5

In the movie V for Vendetta, there is some point where a guy is robbing a store with V's mask and with a gun. Then he shouts "anarchy in the UK." after getting the money and then shoots a celebratory gunfire.

I haven't read the comic yet but I hear that the comic is promoting anarchism against fascism. Also that in the comic, V is supposed to destroy everything for Evey to build a good society based on anarchism on it. While the movie seems to be just about destroying the government and vengeance and not about building anything special.

I've also read that Alan Moore (the original writer of the comic) has said:

[The movie] has been "turned into a Bush-era parable by people too timid to set a political satire in their own country.... It's a thwarted and frustrated and largely impotent American liberal fantasy of someone with American liberal values standing up against a state run by neoconservatives – which is not what the comic V for Vendetta was about. It was about fascism, it was about anarchy, it was about England

My question is why would the only reference to anarchism in the movie be actually a disturbing reference to chaos which actually has nothing to do with anarchy?

Do the Wachowskis have a point with that? Did they deliberately strip off anarchy from the movie? Is it an American Culture thing? Can it be following a political idea? Or is it just that the Wachowskis weren't sure anarchy was a good thing so they stripped it off, but if so why did they actually somehow sabotages anarchy instead of being neutral to it?

I'm not nitpicking. The point is I personally believe that Moore's point of writing that comic was to promote anarchism and demote fascism. And he is also an anarchist himself. And then the Wachowskis have adapted a movie from his comic and stripped off the whole point that Moore had to say! Instead they have put some things about middle east and Bush-era related things in it.

So my question is. Why have the Wachowskis done that?

5

The core answer

My question is why would the only reference to anarchism in the movie be actually a disturbing reference to chaos which actually has nothing to do with anarchy?

This is not the only reference to anarchism. Everyone who wears the mask and goes out that night is an anarchist, as they have all rejected the government's rules.

What you're focusing on is violent and chaotic anarchism. You're actually striking on an important part of the interpretation of what anarchy is, compared to how it is perceived.

Anarchy is the rejection of the notion that there is a person (or group of people) which holds more power than another person (or group of people). Anarchy, at its very essence, rejects hierarchical societal structures in favor of an equal footing.
What communism is to money and property, anarchy is to power. It is the belief that wealth/power is shared by all people and not held by a select few.

However, the opponents of a political ideology will always point to the worst cases. The use confirmation bias to assume that if they prominently talk about the worst cases, that people will subconsciously start assuming that the worst cases are the most prominent cases.
For anarchy, that means that violent anarchist are claimed to be the alleged true intention of any anarchist movement. For communism, that means that Stalin's corrupt regime is claimed to be the only true intention of any communist movement. In short: while abuses definitely exist and denying that would be incorrect, it is equally incorrect to assume that therefore the ideology itself is inherently intent on abuse.

When V tells people to stand up against Sutler, they (eventually) do so. V gives them the mask as a way for them to rise up against the establishment but avoid personal persecution for doing so.
However, just like any tool, the mask can be used for good or for evil. If you give people knives, some will become robbers, others will cut their steak, and others become surgeons. The masked robbers are using it for evil (crime), whereas the masked march uses it for good (peaceful protest).

The scene with the masked robbers showcases that Sutler's point is not fully incorrect. Sutler argues that personal freedom leads to abuse of personal freedom, which leads to crime and other negatives to society. And while this is true for specific cases (i.e. the masked robbers), Sutler very much omits everyone else who does not use their personal freedom in the pursuit of abusing others.

This is something you can find in almost all political discourse of the last century. It is why the US still uses "communist" as an irrevocably bad idea (because they measure it by the worst of the worst, i.e. the corruption under Stalin's communism), or the argument that gun ownership "must" signal criminal intent, or that anyone who takes/smokes drugs is "obviously" helplessly addicted.

I'm not staking any political claim here. The same rhetoric happens on all sides, regardless of political leaning. I'm just pointing out that it's very relevant for V for Vendetta to show that there will always be some people who abuse a system, and this is true for any system. There were abuses in Sutler's regime, and V's masks have led to some people abusing them (by committing crimes).


Your questions

Do the Wachowskis have a point with that?

See the above.

Did they deliberately strip off anarchy from the movie?

They did not. You simply misidentified what is and isn't anarchy.

Is it an American Culture thing?

The movie, compared to the comics, are definitely made more relatable to an American political context. But the gist of the story remains the same.

Can it be following a political idea?

V is still a vocal proponent of anarchy. The distribution of the masks very much puts people on equal footing, as opposed to e.g. uniforms that denote rank (and therefore hierarchical power).

Or is it just that the Wachowskis weren't sure anarchy was a good thing so they stripped it off, but if so why did they actually somehow sabotages anarchy instead of being neutral to it?

As mentioned before, they did not strip off the anarchy. They simply didn't explicitly point out that the silent march was also a form of anarchy.

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .