(SPOILERS) V for Vendetta - The beginning of a discussion with Ty Burr from the Boston Globe.
I thought it was a great movie. It seemed very relevant to the times. I read a review from the Boston Globe by film critic Ty Burr. I felt the need to respond to the following statement.
"'V for Vendetta' says that terrorism's OK as long as no one really gets hurt, and to believe that, you need the wishful thinking of a child."
I did not feel that this was the message this movie was conveying, so I sent Mr. Burr the following email.
"The statement, '"V for Vendetta" says that terrorism's OK as long as no one
really gets hurt" is far-fetched and short-minded. Terrorism requires using
terror as a means of coersion. The population in the film was in no way
afraid of him. His actions were meant to inspire the masses, not drive fear
into their hearts. It was the government in this film that used fear as a
weapon, so by the very definition of the word terrorism, it was they who
were the terrorists."
He sent a very prompt response and I like the questions he poses.
"Ah, but what if there had been collateral damage in the Parliament bombing,
as is the case in almost 100% of violent statements of ideology? (At least
in reality, not in Hollywood movies.) Would the masses have been as
inspired? It's a very interesting question, one that the comic engages
(there *are* innocent deaths in the original stories) and that the movie
ducks in the interest of playing it safe and making money. Was Timothy
McVeigh a terrorist? The 9/11 hijackers? You and I would doubtless say yes.
Okay, what about resistance fighters during WWII whose actions resulted in
the deaths of both Nazis and those fighting them? What about the deaths of
Iraqi civilians from the bombs with which we intended to free Iraq? A
harder question to answer but one very much worth parsing. The movie
pretends to raise it but goes soft in the end -- again, the comic didn't,
and I recommend you read it if you haven't already.
thanks for your note -- T."
Let me know what you think, or if you'd like, read the article and let Mr. Burr know what you think. He seems to be very appreciative of comments.
"'V for Vendetta' says that terrorism's OK as long as no one really gets hurt, and to believe that, you need the wishful thinking of a child."
I did not feel that this was the message this movie was conveying, so I sent Mr. Burr the following email.
"The statement, '"V for Vendetta" says that terrorism's OK as long as no one
really gets hurt" is far-fetched and short-minded. Terrorism requires using
terror as a means of coersion. The population in the film was in no way
afraid of him. His actions were meant to inspire the masses, not drive fear
into their hearts. It was the government in this film that used fear as a
weapon, so by the very definition of the word terrorism, it was they who
were the terrorists."
He sent a very prompt response and I like the questions he poses.
"Ah, but what if there had been collateral damage in the Parliament bombing,
as is the case in almost 100% of violent statements of ideology? (At least
in reality, not in Hollywood movies.) Would the masses have been as
inspired? It's a very interesting question, one that the comic engages
(there *are* innocent deaths in the original stories) and that the movie
ducks in the interest of playing it safe and making money. Was Timothy
McVeigh a terrorist? The 9/11 hijackers? You and I would doubtless say yes.
Okay, what about resistance fighters during WWII whose actions resulted in
the deaths of both Nazis and those fighting them? What about the deaths of
Iraqi civilians from the bombs with which we intended to free Iraq? A
harder question to answer but one very much worth parsing. The movie
pretends to raise it but goes soft in the end -- again, the comic didn't,
and I recommend you read it if you haven't already.
thanks for your note -- T."
Let me know what you think, or if you'd like, read the article and let Mr. Burr know what you think. He seems to be very appreciative of comments.