The Burr in the Burgh

I am not so sure.

"V" is not a sympathetic character. Several times it is stated that he is a monster. He even makes his apprentice into something like himself by torturing her in the same way he was tortured. If the audience didn't think he was a monster before that, they are sure of it after. He says he did it to free her from fear, but in removing her fear he deeply wounded her and removed her joy. She is not afraid to die because he has taken away her will to live.

The symoblic liberation comes at the end of the movie. The masses had taken up the masks and costume of "V." They removed the masks and we saw their faces. They were ordinary people, ready to start over after this mini-apocalypse and ready to move forward without V.

The original story is quite a bit different than the movie. There it is clear that V is an anarchist. That is hinted at in the movie as well. In his televised speech he blames the people for the government. Unlike the book, I don't recall him killing any innocent people in the movie. He is more a freedom-fighter in the movie. But he does set-up the deaths of those in tv station and he never helps anyone other than Evie, who he ends up torturing. For the most part he only really cares about his vengeance. Once he has hurt those who hurt him he is ready to cash it in. He is suicidal. He has not desire to rule. His one single gesture for the people, after placing them all in harm's way, was to destroy the symbol of the government (all of whom he had killed). He says the people need the symbol. That is as close to nice as he gets.

I am not sure he is a fascist. That seems a bit of a stretch and oversimplified to me. He is more an anarchist (even though that comes out much stronger in the books.) Whatever V is, even he is simply Anti-Bush (which is really a stretch), he is not a hero. So to react against him as a actually a bad guy is a obvious as calling Darth Vader a bad guy. No one sees this movie and says: "We should follow V's principals."

If there is a hero in this movie it is the policeman who strives for justice in a very imperfect world. For all of that I'd think someone like Siemon-Netto would be all over this. Here is a policeman who must work for a very corrupt government and who is sympathetic to much of V's case, but who, nonetheless, wants to work against violence and fear and the like. But Simeon-Netto just didn't get it at all. I don't disagree with his principals, just most everything he said about what this movie meant and was about.

I enjoyed the movie. It was thought-provoking, fun, and interesting all at the same time.

Petersen,
Could you provide a link for the Siemon-Netto review? Thanks!

The review has the following quote:

"Hall claims V’s “outcry is not of an anarchist or a nihilist, but that of a seeker of justice and justifiable outrage,” and that the “lesson of V is that dictatorships exist only when good citizens withdraw from the struggle.” "

That sounds so much like the "works" groups- those who don't actively engage the government with Christian ideals are somehow not Christian. The concept is flawed on so many levels.

FYI I haven't seen the movie- it looks like a special effects extravaganza. I think the plotline is there to justify the explosions.

Here is an excellent observation from Dr. Veith at Cranach:

http://cranach.worldmagblog.com/cranach/archives/2006/04/more_fascism_in.html