Comments on V for Vendetta

2006-3-26 17:35:00

John C writes:

Who would have ever dreamed that it would come to the point that the government takes it upon itself to illegally tap phone lines, search peoples' homes without a warrant, or seize internet search records for their fishing expeditions?

There is a good legal case made that tapping phones lies within the Presidents constitutional powers.

First, if you are not a terrorist or have potential terrorists associates you have a chance in millions of being affected by this. A thousand times worse for the average citizens are traffic cops. You are also a thousand times more likely be spied on and to be falsely imprisoned by them. Why not have some outrage where it belongs?

All presidents have tapped phones since there have been phones. Abraham Lincoln opened people's mail looking for traitors. So did FDR and other icons. Such is a small price to pay to win a war and one has to blow this evil up about a million times its current damage to cause any alarm if the whole picture is seen.

Quoting JJ:

It is true that many Christians are not accepting of the gay lifestyle, but few want them persecuted or imprisoned.

John C:

I read about this yesterday (see article below), but where is the outrage in this country? Everybody is justifiably upset about the Christian man in Afghanistan, but gays in Iraq have already been killed. Christians may not persecute gays by killing them, but they seem to tolerate such persecution by others, while systematically excluding them from participation in this society.

Gay advocates are as much to blame for this problem as the heterosexual Christians. They have a powerful say in what is made in Hollywood, but rarely go after real villains. For instance, the Wachowski brothers are gay advocates and they could have had V fighting real world people who do persecute gays. This would have sent a powerful message to the intolerant people of the world. Instead, who do they pick on? They portray persecutions that Christians "might" do in a fantasy future.

Quoting JJ:

These advocates also seek to take away our freedom of speech by telling us what we can and cannot say in the form of what is politically correct.

John C:

To be balanced, both sides have their version of political correctness. Nowadays, anybody who disagrees with the policies of GWB is labeled "a terrorist".

I believe this is fantasy. I watch all the new programs as well as read many news sites and have not seen this happen once by any mainstream Republican or conservative. Can you give me one example of a person being labeled a terrorist just because he disagrees with Bush? I don't think so.

John C:

This is my fear for the future: If this habit persists, and if anybody who disagrees with the government is considered "a terrorist", then the full force of all the anti-terrorist laws will be brought to bear on their political opponents.

But this isn't happening. If it is give me an example that is not hearsay. It's actually the other way around. Many of Bush's enemies call him and his associates terrorists and Nazis.

John C:

Doesn't society already try to get into a person's head when judging the crime of murder? There is a whole range of murder offenses based on what the person was thinking (or what he was apparently thinking) when he committed the crime. Manslaughter, aggravated manslaughter, second degree murder, first degree murder. PREMEDITATED murder. Murder by reason of insanity (didn't know right from wrong.

The traditional punishments are centered around intent and are largely determined by exterior circumstances. Even here the state tries to get in the mind of the offender more than just dealing with the act even handedly.

Proving hate is a much more subtle thing and often not related to anything connected with the crime.

Example one: Bill likes his gay friends and supports gay causes, but is in desperate need of money. He knows his gay neighbor has cash in his mattress and breaks in and kills him so he can steal the money.

Example two: Josh hates gays, particularly his gay neighbor who regularly has gay friends over for a barbecue. He breaks into his house and kills him and in the process robs him of everything that looks like it has value.

Both men are caught and both claim to the authorities they like gays. Should the state really get involved here in judging how much one or both of them may hate gays?

I don't think so. Just punish them for what they actually did.

NS writes:

If a movie displays someone lying to achieve some good. Does that mean the movie portrays liars as heroes and glorifies them...?

Yes, it would.

NS:

You are labeling someone in the movie a terrorist, calling it a glorification of such. When really his intentions were meant to be for the greater good.

All terrorists have intentions for the greater good. Most of them are merely caught in an illusion as to what the greater good is.

NS:

If this is the understanding of the people we have educated. And if people are this ignorant. who has contributed to that cause? Probably the ones in power getting blown up.

Are you saying that victims deserve what they get and the perpetrators justified? This doesn't make sense.

Quoting JJ:

If this becomes a cult classic it could influence young people to become terrorists for generations to come.

NS:

Or it could influence young people to be aware of the world they live in and inspire them to make the world a better place.

How can the portrayal of a fantasy world of Christians gone crazy make us more aware of Christians today or the real world?

