What If V for Vendetta Was Released Under Obama Instead of Bush?

by Rich on 11/05/2009

in Entertainment,Politics

Post image for What If V for Vendetta Was Released Under Obama Instead of Bush?

This November the 5th, I thought that it might be interesting to revisit a film that took the world (and certainly the internet) by storm in 2006 – V for Vendetta. While I feel that no introduction is probably necessary, the movie was about a masked freedom fighter in a dystopian future, known only as V, who hopes to inspire the people of London to overthrow a corrupt dictatorship. It was based on a graphic novel by the brilliant Alan Moore, who was unhappy with the changes the screenwriters made to his original work, which mostly focused on the clash of two extremes – anarchism vs. fascism. The Wachowski brothers instead took the core of the story and made it more of an attack on right-wing American conservatism, with V representing American liberalism and democracy instead of anarchy and the government he was fighting against became an obvious satire of the Bush administration. The movie was overall a critical and financial success, but the religious right was quick to stir up controversy (re: butthurt). For example, Ted Baehr, chairman of the Christian Film and Television Commission, called it “a vile, pro-terrorist piece of neo-Marxist, left-wing propaganda filled with radical sexual politics and nasty attacks on religion and Christianity.” And with the fictional British Television Network in Vendetta being a pretty distinct parody of Fox News, you can imagine how favorably they were discussing the film.

But now the tables have turned – the Bush regime has been out of power for almost a year now, and they have been replaced by one of the most liberal administrations that the United States has ever seen. The conservatives now know what it’s like to live under a government that doesn’t support their exact ideology, so their views on protesting have gone from “un-American” to “a necessary exercise of freedom,” and the vision of one man taking on the government has gone from “supporting terrorism” to “fighting against tyranny.” Just a few short years ago, you hated America if you didn’t support the president, and now you hate America if you do. This complete flip-flop of ideals begs the question – What if V for Vendetta was released today?

Well, first of all, it wouldn’t have been written by liberals like the Wachowski brothers. Sure, the message is timeless, but the script felt relevant because it was – we know that at least one of the brothers lives an “alternative lifestyle,” and I’m sure he felt singled out by the party that constantly condemns homosexuality. Between the passing of the Patriot Act and the rush to a war that was more about greed than it ever was about defense, one couldn’t help but feel powerless under a government that seemed to do whatever it wanted, whenever it wanted. Even the popular vote didn’t have a voice, and fear overtook reason as buzzwords like “terrorism” and “freedom” were thrown around in place of rational discussion.

So let’s say that conservatives were to adapt the comic to film instead. Gone would be the depictions of clergy pedophilia and religious hypocrisy. Instead, V would be on a mission from God, a pious man who would be a much more accurate reflection of the historical Guy Fawkes than the character of V ever was. Like an angel of death, he would storm the headquarters of the atheistic regime with guns blazing, spouting one-liners instead of philosophical quips over a soundtrack of hard-rocking guitars, not a symphony orchestra gracefully conducted from a rooftop. Would the crowd of citizens taking to the streets during the climax have been wearing straw hats instead of masks, raising pitchforks and torches in the air as they prepared for a lynching? V would become the cliché superhero movie than fans were dreading when the project was first announced, and if Alan Moore was unhappy with Wachowskis’ adaptation, just imagine him tearing out his extensive beard to that piece of shit.

But in all seriousness, the conservatives just would have never made the movie at all. In fact, they probably would have never heard of the source material to begin with. The sad truth is that these traditionalist morons just wouldn’t have been that creative. When a liberal wants change, he or she creates a work of art representing their frustrations or writes a comedy skit cleverly satirizing their opponents. What did Republicans do when Obama was elected? They immediately started thumping their Bibles, preaching that he was the anti-Christ who would abort their babies with his eyes. Jokes about welfare, fried chicken, big lips, and watermelon started circulating in e-mails and pundits found whole new meanings for terms like “fascist” and “socialist.” The peaceful, hippy-like protests of the Bush era that called for the arrests of war criminals were replaced by angry teabaggers threatening violence as they touted their big guns in front of the cameras. Everyone from cops to abortion doctors were gunned down by right-wing extremists as television personalities and radio hosts continued to profit by fanning the flames of ignorance. Watching V in action was symbolic wish fulfillment to liberals (Who doesn’t like to see bad guys punished?), whereas conservatives would be loading their guns in the theaters. It seems like Republicans will always be the party of weapons over ideas, and that is simply missing the point of V. Ideas are bulletproof, after all.

