ignored).

  38. Blackcloud says:

    I found it tiresome and melodramatic. And the history was just plain awful. I mean, yeesh. Based on the article about it I read in the Guardian, Nicol D will have a lot to complain about. And with good reason, if it’s like the first.

  39. Lota says:

    by the way Nicol.
    Koons, kikes and katholics was indeed the slang in the old days. Not any more as catholics have been discovered as members of the KKK (apparently now any christian affiliated religion is welcome) and there have been cases where catholics have “fought” to remain Knights of Columbus members and KKK members.
    black and Jews are still not allowed in the KKK, except on Dave Chappelle’s show.

  40. jeffmcm says:

    As bad as that is, you’ve gotta salute progress. Do they let in women?

  41. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    I really liked Elizabeth. How Cate Blanchett missed out on that Oscar is one of the most puzzling Oscar misses of all time. I mean really – and this is coming from a huge fan of Shakespeare in Love and Gwynnie.
    But, it sort of makes sense to make a sequel to Elizabeth so long after the original because it’s “The Golden Years” and that makes it sound like it’s set many years down the line.
    Maybe they just REALLY want Cate to get an Oscar for this role.

  42. Blackcloud says:

    About a quarter-century later or so, if I recall correctly. It ends with the Armada, I believe. After which it was pretty much all downhill for her. Like most long-serving monarchs (I’m looking at you, Louis Quatorze), the end of her reign was pretty bad. By the time she died, the English were ready for a a new monarch. They got the Stuarts. How’d that turn out?

  43. Blackcloud says:

    The Guardian story I mentioned is the URL on my name.

  44. Blackcloud says:

    Damn, didn’t work. Okay, the old-fashioned way.
    http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1729618,00.html

  45. Lota says:

    yes Camel–history of Elizabeth aside, how Cate didn’t win was to me a great modern injustice. She was fabulous.
    ha ha Jeff. The first time I went to an even to try to defuse a nasty situation where Klansmen and women showed up (women have been active for a long time, but they let men be the “boss”) I saw a woman in her full regalia and she had her baby on her hip in a pointed sheet–then a noticed a dozen or so toddlers and babies and like that and almost retched.
    really awful stuff, our own homegrown terrorist squad.

  46. Blackcloud says:

    Hmmmm, I’m definitely in the minority on this. I didn’t think Cate was robbed because I didn’t think her performance was that great. I was never convinced that that was what the real Elizabeth was like. Or, to keep the SIL comparison going, I was never convinced that Cate’s Elizabeth grew into Dame Judi’s. Cate’s Elizabeth, if she had really been like that, would have had her head chopped off long before the movie began.

  47. Richard Nash says:

    The people behind this movie (ie Wachowski’s) should make it a point to say that they are and the movie is about rebelling against gov’ts such as North Korea and Nazi Germany. They need to put that out there because they’re just going to turn average people off out there who don’t want to waste their time with liberal nonsense in a time of war. It will do well in week one but after that it will die a quick death.

  48. Stella's Boy says:

    What is the liberal nonsense you speak of Rich? And have you even seen it?

  49. jeffmcm says:

    Of course he hasn’t seen it. This is our old friend again, I believe.

  50. Tofu says:

    Oh this is just ODD. I ended up watching Elizabeth just last night to see Daniel Craig as the Assassin. And now Cate is signed on for another? Fantastic. The first had a wonderful energy to it, even if the music was a tad overbearing.
    Vendetta is getting midnight showings, and I see a Sin City gross of $75 million in store for this one. Saying ‘this is about Nazi Germany or North Korea’ would just be odd, as the whole point is to show how it can happen in any nation, as this is the case here with England. Then again, doesn’t it take place in a timeline where Nazi Germany won? How much more clear do you have to get?
    Can’t wait…

  51. Nicol D says:

    LOTA,
    Did you just compare the Knights of Columbus to the Ku Klux Klan?
    Do you have any idea what the Knights of Columbus actually is?
    Remember, bias is revealed not necessarily in what you know…but in what you do not and refuse to know.

  52. Blackcloud says:

    “Did you just compare the Knights of Columbus to the Ku Klux Klan?”
    Did she? I think I missed that. Okay, Lota, defend yourself.

  53. Blackcloud says:

    “the whole point is to show how it can happen in any nation”
    As a historical argument that’s nonsense, but it’s completely legitimate for a work of fiction, which takes place not in reality. By definition, anything can happen in fiction, even a fascist dictatorship in a country with as long and durable a tradition of representation as England.

