- 1 The Plot
- 2 The main hero image
- 3 An illusion of Happy-End. “Wipe off the regime, then we’ll see…”
- 4 Same cries for different ideologies
- 5 A freedom of nonconformity, a subject of perversions
- 6 Occult symbolics in the film
- 7 The role of mass-media in audience’s control
- 8 A total control over a personality – is the only one image of the future?
An alternative future. In Britain at the head of the state is an ultraconservative party of religious character Norsefire, which established under the British society a total dictate, imposing a curfew in the country and a row of other restrictions. Evidently – an iniquity of the party members, feeling their absolute power and impunity. The British society has to suffer the terms of Norsefire, since only the ultraconservatives have a vaccine against a dangerous virus, walking around the country, besides, they promised to stop the war with the USA.
The USA has lost their former predominance in the world and is consumed with inner civil wars. The members of the Norsefire party see the main reason of the USA fall in disbelief. They consider that the country has to be reduced to a rough order, and in this order there is no place for Muslims, pederasts, terrorists, immigrants etc. Here is interesting that pederasts and terrorists are put in the same row with immigrants and Muslims. Below you will find more information about it.
However, not everybody agree with the existing regime. A quintessence of disagreement becomes an appearance of a real system campaigner – the hero named V, who is ready to stand against the set order not only by word, but also by action. V wears a mask of a historical character Guy Fawkes, who on the 5th of November 1605 together with other conspirators had tried to blow up the English parliament, but was caught and hanged.
Summary of information: This event went down in history as the Gunpowder plot. It was organized by a group of Catholics with the goal of killing king Jacob I, who showed his sympathy to evangelic church and undertook a row of sanctions towards the Catholics. So the cabal had been organized clearly from religious persecution. After the execution of Guy Fawkes the holiday “Guy Fawkes’ Night” in honor of the king’s rescue has been established, where magnificent fireworks were burning an effigy of Guy Fawkes. The movie “V for Vendetta” should have come out on the screens the 4th of November 2005, on the eve of celebration the quarter centenary of the “Guy Fawkes’ Night”, but the premiere has been carried over and took place on March 17th 2006.
The main hero image
V appears as a result of a cruel experiment of creation the deadly virus and the vaccine against it. Namely in his organism have been found necessary cellar atonalities for the medicine against the deadly infection creation. However, the virus to which the prisoner of the ward number V has the immunity, still affects him in a certain way: myesthesia and reaction rose sharply, the memory of the previous life is lost. The result of the experiment is the prison break of the inmate; the inhuman laboratory has burnt to the ground together with the biological look of the future reviver of the historical character Guy Fawkes.
V – is the product of a totalitarian inhuman machine, and, having gone through all its circles of hell, he realized, that the given machine must be completely destroyed. From the hero in mask of Guy Fawkes blows a tangible antiquity, he – as if an antique showpiece, covered with dust in a special archive. His turn of phrase is high-tony, his speech – a tribute to the memory of Shakespeare and Voltaire, his manners correspond to the ethics of persons of title of 18-19 century. V – is the past, having risen from the dead to revenge for all acts of atrocity, namely in it the essence of his cover.
Yet, this is striking, how Hollywood likes to combine in one character the elevated style and rare cruelty. A person, who realizes all value of classical music, art, grooving old films after classical texts of Dumas, and herewith cold-bloodedly arranges acts of terror in London, cruelly, by means of a knife, kills policemen and others, who, to his opinion, are guilty in the current situation.
Could it be true that a person, reveling in overture of Chaikovsky, can have such a split of personality? How? Whence comes it that art, celebrating in a human her best qualities, is able to encourage her on such actions and doings? But this is only one of many contradictions and decoys in the movie.
An illusion of Happy-End. “Wipe off the regime, then we’ll see…”
Personally V announces his goals in the beginning of the film the following way: “In view, a humble vaudevillian veteran cast vicariously as both victim and villain by the vicissitudes of Fate. This visage, no mere veneer of vanity, is a vestige of the vox populi, now vacant, vanished. However, this valourous visitation of a bygone vexation stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin vanguarding vice and vouchsafing the violently vicious and voracious violation of volition! The only verdict is vengeance; a vendetta held as a votive, not in vain, for the value and veracity of such shall one day vindicate the vigilant and the virtuous”.
