V is not a Terrorist

Rating: 5/10 (17 May 2006)

So the big problem with this film, politically, is not that V is a terrorist; it's that he isn't. As entertainment, it was enjoyable enough and I honestly enjoy the "power to the people" bit even if it is a bit overdone, but the attempts to mold the politics to those of today are dangerously flawed.
The storyline could have lent itself to a nuanced discussion of terrorism but this is not one. If they're trying to argue that terrorist acts are justified then they are not treating the issue honestly. If they are trying to argue that the distinction between what is and is not a terrorist act is fuzzy then they failed to add content to or clarify the debate. This is no Rand, Bradbury or Orwell.
Either the Wachowski brothers honestly think V is committing terrorist acts and are trying to create a sympathetic terrorist character, or the dishonest government is calling V a terrorist without justification (the latter is probably more in line with the graphic novel). If the latter is true, they do a poor job of communicating it. If the former is true, it's disingenuous because even if V's actions are morally questionable or objectionable, they are not equivalent to what we refer to as "terrorist." Innocent people die as a result of V's actions, but death is not the goal. The individuals he targets are power figures who knowingly acted in ways he finds reprehensible. Others who die are collateral. (There are also some police, which is a gray area, but they are trying to kill/apprehend him.) Whether "collateral damage" is acceptable is another debate, but there is a difference between casualties during an act where the intention is to capture a strategic target (e.g. a TV transmitter) or destroy a symbol, versus an act planned for the sole intention of killing or injuring non-combatants. V is not even as "terrorist" as his hero, Guy Fawkes. Fawkes targeted an occupied building at midday; V targets institutional buildings at midnight when they are vacant (a la Fight Club). Finally, the story addresses one's own government not intergroup warfare. I'm sure that a treatment of this subject could be done well; it's simply not done well here.
For a better treatment of government/police vs its citizens see "La Haine" 1995.
I am currently in the middle of the graphic novel and it seems to lack some of the logical problems of the film, largely because it is more vague and the title character less developed as a hero. On the other hand, it actually makes me appreciate some of the added plot points; in particular, Evey's character is much stronger and more developed, perhaps a sign of the times given that the novel was written more than twenty years ago.