Apos, I disagree pretty much categorically with your thoughts on 9/11 vs the atomic attacks (or firebombing attacks) during WWII, but I think we are drifting into hijack territory here so I’ll just drop it. I’ve stated my position in GD in the various threads on this topic in the past but you and I both know we’ll never agree on things.
Well, the book certainly talks about the BRITISH getting rid of (to paraphrase) ‘homosexuals, muslims and other degenerates’, but doesn’t really go into what the US is doing…at least not to the point I am in the story. Also, it seems to me from reading anyway, that its hard to trust what the British government IS saying about the US since its a lot of heavy handed propaganda (basically saying, to paraphrase again, that we are the asshole of the world). I get the impression that the comments about the US, the war and the after math might not be wholey accurate…but perhaps this is the wrong impression.
As I said, I haven’t seen the film so can’t speak to that. Obviously if its intended to be a parody/hyperbolic portrayal of the Bush administration then I understand the OP much better.
It’s not that much different in the film, either, but the portrayal of the US by the UK government isn’t really central to the plot in any significant way. To be clear, it’s the UK that’s outlawed the Koran and carried out widespread ethnic cleansing. The only mention of the US political situation (again, through UK propaganda channels) is of a civil war, and indications that the US does not have as advanced anti-biological technology as the UK. Early in the film, its mentioned that the US has sent several tankers full of grain and other foodstuffs, hoping to trade them for medicine, with no success. There’s no mention of the US eliminating its own minorities, but the UK government’s antipathy towards the US would seem to indicate that we’ve not become quite as debased as they have.
Aside from one poster in the background of a room filled with illegal, “subversive” propaganda, there’s no direct mention of Bush or the current US administration at all. The film is in no sense a parody of the Bush government. Story-wise, it’s very narrowly focused on what’s happening in England. But then, so is 1984, but that doesn’t stop people from making Orwellian comparisons with various American administrations over the years. The film isn’t about America in any literal sense, but its message is universal, and in the context of a bunch of Americans watching a film made by other Americans while sitting in a theater in America… well, the parrallels are pretty self-evident.
It’s been a while since I read the book, but I imagine reading it back in the '80s would have presented many of the same sorts of parrallels with the Reagan administration.
This is in the book as well…its in an early radio broadcast. However neither of the people in the book listening to the broadcast even sure if there IS a ship, let alone if the reasons for the ship being there are as given. In the book the radio commentator is trying to rile up the populace to an anti-Boston Tea Party type thing…i.e. go down and dump the grain and tobacco into the river.
Ok…this seems to be pretty close to the book then.
V is a vigilante and an anarchist in the book, but it’s not his goal to kill innocent people, and I don’t think he ever does so purposely. All the people that die as a result of his actions are war criminals or people who work in the oppressive branches of the government. Certainly he could have killed a lot more people than he did if that was his intention. Mostly, he wanted to overthrow the government and let the chips fall where they may.
I have a question, as someone who has read the book but not yet seen the movie. In the book, V blows up the Parliament building (no longer used, presumably, since The Leader took over), and the statue of Justice, but doesn’t seem to cause high, if any, casualties from his destruction. When he blows up the Tower, he does kill an agent, but only one death is mentioned. Mostly he wanted to disable the media when he did that. I thought of his Guy Fawkesian actions as being more symbolic than murderous ala Timothy McVeigh. The only people he goes out of his way to kill were the ones who worked in the concentration camp where he was tortured. Is it the same in the movie?
Is this the line between terrorism and revolution? V’s strikes in the book are targeted and his goal is to end a government that is openly fascist and committing atrocities on a Holocaust scale. Seemingly, he achieves his goal with a minimum of bloodshed. Wondering how it was depicted in the movie.