In this monologue of the main hero unfolds the crux of worldview of those, who thoughtlessly works on the principle “wipe off the regime, then we’ll see…” – these are various extremists, and terrorists, and even pseudo patriots, willing to quickly change a hard situation, in which their native country turned out to be. Indeed what is vendetta? This is a blood revenge, “a murder for a murder” or in other interpretation – “tit for tat”. This principle assumes that to redress an injustice and conquer evil one may only by applying violence and terror.
Exactly this road hits V throughout the whole film. Of course, he uses agitation tools as well – encaptures a television center, addresses to millions, but all his dialogues – are only blurred appeals to “rise against and destroy”. In his actions there are a lot of pathos and glamour, but not a wink of creation, and pleas for freedom are so blurred that do not promise anything, but anarchy. V does not have knowledge and theory, on base of which one could create an alternative of those society, which is shown in the movie. Instead of thinking, he goes fighting. And, for the first view, his efforts happen to be not groundless, but it is so only for those, who do not look ahead.
The movie ends up with that the parliament’s building is being exploded, and the police do not prevent demonstrates. This scene sort of symbolizes the fall of previous arbitrary authority and the beginning of a long hoped-for freedom era (which includes a personality of a pederast Gordon Deitrich, oppressed by the former regime, and who happened to be at the forefront of the opposition). The audience perceives this touching picture as a happy-end, but the essence is that there is not happy final here – this is a lie.
Indeed the goal is not in the destruction of an injustice regime, but to create some alternative – a society, where people could live properly (it would be useful on the first place to decide, what does it mean to live “properly”). But this is not going to happen. The people in the movie revolted to destroy, not to create, and supported terror methods as the main tool of restoration of “justice”. And this means that the society stayed the same, and that is why in those part, about which creators of the picture are not going to tell, instead of one tyranny will quickly come another. In the society based on “vendetta” principle, not love, a happy life is impossible essentially.
The movie creators in order to show the mass audience the effectiveness of a power method of changing the world have put the main hero in such a surrounding, where terror methods are excused by the situation, since the regime is explicitly fascist, everywhere is total censorship, and there are no other ways for V to resist, except, perhaps, to surrender, which would be obviously incorrect. And in the created reality of the film the terror method is really effective, and does not have an alternative in many ways. All American superhero movies are filmed by the same principle, indeed their violence is always justified – they are saving the world. But as a result of watching such movies, millions of viewers are starting to think, that to fight for the truth in the real world one should firstly use the power priority.
However, in reality, not in the film, our today’s world can not be changed for the better, based on violence on the first place; other tools should lie underneath – ideal/ideological/belief.
We are talking about that the fighting with an injustice ideology and power should be at the level of ideas, but not at the level of weapon. If the new ideology is based on the terror methods, all it can bring – are only rivers of blood and even more rough regime (administration, organized on the principles of liberalism, can be as antihuman, as explicit fascism – further we’ll talk about it in detail). This is the main, but not the only one lie in the film, since it justifies terror, inspiring millions of people to follow this wrong way. It’s not for nothing the main grateful audience of this picture considered to be radical anitglobalists, who thoughtlessly fight with an objective process of globalization – a gradual unification of all nations with each other, not realizing, that the this process is not bad itself, the main thing is – on which principles this globalization will flow.
Further we’ll look at more ideas, promoted in the movie.
Same cries for different ideologies
In one of the main scenes the main hero leaves his signature on an agitation poster “Strength through unity. Unity through faith”. Let’s try to abstract from what is the ruling coterie represents, from despotism of the Norsefire party members, from the everywhere created totalitarian control. Let’s address to the ideological cover, which is obviously not being realized by the ruling coterie, even though is being declared from such posters. Is it really bad for the society to be united and strong? What are the odds of a belief in a common ideal, common goal that will put people together?
