Ed Driscoll

V For Vacuous

Ace of Spades writes:

Hollywood’s finally made a film about terrorism, after years of avoiding the subject.

Of course, it’s pro-terrorism.

Ace links to a Time magazine article about V for Vendetta with this passage:

Everybody associated with the productions–Portman, McTeigue, Weaving, Silver–forcefully, insistently stresses that V is an ambiguous, ambivalent figure. They express their hope that the movie will spark debates about the definition of terrorism.

Perfect! Please Hollywood, please define what you think terrorism is. OK, boys, Natalie–you go first!

Ace adds:

The debates they always seek to spark are about the defensibility of terrorism, rather than its repugnance.

Is there anyone in Hollywood actually brave enough to challenge his own biases and assumptions? It’s pretty soft-soap to “challenge” the beliefs of other folks. How about your own once in a while? How about “challenging” the Hollywood community with a truly challenging movie– one that posits that terrorism is simply evil and abominable?

Defining terrorism? Forgetaboutit: Hollywood can’t even decide if Nazism is evil and abominable.

(They long ago came to a conclusion on its equally evil twin brother, though.)