V for Vendetta's Political Message

[jheadley 0]

I just saw V for Vendetta today and while I thought it was a very good movie, I'm amazed I haven't really heard anything about it, since it seems like it'd be very very controversial and would actually anger a lot of people, for one Americans and also British people who have lived with terrorism for decades and recently had a terrorist bombing in London .

For those who haven't seen it, it takes place in England around 2020. England has become a completely totalitarian and oppressive fascist government, much like in "1984" and there are lots of Nazi references in the movie also. The hero is basically a "terrorist" who's mission is to blow up the British Parliament building and take down the government. He says, (roughly quoted) "A building is a symbol, and destroying that building is also a symbol".

This had me thinking of the World Trade Center. I believe the terrorists chose that building because it was one of the main symbols of America and Capitalism, and destroying it was also a huge symbol.

There's also a famous quote, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." The government calls this man, "V" a terrorist but he sees himself as a freedom fighter, I believe. The government in this movie is so terrible that I think most people would think that V's fight is morally right, but it makes you think. There are lots of terrorist groups around the world that consider themselves to be freedom fighters.

Also, in the US, Timothy McVeigh said he was defending the Constitution when he blew up the Alfred P. Murrah Building.

I firmly believe in the 2nd Amendment and I believe that it is the duty of a citizen to remove or change a government that is too oppressive, either peacefully or through force, but the question is when does that point come? I certainly don't think we're there yet in the US, but there are some people, like Timothy McVeigh, and groups, who do.

I know a lot of V's killing was just for revenge but I definitely do think the main theme of the movie was to question whether it is morally right to take down an oppressive government through violence.

(Also I know that Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists I mentioned kill innocent people, so they're not perfectly accurate real world examples but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say)

Also... Natalie Portman is a hottie even as a cueball!

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Also I know that Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists I mentioned kill innocent people, so they're not perfectly accurate real world examples but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say

well, but that IS the difference. A freedom fighter might care about who he kills. A terrorist does not. One is fighting towards an ideal & attacking who he sees as the oppressors, the other is simply destroying ANYONE in large numbers for the effect of spreading terror in the hearts of the common people. Focused idealism vs Nihilism.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[metalslug 36]

Some notes quoted from a web source:

Quote

He [Alan Moore] began writing V for Vendetta in 1981 to express his alarm at Britain's hard turn towards the Right under Thatcher. It first appeared in Warrior, a monthly comic magazine, and ran in 26 issues before the publication folded, leaving fans hanging mid-plot. After five years, Moore and illustrator David Lloyd completed it and it was released in its entirety as a graphic novel.

The script, by the Wachowskis, differs considerably from Moore's novel, which is set in the 1990s and contains allegorical digs at Margaret Thatcher's Britain. The film, set in a ravaged, crumbling London in 2020, when most of the rest of the world has been destroyed by biological warfare and viruses, has been updated to reflect current fears about what a future totalitarian state might repress - free speech, homosexuality and Islam, among other things.

Moore's outspoken denunciation of the project has proved a major embarrassment, although the filmmakers have attempted to brush it aside.
Well, one reason is that Moore, who wrote the Orwellian book in the 1980s as a rebuke to Thatcherite Britain, believes the screenplay is "imbecilic".

According to [Natalie] Portman, some people believe it's based on the situation in North Korea, while others see the story's roots in Nazi Germany. "There are so many resonances in the world today," she says. "Although it was written about Thatcher's England, the fact that it can be applied to so many different times and places shows the cyclical nature of these occurrences in history.

[Flygurl 0]

There was one line in the movie that I found particularly disturbing: "We will remind them why they need us." I think that many politicians current line of thought doesn't fall far from that tree.

I would agree that the underlying message of the movie is if violence is ever justified. I believe it is.

"People should not fear their government. Governments should fear their people."

________________________________________

"One out of every four American's are suffering from some form of mental illness. Think of your three best friends. If they're okay, then it's you."

[kallend 2,148]

Quote

Quote

Also I know that Timothy McVeigh and the other terrorists I mentioned kill innocent people, so they're not perfectly accurate real world examples but you get the idea of what I'm trying to say

well, but that IS the difference. A freedom fighter might care about who he kills. A terrorist does not. One is fighting towards an ideal & attacking who he sees as the oppressors, the other is simply destroying ANYONE in large numbers for the effect of spreading terror in the hearts of the common people. Focused idealism vs Nihilism.

The bombings of Guernica, London, Coventry, Dresden, Hamburg, Hiroshima, Nagasaki come to mind.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kbordson 8]

Another train of thought that I had running after seeing this movie was about McCarthyism and fear of the Government.

I think that this movie did a good job on making (inspiring?, encouraging?) people think about Government controls vs. the right of the people.

[Nightingale 0]

In general, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist seems to depend on who wins, who loses, and who writes the history books.

[billvon 3,116]

Sounds remarkably like Brazil, an old Terry Gilliam movie that could not be shown in the US until it was given a happy ending. The original is finally available; highly recommended. (The american ending is referred to as the 'love conquers all' version.)

[n23x 0]

Brazil is an AWESOME movie. The girlfriend was able to dig up a copy with the original ending quite a while ago, and it is definately the jam.

