Kevin's Watch

because he wanted to end the English persecution and murder of Catholic? because the Church of England started up because Henry 8th wanted a divorce? because getting rid of a corrupt parliment is too good of an idea.

or because Guy would have struck a blow for all the persecuted under the English boot-heel? countries like Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

CovenantJr wrote:...to be factually correct, Guy Fawkes is remembered in a bad way on Guy Fawkes' Night. There's a little rhyme that goes with it, about not forgetting treason.

Not that I'm particularly sore about the whole thing; I just think it's ludicrous to idolise someone like Guy Fawkes.

Understood. I suppose it would be like writing a story about a "hero" who wears a mask resembling some IRA bomber, or Osama Bin Laden - to put a modern spin on it.

However, within the context of the story Alan Moore is telling, the Guy Fawkes imagery/persona is very effective. And I always refer to the character as V, not as Fawkes, if that makes any difference.

I saw V for Vendetta last Saturday with my twin. I thought it was an amazing movie. I loved V, when i heard his voice i thought whoa Agent Smith. Still i loved it so much. Im gonna go see again with my dad then again with my friends.

Matrix: well the comparison of Fawkes to Osama isn't accurate. we were not occupying Laden's hoemland and actively oppressing him at the time. i know Fawkes methods need to be questioned...

Matrixman wrote:However, within the context of the story Alan Moore is telling, the Guy Fawkes imagery/persona is very effective. And I always refer to the character as V, not as Fawkes, if that makes any difference.

Thanks for acknowledging my point. But it's really not the mask that bothers me - it's Null's fascination with him. I just find it somewhat peculiar.

Null: No, Bin Laden's homeland wasn't occupied, but there was certainly some sense of oppression there. There's an old saying about this - "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter." Fawkes was no more and no less a terrorist than Bin Laden; you just agree more with his cause.

his cause was freedom for a people being murdered, so yes i support his cause.

I think I will skip this movie; think the setting is way to cliche *cough 1984 cough*.

try the graphic novel instead, much more depth. Moore is very good.

Moore is good.

The niggly thing with V For Vendetta - the graphic novel - is that you'll either like it as an ingenious variation on the 1984 story, or you'll disdain it as nothing more than a rip-off of 1984. Well, I had read Orwell's book in school years before I came upon V For Vendetta. 1984 had blown me away: it was the single most powerful and disturbing novel I had ever read. Yet that didn't prevent me from being moved by Moore's story. That's saying something. At no point was I thinking Moore was just knocking off Orwell. Moore and artist David Lloyd are telling their story and creating their own world, not Orwell's or anybody else's.

Getting back to the movie, a curious little anachronism of this future society is the apparent non-existence of personal computers in the households depicted in the film. That in turn implies there is no internet (at least not for the masses) in this reality. Every home and store has a large plasma TV display somewhere (yes, easier for the government's propaganda broadcasts to get through to everyone) but PCs are conspicuous by their absence. I don't recall seeing any, except for the PC-like terminals used by the police to sift through data during their investigation of V. I can understand how the filmmakers may have wanted to be faithful to the graphic novel - it was written in the early '80s, so indeed there would have been no internet. But then neither did fancy plasma TV technology exist back then. Maybe I'm just nitpicking, but it's a question of consistency. The filmmakers may have wanted to portray an up-to-date society for today's audiences, but how real and current is a society that lacks the all-pervasive presence of PCs and the internet?

This brings up another interesting question: could Big Brother exist in an internet-savvy culture? Could a totalitarian regime last for long in a world where the general population had the power and freedom of instant online information and communication at its fingertips? I heard that Britain is right now the most "policed" country in the world, in terms of the sheer number of surveillance cameras that are installed in public spaces. So British citizens may be thoroughly "watched" when they're out and about on the streets, but I don't think anyone would seriously claim Britain was a totalitarian state.

The Communist Party in China, however, seems to have retained tight control on the flow of information, allowing only a censored version of the internet to be accessed by its citizens. So this, at least, is one depressing example of a totalitarian state that has managed to control even online freedom. Shame on Google and others for colluding with the government, but that's business, right?

