*** Official V FOR VENDETTA Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[DonRoeber]

I was always under the impression that he killed those people to protect his identity. After all, it seemed that he killed them moments before the cops came in the door most of the time.

 

[JeremyErwin]

No, the fingermen killed the technician. And I find it hard to believe that any decent man would take on a job that regularly involved "wet jobs".

 

[Chuck Mayer]

No, the cops did. Cops were there well ahead of the fingermen. They shot him specifically because he was wearing an outfit V MADE HIM PUT ON. Are you claiming V didn't know that would happen? The film continuously shows V as way ahead of the game. He led to the shooting of that employee. Directly and knowingly.

As for the second part, lumping in HRT, Special Forces, CIA ops, SWAT, and cops as having no decent people among their ranks is your choice. The film specifically goes out of it's way to show a PARTY MEMBER and cop as having a conscience and desire for the truth.

 

[Cory S.]

Exactly right, Chuck.

V's definitely way ahead of the game. Again, the greatest answer to everyone's question is what V did to Evey in the story. You can't get more sadistic than that...even if he felt he was doing right by Evey.

 

[JeremyErwin]

The graphic novel advocated anarchy-- not chaos, anarchy. The film, however, did not. Question: did this failure to incorporate the political content of Moores work result in a muddled, incoherent film?

 

[Quentin]

Who said it has to offer anything that hasn't been presented before? I didn't claim it was the most original and/or best film I've ever seen. I just think it's a great movie.

 

[Quentin]

In the book, he is an anarchist. In the movie, he is a freedom fighter. I believe this is the very reason Moore took his name off the film. He wrote a message of revolution and anarchy. The movie is a story of democratic freedom (power to the people).

I never said he only killed guilty people. I said he kills those HE believes are 'guilty'. Including anyone and everyone associated with the government. That includes everyone at BTN - they are all doing the work of the government. The film never shows him killing any true innocent (such as the little girl with the glasses), and never shows him feeling guilty over anything except what he did to Evey.

The film DOES show a cop as having a conscience. I'm not arguing or claiming that anyone V kills is guilty or bad. I'm claiming that HE believes they are. The film's POV and his POV are not always the same. And, since he is so ahead of the game and well planned, if there were innocent deaths and/or collateral damage of some sort, he would have to stop and deal with that crisis of conscience. Why? Because it is not part of his plan or part of the message of the film. It would be a different film with a different message about how innocents can and often do get caught in the fire of revolution.

 

[Cory S.]

Quentin,

In the film, yes, he is a freedom fighter. But, he's also out for personal revenge. His victims were connected someway with the government but they weren't higher ups...so to speak.

And that's the reason why his quest is a bit interesting. If he was solely a freedom fighter, he wouldn't have a vendetta. But, like the graphic novel, he does have a personal vendetta that just happens to be interconnected to his overall goal...hence the reason why it's not up to him to see how society evolves. He leaves that to Evey in the film and in the graphic novel...

Because of his personal vendetta, V ends up being part of the problem. Evey calls him on it.

 

[Chuck Mayer]

Quentin,
Killers don't get to determine the innocence of their victims. That broad stroke allows lots of murderers to be called "freedom fighters". The roundabout logic basically says V could kill anyone, and still be a freedom fighter; or even worse, the act of being killed by V makes the offender guilty.

Cory is correct. V hands over the reins to Evey, because he recognizes his own vendetta (after having cleaned house, I might add) clouds his lofty speeches. He is no more after a democratic society than the Fascist government.

 

[Hunter P]

OK, I'll buy that explaination.

 

[JeremyErwin]

That's from the novel. Evey has no intention of leading this new society, and neither did V. The terrorist plot was aimed not at seeking revenge for the atrocities at Larkhill, but by systematically eliminating the legitimacy of the government.

I believe it was Roger Ebert who lamented that it was a bit troubling to see so many London landmarks go up in flames.

But consider what these landmarks do for Norsefire. Over the past few centuries, Londoners have associated the palaces of Westminster with a democratic parliament, and the Old Bailey with age old legal traditions. When Norsefire takes over, the parliament is eviscerated; the age old legal traditions, junked. Norsefire keeps these buildings around because it likes to believe that it is the successor to a long line of legitimate British governments, when, in reality, its hardly more than a gang of thugs. Remove the buildings, and the government loses its props.

 

[Cory S.]

Even if the terrorist plot was aimed at systematically eliminating the legitimacy of the government, V's vendetta was still part of his problem. While V is an anarchist in the graphic novel, that doesn't excuse his vendetta, no matter how interconnected it is to the destruction of a fascist government and freedom to the public. It's still a personal vendetta for what they did to him.

He submits in the film as he does in the novel, only in the film is it more obvious....