Just as there is a slim chance of Christians turning into what was portrayed in the movie there is a slim chance of Billy Graham turning into a bank robber. BUT it does not help anyone be more aware of the real world by making a movie portraying Billy Graham as a bank robber.

Quoting JJ:

I think they could have made V a much greater hero if he used less violent methods to fight the government.

NS:

I think we would have been much greater heroes if we had used less violent methods to prevent World War 2. Isn't that a valid point?

If FDR and Churchill had overthrown Hitler before World War II they would have been portrayed as arch villains by the community of nations and Bush and Blair would have looked like Snow White by comparison.

NS:

See now I'm not saying the government is like Hitler. My point is if you think the movie is about terrorism only. Are you really understanding the main message of the movie?

I'm not saying this. Where do you get such an idea? The use of terrorism is ONE of the points on the movie.

NS:

It should not promote terrorism any more than it would inspire an overall awareness and need for change.

Movies, books, video games and people inspire harmful acts regularly. All creative artists must be careful as to what they plant in public consciousness or negative karma will be the result.

The movie does have a positive basic message of good fighting evil, but the evil in it is manufactured and does not exist in the real world in the way it was presented - just as Billy Graham is not a bank robber.

NS:

You can judge anyone as fanatic. You should have explained more about why he was fanatic instead of talking about some other historical figure.

I didn't say that V was a fanatic. I was saying it was a flaw in the writing that he was presented as the reasonable one while imitating his hero who was a fanatic. If V is a reasonable non religious philosopher then why would his hero be a religious fanatic? It would be like saying that Mother Teresa's hero was Genghis Khan. It doesn't make sense.

Quoting JJ:

Christians are slandered in the movie. First they are portrayed as so intolerant that Christian leaders prohibit free speech and make it a crime to have a copy of the Koran.

NS:

Maybe not "true Christians". But the church is intolerant of other religions somewhat and it's a main influence. That's seems to me the main point they were trying to convey and warn against.

Some members of the Christian church are intolerant and so are members of all other religions. I was thrown out of a Christian church for what I thought - so I understand. But Hollywood keeps singling them out and portraying them as being much worse than they are as well as being worse than other religions. This is fantasy and like portraying Billy Graham as a bank robber. It is not good writing which is supposed to keep the story line believable to both sides of the political equation.

NS:

I think this movie is warning of this mentality and highlighting it in our society. You shouldn't be offended; it could have used any group as an example. Just happened to be Christians because the church is a main influence in our society at this time.

I don't think it is. The world is drifting away from standard Christian teachings. There is obviously a secular influence that is greater than the Christian influence - yet this influence is rarely, if ever portrayed as evil by Hollywood.

NS

It's not Americas Fault. No-one is at "fault". What I am saying is you did not acknowledge the fact that the movie is promoting awareness of world affairs and a need for change. More than it is promoting terrorism.

The trouble is that it presented an awareness of many things that do not exist and are not likely to exist as portrayed. Even this is not so bad if Hollywood would give us more than one potential disastrous future composed of evil Christians, business people and conservatives. How about having a crazed leftist villain for a change?

Let me end with this observation. Many who are soft on terrorism claim that we are just as bad as them because we provoke them. If we were nicer terrorism would just go away.

Let me ask you this question? Which countries have no problem with terrorists?

Here are a few: North Korea, Cuba, Iran, The old Soviet Union, Iraq under Saddam Hussein and China.

What do these nations have in common? The people all live under a dictatorship where the state controls all. There is no real free speech.

There is a time and place for everything and it is in these states that a V is needed but none ever surface. Why? Because the people are too afraid of their governments to speak out, let alone blow up a building.

After the Soviet Union fell and Russia became nicer to potential terrorists what happened? Suddenly, they started having problems with terrorists.

A fact never pointed out is that terrorists almost always surface in free societies, not in totalitarian states as portrayed by the movie. This is one of the problems that a free society must deal with, but freedom is worth whatever the cost is that we have to pay.

Terrorism is not needed to make change in free societies. Where there is freedom the people can promote their ideas without violence to create change. But terrorists are often violent because the freedom they see around them does not support their own ideas of tyranny and thus they fight the system with violence that does not support their own ideas of violence and suppression.

There is no such thing as coincidence, just the illusion of coincidence itself.   Quote from "V," from the movie "V for Vendetta."