At what point does a government impede our rights as humans in the name of ‘peace’. At what point should we stand for what is right against tradition and comfort. The movie served as a template of a nations’ revolt against a tyrannical government. What first started as one man’s plight to expose a corrupt government’s agenda, led to an outright revolution ending with the destruction of the government’s parliament, symbolizing the end of an era. This led me to reflect on current governments and their roles in our lives. While this portrayed the government to be completely corrupt, by spying on its people, portraying a false media, causing an epidemic in their own nation to cement the government’s power, and to have endless wars, I started to wonder at what point does a government actually become corrupt; is it when it causes one major offense to its people, or is it after an accumulation of offense? And a continuation to that is when should people should revolt against their government? Even though the people were able to elect government officials in the movie, they were deceived to believe that the current government was the only possible solution to their problems. Therefore, a dilemma arrives; people can elect officials to change their laws, yet at what point is it ineffective to continue a government and instead be remade. I highly recommend this movie to anyone, as it is not only entertaining but also provides a social commentary on the roles of governments in our lives.

I had heard of the movie V for Vendetta prior to the Friday Film but had never been inclined to watch it but I’m glad that I did. This movie preached the importance of individuality and fighting for what is right and not necessarily sticking to the status quo because it’s easy. This is a lesson applicable to not only government but many other areas of life. I really liked the LGBTQ+ themes displayed in this movie as I feel that this is an often underrepresented group in movies where the general theme is not explicitly that topic.

The classic movie V for Vendetta is one of my all time favorites. There are items from movies which have greater influence than the movie itself. The mask is one of those. Every revolution or protest in the modern era has at least one instance of a person wearing such a mask at the rallies. I can bet that most people recognize the mask before the movie and that is what is amazing about humanity. We as humans need a symbol to bring us together and V for Vendetta showed how this is true.

had seen V for Vendetta several times before but it was the first time my friends had seen it and it was as wonderful as always. Its not often that I see a Friday film advertised and immediately want to tell everyone to come and see it but this was one of those times. The movie is always important but with fascism on the rise throughout the world, V is a notable warning of what governments can be and what citizens can do.

There are a few differences between the movie V for Vendetta and the comics that it was based on, the most significant one being that V’s actions are portrayed in a far more sympathetic in the movie rather than the comics. In the comics, V was seen as much more of an chaotic anarchist, whereas the movies portrayed him more as a charismatic vigilante fighting a righteous battle against a tyrannical government (which was less obviously evil in the source material). This was compounded by the fact that the movie chose to make the relationship between Evey and V one of romance; the comics instead paired off Evey with Gordon. Why did the movies choose to portray the characters in a far more starker contrast? It’s clear that we’re meant to vouch for V and his terrorist attacks, crippling the corrupt-beyond-redemption Norsefire organization. The only sympathetic character in Norsefire is Eric Finch and even he, after the shocking discovery that Norsefire was directly responsible for the virus that decimated Britain, turns his back on the government, allowing Evey to destroy the Parliament building. Perhaps the audience wouldn’t have been able to enjoy the moral ambiguity in the relatively short span of a movie viewing.

I didn’t initially think I would like this movie, but V for Vendetta was way more political and social that I had anticipated. I had never heard of it before, but it was really cool to see the connections that could be seen to more contemporary governments, and how it could relate to the whole ‘anonymous’ character that is lived online. Also, I really like Natalie Portman. All the characters went through super significant character arcs, and they were all completely different by the end from the beginning. I would just be careful as a viewer because it is easy to draw parallels to today, but it’s not very constructive to start questioning everything. That’s how we get conspiracy theories like the flat earth or the anti-vaxx movement. But a good amount of skepticism is never bad; it’s part of our due diligence as consumers of media and policy.

In the movie “V for Vendetta” the theme of an individual versus the state is visible. It depicts how the tyrannical government suppresses individuality. This has always been the case throughout history in different parts of the world. The Soviet Union is probably one of the most well known examples of where the government controlled everything a person would or could do. Even today, there are numerous countries that are under dictatorial rule. Unfortunately, the vast majority of them are not known to most of the people around the world, which slows down  the process of changing such regimes. More involvement is necessary to improve the government structure.

