V Is For Victory -- Over Syriana
My daughter took me and my wife last night to see "V Is For Vendetta" and as much as I didn't want to like the movie, I found myself standing up and cheering by the end of the flick.
I didn't want to like it because I had read that the story -- set in the near future in an overtly fascist UK-- too heavy-handedly drew allegories with the Bush Administration. I'm no fan of this admin, not by any stretch. But it dishonors those who have suffered fascism and dictatorship to elevate a mediocre crew like the Bushies into the same league as Hitler or even Pinochet. To claim this White House is fascist also fundamentally misunderstands American politics -- and all politics for that matter.
Well, what I had read was, indeed, correct. Those ham-fisted allegories to Bush were abundant and a bit of a sledge-hammer. Not to mention that one interpretation of the story might even be that 9/11 was a government-engineered Reichstag.
But as this review in Rolling Stone says -- who the hell cares about these minor flaws? The film was so wonderfully weird, the characters so unpredictably drawn and so charismatic, the erudite hero's violent and bloody one-man war against The Oppressor so clever and so noble, it was impossible not to be drawn in as a partisan ready to purchase a packet of revolutionary bonds.
One thing is for sure, this pulp cartoonish adpatation of a graphic novel by the makers of The Matrix series, kicked the stuffing out of the oh-so-pretentious stinker known as Syriana. I've yet to meet one living human being -- including the director-- who could actually say what the latter was about. "V" on the other hand couldn't be more direct: some righteous people play out their revolutionary vendetta against an oppressive dictatorship. Period. Full stop.
There's been a certain amount of grumbling and objection to the film from the cultural and political right claiming it glorifies terrorism, violence and bloodshed. Poppyock. For the defenders of the war in Iraq, for those who would support the unleashing of the firepower of the U.S. armed forces to overthrow tyranny in Iraq, why on earth would they be squeamish about the violence perpetrated by one man aimed at overthrowing those who smothered the oldest democracy in the world? Could it be some sort of hypocrisy? Oh, of course not!
March 30th, 2006 at 12:56 am
As time goes on, Americans will look back at the years immediately following 9/11 and shake their head — or shudder. Picture Tom Ridge anouncing a change of the color coded terrorism meter, for God’s sake.
A movie like V4V is an opportunity for Americans, via pop culture, to question the “war on terror” narrative that followed 9/11. At one level, V4V seeks to peel apart means (terrorism) and ends (freedom). This is particularly timely when the United States has formally declared war on a tactic. Hopefully it will get people thinking.
Plus, it was a delightfully weird, flat out good movie. I’m routing for big box office numbers. Change is more likely when dissent is cool.
As for Syrianna, it was about the same thing that Traffic was about: a system and its externalities. Traffic studied drugs, Syrianna oil.
March 30th, 2006 at 8:02 am
V For Vendetta is a terrific movie! I loved it.
Syriana wasn’t so much impenetrable as it was ponderous, though Clooney was very good as was the guy from Star Trek as the reformist prince.
I see you used the “Period. Full stop.” phraseology picked up from my friend Mr. GWH …
March 30th, 2006 at 8:43 am
I thought the flick was about a Roman Catholic rebelling against Protestant tyranny.
Man, was I off.
March 30th, 2006 at 8:46 am
“But it dishonors those who have suffered fascism and dictatorship to elevate a mediocre crew like the Bushies into the same league as Hitler or even Pinochet. To claim this White House is fascist also fundamentally misunderstands American politics — and all politics for that matter.”
With a Chilean spouse, Cuban and Spanish parents, and Hugarian Jewish cousins - Couldn’t agree with you more!!! Yet whenever I say this up in New England, it falls on deaf ears.
V for Vendetta was a great movie!!! So great, we didn’t even make half of the connections you mention here - we just enjoyed it period. As for Syriana, I didn’t see it, and it seems I didn’t miss much.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:22 am
I’d been waiting for some flik to come along and knock Syriana on it’s ass. Personally, I thought Chappelle’s Block Party had pretty much pummeled Clooney’s muddled vehicle. Glad to hear that V for Vendetta kicked it while it was down. With any luck Phat Girlz will drag whatever’s left down to the dumpster and toss it in.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:04 am
See, Reg….? What’d I tell ya? The stand up routine’s alive and well.
(Happily spitting coffee over here at my house.)
March 30th, 2006 at 10:17 am
I haven’t seen the movie but:
If you’re coming at it from the perspective that the movie operates from within a malignant allegory about today’s politics, then decrying the “glorification of terrorism” is not hypocritical.
