V For Vendetta Pro Terrorist

[A_Wanderer]

In a political environment that can brew controversy out of allegorical children's fables or a documentary about penguins, it is hard to imagine the intensity of feeling that will greet "V for Vendetta," a movie whose heroes are terrorists.

One foresees news talk shows in which red-faced pundits denounce the filmmakers and call for boycotts. Given a film as entertaining and solidly crafted as this one, such attention could turn into strong box office.

Of course, plenty of films -- particularly those set in dystopian futures like this one -- identify with revolutionaries. But most put heavy sci-fi clothing on their brave new worlds, while "V" takes pains to tie its reality to our own. Although based on a comic book, it isn't as heavily stylized as a superhero movie. Its score and production design, both rich and inviting, are heightened without suggesting that this near-future London is an outright fantasy, though the new government, a restrictive state led by John Hurt's Sutler, is draped in some awfully Nazi-ish iconography.

If the film's look and feel refuse to flee from the real world, its dialogue takes every chance to connect to it. We are told about the recent past, that "America's war grew worse and worse, and eventually came to London." Hot-button terms like "rendition" are sprinkled about; dissidents are handled as in a third-world dictatorship; and our hero (who calls himself V) lectures citizens who have surrendered their liberties to a government that promised to protect them from terrorism.

As V, Hugo Weaving has the unenviable task of playing the entire film behind an immobile mask. He rises to the challenge, bringing the character to life with body language and his sonorously nimble voice.

V has a flair for the theatrical. He introduces himself to London on Guy Fawkes Day with fireworks and a symbolic bombing, then hijacks a television broadcast to announce that he will return a year later to destroy the Houses of Parliament. He suggests that citizens who feel oppressed by their rulers should join him there. And then he's gone, leaving some very anxious politicians in his wake.

The viewer's proxy here is Evey (Natalie Portman), who accidentally becomes a part of V's plans. With her, we work through many of the expected reactions to V's approach -- and if she eventually comes around to his way of thinking, the film certainly doesn't present the choice as an uncomplicated one. The filmmakers (Andy and Larry Wachowski adapting the screenplay, James McTeigue at the helm) are clearly on the vigilante's side, but they give viewers room to question his motives and methods: Has he psychologically programmed Evey? Is the city of London about to become a war zone simply because V has a personal grudge? The serious tone "Vendetta" takes encourages such moral nitpicking.

link

Perhaps the issue is what objective measure defines a terrorist. Means, ends and targets - the will to smash a state apparatus be it a Nazi, Stalinist or Islamist one is a good measure different than striking against innocent people. To strike out for freedom or at least the abolition of state control is not the same as striking to establish a state devoid of freedom.

Maybe instead of placing moral equivalence into the argument it could be conducted objectively.

As I have said CCTV measures, blanket surveilance projects and internet search monitoring programs are dificult to remove one emplaced and will be used by any leader who wants more control - it's not their fault, by their very nature they cannot help but use the tools at their disposal. Procecuting a war against an existential threat that right now lacks a serious state actor requires an evaluation of what liberties we have to protect and how we may do so - North Korea is (probably) free from acts of non-state terror, but that is a product of the slave state. Free speech again a wonderful thing, banning the glorification of terror simply means that the bastards aren't all in the same place and it becomes a lot harder to trace and monitor the networks - if someone wants to kill you, it's good to have a heads up.

Both the book and it would seem the film take government of the day as the model for proto-fascist regimes (Thatcher for the book, Bush for the film). That is the creators prerogative - the threat does come from statists at home and abroad, one mustn't ignore those tendencies even when couched with the benefit of being "other".

 

[trevster2k]

It's great entertainment, a great read, the film yet to be determined and if it encourages discussion about civil liberties and a state controlled society, more power to it.

It appears to be a great adaptation of the graphic novel based on the previews. Rotten Tomatoes has 100 fresh, vs 33 rotten so it is being accepted by critics so far.

Anyone who is "afraid" of this film because they think it is pro-terrorist, well, bollocks to them.

 

[A_Wanderer]

I hope it dissuades a few people from the lure of CCTV and National ID cards.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

I saw it last night. Many people will say it is "pro terrorist" but I prefer to think that it shows that sometimes situations are a little bit grey (only as far as govt corruption/oppression and the people rising up against that- not that terrorism is necessary, good, whatever) and not always black and white-and what can happen to people when they are treated in a certain way. I would never support any pro terrorist message, but this is a movie that just makes you think about things in the way that Munich did. Of course people will see parallels to the war on terror and to other modern day situations, those are definitely there.

There are so many interesting lines of dialogue in it, I wish I could remember all of them. "the people should not be afraid of the govt, the govt should be afraid of the people"

I also think it's the kind of movie that should be seen in a theater and not on DVD, I think visually it might be better that way.

