I've taken Russian history. I realize what Stalinism was like, and I realize that that's what 1984 is about. "V" did not represent that kind of society effectively. I understand Stalinism: the filmmakers do not.

There could be no free media in a Stalinist system. There would be no game shows live, on the air. In 1984 everything is retrospectively edited, and freedom of speech doesn't exist. The world of "V" shows the superficial aspects of the 1984 system (columns of soldiers in the streets, omnipresent screens, angry authority figures) without grasping the actual structure behind it. In such a system, Western-style life, as it is portrayed in the film, would be completely impossible. People going about their jobs would be completely different. It wouldn't be a few thugs trying to rape people after curfew, oh no.

I don't like Bush, but the filmmakers were clearly targeting his government, the radio guy that's killed is Rush Limbaugh (no fan of that fat asshole am I), and so forth. If someone made a mainstream film that was as far biased to the right, as that is to the left, it would be called propaganda. And that's what "V" is.

And yes, the cast was pretty good. So was the visual style.

Bambuz: Revenge flicks, well what about Payback? Or Braveheart, or the Patriot, or Apocalypto, or anything else Mel Gibson's ever made? Lol. 

that from a standpoint of pure operatic melodrama, V for Vendetta works. As for the politics, I'm use to ignoring Hollywood's politics and just turning the old brain off for the show. It's show business.

There are a few movies that are political and don't really insult the intelligence all that much, Beaty's Reds, with its interviews with disillusioned ex revolutionaries (funny how the Social Democrats in these revolutions, from Russia to Cuba and so on always find themselves at the wrong end of the barrel of their Communist brethren), but I don't expect much from Hollywood.

Even their own story gets distorted and get the Clooney pat on back treatment. Here I'm talking about the history behind the Hollywood Red scare. What they wont tell you is the fact these purges were self inflicted and intercine. In the late 1930's there were two camps controling the actor and screenwriter guilds, Stalinist and Trotskyites.

When the US aligned with Uncle Joe, the Stalinist purged Trotskyites from important positions.
At the end of the war and the start of the Cold War(Truman didn't take to Stalin like the fawning idiot FDR), Trotskyites got their revenge and purged the Stalinist. The ComIntern types are quite brilliant though. They got a few doofus Conservatives in Congress like Tail Gunner Joe to do their dirty work for them.

It's interesting stuff but don't expect Hollywood to ever tell that story. BTW, I learned about this through independent research. I found
an old pamphleteer type booklet in a political book shop in Georgetown written by Trotsky's prot�g� James Burnham who learned early on that to accomplish what you are after get the enemy to do your work for you.

Still a great lesson I see in practice to this day. 

Interesting post HT. Hindsight's 20/20 but it's amazing still that westerners could think Stalin (or even Lenin) was in any way good. I understand that you're never going to get much out of Hollywood, in terms of, well, anything.

I guess the basic point here (in case it wasn't already obvious) is that, in this matter at least, I'm still an idealist. I know that television and hollywood is 99% bullshit, in more ways than it's possible to describe, but I just find that hard to accept. We have an open society, with free speech and individual freedom, and an economy that is so far above subsistence that it can support stories that cost hundreds of millions to produce. Is this really the best we can do?

I'm aware of plenty of decent counterarguments, such as: 1) Idiots enjoy idiot entertainment just as much as smart people enjoy smart people entertainment: what's the difference. 2) Smart people are only smart genetically, or possibly through their educational opportunities, and have no superiority over idiots. 3) Smart people may tell themselves that stupidity is enforced or produced by the media, because they are emotionally invested in thinking that everyone would agree with them and be like them if it wasn't for X enemy, onto which they project all of their anti-idiot frustration.