Obviously conservatives don’t criticize undergound violent resistance against true evil.
I assume you know all this and were just trying to get under the skin of some people.
Again, I haven’t seen the movie. Yet I think it’s a fascinating and troubling trend when the entertainment industry not only spreads untruths, but does so very skillfully and in a way that lets intellectuals overlook the underlying lies. Since there is, yes, inherent good in artistic skill.
I don’t think there will ever be a movie really and deeply and strongly and skillfully portraying the world the way conservatives see it, especially on foreign policy. It would be too scary to do that.
March 30th, 2006 at 11:42 am
“Yet whenever I say this up in New England, it falls on deaf ears.”
Yeah they’re so obviously convinced Bush is a fascist.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Paul,
Are you suggesting that Protestants were not evil to Roman Catholics?
March 30th, 2006 at 12:45 pm
I haven’t seen the movie, but I am very familiar with Alan Moore’s comic V for Vendetta. Alan Moore is no friend of organized religion. However, his protagonist wears the mask representing a Roman Catholic terrorist, Guy Fawkes. When the Protestant King James’ men discovered the Roman Catholic Mr. Fawkes attempt to pull a “9-11†they quickly tortured him and then put him to death.
Many Roman Catholics view this terrorist as a hero, while many Protestants viewed him as a Romanist attempting to bring back Papal tyranny. Roman Catholics were notorious for torturing non-believers.
So, in your pristine moral universe, Paul, which of these groups would fall into the “conservatives don’t criticize underground violent resistance against true evil.â€
Since it is so obvious.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Alan Moore, is indeed a Leftist Libertarian (Civil Libertarian) and his comics were notorious for pulling the rug under his fans. Even Leftist.
March 30th, 2006 at 12:57 pm
Basically, neo, I have no idea what you’re talking about.
But rather obviously, my statement doesn’t depend on a universally-agreed-upon definition of pure evil. I’m simply saying that I don’t think most conservatives would argue against underground violent resistance against any system said conservatives saw as pure evil.
I actually think it’s a remarkably uncontroversial statement.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:07 pm
Would you then believe the “conservatives” of certain Islamic organizations have a right to “underground violent resistance.” ?
Many “conservatives” in the Middle East support underground violent resistance against a system said conservatives see as pure evil.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:16 pm
I’m not going to play your little game today.
March 30th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
I knew you couldn’t…you just like throwing “evil” around like a kid uses “awsome” or “dude”.
Whatever it takes to get some people killed, huh?
Nice to see “conservatives” embracing postmodern nihilism.
Whatever, dude…it’s evil…gotta kill it…:)
March 30th, 2006 at 1:50 pm
PaulfromMPls said;
“I don’t think there will ever be a movie really and deeply and strongly and skillfully portraying the world the way conservatives see it, especially on foreign policy. It would be too scary to do that.”
Speaking as someone who is writing a book on war films -
Some conservative/right wing/reactionary films - aside from the obvious (80s cold war pulp - Rambo series, Delta Force, etc.)
The Deer Hunter is a right wing reactionary look at the Vietnam war, with Walken’s character representing the undercurrent in the right wing theory that America left its boys in Nam/were made to fight with one hand tied behind back etc. Other conservative Vietnam films
The Incredibles is fundamentally conservative, even Rand-oid.
The television show 24, which is as big a pop-culture item as any movie.
I took it as quite left, but a close Straussian friend found Syrianna to be a textbook neocon film.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Sorry Mark, but this film was a load of bollocks. (Indeed, I think the phrase “load of bollocks” was created so it could eventually be applied to this film.) It painted in such bold strokes of black and white it completely failed to live up to the thought provoking rep it seems to have been mysteriously generated. Promoting terrorism? Ha! V is such a puppy dog of a villain (ar anti-hero, or whatever you want to call him) he’s about as dangerous as a silk feather. He blows up some buildings, kills some cops, so what? You get more moral ambiguity in any Arnold film from the 80’s.
Here’s what I would have liked to seen. The film proffers the idea that the government kills its own citizens and blames it on terrorists to concentrate power. How about having V (the terrorist) kill the citizenry and blame it on the government to get them to rise up. That would’ve been a plot twist with some balls. And asked real questions about the term terrorism.
I’ve never read the graphic novel, but from what I’ve heard it carried far more philosophical weight than this waste of two hours.
More about it on my blog: http://www.acidlogic.com/weblogs/blogger.htm
March 30th, 2006 at 2:10 pm
Yes, especially on the Incredibles.