It's also true that Evey technically wasn't going to lead the new revolution/society after the death of V. But, I think it's hinted at every strongly that she will continue his work in some form.

 

[Quentin]

I don't really disagree with you guys much at all. Read my earlier posts. I agree he is nuts. I agree he gives the final choice to Evey because he recognizes himself as a monster and a part of the 'old ways'. I agree his lofty speeches are an excuse to disguise his vendetta.

And, I’m not trying to justify or philosophize or categorize what a killer or freedom fighter or terrorist is. Simon suggested he thought the movie would be better if V had killed innocents and had to deal with that. I submit that it would be a different movie. Why? Let’s use an easy example: Let’s say that the little girl in glasses is killed by some shrapnel from one of V’s bombs. The second the film shows that, it is clearly illustrating a message – innocents get caught in the crossfire and die. This is sort of an “at what price freedom” message. This is NOT the message of the film showing in theaters now. Had the film done that, it would have taken a different tack than it does, and I think it would have been worse for it. Additionally, had V seen the girl die, his character would have had to deal with it. And, instead of Evey forcing him to look in the mirror, he has to do it for different reasons.

Not concerning ourselves with the real world – the film clearly illustrates who is good and who is evil. V is on the fringe. But, V and the audience have no sympathy or guilt for the ones killed. Why? Because they are all connected to the evil government in some way. Whether they are recognizable (the Doctor) or faceless/nameless (the guy at BTN), V considers them guilty and so does the audience – because that is how they are presented. Fingermen are not portrayed as innocents…though, philosophically we can consider them as such. Yes, in the real world killers don’t get to determine the guilt or innocence of their victims. But, in a movie world, they are very carefully and purposefully selected. And, “V FOR VENDETTA” does not have V killing any “innocents”. If it did, it would be a very different movie.

As for his vendetta – yes, it is personal. BUT, it is also about bringing down the government that created the monsters he is out to kill (and created himself). He DOES go after the higher ups – his ultimate plan is to kill Cready and Sutler. It doesn’t GET any higher. And he IS interested in waking up society so that they don’t allow such monsters to ever again take hold. That’s why he blows up symbolic buildings and why he broadcasts his message.

 

[Quentin]

It's 'hinted at' even more strongly in the novel.

 

[Cory S.]

Well, if you want to talk of innocents, you can look at The Doctor and Evey, in a way.

Given everything we learn about the Doctor in the film, we never really see her do injustice. She talks about with definite sorrow and ache, but is she one of the really bad people running the government and supressing the populace?

As for Evey, she quite innocent. But for V, and I think I agree with him here, complacency is not acceptable. Evey is self-aware about things but keeps her nose down. Does that give V the right to do what he did to her...just to make her SEE?

And thanks for the correction.

 

[Simon Massey]

I don't see how. All the other elements are there and it doesn't change the other message or points the film had. The only thing it does is alter the simplistic nature of the good vs evil battle to something a little more interesting.

 

[Phil Florian]

We see her willingly experiment on and kill patients in order to find a cure for a disease that apparently the government unleased on its people. She also helped create a superhuman madman. She is the sweeter and gentler Dr. Mengele. It is more direct in the book, of course, but she is far from innocent. She is the only one who repents, though.

 

[David Fisher]

Evey did mention that one of her former co-workers did not recognize her in the grocery store with the new haircut, and that may have reinforced her decision to keep the aerodynamic haircut.

Perhaps V is partially responsible for the deaths of the girl and other innocents by flooding the streets of London with his masks. The result was a descent into minor anarchy, and surely more than one person died in the street as a result. I wish the film would have further explored the psyche of the ordinary people who were willing to risk their lives to join V's street mobs. (But then again, that isn't exactly necessary in the cartoon world.)

I'll definitely see this film again soon, hopefully at the IMAX. I feel that I missed something regarding "coincidences" during the second act, and maybe it'll be clearer this time. (V claims that there are no coincidences, and then shortly afterward the TV host 'coincidentally' served Evey the same egg on toast breakfast.)

 

[DonRoeber]

Saw the movie again tonight, the Salt Flats poster clearly said Valerie Page, I was watching for it.

Just as good the second time, if not better. The first time through I was looking for differences with the book. Both times I saw it with someone who hadn't read the book, and both times they really enjoyed it.

 

[Holadem]

I really liked it -- despite a less than stellar presentation at a normally terrific theater: The picture was seriously misframed, and the volume very low, I was really straining to hear the dialogue at times. I actually complained, nothing was done . I will be seeking out the manager next time.

About the movie, I thought I noticed some interesting visual motifs, like a fire/water, or repeated shots of Evey waking up. I will have to watch it again to see if they really amount to anything.

:star::star::star:1/2 / 4.

--
H