  54. Tofu says:

    Nonsense? Nation’s are thrown into turmoil within a blink of an eye just as quickly today as any era before. Can one honestly say with certainty that with another select amount of terrorist attacks that many governments wouldn’t move to usher in more power and control? It is interesting to see England represented as ‘durable’ in the same thread that has a dual discussion about Queen Elizabeth.
    Entire political spectrums are thrown around like ragdolls in today’s 2-4-6 year term enviroments. Vendetta was written in the 80’s as a response to Thatcher’s leanings, a different era than that of the current Blair parliament to be sure, but just how different?

  55. palmtree says:

    If we wanted this to be an accurate representation of modern times, then perhaps we’d set it in the Phillipines. But that’s not the point…the point is to appeal to a Western audience and therefore to use a Western country with Western symbolism. We may or may not agree with the political message of this, but that’s not what’s going to get people to the theaters. This is an action movie that promises big explosions and a masked hero…the quality of those things (along with some Portmania) is driving this.

  56. Tofu says:

    Portmania is an amazing source of alternative energy, and I hope that the government / oil companies / mad scientists or what have you invest further research into it for the future.
    Think of the children!
    And the Harvard grads!

  57. Blackcloud says:

    “Can one honestly say with certainty that with another select amount of terrorist attacks that many governments wouldn’t move to usher in more power and control?”
    One can’t honestly say anything with certainty about the future; no one’s seen it. That is not going to get you very far as the logical basis of an argument.
    Just because something could possibly happen anywhere, that doesn’t mean it is likely to happen in whatever specific place one has in mind. Historically speaking, the type of government depicted in “V for Vendetta” has been more likely in certain types of societies than in others. England falls squarely in the latter category.
    You are also implying, Tofu, that any attempt by a government to seize more power and control would automatically propel it towards dictatorship and authoritarianism, if not towards totalitarianism. Either seizing more power is totalitarian, or it leads to it. That’s the fallacy of the slippery slope. It doesn’t fly.
    “It is interesting to see England represented as ‘durable’ in the same thread that has a dual discussion about Queen Elizabeth.” I don’t see your point here. Please explain.

  58. James Leer says:

    Uh-oh, Hicksville’s very own Alias Man is back and posting under “Richard Nash.” Maybe he thought he could get away with that one since he hardly ever usesd it and Dave didn’t get to investigating it? Despite the fact that he has all the same halting sentences and trademarks (the misspelling of “genius,” for one) as his other exposed aliases.
    DP, please IP tag this guy before he starts spawning some new ones.

  59. Lota says:

    Oh I wish I were in hell with my back broken. (a prize to whomever can tell me what two comedies had that line and share a director; but answer quick OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD please.)
    Nicol don;t blame me for your reading comprehension problems.
    “Not any more as catholics have been discovered as members of the KKK (apparently now any christian affiliated religion is welcome) and there have been cases where catholics have “fought” to remain Knights of Columbus members and KKK members.”
    That is my sentence–where is there a COMPARISON of Knights of Columbus to the Klan? I didn’t COMPARE them. I guess my sentence could have used a comma, but that’s the only concession I can make.
    Let me spell it out in small pieces
    There are members of the Knights who are ALSO members of THE KLAN–yes THE KLAN.
    There have been several cases with the Knights directly (internal tribubal things) as well as legal cases where these men were asked to CHOOSE one or the other, and REFUSED.
    The gentlemen concerned bristled that they could not be members of both and fought back both internally and legally. In the three cases I know of directly, The Knights leadership were embarassed as the press got word and ran stories, and were pressurizing the members concerned to drop the KLAN affiliation. I actually was very annoyed that they did not DROP these crazy people to start with–anyone who has aspirations to wear the white sheet in the USA should not be admitted.
    My Uncle was a Knight of C (he’s deceased now) so cut the self-righteousness about what I “know”–one of the cases is one HE told me after it finished about becasue he was so upset.
    And I certainly will never be able to learn from a person who can’t read, so don’t you worry about what I know.
    blackcloud…I don;t think Dame Judy’s Liz was better than Cate’s. Both were not realistic portrayals, but I enjoyed Cate’s more despite historical bending.