Matrixman wrote:This brings up another interesting question: could Big Brother exist in an internet-savvy culture? Could a totalitarian regime last for long in a world where the general population had the power and freedom of instant online information and communication at its fingertips? I heard that Britain is right now the most "policed" country in the world, in terms of the sheer number of surveillance cameras that are installed in public spaces. So British citizens may be thoroughly "watched" when they're out and about on the streets, but I don't think anyone would seriously claim Britain was a totalitarian state.

The thing with 1984, Big Brother was pervasive and all-watching, but the real power of the Party was that it had control over history and the minds of the public, oh and completely restricted access to technology and food due to its war economy. The party would not allow internet technology due to its inherent problems with freedom of information. You could then argue that Britain is unlike that totalitarian state as, while it does monitor its population, it does not attempt to change their mindset nor ground their lives under its heel.

Sorry for lecturing you, MM; I realise you have read the classic. Just giving my opinion.

No problem, LM. Good of you to clarify that.

If Orwell could see Britain today though, with all the surveillance equipment, he'd probably freak out.

This brings up another interesting question: could Big Brother exist in an internet-savvy culture?

of course, with cookies keeping track of our whereabouts. books still being banned in libraries, hoemland security having no warrent searches. some would contend that big brother has ahold of us now.

I can easily see a government (Not the US, mind you! No, no! I mean other, evil governments. *smiles pretty for the caqmeras*) making it illegal for its citizens to use the internet, having tons of the best computer geeks constantly patroling the net for activity originating within the country, and killing or imprisoning the criminal. Yeah, in today's world, V would have to be a computer geek himself, but since Moore wrote it so long ago, we'll have to pretend. heh

sgtnull wrote:This brings up another interesting question: could Big Brother exist in an internet-savvy culture?

of course, with cookies keeping track of our whereabouts. books still being banned in libraries, hoemland security having no warrent searches. some would contend that big brother has ahold of us now.

But it's not the constant surveillance that characterised the society of 1984; it was the nature of controlling people's minds and lives that allowed the government to exist. I have nothing to fear from surveillance. And regardless, it's a moot point; surveillance is not all pervasive as hardly every stree are monitored, and surveillance does not occur in private dwellings.

Loremaster wrote:

sgtnull wrote:This brings up another interesting question: could Big Brother exist in an internet-savvy culture?

of course, with cookies keeping track of our whereabouts. books still being banned in libraries, hoemland security having no warrent searches. some would contend that big brother has ahold of us now.

But it's not the constant surveillance that characterised the society of 1984; it was the nature of controlling people's minds and lives that allowed the government to exist.

Agreed. The most chilling and powerful parts of the society in 1984 were those connected with doctoring history; not just eliminating people but expunging their entrire existence. Also, the war that may or may not exist.

1984 was horrifying because of the control of information more than the surveillance.

sgtnull wrote:his cause was freedom for a people being murdered

As are they all.

ask the book banners if they want to control info. ask why people have to fight for the freedom of info act. ask how many documents the bush admin has made secret. ask about whistleblowers. your freedoms are being assaulted. and too often we give them up.

Making documents secret to protect the military, state security or a government is not akin to the actions of a totalitarian state.

Loremaster wrote

I have nothing to fear from surveillance

Surveillance is something to fear.

Just saw V for Vendetta. Now I understand the hitherto quite inexpicable idolisation of Guy Fawkes. He comes out of this film looking like a historical version of V, a bold freedom fighter. No.

www.bonefire.org/guy/gunpowder.php wrote:In 1605, thirteen young men planned to blow up
the Houses of Parliament. Among them was
Guy Fawkes, Britain's most notorious traitor.

After Queen Elizabeth I died in 1603, English Catholics who had been persecuted under her rule had hoped that her successor, James I, would be more tolerant of their religion. James I had, after all, had a Catholic mother. Unfortunately, James did not turn out to be more tolerant than Elizabeth and a number of young men, 13 to be exact, decided that violent action was the answer.