I will admit that the fascism metaphor does go a bit too far on both sides, however. As bad as things got under Bush, to compare him to Hitler is an insult to everyone who died in WWII, and especially to victims of the Holocaust. (Comparing him to Nixon would be a bit more accurate.) But keep in mind that Republicans have always been the ones advocating the revoking of people’s rights, not protecting them. Anyone who says that they believe in freedom while telling one group of people who they can and can’t marry and telling an entire gender what they can and can’t do with their own bodies clearly needs to reconsider what it means to be free. Let’s not forget that the party of “less government” not only wants to tell you who you can fuck and how many babies you should have, but they want to wiretap your phone and listen in on your conversations without a warrant or probable cause as well. And if you don’t like it, there’s no need for a trial if you look like a terrorist – we just toss you in Gitmo with a bag over your head. The Democrats are no angels, since most of them went along with it, but at least Obama has made serious attempts to end these kinds of restrictions, while Republicans have only fought to extend them. You tell me which one sounds most like Norsefire.

So let us remember, remember our past Novembers so a movie like V for Vendetta will not be necessary to shake even the most non-political citizens out of complacency and into the conversation. I say “conversation” because that’s what this should be – a conversation starter, not a call to arms. And that is what the book and the movie have been doing for years now, and I’m sure will continue to do into our dystopian future. No matter which version of the man in the mask you prefer, and no matter which of our two corrupted parties is in power, the philosophies behind freedom and authority will always be applicable to our daily lives…sometimes we just need someone to remind us that we, the people, are in charge of our own destiny. America prevails!

{ 13 comments… read them below or add one }

Ian 11/06/2009 at 8:01 am

Likely Cast:
V – Rush Limbuagh
Evey – Sarah Palin
Gordon Deitrich – John McCain
Creedy – Rob Emanuel
High Chancellor Sutler – Barack Obama

sam 11/06/2009 at 1:54 pm

To say “Republicans have always been the ones advocating the revoking of people’s rights, not protecting them” is historically amnesiac of the party’s anti-slavery origins.
I’m just sayin’…

Rich 11/06/2009 at 6:04 pm

To say that Christians have historically been anti-slavery is certainly WAY more amnesiac, considering it was their religion that gave them a fine excuse to bring those “heathens” to our shores in the first place, and we all know how well the GOP and Christianity go together. But anyway, I was referring to the modern Republican party – both parties have changed significantly over the last several decades. I will concede and say that “always” is, therefore, a misleading word and I should have phrased it better, but you get what I’m saying.

John 03/25/2010 at 6:23 pm

This movie today represents the Obama administration with Obama as Chancellor Sutler…control of the public is what he’s after. Other than the religious and war stuff that was shown in the movie, this is a very anti-left wing movie when you look at it today.

Mark Paquette 05/16/2010 at 9:17 pm

Personally, though … I don’t care overmuch – the internet, even after being scrubbed by youtube, google, and the fine nanny-governors this administration appoints, will be preserved elsewhere and future generations will not need to speculate as to how things went so badly so quickly and with so much liberal approval. A pyrrhic victory, but a victory nonetheless – and I’ll take it.

