Very, very few terrorists destroy without a purpose. Even those who rammed the planes into the WTC and run bombs into busses in Tel Aviv. It's all in order to liberate their people (in this case, globally, the Muslim world) from an overbearing opressive regime. It was used as a symbol, to strike fear into the heart of that oprressive regime.


I disagree. I think V is definately a reflection of "contemporary terrorists". It's all a matter of perspective. One man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist.

It still says absolutely nothing (in my opinion) about peace.

andaroo, i think this argument deals with the eye of the beholder.


personally, i cannot relate V to other contemporary terrorists because the regime V is trying to topple is one we have not seen since the fall of the nazi empire.

whether you would like to admit it or not, america is not even close to becoming a government led by adam sutler. Sure, the way its heading might lead it to V's english government, but the story of V for Vendetta sounds like this to some people.


a terrorist who blows up buildings in 2020 england in order to topple its government.

to me, the film is this:

a freedom fighter attempting to break the shackles of the english people through an illegitimate and totalitarian government.


heres a question i posed to someone before and see if you can answer it.


let's say the nazi empire was "terrorized" by an individual person during its reign... would you classify them as a terrorist or a freedom fighter?



i said peace because peace seems like the state of mind that sutler's government could never give his people truly. v's attempts at destroying the government could lead to hundreds, in not thousands of different ways to continue the government's rule. however, i believe that with the last scene of the film, it seemed like the people partly embraced v's ideas and yet had their own spin on it as well... which could be shown as they had their masks on and then removed them.

this film is so ground breaking in my eyes because it shows us how dangerous we can make the government if we wanted to. we give them the opportunities to take our freedoms away from us and soon we will be drones in a world that hates us, not one that wants to protect us.

giving our leaders powers early on gives us hope in the future, but as their lust for power grows, we begin to lose a bit of ourselves in the process.

A for Awesome
I didnt expect much from the movie but its one of the better adapted comic book movie so far. I guess I like the political overtures and how it corresponds to current events and our constitutional rights. I also like V's story too and not subliminaly giving away too much of V's story way too much. Its almost like a (V)alerie's sad story on how (s)he came to the concentration camp was tragic and combine it with the Count of Monte Crisco story with mutated experiment would lead to V's transformation. I highly recommend it. V is basically like the first lesbian superhero

That's not really the social point of the film though. The Sutler gov't was definately an example of a very extreme state but it is absolutely clear that the director was drawing parallels of many different oppressive regimes of the past, including that of the Bush administration.

It may be that the Sutler government works very well for some people (obviously if you were white and straight) just as American capitalism works for some on a local but not global scale. The issues are essentially the same however, just compacted and given a mask. Terrorist/Freedom Fighters in the film fight for the liberation of the oppressed masses


I acknowledged as much earlier on.


I classify it as both, they are often interchangeable. It's essentially the same act. Murder is murder if its done in self-defense or not. I have no emotional attachment to the word. There are many people around the world who view America as essentially the same or worse than the Nazis. Again, this is perspective (and semantics).

I have absolutely no problem calling V a terrorist. I think the character considered himself a terrorist. I think he would actually relish in it. Whether that's justified or not... I don't think V would care... I really don't expect him to care either. I'm more interested in how V's philosophies speak to not only Evey but the masses.

Dont see any discussion anywhere on the other boards but isnt it implied that V was supposed to be a she and intentionally created to be ambigious?

BJs Grade:

?

I need to see it again befor I can comment.

I did suggest on the second page of this thread that in Hugo Weaving's portrayal of V...

Yeah he could be androgynous but something that slipped was how the name Valerie also begins with the letter V, how the face of V was never revealed, the silhoulette of V's burnt body in the flashback being thrown in to throw the audience off, or how we saw roses in the background during Valerie's flashbacks, also it happens that we saw V crying as soon as Portman left after asking her about Valerie. Besides they showed that V did like the theatrics and was a master of disguise, she could of easily disguised her voice with a voicebox

I thought this wasn't going to be too good, but after all the reviews and praise I decided to give it a shot, and I have the best film and probably one of the more important films of 06 so far. No I'm not saying there will be political action because of it, but it was a very wonderfully crafted about the undergoings of politics that still hold relevant today. Very solid A, I loved it, loved the violence, loved the character of V

LAST LINE IS A SPOILER SO DON"T LOOK DOWN OR YOU WILL BE UPSET> THOUGH ITS NOT ACTUALLY A SPOILER JUST AN OBSERVATION


I Was very pleased that they didnt do the cliche of him being unmasked.

Interesting theory, it would explain how he/she got the notes...

Another clue is how obsessed V was with Count of Monte Crisco, it could explain how she went from lesbian actress to vigilante fighter

sad clown, while i understand your argument and it does make sense in a way, theres one issue i have with it.


if you watch the mtv movie special of the film, they constantly show the same picture of v in the fire over and over again throughout the show. if you look close enough, you can see the resemblance of a face of v that clearly shows a male visage. now, that could be up for argument, but another thing is that the body in the fire looks impossible to be a woman... the muscular structure and build... looks like a man almost definitely.