After the explosion of the court building on Old Bailey under the solemn sound of Chaikovsky’s overture, V captures the news studio of one of the central TV channels of England. From the screens he calls everybody to think of what is going on in the country, and come exactly in a year, on the 5th of November, to the parliament’s building. He thinks that everyone is guilty in what is going on, since they flew the white feather and under the threat of wars, terror and diseases trusted their lives to the supreme chancellor. V is ready to give the people a second chance to band together against the existing injustice. In essence, he calls for the same unity – a cry, which he personally crossed out with the knife…
A freedom of nonconformity, a subject of perversions
In his speeches V often talks about a freedom of nonconformity. Let’s see, which freedom he defends.
The main heroine named Evey Hammond by a twist of fate is being lured into a game of V against the England’s government. After the capture of a well-known comic Dietrich, Evey herself gets in prison. She is being charged over a killing of three people, sabotaging against the governmental property and caballing with the goal of making terrorists acts, in treasoning and inciting to riot. A punishment for such crimes – is a death penalty through shooting. But she gets an opportunity to save her life – to give away the one, who hides behind the mask of V. Obviously, Evey refuses.
She is being put into a prison cell with unhuman conditions, regularly tortured. And in this atmosphere of deep depression and dark despair finally appears a “light raylet” – a letter of some prisoner Valerie, where she talks about how her life was destroyed. And this is where the most interesting starts…
Here is the part from the letter, which Evey found.
I know there’s no way I can convince you this is not one of their tricks, but I don’t care. I am me. My name is Valerie. I don’t think I’ll live much longer and I wanted to tell someone about my life. This is the only autobiography I’ll ever write, and God, I’m writing it on toilet paper.
I was born in Nottingham in 1985. I don’t remember much of those early years, but I do remember the rain. My grandmother owned a farm in Tuttlebrook, and she used to tell me that God was in the rain (more to be said below about this symbol).
I passed my 11th lesson into girl’s grammar. It was at school that I met my first girlfriend. Her name was Sara. It was her wrists. They were beautiful. I thought we would love each other forever. I remember our teacher telling us that it was an adolescent phase people outgrew. Sara did. I didn’t.
In 2002, I fell in love with a girl named Christina. That year I came out to my parents. I couldn’t have done it without Chris holding my hand. My father wouldn’t look at me; he told me to go and never come back. My mother said nothing.
But I had only told them the truth. Was that so selfish? Our integrity sells for so little, but it is all we really have. It is the very last inch of us, but within that inch, we are free.
I’d always known what I wanted to do with my life, and in 2015 I starred in my first film, The Salt Flats. It was the most important role in my life, not because of my career, but because that was how I met Ruth.The first time we kissed, I knew I never wanted to kiss any other lips but hers again.
We moved to a small flat in London together. She grew scarlet carsons for me in our window box, and our place always smelled of roses. Those were the best years of my life.
But America’s war grew worse, and worse…and eventually came to London.
After that, there were no roses anymore. Not for anyone.
I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like “collateral” and “rendition” became frightening.
While things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful, I remember how different became dangerous. I still don’t understand it, why they hate us so much. They took Ruth while she was out buying food. I’ve never cried so hard in my life. It wasn’t long till they came for me. It seems strange that my life should end in such a terrible place, but for three years, I had roses, and apologised to no-one.
I shall die here. Every inch of me will perish. Every inch but one. An inch…it is small and it is fragile, but it is the only thing in the world worth having. We must never lose it or give it away. We must never let them take it from us.
I hope that, whoever you are, you escape this place. I hope that the world turns, and that things get better. But what I hope most of all is that you understand what I mean when I tell you that, even though I do not know you, and even though I may never meet you, laugh with you, cry with you, or kiss you, I love you.
With all my heart, I love you. Valerie.
This story as if gives tone to Evey, she is ready for any challenges and doesn’t have a fear of death anymore. And now it turns out to be put up by V himself, that all Evey imprisonment – is pretence. Through such a cruel spectacle V offers Evey to experience first-hand that he had to experience himself. Here is important to mention that Valerie’s letter was due in no small part to forming his courage and stamina, otherwise it simply would not have appeared in Evey’s camera. Meaning that for V himself the given autobiographical letter still was something very important.
