Analysis Of V For Vandetta

In the year 2005, Movie director James McTeigue and screenwriter Andy Wachowsky produced what became but a small part of a larger and more profound representation of British Totalitarian government. In essence, the film attempted to portray a type of anarchy that would rid the British people from oppression. However, the most fundamental part of the film was the fact that this type of “anarchy” as some may call, went much deeper into an individual and ultimately a societal fight for freedom and speech. Nonetheless, throughout the film we are constantly bombarded with the term “terrorist,” and thus the audience is left pondering upon whether this masked man with the name of V, is truly a terrorist threatening the nation. Consequently, the ultimate
However, its not until we understand where V’s famous quote, “remember, remember the 5th of November, the gun powder, treason and plot, I know of no reason why the gun powder treason should ever be forgot,” comes from, that we are left to question the idea of who is the real terrorist (V for Vandetta). Consequently, there was a very important scene in the film that truly captured this idea. As viewers, we are lead to an upcoming scene in which families are gathered around the television, watching a show where the chancellor is made fun of and depicted as a terrorist. In this mocking scene, the chancellor is portrayed as a liar and perhaps a joke, but it is not until V (in the tv show) turns out to be the chancellor and both are fighting and claiming, “ I am the real chancellor,” that we come to conclude that perhaps the government is the real terrorist (V for Vendetta). Although this scene, halfway through the film, is difficult to describe, I believe it truly captures a clear picture of the hypocrisy of the government in calling V a terrorist because they continue to deprive the people of their basic human rights. As a result, we continue to witness how people are afraid to speak out against the
As viewers we are entrapped in the odd situation of whether to keep being comfortable with what we always known or to join V in his rebellion of freedom. We are in a way enclosed into the film itself when we are left to judge and rethink our own definition of terrorism. I felt as if the filmmaker in a way wanted us not only to think that the government was tyrannical in most if not all its aspects but to question what we are told by our government, to question whether this so called “terrorist” is truly just killing in vane. Also, to add on to this Idea, we are left to wonder whether the so called safety protocols taken by our government are truly for our safety, whether we should blindly follow a tyranny without