He he - I like it Omar -though I think Marx was kinda a wannabe V perhaps!
Though I’d tend to save more ire for Lenin
krossie
I think V knew his methods were equally unacceptible, and that’s why he was willing to die in the process of his revolution. He was aiming to create a world, which he himself was not worthy to take part in.
This is not too dissimilar from the villain in “Serenity” (the film based on the sadly short lived science fiction show ‘Firefly’). This villain was far more monstrous, willing to kill women and children. But his thought was that he was making a world he wasn’t worthy of living in. He even called himself a monster. One gets the impression he would have thrown himself on his sword at the dawn of that new world.
It’s an interesting concept, but it implies that there are some good causes which can only be achieved through evil means. I personally reject that notion.
Hello Omar.
The rights of the individual remain whatever the case. Prisoners of war, traitors, murderers and thieves; they all have rights, albeit different to the common citizen. Sometimes, as is the case in this film, rights are taken away from the common citizen by the very institution whose duty it is to uphold and protect those rights and its people. When such is the case, people should overthrow or replace the government – by peaceful or violent means – for the government failed in its task, thereby forfeiting its right to power and becoming itself a tyrannical regime.
V was not the only one tortured in this film. He was imprisoned and experimented upon with, apparently, hundreds of others. He was, however, the only one to survive and escape. That’s not mentioning the torture outside the facility in question here.
Particular governments have and still do such things. No, I am not prepared in the slightest to overthrow them. I don’t even know where to begin. Why do you ask? Are there thoughts of revolution floating about your mind?
Granted. Just note then, that when I say government, I am talking about the figures in power of a particular country and not the ideal of government.
For the purpose of this thread, let’s say that that which hurts people, is immoral. Not standing up when one could or should is immoral, I agree, though we must then make clear that when it’s done out of fear it differs from when it’s done out of want for power, out of greed, out of lust, etc.
You got me. My poor muddled mind. You’re right, I don’t believe all he’s means were justified in the end; I just believe that most of them were.
I do not believe for a second that the same criminals come out of prison more determined then before. I admit there would be a lot that do, but not all.
It does not mean she had to know, it means deep down she believed V was more right then the government. That’s what I believe V was looking for when he set on the path to remove her fear, and that’s what V found. He’s goal, at least to him, was re-justified.
Maybe, who knows - one path or the other, who knows? She touched him – that’s the wildcard here.
It’s a characteristic of both. The government simply does it on larger scales.
Security is a cost of freedom and vice versa. V lived ‘by the length of his knives’, but he was heading a revolution. I doubt he could have survived any other way with such circumstances.
The government should be afraid of the people, because the people are the ones who ultimately decide who is government. This government failed its people, and the people were too afraid to stand up and replace them until V came about. That’s why V is the hero in this film.
Tell me, are there any films that fill this criteria? It’s a film for a reason: Entertainment. Perhaps a film could be made thats completally ‘realistic’, but then, a certain entry credit into a movie comes to mind - ‘…Based on a true story… only the name, characters, location and events have changed.’
Cheers.
Hello W.C.-
Quote:
— “I think I see your point, though I would like to say here that V’s hatred for the government is not only because of the agents administering the various experiments and such upon him, but because of the government who failed him as a citizen with rights; a government who ordered V’s torture.”
O- The rights of an individual stand removed if his actions endanger the Govt. At that point, it is a matter of self-defense. A law is a law. I might consider a law as unjust-- govt does not care about my opinion on a law but my compliance with a law. If i break one of the laws of the land-- that is to say “of the people”, then, while i retain some rights, I give up others, essentially, my freedom.
— The rights of the individual remain whatever the case.
O- They remain only what is granted.
— Prisoners of war, traitors, murderers and thieves; they all have rights, albeit different to the common citizen. Sometimes, as is the case in this film, rights are taken away from the common citizen by the very institution whose duty it is to uphold and protect those rights and its people.
O- You see, my point is not against or for the establishment of rights. These are of no consequence. My point is that Govt represents society, not an especific individual. Murderers, traitors, prisioners have rights and they do differ from those of the citizen because the rights they might retain must not endanger the citizen, or the state that represents the common citizen.
— When such is the case, people should overthrow or replace the government – by peaceful or violent means – for the government failed in its task, thereby forfeiting its right to power and becoming itself a tyrannical regime.
O- The task of the govt is to represent, to stand in place of the common citizens- at least that is the most widely accepted theory on the subject. The violation of the rights of murderers, POW’s and traitors will not give cause for the citizens to overthrow their govt, because in it’s cruelty, it still upholds the primacy of the citizen’s rights over those of the enemies of said citizen, who would rather kill him, make war against him or commit treason against him.
Case in point:
The American revolt occurred when they were given cause by the British crown by their reluctance to allow the representation of the colonies along with taxation. It did not matter to the revolutionaries that the British were violating the civil rights of an entire race. That was not their beef with the british and had they been given their demands, without a single mentions of the blacks rights, they would have remained obedient.