I explained it was to throw the audience off, just remember its pretty much a flashback and can be distorted. They also mentioned how they were using the prinosers as guinea pigs and distorting their DNA. I think I need to watch this again on dvd to pause some of the scenes to get a better hint. There were roses in Valerie's apartment during the flashbacks, there was no way V knew about them and whenever V exacts revenge on the officers, V always drops a rose next to them
Natalie Portman also said to V that "You wrote the letter" which V kept denying. Why was it Portman's first instinct to say V wrote the letter and not so much ask if V wrote the letter

Well, first of all, I see that neo wolf is still up to his bullshit of grading F's in these polls. What a Christian!!!

I saw V for Vendetta today, and while I did enjoy it, it faded more and more as the movie continued. It was around A- territory for the first half of the film, but it started dragging a bit when Natalie Portman had her head shaved, and the end didn't have the emotional impact that they were going for. In fact, I'd call the emotional punch weak. It seems like the Euphoria with the A grades is a bit much, but to each his own.

V was a very strong character, often very funny, and you'd never know it was Hugo Weaving under the mask. Speaking of the mask, for some reason, V seemed so familiar to me, but I didn't know why, and then it hit me about halfway through. That mask was a dead ringer for my uncle Jim. Natalie Portman was also good as Evey, although her accent slips about every other sentence.

Some very humorous moments happen in the film, such as V in his feminine apron cooking breakfast to the tune of "The Girl From Ipanema", and the British TV show where V ties the shoe laces together and the theme to The Benny Hill Show starts playing as madcap mayhem ensues for the TV viewers.

As far as the "message", I've seen enough movies that deal with future apocalyptical visions, so this was just par for the course for me. Yadda yadda yadda, another "what could happen" if evil men in power take too much control and the people rise against the oppression. I don't need such things spelled out for me by the likes of the Warchowski brothers.

A good and solid movie that dragged a bit after the excellent first half and ended with a emotional punch that wasn't there. It was great to hear the stabbing guitar of Kieth Richards when the credits rolled with the Stones' "Streetfighting Man", though.

B

Valerie was shown in the pit of dead bodies though. I think you can assume what's being shown to you in the flashbacks is true.

That's not really the social point of the film though. The Sutler gov't was definately an example of a very extreme state but it is absolutely clear that the director was drawing parallels of many different oppressive regimes of the past, including that of the Bush administration.

It may be that the Sutler government works very well for some people (obviously if you were white and straight) just as American capitalism works for some on a local but not global scale. The issues are essentially the same however, just compacted and given a mask. Terrorist/Freedom Fighters in the film fight for the liberation of the oppressed masses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you may be right, however, i think the social point of the film is that terrorist-like activities can be somewhat justified if the activities are being done against a totalitarian or oppressive regime. logically, we can determine that if this is true, then v cannot be a terrorist.

i relate this to my feelings regarding this. if v was transplanted in today's america and did the same acts, i would probably find him to be a terrorist because of the fact that i think that the current america is not oppressive and such acts are not justified. however, because the english government was so oppressive to its people, the acts of v are justified, just like the american revolutionaries in the revolutionary war as an example.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I classify it as both, they are often interchangeable. It's essentially the same act. Murder is murder if its done in self-defense or not. I have no emotional attachment to the word. There are many people around the world who view America as essentially the same or worse than the Nazis. Again, this is perspective (and semantics).

I have absolutely no problem calling V a terrorist. I think the character considered himself a terrorist. I think he would actually relish in it. Whether that's justified or not... I don't think V would care... I really don't expect him to care either. I'm more interested in how V's philosophies speak to not only Evey but the masses.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

well your opinion is respected, i digress mainly on the issue that the definition is interchangeable. murder is not murder if its done in self-defense because our laws make it clear that one person is allowed to take a life if the victim threatens similar death onto that person, like a victim killing a mugger or someone breaking into their house. i agree with that because these definitions we put on ideas are so vague because of the ambiguity of our situations we humans put ourselves in. we cannot define something or some idea so strongly that there is no room for error. therefore, we have to look at the plight of V and discuss whether or not he is a terrorist because of the victims in his vengeance.

in my personal opinion and while a new liberal political regarding the war in iraq and bush's crusade for freedom, i still see no real reason why an individual could kill american civilians. after reading many manuscripts and other texts, i see no connection between bush's america to the sutler government of v for vendetta or even the nazi regime of adolf hitler.

therefore, logically, i can determine that V's plight is much more justified than bin laden's, thus making bin laden a terrorist and V a freedom fighter.

you may disagree with my logic, but i want to see some hardcore evidence proving that bush's america is just as bad if not worse than sutler's government... you cant find it because if it was similar, i couldnt be talking about this today. and we wouldnt have protests in the streets about this war either.

Dont know if she was really dead when she was in the pit. They never quite explained what happened at the hospital facility other than the explosion that occured there. Also there was no chance V would of figured out Valerie was supposed to be some actress by the letter alone and it so happened V has some posters of her with a shrine dedicated to her

They were testing different viral agents on the prisoners, no? I guess we could assume that after escaping, V tracked down where she lived. But hey, you never know I guess.

