The themes are similar, but the emphasis is decidedly different between V is for Vendetta and Brazil. In B the government maintains it’s hold through bueraocracy, in V it is through fear. In B the resolution is very bleak for society. You don’t get the impression that anything has changed and our protagonists is basically forced to livei n a dreamworld. In V the ending is more positive as well as ambiguous. Yes, it appears a revolution may be starting up, but in reality who knows how this tale ends?
In all fairness to my good friend, rjung, it wasn’t a non sequitur at all. Why would you even ask if the movie advocates overthrowing the Bush adminsitration if youre not implying a close parallel between the Bush administration and the one portrayed in the movie?
Yeah, um, please compare your post, with rjung’s, and with mine. Instead of rereading before comparison, please compare actual words. Thanks.
I still don’t get it. If you meant “Bush administration” as a stand-in for any generic government, then a simple clarification would sufice. If you didnt mean that, then what did you mean?
…and 1984 and Fahrenheit 451 before that. My understanding of V (being the only one of these films/books I haven’t seen/read) is that unlike all the other fims where Winston Smith, Guy Montag and Sam Lowry revolt against the state through civil disobedience, V brings into question how far it is acceptible to go in order to achieve a higher purpose - what is the price of freedom or stability?
Is Cafe Society part of the Pit now?
You made the Bush Administration comparison. rjung took it way, way further, but it certainly was not a non sequitur, in that it certainly had relevance to your premise. You’re the one who made this partially about Bush, so don’t complain if the thread goes there.
I don’t think the movie itself is anything that special, though it isn’t bad and I think some of the message is worth hearing. My only comment/question would be “when does terrorism (bad!) turn into revolution (good!)?”
Most everyone talking here comes from a country either founded or majorly reshaped via violent revolution, no matter how we sugarcoat it in our history classes, and we mostly view those acts as justified. Yet they were also, to the opposing side, acts of terror. Thousands of prosperous citizens were forced to flee the country during the American Revolution, some were even lynched by mobs, and we probably had one of the tamest fights on the books. So what makes V a terrorist and Sam Adams a revolutionary patriot?
I’m not sure I have a clear answer myself.
I think I do. A terrorist, regardless of politics, is out for blood. I would despise, say, the French Revolutionaries. But they were clearly out for more than violence. There was (despite bloody violence) a coherent goal, method, and theory behind it.
I’m not certain the same can be said about many modern-day terrorists. If Osama bin Laden didn’t have radical Islam, I think he’d still be helping someone blow something up. The precise nature of whom doesn’t matter. He’ll target anyone who gets in his way. It doesn’t matter if they’re other radical islamists, or secular arabs, or whatever. The power and violence are more important than the goal. His allies are those of convenience; his enemies and causes are whomever and whatever happens to be at hand. Witness how he abruptly and out of no-where took up the cause of Palestinians simply because, at the time, it happened to be useful. And then he dropped it again.
V, ultimately, is out for (obviously) Veangance. Whether or not he builds something better is ultimately a trivial matter to him. He just wants to sate his own bloodlust. And because of that, I think he is merely a terrorist.
[spoiler]I think he takes on Eve not because he really thinks she’ll acocmplish anything after he’s gone, but because he wants to assuage his own guilt of bringing murderous anarchy to replace the murderous dictatorship. Ultimately, it’s his way of letting go, so that he can pretend to himself that he was a real revolutionary. But I don’t think it works. He’s just a thug in a mask, and ultimately nothing more.
I think the ending, as such, is a bit of misdirection. It simply doesn’t make sense for society to somehow work things out. V never really built a rebellion movement. There’s noone with a coherent idea of how things ought to be - not V, not Eve. Eve simply has some starry-eyed ideals. That won’t cut it. All that will happen is that society will break down, and eventually some other thug will take over. Maybe that thug will be better than the last, but probably not. But there’s no chance for anyone who isn’t a thug to take over, because neither V nor Eve has the first clue about how to convince people, organize them, or sprread their ideas.[/spoiler]
I didn’t feel the movie was blatantly targeting the Bush administration here. The movie came off to me very much like (as msmith537 pointed out) 1984 and Faranheit 451- general warnings, not pointed commentary. That’s not to say the Wachowski brothers didn’t have Bush at the back of their minds the whole time making this, or that the Bush administration couldn’t take a couple notes here about civil liberties, but I didn’t feel like the movie was aimed to take a chunk out of Bush popularity polls here.
Honestly, the regime I felt like the government was most directly based on was Nazi Germany. Secret medical facilities conducting immoral medical experiments? Scapegoating homosexuals and other religions? Pervasive secret police forces? Rampant government censorship? And I’m sorry, but am I the only one that made the connection between Sutler and Hitler?
To me, the movie was more about the nature of vengeance and the way such singleminded hatred can change someone. There’s a reason all those Count of Monte Cristo references are there. V is Edmond Dantes- there’s a reason Eve says that!
I agree with your post. This first part reminded me of something. In the movie, he said that the person he was had died in the dentention facility, and the monster he had become had been created. The violent acts he commited were just another tragedy brought on by the state of affairs.
Well, they’re quite different because each has a different type of story. Each is a very different experience.
Well, there’s no certainty that the people will actually make things better, but he’s giving them a chance. Or at least he’s trying to. I also think his goals aren’t entirely personal. They may not be heroic, but bringing down the government is part of his vengeance, he wants to tear it down so the things they did can’t be repeated. Remember that part of his motivation is from Valerie’s story; it’s not completely selfish.
I kind of felt the opposite- I thought it was VERY pointed. Much more so than the comic. But it’s not just specifically Bush, he’s only a part of it.
This is a not sequitur in that it purports to “agree” with me while saying something I absolutely never said.