But I didn’t say there weren’t any conservative-leaning films. What I mean are films that might precisely and clearly and unflinchingly label “the enemy” as so many films glory in labeling our own elites or power-hungry capitalists that way.
It’s essentially risk-free to wade neck deep in those left-defined waters, is what I’m saying. And it’s socially acceptable.
I’ve never watched 24; my impression is it’s not what I’m talking about.
The Incredbles is subtle. Which is great. But its subtle in a way that films in the 30’s just starting to get into domestic social critique needed to be subtle.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Actually, of course, some of the Dirty Harry films came as close as anything to what I’m talking about. The dangers and allure of victim-think, whcih is one of the Enemies I have in mind.
March 30th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
The Incredibles may question our culture’s litigious nature, but the folks who put the Incredibles together call themselves progressive. Brad Bird and his crew are pretty anti-conservative.
This has always been the tension in American comic book and superhero aesthetics. Most, if not all, artists in this field have leftist/liberal/progressive politics and it gets filtered through characters SOME on the left view as reactionary.
http://abuaardvark.typepad.com/comicbookpolitics/
March 30th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Guy Fawkes was a scapegoat, some historians feel that the whole gunpowder plot was a set up (the way Guy was caught with a match in his hand is kind of suspicious. Also the practice of burning a human effigy on a fire so close to the old celtic festival of Samhain (note that Guy Fawkes was not burned, he was tortured, hung, drawn and quartered and beheaded), is all very pagan, a mock human sacrifice performed for political reasons.
V for Vendetta touches on these themes, most notably in V’s bizarre televised speech where he presents himself as a Promethean figure. V for Vendetta is not simply a piece of political propaganda, it presents a mystical view of society in which people are pawns of almost supernatural forces beyond their comprehension. Crowds, political protests and new religions can create a peculiar intoxication. They are exhilerating, confusing, addictive and paranoid. V for Vendetta captures this atmosphere perfectly
Posted by: pignut | October 22, 2005 at 12:50 AM
From:
http://tinyurl.com/jc5zu
March 30th, 2006 at 3:44 pm
The only good explaination of Syriana I’ve heard came from Bob Baer (the CIA agent Clooney loosesly portrayed). He suggested the movie intended to show how, depite their interrelatedness, various actors in oil game act independently. As a result they are influencing one another in unpredictable and confusing ways. That helped me see what Stephen Gaghan was trying to do, however, it didn’t work. The other thing Baer described was some of the real life adventures Gaghan incorperated into the movie, showing a real childish sensibility - a “can you believe this!?!” attitude toward filmmaking that always comes at the expense of good storytelling.
March 30th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
I think the comic book was orders of magnitude better then the movie. This isn’t a knock on the movie, I liked it a lot. It’s just that Moore’s graphic novel is so much better at making the reader uncomfortable, plus it makes V’s anarchic leanings more clear.
You’re not supposed to cheer for V, he’s a really morally ambiguous bastard. Norsefire is also pictured somewhat more sympathetically - a response to a nuclear winter (the book was written in the 80’s), a necessary response according to the leader. V doesn’t even want a liberal, western democracy. He just wants to unleash anarchy, and let events play themselves out from there. Brilliant stuff.
March 30th, 2006 at 6:22 pm
You got to be kidding me. A movie based on a comic book? Lordy.
March 30th, 2006 at 6:40 pm
Isn’t a comic book the perfect vehicle for this sort of story? I’m still trying to recover from the “Brokeback Mountain was a Mexican story” myself.
March 30th, 2006 at 6:42 pm
I’m no fan of this admin, not by any stretch. But it dishonors those who have suffered fascism and dictatorship to elevate a mediocre crew like the Bushies into the same league as Hitler or even Pinochet. To claim this White House is fascist also fundamentally misunderstands American politics — and all politics for that matter.â€
Daddy is gangster he kills, tortures and maims all his rivals in the most brutal fashion, but always comes home to his beloved family, where we live a moral, Christian, loving, peaceful existence in our most exquisite suburban home.
Daddy is so considerate, he would never think of walking through the front door into our perfect White House, without first scraping the shit off the soles of his boot; the same boots that he uses, to stomp on the spirited leaders of those other little countries around the world.
Boy, did he have a lot of crap on those boots after his trip to India, Pakistan and Afghanistan—that shit was past the top of the boot, and almost up to his knees. But he managed to scrape most of it off, so that the stench was very minor.
Daddy is a gangster—but he’s so charming to his friends, and we love him so very much!
