[Nuclear1]

Well, a lot of people seem to be in agreement that the movie is definitely attacking something, whether it be the US or the UK.

Actually, it could be just about any country. The movie clearly shows that totalitarian dictatorships rise because of the peoples' trust in one individual to pull them through a crisis, and through fear of outside threat, they grant the leader more and more power to the point that the leader is a dictator.

This really could be a reference to anyone: the Germans post-WWI, WWI-era Russia, post-9/11 America, the UK after the 7/7 bombings, and (to some extent) Spain after the Madrid bombings. The fact is that the movie is more centered on the UK and the US because those two nations are at the most risk for giving a leader too much power as a response to fear.

[Ford Prefect]

The fact is that the movie is more centered on the UK and the US because those two nations are at the most risk for giving a leader too much power as a response to fear.

Precisely. It's not enough just to look at the film itself. You have to look at the real-world context.

[WMCoolmon]

For me, the line that really cinched it was something like:

"Who do you think did this? We did, we decided to sit back in the comfort of our homes, giving more and more power to to be safe" or something like that.

Anyone who says that the movie is about Totalitarianism and not about the UK or the US is burying their head in the sand and missing the whole point of the movie. Cinema is good cinema only if it makes a connection with viewers, and in a movie where politics figures so prominently, MUST either make a political connection, and/or use politics as some sort of symbolism for something else. Otherwise nobody will get it or even care.

What the movie is doing is taking the demons of the past and saying "Hey...these can happen again if you're not careful." Hence why it's set in the future.

[karajorma]

Anyone who says that the movie is about Totalitarianism and not about the UK or the US is burying their head in the sand and missing the whole point of the movie.

 As Janos posted the draft of the movie dates back from before Bush came to power so it's unlikely that the entire point of the movie was changed when the Wachowski finally got to make the movie.

I'd say that the movie is about Totalitarianism and the dangers of allowing to happen again but used current and past events in order to emphasise that point. Making a movie about totalitarianism is always going to have a stronger effect if you can make it resonate with the audience. Lets face it, the audience who goes to see this movie are going to be people who don't like the current direction the US and UK are going in. Having the movie link into this fear and distrust is going to have strong effect on the audience so it makes sense to play into that even if you aren't trying to make a specific point against the US or UK.

 The movie did that pretty well actually. All the Brits are identifying and latching onto echoes of Blair, Americans see Bush. I wonder what Germans will make of it too. Will they see more of the Nazi stuff than we do? I'd say the fact that people are identifying the movie more strongly with one country than the other shows that it wasn't just a general attack on both. Had that been the case more people would have seen it that way.

[Shade]

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

That's from Benjamin Franklin. I'm sure some people might find the name familiar, though today I'm sure he would be called a terrorist for uttering something like that. Seems that that's something today's societies would do well to heed, though, if people feel this movie so well mirrors what might one day be...

[Mefustae]

Old. Very old. That saying's been thrown around on countless forums more times than I can count. It really doesn't make all that much of a point anymore, and is now simply a tired arguement that serves only to nausiate when it arises.

[Shade]

You're right. My best guess would be it's about 230 years old. And often used, yes, that is also true... but I happen to agree with it, regardless. And for a country like the USA especially, it does boggle my mind that they're willing to compromise so significantly with many of the principles the country is supposed to stand for.

Anyway, I'm gonna leave it at that, no reason to drag this topic away from discussing a perfectly good movie... I should have known better than posting that in the first place I guess.

[aldo_14]

Old. Very old. That saying's been thrown around on countless forums more times than I can count. It really doesn't make all that much of a point anymore, and is now simply a tired arguement that serves only to nausiate when it arises.

I don't think age or frequency or usage impinges on the validity of a statement.  You don't hear people throwing out centuries of philosophy or literature because it's old and has been read a lot, do you?  History is possibly the best judge we have of human nature, where we can truly weigh the words and wisdom of men by their actions, and acknowledge our own fragilities and strengths.  To use another old quote; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

[Mefustae]

I don't think age or frequency or usage impinges on the validity of a statement. You don't hear people throwing out centuries of philosophy or literature because it's old and has been read a lot, do you? History is possibly the best judge we have of human nature, where we can truly weigh the words and wisdom of men by their actions, and acknowledge our own fragilities and strengths.

I didn't mean old in the capacity of the age of said quote, I meant it in the context of 'here we go again', as i've seen that quote trotted out on multiple forums - including this one - to be used in the absense of an actual arguement. So much so that it gets on my nerves. Anyway, it's not so much the usage of the quote that ticked me off per se, it's the tone Shade used in writing it, as if to say 'look at this unique quote i've found that i'm assuming none of you have ever seen, aren't I intelligent for finding it and using it as a quip against all you damned facists'.

To use another old quote; "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it"

Indeed, but those who dwell on the past are doomed never to grow from it.

[aldo_14]

I didn't mean old in the capacity of the age of said quote, I meant it in the context of 'here we go again', as i've seen that quote trotted out on multiple forums - including this one - to be used in the absense of an actual arguement. So much so that it gets on my nerves. Anyway, it's not so much the usage of the quote that ticked me off per se, it's the tone Shade used in writing it, as if to say 'look at this unique quote i've found that i'm assuming none of you have ever seen, aren't I intelligent for finding it and using it as a quip against all you damned facists'.

The quote is an arguement, and one from a tried, tested and proven source.  Can you think of any other arguement against facism or totalitarianism that doesn't say exactly that?  Except, of course, it isn't as succinct and from such an inherently respected/regarded/known source if it comes in my own words.

Indeed, but those who dwell on the past are doomed never to grow from it.

Everyones future is someone elses past.

[WMCoolmon]

Everyones future is someone elses past.

One man's ceiling is another man's floor.

[Flipside]

One mans rug is another mans....Linoleum?

[aldo_14]

One mans rug is another mans....Linoleum?

Then why can't I slide across it in my socks?

[Flipside]

For every Ying there must be a Yang, you need Linoleum socks

[aldo_14]

For every Ying there must be a Yang, you need Linoleum socks

Ah, of course!

[Goober5000]

La la la... Linoleum!