The Movie “V for Vendetta”

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Main part
Bibliography

Introduction

The 2005 movie “V for Vendetta” stands out as an example of a recent cinematographic work that was allowed for release in theatres, despite the fact that it actually mocks state-sponsored ideological oppressiveness, which is now being strongly associated with promoters’ of neo-Liberal agenda tendency to shove up the doctrine of “multiculturalism” down citizens’ throats. Therefore, even though that formally speaking, “V for Vendetta” portrays the hypothetical future of Britain being under the yoke of far-right dictatorship, it is quite impossible not to notice the fact that the hypothetical realities of a particular political ideology completely domineering Britain’s socio-political life, as shown in the movie, actually correspond to the fact that nowadays, many citizens in Western countries are simply afraid to openly express their political opinions, while knowing perfectly well that their intellectual honesty might actually cost them their jobs and even freedom, simply because it can easily qualify these people for being charged with “racism”, “sexism”, “male chauvinism” etc.

Main part

In his article “Former Soviet Dissident Warns for EU Dictatorship”, Paul Belien quotes a former Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovksy, who had suggested that slowly but surely, EU (European Union) transforms itself into an equivalent of Soviet Union: “The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Today’s ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness. Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality. France passed the same law of hate speech concerning gays. Britain is passing hate speech laws concerning race relations and now religious speech, and so on and so forth. (Belien 2006). The careful watching of “V for Vendetta” reveals the fact that the high-ranking officials from Norsefire Party, thought of the prospect of citizens being told the truth about what is going on in the country, as such that represents the foremost danger to “stability”.

Therefore, only a very lazy individual would not be willing to run parallels between how movie depicts people being ideologically brainwashed and how today’s Western Medias misinform citizens on the practical effects of “celebration of diversity” policy being given an official status. For example, in “V for Vendetta”, government reacts to the destruction of Old Bailey by “V”, by declaring it being an emergency demolition – in other words, it deliberately misleads citizens as to what had really happened. In the similar manner, British mainstream Medias used to refer to London’s racial riots of 2001 and 2003 as “racist provocation”, “crime against spirit of tolerance” and “neo-nazi conspiracy”, even though that Londoners who participated in mass rallies against their country being turned into the “Northern Pakistan”, were ordinary citizens, which simply got fed up with newly arrived Muslim immigrants’ tendency to explore their “ethnic uniqueness”, by raping White women. Thus, the actual message, conveyed by “V for Vendetta”, does not actually relate to this movie’s ideological premise that gays, lesbians and the representatives of racial minorities can act as “freedom fighters”, simply because these people could not care less about protecting their country’s national integrity. In its turn, this allows us to suggest that the public controversy, surrounding “V for Vendetta”, has nothing to do with movie’s clearly defined anti-religious and even anti-American sentiment, but solely with the fact that this movie promotes the idea that there is only one effective way for citizens to protect their civil freedoms from government’s oppression – proving to governmental officials that their bodies are not bulletproof.

Therefore, we can only agree with John Hiscock, who in his article “Why V for Vendetta spells C for Controversy” explains why this movie has fallen out of favor with the hawks of political correctness, despite the fact that it portrays the struggle of “lefties” against “far-right dictatorship” as being morally justified: “The central issue (in the movie) is fear and to what extent people living in fear should or should not take responsibility for their own lives, and it is also about governments not being responsible to their own people” (Hiscock 2006). It goes without saying, of course, that the very idea of ordinary citizens taking control over their lives, poses a clear and immediate danger to neo-Liberal governmental bureaucracy in Western countries, simply because the representatives of this bureaucracy can be referred to as anything but public servants. For example, the members of European Parliament actually appoint themselves to hold various offices in EU quasi-state, with ordinary Europeans being deprived of any opportunity to hold these bureaucrats responsible for their actions, whatsoever.

The recent passing of “hate speech laws” in such countries as France, Britain and Germany was meant to remove even a theoretical possibility for ordinary citizens to express their concerns on the issues of socio-political importance. In countries of EU, children are being indoctrinated to believe that “violence does not solve anything”, from the time they begin attending elementary school, even though that it is namely the utilization of naked violence, which allowed the establishing Western civilization, as we know it. “V for Vendetta”, on the other hand, promotes the idea that the best way to reason with corrupt politicians is waking them up in the middle of night and forcing them to face the prospect of a gun bullet being driven through their heads. As Mario Puzo’s character of Godfather used to say: “The combination of a gentle word and a gun is always better then a gentle word alone”.

Thus, we can only give a credit to the producers of “V for Vendetta”, as people who were able to achieve two seemingly contradictory goals: to instil their movie with socially productive ideas and to deprive neo-Liberal censors of legitimate reasons to criticize movie over its blatant glorification of violence (according to hook-nosed spokesmen for “tolerance”, in its only “right-wing” violence, which is “inappropriate”, whereas the acts of violence committed by anarchists, left-wing extremists, “Nazi hunters”, are not only appropriate, but even necessary). Even though that the overall movie’s statement can only be read “between the lines”, it does not make this statement less clear – only the citizens capable of protecting their civil rights with whatever the means possible may enjoy these rights, in the first place. It is only when governmental officials are being periodically forced to face a barrel of a gun, which will prevent them from even considering the possibility of abusing their powers. It is only when people value their freedom more then they value their safety, which justifies their existence, in the eyes of history.

Bibliography

Hiscock, John “Why V for Vendetta spells C for Controversy”. 2006. Telegraph.Co.Uk. Web.

Puzo, Mario “The Godfather”. NY: Putnam Adult, 1969.

Warner Brothers Pictures, Ltd. “V for Vendetta”. 2005. Online movie. LOPTOPFILM. Web.

Click Here To Order Now!

The Movie “V for Vendetta”

Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?

We have qualified writers to help you.

We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.

You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)