As a cinematic experience, the movie has much to commend it. Some critical observations about staccato verbosity, particularly at the outset, are not undeserved. For an adaption of the earlier 1980s comic piece it actually holds up quite well. Fanboy churlishness aside. The original's anarchist view (the V and the 1980s “A” for anarchy not accidentally similar) is and was self indulgently childish — especially when the reality Moore railed against is now so much more immediate than his overcooked imaginings just twenty years ago.

Does Evey suffer by transposition from streetwalker to tv newser naif? Not in our eyes. We give it four Leos out of five.

See it for yourself and make your own judgments. And btw, in 1969 that night at Madison Square Garden, the Stones really could lay claim to being possibly the best rock n roll band in the world. That night.

UPDATE: (revised 4:15 PM — clarifies some initial confusion on our part upon reading the original comment on GP's site over reaction to V)

Read more »

The Administration's anti-liberal democratic strands in its political base are right to rage against Hollywood, music, and videogames in one respect. Not just because their attacks resurrect the purpose of their Rightist predecessors in turn of the century Europe. But because this Administration as a political phenomenon is uniquely vulnerable to pop art.

80 years ago, the line in European anti-democratic Rightist circles was to denounce 'degenerate' (and 'Negro') jazz music, the jitterbug dance, Hollywood and 'Taylorism'. Overall, the political enemy was America as a horrid 'idea' of leveling and egalitarianism — a line that resonated with the bourgeois ethos of even non-reactionary Europeans.

Today's pundits and commentators attacking Hollywood mine this same vein as political gold. Most who resurrect this attack on Hollywood are ignorant of the intellectual history and purpose of their critique. The few who likely do understand the intellectual history (such as Buchanan, perhaps) are wise to dissemble and actively try to hide it.

But then as now, the neo-authoritarians understand the power of pop art (broadly defined) as a political act. Intimidating Hollywood and others such as pop stars is a major political objective. As Paul Weyrich said back in the 1970s, the purpose of the Rightist 'Movement' in America was always to be a radical agent to overthrow the American societal status quo . . .



How the Rightists react to the upcoming 'V for Vendetta', based on the Alan Moore and David Lloyd comic book from the 1980s Thaterchite era U.K., will be interesting. The tale describes freedom fighters seeking to challenge the oppression of a future authoritarian regime in London similar to Orwell or Ridley Scott's 1984 Apple masterpiece.



That this particular pop art 'good' has a political aesthetic can not be denied. Consider this poster — it struck the Stiftung given its conscious adoption of Russian revolutionary art stylings. The obvious Bolshevik symbolism in the upper left corner can't be missed. The off axis lettering is also an homage to posters of that time, set in skewed text with simple color schemes.

The poster is obviously not advancing 'Leftism' per se — Hollywood is not seeking 'Peace, Bread, Land', etc. But the iconography is deliberate to touch the collective subsconscious of revolution and overthrow of the status quo. Weyrich's agenda thrown back at him.

Advance word on the movie is very good. Apparently the Wachowski brothers have recovered from the disasterous self indulgence of the two Matrix sequels and delivered a compelling narrative and arresting cinematography. Will it be enough to be successful in the market? Or is the public not yet ripe to embrace this art-as-manufacured-good-as-political-subtext?

For a post-modern regime that has avoided messy reality (this is the reason for the Administration's non-chalant incompetence) in favor of narrative control and psychological manipulation, pop art can be a blow to topple the entire edifice. It totters precariously even now: approval ratings in the low 30s, staggering debt loads, a failed war in Iraq, and so on. Pop art can crystalize a shared moment and political recognition far more effectively and explosively than 10,000 Op eds or talking heads on CNNMSNBCFOX.



Will 'V for Vendetta' do that? Who knows. Was it designed to try? Perhaps. Frankly, the Stiftung thinks the time is not yet come.

Hollywood, of course, is not setting trends here against the Administration or 'American values'. The nation already has largely rejected this presidency and this president. As usual, Hollywood is actually following the zeitgeist. After making the 'Green Berets' etc. in the 1960s, only a decade later did Hollywood product tentatively explore Vietnam first in 'Coming Home', then in 'Apocalypse Now', the 'Deer Hunter', etc. Significantly, Hollywood quickly moved on to the more commercially viable revenge fantasy narrative of Rambo and Chuck Norris et al. As so often the case, pop art as a business is actually fairly conservative.