 

[Utoo]

I am very much looking forward to seeing this movie. From what I've seen & heard, and what I remember from the comic books, it should promote a wealth of thought & discussion. I saw a brief interview with Natalie Portman this morning & she was discussing how it was such a great role for her.....Having been born in Israel, she said, terrorism didn't happen for her on 9-11---it's always been in her life. Personally hating terrorism, but having to work out in her mind how a woman against violence could ultimately decide to use violence against what she hated more--it became a very thought-provoking role for her.

I hope one discussion that will come from this is "How do we define 'terrorism'?" It really is true that one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Recall that even in our own Revolutionary War, we Americans often fought as guerillas/terrorists. We see it as "okay" because we were fighting for what we believe are infallible 'American' principles.

On the most part, I subscribe to the notion promoted by Bono that "Ideas are not bigger than people." This movie makes you really think--is there a line that, once crossed, ideas are bigger than people? Perhaps when those ideas are, in your mind, based on the good of people? On the most part, I personally am awfully pacifist. However, with my boyish, adventure-movie-inspired mind, I've often imagined myself doing the same as V, as Porman's character, and as so many others--joining the Rebellion to fight the evil Empire.

 

[melon]

Not sure I'll like it, but it sparked my interest visually. I'll have to check it out.

Melon

 

[a-mole]

i just hope the W. brothers did not ruin the comic as much as they ruined their own matrix creation

well, hugo weaving & natalie portman give hope for good acting though

 

[Utoo]

i just hope the W. brothers did not ruin the comic as much as they ruined their own matrix creation

yeah, as long as they keep V to one movie, they should be okay...

 

[verte76]

I'll have to check this movie out.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

On the most part, I subscribe to the notion promoted by Bono that "Ideas are not bigger than people." This movie makes you really think--is there a line that, once crossed, ideas are bigger than people? Perhaps when those ideas are, in your mind, based on the good of people?

There's actually dialogue and an entire scene at the end of the movie that deals with this very subject

I had no idea it was based on a comic book until I saw the DC Comics logo in the opening, I know nothing about comics. They showed a teaser Superman trailer too.

 

[INDY500]

Anarchy is overrated.

 

[trevster2k]

There's actually dialogue and an entire scene at the end of the movie that deals with this very subject

I had no idea it was based on a comic book until I saw the DC Comics logo in the opening, I know nothing about comics. They showed a teaser Superman trailer too.

There have been some great comics published over the past few decades. Go find a copy of Watchmen. That is considered one of the greatest single comic storylines ever, it is collected as a single trade paperback. Even if you haven't read a comic, it is an awesome read.

 

[edgeboy]

Yeah, i saw the movie. It was pretty lame and meaningless.

 

[deep]

I saw the movie
I liked it.
it was pretty good.

it will be number one this weekend

26-30 million range.

I expect some right-wing fundies will attack it.

 

[INDY500]

I expect some right-wing fundies will attack it.

Glad you liked the movie. But can't we have just ONE movie; where the terrorists of Islamic radicalism that fly planes into buildings, blowup bombs in crowded markets, decapitate innocent hostages, and riot over cartoons... are the bad guys. And those that brave their lives to stop them are the heroes.
Just ONE.

 

[Se7en]

Glad you liked the movie. But can't we have just ONE movie; where the terrorists of Islamic radicalism that fly planes into buildings, blowup bombs in crowded markets, decapitate innocent hostages, and riot over cartoons... are the bad guys. And those that brave their lives to stop them are the heroes.
Just ONE.

maybe you could check out some of the movies in this article.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

It was the number one movie over the weekend

Roger Ebert's review

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060316/REVIEWS/60308005

"There are ideas in this film. The most pointed is V’s belief: “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.” I am not sure V has it right; surely in the ideal state governments and their people should exist happily together. Fear in either direction must lead to violence. But V has a totalitarian state to overthrow, and only a year to do it in, and we watch as he improvises a revolution. He gets little support, although Stephen Fry plays a dissident TV host who criticizes the government at his peril.

With most action thrillers based on graphic novels, we simply watch the sound and light show. "V for Vendetta," directed by James McTeigue, almost always has something going on that is actually interesting, inviting us to decode the character and plot and apply the message where we will. There are times when you think the soundtrack should be supplying "Anarchy in the UK" by the Sex Pistols. The movie ends with a violent act that left me, as a lover of London, intensely unhappy; surely V's enemy is human, not architectural.

The film has been disowned by Alan Moore, who was also unhappy with the movie versions of his graphic novels From Hell and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but then any sane person would have been unhappy with the Gentlemen. I have not read the original work, do not know what has been changed or gone missing, but found an audacious confusion of ideas in "V for Vendetta" and enjoyed their manic disorganization. To attempt a parable about terrorism and totalitarianism that would be relevant and readable might be impossible, could be dangerous and would probably not be box office. "

 

[financeguy]

Both the book and it would seem the film take government of the day as the model for proto-fascist regimes (Thatcher for the book, Bush for the film). That is the creators prerogative - the threat does come from statists at home and abroad, one mustn't ignore those tendencies even when couched with the benefit of being "other".

