V for Vendetta, the Movie, Glorifies Western Terrorism

Thank you, Fauxor, for you rebuttals. Before I respond directly to my opponent's remarks, I would like to summarize some of what has been said thus far. I have argued that V is, in fact, a Western terrorist, and my opponent seems to agree. I asserted that the film's glorification of Western terrorism is, in part, a by-product of the lack of context for V's violence. I will, in the remainder of this debate, prove that—not only does the film not provide enough context for V's actions—the protagonist of V for Vendetta was glorified. Because my opponent seems to agree with my Contention #2, I will simply extend those points and apply them to my following comments. Response to Rebuttal of Contention #1: During my main arguments, I attempted to argue that the film decontextualized V's violence, and I used the graphic novel as a lens through which to view the film. My opponent correctly pointed out that, ultimately, the differences between the graphic novel and the film are irrelevant because my resolution regards only the film. I would like to assert, then, that my opponent's subsequent comparisons between the graphic novel and the film are equally irrelevant. That said, I will not argue my first contention any further. I will simply respond to some of the comments made by my opponent about V's character. My opponent claims that V is humanized throughout the film. He claims that "[audiences] see what he went through at Larkhill" and that "the audience gets to know V as a person." While I understand the logic of my opponent, I believe that neither claim is true. The audience does not see V's experiences at Larkhill. The audience briefly sees V as a fiery figure outside of Larkhill during a flashback, which is hardly a foundation for understanding V's experiences—all one can infer from that scene is pain, anger, and other nonspecific feelings. Other than that, V's experiences are communicated to the audience through Evey. It is through Evey that we learn about V's experiences in prison. It is through Evey that we learn about V's emotional triumph over despair. The audience is forced to live vicariously through Evey in order to know about V. Through all of this, we never see V's face. V is a character—or, perhaps more accurately, a caricature who speaks using rhyme, alliteration, and rhetoric. As Roger Ebert noted, "The character of V and his relationship with Evey inescapably reminds us of the Phantom of the Opera. V and the Phantom are both masked…control others through the leverage of their imaginations and have a score to settle. One difference, and it is an important one, is that V's facial disguise does not move (unlike, say, the faces of a Batman villain) but is a mask that always has the same smiling expression." [1] V's mask is more than plastic—it is a reminder that he is a symbol, and a symbol is easier to admire. I would now like to reframe—though not rework—one of my opponents claims. Yes, V is a tragic hero. My opponent is correct. V's status as a tragic hero, however, supports my claim that his actions are glorified. I will elaborate this point in the following paragraphs. Response to Rebuttal of Contention #3: PART ONE My opponent argues that the government in V for Vendetta, the victim of V's terrorism, is humanized. My opponent writes, "In both the graphic novel and film, the government is made up of people, and the film accurately portrays these members of the government as being people, not cartoon characters. They serve the government, but they make their own decisions." The government in V for Vendetta is similar to the government of 1984, the novel. While some characters (Finch, for example) do make their own decisions, those characters are exceptions, anomalies. At the end of the film, when all the V-lookalikes walk toward the mass of armed government soldiers, the film implies that the only reason that the soldiers did not fire on their own citizens is because they did not hear an order from their leader. One soldier asks repeatedly for an order, and, when hearing none, simply does nothing. That is not choice—that is accepting the status quo, and it makes it much easier to appreciate V's acts of terrorism. In addition, the Fingermen carry a red-and-black badge. Their loud leader, Chancellor Sutler, surrounds himself with red and black. The insignia is rigid and right-angled. The government spies in its people. The government has a propaganda leader. People are put into black bags and never seen again. I admit, these statements do not argue definitively that the governments is clearly portrayed as bad, but certainly that do no point to a "balanced" portrayal as my opponent suggests. The sentences above bring about images of 1984 and Nazi Germany—not a humanized leadership. They suggest a government that might deserve acts of terrorism, thus glorifying V's actions. PART TWO When considering whether or not V's actions are glorified by the film, one must consider how the film was received by the public, real people. Considering the public's reactions to the film is well within the parameters of my resolution because the effects of the characters and plot on those who watched V for Vendetta is relevant to V for Vendetta as a movie. My opponent notes that V's "terrorism isn't even idealized by his closest companion." I believe that, by "companion," my opponent is referring to the other characters in the film—Evey, Finch, etc. While I disagree with this point, I will not argue against it. I will, however, note that the other characters in V for Vendetta make up a very small portion of the population who saw V's actions. We must consider the audience. That said, and given that both my opponent and I have discussed "the audience" at length without using sources, I would like to explore how the audience actually reacted to V. Roger Ebert's review is noted above. Rolling Stone noted that "V has his mojo working." [2] Entertainment Weekly said, "V is Batman crossed with the Phantom of the Opera…" [3] And the New York Times stated, "V slices and dices Evey's troubles away, topping off his handiwork first by reciting some vacuous verse and then by blowing up the Old Bailey." [4] If my opponents thinks that this is a poor sample of audience reactions specifically to V (and not to the movie in general), I encourage him to find different sources. If "glorify" can be defined as "to make glorious by bestowing honor, praise, or admiration," then surely the film, V for Vendetta, bestows audience admiration upon V, the "tragic hero" protagonist of the film. My opponent already stated that "if the movie glorifies V, and if V is a Western terrorist, then the movie glorifies Western terrorism." If my opponent agrees that the audience's (including my opponent, who called V a "hero") reaction to V proves V's glorification, then he must argue that V is not a Western terrorist. If he believes that V is a Western terrorist (a point that he did not dispute), then my opponent must argue that the audience's reactions to V do not prove V's glorification. Conclusion: In my main argument, I noted that V is a Western terrorist and there is not enough context in the film to justify his terrorism. I have now expanded on my main argument, noting that the admiration of V's actions is most easily visible in the reactions of the audience. For those who enjoyed V for Vendetta, V was the hero—or "tragic hero" as my opponent noted. Not only is there a lack of context, there is an admiration for V's actions; thus V's Western terrorism is glorified. Sources: [1] http://rogerebert.suntimes.com... [2] http://www.rollingstone.com... [3] http://www.ew.com... [4] http://movies.nytimes.com...