  60. Tofu says:

    Sorry Blackcloud, but I am at a loss here. Historical precedence proves that governments with overwhelming power over their people are, as you define, edge closer and closer to totalitarianism each day. We can witness this power in present day China and North Korea. These powers often mix with religious sects of society, as England itself has seen. The coming of Queen Elizabeth is but one example of a massive shift in power, which I feel is apart of disproving your assertion that England has been durable. If anything, every nation is capable of drastic changes in a moments notice. From the ashes of conflict comes power grabs by those who thirst for control.
    Throwing on a guise that any one nation is immune to this temptation is historically flawed. I am, however, in agreement that the future is uncertain, and that is why all rationale possibilities must be recognized.

  61. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol: paranoia is revealed not necessarily in what you see…but in what you constantly insist on seeing.
    We don’t hate you because you’re Catholic, I can assure you.

  62. Blackcloud says:

    “Historical precedence proves that governments with overwhelming power over their people are, as you define, edge closer and closer to totalitarianism each day. We can witness this power in present day China and North Korea.” North Korea is already totalitarian, it can’t become any become more so. China is totalitarian in some respects, but in others has become less so than it was in Mao’s day.
    Totalitarianism refers to a specific kind of government and society. Historically, it has only existed since the 20th century. Not every authoritarian or absolutist government is totalitarianism.
    At any rate, you are making two different arguments, Tofu. In an earlier post, you ask, “Can one honestly say with certainty that with another select amount of terrorist attacks that many governments wouldn’t move to usher in more power and control?” Then in a later post, you describe “governments with overwhelming power over their people.” Those are not identical.
    The first case is quite possible. But even if that happened, the government in question wouldn’t necessarily become totalitarian in the first place, become more totalitarian than it was, or even start down the path of totalitarianism. It would have more power, and that’s it. It doesn’t follow that because it would have more power, it would thus have “overwhelming power” over its citizens. More power doesn’t equate to totalitarianism. The fact that p is possible and q is possible doesn’t mean that p leads to q, or that because q, therefore p. You are conflating your terms.
    “If anything, every nation is capable of drastic changes in a moments notice.” That is so, but again, it doesn’t prove anything. Drastic changes have led to democracy, too. “Throwing on a guise that any one nation is immune to this temptation is historically flawed.” I never said that. I said that historically, totalitarianism has been more likely in some societies than others. England is one of the unlikely ones. Unless you think it’s an accident that countries with long traditions of limited executive power and representative bodies haven’t witnessed such totalitarian experiments.
    As for your assertion that “These powers often mix with religious sects of society, as England itself has seen. The coming of Queen Elizabeth is but one example of a massive shift in power, which I feel is apart of disproving your assertion that England has been durable,” that is such a logical and historical muddle that it makes me wonder if you have any idea that you’re talking about. The notion that Elizabeth’s accession shows that England is somehow susceptible to a totalitarian government is, simply, absurd.

  63. Blackcloud says:

    Lota, that’s fair cop about Dame Judi’s Elizabeth R being unrealistic, too. I guess what it comes down to is that just as you enjoyed Cate’s more, I enjoyed Dame Judi’s more. Nothing wrong with that. Luckily for us, unlike the real ER, neither Cate nor Dame Judi can send us to the Tower for treason!

  64. Tofu says:

    “Not every authoritarian or absolutist government is totalitarianism.” Of course, and yet it edges closer and closer, nearly flirting with the concept. Just as obtaining more and more power is flirting with grounding in overwhelming power. This is the slippery slope. As you say, more power does not equal totalitarianism, however it is easy to understand that it is simply one step closer.
    Is England unlikely to move into a more authoritarian stance? It is capable, but your point is that history doesn’t point in this direction. I merely state that history has proved, through the crowning of Elizabeth and beyond, that power can move quickly, now more so than ever. A media saturated, fortified and closely watched society has the makings of going either way on the balance of freedom and restriction.
    I, so far, feel this is where the film and book of ‘V For Vendetta’ leads us to understand. Thanks for the discussion so far. Now off for some ZZzzzZZZzzz.

  65. Blackcloud says:

    Tofu, your last post is quite fair. But instead of Elizabeth, you might want to use Oliver Cromwell as your historical example. I think it would be more accurate.
    I think now the only thing is to wait for the movie to meet the masses.
    Once which, I look forward to the “Vendetta disappoints at box, Americans committed to fascism” and/or “Vendetta soars, Americans agree Bush is Hitler” blogsphemy.

