MovieChat Forums > Black Mirror (2011) Discussion > Can someone explain National Anthem?

Can someone explain National Anthem?

posted 9 years ago by crustywaffle
30 replies | jump to latest

Just started watching and finished the first episode, really confused. I know it's a television show and the events depicted would never happen, but I feel like I'm missing out on a cultural thing.

First, in America we don't negotiate with terrorists or hostage takers, especially at the federal level. We would use all available resources to find the person responsible but we would never give in to demands. Does England not have a similar policy? I'd assume it does, which means it wouldn't make sense for them to even remotely consider doing anything with the person's demands.

The only exception to the rule is I'm assuming that it involved royalty. Really sorry for my ignorance, but I thought that the Royal family was nothing more than a figure head and no longer wielded any significant power. If this is the case, why would it matter so much if she was a princess or not? I can't imagine the public caring a great deal about the royals, especially since they no longer do anything for them. As far as the government, maybe the family has some sway in terms of who they are.

I guess I'm just having trouble wrapping my head around the whole thing. I'm imagining it from an American point of view and just seeing the demands being ignored, and the hostage probably being killed.

[–] The_Grither 9 years ago

I know we say we don't deal with terrorists in The US but if something like this happened the president would still be in a very tough spot.
He'd be well within his rights to ignore the demands but you could be sure he'd get a lot of grief for it.

Just look at how the real world is. If Obama doesn't do something people get mad and say it's the worst thing ever. If he does do it other people get mad and say it's the worst thing ever.
Something like this would have a huge impact on him.

And I'm only using Obama because he's the current president. I'm not trying to be political.

[–] firefly900 9 years ago

First, in America we don't negotiate with terrorists

I'm imagining it from an American point of view

You are such a sterotype of the thick ignorant American its not even funny.
America funds ISIS... they work hand in hand with terrorists.
Your government relys on morons like you who watch too much Rambo & think your armed forces are all GI Joe to ever know the truth that your mindset is a complete and utter joke.

Lets destroy the myth you believe because youve watched too many movies and have the mindset of a teeenager or possibly are a teenager.

Read these... even the title of the link will do ya.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/06/03/the-u-s-does-negotiate-with-terrorists/

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/negotiating_with_terrorists_let_s_stop_pretending_we_don_t_and_craft_better.html

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/24/obama-will-allow-us-negotiate-directly-terrorists-/?page=all

http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2014/06/05/why-we-dont-negotiate-with-terrorists-no-longer-holds-up-as-policy/#d5f0b673bb48

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2731097/America-start-negotiating-terrorists-hostages-Reporter-held-prisoner-Taliban-says-US-policy-needs-change-save-lives.html

[–] shauna-mark 9 years ago

Hmmm a bit brutal for what in all likelihood is simply a very naive post / question. It's also a bit of a cheap sterotype for non-Americans to label Americans generally as thick and ignorant. "Broad-brush" rarely works on any topic ...

The simple answer to the original question is "National Anthem is fiction" ...

[–] firefly900 9 years ago

I stand by my post.... He had to be told, otherwise we would have had a follow up something like "Murica Back to Back World War Champs"

[–] shauna-mark 9 years ago

All a bit too serious for my liking ... life's too short and there's more appropriate places to be angry and aggressive than IMDB ...

[–] firefly900 9 years ago

Back into your safe space then  Bye Bye

[–] roska-posti 8 years ago

Tumb up, firefly900! I would have replied the same manner. Unfortunately the large majority of the public is completely ignorant what happens behind the corprate mass media entertainment news.

It's okay in my opinion to reply with civilize yourself -comment. And I can understand even anger, because it is the ignorance of majority that allows politicans and media continuously feed us lies and remain in power.

Lexa is  cute!

[–] lynxx55 8 years ago

firefly, you are obviously trolling.

[–] firefly900 8 years ago

How? .....the guy pulled the "In America we dont negoiate with terrorists" bull.... He knows nothing about anything, the idiot deserved to be ragged on.

[–] kav2001c 9 years ago

Did you even read what you linked or just threw out some random google terrorist posts and hope for the best?