JCG 06/11/2010 at 2:00 am

This is an idea that I’ve had rattling around my head for some time:
The Republicans and the Democrats,the Left Wing and the Right Wing, the Conservatives and the Liberals, The Christians/Religionists and the Atheists/Deists, the Evolutionists and the Creationists have for years argued, fought, and bullied each other into accepting who’s way was the One True Way.
To solve and conclude once-and-for-all who’s way is the best way, the smart way, or even “the right way,” we find either an unspoiled earth-type planet or, if that’s not feasable, an unspoiled tropical island. On one side we put a group of Conservative-Christian-Creationist pseudo-scientists, media pundits, and preachers. On the other side we put a group of Liberal/Libertarian-Deist-Evolutionist scientists, technicians and doctors. Both groups would be given equal amounts of supplies, tools and equipment. Both groups may bring whichever books and texts they so choose. Neither group is allowed any weapons other than knives. Some sort of barrier would keep the two groups physically seperated. They would then be left alone for ten years.
After ten years which of the two groups do you think would have survived and prospered?

chris 09/29/2010 at 7:41 pm

My thought is this…
I don’t see V as some one from the left or the right but as some one who wants Freedom. The author clearly has a agenda on what he wants V to stand for and while making very acute and witty remarks on the difference of how the movie was received by the right and how it could be received today, it does the movies message no justice. To me the story of V, is two fold. That you as an individual can make a change and no matter how big the opposition might seem the will of one can collapse the preconceived power of many. Keep this in mind when you are facing a over daunting challenge… A butterfly and make it from California to Hawaii but a Bald Eagle would parish half way through the journey. The story also lays out how we allow our freedom to be slowly taken away because of fear. 9/11 brought us the patriot act which is a abomination of the word freedom. The Bush years brought us Obama and his Healthcare reform in which to me is a abomination of freedom of choice. You cant have it both ways. When you interject one political point of view but leave out the realistic views of who you are for, you become just like the ones you most hate… Just sayin

Brian 10/03/2010 at 4:45 pm

I have to say that the author’s comments are typical of people(left and right) that do not actually consider the opinion of anyone but there owns.
I am a devout Christian…and LIKE MOST CHRISTIANS. I believe our rights as Americans to live and love how we like must be protected! Do I agree with every choice or belief my athiest or Islamic (or whatever) countrymen adhere too?
NO! Neither do they agree with all I believe or choisesI make. HOWEVER! I will continually stand for their RIGHT to disagree, even loudly, with my opinions. And I will stand for my right to disagree with their opinions. But look today at who is vilified in our culture? So many attack the right wingers for being intolerant…but who indeed is censored? Who is portrayed in countless movies, songs and newscasts as being “dirty” or “evil” or “bigotted”…who?…the conservatives. The move in more and more legal cases as well as the media is indeed to silence the conservative Christian. And indeed the conservative Christian should not be forcing their convictions into law….but nevertheless. They have a right to those opinions and a right to express them just as anyone else does. Modern legislation is continually ruling that Christians in particular cannot control their personal business or express their convictions in public forum. While we see no such limitation being held to those who speak against Christians or religious belief in public forum. For example: While it is perfectly acceptable and even expected for a High School science teacher to attack belief in God while teaching evolution. It is not accepted for another High School science teacher to express their doubt of evolution and faith in God. Such and affront is met by parental complaint, dismissal and perhaps legal ramifications. Both veiwpoints are convictions expressed by the professor with religious convictions/ramifications…yet only one is censored. Should we not hold both accountable to keep their religious convictions or lack thereof outside the class room?
We cannot claim to stand for freedom (particularily freedom of speech) if we are not willing to give to everyone…even those who disagree with us.

Brian 10/03/2010 at 4:47 pm

My apologies for not spell checking my previous post.
“consider the opinion of anyone but there owns”
should be
“consider the opinion of other than themself.”

Brian 10/03/2010 at 4:54 pm

“We cannot claim to stand for freedom (particularily freedom of speech) if we are not willing to give to everyone…even those who disagree with us.”
should read
We cannot claim to stand for freedom (particularily freedom of speech) if we are not willing to give that freedom to everyone…even those who disagree with us.