I think if the book took the Thatcher government as a model for a proto-fascist regime it was entirely mistaken to do so, Thatcher's government put the statists in their place if anything, of course it turned out to be a temporary blip as now the statists are stonger than ever.

I think that in my lifetime the public sector and governments have largely created the problems and the private sector has largely created the solutions, I believe that is what Thatcher was getting at with her much misunderstood 'there is no such thing as society. There are only families, and individuals' comment.

 

[nathan1977]

Alan Moore on why he had his name taken off the credits:

"As far I'm concerned, the two poles of politics were not Left Wing or Right Wing. In fact they're just two ways of ordering an industrial society and we're fast moving beyond the industrial societies of the 19th and 20th centuries. It seemed to me the two more absolute extremes were anarchy and fascism. This was one of the things I objected to in the recent film, where it seems to be, from the script that I read, sort of recasting it as current American neo-conservatism vs. current American liberalism. There wasn't a mention of anarchy as far as I could see. The fascism had been completely defanged. I mean, I think that any references to racial purity had been excised, whereas actually, fascists are quite big on racial purity."

Sounds like the book was much more nuanced than the film was.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Well I just hope that people take the effort of slicing their biometric national ID cards or turning off/spraying CCTV cameras. Such acts of civil disobedience would be a futile but still principled form of ongoing rejection to these systems - and they will come into force when the water is right, give it a nuclear or biological terror attack and many will surrender liberty for security - after all they would say that they have nothing to hide.

 

[all_i_want]

Well I just hope that people take the effort of slicing their biometric national ID cards or turning off/spraying CCTV cameras. Such acts of civil disobedience would be a futile but still principled form of ongoing rejection to these systems - and they will come into force when the water is right, give it a nuclear or biological terror attack and many will surrender liberty for security - after all they would say that they have nothing to hide.

so.. are you saying that if you scare the hell out of people with say... WMDs or mindlessly evil terrorists who want nothing but destruction.. they will be more likely to give up their liberties? that sounds awfully like.. something.. dont you think?

 

[A_Wanderer]

I think that you can fight fascists and preserve your liberties. You can see the nature of government as well as those who would want to run the Caliphate having the same end member.

Al Qaeda is fighting for a righteous world in submission to God - in their mind they are in the right.

Terrorists are mindlessly evil when you have politicians who have to insist that Islam is the religion of peace and dissociate religion at every freaking turn (including GWB a lot). They are not mindlessly evil - they are religiously evil, and thats a mirror to believers who will cut slack for what is more or less the same basic belief system.

9/11 was a faith based initiative.

 

[AliEnvy]

Al Qaeda is fighting for a righteous world in submission to God - in their mind they are in the right.

Well that sounds awfully familiar, but replace Al Qaeda with "we" and put a Texan twang on it.

9/11 was a faith based initiative.

If that were true the targets would have been faith-based.

The goal is power and control, the mechanism is religion...and so far it's working...what began as a War on Terror is becoming a War on Islam.

 

[nathan1977]

With all the talk of the American right being fascist, one can't lose the fact that the mindset behind Islamic fundamentalism (which doesn't represent the majority of Arabs in this or other countries) hews pretty darn closely to a fascist one itself. Racial purity, religious intolerance, etc etc...

Alan Moore put it succinctly: "I didn't tell people what to think. I just tried to tell them to think." Such nuance is lost in the film. If V is an anarchist (and his V symbol is really just an inverted anarchy A), then in a world of anarchy, the strong survive, which leads to exactly the world V is fighting against. So is V himself fascist?

All of this makes the point of "V" (the film) murky at best.

 

[AliEnvy]

Alan Moore put it succinctly: "I didn't tell people what to think. I just tried to tell them to think." Such nuance is lost in the film.

Such nuance is lost on the most of the audience. Same can be said of the top films of 2005 in particular the Oscar best picture.

 

[Iskra]

Star Wars is pro terrorist too!

 

[UberBeaver]

Natalie Portman hates Freedom!

 

[Irvine511]

Star Wars is pro terrorist too!

the Ewoks were the greatest cinematic tribute the Viet Cong ever got.

 

[angelordevil]

I've seen the movie. It's bloody gory...maybe a bit too much. It will make you think, however...which is a good thing. I kept thinking about how someone like Bono would view this film, because it poses a few muddied questions that are difficult to take on.

 

[A_Wanderer]

Natalie Portman hates Freedom!

Strikes me as anti-idiotarian after reading "Israeli Diversity Shown Even Among Leaders" by Natalie Hershlag.

I do get the sarc though