This movie reminded me of the many other movies made on the central theme of anarchy in society. I personally do not like this genre of movies, where they depict a completely different (and anarchic) world. I however did find this movie slightly different from the typical hollywood movies with either an alien invasion or a super-hero calamity in place. The fact that “V” was causing all the havoc and was, at the same time, human and driven by a human philosophy made the movie stand out for me. The end of the movie was also something that caught my eye. The movie did not end all smiles. Instead, the movie’s end was rather uncomfortable, with no real restoration to normalcy. Blowing up the prime minister’s house as the an overlord watched the drama unfold was a very unexpected ending. All in all, this movie stood out from its peers in the same genre. However, I did not like the plot a lot, given my bias against the kind of plot it was.

I love V for Vendetta. The first time I had to watch it was my sophomore year of high school and it was for my government class. I got a little lost with the plot line but I understood the overall message and it really stuck with me. Every time I have watched it since then, I have understood the movie more and I have learned something new. There are multiple ideas that this movie delves into regarding freedom, discrimination, and the power the government possesses. In this movie it is not the entire government or democracy that is the villain but rather a certain extremist party that warps the government into a dictatorship. The worst part is that the people were okay with it because of a crisis that unbeknownst to them was caused by this same political group. Whenever there is a crisis situation it can be seen in history that out of fear people will sacrifice freedom for security. But this movie is a reminder that in crisis situations we should remain level headed and never agree to sacrifice our freedom to that extent. This movie inspires me to reflect upon the state of our government. It also makes me reflect as to whether we are turning an eye to the discrimination of others in order to protect ourselves and stay out of an issue. There is a trend recently of right wing and rather extremist parties becoming influential and coming into power due to the problems of immigration, job losses, technology, and climate change. Looking back at history and watching movies like this one is important because they remind us of the consequences that can result from certain actions. I believe that it is important to remember that it is not necessary to sacrifice all of one’s freedom for security and that we must stand up for others. If we do not, each group will be eliminated or silenced to the point that if ever a problem were to arise with your group and your people, because you did not take the chance to help the other groups there will be no one left to stand up for you.  I think everyone should watch this movie at least once. I hope it will be one that stands the test of time.

The V for Vendetta film was interesting in portraying why people oppress against the government and their thought process behind doing so. Often times, in Hollywood we see films about government agencies taking people down. However, we rarely see films about groups who oppress the government in dangerous ways. While I’m not saying that these groups must be rewarded, there is increased awareness and transparency that is brought as people understand the viewpoints of the other side. It is very easy to get caught up in our own beliefs so much so that we forget that we need to understand where the other side is coming from. There were elements to the film such as when Evey was tied up and asked to reveal the location of V at gunpoint that seemed exaggerated to fill the plot of the romance yet nevertheless the message of the film is important. This film also makes me wonder the degree to which people will learn from this film and apply it to their lives? Will there be similar political oppression groups that take inspiration for movies like this? If so, what responsibility does the media have for the formation of these types of groups if any? The idea of following a leader is so prevalent in our society so much so that sometimes people don’t even know why they are following certain leaders. I believe that there were many people who didn’t know why they were following V and just did so “to follow the crowd”. However, as a society how can we progress if we are so fixated on conforming to society’s ideals of how we should act so much so that are are bounded by the restrictive thoughts that don’t let us discover what we really believe? I believe that as a society we need to find a balance between following leaders and being independent because extremes of either have negative impacts.

On February 8th, I had the good fortune of seeing a powerful film as a Rose House event, V for Vendetta.  I first saw the film years ago and I have seen it again periodically whenever the opportunity presents itself.  Naturally, I jumped at the chance to see it for another time.  The plot of the film is defined by a masked man, known as “V”, on a quest to dismantle and ultimately topple an authoritarian regime that rules a dystopian Great Britain.  The story is told through the eyes of Evey, a civilian who gets roped into V’s fight against the government after she helps him escape from one of his attacks.  The interesting facet of the concept portrayed in the movie regarding toppling an authoritarian regime was that the primary goal of “V” was not only to dismantle the government by eliminating its leaders, but also by convincing the people not to fear their oppressors.

