One thing I didn’t mention above: the whole time I was watching this movie, I was thinking, in regards to the masked man, “This is how muslim-extremist terrorists see the world. That they are so right that violence is justified.” Just because I happen to agree with V shouldn’t mean that my aversion to terrorist tactics should be suspended, does it? “Terrorism is bad, unless I personally agree with the terrorists” isn’t the way I want to think.
To that extent, that this movie made me empathize with a terrorist to a degree, it was an interesting exercise. But still, you know?
One of the primary reasons I think the movie is less interesting than the graphic novel is that, in the novel, V is an anarchist. He doesn’t really care what comes afterwards; destruction of the fascist regime is the point. Agree or disagree with him, at least you know where he’s coming from.
By changing him into more of a revolutionary, the movie softens and blunts him and makes him less interesting (to me, of course). I’m supposed to like him, ultimately, where in the book that’s not necessarily so. It may seem like a small change, but it really alters the story’s meaning.
Anyway, do I think the movie advocates overthrowing the Bush administration? No. I think the movie advocates thinking for yourself and stop letting fear dictate your political decisions. It also advocates grooving on action sequences.
I’d say that sometimes, violence is justified. A movie could have been made that raises exactly the same questions by focusing on the actions of the French resistance during WWII, except that Nazis are such video-game villains at this point that most people would never pause to question the resistance’s actions or draw the parrallels suggested by this movie. But if you’re going to ignore goals and motives and focus solely on actions, can you really excuse the La Resistance while condeming Al Qaeda?
Gandhi and MLK are justly revered, but their tactics only worked in very specialized circumstances, in which they were facing a democratic government with a desire to perceive itself as fair and just. Either could easily have been crushed, but doing so would have been monstrous, and the governments they were opposing did not want to see themselves as monsters. Non-violent resistance would not have worked against the Nazis, for example, or Joe Stalin. Against such a state, violence is not only justified, but vitally necessary.
While I do comprehend the need for violence, that does not mean that terrorism is justified. Terrorists do not care about their side or their mn, or even their cause; they care only about victory. Osama bin Laden doesn’t strap on a suicide vest and attack anyone. He just wants to win, and he’ll make anyone else pay any price to do it. But his cause is power; his means are islamic fundamentalism and violence.
Applies to any form of entertainment, too. Who the hell knows why Catcher in the Rye communicated what it did to Mark David Chapman.
You could make an argument that The Turner Diaries provided some “inspiration” to Timothy McVeigh, but I don’t think it really counts. Both the author and McVeigh were already intimately involved with an existing ideological group with violent tendencies. To say that The Turner Diaries prompted the attacks is making the tail wag the dog, it’s just symptomatic of an existing pathology.
It would be like pointing to Scientologists who watched or read Battlefield Earth and saying that it made them argue against psychiatric treatment. The movie didn’t effect their beliefs or actions a bit, and anyone who thinks it’s effective propaganda for people who aren’t already inclined to accept its premises is delusional – and even Scientologists who honestly believe that psychiatric professionals are enemies of mankind are extremely unlikely to literalize the metaphor of the book/film and start a violent resistance.
I don’t think that Americans in general are stupider than Scientologists, so I would have to say, no, V for Vendetta is not irresponsible.
Hell, the U.S. constitution advocates the violent overthrow of the government if it becomes an organ of repression. That’s hardly irresponsible. The government of V doesn’t stand in for the governments of 2006 – it’s a projection of a government that’s only remotely possible if the electorate is completely complacent as the situation rapidly becomes more and more dystopian for a couple of decades.
Right. Those are all the conflicting thoughts I was having. Still, we have violence we agree with (the American Revolution) and we have Iraqi insurgents and Al Qaeda (who no doubt consider themselves equally justified).
The whole thing depressingly suggests that, in the end, might makes right, and righteousness is ultimately irrelevant.
The mere fact that someone consuiders himself my moral superior does not make him so.
Both Al Qaeda and Sunni insurgents (who are getting thinner, these days) fight for cruelty, repression, and autocracy. They awnt to dominate and rule everyone and force them to obey and live as they (the terrorists) allow.
The founders fought against tyranny as they saw it; they fought even more to be considered the equal of other men, not to be called greater. They fought to be allowed to live as they pleased, and to not be ruled without their consent. It was, in fact, only the strange and erratic character of King George II and his temporary Parliamentary cronies which resulted in American independance.
