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. It’s 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 it’s 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.

It’s 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.