  66. KamikazeCamelV2.0 says:

    Wait, Bush ISN’T Hitler? Whoa… news to me
    😉

  67. Blackcloud says:

    ^ You’re not the only one, Camel, so don’t feel bad.
    😉

  68. Chucky in Jersey says:

    There are advance shows of “V for Vendetta” tomorrow night (3/16) in the US. Check your local theater listings.

  69. Nicol D says:

    LOTA
    “There are members of the Knights who are ALSO members of THE KLAN–yes THE KLAN.”
    Please,back up these statements. You go on to give me more vagaries. Catholics were a target of the KKK. Whether you like it or not.
    If what you say is true…that Catholics were members of the clan, then
    a) back it up. This is not Soc 101 where any anti-Catholic rhetoric will get you a credit from your prof.
    b) state what you are inferring explicitly…that the KKK now loves Catholics? that Catholics are in league with the KKK?
    What point are you exactly trying to make?
    Do not blame someone’s reading skills if you make poorly written vagaries with invective that can be taken many ways.
    If you do not like being questioned on these matters than I suggest you keep the rhetoric and generalizations to a dull roar.

  70. Stella's Boy says:

    Nicol, seriously, you need to take your own advice. Case in point. Recently you made the claim that it is now a known fact that the Matthew Shephard killing was not a hate crime. More than one person asked you to “back it up” and state where you got that information, yet you have not done so. This isn’t Soc 101. You can’t throw statements like that out there and just expect everyone to take it as the truth.

  71. palmtree says:

    “apparently now any christian affiliated religion is welcome” in the KKK
    I think Lota made this point pretty explicitly.

  72. nolo says:

    I’m new to this party, and I haven’t seen “V for Vendetta,” but I have to ask: How is it that anyone here (and Nicol in particular) is reaching the conclusion that Bishop Anthony Lilliman (the “pedophilic priest”) is Catholic? More likely Anglican, I’d have thought.

  73. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, I hate to keep hammering this in, but I think it’s pretty obvious from what Lota wrote that she’s speaking about individuals who are both Catholic and want to be KKK members. Not of any institutional connection.
    Her initial point was something you should be proud of: that amongst certain racist groups, Catholics have finally been accepted as ‘white people’ worthy of respect. Yes, it’s the KKK, but still, it’s a kind of progress.

  74. Lota says:

    two issues and then I am finished Nicol.
    1. There is no intent to “compare” or associate KKK *with* the Knights of Columbus. Both are originally fraternal orders that use the term “knights” and as organizations, this is where any similitude ends. I know members of the KoC were persecuted by Protestant-themed organizations in different states to varying degrees.
    the KKK used to have a very exclusive remit/rules re. who they wanted in their organization. This has relaxed to varying degrees in that you a) don;t have to be religious or a Protestant Christian b) you don;t have to be an Aryan by Adolf’s definition–Tom Metzger probably paved the way.
    Being a Knight of Columbus does not mean that a man is free from bigotry. Hence why would you be surprised Nicol that there are a few people who are Knights that happen to have Aryan-style sympathies and end up taking it a step further by joining WAR or KKK or stormfront or C18? I think it is very FEW individuals who would do that, but it could and has happened. Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic was he not? Look how he turned out.
    2. Cases: when I can locate the district or name of filer I can post the cases. I don;t have free access to the civil courts (which takes these looney cases) as I don;t have a sub and I am not a CR lawyer. Only a few states have all their jurisdictions on line where a free search will tell you the “subject” or particulars of the suit. When I next need a case detail I can do that, but I am not paying the amount of money I would have to pay to do a lower 48 search of civil cases. Again, when I next need stuff for research I can include that as it as I won’t have to pay extra. I have to ask my fbi friend what states the couple cases I am thinking of occurred in, then it makes the jurisdiction search alot easier. One was either Massachusetts or NY; and the other was Ohio or illinois. The cases were taken by an individual against an individual group of KoC re. ‘civil liberties’.
    There are a alot of civil cases against individual KoC chapters in the last ten years in the lower 48–I tried to search last night on the free listings and too many came up. Becasue there are too many I have to do a paid search.There are many more civil cases against the Freemason organizations so don’t sweat that.
    And… the whole V is for Vendetta thing which started off this incredible journey.
    when people write any type of futuristic vision or dystopia, or even alternative present vision, they usually create different “religions” and “politics” and can’t be directly compared (unless the point of the story is to directly do so) to what we see in our present day with our OWN symbolism. It is pretend.
    Now with all this anti-V for vendetta accusations (the cross could be a variant on Klan style crosses too you know), I’m going to have my artist (with whom I am working with on something ‘graphic’) turn anything remotely cross-shaped in the work into Plus signs. But then with my luck I’d probably have every ass-clown mathmatician on my back complaining about the portrayal of “their” symbols when it comes out.
    Symbols aren’t *owned* by groups of people. Y’all worried about V for Vendetta get over the cross thing.
    and Blackcloud…when i get the EU state/religious persecution archival numbers/estimates I will post them to you. Holland/Netherlands was the most bizarre per capita. I blame Erasmus and Jansen.