Basically, the point is, illegitimate and unrealistic as my point of view may be, I won't give it up, because I can't. As Dostoyevsky said (horrible midnight paraphrase) "Just because I'm faced with a wall that is indestructable, does not mean I will not bang my head against it." 

but I completely disagree with his use of the liberal/conservative dichotomy. We all know how imprecise and thus, mostly useless, that is. I suspect you guys know what I think about that, so I'll let it rest :)

The movie didn't directly promote the idea of anarchism (a type of societal organization based on maximal citizen participation) like the comics did, but the film did promote the idea of personal empowerment. This is far more useful than most movies, that focus on symptoms of whatever problems dominate our lives, yet ignore the causes of those problems.*

The film worked for me because it did justice to how ordinary people turn into activists: an angry person is one thing, but educating that person how to use their passion to fight against that which makes he or she angry is something else altogether. It is very, very rewarding to see that change happen, both in oneself and in others.

* By symptoms vs. problems, I am referring to the difference between cause and effect. Examples:
1) huge gaps in wealth between communities (and countries) vs. private ownership of capital (a probable cause);
2) weird and bad love/romance type stuff vs. patriarchy and gender roles;
3) war vs. incentives for politicians to stay in power;
3) mafia violence and drugs vs. widespread dissatisfaction with politics' response to community needs;
4) et cetera. 

Basically, the point is, illegitimate and unrealistic as my point of view may be

I enjoyed reading your post and I didn't find it illegitimate at all. Orwell is a tremendous influence on me as well. I've recently reread Homage to Catalonia and he was one of those disillusioned Social Democrats who find his presumed allies to be even more criminal than the enemy he was fighting.

I'd recommend reading F. A. Hayek's The Road to Serfdom as it was on Orwell's mind when he wrote 1984. When I finally got around to reading it, it occurred to me, 'hey, there is Blair and his Nanny-Cam state!'. It is about the subtle relinquishment of liberties usually brought about to make government processes more efficient.

Hayek's influence on Libertarians is well known but his influence on civil liberty oriented liberals was very strong as well. 

then that's what they should have done.

But they didnt. And if you're going to go down the path, do it right.

And for what it's it worth, I thought Good night and Good Luck was awesome, it may not be the perfect history lesson, but that knows what it wants to be and never goes for anything else. 

Very valid points, supported by good examples. I too like the idea that if something is wrong, even if it is controlled by vested interests on the highest levels, it could be destroyed by people who have been affected by the policy/problem on the most obvious level. My first experience of this idea was when I was a kid and read Tom Clancy's Without Remorse, where a widower has his girlfriend murdered by drug dealers and decides that that is enough, and goes on a paramilitary vigilante justice spree against the mafia. I don't believe that any more, I think soft drugs should be legalized, but I enjoy the message of it, which also reminds me of all those Mel Gibson and revenge movies.

I love revenge against people who deserve it. It's a great way to exorcise feelings of anger (as I do myself have). However, I never use emotion when evaluating politics, I use reason. And I consider politics that uses emotion rather than reason, like "V," to be dishonest propaganda. I know that almost all TV politics is like this - but it's all still evil to me, left, right or centre. 

Do you think emotion can ("should"?) be used to enhance the motivation to use reason to achieve desired results? 

Emotion can fuel politics in most excellent directions. "X (discrimination, sexism, fascism, secret police) is wrong," is a conviction that has basically built our modern world for us today.

But I say fuck emotion the fraction of a second that it creates ideological blind spots. Emotion can never override reason in a useful political conversation. If each side just throws emotionally charged cliches at each other, what kind of productivity is that?

Each side must be able to converse with the other using a common dialogue of reason. Biases of various sorts (X economic, social, ethnic, religious group are good/bad/dishonest/honest) corrupt reasonable discussions. Anyone with an ideological preconcieved notion, is going to force the facts to fit that belief. And that is going to destroy honesty on some level. 

I agree! But, mustn't each of us make at least one assumption in order to enter into a debate? Is that necessarily ideological? 

That is a very good and difficult point.

At this point, I have almost nothing to say, and have to admit that my argument is ultimately intuitive and subjective.

But never the less I say this:

There is a different between ideologies of reason (to praise free speech, equal rights) and ideologies of emotion (to call nazism wrong intuitively - which it is.)

Fuck, it's late, and I'm caught in a tough spot here. But I hope to explain, that emotion cannot provide any kind real reason or policy. I know this because I can recognize a very simple, very real, difference between my political philosophies, and my... fantasies. 

Do we get to see Kevin James naked, possibly faking gay sex?