The point is that the Administration as a political phenomenon is uniquely vulnerable to art and pop culture. If this movie doesn't serve to crystalize inchoate popular sentiement, it is only a matter of time until something in the pop culture does. The post-modern political machine Rove built for Bush depended on control and manipulation of the nation's psychology because of their disdain for and rejection of objective reality.

The implosion will be ugly.

Rightist faux rage against Hollywood intensifies even after the Oscars. With all the sincerity and authenticity of the Fox News-inspired 'War on Christmas'. Why?



Rightists perpetuate this new phony war for 3 reasons:

(a) attacking 'Hollywood' diverts attention from the Republican political free fall (check out the hilarious intellectual auto da fe from CATO yesterday);

(b) demonizing 'Hollywood' advances their decades-long agenda to replace egalatarian liberal democracy with a social order promoting authority, hierarchy and control; and

(c) pundits burnish their brand by being 'with it' re pop culture, important for those who must always connect with the Rightist political base.



The Rightist complaint 2006 seems to be: 1. Hollywood promotes 'anti-American' 'leftist' agendas. 2. 'Mainstream' America senses treason and stays away. 3. Even though no one is watching Hollywood's product anymore, somehow Hollywood is still responsible for the gamut of social ills afflicting society.

All are false.

There Is No Audience Flight From Left Agenda

Let's take Number 2 first. From Joe Scarborough and his audience of three (actually, the Stiftung has higher viewership than he does), to Fox with its still miniscule audience of one or two million, to Frontpage.com, Rightists claim that a left agenda has pushed movie goers away for decades — since the 1960s in fact. Michael Medved's book 'Hollywood vs. America' started this inaccurate meme years ago. The others just repeat it.

Unfortunately for Medved, he relies on bogus manufactured numbers that are easily exposed by casual reference to the publically available U.S. Economic Review and Incidence of Motion Picture Attendance. As Alan Klein demonstrates, the attendance slump Medved attributes to 'political left' Hollywood movies simply did not happen. In fact, Medved's book is replete with massive logical errors, bootstrap arguments and outright misrepresentations.

If Medved is wrong about a decades long audience flight, everyone must acknowledge that Hollywood attendance is down in 2005. But is it because Hollywood is not churning out Fox News-approved product? Hardly. As we all know, audience share for network broadcast television, traditional FM rock radio and newspaper subscriptions are all down.

Re Hollywood, no one knows why for sure. Technology and media consumption habits are changing. Time shifting technology such as TiVo, satellite radio such as XM (the Stiftung loves XM), the Internet, iPods, cable/DirectTV, videogames all take a slice of precious attention span. Others cite rising gas prices and slashed disposal income. Or the exhaustion of 'event movie' marketing.

Whatever the cause, this data from one year is about more than the political axes grinding from Fox News and its cohorts. Yet Medved's book makes clear his axe, as he asks readers to support 'watchdog' groups such as “Reverend Donald Wildmon's American Family Association, Ted Baehr's Christian Film and Television Commission, Christian Leaders for Responsible Television (CLeaR-TV, another Wildmon project), the Parents' Music Resource Center, and Dobson's Focus on the Family”.

If the answer was to simply churn out product compatible with Medved's Right Wing Loony gang, the market would supply the product. Gibson's pornographic movie 'The Passion' proved that making and distributing movies can happen independent of the 'Hollywood system'. If Medved et al were correct, then why are there not dozens of competing product extolling Medved's right wing values? You know that answer already.

There Is No Overall Left Wing Product

Let's turn to the actual product. Is there an anti-American agenda in the industry output? Where? Look at the top 1,000 (yes, one thousand) highest grossing movies for Hollywood. Can you see any evidence at all of a vast Left Wing Conspiracy? In fact, most of the movies are comfortably within the ambit of Hannity/O'Really/Krauthammer demands for unquestioning embrace of 'Amuricuh', the flag, capitalism and successful white people. 'I feel the need for speed' . . . indeed.

Read more »

A hallmark of the Counter Enlightenment assault on the American Present is how the 'Movement' has been so successful in gaining power while escaping critical discussion and effective opposition. History teaches, however, that the transition from seizure of power to maintaining power and governing can be tricky. Can the 'Movement' pull that off?

