V for Vendetta

Even though I had already seen V for Vendetta a few times before this week, it was great to revisit it after having gone through a course on ideology. The story takes place in the future, and one of the most disconcerting aspects of the film was that most of the events are entirely plausible. Chancellor Sutler was not just a raving lunatic, he was intelligent, manipulative and charismatic. The scenes depicting Sutler's ride to power and his speeches in front of thousands of followers, the movie seemed to be making a reference to Hitler's rise to totalitarian power and the creation of the Third Reich. It was a reminder of the power of the "cult of personality," that someone who is confident and strong can overcome the sometimes feebler power of logical thought. The government in V for Vendetta's England is one based on the politics of fear. After the outbreak of the virus, Sutler offered stability and security to people who were in a state of chaos. He carefully manipulated the situation (one that, as it turns out, he played a hand in creating) to construct himself an image as a hero.

The character V was particularly interesting because he is the protagonist of the story, and yet he is a terrorist. Especially in American culture, to see a terrorist as our hero is very uncommon. This raises the timeless question of whether or not the ends always justify the means. Was V justified in killing the "Finger Men" because they were following orders from the fascist regime? Did he have the right to have the Chancellor killed? Was it reasonable to blow up Parliament? I think that, in the film world of V for Vendetta, this terrorism was justified because it was only a reaction to the institutionalized terrorism of the government. As V says in the film, people should not be afraid of their government; the government should be afraid of its people.