In case you're anxiously awaiting release of the upcoming film "The Tripper," about a mad Reaganaut out to cleanse society of hippies, here's something fresh to tide you over until then. There's a new flick from Warner Brothers debuting in theaters tomorrow called "V for Vendetta," and starring Natalie Portman, among others. It's based on a 1989 novel about the perceived horrors of living in England during the era of conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. The film is set in the future and alludes to a "former United States" emasculated by the consequences of our current engagement in Iraq. The primary setting is an England characterized by fascist rule and persecution of minorities. The hero is a masked terrorist enamored of blowing up large buildings to fight evil. So the reviews - and there are many - necessarily include some political analysis. Now, you may think that political analysis from film critics - such as it is - is better off ignored. I beg to differ.

Movie critic William Arnold of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer finds the tacit endorsement of al-Qaeda rather stimulating.

There's also a perverse fun -- and suspense -- in never being quite sure just how far down the road this movie is going to travel in sanctioning terrorism and making us pull for an al-Qaida-like renegade who wants to destroy an edifice that is one of Western civilization's most beloved symbols. As it turns out, the movie goes pretty darn far down this road. And while this will strike some people as, at best, irresponsible, and, at worst, treasonous, it struck me as a subtle, cheeky way to make us look at just how seductive the psychology of terrorism can be when you're sure you're in the right.

OK, Mr. Arnold, I'll bite. What the jihadists are convinced they're right about is that Western civilization is inherently debased and evil, and must be subjugated to Islamism and sharia. So, if indeed the psychology is seductive to enough such real-life terrorists, and aspiring terrorists, then we should re-double our efforts to defeat them. I'm sure you meant to spell that out a bit more clearly. Glad to help make your implicit conclusion a bit clearer, since you lacked either the alacrity or courage to do so.

Spelling things out a bit more clearly in his review is arts critic Michael Phillips of The Chicago Tribune.

Various film enthusiasts, particularly suckers for anything based on a graphic novel, are hot for this picture. They argue that the story line is pro-revolution rather than pro-terrorism, set in the near future, imagining England under the thumb of a regime than makes Mussolini look like Musso & Frank. Call me a neocon -- that'd be a first -- but this film is in fact about a glam-terrorist who believes in better government through the demolition of landmark buildings. It's only a movie. But would "V for Vendetta" stand a box office chance today if it were set in America, not England, and the U.S. Capitol were blowing up instead of Parliament? Unlikely. We all enjoyed seeing the White House get it in "Independence Day," but there's nothing political about space aliens.

Myself, I'd like to see a film loosely based on the lives of the subway bomber terrorists who killed scores of Londoners last July. Or a fictional take on the life of Theo van Gogh's killer.

TECHNORATI TAGS: V FOR VENDETTA, NATALIE PORTMAN, WARNER BORTHERS, TERRORISM, AL-QAEDA, LONDON, SUBWAY BOMBINGS, NETHERLANDS, THEO VAN GOGH, WILLIAM ARNOLD, SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER, MICHAEL PHILLIPS, CHICAGO TRIBUNE, THE TRIPPER

Posted by Matt Rosenberg at March 16, 2006 05:04 PM

---