[–] another242 8 years ago

Off topic, ranting lunatic. Thanks for proving why I shouldn't come to messageboards.

[–] sfwmson 8 years ago

I thin the key is in the reactions of those around the Prime Minister..the woman he almost choked seemed to be enjoying herself just under the surface and the pollster guy was in and out telling the PM how the public was feeling---a great nod to how politicians run things. Also the wife's reaction...not poor husband, but they are all laughing at US, at ME.

It was less about the princess and the pig and more about the people.

Did that help? I didn't read the nonsense about isil above this. asshat poster.

[–] chetas 8 years ago

I think there was a bit about how the establishment wanted him to do it else his family and him will be basically killed.

[–] luckiest_strike 8 years ago

yeah i didnt understand it either.

If the head of a nation's goverment can be seen *beep* a pig on tv that isnt just bad for him. the entire nation/government would be ridiculed.

also it would later become known that the finger wasn't really hers giving rising to theories that it was never a real threat.

imho he did the wrong thing and *beep* that pig for no good reason. for all he knew they might have killed her anyway while he opened his country for ridicule about the pig thing.

i guess in retrospect it was obvious that he would do it but it was the worst option as well as the least plausible one.

still a nice idea though

[–] nanonta 8 years ago

This episode is by far the worst of all 3 seasons. It is not believable and I did not care about any of the characters.
EDIT: I asked myself why the characters must be believable. The characters in Waiting for Godot are obviously not real, and yet the work is considered important, or even great. Godot is abstract. National Anthem is a different kind of work -- It is very specific and seems to invite the viewer to believe that what is seen is real. It could have been a comedy, but I don't see much that is funny.

[–] MeTheMachine 8 years ago

This episode is by far the worst of all 3 seasons. It is not believable and I did not care about any of the characters.

So you enjoyed the other episodes of this show, then? I just watched this episode after being recommended to watch this show by several friends (whose tastes in shows I usually trust) but found this "pilot" episode to be so utterly farfetched and absurd it was off-putting, to say the least. I'm wondering if I should even bother with the rest. If they're similarly structured, I'd rather sit this one out.

[–] nanonta 8 years ago

Correct, I almost abandoned watching the series after ep. 1. But I found ep. 3, The Entire History of You to be a very welcome improvement. I am putting together a post which may eventually become a review of that episode. I found striking similarities between it and Jorge Luis Borges' short story usually translated to English as Funes the Memorious (in Spanish Funes el Memorioso). Both the episode and short story are about being able to remember every detail (visual, auditory, tactile, etc.) in every moment in one's life, and whether such a condition is a blessing or a curse. For example, one character had long ago paid for a 5 star hotel room and was unable to forget about the frayed carpet. His friend told him, "Only if you keep looking at it." I do not find all the episodes this good, but none are, to me, as bad as the first.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

I just watched this episode after being recommended to watch this show by several friends (whose tastes in shows I usually trust) but found this "pilot" episode to be so utterly farfetched and absurd it was off-putting

My reaction, too. I thought "is this a comedy?"

No leader of a free nation would do such a thing, imo. I don't care what threats there were. Because by doing it, he's opened himself and his country up to ridicule...forever. They may have well have asked him to shoot someone on live tv. Would he do that? No. So why the other?

But ridicule, we assume, was the sole purpose. If not, then what? I did think, for awhile, that the princess might be in on it, because I never, for one moment, thought they actually cut her finger off.

This episode and part of the next one was enough to convince me this was not a series to be taken seriously, or that I cared to watch.

[–] nanonta 8 years ago

One theory is that the writers were alluding to speculation about David Cameron and a pig in an alleged university initiation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piggate. The source of the rumor was someone with an axe to grind. In any case, even if this incident were true, for me the episode would would still be very shallow and a waste of time. However, I think it would be unfair to judge the whole series based on one episode.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

[quote]However, I think it would be unfair to judge the whole series based on one episodequote]

Maybe. And I usually don't. But the next one, with all the stationary bike riding and the pornographic videos, didn't interest me either, so I bailed. Any series that begins with two bad episodes may not deserve serious viewer consideration, or commitment. Imo.