That is all I want, really 

The way I deal with that quandary is to ask, "what assumption(s) lead to the results I intuitively want?"

There's nothing wrong with acknowledging the fact that most thinking activity is unconscious, nor with the notion that axioms are necessary in order to start using logic! (How would we use logical operations, if they aren't defined?) 

 

I think the French revolution was awesome. To me there is a huge gut appeal of just taking rich people, and chopping off their heads. It would be so awesome to legally constrain people and infiltrate their lives, and then murder them.

But luckily I've established a strong dividing line between emotions and reason in politics. I know that we have to have capitalism, and that it's completely unreasonable to have class warfare. Furthermore, I recognize that the TYPE of people that I hate, have just as much right to free speech as I do. Emotionally, all the crazy shit that Rousseau wrote really appeals to me. But with reason I can see that it's insane and could never work. 

"I Now Pronounce You Chuck And Larry" fun movie this one :) 

I know that we have to have capitalism, and that it's completely unreasonable to have class warfare.

Of all posts on func, your's is now number one in the category of "stuff I completely disagree with." :)
http://www.zmag.org/parecon/pelac.htm (notice the "free book" part)
"anarchism simplified": http://question-everything.mahost.org/Socio-Politics/BasicAnarchy.html
another: http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarchism.html
"Criticisms of Capitalism": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticisms_of_Capitalism

IMO, one of the most widely believed fallacies is the notion that neoliberal capitalism engenders efficiency and innovation.

�When the highwayman holds his gun to your head, you turn your valuables over to him. You 'consent' alright, but you do so because you cannot help yourself, because you are compelled by his gun. Are you not compelled to work for an employer? Your need compels you, just as the highwayman�s gun.�
-- Alexander Berkman 

"the failure of historical alternatives to capitalism does not rule out the possibility that the principles of equity, solidarity, self management, and diversity may replace free trade"

Ok, so he's headed off my first objection, that Marxism has always created bad societies.

I will read your links. I am interested. So far the first writer seems more aware than the average "capitalism is bad" philosopher. But even though he does address that first point, and it's true that capitalism has flaws and creates problems, I really appreciate the society we have, and think it's the best compared to all historical alternatives. Perhaps it's possible to replace it with something even better, but I'm very, very wary of communism (even though I love the idea of a revolution overthrowing all the shit about society that I hate, including shopping mall materialism). 

a revolution overthrowing all the shit about society that I hate, including shopping mall materialism
There is so much I hate about you I cannot even believe it. 

I think you need more precise definitions of words like liberty, communism, capitalism, and so on. Part of the problem with philosophy is confusion about terminology! :) 

:) 

While I don't get to have any control over your emotions, I can remind you that you're not obliged to read things that you don't like.

We'll take it to the politics thread next time. 

was Kick-Ass! I liked the bit at the end where he killed all of those fucking cops and nasty ministers or whoever they were, and then died.

'V, oh no, V!'

Go and pretend to shoot stuff. 

was Kick-Ass! I liked the bit at the end where he killed all of those fucking cops and nasty ministers or whoever they were, and then died.

'V, oh no, V!'

Go and pretend to shoot stuff. 

vs emotion. You can't deduce values just from facts. You end up with questions like what's the meaning of life etc... If you pretend that you can, then you're just fooling yourself. You always have to take some axioms. This btw is the very common reason to call to a god, because you have to have some original source where your values come from.
People of course have an inbuilt sensitivity of unjustice etc. because we have mirror cells and are a co-operating species...

I don't like the Mel Gibson revenge flicks, haven't analyzed it that well... kinda seem just stupid.
In practically all Hollywood flicks the baddies are just pure filth with all the cliche baddie marks. A friend remarked how it's so individual and never anyone elses fault that a person turns to crime or does something bad. Perhaps the best example is Sin City. The baddie is highlighted in yellow ffs.

I'd have to read about different revolutions, but yeah, you are right in the movie just taking some cliches but not the whole control network that would exist, for example censorship... It's childish in that way.

Fight Club is one movie I didn't like that much, but many others did. I won't list the reasons here, but it still deals with the same revolution thing and people just wanting an easy and stupid life.