
The
International Writers Magazine: Comment
|
Wondering
about Vendetta
Joshua A. Lineberry
Terrorism:
"The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence
by a person or an organized group against people or property with
the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments,
often for ideological or political reasons."
(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language,
Fourth Edition)
|
|
For months, I had
anticipated the thriller V for Vendetta, which stars Hugo Weaving as
a masked anarchist using terrorist tactics to fight a totalitarian English
government. As I climbed into my car and started the engine, I couldn't
help but wonder what implications this movie had towards our current
war against Islamic extremists and the larger war on terrorism itself.
In the masked crusader V's future, England faces the harsh reality of
what happens when a society ignores or dismisses acts by their government
which threaten their personal freedoms. I found myself wondering during
the viewing of the movie: In a country where just over half its citizens
covet and use their right to vote, how could we view the tyranny of
this world in the movie as a fantasy which isn't likely to happen?
I had other, perhaps lesser, concerns. For one, the movie wasn't very
balanced and was obviously an attack on the religious right. Then I
thought, this is Hollywood. Obviously, there wouldn't be balance. And
you're a Democrat! What do you care?
I don't know. I simply believe that a movie sacrifices some of its effectiveness
when it alienates a significant portion of its audience. When V ominously
mutters, "He was a member of the conservative party"
in his description of the Hitler-like Chancellor of England, I found
myself feeling it was a little unnecessary. Throughout the film, with
its references to wiretappings to the resentment of homosexuals and
Muslims, it was obvious to the audience that this was a right-wing group
in possession of power in England. I say: Let the audience know some
things for themselves. I realize I'm being a little tedious in this
matter, as one of two political parties in England is literally named
the Conservative Party. However, in the current political climate here
in America, those leaning right may dismiss this film as leftist propaganda
rather than listening to the film's message.
Still yet, even though I wasn't insulted by what I've described above,
I had difficulty accepting the film's message as valid. Basically, the
hero in this film is a terrorist. He commits violent acts by blowing
up buildings to make a political statement and, in the end, successfully
causes a revolution that overthrows the reigning government. I thought,
is this productive in our struggle to defeat terrorists abroad? Is it
productive to portray them in a positive light? Then I remembered. This
movie isn't about Islamic extremists. Its about a man fighting
totalitarianism. In that sort of situation, people must make difficult
choices. Then, if that's the case, is terrorism justified in some cases?
As the movie would imply, terrorism is an idea. It is a tactic. It is
not inherently evil in principle unless those carrying it out have evil
motives. When V told Evey (played by Natalie Portman) that the building
he just blew up was a symbol, I found myself thinking of the World Trade
Center. Those two towers were symbols of the United States' prosperity
and, in some eyes, its arrogance and overwhelming superiority. By destroying
the towers, Islamic extremists hoped to intimidate Americans into removing
their powerful influence from Middle Eastern affairs. But, as the credits
rolled, I wondered if the attack was also a call to action, like it
had been in V for Vendetta. Were extremists calling out to the
brothers and sisters of their faith, appealing to Muslims all over the
world to take up arms and join them in their struggles? Would these
terrorists perceive the United States as the same tyrannical enemy that
dominated England in the movie?
I think the answer is yes.
After V's initial terrorist attack, the English government does not
consider unraveling its restrictions on personal freedoms. In fact,
reigning powers that be only tighten the noose around the neck of the
English people, enraging and invigorating them with enough passion to
rise and follow a terrorist. I silently wondered, is this what we've
done to the Islamic world by invading Iraq? In the eyes of the Middle
East, I think it may be. And, I fear before the curtain call, we may
not only be fighting with a small group of terrorists, but a sea of
smiling masked faces (you would only understand if you've seen the movie).
I think its interesting that a terrorist attack explained in the
back-story of V for Vendetta is what creates the totalitarian
society V finds himself fighting. The attack, carried out by religious
extremists, allows the government opportunity to impose restrictions
on all sorts of freedoms that eventually give those in power complete
control over the population of the country. Every phone line in the
nation is wiretapped and monitored frequently. Artistic forms of expression
and many forms of music have been outlawed. Homosexuals and non-Christians
are persecuted, imprisoned, and killed. Anyone who speaks out against
the government is intimidated, eventually imprisoned, and ultimately
never heard from again. The Wachowski brothers were drawing obvious
parallels to our society, and this world they've created is what they
suppose our world will be like if we continue in the current direction
we've entrenched ourselves. I think there may be some truth to their
message.
Its equally as interesting that a terrorist attack is the initial
source that eventually causes the breakdown of a society built upon
the fear of terrorists. Above all the political statements the Wachowski
brothers may have been trying to make by creating this movie, I think
one message they were trying to portray reigns truer than all the rest.
Terrorism itself is not an enemy. It cannot be killed. When it is used,
the aftermath can be good or bad. I have an example. Using the definition
given above the first paragraph, terrorism does not necessarily have
to be carried out by any evil such as Islamic extremists. For instance,
in World War II, the United States government dropped two atomic bombs
on the Japanese empire, instantly vaporizing thousands and leaving thousands
more to die. These were mostly citizens, not soldiers. By definition,
the bombings of Japan were terrorist attacks carried out to intimidate
their government into surrendering. In the end, both countries benefited.
If the bombs had never been dropped, millions more may have died in
a war for the Japanese mainland that surely would have lasted much longer
than the war for occupied Pacific islands. Because the bombs were dropped,
that chapter in history was never written, and today the Japanese people
are cherished friends of the United States. As in V for Vendetta,
we see that terrorist attacks can be used for good or evil, depending
on the context in which they are carried out.
Of course, I have the same fears as you do. Obviously, some would use
this logic to justify the World Trade Center bombings. I say people
often morph ideas and concepts to serve their will. If Islamic extremism
ever overtakes this planet, it may take another terrorist to save us
from centuries of oppression and persecution. So, I have this to say.
It is not terrorism that we are fighting. It is extremism. Terrorism
can be one society's savior and another's destruction. It is, as war
is, always dangerous and violent. And violence is always detestable
and taxing on those that must commit it. But, at times in our history,
it has been necessary. Those times will come again.
© Joshua Lineberry April 2006
shoukanmahou@yahoo.com
More comment
here
Home
©
Hackwriters 1999-2006
all rights reserved - all comments are the writers' own responsibiltiy
- no liability accepted by hackwriters.com or affiliates.