  75. Blackcloud says:

    Lota, no rush about the numbers.
    I finally saw “Good Night, and Good Luck” tonight. It’s well-crafted; the acting is good. But all in all, pretty anodyne stuff. I think they made a mistake in playing the whole thing diminuendo. I hope “V” doesn’t err in the other direction.

  76. Nicol D says:

    LOTA,
    My issue with what you have written, is your consistent association with Catholics and Catholicism with the negative. You have done it through your examples, your language and your lack of nuance and balance.
    I do not at all believe that every Catholic is a saint or that the church has not done wrongs or that they are the only ones who have been persecuted…far from it. But I seek balanced representation…in media and in academia.
    When only one side is presented, we end up with opinions like the ones you have shown that overwhelmingly skew to the negative either intentionally or unintentionally
    You have backtracked slightly in your later posts and shown some modification. That is good. But even then…
    “Timothy McVeigh was raised Catholic was he not? Look how he turned out. ”
    Timothy McVeigh was an atheist. He had long since abandoned his Catholic faith and his father was dismayed by it and said so in interviews. Yet, many people just link the two.
    What we are really disputing is a much bigger topic. I suspect you believe anyone who is baptized is a Catholic. It is much more complex. Catholicism is a philosophy. If a ‘Catholic’ sought to join the KKK they would in fact not be acting as a Catholic. Catholicism is not a race. It is a belief system. Just like Islamic fundamentalists who blow up buildings are not acting out of true Islam. Would you make the same generalization in this case?
    Lets replace some words.
    “Timothy McVeigh (Mohammad Atta) was raised Catholic (Islamic) was he not? Look how he turned out. ”
    Doesn’t have a nice zing now does it?
    As for V for Vendetta, we can go back and forth for days but there seems to be a real effort on behalf of the defenders of the film to obfuscate and flat out deny what is there. I have read few defenses of the film that actually in depth acknowledge the text of the film and iconograhy used.
    You say get over the cross? It is a real cross…The Cross of Lorraine. It exists. I read an interview with Joel Silver where he said that the film takes place in London but it is a fake London so people shouldn’t be concerned.
    OK. I’ll bite. Is it a fake Quran? Are they fake homosexuals? Is it a fake pedophilic priest? Is it a fake British Parliament? Is it a fake Cross of Lorraine?
    These symbols are real. They exist in the real world. The film does not exist in a vacuum. These symbols have history and context. To use them is to invoke that history and context.
    To say to people to get over the cross because it is generic…that is perhaps the most bizarre thing I have ever read. Would you say the same if it were a Star of David? A crescent moon? Do you actually think that the symbols of Judaism and Islam are recognizable but those of Catholicism/Christianity are generic?
    “(the cross could be a variant on Klan style crosses too you know),”
    That’s the first thing you’ve written I wholeheartedly agree with. I am sure that’s an association the makers of this film would be proud of.
    As for those who said I never backed up the Matthew Sheppard claim. Yes, read my post. I referenced 20/20. You can accept it or you can reject it.
    But I did back it up.

  77. Stella's Boy says:

    But Nicol, you stated that it is now a known fact that the Matthew Shephard killing was not a hate crime. In fact, that is not true at all. One news program did a story that suggested it might not have been a hate crime. Do you accept everything that 20/20 says as 100% truth? I highly doubt it.

  78. Stella's Boy says:

    And have you seen V yet? You seem to enjoy attacking it a whole lot. It’s hard to take someone’s criticisms seriously when they haven’t seen the entire film.

  79. jeffmcm says:

    He suggested he had watched a bootleg video of it.
    I guess he was really eager to take it apart.

  80. Stella's Boy says:

    And undoubtedly he decided to hate it prior to seeing it.