Well, y’know, why not? I certainly don’t advocate blowing up buildings, let alone people. However. People who think the ends either justify or fail to justify the means are living in a fairyland. Some ends justify some means that aren’t justified by other ends; the more important the goal, the more sacrifice it’s worth – even other peoples’. V’s ends (in the movie anyway) are better than bin Laden’s ends. Ergo, there are things V can do that are morally acceptable for which bin Laden would be justly censured. And while I’m not living in one, like Miller says, there are societies in which violent insurrection is the morally appropriate stance.
Of course, this raises the question of whose ends are more legitimate and why mine are better than yours or hers. That’s a horse of a different color but, at a minimum, I submit that moral values developed through reason and empathy are better than moral values developed through what your dad told you god says.
No, I get that. It’s up to each of us to make that kind of moral decision ourselves, as to when is force justified. Only, it’s never justified–except when it is. I just kinda felt a little–not a lot–like V4V was celebrating it, rather than mourning it.
It’s like, in a war movie, if all you show is the bad guy, the Hitler, and then the US response, well duh, war is justified. But if you pull back and show the larger context–if you include the very real and very human origins of Hitler and his power, rather than show him as a simple evil to be vanquished, well then overall war is self destructive and unnecessary. V4V is the former; show the bad guy, celebrate his overthrow. My personal favorite war movies are those that show the larger context: the unjustifiable nature of war IN THE FIRST PLACE, not just the justified response. And the evil consequences, not just victory then credits roll.
I agree that this is a very important distinction between people who use violence towards an evil end, and people who use violence towards a noble or humanistic end, but I’m not sure I agree that it’s intrinsic to the word “terrorist,” or that it’s necessarily descriptive of all terrorists or terrorist organizations. Osama bin Laden isn’t strapping on a C-4 cumberbund, but he’s got lots of lackeys who will, and those guys are still terrorists, and are willing to sacrifice themselves for what they perceive to be the greater “good.” Part of what the movie is questioning is what the word “terrorist” means in the first place. The French resistance, for example, is not considered a terrorist organization today only because they ended up on the side that won. Whatever society rises up in the world of the film after the fall of the Sutler regime will most likely not see V as a terrorist, either. He’ll be the revolutionary hero who overthrew the evil dictatorship. That’s the whole point of the Guy Fawkes imagery, I think. James I was pretty much a poster child for why monarchies are a bad idea. Had the gunpowder plot been succesful, Fawkes migh have been remembered as a hero who killed a terrible tyrant*. Instead, for the last few centuries, his name has been synonymous with betrayal and treachery.
*Or maybe not. History was not too kind to Oliver Cromwell, either.
I think we’ve reached a point where a mod should move this thread to GD. I mean, we’re discussing politics, philosophy and ethics, not the movie itself.
Why don’t we let a mod determine that? If you’re here to discuss issues unrelated to V4V, BG, I’d say that’s your lookout. My last post, four posts above yours, is still talking about the movie. If you want to start a GD thread on related issues, please feel free.
True, but Thomas Jefferson did say, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” That’s pretty close to advocating the violent overthrow of the government if it becomes an organ of repression.
Anyway, as we push this thread further into GD territory, I was wondering if in the movie, when V blows up the buildings, does he do it when they are mostly empty or–like Timothy McVeigh and Al Quaeda–wait until they are most likely to be filled up so he can maximize the body count? If it’s the former, one could more easily justify V’s destructive actions since they are aimed exclusively at the buildings which have become symbols and tools of a corrupt and tyrannical regime (like, for example, the Storming of the Bastille).
Ah, but therein lies the seduction. The building does not “become” a symbol; it does not transmogrify to become a symbol instead of a building. It may acquire symbolic significance, but it’s still a building. And even if he made sure it was empty, such a huge building, not really under his control, how could he be sure? Don’t you watch NYPD Blue, man? Arsonists are always goin down for murder because they THOUGHT the building was empty. Still murder. OK, so splitting hairs. Still, my point is, that on the screen, it’s a symbol. In real life, its a building. Don’t you think that ObL thought of the World Trade Center as a “symbol”?
I must assume both Parliament and the Old Bailey were only minimally occupied when V blew them up, as both were done during the night and Parliament with a year’s warning of the attack. It could be that Sutler had the place packed full of figurehead MPs, but it doesn’t seem killing them was the intent.
Sure, it’s still murder, that’s not the point. The question is, if you accept that the circumstances justify a violent remedy, were they legitimate targets for V? The Old Bailey is a crown court. This would have been the building where political criminals were prosecuted and sentenced to death, and likely had a great deal of records stored there, as well. In an effort to overthrow an oppressive government through guerilla tactics, this is absolutely a valid target, and there’s a very real question about wether someone working in that building in any capacity can legitimatly be considered an innocent bystander.
Parliament, he gave enough advance warning that anyone still in there that day has only themselves to blame.