When the actual words are there, above, to read, it’s really infuriating to have to restate them and refute nonsensical strawmen word for word. The posts are still in place, reread on your own. I don’t have to defend something I never said. (Frankly, I consider “I never said that” to be a personal godwin; if I have to point out that the original post is still there to be read, what’s the point of even bothering?)
I don’t see why you’re so adverse to clarifying stuff for people. I can’t say for sure, but rjung’s post doesn’t appear to be so much of a non-sequiter as it is him saying that the movie doesn’t advocate a violent overthrow of the Bush administration because it’s not the administration that’s overthrown in the movie. And then John Mace seems to wonder why you mention Bush if you’re not comparing the governments.
As I read this, you are thinking in general terms but decided to use the Bush administration as an example, and it’s getting people all confused, me included, because this is only a guess.
Fine. I feel like a baited retard. I never said they were “indistinguishable.” Drawing metaphorical parallels in no way equals “indistinguishable.”
Did I really have to point that out, that his sarcastic suggestion that I had claimed that the satirically extrapolated jackbooted totalitarian fascist government was indistinguishable from the Bush in 2006 was a straw man?
I actually to engage and acknowledge this straw man before this discussion can take place?
What. The fuck. Ever.
See, thing is, to avoid this kind of unjustified hijack, and keep my blood pressure down, and with the CONSTANT criticism from ever so helpful people, I try to limit myself to responding to posts that can be engaged intelligently and productively. If someone starts off by twisting my words, I don’t have time for them. If my first response is gonna be “that’s not what I said,” then I make an effort to just move on and mine the thread for good-faith posters who are actually interested in an intelligent exchange. I apologize for venting my frustration in the above post, but that’s exactly what I was trying to avoid. Since rjung was not interested in responding to what I actually said, I should have just ignored him completely. By pointing out that it was a non sequitur, I spawned a hijack, and my attempts not to engage it any further were somehow adding fuel to the fire. I guess I thought that if I pointed out to rjung that his mischaracterization of what I’d said was so “huh?” as to be a total non sequitur, he’d go back and read it again and respond to what I actually said. I thought I’d give him one more chance to engage in good faith.
Lesson learned.
And the irony drips.
I tried.
I think that V will have about as much impact in terms of the number of buildings being blown up as Fight Club did. It will have about as much impact in terms of the number of masked avengers as Batman did. It will have about as much impact in terms of the number of knife wielding geniuses as Silence of the Lambs did. It will have about as much impact as, well, you get the picture.
If someone is unhinged enough to take a movie as their inspiration for murder and mayhem, then the movie that they happened to watch was the least of the triggers in that situation. And if they’re not that wacked out, then a movie won’t be anything other than entertainment.
Well, I gave my view. To tell you the truth, I just don’t see V’s little “gift” as a real chance. Revolution don’t happen because people who were scared out of their socks abruptly don’t have the fear anymopre. Real change happens when they fight on despite that, with a clear goal. The problem is, V got it backwards. He needed to start his little revolt before blowing away the government. That comes at the middle, or even the end.
His revolution, upon the collapse of the government, amounts to… Eve. One shaved Natalie Portman. And it’s not like he actually exterminated the whole government. There’s going to be generals and bureaucrats and other jreks out there.
Of course, it may be that I’m overlooking the very british nature of the comic. That’s possibly critical to V’s plan; Brits being funny about government. But I’m not britsh and I won’t comment on how that might affect things.
mmm…shaved Natalie Portman…
It’s a Nazi building. Of course there’s nothing wrong with suggesting people should blow it up. If the Bush administration turned into that, absolutely people should stop at nothing to bring the revolution. Are they suggesting that’s the situation right now? “Short answer yes with an if, long answer no, with a but.” But if you wish to read the film as a hyperbolic parable, then surely the blowy up part is also an exaggeration?
I absolutely agree with all of this. And my OP was never meant to suggest any kind of censorship (not that you’ve said otherwise).
But, I, as an artist, think I would think twice before I, personally, made art that might be used–misused–as a catalyst for an “evil” act. Again, I would not forbid artists from doing this, but I would ask them to take the personal responsibility to consider it very carefully.
That’s in general; on principle; not necessarily about this movie. I still haven’t made up my mind about this movie.
In this case, I’m not suggesting that this movie is going to push a John Hinckley over the edge. I recognize that any individual who takes this movie as a call to action and blows up a non-metaphorical building is an crazy as Charles Manson. I guess I’m just wondering if it’s a positive addition to the general ongoing cultural discussion about current policies and possible futures, or a negative contribution. I mean, to the extent that the extrapolation hyperbolizes one possible future, is it just feeding paranoia and, well, despair? And putting a shiny, eversmiling face on the idea of a violent? Is it advocating war as a response to war?
Ghandi and MLKing are held in pretty high esteem for their philosophies. This movie is 180° non-Ghandian. Now, I enjoyed it as kind of an indulgence of my inner 9-year-old; wouldn’t it be great if we could fix things just by smashing stuff instead of putting the effort into working things out. This movie, of course, posits a situation that’s gotten beyond the point of working things out; smashing’s all that’s left.
That’s the hyperbole: we’re not there yet. I guess what makes me nervous about V4V (Can you tell I’m just typing aloud?) is that it indulges that lazy despair that I, personally, try to fight against; that “fuck it, it’s just gonna get worse, until there won’t be any way to fix it.” Naively optimistic as this may be, I think our system has enough variables and checks and balances that I don’t really think it will ever get to the point portrayed in V4V. I guess I’m just hoping more people will see this movie from that perspective: almost as a satire of the message of today’s fringe doomsayers, rather than a dead serious call to arms.