March 30th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
I haven’t seen the movie either but:
I saw Chappelle’s Block Party and loved it !!!
BUT:
Erykah Baduh and Jill Scott need a reality check. They both have decent voices, but Jill Scott’s singing some shit about what she had for breakfast and equally trivial nonsense ISN’T poetry. It’s not even competent songwriting. Somebody needs to tell her. Baduh’s almost as crappy and she’s got a major attitude problem. Also, get rid of the grill. As long as Etta James is still alive, these children are little more than a joke. R&B ? More like B&S.
Also, the Fred Hampton Jr. thing was embarrassing. I hate to drag up Hegel or Marx or whoever the hell said it, but “first time tragedy, second time farce” is the operative concept. I have great affection for Mos Def, but he’s not politically sophisticated. Who knew ? Also, Dead Prez are good rappers but they also happen to be morons at the level of radical social critique that they apparently aspire to.
On The Other Hand - Lauryn Hill kicked some serious ass (and made Scott and Baduh look ridiculous.) All it took was singing a real song rather than narcissistic bullshit and imparting some authentic emotion and artistry into it. Who cares if it was a Roberta Flack oldie. It’s beautiful and Hill made it feel totally real and deep. Also, kudos to Clef for telling a bunch of black kids not to whine about being victims of white people, to stay in school and for reminding them that worst case, they can go to the library to learn most of what they need to know. It’s more complicated than that, of course, but most of these kids grandparents would tell them the same thing. So it was heartening to see someone from the hip-hop culture - a Haitian immigrant, no less - putting a message out there that reinforces “traditional values” rather than “cool pose” bullshit.
March 30th, 2006 at 9:57 pm
Oh, and when you see Chappelle interacting with these old white folks in his Ohio hometown, it’s clear that he’s one of the most guileless, for-real, appealing figures ever to grace American popular culture.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
How’s about reading some Postman.
Way too much energy being spent on a movie and Chappelle. Guess what? Both are disposable and will have no impact on American culture or the world. They are “pet rocks†if you will.
All the energy you are giving to your interpretations is utterly futile. Do some research and see what the average viewer takes from these programs. You will find, almost nothing. Banal observations galore.
Walter Mosley talked about taking an “electronic holiday.” It seems due. The world has real issues that need pondering.
At least put some effort into a novel or real art.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:41 pm
“one of the most guileless, for-real, appealing figures ever to grace American popular culture”
Way too much time on your hands. The mass public barely remembers Richard Prior. You would have said the same thing about him 20 years ago. Man you are buying in big time.
March 30th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
You mean it was only a movie ?
Gee Josh. I didn’t know.
If I’ve got “way too much time on my hands” maybe you should ask yourself why you would bother to respond.
As for the “mass public” barely remembering Richard Pryor, it’s their loss.
When Marc posts about a “novel or real art” I’ll try to rise to the thread’s level…
March 30th, 2006 at 11:37 pm
Good Christ Josh, lighten up. No one laugh until perfection has been reached. I hear you guys snickering in the back and I won’t have it!
March 30th, 2006 at 11:38 pm
“You got to be kidding me. A movie based on a comic book? Lordy. ”
Josh, I guess you haven’t read any of Moore’s work? Comics aren’t all about superheros in spandex. Take Will Eisner’s “A Contract with God”, a graphic novel about the experiences of first generation immigrants. Or Moore’s (unfinished) “Miracleman”, which tackles the question of what if Superman really existed?
For more current-event type material, check out Joe Sacco’s Palestine or Safe Area Gorazde. And of course, there is Maus.
March 31st, 2006 at 6:56 am
Josh Legere,
You are so funny….you write all your crap while mentally masturbating in cyber space…while praising Postman, no less, postmodern nihilist couldn’t come close to your irony.
March 31st, 2006 at 6:57 am
Saw V.
Got the BIG BOX of Popcorn and loved it!
The movie, too!
March 31st, 2006 at 7:09 am
Lauryn Hill is in Chappelle’s Block Party?
reg, I’m sold.
Even a hip-challenged white guy like me has one of her CDs.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:24 am
I loved Moore’s comic when it came out (and I have a complete run of the issues in a box somewhere), but I’m also very ambivalent about any politics one may draw from it.
V is basically a comic-book superhero. He’s endowed with superior traits (strength, speed, abnormal intelligence) and he seems to have created his Secret Underground Lair out of, well, wish-fulfillment fantasy. After all, how could one assemble all of that neat stuff, if the Evil Fascist Government is so oppressive?