Now let us address to the content of the letter. Here is important to pay attention not only to the story itself, but to some phrases from the text. Through the phrases such “it was her wrists. They were beautiful”, “the first time we kissed, I knew I never wanted to kiss any other lips but hers again” we are being tried to impose an image of some special lesbian love, lofty and spiritual. In front of us appears an image of not a sexual perversion, but of something poetic and romantic. An artificially created movie reality makes a viewer sympathize the author of the letter, since she had to suffer so much because of her specialty. Thereby a justification of this negative occurrence takes place.
Occult symbolics in the film
Yet let’s go back to the film. The party Norsefire, in all its totalitarian orientation, wants to avoid America’s fate, plunged into a total absence of authority and having lost moral landmarks, and that’s why through the use of force is trying to restore some moral norms in the society. In light of this pederasty fits very cleverly by the movie creators to the opposition of governmental terror, and is thought to have been one of those landmarks of defense of rights and freedoms of citizens. It stands in line with Evey’s parent’s murder, with atrocious trials of deathly vaccines on people, with the punishment of comic Dietrich. Therefore, another time the image of this event is being blurred: pederasts and lesbians of England in the given movie – are almost like Jews during the holocaust. However, this is not the same thing at all.
The story with the letter itself is the one of the key moments in the movie. Firstly, because it is the culmination of forming the personalities of the main heroes Evey and V, secondly, it is like a quotation, which highlighted by means of a certain symbolics by the creators of the picture.
In the Valerie’s letter the following phrase sounds: “My grandmother owned a farm in Tuttlebrook, and she used to tell me that God was in the rain”. What’s the use of this phrase in the letter? How this thought does touch the general subject of the letter? The answer: in no way. Than why has it appeared here?
A rain man in occult books means the devil “fallen from the sky”. The word rain itself besides the meaning “it rains” also means “the fall”, that’s why “rain man” can also be interpreted as “the fallen person” or “some fallen essence”. Rain man – is one of the devil’s names. So what god means Valerie, saying, that god – is in the rain?! The given symbolics is often used by various secret societies, in which Wachowski brothers, apparently, accepted (otherwise they would hardly become sisters). The whole plot with Evey’s imprisonment ends with the same thought: Evey stands on the roof of a building, it rains, she reaches forth arms to the sky and says that god – is in the rain.
One can get an impression of the extent of a popularity of the term “Rain Man” in western pop-culture from this video with song’s playlist on this subject:
In such a manner, the movie creators through the given symbolics have highlighted another main thought of the film, that pederasts and lesbians should fight for their rights (under this fighting on practice is often understood the right to propagandize perversions as a norm), otherwise the society, including the normal ones, supposedly will never become really free.
The role of mass-media in audience’s control
After V had exploded the building of the criminal court on Old Bailey, the authorities through the mass-media spread the information that the building called for an emergency demolition, and that the given incident – was not a terrorism act and had been planned. This lie is the exhibit demonstration of mass-media work from the point of view of audience’s mind control, creation a certain picture of worldview.
Also in the movie often from the screens we see the speaker, who, juggling with facts, imposes people a certain point of view, under the fake phonogram of applause. He tells his attitude towards one or another thing, openly expresses his opinion towards the happening events, effectively incorporating various facts in the needed ideology.
One time we are being demonstrated a series named “Laser-girl”, reminding a cheap action movie for mental retards. So in general the TV in the society, ruled by the Norsefire party, defending at least it seems so ideals of faith and high morale, in actual fact does not form this high ideals in no way, but is engaged in dumbing down the nation and manipulation of public opinion.
A total control over a personality – is the only one image of the future?
Let us come back again to that alternative reality, where the picture takes place. The essence of a new regime of England is that with the use of total control the country managed to fight the chaos, stop the war and epidemics. For the sake of this order people had to sacrifice a part of freedoms: in the country everywhere imposed a curfew and works absolute mass-media censorship, any discontent of the authority is punishable with maximum strictness etc.