A part of the film that is looked at controversially is when V imprisons and tortures Evey to teach her to lose her fear.  While the viewer must question the ethics of this, this illustrates the point perfectly that V is trying to make.  The idea is that the government, captors, or an any authoritarian body only derives its power from fear.  V wanted to show Evey and the oppressed citizens that do not have to the fear the government if they stand together.  The final scene of the film illustrates this as seemingly the entire civilian population, wearing the same outfit that V wears, flooded the streets and marched in solidarity toward the government building and military checkpoints.  Due to V working to remove the leaders of the regime and the individual soldiers not knowing what to do against the united public, the military backed down and allowed the citizens to retake their country.

I should preface this by saying I loathed this movie. I went into this with some knowledge of the kinds of circles on the internet that orbit around this film – a lot of ancaps, for instance, among other hard right wing groups. That’s not to say, necessarily, that if you like this movie you’re an ancap. And, more importantly, liking this movie doesn’t make you a bad person (this is relevant in a second). So if you liked the movie – more power to you. But I am going to argue that this thing is a scourge on mankind.

The movie is ostensibly about the masked character V – it is his story, his vendetta. The movie’s arc would be to claim that, through his vendetta, and a vague set of political motivations, change* will occur. Change for the better, as the movie would claim. The movie’s thrust is that the government is a religio-conservative police state headed by a controlling demagogue and that it needs to be taken down. Honestly, there’s not much wrong here. The state’s obsession with surveillance, overly present and violent police, and disregard for the rights on minority groups (oh BOY we’re coming back to his) are not only valid reasons to oppose a government but prescient ones.

And this veers us verily to our verminous victor vanquishing our verisimilitudinous villain (I, too, can be pretentious). V pays lip-service to some libertarian (in the modern sense) gripes – too much surveillance, overly religious government, sheepish people, etc. But his real motivation is revenge. This would work if the film didn’t seem to take itself seriously. How do we know that we are supposed to take the threat presented by the government in the film seriously, you ask? I have three responses. Firstly, even if we weren’t, those aforementioned online circles do, so a necessary perspective is one where it is. Secondly, it makes a very real effort to parody some conservative administrations and politicians. The TV pundit is clearly a rip on Fox News types (especially from 2005, when the film was made) and fears about surveillance definitely rang true about conservative leadership then more so than now, when immigration is a bigger issue. Thirdly, the film adopts the narratives of oppression faced by the LGBTQ community (well, more just the LG) as a part of communicating the oppressive nature of this government. Let’s ponder this last fact.

The film has a curious track record with its portrayal of homosexuality. In my opinion the best (and only?) character in the move is Stephen Fry’s. He’s real, human, and is more than just his sexuality without that sexuality falling entirely to the wayside. It’s a real part of him without defining him (in the end, his copy of the Quran is what gets him punished). Moreover, the scenes with Natalie Portman’s character in the prison are effectively juxtaposed with the narrative of the homosexual woman who was previously imprisoned. But this is mere window dressing – as is announced when the prison sequence is shown to be an illusion created by V. Even if the narrative of the homosexual woman is real, it is cut of all its weight by the fact that V leverages it for his own purposes, which ostensibly amount to revenge. This betrays the films whole perspective on the narratives of actually oppressed groups and oppressive government regimes themselves – they are a framework within which a “classic” tale of revenge and gallantry can take place.

We don’t need to address why V is an utterly deplorable person – I would hope as much is obvious. But the implications of dressing up his revenge narrative in the guise of political struggle by clumsily and callously appropriating the narratives of oppressed groups can’t be overlooked. I have a lot of other problems with this film – in particular how it paints a real revolution as a romantic event, when the reality would be much more terrifying, even if necessary and justified. Moreover the actual state of oppression seems almost less than what some groups already face today from the US government. The police state seems more like what privileged people think a police state is like, but ends up being notably softer in a lot of ways than the actual state of the police in our current society in many parts of the country. But the absolute ignorance that the film strikes me with in its handling of the (remarkably few) characters representing oppressed groups is quite frustrating. V’s revenge wouldn’t actually change anything for them, since their story only seems to matter in as much as their tragedy validates V’s anger.