One shouldn’t ask that fantasy be _too_ grounded in plausibility, of course. And part of the fantasy of the rebel superhero is that the society he’s rebelling _against_ has to be pretty awful. And the more destructive his actions, the society has to be far, far worse. As far as V is rebelling against the Evil Fascist Government in the movie, fine.
But place him in opposition to modern-day America or Britain– which, as bad as things are, ain’t nowhere near John Hurt’s regime– and suddenly, those cathartic explosions look a lot uglier. One starts to think of V as Timothy McVeigh in a funny costume… or wonder if anti-abortion maniacs are going to take V’s advice under advisement.
I might as well mention V’s treatment of Evey. Call it an awakening if you want, but the terms “Stockholm syndrome” and “Patty Hearst” should also come to mind. Not to mention the implicit endorsement of tormenting people until they Think Properly.
Moore’s _V for Vendetta_ was both a rail of anger over the way Thatcher’s Britain was going, and as with much of Moore’s work, it’s also deeply ambiguous on some very profound questions. And if the movie matches the richness of Moore’s writing, then that’s marvelous.
But damn near every commentary in favor of the movie seems to _miss_ this. People are raving about it as a call to arms against the Bush Administration, which is _amazingly_ short-sighted from both factions. Liberals and leftists are praising the movie while ignoring the fascination such fantasies have among the lunatic right-wing. Conservatives are denouncing the movie while forgetting their own self-image as outsiders taking back government.
It’s as though people are willing to let the power of the film’s imagery suspend their critical sensibilities. And _that_, friends and comrades, has a truly sinister history. I can enjoy _V for Vendetta_ as a fantasy, because I’m not planning on assassinating anyone or blowing up any buildings in the future. And I love and respect fantasy literature. But I do worry when people find political lessons in cathartic fantasies of power.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:42 am
V definitely blows Syriana out of the water, as well as any other film from last year, which was a particularly good year for films. I wanted to jump and cheer at the end to, but that just isn’t my style. I just sat there and let it sink in. Wonderful. If V doesn’t win best picture (and it won’t), the Academy is a joke (which I already know it is).
As for Paul’s laughable lament that no true conservative viewpoint is reflected in our movie culture, I suggest he go to a movie. I’ll never forget the audience reaction to the scene in Top Gun where Maverick (snicker) played by Tom Cruise does a death-defying just-in-the-nick-of-time loop da loop stunt to get behind the evil commie Mig on his tail and blast him out of the sky. The whole theater erupted in applause and cheers. I had a good laugh at that movie.
By the way, Marc, great posts lately with the hugely important immigration issue and a breather post on V for Vendetta (did I mention I love that movie?). Some really passionate and enlightening discussion is taking place here. It’s certainly challenged me to rethink my own position on it which boils down to something like ‘it sure would be nice to throw a great big bash over here in the USA, but as big as it is, our pad just ain’t big enough. BYOB, invitation only.’ In the meantime, our country should be doing all that it can to help these very poor countries around us throw their own parties. Though it’s a bit more nuanced than that. Sensenbrener’s bill is monstrous, and the McCain-Kennedy bill is much better but the guest worker provision still doesn’t address how the working poor who were born here and legally migrated here are getting screwed . And by here, I do mean the US of A complete with solid borders. If that makes me a nativist, then I guess Pat Buchanan must be the second coming of Hitler.
March 31st, 2006 at 11:57 am
Josh Legere: “You got to be kidding me. A movie based on a comic book? Lordy.”
I’m curious, did you say the same thing about Ghost World? As Jason pointed out comix are just a storytelling medium and any and every type of story does play out in their pages. I would suggest you read something by Daniel Clowes or Adrian Tomine if you want to get a glimpse of the quality storytelling the medium is capable of.
March 31st, 2006 at 12:19 pm
Yeah I saw Ghost World. Didn’t think much of it, sorry.
NeoDude - the world is filled with irony and contradiction, and as long as I am human, I will continue to create plenty of it.
My point is that these movies do not matter. They have 0 impact on anyone. they do not move people to do anything other than buy popcorn and tickets. After that, all is forgotten. You may as well spend your time thinking about Extreme Home Makeover or some other crappy piece of entertainment.
March 31st, 2006 at 2:16 pm
“They have 0 impact on anyone.”
Unlike the writings of Neal Postman, which move millions.
At least you cited Walter Mosely, a pulp fiction writer who people that aren’t part of elite minorities actually read. (Of course, they don’t read him when he starts to pontificate on how they choose to amuse themselves.)