There have been many films created with recreation of such social order of the society: Equilibrium, The Giver, Equals, Gattaca, Brysomme mannen etc. Everywhere one can see the similar picture: humanity till the end of the 20th century – beginning of the 21st has been plunged into chaos, and the way out of this chaos was the creation of an absolute total control over the personality.
But further we are being demonstrated all lameness and invalidity of the way of humanity limitation: a human can’t live without senses, emotions and love. That is right in general, but the question arises: “Why we are always being demonstrated the society, where some kind of social taboos are presented in such an exaggerated way?”
In reality the society can’t exist normally without some social taboos, otherwise the freedom turns into permissiveness. The general dissoluteness, as a rule, needed only for satisfaction of the lowest needs of a person (her animal instincts), leads to a sharp dissolution of morals. In such society inevitably will grow the rate of violence, aggression, hedonism, depravity, which will inevitably result in its fall, since people, sinking in primitive pleasures, will lose all accumulated culture-historical experience, all their technological solutions.
One of the descriptions of a culture sounds the following way: “A culture – is an enlistment of social restrictions”. It is hard to disagree with such description. Social restrictions, based on a historical experience, take on the role of society protectors from its previous mistakes; allow the society to survive long enough, avoiding social cataclysms. Not by an accident the most stable societies very tenderly and carefully protect their traditions.
However, social restrictions have the other side: they can stop the society from its development, which leads to inadequate perception and reaction on everything that is going on in the world. In the end such society becomes extremely archaic.
If making examples, one needs only to look at India and Muslim countries, which thanks to a big number of social taboos pretty easy keep their fundamental values, their cultural identity, in spite of the pressure of western civilization. However, they are extremely inactive in development of frontier science and technology, and in this way are greatly inferior.
Western countries, on the contrary, in the pursuit of a progress started to neglect traditional moral values, thanks to which they have reached their rise and might, and this will inevitably have its consequences up to a complete degradation and extinction of their culture, if they won’t change current tendencies.
However, in western cinematograph we are being offered one single alternative: either permissiveness or social taboos in an exaggerated way and arising under it society of dictate and restrictions. Obviously, the one watching this kind of a movie revolts against the picture, where a person is unable to unlock his human potential and self-actualize. After that he is ready to close eyes on anything: same-sex marriages and families, pedophile parties in the parliament, gay pride marches – if only his freedom won’t be taken away.
This is a sort of vaccination to people from any attempts to resist of approaching tsunami of dehumanization and total blurring of traditional morale with corresponding consequences: destruction of family institute, imposing false values and goals of existence to society, consisting of getting primitive pleasures etc.
In more detail such type of a society is described in the book of Aldous Huxley “Brave New World”, and what is the most interesting, having all imaginary freedom people in this society are really much less free, because are addicted to all they are being imposed as desired. The whole separate chapter in this book is devoted to reproduction and bringing-up people in special incubators. A family – as an entity, on which rest functions of offspring creation, has completely disappeared, people instead of realization their parental instincts prefer free uncontrolled sexual behavior without any responsibilities.
Reproduction of population by means of such incubators, according to Huxley, will allow to rigidly stratifying the society already at the stage of perinatal development, limiting the genofond of chosen embryos by applying different poisoned substances, including alcohol. Further with the use of cultivation certain valuable orienteers, various methods of propaganda, it is being achieved that a person believes that her strata – is the best. Therefore, the society is being formed; the number of people of each stratum can be strictly planned and regulated. The society becomes totally controlled. And this is possible only in case that people voluntary refuse from their right to become parents, to create sound families.
And the conclusion from this is that those, who are trying to interlace us in this decoy between the total freedom and total dictate, who offers to destroy traditional values, certainly not willing people to become really free. The offered freedom – is only an illusion.
The same with the movie “V for vendetta”, in its essence, which apart from the fighting by means of terror with “manifestations of abomination”, offers conjointly to defend the rights of sexual perverts. Of course, it was hard to expect something different from changed gender brothers Wachowski.