On February 8th, I had the opportunity to watch the movie V for Vendetta.

V stands for virtuous vengeful victory. V uses letters to encompass the whole movement against totalitarianism. This idea is best depicted in the scene of blowing up the British Parliament. It signifies the will to fight against corruption and oppressor government. This advocates Americans should always fight for the rights of free expression. V was doing the same thing. He fights against powerful rules who most of the times are dictators. The hope is that the world turns and things get better.

On Friday Night, I watched the film “V For Vendetta”, which is a about an future ultarian society. V, the titular character who fights back against the government, is seen as a hero from both viewers in the film and viewers watching the movie. V, however, does questionable things throughout the movie, as seen where he psychologically tortures Evey. This brings in mind whether or not if torture like this is more or less ethical to do towards another person. V wasn’t going to kill her but it was unknown what he was going to do if she told V’s actual location. The torture V did to her was accepted by her as needed and that she became stronger as a result. But this brings in question of if V should be punished for what he has done, even though Evey accepted it. In my opinion, he should be punished for what he has done and be seen as a very radical anti-hero. Evey was fearing for her life and was accepting death and V acted as if he was innocent from what he had done once Evey accepted that it was needed. V didn’t need to do what he did, as she was simply an innocent member of society. This brings in question of whether or not everyone in that society is guilty.

This past Friday, I attended Rose House’s showing of the film V for Vendetta. It’s a film that I’d heard about fairly frequently prior to attending this event, and as such I was interested to see what it was all about. And while action-thrillers are generally not my favorite movie genre, it was definitely still an enjoyable viewing experience and I’m glad I chose this as my event for this past week.

I have a few thoughts about the movie, and about the way people use it to communicate their own ideas. In a bubble, a lot of the points made by this film are salient. As a queer person myself, I definitely agree with the idea that institutions can both directly and indirectly oppress those who aren’t perceived as “normal” (for a subjective definition of normal). In addition to this, it was very refreshing to see LGBTQ+ characters in a film whose character arcs didn’t boil down to them learning to accept their sexuality and/or gender identity. I especially loved seeing Valerie be the foil for both V and Evey, and I’d love to see more films with similar characters in the future.

However, in pop culture I’ve seen the film used to promote the abolishment of government. I have a few thoughts in response to this. In many ways, I believe that a lack of governmental involvement causes the same issues of oppression that the fascist regime in the film was inflicting on its citizens. This is especially true for those of lower socioeconomic strata—people who already tend to be queer and/or racial minorities in the first place. For example, there are over 700,000 homeless LGBTQ+ youth in the U.S. alone. These queer homeless youth make up ~40% of the homeless youth in America, while they are only ~7% of the overall youth population (link to study). I believe that it’s our government’s responsibility to help these people who have been systematically disenfranchised. Without a government, these people would continue to be homeless. In addition, the limited protections offered to them by the federal government would be taken away, effectively making their already horrible situation worse.

For the sake of brevity, I’ve only briefly written about a few of the things about this film that jumped out at me while watching it. And I suppose that means the film is serving its purpose—it’s opening a dialogue about social, economic, and political issues, and is highlighting how intersectional all of these issues are. And for that, I commend it.

On Friday night,  I joined the Rose Scholars to watch “V for Vendetta,” a movie about a totalitarian government and the rebellion that follows. One common theme we discussed previous to the movie is when the ends justify the means. I thought that this topic was very interesting because it could be applied to both the government, which was painted to be the antagonist in this film, and the revolutionary, “V,” who sought to overthrow it. The government claimed that through all their efforts, all the atrocities that they committed, including censorship and corruption and manipulating what the public did and saw and thought, was all for the sake of a peaceful and orderly nation. In this case, I do not think that the ends justified the means in any way, seeing as the people were still in conflict, only it was behind closed doors and they had to live in fear, obeying strict curfews and appealing to the ones who had absolute power over them.