March 31st, 2006 at 4:35 pm
If you cannot see the difference between Postman and a Hollywood movie, well, enough said.
March 31st, 2006 at 5:32 pm
I saw no difference until you brought up the possibility.
Thank you.
March 31st, 2006 at 8:40 pm
Some right-wing nationalists in Germany loved to stuff Jews into ovens while listening to the sublime Wagner…you know, the best culture has to offer and all that.
Slave owners would read eloquent phrases from Proverbs, while disciplining a slave…because if you ain’t got taste, you ain’t got nothin’.
I’ll be the first to praise high art, but I would imagine the first sign of wisdom is realizing there is a season for all things…a time and a place, if you will, Josh.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:18 pm
Hollywood movies are about getting out of the house and wasting 2 hours of your life watching colors on a screen.
This kind of debate is as foolish as postmodernists writing papers about how Madonna is subversive.
Hollywood movies just exist. Like Tide, Coke, etc… They are just products. You would not argue about the meaning of soft drinks now would you.
March 31st, 2006 at 9:41 pm
Josh Legere,
You just described your writing on this thread, homeboy.
(Hmmm, I wonder what Legere represents in this play we call the bLogosphere? I KNow, I know….he is the voice of prophetic high culture in the nihilistic blog world)
You have been kidding, right?
I mean you are writing about waisting time while you are waisting time….you get that?
March 31st, 2006 at 10:23 pm
Had the BIG BOX of popcorn with lots of butter.
Took two hours-something to consume.
About the same time as the movie.
DIdn’t know I was wasting 2 hours of my life.
The colors on the screen were cool.
So was the movie.
Going to re-read Uncle Karl’s theory of fetishisms and general prinicpals of surplus values.
Marxism is cool, too.
March 31st, 2006 at 10:25 pm
OK, apologies to Josh Legere for piling on here.
But c’mon Josh, even socialists like to shop.
April 1st, 2006 at 3:31 am
Josh…you showed up bitching about anyone who has reactions to a movie more complicated than “cool, dude!” on a blog thread initiated by the notion that V For Vendetta - a movie based on a cartoon - is a more coherent view of the world than Syriana - a movie based (loosely) on the memoirs of a CIA agent with a deep and personal experience of the shadow worlds of the Middle East. Presumably comic books are, indeed, easier to understand than the underworlds of Middle Eastern terrorism, global meta-politics and CIA skullduggery. In any event, your notion that movies aren’t about anything but colors on a screen indicates to me that you’ve been ingesting too many psychoactive agents. Which is strange, because your general attitude suggests that you simply might need to take the cork out of your ass. Whatever…
April 1st, 2006 at 3:48 pm
Neo - I didn’t say 1 word about low vs. high. Look, big budget Hollywood movies are designed for the LCD. That is the argument. I like some movies that have come out recently (Sideways) but generally Hollywood movies and TV are pure crap. I didn’t like Ghost World, but that does not mean that I do not like any movies.
Ask someone who works in the industry and they will lay it out. Movies and TV are driven by profit. Middle-managers play a bigger role in shaping Hollywood films these days than artists.
Wasting 2 hours of your life watching colors is A ok, as long as you realize you are wasting your time. Does playing cards in Vegas have some sort of deep meaning? No. For the most part you are handing over money to a casino. Most sane people do not believe they are going to get rich. The house has the advantage. One does not have to be a Marxist, snob, or have a cork in his ass to have a good deal of skepticism about the state of “art” that Hollywood produces these days. That being said, comic books and graphic novels are for kids and teenagers.
Reg - You are so damn melodramatic. You should get into community theatre. I could see you as a character in Waiting for Guffman.
Plenty of non-fiction has been written about Middle East politics, the CIA, oil, etc… You don’t need to see an action movie.
April 1st, 2006 at 8:03 pm
Josh Legere: “comic books and graphic novels are for kids and teenagers.”
Given your apparent ignorance of the medium, on what do you base this assessment?
July 12th, 2006 at 7:06 pm
Evil Inside Ringtone…
Malcolm Ringtone Malcolm Ringtone All Along The Watchtower Ringtone All Along The Watchtower Ringtone Build A Bridge Ringtone Build A Bridge Ringtone Closer Ringtone Closer Ringtone This Way Ringtone This Way Ringtone 40 Oz Ringtone 40 Oz Ringtone Love…
October 2nd, 2006 at 9:40 am
products for deaf people…
can u provide more information ?…