…should definately have reread before hitting the “submit” button =)

Rich 10/05/2010 at 8:52 pm

Brian, your sad, misguided attempt to paint conservative Christians as an oppressed minority is laughably silly when you face reality. at the end of the day, all the top people in the world making the everyday decisions for the rest of us are conservative Christians, and they’ve been making the wrong decisions for a very long time. This whole “liberal media” myth is getting old fast – you can’t argue that when every rich conservative Christian businessman owns practically every multimedia company worldwide. The reason you see conservatives painted poorly in any songs or movies is because the artist is often basing the stories on real life cases, including struggles they’ve gone through, and most artists tend to be more liberal because artists are generally more open-minded and creative.

In a country where you cannot, CANNOT get elected to the presidency without being a conservative or at least moderate Christian, I don’t see how you can make those arguments. The reason that teachers have to teach evolution is because it’s based in researched facts, not religious hocus pocus, and they had to fight many powerful Christians to have the right to even mention it in a classroom despite the separation of church and state. We need freedom FROM religion just as much as we need freedom OF religion, and religion is more often than not the oppressor looking to silence any and all opposing viewpoints, not the other way around. That’s just historical fact, but religion has been fighting to change the history books too, so I can see why you may not have read about that. Most legal complaints are filed not to silence Christians, but to stop them from ramming their beliefs down the throats of everybody else.

Never once have I ever, in my life, never mind on the site, advocated taking anyone’s freedoms away, so it sounds to me like you’re just another paranoid, panicked whiner looking for sympathy in a world that has handed you everything. It’s those of us that think for ourselves, that cannot and will not march in lockstep with the majority, that will always struggle to be heard. It’s only in the last few decades that Christians have had to answer for all they are responsible for as science, reason, and education brings on a new renaissance of free thought in the world and people begin to question why they’ve allowed such an oppressive regime to condemn humankind for so long.

In other words, what I’m trying to say is say whatever you like. You’re dead wrong, but say what you like. But expect to be called out on it, and expect to answer for wild accusations with no foundations. Expect to be called “stupid” when you say something stupid. Criticizing someone is not that same as oppressing or silencing someone, and that’s where you’re gravely mistaken. No one is silencing Christians – they’re challenging them. And you’re losing the logic game, mainly because you’ve gone thousands of years without being challenged, and now that you are, you’re stumbling over your poorly constructed ideas. Instead of making shit up, like you clearly did in this case, address what I ACTUALLY wrote and maybe then people will take you seriously and will actually WANT to listen. Otherwise, you’ll continue to dwindle your own numbers until you truly are an unheard minority.

JP 05/05/2011 at 7:34 pm

I interpreted V for Vendetta in a vastly different way, if anything I feel like it speaks more true to traditional Republican ideology or classical liberalism than modern Democratic ideals. The left-right paradigm is my main case for this, displaying totalitarianism as the most radical leftist ideal, and anarchy as the furthest right, though I take note of the fact that neither the Republican Party nor the Democratic Party claim either of these two drastic beliefs and are a far cry from both extremes. The film no doubt is a shot at Bush, however it can be argued that Bush is possibly one of the worst examples of a true Republican in the history of the presidency. His support for big government, nation building, and big brother legislature should make this clear. I would argue that the only reason he was able to gain the support of his Republican colleagues was due to the spreading neo-conservative philosophy, government corruption, and the “us against them” mentality that has been cultivated due to years of partisan and close-minded attitudes expressed by both parties. Nevertheless, V seems to capture the very ideas by which Tea Party movement was founded on considering his philosophy on small government and civil liberties; appearing to carry similar views to that of libertarians and constitutional republicans. Though it would be unfair to Thomas Moore, the brilliant architect behind this exciting project, to depict his character as limited to the labels I gave him above, after all his character represents an idea, something abstract and as we can tell by your article is applicable to any administration or period; truly a timeless classic.

JP 05/05/2011 at 7:38 pm

***lol, sorry Alan Moore, theology project is killing me–this was a good distraction though.

Leave a Comment


4 - 4 =