V for Vendetta, the Movie, Glorifies Western Terrorism

Thank you, bluebb9, for giving me the opportunity to debate this very interesting resolution. I'm sure it will be a very fulfilling debate. I also enjoyed the movie V for Vendetta. I would also like to note that, because Pro has asserted the claim, the burden of proof is on him to show that the movie V for Vendetta glorifies Western terrorism- not on me to show how it doesn't.Contention 1: V for Vendetta, the movie, is different than V for Vendetta, the graphic novel.Rebuttal 1: While I acknowledge the differences between the characters in the graphic novel of V for Vendetta and their counterparts in the graphic novel's film adaptation of the same name, I would like to submit that these differences are irrelevant. In his original submission, Pro clearly stated that his position is that "V for Vendetta, the movie, glorifies Western terrorism." As the graphic novel is most assuredly not the movie, the characters from the film should be judged on their own merits- not on how well they cling to the source material. As such, I will only address the portions of Pro's argument in his first contention that directly relate to the film.In the film V for Vendetta, V is undeniably charismatic. His introductory monologue, spoken shortly after he dispatches several government agents attempting to molest Evey, is full of alliteration and powerful words, establishing V as a powerful orator.[1] But V's outward appearance – the one he projects to Evey, and the one that he adopts while broadcasting on television after hijacking the BTN building – is merely a mask that grows to dominate who he is. In the beginning of the film, the audience only sees this part of V: the symbol. But as the film begins to progress, V is humanized further. He is seen to have severe burns while cooking Evey breakfast, but he doesn't want to talk about them; he takes over the BTN in order to broadcast his message of revolution, but he also fulfills a personal vendetta by killing government officials who worked at Larkhill. The audience sees V's duplicity: they see V as a character – a "dramatis personae," in V's own words – but also as a person. They see what he went through at Larkhill; they see him carry out his vengeance. As the audience gets to know V as a person, as well as V as an idea, they begin to appreciate him for what is he is: a tragic hero.V is not perfect. He saves Evey from the Fingermen – putting Evey in his debt – and then kidnaps Evey, forcing her to stay in his underground hideaway against his will. He murders several members of the government for personal reasons, drawing a negative response from Evey. He tortures Evey in order to mold her into an agent of change, forcing her to lose her fear at the expense of his own morality. Even his favorite film – The Count of Monte Cristo – showcases his tragedy. The film follows Edmond Dantes, a man wrongfully imprisoned for treason, and his quest for revenge after he escapes from prison. Along the way, Dantes causes the deaths – either directly or indirectly – of those who wronged him, often with terrible consequences. The toll on his conscience is immense. Easy parallels can be drawn between the character of Dantes and the character of V: both are imprisoned, escape, and proceed to murder those responsible, ultimately atoning for their crimes the only way they can: death. V fulfills his role as a symbol, an idea - he tells Creedy that "beneath this mask there is more than flesh. Beneath this mask there is an idea, Mr. Creedy, and ideas are bullet proof" - and then dies an empty shell, having given up everything for his revolution. This is not glory; this is a fitting end for a flawed character.I will save my remarks about the government in the movie for the third rebuttal, where they belong.Contention 2: V, the character, is a Western terrorist.Rebuttal 2: I understand Pro's connection with this argument: if the movie glorifies V, and if V is a Western terrorist, then the movie glorifies Western terrorism- which was the implication of Pro's first contention. But, as I wrote above, I disagree that the movie glorifies V.Contention 3: The context provided does not justify V's actions.Rebuttal 3: I don't understand Pro's argument that "the film may justify an aggressive response to oppression, but aggression is different than terrorism." Using Pro's definition of terrorism, and Merriam-Webster's definition of aggression – "a forceful action or procedure; the practice of making attacks or encroachments; hostile, injurious, or destructive behavior or outlook especially when caused by frustration"[2] – is perfectly in line with terrorism. Terrorism is a form of aggression; all aggression is not terrorism, certainly, but the opposite is true. All terrorism is, by definition, aggression. I would disagree that the film does not answer questions about V's use of explosives and lethal weapons. Evey is outraged at V's murderous tendencies, especially at his attempts to justify them: when V claims that "what was done to me was monstrous," Evey responds bitterly by stating that "they created a monster." Even the government, as oppressive as it is, opens up a criminal investigation against V for his murders, assigning their best officers to the case. As I mentioned before, V also suffers personally for his crimes, which take their toll on his humanity so soundly that by the end of the movie his morality has eroded completely. With regards to the explosives, V doesn't kill anyone with them: instead, he uses them to make a point. Indeed, he even says as much: "...A building is a symbol, as is the act of destroying it. Symbols are given power by people. Alone, a symbol is meaningless, but with enough people, blowing up a building can change the world." The film also shows "grey morality:" it does follow the original plot of having the fascists elected legally and kept in power through general apathy of the public- the only difference is that the fascist party in the film, like the fascists in real-life Germany in the 1930s and 1940s, provided the catalyst for their election themselves. Hitler burned the Reichstag to the ground, and fingered the Communist Party as the scapegoat in order to get his party more votes [3]; in V for Vendetta, the Norsefire party does much the same.The film also attempts to humanize the government and give a balanced perception of them. In the graphic novel, the police are simply tools of the government, out to stop V simply because he means to overthrow them; in the film, they are relatable characters who start out doing their jobs but realize as the film goes on that they are working for the wrong side. Even in the final sequence, where the people of London march with their masks on the military checkpoints, the military leader has a change of heart and orders his men not to fire, realizing that his orders from the government are immoral. 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. Conclusion: The character V suffers for his violence against authority. The film creates adequate context for his violence – the government's brutality, for one, and V's origin story for another – but even within this context, V faces the consequences of his decisions by losing his humanity and eventually dying for his goals. V is a Western terrorist, but he suffers for his crimes, and he is a tragic, flawed character. His terrorism isn't even idealized by his closest companion. I contend that V is not idealized, is little more than a tragic hero, and suffers for his actions throughout the film.Sources: [1] http://www.classbrain.com...[2] http://www.merriam-webster.com...[3] http://en.wikipedia.org...