# V for Vendetta



## shesulsa (Mar 19, 2006)

Saw this tonight. Intriguing.  Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy) plays V and there's lots of jugular spray and verbose renderings.

It also plays on political standings of today - lots of parallels served up steaming hot and fresh.

Anyone else see this yet?


----------



## Makalakumu (Mar 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Saw this tonight. Intriguing. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy) plays V and there's lots of jugular spray and verbose renderings.
> 
> It also plays on political standings of today - lots of parallels served up steaming hot and fresh.
> 
> Anyone else see this yet?


 
I haven't yet, but I've heard there is a fair bit of moral relativism regarding terrorism.  Apparently, in this movie, the "terrorists" are the good guys...

But, as I say, I haven't seen the movie.  I only heard about it on the radio.


----------



## ed-swckf (Mar 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Saw this tonight. Intriguing. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy) plays V and there's lots of jugular spray and verbose renderings.
> 
> It also plays on political standings of today - lots of parallels served up steaming hot and fresh.
> 
> Anyone else see this yet?


 
No but i've read the comics over a few times since i was young.  I would like to see it even if moore is dead set against the idea of the film, i've always loved moores work i think its great.


----------



## ed-swckf (Mar 19, 2006)

http://news.independent.co.uk/people/profiles/article352247.ece

For anyone interested on moores side of things


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 19, 2006)

If this movie had come out while Bill Clinton was president, the very people condemning it as glorifying terrorism would be talking about how it's an important message about fighting tyranny.


----------



## Cthulhu (Mar 19, 2006)

I'm a fan of Moore's work and have read the comics.  I liked both the movie and the comic.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 19, 2006)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I haven't yet, but I've heard there is a fair bit of moral relativism regarding terrorism.  Apparently, in this movie, the "terrorists" are the good guys...
> 
> But, as I say, I haven't seen the movie.  I only heard about it on the radio.


V is called a terrorist by the Chancellor, yet he fights oppression of the British people living under police state.  Gays and political activists are abducted, convicted and executed - you know - like gays, political activists and Jews were before.  

This film opens up a completely new coversation on terrorism.  Was the Boston Tea Party and act of terrorism? If so, that makes us a terrorist nation.  Was the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Natives on this land and act of biological terrorism?  If so, that also makes us a terrorist nation.

Where EXACTLY does terrorism meet revolution? And what EXACTLY is the difference?

The difference is the cause/motivation ... or is it?


----------



## Cryozombie (Mar 19, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Where EXACTLY does terrorism meet revolution? And what EXACTLY is the difference?
> 
> The difference is the cause/motivation ... or is it?



Personally, I see one as an act carried out against a "governing body" and its agents, and the other as being carried out against the population at large.

We have done our share of both as a nation, Im sorry to say.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Mar 19, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> If this movie had come out while Bill Clinton was president, the very people condemning it as glorifying terrorism would be talking about how it's an important message about fighting tyranny.


 
Great point.


----------



## Odin (Mar 20, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> V is called a terrorist by the Chancellor, yet he fights oppression of the British people living under police state. Gays and political activists are abducted, convicted and executed - you know - like gays, political activists and Jews were before.
> 
> This film opens up a completely new coversation on terrorism. Was the Boston Tea Party and act of terrorism? If so, that makes us a terrorist nation. Was the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Natives on this land and act of biological terrorism? If so, that also makes us a terrorist nation.
> 
> ...


 

I totally agree,ask the people of iraq whos homes were destroyed by allied bombs if they feel they are victims of terrorism.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

Let's not go that far into false moral equivalency.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Let's not go that far into false moral equivalency.


But Phil, isn't it all about perspective?  Isn't that what a Spin Doctor does?  That's what it's all about, isn't it? Feeding the people a particular perspective to encourage support behind this or approval of that?

And have you seen the movie?


----------



## JamesYazell (Mar 20, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> V is called a terrorist by the Chancellor, yet he fights oppression of the British people living under police state. Gays and political activists are abducted, convicted and executed - you know - like gays, political activists and Jews were before.
> 
> This film opens up a completely new coversation on terrorism. Was the Boston Tea Party and act of terrorism? If so, that makes us a terrorist nation. Was the giving of blankets infected with small pox to the Natives on this land and act of biological terrorism? If so, that also makes us a terrorist nation.
> 
> ...


 
These thigns are not terrorism. Terrorism is attacking a stronger entity to force it to retaliate. In doing so you make this stronger entity attack your people and make it appear to be a bad guy. You then use this to recruit more of your people to fight this strogner entity.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

> But Phil, isn't it all about perspective? Isn't that what a Spin Doctor does? That's what it's all about, isn't it? Feeding the people a particular perspective to encourage support behind this or approval of that?
> 
> And have you seen the movie?



No, it's not all about perspective.

Terrorists deliberately target innocent human beings for the purpose of creating fear and terror in order to use it as political leverage.  They go out of their way to hurt people who can do them no harm; they target these people almost exclusively.  

In waging war, military forces target infrastructure, military equipment, and other targets of _military value_ in order to accomplish any number of military goals.  Innocent people are quite often killed in the process, yes, but their deaths are not the _primary goal_.

