Movie Vs. V For Vendetta Directed By James Mctigue

Since its launch in 2006, V for Vendetta has been at the centre of a heated debate. By dealing with crucial issues such as totalitarianism and revolution, the film makes us question not only our position in society and our presumed freedom of choice, but also the characters’. They apparently live normal lives, but are they really free to think and to decide for themselves?

As paradoxical as it may seem (to most), it proves difficult to condemn terrorism and have a consistent, non-hypocritical way to judge it. Most definitions of terrorism lack the applicability of all instances of terrorism, there seems to be borderline exceptions which fall within the gray area of such definitions. Stephen Nathanson, in an effort to establish what makes terrorism wrong, bases one of his main arguments on that terrorists are thought to be dreadful because they intentionally seek innocent deaths, while others who kill innocents do so unintentionally (15). In this essay, I shall argue that Nathanson’s definition of innocence, which is mostly used as the core gauge of why terrorism is morally unjustifiable, is badly restricting in that it excludes the cases of political assassinations. Consequently, this insinuates that when using his definition of innocence, attacks on political figureheads may be morally justifiable if it is done for a just cause. To support this thesis I will argue that, although, political assassinations do not involve the killing of innocents they are, in most cases, morally unjustifiable contrary to what Nathanson’s argument insinuates. Moreover, I will consider how Nathanson may reply to my contention by objecting that political figureheads cannot be innocent given their political position and will address his rebuttal by demonstrating that within the context of society most of us are not innocent.

They elucidate that terrorism is a “premeditated, politically motivated, violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups of clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience,” (National Institute of Justice).

The word “terrorism” was first used during the French Revolution when British statesman Edmond Burke used the term to describe the actions of the Jacobin-dominated French government. Under the leadership of Maximilien Robespierre, thousands of people that were said to be enemies of the state were put on trial and then executed by use of the guillotine (O 'Connor, 2006). However, since the inception of the word, it has taken on a new meaning. One can now hear the word “terrorism” and be overcome by anger or even fear. Terrorism now seems to have turned to attacks against a government rather

V for Vendetta is one of the famous graphic novels in England which was written by Alan Moore and David Lloyd in 1988. Many people debated after they had read this book about V's actions -the main character and they keep debating it until now. Some people say that his actions are not justifiable. He is really a terrorist, not a hero as people think. He killed many people, even though, he forced Evey in the terrible situation, that is to make her become a prisoner. However, contrary to them, a lot of people else give their opinions that his actions are wholly justifiable. He helps people escape the bad things, helps them find freedom in the bad living and makes Evey becomes stronger day by day. To prove that V is a hero or really a terrorist,

I think that the movie is more descriptive than the written part.In the written part it did not give inought detail in it. The movie had a lot of sound effects and I think sound effects are better. Sound effects are more illiterate it pulls you into the movie it feels like you are actually in the movie.

Additionally, to understand terrorism, we must understand the motivations. In the 21st century, it is fair to say that many organisations are religiously and politically motivated. Which are primary observations from the film as well, however what is also manifested in the storyline is the idea of personal vendettas or struggles, honour and the need for recognition. What I have learnt this semester is that along with the interpretations of Islam, there are many diverse people, who are then motivated differently. In week 3 for example one of the readings discussed child radicalisation, and most definitely these children are

In stating this, V was greatly influenced by Guy Fawkes, but he was not just doing it for rebellion. V’s past had a great deal to do with why he tries to overthrow the Norsefire, but he is also motivated by the people, in whom he believed he would help them take the country into their own hands and rise up against their own government. We see this as the people proceed towards the parliament building in Guy Fawkes masks, completely ignoring the army standing in their way, and watch the celebration of the parliament building being destroyed. This scene demonstrates the influence that V makes, somewhat separating himself from Guy Fawkes. Guy Fawkes never attains the collective support from the people, but V successfully turns the people against their government, helping them realize that the only way to stop the chaos is by doing something about it; in this case, rising up against their own government.

In the film, V is initially called a terrorist by the government, even though the first scene that he is in involves him saving someone from being attacked police officers (James McTeigue, V for Vendetta). The terrorism takes on different meanings to different people. Although terrorism is usually thought of as blowing up buildings, governments generally use the term to describe people who are going against them. Terrorism is usually defined as inciting fear for political gain, and is often used by people in power to describe actions of people without power (“Radical Concept of

Walter Laqueur’s book, “The New Terrorism: Fanaticism and the Arms of Mass Destruction”, is empowering readers with the entire spectrum of terrorism. The reasons behind terrorism are not easy to understand, but Laqueur goes into great detail to try and bring the reader to an understanding of what the terrorist is thinking in order to justify the means to the end.

V for Vendetta is set in the future in England and it depicts the events following a major world war, terrorist attacks and large amounts of degradation within the nation and world. The government that is in power is at first shown as the standard postindustrial government that uses media to inform the people, and in most cases, spread their form of propaganda. The government prides itself in being efficient, in maintain control and the safety of its citizens. The film slowly shows how the government took power and how its use of power resembles a model like Weber’s. To take power, there had to be a party that could seize power, this is where the bottom line focus came in. The seizing power used fear, but they use of terrorist attacks committed by

In the article titled, “The spirit of Terrorism”, by Jean Baudrillard, 2001, He captures the notion that “evil is everywhere and is an incomprehensible object of desire” (pp.1). He further went on to explain that war is horrific and demeaning to humanity but it has its contribution. Furthermore, war ended, European supremacy and the colonial era, Nazism and Communism. I support this argument, there is evil all around us, lurking in wait. Many would argue that with war comes great suffering and pain, lost of lives, years of civilization has been wiped out with just a bomb and individuals who survive war are often emotionally, physically, and psychological damage. For example, when the U.S. dropped the bomb on Hiroshima. To rebuild a country to its original state after a war takes years but there is just cause for war. Hence, in the context of war done to achieve what is deemed as the greater good, we can draw on the example of eliminating Nazism, European reined and the fall of Sadam Hussian. Indeed, many innocent people lost their lives but the consequences of war are bloodshed and suffering.

“V for Vendetta" is a movie about freedom, about human struggle against the state, the government of the sacrifice of a symbol. V for Vendetta was born from the successful combination of a sudden, seemingly incongruous things: out of the comic’s conventions and the anti-globalization pathos. I think this movie is a combination of the of Lewis Carroll’s abstract absurdity and George Orwell’s totalitarian nightmare. Alice meets with Hitler. Evey dressed up and went out on a date, but instead of rabbit hole, she found the black "funnel". Once the British had already made a movie "It Happened Here," an alternative fantasy on the theme of the Nazi’s occupation of England - now the enemy did not come from outside but from the inside. In the near future, England is living under a power of tyrant, neurotic clown with flabby face. Supreme Chancellor autocratically governed the country. Bishops are concerned about the moral health of the nation. People are constantly live in fear of external threat after the tragic virus attacks a few years ago. Every person sentenced to death if he keeps a Koran. Same thing for the "unnatural" sex. There was nothing else to be executed for;

V for Vendetta is a movie that immediately grasps the viewers attention. It has a tendency to seem twisted and dark. However, after examining the film more closely the themes began to emerge and started to make sense. V for Vendetta seems to align with Plato’s ideals making V’s actions seems less terroristic and begin to shape up to be that of a vigilante.

The history of terrorism can be traced back as far as the French revolution. Some of these acts of terrorism only seem as distant reminders of our past, but at the same time, are not a far cry from today’s brutal acts; and although these acts seem distant, it doesn’t also mean they are no longer in the thoughts of individuals in today’s time.