  81. palmtree says:

    I thought Nolo made a good point that because it was taking place in England that the representations of the church had more to do with the Anglican variety of Chrisitianity.
    The issue of symbolism is pretty complex. I’ll just say that if this film were taking place in the Far East, then perhaps instead of a pedophilic priest you’d get a corrupt Buddhist monk (which is often depicted in Asian films). I don’t find that particularly offensive because there have been corrupt monks and there have been pedophilic priests. In both cases, they are using iconography that are familiar to their regional audience, incorrectly perhaps but still a short-cut. Imagine having to create an entirely new religion from scrap…then they’d have to spend a lot of time in the movie to explain what the heck that religion was all about.

  82. palmtree says:

    I’m not condoning that, by the way, but films don’t need to be balanced necessarily either.

  83. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, this’ll be a lot more productive when any of the rest of us have seen the movie.

  84. palmtree says:

    Come on…since when were facts needed to make an argument? That’s so old fashioned. =)

  85. jeffmcm says:

    Oh, and Nicol seeing it is better than a certain poster who wrote several times something to the effect of ‘I’ll cut off my balls before I see Brokeback Mountain’.

  86. nolo says:

    Cross of Lorraine as an insult to Catholics? Feh. I think it’s obvious that the Wachowskis had it in for the American Lung Association. http://www.lungusa.org/site/pp.asp?c=dvLUK9O0E&b=22542

  87. Lynn says:

    “What we are really disputing is a much bigger topic. I suspect you believe anyone who is baptized is a Catholic.”
    The church itself seems to disagree. They count every infant baptized as a “member.”
    http://www.usccb.org/comm/statisti.shtml
    Whether everyone who is baptized is a practicing or observant Catholic is a separate question.
    Of course, holding any faith responsible for the acts of its members (unless those acts were directly promoted by the faith) is pretty ridiculous. But so is seeing anti-religious bigotry in everything, particularly when other explanations are equally plausible.

  88. hagan says:

    “a) back it up. This is not Soc 101 where any anti-Catholic rhetoric will get you a credit from your prof”
    Wow I teach Soc 108 (same as 101) and I’ve never given anyone credit for anti-Catholic rhetoric… I don’t think I’ve ever even used anti-Catholic rhetoric in the class… crazy.

  89. Nicol D says:

    Nolo,
    Does that mean Schindler’s List is about the persecution of the Jews by members of the Hindu faith?
    That Indiana Jones is finding the Hindus?
    http://www.hindubooks.org/sudheer_birodkar/hindu_history/omkar.html
    I’ll have more to say about this film on other threads but I suspect the main reason why it’s defenders do not want to accept or acknowledge that it is a Christian/Catholic Cross is that it reveals what the left really thinks of Christians and Catholics.
    And that’s why you will keep losing elections.
    Even Canada isn’t on your side any more.

  90. Stella's Boy says:

    Nicol, I’m Catholic, born and raised. Spent 13 years attending Catholic schools. And I’m a proud leftie. Pray tell, what do I (and others like me) really think of Catholics?

  91. jeffmcm says:

    Nicol, that’s the oldest trick in the paranoid persecution-complex handbook: if you don’t agree with me, it’s further proof of how you’re all against me.
    Is it necessary for every appearance of a cross in the movie to either have a completely positive or completely negative connotation? I’m quite certain that the Wachowskis are making a political/social statement by having the State in V4V be religious instead of secular, and I haven’t seen the movie, but can you conceive of no middle-ground between total defamation of the Christian faith and total acceptance? Such as, say, a work of speculative fiction that does not intend to be literally true but rather to provoke and critique?

  92. jeffmcm says:

    By the way, I’m noticing that while the movie seems to be getting generally good reviews, it’s not exactly getting the kind of rapturous best-of-the-year reviews except amongst scattered critics.

  93. James Leer says:

    I also am a Catholic Democrat. I come from a whole family of them, in fact.
    But it’s not like Nicol is slurring Democrats the same way he accused them of slurring Catholics…right?

