“and there was no one left to speak for me”

Pastor Martin Niemöller was born in 1892, but did not receive major notice in the world until World War I when he served as a commander of a German U-Boat.  This service brought him around to his later profession of theological study when he allowed the survivors of a ship he torpedoed to drown, as opposed to rescue them.  After the War, he took up that study, and appeared to a be a standard Christian antisemite, joining the ranks blaming the Jews for taking Christ to the cross.  Initially, he supported Hitler, but as the government became more interesting in the affairs of faith, he distanced himself, and finally started openly speaking against it.  This open opposition to the Nazi regime resulted in him being arrested and eventually sent to Dachau, where he stayed until the termination of hostilities.  After the war, he became convinced that the German people, as a collective whole, were personally responsible for the atrocities commited by the Nazis throughout their history.  In 1946, he made a speech for representatives of the Confessing Church of Frankfurt, which may have contained the first approximation of the famous quote attributed to this man.  Similar thoughts abounded throughout his later speeches, until Pastor Niemöller died in 1984. 

One version of the quote is below: 

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out, because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak for me.

Multiple versions of this quote abound, but this appears to be the most true-to-form.  Source 1, source 2. 

Dylan Marlais Thomas was born in 1914 in southern Wales, with his father being an English Literature teacher known for his strictness.  He was exposed to poetry at an early age, and started writing it at the age of eight or nine, but was known for his propensity for being precocious and for pleading sickness to avoid work.  He worked for a newspaper when he was older, and first had one of his poems published in the spring of 1933.  Over time, including working at a radio station and getting married, his poetry was acknowledged as being emotionally moving and stirring, while still being somewhat morose and sullen at times.  Additionaly, Thomas himself was noted for his depression, alcoholism, excessive amounts of worry, lack of tact or social graces, while still being able to move people with his words, which he preferred to read out loud.  He died in 1953 after a colorful, emotionally unstable, and often-destitute life. 

One of his more notable poems (and potentially my favorite poem) follows:

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Source.

Now, my readers are probably royally confused at the moment…  even my wife is probably wondering where I am going with this post.  First, let me apologize for the abbreviated biographies of the two individuals…  their histories, while interesting, were not the main purpose of this post.  Rather, it is their connection. 

Connection?  What connection?  Besides the fact that one of them lived within the lifespan of the other?  Entirely different worlds…  what could bind these two men together? 

Time for some more history.  Queen Elizabeth the First was not exactly the most tolerant ruler of England when it came to religious freedom.  She and, most notably, the Roman Catholics within her realm did not get along well at all.  After her death, and the ascension of James the First to the throne, those Catholics hoped the pressure upon them would be alleviated… but such was far from the case.  Thirteen young men, among them a certain Robert Catesby, came to the conclusion that drastic methods were required to level the playing field… a plan that happened to involve 36 gunpowder barrels placed under the Houses of Parliament.  However, in the process of executing this plan, Guy Fawkes was caught while placing the barrels, and was later interrogated, tortured, and killed.  The day has been commemorated ever since, much like the American version of Independence Day, but also spawned the following quote: 

Remember, remember, the fifth of November, The gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.

Source.

So where the bleeding hell am I going with all this nonsense?  Here we have a German minister first known for his antisemitism, and then known for regretting that.  Then we have a chronic depressive poet who was very much the typical poet.  And finally we have some seriously hardcore explosives that did not quite have the chance to enjoy themselves.  There is decidedly no connection whatsoever.  For the most part… 

A last quote… this time, you might want to break out your dictionary: 

This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is it vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished, as the once vital voice of the verisimilitude now venerates what they once vilified. However, this valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified, and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition. The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta, held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous. Verily, this vichyssoise of verbiage veers most verbose vis-à-vis an introduction, and so it is my very good honor to meet you and you may call me V.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen… on top of being a backhanded history lesson, this post would be a movie review. 

A little behind the curve on this particuarly movie, but I went to see V for Vendetta this afternoon, and I have to admit – I was thorougly, absolutely, and completely impressed.  Unfortunately, it is yet another in a remarkably long string of comic-book-to-big-screen ports of storylines, but, as a movie, it is still an outstanding flick.  As with effectively all of the other movies of a similar genre out there, I have not read this particular comic series, and I cannot comment on its veracity in reference to the harcopy versions.  But as a movie… 

FIrst, the opening sequence (while not the best… Swordfish still holds that title) more than captured your attention while revealing a great deal about both of the main characters in the storyline.  The fight scenes (while not the best…  Equilibrium has that medal, hands down) were more than sufficiently graphic, while still retaining an impressive amount of skill, excessive application of force, and a wee bit of artistry.  The story (again, admittedly not the best, but I will be buggered if I can come up with a "best story" winner among the movies I have seen) was completely believable, while being more than a little compelling. 

The basic premise is relatively straightforward…  due to the collapse of society elsewhere in the world (namely, here in the States), Brittain rapidly slid down to being a full-power Nanny State, bearing more than a little resemblance to the world of 1984 – books being placed on blacklists, strength coming from "unity", unity coming from "faith" (though, this time, the "faith" was supposedly placed in God, as opposed to some governmenta leader, though the leader of the British government almost fit the role anywise), and all that mindless jazz.  Curfews are in place, people are "black-bagged" and disappear into the night for speaking out against the government, and control is absolute.  In the process of creating this government, there were more than a few birthing pains, among them, and the most horrific of them, the use of an engineered disease against Brittain’s own subjects… though it was blamed on nameless, faceless terrorists.  It was used as a "common enemy" combining action for the British populace, and solidified the government’s hold over its people.  But in the process, their monstrous act created a monster…  "V".  A faceless man with a face everyone recognized…  a vindictive vigilante with a vendetta against the government, and the people who created it and him.  Suffice it to say that vendetta was satisfied, and then some, and then some. 

As for the quotes…  The movie follows them relatively closely.  How… well, go see the movie.  However, assuming the series of events that make up the movie’s history actually take place, and assuming they would actually last, and assuming such a world could ever form (the odds of which are remarkably slim), the tie between the movie and the quotes is relatively self-explanatory.  From any way you look at it, however, be it politically, sociologically, or just entertainmently (word?), the movie is worth watching… and seeing the Parliament go up in smoke is worth the big-screen expenditure . 

And before anyone asks of me the inevitable question, I will ask it of myself…  Do I believe V for Vendetta to be some allegorical statement upon our modern society and the way it is going?  No.  When you look at the society taking place within the movie, and then look at the one currently constructed around us, while there are similarities, the vast majority of things taking place in the movie are nowhere to be found.  Do I believe that the society within the movie is a possible eventuality?  Of course.  But another possible eventuality is that we annihilate ourselves and the world in a grand nuclear struggle.  Lots of things are possible.  I will say, however, that I consider it to be highly unlike that the situation portrayed in the movie would ever be allowed to exist.  And, the last question…  Do I see any parallels between the movie and the current administration in place in America?  My answer to that is, "Are you completely off your rocker?" 

And for all those nunces out there who are making such a big deal about how it is impressive this movie was made in this time, and how it was able to get past the sociopolitical problems associated with releasing a movie about a potential terrorist in our modern times…  stuff it.  Hollywood exists to make money for itself, for its directors, for its producers, for its actors, and for everyone else employed in that city.  The very fact that the movie is so poignant, is so topical, is so timely, will do massive amounts of wonders for its publicity, which, in turn, will do massive amounts of wonders for its profits.  People will see it out of interest, see it after hearing reviews (positive and negative) about it, see it out of curiosity… and all of that will be expounded upon by the literally explosive aspects of the movie.  After all, there is no such thing as bad publicity.