The rebel V was a bit more complicated and was more difficult for me to form a moral opinion on. His main objective was to end the reign of terror in this dystopian society, however he committed violent and terrible acts to achieve it. He not only blew up buildings, he also committed murder of high officials within the government in brutal ways. He also even imprisoned his own ally in order to make sure that she was tough enough to join his cause. He tortured her and starved her, kept her prisoner until she welcomed death, and then brought her back to the real world to be his friend and accomplice. Even though he ultimately ended up succeeding in blowing up Parliament and throwing the government into anarchy as he had planned, I find it difficult to justify anything he did. It felt more like revenge than anything, and he didn’t seek to implement a new government or a new order. He welcomed death and left the country behind to sort out a nation left in shambles. Even though he was definitely more justified in his actions than the government, I still do not think that he acted morally.

What I found most interesting about V for Vendatta was that it conveyed not only how ideas and ideologies can be a powerful force but also how, in the absence of scrutiny, individuals can employ morality to justify almost anything. The actions of both sides of this political battle raise question an important question: When do the ends justify the means, and who gets to decide when the ends justify the means? As we were watching the film, I kept asking myself what makes a person realize that the ends no longer justify the means and whether there are truly some people who never reach that realization. Specifically, I wondered if it is humanly possible for a person like Chancellor Sutler, for example, to sincerely view every act, regardless of the harm it inflicts, as furthering the creation of some world or forwarding some goal that will result in an amount of good that far outweighs the harm. A key insight that I took away from the film is that scrutinizing the means often reveals whether those means are actually in service of some purported end. Indeed, it is in finding out how Chancellor Sutler rose to power that Finch begins to fully understand that the intolerant, oppressive acts the government imposes in the present are not in service of realizing and protecting some larger political and moral vision for the country.
Additionally, the film offers a powerful reminder of the importance of interrogating the ideologies that govern our society and shape the way we see the world. If we never take those ideological glasses off, they become a blindfold. By offering that reminder, the film also made me consider how crucial a role dissent plays in society. When there is always someone willing to step forward and voice a dissenting opinion or provoke others to view matters from a different perspective, it becomes harder and harder for people to turn a blind eye toward the discrepancies between an action and the ideological framing of that action.

As I watched “V for Vendetta,” I found myself empathizing and rooting for V and the success of his mission against the totalitarian government. He is complex character with a miserable past that has shaped who he is as a person. Although he commits murder, executes acts of terrorism, and tortures another human being, we see, in contrast, that he is empathetic and human despite the cruelty of his crimes and his inhuman exterior.

However, after watching the movie, I wondered if he was really committing these crimes for the right reasons. When he breaks into the broadcasting network to send out his call to action, he cites all the reasons that the government is wronging the people and taking away their voices. He is inciting the citizens to take part in his revolution and fight to gain back the power of the people. But as he targets the prominent party members who have a connection to his past during his crusade, I wonder if he is really acting for his objection to the government or against those who wronged him (and Valerie)?

The definition of vendetta from dictionary.com is: (1) “a private feud in which the members of the family of a murdered person seek to avenge the murder by killing the slayer or one of the slayer’s relatives, especially such vengeance as once practiced in Corsica and parts of Italy” and (2) “any prolonged and bitter feud, rivalry, contention, or the like: a political vendetta.” It is interesting to see how both definitions of vendetta exactly capture the two potential reasons V does the things he does (that’s probably why the title of the movie is what it is). This blurred line between these two reasons lead me to question whether V’s actions are justified. When would taking the law into your own hands and administering your own justice be justified? If his motivations were personal, how is this different than experiencing the murder of a loved one and deciding to kill those responsible if the court system unfairly decides to let the murderer walk? It seems there is no easy answer. Regardless, I enjoyed how the movie brought attention to the line between personal and political and how we perceive actions as right, wrong, and justified.