Mostly. The movie got rid of a lot of the party infighting that tore apart the Sutler regime in the comic, basically distilling it down to playing MacCready against Sutler, convincing the former that he has to strike first before Sutler moves against him. At the end, MacCready executes Sutler in the Underground, then he and a half dozen or so of his secret police are killed by V. Earlier in the film, when V takes over the television station, he has to kill another five or so police officers to escape. He may also have killed one of the Fingermen who accost Evie at the beginning, but that’s not entirely clear. And, of course, the commandant, doctor, priest, and other assorted folks from the Larkhill concentration camp. That’s it, unless there was anyone in the Parliament building or the Old Bailey when they went “Boom.”
As an aside, I assume that Sutler was using Parliament for something important, otherwise it wouldn’t really be a useful target. From the importance V puts on it, it’s a very important symbol of the Sutler regime. If it had been standing empty since he took over, it would more likely be a symbol of the previous, non-fascist government, and as such, a poor target for V.
I thought it was symbolic, like blowing up the statue of Justice. Not that his goal was to kill people or hurt anyone, just to do away with these structures that were once so meaningful and now were perverted or destroyed. Remember V’s speech about Justice? He definitely blew her up out of rage at the loss of what she used to stand for.
In the movie, it’s not just the statue of justice, but the entire Old Bailey, which is a crown court. In this future, this would almost certainly have been where all the political trials were held, and probably the location of quite a few criminal records for political dissidents. The film, at least, is presenting his actions as much more concrete revolutionary acts, than simple symbolism. Regardless, as far as Parliament goes, he did give a year’s warning and detonate it late at night, so either way, there was almost certainly no one inside when it blew. Wether or not it was in use is not really germane to the question of how many people he killed.
Disreguarding the sheer stupidity that we ‘carpet bomb’(ed) Baghdad ( :rolleyes: ) we didn’t deliberately target civilians in our ‘little tussle in Viet Nam’…not the way we did during WWII. When we firebombed cities in Germany and Japan we did so with the full intention of killing civilians. In Viet Nam we mostly bombed military targets to deliberately avoid as many civilian casualties as we could given the technology of the time. Big difference.
Really though this is hijacking the thread. If you guys want to discuss this then start another thread in GD and I’ll be happy to talk about it. You are going to need some cites though for claims like the carpet bombing of Baghdad…or at least some minimal understand of what ‘carpet bombing’ IS.
empathizing with terrorists is possible. i understand WHY the terrorists do what they do. i certainly don’t advocate what they do, but i understand why.
we wanna start going into how terrorists/revolutionaries aren’t born, they’re made?
Which is it then: we didn’t do it, or we didn’t do it like we did in WWII? The original claim was that the US hasn’t “targetted civilians for some time”, not that they haven’t targetted civilians, like they did in WWII, for some time.
I’m reminded of the My Lai Massacre…
So the “big difference” is the exact number of casualties?
With the technology of the time we did the best we could. Accidents happened though. Why is that so hard to understand? Tell you what. Do you have a cite that the US deliberately bombed civilian targets during the Viet Nam war with the intent of killing civilians? If so, trot it out since you seem incapable of letting go of this…despite the fact its hijacking the thread.
I was unaware that we used bombers in this incident. Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasnt it a rogue platoon that was going against official orders…and was later prosecuted? How does this in any way, shape or form meet the criteria you are putting forth that the US (presumably the US GOVERNMENT) deliberately targetted civilians in Viet Nam?
Um…no. The ‘big difference’ seems to be a distinct lack of comprehension on your part, coupled with an obviously rather large chip on your shoulder. If you wish to discuss this further, as I’ve said before, feel free to start a thread on it in GD…and I’m at your disposal.
::: Moderator shakes head in confusion :::
I thought this was a thread about “V for Vendetta.” A thread can certainly go a bit in a tangential direction, but then needs to get back to basics. So, if you want to discuss “V for Vendetta” then please continue. If you want to discuss My Lai, al Quada, WWII Dresden, or whatever, please start a different thread.
Lol! No need for that Jonathan. Just tell me where I can buy a copy in New Mexico and I’ll track one down. I have to say though that the story, at least to this point, isn’t all THAT bad (I’m currently at V tracking down the Bishop). Oh, its been done before and I certainly recognize where its all going, but its not the worst book I’ve ever read.