  94. Lynn says:

    “I suspect the main reason why it’s defenders do not want to accept or acknowledge that it is a Christian/Catholic Cross is that it reveals what the left really thinks of Christians and Catholics.”
    Nope, no persecution complex here.
    It must be easy to live in a world where “the Left” is one monolithic entity that thinks exactly alike about *all* Christians and Catholics. Because really, there’s no difference at all between, say, Fred Phelps, Rick Santorum, Sister Helen Prejean, Jerry Falwell, Mother Teresa, CS Lewis, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Pat Robertson.
    Yeah, those people are *so* exactly alike. And therefore the entire “Left’s” opinion about them must be exactly the same.
    Or maybe… just maybe? Those on “the Left,” to paraphrase Dr. King, don’t judge people for their religious beliefs, but for their character — e.g., what they do and say. And maybe “the Left” embraces people of faith who believe in and work toward things like social justice — and don’t care much for those who use their religious beliefs to foster hatred, justify censorship or support policies more appropriate in a theocracy than a republic.

  95. palmtree says:

    Came out of a V screening last midnight, and I got it. Yes, this is about as liberal a film as we’re going to get from a major studio.
    The point of the movie though is actually about the media. It actually did remind me of Sociology 101 in that it challenges the supremacy of undiscerning mediated life. It’s a broad critique of how media is manipulated to serve political ends. It attacks censorship. It attacks figures like Bill O’Reilly. It attacks puppet “official” news outlets (something which this blog repeatedly also attacks). More than that, it challenges the force-fed masses to attain awareness of their plight (that is where it connects to the ideas from the Matrix).
    V no more attacks the Catholic faith than it does all governments. But as Nicol helpfully pointed out, Christianity is a powerful political tool which you need to win elections. There’s nothing wrong with people finding spirituality and meaning in that. The point is that the way it is practiced and organized can be and has been corrupted in the same way that governments can be and have been corrupted. And both of those corruptions are manipulated through the media as being the voice of God or patriotism, compelling people to, yes, vote a certain way.
    I think it’s unfortunate they used the Cross of Lorraine rather than a made up symbol, but I think it makes the point. Just as the Nazis perverted the swastika (the one they use is actually a mirror image of the Hindu one, which is appropriate in a way), so too is the government in V perverting the Cross.

  96. Nicol D says:

    I felt it important to clarify a few things here.
    First off, Catholicism is neither of the left nor the right. It can be claimed by neither side.
    Much like Orthodox Judaism and Islam, it is a vastly complex philosophy that much has been written about. It involves philosophers ranging from the writings of Aquinas to the more recent encyclicals of Pope John Paul II.
    In grossly simplified political terms it could perhaps be conceived as fiscally liberal (a welfare state, helping the poor, etc.) and morally conservative (pro-life, marriage is not about just property rights and tax laws, the dignity of the human body from conception to death).
    I never said Democrats could not be Catholic (I do not believe I even used the term Democrat). But being Catholic is more than rhetorical terms such as ‘social justice’ (whatever that means nowadays).
    No one forces one to be a Catholic but if one chooses to call themselves such they should at least understand the philosophy and try to live by it.
    If one is a Catholic on the right but believes in a free market system that says ‘to hell with the poor’, I would have to question why one would call oneself a Catholic.
    If one is a Catholic on the left but believes in unrestrictive abortion and that marriage is nothing but about tax laws and property rights I would have to question why one would call oneself a Catholic.
    No one forces one to believe in this philosphy (thank God), but it is much more complex than chocolate eggs at Easter. It means more often than not people will disagree with you.
    I am not writing this to debate abortion or the definition of marriage. I am saying that right now those issues dominate the New Left and as such they have made the left very hostile to Catholics.
    Tolerance means more than just ‘think like me.’
    Open mindedness means understanding why someone believes something, not just creating art that vilifies it.
    Sadly, films like V do not seek to show how the cross is being perverted by the government (and indeed no cross should be used as a government symbol in real life), instead without a positive counter balance in the film, they merely propagate the same fear they claim to oppose. Hence, the film shows one side in all of it’s vicious glory and becomes the exact same fear mongering that it claims is fascistic. The film as text then becomes not anarchic but fascistic in and of itself.
    If I am wrong, and the mainstream of left-wing thinking does not vilify Catholics, then I do say this…the left has a massive PR problem and the moderates should fight to change it.
    Because, what it teachs, the art it finances,the movies it makes, the news it reports and the news it does not is giving the opposite message. I know many Catholics that are opposed to the war in Iraq, believe in the complete eradication of 3rd World Debt and spend much time in soup kitchens feeding the poor and impoverished but they can no longer vote Democrat.
    If they are wrong, if they are misunderstading what the New Left believes…then perhaps the New Left should reconsider what it says before 2008.