Jesus Christ! How many different shoddy versions of the Matrix can these guys spearhead?

D

Regarding the terrorism definition debate:

I see it boils down not to emotional stance, but each person's philosophical style. It depends on whether you believe in an absolute worse, or enjoy muddling discussion with an "it all depends."

Haha! I had a feeling you wouldn't like it. Welcome to the fold.

Details?

Oh, I almost forgot to mention the tip of the hat to the classic comedy Caddyshack. When they blow up the building at the end, it's a direct parody of when Carl (Bill Murray) blows up the golf course at the end as he's trying to kill the gopher with high explosives. The same music even plays.

Did anybody else familiar with Caddyshack catch that? I mean, it's a carbon copy of the ending, and I'm not exaggerating.

1. These guys get away with way too much pomo "reality" jargon. The Wachy brothers always contend with perception and reality and then shoot themselves in the foot by adhering to an ultimate "truth" which the higher powers are always interested in brainwashing and controlling. Always through some form of technology, but its getting stale after round four. Especially since it sat around critiquing visual media whilst its crowd lapped up the same one-liner cheers for "freedom" it claimed to be criticizing in authority. And I don't mean "its" audience, which within the movie lapped it up as well, but rather the AMC audience I was sitting with who cheered as entire buildings blew up. I'd have liked if 2,500 undepaid janitors and secretaries went down with the vision, then I wonder if the audience would have cheered so loudly?

2. The visual shinanigans. The throngs of masked avengers at the end was just cheesy and funny, and a bit sloppy. It was horrible. The entire last half hour I was giggling the entire time. weak scripting and uncreative visuals throughout the entire mess.

3. The Wachy brothers never manage to create relevancy outside of queing up direct references to scenarios we've already been spoon-fed as "bad." Tuskegee Experiemnts, Mussolini, name-dropping the Qur'an and S&M. They resorted to Hitler visuals and grown naked people huddling like fetuses in cells the way they resorted to invoking Biblical names in the matrix. Those images and figures are not important just because they are named or mimicked or invoked...one has to do something *more* with them, which these guys couldn't do if V himself put a nife to their jugulars.

4. How condescending and mind0bogglingly obvious. Want to see a movie that studies media and paranoia/ Watch the remake of Manchurian Candidate. When the brothers push it to the forefront and always have these high gloss images of a Big Brother like face screaming about unity and opression at all costs it kind of defeats the purpose of questioning media savvy...as its clearly unsure of its audience issavvy enough to pick up such a message without getting hit over the head with it.

5. It didn't argue the route of moral ambiguity either. Its not Animal Farm because V doesn't end up dining with the opressors. It creates a ridiculous hero who sits around in his house playing swashbuckle like a 16 year-old dungeons and dragons hobbyist. Its not cute, its just silly, but tries to create some nostalgia around Robin Hood which I'm not even sure it was conscious they were doing, since they themselves clearly eat up mediated imagery passed down to them without having a larger vision around it. As made clear by the long stream of cliche imagery evident in all their work to date.

6. These guys can't believe these guys aspire to profundity in nothing more than name. Its getting irritating and they should just stick do doing campy swashbuckle movies unless they're going to sit themselves down and actually contemplate extracting something from historical or religious content rather than just slapping it up on screen and assuming because the references are legible, the movie has a shred of gravity to it.

7. The dagger scene....the bullet scene in Matrix...these guys can't even come up with new visual gimmicks anymore.

8. I completely hated the faux torture scene from front to back. Point 1 for Domestic Violence, Point 0 for the Jane Doe Safety Fund. It wasn't at all illuminating on human perseverence and its ultimate moral is not only Machiavellian, its also just outright stupid (and again...cliche).

9. The list goes on. But to put an end to the debate of V's sexuality, he was a guy. The Wachy brothers aren't creative enough to add gender ambiguity to the mix, and I found Vendetta and the Matrix series to be incredibly regressive as far as Gender Roles went.

10. These guys are going to start the next Scientology-esque religion, mark my words....

I did think that Evey was a little too Neo...

Meaning that, like Neo, she is completely and utterly passive and bounces around from one scene to the next, being led by others most of the way. Really the only time in the early part of the film where she did anything was when she ran away from the Priest/V and right into the home of the talk show host who proceeded to control her next shift.

Hmmm...

Dolce brings up some interesting points. The director of the film uses a type of propoganda to sell the idea of the oppressive state. The World War II imagery is far, far, far too obvious and the shift in people's hatreds is farrrrrr too fast. Let's not forget that there was a lot of Jewish/German tension before World War II. Everybody wasn't necessarily friendly to begin with. Some of the sci-fi element could have been handled more elegantly.


You are right... I didn't catch that.

I completely agree about the obvious and cliched imagery. That was one of the biggest problems I had with it. Everything is so loud and in your face. It's really one of the most hamfisted films I've seen in a long, long time. There's not a single hint of subtlety to be found anywhere. I really feel like most of the blame is in the director's lap. Not only are the images tired and stale, but the pacing is just terrible. It's so meandering and bloated. Yeah, the Brother's script is high quality cheese, no doubt, but the direction is just atrocious.