Before anyone goes off on my review (ahem... Brad), can we just pause for a moment and savor my choice of the word "recapitulate". I was (overly) proud of that one.

I didn't read the whole review, because you said there was a spoiler in it, and I haven't yet seen the movie.

Okay — I just read this, even though I haven't seen the movie. I had heard that the original graphic novelist had written/drawn V for Vendetta to take on Margaret Thatcher. I don't doubt that the film adaptation got traction in part because it could be presented as "timely."

I agree that a work is more timeless than timely if it explores the methods that prop up totalitarian regimes rather than the issues or ideological agenda that the totalitarians pursue. And in that sense, 1984 will have more enduring meaning to readers.

I expect that when I see this movie, I'll feel a bit cheated by its obvious "message." In that sense, I expect it to fall short of, say, Brazil, which makes many of the same points, but in an ironic and sophisticated way. So I'll probably feel insulted by the unsubtle delivery of the movie's message — just as I feel insulted pretty much every time I go to the movies, as it becomes increasingly clear that Hollywood holds the collective intellect of the viewing public in low esteem.

What I find interesting, as an academic matter, is the susceptibility of democratic regimes to totalitarianism — and how elected officials can effectively suppress dissent, arrogate power to themselves, and restrict civil liberties with the people's ostensible "consent." This, to me, is more insidious than a coup. After all, we hear every day about how great a democracy is. It must be immune to tyranny, right?

I'm not saying we're going there as a society, but I think we'd be silly to rule out the possibility just because we all can vote. First, not all of us can vote. Felons can't. Imagine that sodomy laws were upheld, and the government systematically prosecuted and disenfranchised everyone who went to The Wrong Hole. Second, the vote itself isn't particularly meaningful when a dominant party draws districts to consolidate power.

Third, "democracy" alone doesn't cut it. You have to protect civil liberties and political minorities. You have to assure free speech and freedom of conscience. Bush loves the notion of spreading "democracy." Well, great — in Afghanistan there's a Constitution, and you can vote for your leaders, but you get beheaded if you convert to Christianity. (And by the way, given his attitudes at home, I don't think Bush is as well positioned to impress the "ancillary" values of free press, speech, civil liberties and minority civil rights on other nations as he is democracy.) Fourth, polls and studies show that voters will willingly cede their civil liberties in exchange for assurances of safety from terror.

So how would you introduce a totalitarian regime in a constitutional democracy, if you were so inclined? You'd create a perpetual state of war, call for incursions on civil liberties while that war persisted. You'd attempt to suppress domestic dissent on the ground that troops are at risk, and dissent emboldens the enemy. You'd identify your constituency as an embattled minority (didn't you hear? there's a war on CHRISTMAS! and the gays are coming for your CHILDREN!). You'd take steps to neutralize the votes of the opposition, through gerrymandering and intimidation. In short, you'd do a lot of the things this government is doing.

I'm not saying this is what Bush and the Republicans are after. They're doing what all politicians have to do: get power and hold on to it. One hopes, though, that our Constitution affords us enough give and take, enough process to forestall a significant backslide into an Orwellian or Portmanian nightmare.

On that score, I think one advantage this movie has over 1984 is that the events occur in Britain, and not in some made-up Frankenstein's Country like Oceania (which incorporates London, admittedly). That is, the notion that the U.K. could sink to this level provokes some thought: how could this happen? Isn't Britain a democracy? A constitutional monarchy? The flipside of this is the risk that the audience recognizes the immediacy and dismisses it: it's just someone who hates his current government spouting off.

Anyway, I'm off on a tangent. My guess is this movie will appeal to me because it will give a window into the instrumentation of a totalitarian system — and because it offers the romance of rebellion, which I enjoy in part because I wear a suit and go to work every day.