  97. jeffmcm says:

    Thanks for agreeing that it’s a marketing problem more than it’s a substance problem. When people learn to stop voting against their own best interests, we’ll all be in better shape.
    I apologize for continuing the unwanted political discussion, but I still haven’t seen V for Vendetta yet and so have nothing to post about it.

  98. jeffmcm says:

    Okay, I can’t let an evening go without writing something to annoy Nicol: I can’t believe you would write that you think the gay rights struggle is just about ‘property rights and tax laws’. Do you think these people are not serious about wanting to make meaningful lifetime commitments to each other?
    And what, beyond property rights and tax laws etc., need to be in the realm of the state? This is why people need to be able to get recognized domestic partnerships; so that we can separate the religious act of marriage from all the other social and economic rights that people deserve to have.

  99. palmtree says:

    To add Jeff: Marriage is an act of religious expression. Now, if your particular sect or denomination doesn’t accept homosexuality, then fine, it doesn’t have to recognize those marriages. But for the government to say that gay people can’t engage in religious expression, that is crossing the line. To bring it back to film, there was an interesting documentary called Trembling Before G-d about Orthodox Jews who were deeply religious and also homosexual. It flies against the false notion that gay people are somehow all secular.

  100. Lota says:

    Homosexuality and Catholic Church:
    American bishops wrote in their 1976 statement, To Live in Christ Jesus: “Some persons find themselves through no fault of their own to have a homosexual orientation. Homosexuals, like everyone else, should not suffer from prejudice against their basic human rights. They have a right to respect, friendship, and justice. They should have an active role in the Christian community.

  101. Nicol D says:

    JMCM
    “I can’t believe you would write that you think the gay rights struggle is just about ‘property rights and tax laws’.”
    That’s not my argument. That’s what advocates and lawyers are arguing in court. That’s what was gernerally was argued in Canadian courts and why French courts rejected it.
    You should also read what leading Canadian feminist lawyer Martha Bailey had to write on the subject. She was one of the legal minds that the Canadian government at the time consulted when they brought in the redefinition. She is pro redefinition of marriage and her reasons are not at all what you said.
    You do not annoy me at all Jeff. ‘Member, by your own admission, you are the one who always feels compelled to respond to me.
    LOTA
    “So being anti-homo isn’t very Catholic.”
    I agree with this. But remember, tolerance and affirmation are two completely different ideals.

  102. jeffmcm says:

    You dodged what I said, which continued on “Do you think these people are not serious about wanting to make meaningful lifetime commitments to each other?” Your statement was phrased with the connotation that gays are just greedily going for lower taxes and inheritance, when in fact those are both aspects of, simply, basic, broad-based equality with heterosexual couples.
    You still have never answered James Leer’s long-standing question, how does the gay lifestyle affect how you live your life?
    The line between ‘tolerance’ and ‘affirmation’ is obviously where this whole debate rages…and I don’t see how your rights are in any way under threat except that gay people are forcing you to acknowledge their existence as equals.

  103. Nicol D says:

    J MCM,
    “You still have never answered (the) long-standing question, how does the gay lifestyle affect how you live your life?”
    I reject the premise and underlying assumption of this question in that one cannot oppose something in principal or have an opinion on something unless it directly ‘affects’ you. I opposed apartheid in South Africa, yet as a white male in North America it had no affect on me.
    Redefining marriage is not as facile as saying it does not

  104. jeffmcm says:

    I’m not going to spin you anymore, because your entire post is basically just a big smokescreen. If you believe that “gay couples have every right to security and provisions that heterosexuals have” then that’s pretty much the end of the argument right there, and it follows that you agree that gays should have inheritance rights, hospital visitation rights, adoption rights, etc. If you don’t want this to be termed ‘marriage’ then fine, it can be ‘domestic partnership’ but it’s basically the same.
    You know a lot more about Canada and France than I do. Good work.

  105. Stella's Boy says:

    Does marriage have anything to do with children these days? Doesn’t seem like it. I’m sure gays are to blame for that. They ruined the sanctity of parenthood.

  106. jeffmcm says:

    Yeah, I also don’t understand…is Nicol suggesting that gays in committed/married relationships don’t want children?
    Nicol, you have a lot of good arguments and evidence to support what you’re talking about…it’s your base assumptions that, in my opinion, are faulty.

  107. notebook says:

    I learn a lot of things in here.Thank you.

  108. jeffmcm says:

    Notebook, thank you for reminding us all what love is and for bringing us Rachel McAdams.

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon