Should Anyone Remember the 5th of November?
What’s missing from V for Vendetta.
By Michael Samuels, Boston College
March 24th, 2006
If you’re the sort of progressive who gets a little queasy listening to the jingoistic rhetoric of the Bush Administration, you’ll probably want to throw up when you hear the British Chancellor and his television lackeys trademark signoff in the futuristic Britain of V for Vendetta: “England Prevails.” This simplistic conclusion to the Bill O’Reilly-esque rants that characterize the cartoonish villains in Vendetta is used to justify their murder. But while the film is an effective examination of fascism, it is a wholly one-sided, and therefore severely lacking, examination of terrorism. Based on the 1989 graphic novel by Alan Moore, the film begins with the tale of the British folk hero Guy Fawkes, who attempted to blow up Parliament on November 5th, 1605. (Many Brits still celebrate Guy Fawkes day every year with fireworks and bonfires.) The story of Fawkes operates as a backdrop to the story of the film’s hero, V, who, while wearing a creepy Fawkes mask, takes on the fascist government of England in the year 2020 with a series of terrorist attacks to bring about a popular uprising.
If this set-up seems like it might act as a commentary on the current state of the USA, that’s because it is desperately attempting to do just that. From the government’s use of religious justifications for policy decisions to forced patriotism and even a Bill O’Reilly-esque commentator on BTV (a fictional BBC equivalent) railing about the necessity of doing away with deviancy and homosexuality, V for Vendetta is continuing the current Hollywood trend of taking on social issues. It does so somewhat intelligently, although not to the liking of its cantankerous creator, Alan Moore, who, having already been burned by past adaptations of his work (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell), wished that the film not even list his name and that all his royalties be given instead to the graphic novel’s illustrator, David Lloyd.
The graphic novel was intended by Moore as a commentary on the dangerous direction he believed Britain’s Thatcher administration was headed towards during the 80’s. The anarchist, anti-fascist themes of the story work almost as well when pointed at the Bush administration, as they are in the film, although they fall quite short of replicating the genius of Moore’s work. Of course, the Bush administration is by no means the equal of the totalitarian state in Vendetta, but the film is a strong reminder of just how many elements of fascism the Bush administration employs in one facet or another, from the PATRIOT ACT’s intrusion into personal lives to the President’s Orwellian “signing statements” in which he declares a law he just signed doesn’t actually apply to him. .
The aforementioned commentator employed by the “BTV” explains that the United States has fallen from its status as a world power, not because of the war it started, but because our moral indecency prompted God to smite us. Hmm, sound familiar? This sort of comment directly echoes those of right-wing religious cranks Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson claiming that 9/11 was retribution from God for the toleration of homosexuals in the United States. Religious justification for government action has been employed by the likes of Hitler, Reagan and now, of course, Bush. The fascist British state in Vendetta claims that Britain has retained its power, unlike the US, by staying in God’s good graces.
And how did Britain remain in God’s favor? It did so by expelling the Muslims, homosexuals, blacks, and doubtless any other minority that was easy to oppress and turn into a scapegoat. Hatemongering and conformity are an important part of any fascist state and the film drives (some might say hammers) home the point with Deitrich, Natalie Portman’s boss in the film, is a man who embodies every trait that the state finds suspicious. He is a gay entertainer who loves literature and the artful calligraphy in ancient Korans. In fact, it is his collection of banned art and literature, including a copy of the Koran, that lead to his arrest and murder by the government.
The film fills this one character with more symbols of liberalism than any slightly cynical viewer can possibly stomach, but nevertheless his speech about having been forced by society to completely suppress his homosexual desires is one of the film’s strongest indictments of current American society. How different is this character’s experience from that of gays or lesbians in America who feel they must suppress their true sexuality or else face government sanctioned prejudice?
The most controversial notion of the film is that it justifies terrorism as a legitimate means of overthrowing a government. It is here that trying to apply the film’s message to the Bush administration would be a dangerous mistake. The government in the film is a cartoon stereotype of fascism and the revolution that overthrows it is depicted as having no ill consequences. V’s terrorism never kills anyone that doesn’t “deserve” it by being villainous in one way or another, that is if you subscribe to the notion that low-level policemen are responsible for the policies of the state that employs them. When V blows up buildings, we never see anyone dying inside. Are the buildings empty or were the filmmakers not prepared for the audience reaction when they saw dying people falling out of the exploding buildings? How would they continue to root for the protagonists?
There is a lot of talk in the film about V’s terrorism being about an idea, but in this case the idea is far too simple to have any applicability in the real world. V would argue that his terrorism stands for the people’s power over government, their God-given right to have control over their own lives. Or perhaps he would he argue that he is a symbol of plain old anarchy. The film does not make this clear. V’s world is black and white, while terrorism’s morality always comes in shades of gray. The film portrays V and Natalie Portman’s character, Evey, as terrorists in the tradition of the American Revolution but the film could have just as easily been made from the point of view of a worker in one of the buildings they blew up, making V and Evey the villains.
Real terrorism, be it by al-Qaeda or a homegrown terrorist, always has horrific consequences that this film is not prepared to address. It is far too simplistic to be a strong allegory for terrorism in modern society, but it is, at the very least, a blockbuster with something to say. V for Vendetta is just the beginning of a discussion about when, if ever, terrorism could be justified.
--------
Comments
Leave a comment about this article below. For more discussion, visit our community page and sign up for your own Campus Progress blog!
|
!
Great article.
— George W. Bush - Mar 28, 12:13 PM - #zOMG, Me > Terrorism, ftw.
Liek tot3l po2nage?
— General Michael Hayden, CIA Director - May 10, 07:51 PM - #George W. Bush and Adolf Hitler are nothing alike. ...Bush speaks english.
— Dick Cheney, Greedy senile fuck - Jun 29, 01:26 PM - #if terrorism kills 1 person today but saves 1000 people tomorrow isnt it worth it?
— V - Oct 3, 07:14 AM - #f terrorism kills 1 person today but saves 1000 people tomorrow isnt it worth it?
— V – Oct 3, 08:14 AM – #
but what if it were you?
but this is a valid point still.
And the destroying of parliment was the ice breaker as it were. To get the revoloution rolling.
— Dale - Nov 11, 08:46 PM - #