A small group took shape, under the leadership of Robert Catesby. Catesby felt that violent action was warranted. Indeed, the thing to do was to blow up the Houses of Parliament. In doing so, they would kill the King, maybe even the Prince of Wales, and the Members of Parliament who were making life difficult for the Catholics. Today these conspirators would be known as extremists, or terrorists.

To carry out their plan, the conspirators got hold of 36 barrels of gunpowder - and stored them in a cellar, just under the House of Lords.

But as the group worked on the plot, it became clear that innocent people would be hurt or killed in the attack, including some people who even fought for more rights for Catholics. Some of the plotters started having second thoughts. One of the group members even sent an anonymous letter warning his friend, Lord Monteagle, to stay away from the Parliament on November 5th.

The warning letter reached the King, and the King's forces made plans to stop the conspirators.

Guy Fawkes, who was in the cellar of the parliament with the 36 barrels of gunpowder when the authorities stormed it in the early hours of November 5th, was caught, tortured and executed.

It's unclear if the conspirators would ever have been able to pull off their plan to blow up the Parliament even if they had not been betrayed. Some have suggested that the gunpowder itself was so old as to be useless. Since Guy Fawkes and the other conspirators got caught before trying to ignite the powder, we'll never know for certain.

Even for the period which was notoriously unstable, the Gunpowder Plot struck a very profound chord for the people of England. In fact, even today, the reigning monarch only enters the Parliament once a year, on what is called "the State Opening of Parliament". Prior to the Opening, and according to custom, the Yeomen of the Guard search the cellars of the Palace of Westminster. Nowadays, the Queen and Parliament still observe this tradition.

On the very night that the Gunpowder Plot was foiled, on November 5th, 1605, bonfires were set alight to celebrate the safety of the King. Since then, November 5th has become known as Bonfire Night. The event is commemorated every year with fireworks and burning effigies of Guy Fawkes on a bonfire.

Some of the English have been known to wonder, in a tongue in cheek kind of way, whether they are celebrating Fawkes' execution or honoring his attempt to do away with the government.

So Fawkes was one of the few who discovered innocents and even allies were likely to die in the explosion, yet proceeded regardless.


Anyway, about the film:

I enjoyed it immensely. This might be added to the very short list of films that have made a lasting impression on me.

Some elements were a little unconvincing.

Spoiler

The most ridiculous of these was V in an apron. Just no. But there were other, less ludicrous, moments that left me with a cynical eyebrow raised. V falling in love with Evey was one; it just didn't seem to fit.
Also, the elaborate ruse of torturing Evey to relieve her of fear seemed...implausible. I concede that the problem here may be one of length; perhaps this whole episode would have been easier to accept if there had been more depth (which would require more time). But I'm aware that some things simply aren't practical in film.

Those criticisms, however, are relatively small gripes. Aside from those, I found a lot to praise about the film, foremost among which is Hugo Weaving's performance. It's a credit to him as an actor that he conveyed a variety of emotions and expressions while concealed behind a mask. With his body language and voice alone, Weaving puts to shame a large number of supposed actors who aren't similarly...impaired.

Natalie Portman was...adequate...so let's just skip past her. She was fine; nothing special, but fine.

The second praiseworthy element is the writing. I can't compare the film to Alan Moore's original work, but I found the combination of plot, character and politics caused me to think - a rare enough occurrence in cinema. I'm not saying it caused me to scratch my head or reconsider my beliefs, but it was obvious that thought was put into the writing, and I find that thoughtful writing tends to engender thought in return.

It's late and I'm too tired to elaborate further on that, so I'll move onto simpler ground by pointing out that V occasionally reminded me of a more articulate Batman. Most of time he didn't, but there were moments. Reflecting on those moments now, I'm left with the impression that if I, rather than Bruce Wayne, became Batman, I'd be more like V.

All in all, I enjoyed it and will probably buy the DVD. Perhaps the highest compliment is it made me want to read the original. I'll probably do that too.