V for Vendetta Discussion Thread

Best movie I have seen since Batman Begins, and will probably only be topped by Superman

 

Great flick. Can't wait to see it again and then buy it on DVD

 

I've actually heard people claim the experience as just as powerful as seeing "Passion of the Christ". I can see what they mean, the movie is emotionally draining. The soundtrack swells at the perfect moments, and there's so much conviction in almost every line.

 

Saw last night, I thought it was good, but not great. There were some changes, some minor and some pretty big, especially towards the end. However, the idea and themes were left intact from the original source material.

The Good- I thought the cast was excellent. Hugo Weaving, Natalie Portman, Stephen Rea and John Hurt all gave fine performances. I also liked the visual aspect of the film. I like the picture it showed of the Orwellian London of the future. Last, I thought the action sequences were very well done.

The Bad- I thought some of the scenes such as Evey standing in the rain and the "He was all of us" speech were a little corny and heavy handed. Other than that, there wasn't much I didn't like.

While I didn't think it was great, I did certanly enjoy it. I'll probably buy the DVD.

 

Very much liked it. Very timely. Great stuff.

M. Scott

 

Now, for some of the interesting questions:

How right was V in what he did? You could say that he brought down a totalitarian government, but do the ends justify the means? If so, then isn't Creedy vindicated for some of the terrible things he did, since it DID create a world of peace (albeit through fear)?

Was V telling the truth about Creedy and the St. Mary's virus? We know that he's willing to lie to get people believing what he says.

For example, he managed to convince Evey that the torture he put her through was the same as the government would have done to her if she'd been captured. But do we KNOW that's actually true? He made her hate the government by torturing her HIMSELF. Is that kind of dishonesty acceptable in bringing down the government?

What was going on at Lark Hill? What did they do to the people there that only V survived? Did V set the fire himself or did he just use it to make his escape? How was V changed?

Did V really believe in doing things for a greater good, or did he only tell himself that because of his child-like love for Errol Flynn-era movies and their faultless heroes? Is it telling that the Count of Monte Cristo (a bloody tale of vengeance with a happy ending for the avenger) is his favorite film?

Was the truth simply that he wanted to hurt them the way they'd hurt him?

EDIT: Anyone mind making this thread spoiler territory?

M. Scott

 

I'd say go for the spoiler title. You pose a lot of interesting questions and its always easier to discuss with out HLTR.

I just got back from it. Great stuff. Like I said you bring up many points that I hadn't considered.

Was the whole spiel about Creedy and the virus true? Probably, with as much as we heard and re-heard evey's quote about authors and politicians though its defiantly possible that it was part of his story though.

 

i wouldnt say the movie was emotionally draining, but it certainly is a great conversation movie after seeing it.

 

I've seen this the other day. It was simply amazing. Very exciting.

 

I'll take you on, Dorkman. I usually hang out in fanfic, but I wandered over here for this movie.


How right was V in what he did? You could say that he brought down a totalitarian government, but do the ends justify the means? If so, then isn't Creedy vindicated for some of the terrible things he did, since it DID create a world of peace (albeit through fear)?

This question alone would require an essay. I'll just say the answer require that you look at the ends and means of both characters actions, and perhaps a look at the torture of Miss Evey, which is V's means and ends on a smaller scale. I might find the energy to write it all out, but not now.

Was V telling the truth about Creedy and the St. Mary's virus? We know that he's willing to lie to get people believing what he says.

For example, he managed to convince Evey that the torture he put her through was the same as the government would have done to her if she'd been captured. But do we KNOW that's actually true? He made her hate the government by torturing her HIMSELF. Is that kind of dishonesty acceptable in bringing down the government?