When a bomb intended for a power plant falls on a school instead, that's not an act of terrorism -- it's a sad fact of war, which is why the decision to wage war should never be taken lightly.

When a bomb strapped to a human being is carried into a shopping mall or onto a school bus, _that's an act of murderous barbarism regardless of "perspective."

Right and wrong do exist.  Morality is not relative.  Perspective does alter the public relations surrounding an act, but the morality of that act remains what it is regardless of spin and regardless of perspective.  

If I overthrow a tyrannical government, perspective and spin will determine who the history books record my actions.  That does not change whether my act was morally justified.  Either my government was tyrannical and should have been overthrown, or it was not and should not have been.

I have not seen V for Vendetta, but I've read the novelization of the screenplay and I've read the graphic novel on which both are based._


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

*Reality, Force, Terrorism, and Relativism*


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, it's not all about perspective.
> 
> Terrorists deliberately target innocent human beings for the purpose of creating fear and terror in order to use it as political leverage.  They go out of their way to hurt people who can do them no harm; they target these people almost exclusively.
> 
> ...


_

You essentially have made my point for me.  The British government in this particular story IS tyrannical and the acts of blowing up the two buildings are grandiose statements of revolution, yet they are spun by the Chancellor as terrorist acts.  The bombing and kidnapping of the people at the television station all stirred the people to action.

So you tell me, Phil.  According to your statement above, if you overthrow a tyrannical government, you're a hero, but if you bomb a facility then you're a terrorist. Which, would you say, is V?_


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

> You essentially have made my point for me. The British government in this particular story IS tyrannical and the acts of blowing up the two buildings are grandiose statements of revolution, yet they are spun by the Chancellor as terrorist acts. The bombing and kidnapping of the people at the television station all stirred the people to action.


 
Yes, and Saddam Hussein spun his own actions as necessary when he was, in fact, a murderous dictator.  The fact that someone "spins" something doesn't change its essential moral character.  There is a right way to interpret it and there is a wrong way to interpret it.  Let me go ahead and prove Godwin's Law yet again; the Nazi propaganda machine spun its actions in many ways, but this did not mean their regime was NOT, objectively, an evil dictatorship.



> So you tell me, Phil. According to your statement above, if you overthrow a tyrannical government, you're a hero, but if you bomb a facility then you're a terrorist. Which, would you say, is V?


 
Setting a bomb is an act without moral value until we place it in context.  Why is the bomb there?  Whom will be the victims?  What will the bombing accomplish?  If placed underneath a Soviet invader's tank in _Red Dawn_, the bombing is part of a guerilla freedom campaign.  If placed on the chest of a teenage Muslim girl who walks onto a schoolbus full of Jews and blows herself up, the bombing is clearly and objectively an act of terrorism and murder.

In _V for Vendetta_, the government is clearly tyrannical and clearly evil; it has rounded up and executed homosexuals in camps, conducted horrifying medical experiments on political prisoners, and abuses its power (the attempted rape by the government's stormtroopers, the Fingermen) with great regularity.  These actions are not a matter of perspective; they are objectively evil because they violate natural legal principles of individual sovereignty and individual rights.

"V" is clearly waging a righteous war against this tyranny in the graphic novel by Alan Moore -- and Moore, never particularly subtle, does not even gift his fictional English government (based on his interpretation of the evils of the Thatcher administration, at the time of the graphic novel's writing) with any redeeming qualities.  The story would be more realistic and more intriguing if the fascist regime actually had done some good for the country, in order to create more of a moral dilemma.  As it is, the government is so evil that no moral question is possible.  No one reading it would consider V anything but a freedom fighter, no matter how the evil government attempts to spin its actions.

Now, if V, in order to pursue his vengeance and his war, was waging a campaign wherein he recruited children to wear bombs into public places and blow up passers-by, he'd be a terrorist rather than a freedom fighter.  In the novel and in the graphic novel, his targets are symbols of the government (and functionaries within that government, including people who were responsible for his torture and experimentation at the hands of that regime).  He blows up the Old Bailey and Parliament in the movie, if I remember correctly; these are clearly government targets rather than civilian homes or areas.  

His victims murder are so evil as to be cartoonish -- the Voice of London, himself in charge of the concentration camp in which V was held; the female doctor who conducted the experimentation; a priest who is a pedophile rapist; the leader of the fascist regime himself.  Who could dispute such "victims" or their choosing?  There is no moral choice here and the viewer is free to enjoy this tale of revenge and freedom fighting without having to worry that he or she is truly condoning terrorism.  Throw in some more "collateral damage," make some of V's victims more "innocent" or give them some redeeming qualities (or plausible rationalizations for their actions) and you would make the whole thing more morally difficult.

Remember, I started out _defending_ V as a freedom fighter.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 20, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> Remember, I started out _defending_ V as a freedom fighter.



Uhh ... you did??  Where??