Quote:
V’s torture is a real abobination. I would go as far as to say that it represents the exception and not the rule. But suppose that a particular goverment had done just such a thing, would you be prepared to overthrow such a goverment?
— V was not the only one tortured in this film. He was imprisoned and experimented upon with, apparently, hundreds of others. He was, however, the only one to survive and escape. That’s not mentioning the torture outside the facility in question here.
O- But my question has to do with the above comment by me. Would you risk life and limb for the rights of a masked man?
— Particular governments have and still do such things. No, I am not prepared in the slightest to overthrow them. I don’t even know where to begin. Why do you ask? Are there thoughts of revolution floating about your mind?
O- No. None in the least, because my approval of goverment does not rest so much on what happens to political criminals, and dissenters of state. Sure, I’ll look for a reformation, but I would not overthrow all on such a point as the rights of a murderer of a rapist, or child molestor. Chances are, chances are, that what I would do to them would be far worse and that the state is the only thing that saves them from being drawn and quartered like a Levi’s pair of jeans.
— Granted. Just note then, that when I say government, I am talking about the figures in power of a particular country and not the ideal of government.
O- But then there is no more to debate. My whole point was that V was like the Goverment in that sense- albeit, a goverment into a self. As an individual, V would probably say that he is the villian. But as an ideal, he is moral, because the ends, the ends of V are moral and justify the, means used by V, though, in themselves they are evil. Same with Goverment. A particular agent of the govt can do odious things, but with a noble goal in mind. Tyrants are also moral in their own minds. That is it. That is my point. Somewhere in that little man, behind those eyes of Sutler, lies a little boy that wanted to be the hero and defender of what is noble, even when that defended is his own will to power.
— I do not believe for a second that the same criminals come out of prison more determined then before. I admit there would be a lot that do, but not all.
O- Of course, I shy from the absolute statement. In the way you just said it, it serves me just the same. I only needed to show the tendency…
— It does not mean she had to know, it means deep down she believed V was more right then the government. That’s what I believe V was looking for when he set on the path to remove her fear, and that’s what V found. He’s goal, at least to him, was re-justified.
O- Maybe. Or maybe, since she was probably in danger from this govt (Sutler) to be captured and indeed tortured, this time for real real, so she chose to take her chances with V, the promises of V, through whom she already passed torture. Better to go with the evil you know than the evil you don’t know. Who knows what Sutler’s minions would have done.
I see this as when slaves fled to the Union army- they passed, just as Evey, from one govt to another govt. Though slaves to both, in the later they had a promised that they lacked in the former.
— It’s a characteristic of both. The government simply does it on larger scales.
O- Really? Govt taxes the shop owner, and in this sense, “robs him”. Yet, when the mob breaks out, as when Katrina and Cincinati and Los Angeles, these riots lead to looting, which is worse than taxes. A criminal hears no law. Does not respect the rights of the shop owner. His actions occur, in a sense, outside of the scope of govt, because they are not license by it. Therefore, I say, it is a characteristic of both, yes, but to a lesser effect in a state.
Quote:
— V was a hero in the sense that he gave the people the courage to restore their freedoms.
O- You mean to live less secure. How did V live after he lost that fear, or need to be secure? By the lenght of his knives. Evey hides long enough to send a train to blow up a building. V says that a people should not be afraid of their govt but that the govt should be afraid of the people. But when there is no govt, will the people not be afraid of other people?
— Security is a cost of freedom and vice versa. V lived ‘by the length of his knives’, but he was heading a revolution. I doubt he could have survived any other way with such circumstances.
O- My point is that not all are very good at weilding knives, and that one object of govt is to eliminate the need to live by one’s own virtues with knives and guns etc. Remove that, and you return to a state of anarchy, where one must battle. The people should not be afraid of it’s govt? Then it should be afraid of itself…
— The government should be afraid of the people, because the people are the ones who ultimately decide who is government. This government failed its people, and the people were too afraid to stand up and replace them until V came about. That’s why V is the hero in this film.
O- Failed the people? Hardly, if it was the occasion that the govt offended the entire collective then no hero would have been needed to effect the revolution. No propaganda would have been needed to move the indolent mases. When the govt offends a group of people, two things happen:
1- they revolt and behave as if it did not exist. They become looters and rioters.
2- the govt has given opportunity to another powerful entity to come an ursurp it’s soveirngnty because it will have support from the people. Because of this, most govt offend only a group of people at a time. A govt is some pure object. It’s working require the cooperation of many groups. V’s list was indeed long. This is why it is dangerous to talk of the “People” because of the danger of dehumanizing actual humans beings in the process and justifying, because of this, their assasination in the name of, ironically, themselves.
— Tell me, are there any films that fill this criteria? It’s a film for a reason: Entertainment.
O- That is why I say that the revolution will be only televised…ironically, for the entretainment of would-be revolutionaries. The mases live their revolutionistic desires, vicariously, throught these heroes. Television: The new opium…