Steven Brence
07-11-2011, 07:55 PM
1) In "V for Vendetta", both at the beginning of the film, and near the end, the Evey character, functioning as the film's narrator, tells us that the power of an idea surpasses that of a man. At the same time, she acknowledges the intangible nature of ideas; they may motivate sacrifice and not die, but they cannot bleed, feel pain, or laugh. Neither can you kiss, hold, nor touch ideas. What does it mean, then, that the V character, the man she claims she misses and who made her remember the 5th of November, willingly dies for an idea? Is the film, through the opposing views of its main characters, ambivalent about this idea--the willingness to die for an idea? After viewing the film, how should we treat the relative values of a person and an idea? Is it proper to sacrifice human beings, oneself included, for ideas?
2) Why is the film presented in the form of a flashback or memory? What role do memory and forgetting play in respect to meaning and value?
3) One of the "fingermen", near the beginning of the film, sarcastically invokes the Biblical wisdom , "spare the rod and spoil the child", in order to justify their intention to rape Evey. Soon, however, V, the presumptive hero of the film, also invokes that saying, and seems to use some version of it in his own abuse of Evey. Does the film ultimately endorse the wisdom of this phrase? If so, how?
4) In justifying having kidnapped and tortured Evey, V claims to have, in the first instance, thankfully gotten to her "before they did", and, in the second, to have only made good on her own stated wish to be without fear. Would Evey have had anything more to fear from the government, if they had gotten to her first, than she did from V? He managed to convince her that she was in the hands of the government only by treating her as they would have, after all. Was V justified in his methods by Evey's prior off-handed remark that she wished she was strong and without fear, even if it was the only way to accomplish that end?
5) After he tortured Evey, V claimed that what was done to him created him, and that the monstrous nature of that action is responsible for creating his vengeful reaction. Evey responds that in that action they created a monster (V, that is). V does not refute the claim then and asserts its truth later in the film, at which point Evey objects to it, suggesting it was not true. Was it true? Was V a monster made by the monstrous actions of others? What was the film's view? Did Evey become a monster in reaction to V's monstrous treatment of her? If not, why not?
6) As a result of Evey's torture and refusal to cooperate, V contends that she has been rendered "completely free." Presumably, this judgment is meant to mirror the claims made within the toilet paper auto-biography of Valerie Page (the Lesbian prisoner held in the cell next to V's) that "the last inch" of oneself is "the only thing in the world worth having" and that within it "we are free." Valerie calls it our integrity. What do integrity and freedom have to do with one another? How would losing one's fear of dying provide that integrity--the last inch of oneself and the space of total freedom? Does this make any sense? If it makes sense, is it true?
7) What does V (or Evey who pulls the lever) accomplish in blowing up the parliament building as promised? What will that accomplish for the masses in their Guy Fawkes masks? Haven't all their actions up to this point been choreographed by V? Has he done anything to render them capable of acting without him? If he has, what do you imagine they will do next? If they too are meant to have lost their fear, can a lack of fear provide any positive guidelines for future action? Have they been rendered free?
8) On many occasions in the film, characters refer to "coincidences", using that notion to deny meaning to events that might otherwise appear to be connected. V, however, declares that "there are no coincidences, just the illusion of coincidences." Does not his disposition perhaps render all events in the world to be too much the product of intentional or calculated human planning and effort? Are we, either collectively or even as selective smaller groups, really so in charge of world affairs, even those that directly involve us, or is that perhaps an equally baleful illusion, one that would similarly distort our understanding of the human condition and deny all human agency?
9) V justifies his own use of violence, claiming that it can be used for good too. Is his use of violence justified? He seems to suggest that he is using it to serve the interests of the population around him. Do members of the police not count? Similarly, V describes Chancellor Sutler as young man as having no regard for political procedure. Does V have any more regard for democratic means than did Sutler? Is his own vigilantism any more justifiable than any other? Can we really expect that a democratic culture can be created via individuals acting outside of democratic means?
10) The film seems to suggest that the chief means by which oppressive governments control the populations they govern, more even than violence, is fear. Does this have any currency in the world as we experience it? Is fear among ordinary populations promoted (or even manufactured) by governments so that they may enact policies justified by such fears? Would such a strategy, if it were in fact used, render a government non-democratic independent of the policies it was used to justify, or would the policies themselves need to be undemocratic? Is overcoming fear a significant means to freedom? Is the absence of fear freedom itself?
11) The theme of masks recurs throughout the film with freedom seeming to be regarded as the ability to live without a mask. What sense does that make? What does that suggest about us--note how we are put behind the V mask at the beginning of the film? How does wearing that mask serve to liberate people in the film? Is that idea coherent? What happens when, at the very end of the film, all those behind the mask take them off?