This week I watched the film “V for Vendetta” which is about a mysterious masked vigilante that starts a revolution against a totalitarian British government. I found this aspect of the film very interesting, because often when a totalitarian regime is portrayed in a movie, it is either set in the past (such as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union) or in the very distant future. However, “V for Vendetta” seems to take place in an otherwise a modern setting. I found this fascinating to think about how a political party could take complete and total control over a nation in modern times, and the consequences that this would have. While the director did a good job of depicting scenes that one would expect in a totalitarian society, such as restricting free speech and arresting government critics, I was most surprised about how normal life seemed in many of the scenes. People still went to work, bought groceries, watched TV, etc. This made me think about what a totalitarian society would look like now, and I realized that in many regards our lives are far more restricted that we may realize. Many people in the USA like to talk about how “free” we are, but I wonder what the actual extent of our freedom really is. Just because we do not have a curfew dictated to us by a high chancellor does not mean that we as free as we necessarily believe.

I attended the Film Friday Event where we watched the film called “V for Vendetta”. I had already viewed this film a while back when I was home, however, I was not quite sure what the point of the film was. This is definitely a film that some may find confusing upon the first watch. I know understand the purpose is to show how much of a negative effect the government can have on a person’s life. The film is truly a masterpiece. Although it was frustrating that V would never take off his mask, he spoke many words of wisdom throughout the movie. His wisdom is something that I hope to possess one day. In a way, he used violence to combat more violence from happening. I really enjoyed this movie and would recommend it to other people.

Today I watched the movie V for Vendetta. I suspect that I liked it more than most of my peers.

Maybe the most obvious criticism is that the character V is comically horrifying and ridiculous in multiple ways. He watches movies featuring duels between knights and reenacts them, with all the associated delusions of grandeur. He pretends to lock Evey in jail and tortures her regularly, to show her “what its like” and to harden her, make her lose her fear. This is insane behavior. I think the point to take away from this is not to consider V really as a person. I think the movie encourages this: they deliberately never say his name and never show his face. V really is supposed to be a symbol as opposed to a character you’re supposed to empathize with. Anyone who imagines themselves as V in some sort of masturbatory power fantasy isn’t getting the point of the movie.

Although the portrayal of V seems to imply that one person can effectively bring down a government, I think this is more realistic than people might initially think. V dedicated 20 years of his life to this mission, and he clearly has extraordinary abilities. People regularly underestimate both themselves and resistance: something I also appreciated was throughout the movie we learned that people that seemed all fine and dandy (e.g Gordon) were in fact resisting.

I did have one major problem with the movie, which was that Evey was much too underdeveloped as a character. I would have liked to see a movie that focused primarily on her, and used V to push the plot along with his antics and such. Near the end off the movie Evey is just vaguely around for months. She says she got a fake ID but that’s about all we’re given. This should have been the focus of the movie, because in the end you want to portray how *real* people react to dystopia, not a force of nature like V. Because of this it really just ends up being more of a fantasy as opposed to a movie that people are supposed to imagine themselves in. It’s less scary than a movie about dystopia should be. There’s a reason that 1984 ended the way it did.

This week’s film, V for Vendetta, takes place in a dystopian version of Britain, wherein an authoritarian government hordes power and stifles citizen freedoms. The film tells the story of a largely mysterious hero-esque character, who ultimately inspires a much-needed revolution through acts of violence and terrorism. As with any film heavily centered around a dystopian government, V for Vendetta has long been a source of political analysis and reference. This was particularly true in the years immediately following its release. Even now, however, as the film arguably loses some of its political relevancy, it still raises interesting ideas about morality and the justification of violence. The character of ‘V’ was simultaneously a triumphant hero, committed to instigating change for the masses of Britain, while also being heinously violent and arguably self-motivated (due to his own negative experiences with the government). In this way, the film makes an interesting departure from the classic superhero archetype. ‘V’ is a sympathetic character, clearly looking for human experiences and emotional fulfillment to make up for his tortuous past; however, his manipulation of Evey and glee over death and destruction adds a considerable complexity to his character profile. I liked that, ultimately, there was no decisive conclusion on the quality of the film’s central character — his decency is left to the judgment of the viewer. This film effectively captures the often overlooked duality of the revolutionary, raising profound questions about what we can still consider heroic in the face of villainy.