He was telling the truth. That is his why, the why of his existence and his actions. It would be criminal of the writer not to tell us the why, and that why was the only one provided, therefore it must be taken as truth. And the only deception with the torture was who the torturer was, and that ended as soon as the torture did. I would accept your arguement for his dishonesty, except he told her the truth before she took any action. She was far more likely to hate V for what he did than the government, and he knew it. The purpose of the torture was not to make her hate anyone. It was to free her. It was to hold up a mirror and show her herself, to get her to find the strength that no one could take away. It was to show her what mattered in the only way that V knew; how he learned. After the torture, no one could make her do anything that she damn well didn't want to do.

What was going on at Lark Hill? What did they do to the people there that only V survived? Did V set the fire himself or did he just use it to make his escape? How was V changed?

V set the fire himself, I'm sure. Something about fertilizer. And he liked roses, didn't he? As for the rest, I'm pretty sure they were using the prisoners to test biological weapons - viruses. V apparent reacted strangely, gaining better reflexes, among other things. and as for how V was changed, well... he showed us that when he tortured Evey, didn't he? Or at least a part.

Did V really believe in doing things for a greater good, or did he only tell himself that because of his child-like love for Errol Flynn-era movies and their faultless heroes? Is it telling that the Count of Monte Cristo (a bloody tale of vengeance with a happy ending for the avenger) is his favorite film?

Yes, not quite, and yes. See the below answer. I'll add to it by saying that on one level V was an idea, and on another a person. He wanted to be heard, wanted to proclaim truth while the govermnent screamed lies, and believed he did it for the greater good.

Was the truth simply that he wanted to hurt them the way they'd hurt him?

Yes. Or at least, that is part of the truth. He wanted to hurt them for what they did to him, and he wanted to destroy them so that they could never do it to another - hence the entire crusade against the government. But he did acknowledge that what he was doing was too big for one man - others would have to agree with him. Otherwise, the gunpowder treason would have accomplished nothing. He would have blown up a building, but nothing would have changed.

 

i'm finally going to see it this weekend after i was supposed to see it last weekend but i didn't. i'm excited

 

Another fanfic Forum person pops in briefly to join in the discussion of this amazing, amazing film (if you don't mind).

Very thought-provoking questions posed DorkmanScott (many of them I asked myself). Before I do my thing I'll just say this. A smart person once told me that great writers don't answer questions, they raise them. I think that translates well to great storytelling in general.

How right was V in what he did? You could say that he brought down a totalitarian government, but do the ends justify the means? If so, then isn't Creedy vindicated for some of the terrible things he did, since it DID create a world of peace (albeit through fear)?

Was Creedy's world a world of peace? If by peace we mean simply that nations do not war against nations then the argument that this future England was at peace is a good one. But if peace extends to the individuals within a nation then I would submit that no peace existed at all. How can peace exist when the knowledge that the government could destroy your life in a moment is real? Can peace exist when you're afraid to stop an attacker for fear that he might be a government agent? (That opening sequence is among the most telling reasons why the government they live under is intrinsicly wrong).

That being said, the larger question is very valid. Do the ends justify the means? As LL18 said, that's an essay. In fact, I'd argue that's a PhD discertation, but I digress. Many of the aspects of V's more troubling behavior (what if that bomb had gone off and killed everyone in the building, how many innocents died when he blew up Big Ben? Did the soldiers he calously murders to escape deserving?) are glossed over in the film by focusing on "the bad guys" and lumping all the soldiers and civilians into "the government" and "the oppressed". When "the oppressed" suffer under the heel of their own government, they have an obligation to revolt.

But do the ends justify the means? Is terrorism ever right? I think so. It depends on who you're trying to terrorize. I think the key here is that "V" is reminding the government that it should fear it's people. Most terrorist organizations target the people to cause them panic and create fear in the populace.


Was V telling the truth about Creedy and the St. Mary's virus? We know that he's willing to lie to get people believing what he says.

For example, he managed to convince Evey that the torture he put her through was the same as the government would have done to her if she'd been captured. But do we KNOW that's actually true? He made her hate the government by torturing her HIMSELF. Is that kind of dishonesty acceptable in bringing down the government?