12) In the past year (2011) replicas of the Guy Fawkes mask V wears in the film have become popular among participants in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Similarly, they have been worn by members of the hacker group "Anonymous" and recently by Julian Assange, the founder and head of WikiLeaks, the group devoted to undermining government secrecy through the publication of classified documents. Upon closer scrutiny of the film, however, is this appropriation of the symbol from the film for their efforts appropriate? Are these movements and organizations like V's? Should they be? If they are, should they be expected to serve democratic ends or are they just "reactions", as V regards himself, and perhaps seeking nothing more noble than vengeance? Is there anything these organizations and movements can learn from the film in respect to their own efforts?
2) Why is the film presented in the form of a flashback or memory? What role do memory and forgetting play in respect to meaning and value?
3) One of the "fingermen", near the beginning of the film, sarcastically invokes the Biblical wisdom , "spare the rod and spoil the child", in order to justify their intention to rape Evey. Soon, however, V, the presumptive hero of the film, also invokes that saying, and seems to use some version of it in his own abuse of Evey. Does the film ultimately endorse the wisdom of this phrase? If so, how?
4) In justifying having kidnapped and tortured Evey, V claims to have, in the first instance, thankfully gotten to her "before they did", and, in the second, to have only made good on her own stated wish to be without fear. Would Evey have had anything more to fear from the government, if they had gotten to her first, than she did from V? He managed to convince her that she was in the hands of the government only by treating her as they would have, after all. Was V justified in his methods by Evey's prior off-handed remark that she wished she was strong and without fear, even if it was the only way to accomplish that end?
5) After he tortured Evey, V claimed that what was done to him created him, and that the monstrous nature of that action is responsible for creating his vengeful reaction. Evey responds that in that action they created a monster (V, that is). V does not refute the claim then and asserts its truth later in the film, at which point Evey objects to it, suggesting it was not true. Was it true? Was V a monster made by the monstrous actions of others? What was the film's view? Did Evey become a monster in reaction to V's monstrous treatment of her? If not, why not?
6) As a result of Evey's torture and refusal to cooperate, V contends that she has been rendered "completely free." Presumably, this judgment is meant to mirror the claims made within the toilet paper auto-biography of Valerie Page (the Lesbian prisoner held in the cell next to V's) that "the last inch" of oneself is "the only thing in the world worth having" and that within it "we are free." Valerie calls it our integrity. What do integrity and freedom have to do with one another? How would losing one's fear of dying provide that integrity--the last inch of oneself and the space of total freedom? Does this make any sense? If it makes sense, is it true?
7) What does V (or Evey who pulls the lever) accomplish in blowing up the parliament building as promised? What will that accomplish for the masses in their Guy Fawkes masks? Haven't all their actions up to this point been choreographed by V? Has he done anything to render them capable of acting without him? If he has, what do you imagine they will do next? If they too are meant to have lost their fear, can a lack of fear provide any positive guidelines for future action? Have they been rendered free?
8) On many occasions in the film, characters refer to "coincidences", using that notion to deny meaning to events that might otherwise appear to be connected. V, however, declares that "there are no coincidences, just the illusion of coincidences." Does not his disposition perhaps render all events in the world to be too much the product of intentional or calculated human planning and effort? Are we, either collectively or even as selective smaller groups, really so in charge of world affairs, even those that directly involve us, or is that perhaps an equally baleful illusion, one that would similarly distort our understanding of the human condition and deny all human agency?
9) V justifies his own use of violence, claiming that it can be used for good too. Is his use of violence justified? He seems to suggest that he is using it to serve the interests of the population around him. Do members of the police not count? Similarly, V describes Chancellor Sutler as young man as having no regard for political procedure. Does V have any more regard for democratic means than did Sutler? Is his own vigilantism any more justifiable than any other? Can we really expect that a democratic culture can be created via individuals acting outside of democratic means?
10) The film seems to suggest that the chief means by which oppressive governments control the populations they govern, more even than violence, is fear. Does this have any currency in the world as we experience it? Is fear among ordinary populations promoted (or even manufactured) by governments so that they may enact policies justified by such fears? Would such a strategy, if it were in fact used, render a government non-democratic independent of the policies it was used to justify, or would the policies themselves need to be undemocratic? Is overcoming fear a significant means to freedom? Is the absence of fear freedom itself?
11) The theme of masks recurs throughout the film with freedom seeming to be regarded as the ability to live without a mask. What sense does that make? What does that suggest about us--note how we are put behind the V mask at the beginning of the film? How does wearing that mask serve to liberate people in the film? Is that idea coherent? What happens when, at the very end of the film, all those behind the mask take them off?
12) In the past year (2011) replicas of the Guy Fawkes mask V wears in the film have become popular among participants in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement. Similarly, they have been worn by members of the hacker group "Anonymous" and recently by Julian Assange, the founder and head of WikiLeaks, the group devoted to undermining government secrecy through the publication of classified documents. Upon closer scrutiny of the film, however, is this appropriation of the symbol from the film for their efforts appropriate? Are these movements and organizations like V's? Should they be? If they are, should they be expected to serve democratic ends or are they just "reactions", as V regards himself, and perhaps seeking nothing more noble than vengeance? Is there anything these organizations and movements can learn from the film in respect to their own efforts?