.jim

"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC

[rasmack 0]

Huh?!? Happy ending? Sounds like sacrilege to me. That is a classic film.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[billvon 3,116]

>Huh?!? Happy ending? Sounds like sacrilege to me.

American audiences must have their happy ending. And no moral ambiguity, thank you very much! They like their good guys good, and their bad guys bad (and preferably dead by the end of the show.)

[rasmack 0]

Quote

>Huh?!? Happy ending? Sounds like sacrilege to me.

American audiences must have their happy ending. And no moral ambiguity, thank you very much! They like their good guys good, and their bad guys bad (and preferably dead by the end of the show.)

Hmm... sounds like "Das Boot" never really made it over there. Oh well, your loss.

HF #682, Team Dirty Sanchez #227
“I simply hate, detest, loathe, despise, and abhor redundancy.”
- Not quite Oscar Wilde...

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

Quote

>Huh?!? Happy ending? Sounds like sacrilege to me.

American audiences must have their happy ending. And no moral ambiguity, thank you very much! They like their good guys good, and their bad guys bad (and preferably dead by the end of the show.)

Hmm... sounds like "Das Boot" never really made it over there. Oh well, your loss.

Yep! And the soundtrack is absolutely wonderful!
BTW: We poor little Germans learned how to be the underdogs - at least, in those days

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

American audiences must have their happy ending. And no moral ambiguity, thank you very much! They like their good guys good, and their bad guys bad (and preferably dead by the end of the show.)

Hmm... sounds like "Das Boot" never really made it over there. Oh well, your loss.

Das Boot made it big in the US -- you've simply been subjected to a typical burst of America bashing. Big news on SC.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ViperPilot 0]

Quote

In general, the difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist seems to depend on who wins, who loses, and who writes the history books.

I suppose that's true to an extent, but in reality, how can one be a heroic freedom fighter when they indiscriminately kill? Killing tons of people, regardless of who they are, just to incite fear, chance, etc. is nothing more than an act of a scum-sucking terrorist. In the movie, "V" took revenge on those who screwed him and those who were obvious scum/evil (the dictator dude et al). He didn't just blow up a crowded train station of innocent people to incite fear. That's the difference b/w freedom fighter and terrorists...not how one side views the other.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

He didn't just blow up a crowded train station of innocent people to incite fear. That's the difference b/w freedom fighter and terrorists...not how one side views the other.

Governments sure seem to have a problem with those kind of distinctions though..Labels are WAY to easy to apply..

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Governments sure seem to have a problem with those kind of distinctions though..Labels are WAY to easy to apply..

How much money did Al-Qaeda spend on smart weapon technology last year?

. . =(_8^(1)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

How much money did Al-Qaeda spend on smart weapon technology last year?

Why are you doing their books for them???


Seems we spent BILLLIONS..... I doubt the spent any...

What is the death toll of innocents..on both sides... since our weapons are so smart.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

What is the death toll of innocents..on both sides... since our weapons are so smart.

Far fewer than there would be if we -- like the enemy -- didn't give a shit about sparing civilians.

. . =(_8^(1)

[sfzombie13 324]

about the thing not being publicized, i saw an article about it in time magazine over two weeks ago.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[billvon 3,116]

>how can one be a heroic freedom fighter when they indiscriminately kill?

Do you consider Paul Tibbets to be a terrorist or a hero? He killed about 120,000 innocent civilians. Does the cause matter, or is it just whether they kill innocents?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Do you consider Paul Tibbets to be a terrorist or a hero? He killed about 120,000 innocent civilians

Oh come on Bill.... they were Japs... those evil godless Nips that made an unprovoked attack on our NAVY at Pearl Harbor.. they were the Buck Tooth, Thick Glasses Screaming godless enemy that wanted to die in droves for their emperer rather than surrender.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>how can one be a heroic freedom fighter when they indiscriminately kill?

Do you consider Paul Tibbets to be a terrorist or a hero? He killed about 120,000 innocent civilians. Does the cause matter, or is it just whether they kill innocents?

I consider him to be a man who just shut the fuck up and did what he was ordered to do.

I also think that it was what was needed at the time, too bad it wasn't 2 hrs after pearl harbor.

[niolosoiale 0]

Quote

Oh come on Bill.... they were Japs... those evil godless Nips that made an unprovoked attack on our NAVY at Pearl Harbor..

For reference, it wasn't exactly unprovoked. When you help the opposing force (supplying weapons/resources), you become a target.

Quote

they were the Buck Tooth, Thick Glasses Screaming godless enemy that wanted to die in droves for their emperer rather than surrender.

A bit of a sweeping generalization (stereotyping aside heh) there. Military men are trained to die for their country, civilians are not. Besides, the only thing more dangerous than a person who kills, is a person who kills and is willing to die for their beliefs while doing so. A formidable enemy indeed.

Either way, I don't disagree as to the effectiveness and necessity of doing what we did... but today's world will no longer allow us to "solve problems" by making glass factories out of the countries we dont like.

In WW2, we had the only gun on the plane... today everyone that's important has a gun too, and not everyone has the same friends.

[billvon 3,116]

>I consider him to be a man who just shut the fuck up and did what he
>was ordered to do.

And if an insurgent just shuts the fuck up and fires a mortar into the Green Zone as ordered - would you consider him to be similar to Tibbets? Or, again, does the cause make the difference?