Two major reasons for the 'Movement's' past success might be in possible conflict. It will bear watching.

First, the 'Movement' broadly defined (to include Neocons, Schmitteans such as Pat Buchanan et al., etc.) have largely obscured their goals behind carefully chosen 'front issues'. This covert tactic has allowed the 'Movement' to advance their goals of rolling back the American Present to an idealized, non-liberal democratic past, without having to explain. A favorite technique is to wield hot button divisive issues that look, sound and feel contemporary to a lay audience. But the arguments advance the same agenda to tear down egalitarian liberal democracy used since 1789.

Consider the Oscars and recent fulminations by the 'Movement' against Hollywood. Never mind the obvious tactical need to change the subject from the Administration's political freefall. A longer term agenda is in play. The rage of the Rightist 'Movement' against Hollywood (discussed elsewhere here on the Stiftung) not only predates Cheney's trigger finger, it predates FDR.

'Hollywood' today is a stand in for a desire to repeal the alleged pernicious 'levelling' and loosening of imposed morality dispensed from an authoritarian social, cultural and economic hierarchy. Then, as now, religious iconography was the weapon of choice — the importance of religion as a political tool to enforce this code of social, economic and political hierarchical order is centuries old.

The current (post 1970s) 'Movement' critique of Hollywood is almost verbatim in some circumstances to the language that Schmitt and others used at the turn of the last century to rage against America — the subversive impact of American material abundance and freedom said to undermine the social regimentation, discipline, hierarchy and control of the Old Order in Europe.

Some on the Right advance these arguments ignorant of their intellectual ancestery. But ignorance is no excuse. At least Schmitt and the anti-democrat Right were more honest in one way — he actually used 'America' as the code word, rather than hiding behind a cut out like 'Hollywood'.



A tension now to the lurking strategy is a desire by some strands of the 'Movement' to capitalize on their success and seek mainstream validation. (It is interesting how the 'mainstream' is loathed by the 'Movement' yet they all yearn for its embrace. Love hate with a vengeance).

The transition here has been gradual, from underground presence to hiding in open sight. Right now, you are confronted without realizing it when you walk into Barnes & Noble, Borders, Walden Books or even at the airport magazine rack. Now, even that pretense is being dropped.

Look at the The 'Left Behind' (TLB) series of books by Tim LaHaye which depict the coming “Rapture”, the “End Times” and the apocalyptic coming of Jesus (and unlimited cell phone use — the Stiftung kids you not. Apparently, according to TLB, when Jesus arrives, your cell phone will work everywhere. Who knew?).

You, Dear Reader, are probably familiar with the books and world view. But have you actually read them? Have you really absorbed the radical world view and reality that these books preach? Do you, Dear Reader, comprehend the violent, savage, cruel and repugnant fate to which you are consigned, while the elite take the express elevator to Jesus?

As noted by Michelle Goldberg:

After all, Tim LaHaye isn't merely a fringe figure like Hal Lindsey, the former king of the genre, whose 1970 Christian end-times book “The Late Great Planet Earth” was the bestseller of that decade. The former co-chairman of Jack Kemp's presidential campaign, LaHaye was a member of the original board of directors of the Moral Majority and an organizer of the Council for National Policy, which ABCNews.com has called “the most powerful conservative organization in America you've never heard of” and whose membership has included John Ashcroft, Tommy Thompson and Oliver North. George W. Bush is still refusing to release a tape of a speech he gave to the group in 1999.

Interestingly, TLB and its cohorts now are no longer willing to be relegated to the ghetto of fringe movies run at 4:00 AM on cable. They want in on the hottest segment of pop culture at the moment — video games. The pornographically gory, violent, ant-humanist, destructive vision is now playable as a video game. This allegedly 'moral' and 'religious' game is as destructive and violent as “Grand Theft Auto”.



To those who have not accepted Jesus (and don't forget the unlimited rollover minutes !!), the fate is of melting eyes, starvation, death, murder, rape, etc. Don't expect the Wall Street Journal, Weekly Standard, Lieberman, Medved or any of the other pompously self-styled moralists to denounce this vision. Just as they revelled in and embraced the gore of “The Passion” — 'it is our violence now.'

When the mask finally drops — it will not be pretty.