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 20, 2006)

When I said that if this movie had come out during the Clinton Administration, the very people decrying it as glorifying terrorism would be speaking of its pro-freedom message.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 21, 2006)

Well, the few points about America really hit hard considering the current climate.  They come right out and say America's war just dragged on an on and lead to the problems in the world.  I took this to be a different war than the current Civil War in America, and one we all have in our minds currently.

And the whole self-designed bioweapon turning America into the world's largest Leper colony was also a good bit.

The future UK presented in the movie pretty terrible, but the America presented is a smoking pit of hell.

AND, I have to honestly say that with the current political climate in America, I can see how we would get there from here.

During Clinton's administration, everybody would have seen that as complete fiction.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

No, they wouldn't have.  Only left-leaning ideologues think that.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 21, 2006)

Phil Elmore said:
			
		

> No, they wouldn't have. Only left-leaning ideologues think that.


 
You think more than 2% of the population could have guessed we would have been involved in a war within the next few years, or been so deeply divided as we are now?  You think many people on the right thought civil war was at all possible by 2015?  You think they do now?

Most people in America completely slept through Serbia and all the rest of the amazing **** that happened in Clinton's administration, and felt so safe as to sit and examine their navels while the rest of the world kept moving.

All of America's heads were quite far in the clouds, and if it wasn't completely off-topic and I thought it at all worth my time, I'd argue that the Right was and continues to be further tended towards flights of megalomanic fancy.  But, I'd rather not be a prick.


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

I won't mention that I think that's wishful thinking, then.


----------



## rutherford (Mar 21, 2006)

Awesome.  

Then lets talk about the source material. 

What did you think about Evey's capture and how does this impact the V as a Freedom Fighter / Terrorist discussion?


----------



## Phil Elmore (Mar 21, 2006)

It is one of the least sympathetic actions the character takes -- essentially torturing someone "for her own good."  It reminds the viewer (or the reader) that he's not entirely stable.  The fact that she _does_ embrace it is the only thing that redeems the V character for doing it.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 21, 2006)

Well for what it's worth the film is doing well at the box office which has the moguls in hollywood grinning like chestershire cats... see this story http://entertainment.tv.yahoo.com/entnews/eo/20060320/114290976000.html


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 21, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Saw this tonight. Intriguing. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy) plays V and there's lots of jugular spray and verbose renderings.
> It also plays on political standings of today - lots of parallels served up steaming hot and fresh.
> Anyone else see this yet?


 
This was a wonderfully refreshing movie. When it came to a close, I sat in my seat, just sort of dazed. I think it is quite probably the best movie I have seen since Star Trek - Insurrection.

Often, masked characters portray no emotion, no depth. V was able, through the mask, to be a real character; if somewhat enigmatic.

I was not a fan of the Matrix films. And, I actually had very little desire to see this movie .... especially after seeing Queen Amidala on John Stewart's program last week. Mr. Stewart talked with Natalie Portman about being tortured in the film. ... If I want to see torture on the screen, I always turn to Mel Gibson.

Again, I found the film to be very powerful. I may see it again tonight. And, my wife and I may go see it on an IMAX screen this weekend.


----------



## MA-Caver (Mar 21, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Often, masked characters portray no emotion, no depth. V was able, through the mask, to be a real character; if somewhat enigmatic.


Acting, in-of-itself is difficult to do. Emoting what a particular character is experiencing, particularly if the character's personality is far removed from your own.
Being able to enact a character while wearing a mask and pulling it off successfully (as this film's box office reciepts are testifying) is a testament to the actor's ability to pull something like that off.


----------



## michaeledward (Mar 25, 2006)

I just saw the film a second time this afternoon .. in IMAX.

The first half hour of the film is *much* better, and much more enjoyable the second time around. There are may more pieces of foreshadowing and exposition that can be picked up upon with a second viewing. 

While the second and third acts of the film don't carry as much punch the second time through, they remain enjoyable. Natalie Portman's performance is even more noticably outstanding.

In the film, there is an apparent relationship hinted at between V and Detrich. Does anyone have any further ideas on this?


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Apr 7, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Saw this tonight. Intriguing. Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix trilogy) plays V and there's lots of jugular spray and verbose renderings.
> 
> It also plays on political standings of today - lots of parallels served up steaming hot and fresh.
> 
> Anyone else see this yet?


 
I just saw this tonight. What a movie! Even without the political connotations, it was a great film, IMO. Two thumbs up, way up!

BTW, Natalie Portman has never been more beautiful...
artyon:


----------



## shesulsa (Apr 7, 2006)

Even without all that hair, she is still beautiful, isn't she?  Though my initial reaction was "ohmigod, it's Sinead O'Connor".

The acting ability of Hugo Weaving really shines through on this film, I think.  To convey the multi-faceted V without ever revealing his face takes some skill, no doubt linked with his vocal ability which is incredible.


----------



## elder999 (Apr 7, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> The acting ability of Hugo Weaving really shines through on this film, I think. To convey the multi-faceted V without ever revealing his face takes some skill, no doubt linked with his vocal ability which is incredible.


 
Yeah-neat that you picked up on that: he primarily considers himself a _stage_ actor who pays the bills with movies.He was still at his best in  Priscilla, Queen of the Desert, though....:lol:


----------

