v for very stupid
by skippy, Fri Mar 17, 2006 at 09:58:52 AM EST
cross-posted at skippy as well as a literal cornucopia of other community blogs.
we have wondered elsewhere how long it would take the hardly-ever-right wing to get the vapors over the upcoming film "v for vendetta" starring bald natalie portman and the wonderful hugo weaving (agent smith in the matrix triology).
the answer: not long at all. even before the film has opened, tucker (i hardly knew 'er) carlson had michael medved on his show to wax self-righteously about this movie.
medved, you will remember, is the man who was right once in his life, but that doesn't stop him from collecting checks for spouting nonsense on screeching heads cable shows.
we discuss his beady little point of view after the jump:
medved: well, just to give you--to cut to the chase, the film`s climactic scene involves blowing up the houses of parliament, and that`s supposed to be a big, big triumph. and apparently some--a large number of british soldiers are also killed in the process...
the whole theme of the film, v says that blowing up buildings can change the world. is that really a message that we should welcome right now? we`re engaged in a war on terror. there are people who are exposing their bodies and their lives to terrorists every day to try to make us safer.
hollywood has yet to make a film about the heroic role of american counterterrorist activities. and yet they`ve made several films that express sympathy and in this case treat as heroic terrorist activity.
a couple of notes here, michael. we're not sure, but we think the theme of the film is that people should fight fascism, not that "blowing up buildings can change the world." of course, we haven't seen the film yet, so we might be wrong. but we know we aren't wrong when we point out films hollywood has made about the heroic role of american counterterrorist activities. the superb denzel washington vehicle the seige leaps to mind, as do every movie based on tom clancy's works.
carlson: well, i suppose it depends what buildings, though. i mean, we were glad to blow up certain buildings in the green zone, now the green zone, in saddam`s compound in baghdad, happy to, you know, level the khmer rouge headquarters in cambodia, had we done that, we didn`t, but should have.
i mean, in other words, isn`t the struggle against illegitimate authority a good thing, something the founders approved of?
medved: well, no. because you see, there`s a difference between resistance and terror. even when you look at the french resistance to the nazis, and this movie suggests that it`s london 20 years from now, and a conservative government has come to power that is very christian. they have a flag that looks like crosses.
even during the nazi period, the french resistance targeted primarily military sources. here is a guy who`s going around murdering civilian leaders and at the same time blowing up buildings at random...
score one for michael. only evil people go after non-military targets.
medved:...and clearly, there are references repeatedly to america`s war in the middle east, america`s war in iraq. and the bad guys are people who served in afghanistan, for instance. one of the people who`s murdered and deserves to get murdered, who`s a right-wing tv commentator. no bowtie, though.we admit, we are sure tucker was being jocular. but we're not so sure about the golden turkey.
carlson: now, that is offensive. and i`m not one for censorship, but i`m offended.