Of course he could be lying. But as he said when our earstwhile detective finally meets him--V was waiting for him. V knew that he would likely be considered a liar. He had to allow the evidence to build and bubble then all he would need to do is connect the dots. Were it all a lie, it would be remarkably elaborate. Besides, as LL18 said beautifully--it is his why.


What was going on at Lark Hill? What did they do to the people there that only V survived? Did V set the fire himself or did he just use it to make his escape? How was V changed?

I'm not sure that we're supposed to know what happened there, really. The darkness existed there was real enough and caused V enough pain to drive him mad (and he was insane). LL18's explanations about the biological weapons and the impact on V seem pretty spot-on, though.


Did V really believe in doing things for a greater good, or did he only tell himself that because of his child-like love for Errol Flynn-era movies and their faultless heroes? Is it telling that the Count of Monte Cristo (a bloody tale of vengeance with a happy ending for the avenger) is his favorite film?

The answer to the first question is in the second. V believed in heroes and knew that only heroes inspire people to take action. Robin Hood would be n

 

I just say it today with my girlfriend and I really liked it. Although I did doze off at the very begining when V plays the tape at the tv station. My girlfrind liked it except for that part at the end when V kicks some serious ass. Ill definately buy it on dvd.

 

Dang it, I can't stop listening to the 1812 Overture now.

I loved that finale.

 

As soon as I heard 1812 overture, I immediately thought of Caddyshack. It's a bittersweet ending. V dies, but the system is destroyed. V lives on in Evey and all of Britain.

 

finally saw it. fantastic movie. i love the parts with 1812 Overture playing in it. funniest part in the movie was when they showed the one tv talk show and had V hiding with the band playing the washboard. i couldn't stop laughing

 

Good movie. It certainly took some getting used, with V's disembodied voice...

I have to admit, I cracked up at the idea of 2020's England using Dell computers from 2005...

 

Connor, that was an paying homage to the late Benny Hill. His show was classic british comedy.


the masks of Guy Faulkes was instrumental in spreading the idea that the govt needs to be scared of the people. Not the other way around. He showed them what it meant by the first broadcast.

When all the costumes were mailed out V had suceeded in giving the idea back into peoples heads.
They remembered what had been done to them. The killing of the kid, suceeded in teaching the people to not be scared and to question the govt. Hence when Parliament blew up they knew they didnt have to riot anymore. The work had been done. They the people had suceeded in making the govt fear them on Guy Faulkes day. Not the other way around. The people remembered who had died and why.


V was an idea, not a man.

The idea that people should not fear their govt but the govt should fear them instead. And he accomplished that all within one year.

 

So, one of those fun questions.

Who was the terrorist, the government or V?

 

The men in the govt that succeeding in terrorizing the people for their own political purpose. And that was to take control of the govt.

Terrorists dont destroy govts and govts dont create terrorists.

People create terrorists. And people make up the govts and they either support it or overthrow it.


V was the idea that govt is ruled by the people for the people. Not the other way around.

 

V should be given some credit for 'orchestrating' his performances at night, because the buuldings will be mostly empty then (of course, he needed to do it at night for the fireworks. )

V was the idea that govt is ruled by the people for the people. Not the other way around.

That's pretty much the view established by Locke and his peers during the Englightenment. And even they advocated for violence if the government was unable to suit the needs of the people.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_for_Vendetta


and check out the one for Guy Faukes day.

It is stated that Guy Fawkes was the only honest man to enter the House of Parliament.

 

But the thing with Fawkes is that he seems more like a disgruntled Catholic than a freedom fighter.

Of course, almost the same could be said about V, except the Catholic part.

 

I never noticed that.

Overall, excellent movie. Portman's acting was average, and was nigh ridiculous in the raining scene. But other than that, amazing cast, especially Stephen Rae. He is way too overlooked in this movie.