[–] nanonta 8 years ago

I figured out that all of the episodes in the first 3 seasons, except one, were written or co-written by Charlie Brooker. The one which I think is by far the best, The Entire History of You, does not list Brooker in the credits. I opened a new thread about it here on this board.

[–] MeTheMachine 8 years ago

No leader of a free nation would do such a thing, imo. I don't care what threats there were. Because by doing it, he's opened himself and his country up to ridicule...forever.

Agreed, and it's not only that...it's the stunningly dangerous precedent it would set. It would show that the most powerful leaders in the free world are puppets who can be controlled by anonymous threats and terrorism. It's giving terrorists complete power. Chaos would ensue in such circumstances. I understand that a girl's life was (dubiously) at stake, but wouldn't the priority be maintaining some kind of order and dominion over the people? Isn't that the main job of such politicians to begin with?

I also couldn't believe that the people were all glued to their screens watching a man essentially being raped for over an hour. I have a strong stomach and I'd turn it off or leave the room after about 3 minutes, out of sheer disgust. The news would cover anything I missed, so there'd be no real need to watch it so intently. Of course there'd be some cartoon sadists who'd watch it vivaciously, but portraying an entire nation as that just added onto the ridiculousness of it all. I give the episode credit for being thought-provoking, but it was far too obnoxious to consider great, or even good, IMO.

[–] mme3924-1 8 years ago

I also couldn't believe that the people were all glued to their screens watching a man essentially being raped for over an hour. I have a strong stomach and I'd turn it off or leave the room after about 3 minutes, out of sheer disgust. The news would cover anything I missed, so there'd be no real need to watch it so intently. Of course there'd be some cartoon sadists who'd watch it vivaciously, but portraying an entire nation as that just added onto the ridiculousness of it all. I give the episode credit for being thought-provoking, but it was far too obnoxious to consider great, or even good, IMO

I thought this, too. But then I also thought that this was some kind of analogy about tv crisis or chaos or event watching in general. Were the writers equating viewers' willingness to watch a man having sex with a pig to viewers watching endless hours of the 911 tragedy? Or of a war being fought in real time? Or of the president and his cabinet sitting watching Seal Team Six invade bin Laden's compound?

Personally, I don't think that correlates, but it may have been the point. That we will literally watch anything, from the most deadly to the most offensive, if it's on live tv.

[–] iglisca 8 years ago

I have to disagree here, people would watch endless hours of 9/11 to get updates or any other information - watching a man having sex with a pig - don't think so. Also, I found the whole episode too far stretched - a single man kidnapping the princess (which would have security), the finger being cut and delivered, etc - hopefully the series get better - wasn't impressed at all with the first episode.

They shootin'! Aw, made you look!

[–] ForTheNonce 8 years ago

What made this an interesting episode is that the guy WASN'T going to go through with it; public opinion changed his mind. When the polls said the public was with him, the answer was no; he flipped his stance when public opinion did, even though that opinion changed over something he didn't do or know about (his handler didn't notify him they were going to try faking it.)

I watched this episode first and had to applaud the courage in rolling out this premise in episode 1.

[–] B-J-C 8 years ago

Agreed 100%. That struck me too as the main theme, that the prime minister was a puppet, not to the kidnaper, but to pulic opinion. He was adamant that he wasn't going to go through with it and the public were behind him, until they saw the shock footage of the finger. Then he was pressured by pulic opinion and from within his own cabinet to commit the degrading act.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] roska-posti 8 years ago

Well the terrorist appeared to be an artisist who was doing a live art performance. Sure it tells a story of people being addicted to what ever scandalous entertainment.

But there seems to be also an underlying support for the control state: the authorities are good and humaine and we need them armed military polices with surveillance stuff, because it's there for your safety.

And hey, why not kidnap just any person? Would be much easier. Because the Prime Minister would do it only for the nation's most precious, a princess?

Lexa is  cute!

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]