|
The story is set around 2035 some years after
Norsefire's rise to power. All the blacks, gays, Muslims and
immigrants have been murdered or expelled during a period known as
the 'reformation'. This period was triggered by a terrorist
biological warfare attack upon England. The hero - "V" - is a former
inmate of a concentration camp where he was used for medical
experiments for developing germ warfare agents. He escapes and
hatches a plot to blow up Parliament in order to bring down the
regime. He also plans to kill all those who ran the camp where he
was interred and where so many innocent lives were lost.
Along the way he accidentally becomes allied
to a girl - Evey (Natalie Portman). A detective Finch (Stephen Rea)
is attempting to hunt down V & Evey before the secret police get to
them. His detective work leads him to believe that the Terrorist
attack (that lead to the Reformation and rise to power of Norsefire)
was not all that it seemed. Therein lies the political dynamite in
the plot.
The Norsefire regime, of course, label "V" as
a 'terrorist'. Yet he is the hero of the story. Whereas Spielberg's
"Munich" chose to question the wisdom of State-sponsored revenge
assassination of so-called terrorists, "V for Vendetta" tackles the
issue of "what is a terrorist" head-on. The movie also clearly
illustrates the process whereby democracy can easily be turned into
dictatorship. Events leading up to Norsefire gaining power clearly
parallel Germany in the 1930's. Even more obviously the events have
parallels to World events in 2005 when the movie was made. Proof, if
any was needed, that we are condemned to repeat history if we don't
learn from it... Pearl Harbour, Gulf of Tonkin, the burning of the
Reich Stag, the Twin Towers.
It's is all the same. Any Government can engineer events, and the
subsequent public fear, to give them the power they desire.
The reactions this stirred in some people were bizarre. I saw one
IMDB forum member express how outraged he was that such a
pro-terrorist movie got made. Now there is someone who has
completely missed the point of the movie and has an extremely
simplistic view of the World. Wake up people. The definition of the
word "terrorist" is a 'word used as a slur to defame the enemy's
combatants'. Pure and simple. Using terror against civilian
population has been to single largest weapon of war used by
democratic western Governments for over one-hundred years. Just
because the combatants in such a war don't wear a uniform doesn't
invalidate the actuality of their actions. Wearing the Uniform of
the USAF does not NOT make you a terrorist.
The other bizarre piece of nonsense spotted
on the forum was one clown who declared that such events could never
happen in the USA because they have a Bill of Rights. It is far more
likely to happen now, in America. If anything, it already has. The
words are all the same, only the faces change. |