V for Vendetta: Rebellion in the Shadows

Few movies instill more rebellious spirit into viewers than V for Vendetta. A film that opens with a reference to Guy Fawkes, a 16^th century revolutionary, the movie is focused around issues of extreme governmental control and the amount of power that citizens should have within a society. The movie focuses on a character, V, that has dedicated his life towards overthrowing an oppressive government and bringing wrongdoings of Britain’s leaders to light.

                Of course, the movie has other draws like good-looking actresses and stunning action scenes, but the true interest of the movie comes from its ability make its viewers question their role and their government’s role in the society which they live in. Is there a point at which government should be limited, even it is doing good for a large amount of people? What if this good comes at the expense of a small minority group?

                Clearly, these are issues that have been brought to light in our society today. With a government (and a people) largely concerned with terrorism, recent years have tested the point at which we are willing to bend the laws around which our country is based in an effort to protect ourselves. Surely, keeping one’s safety in mind is reasonable and justifiable, and in times of crisis many feel that there is little else that is important. However, in crisis situations many people tend to think irrationally, jump to conclusions, and allow our governing bodies to take action without consulting the rules, regulations and principles that our society has been built around. The question of “the ends justifying the means” comes to mind, and it’s a question that will likely never be answered.

                In V for Vendatta, V, the main character, was the victim of illegal genetic testing by the government in an effort to further their knowledge about the human body’s ability to survive epidemics. While V did survive his time in this prison, he was forever scarred and vowed to bring justice to a government that would allow such injustices to occur behind closed doors. Throughout the movie, he gathers the support of a population that is growing more and more dissatisfied with the amount of control the government has over them, and he takes advantage of a growing animosity towards power that he eventually funnels into a mass rebellion.

                Throughout human history, rebellions have seemed to occur without question when a governing body gains too much power, perhaps a natural safeguard against a perpetually totalitarian society. However, the extent to which a people must suffer is largely flexible, and often times a revolutionary figure is necessary to ignite the people under such a regime into action. V is this character, and does so anonymously, constantly wearing a mask and becoming a phantom of sorts in the mind of his followers.

                This type of anonymous rebellion was scarcely possible through most of history, as communication between groups of people was largely done in person and an anonymous figure would have difficulties reaching and inspiring the masses. However, in our current age of instant communication and technology, rebellions that are started without the leaders  and members being directly known (and rebellions that remain without the leaders and members widely known) can occur. Just like V uses masks to cover the identity of his followers and allow people to protect their personal identities while following the cause they believe in, people in today’s era are able to mask their identity over the internet and contribute to a protest anonymously. As many rebellions are curbed or never begin in the first place due to members being scared of damaging their reputation or endangering themselves or their families, this method of anonymous rebellion allows people to voice their true feelings and not feel frightened that they might be in jeopardizing their future. Expect rebellions of this sort to be occurring around the world in the near future as the common person gains more access to organizational powers and the mask of the internet.

                While V for Vendetta does eventually succeed, many people are injured in the process, and he puts a large group of people in danger. Just as he is protesting the “ends justifies the means” mentality of the government, is he not being somewhat hypocritical in his methods of protest? His tactics of explosives and other weaponry might be useful and incite public action, but he nonetheless hurting possibly innocent people and in turn exacerbating the problem he set out to fix. Rebellion, like many other social issues, is a double-edged problem, and not one that can be solved in a simple manner.

The Morality of the War on Terror

        The ‘heroes’ in Team America seem to be driven entirely by what they believe to be moral. Their morality does not seems to adhere to any specific moral philosophy we have discussed, instead it is a muddled mixture of several.

It most closely resembles utilitarianism. Results are paramount to Team America. As long as they have accomplished their original objective, they are satisfied. Interestingly they are blind to consequences outside of their goal. Their ignorance of the massive collateral damage that marks their trail is exemplified repeatedly when the team accidentally destroys ancient and invaluable landmarks. In Paris, they topple the Eiffel Tower. In Cairo they behead the Sphinx and demolish one of the great pyramids.

            Consequentialism does not fully encapsulate the morality of Team America, for they ignore the broad and unintended consequences of their actions. They simply are seeing their original intent through to the end. The actions of the team are based in a duty to their nation and its ideals. Unfortunately, they do not really concern themselves with the specifics of American ideals, they really function off blind patriotism. Their ignorance means that duty to a set of ideals, becomes duty to the nation, which their lack of moral intelligence transforms into simple adherence to the orders of their supervisor. In a way, Team America’s moral philosophy is deontological; they have placed a lot of emphasis on the idea of duty, and the goodness of their intent is their only defense against the gross collateral damage they cause. In no way are they subscribers to Kant’s most basic principle, the categorical imperative. Team America perceives itself as an elite team above the rules of normal society because they are uniquely equipped to protect America. They operate as if they are on a separate moral plane from everyone else. None of their actions could be construed as universal law.

            The morality of Team America incorporates parts of multiple moral philosophies, but these parts are incompatible and misunderstood. The consequentialism they demonstrate is very narrow. They do not account for the full range of their actions’ consequences. The duty-based justification of their actions is also problematic because their duty is not to a set morality but to the abstract notion of their nation and the orders of their superiors. So, ultimately, their misunderstanding of moral concepts leaves them without morality.

            The exaggerated and literally cartoonish presentation of Team America serves to make the moral issues of America’s comportment in the recent wars. Team America shows us that the moral rationale behind these wars is confused and indefensible. 

            My opinion on the war is also an agglomeration of deontology and consequentialism. It seems that a just war must be based in the ideas of deontology. For example, the rebellion in V For Vendetta is just because it is based upon the duty of those citizens to preserve their own freedom. If they had chosen to remain docile it would be the same as morally affirming the actions of their government. A just war must be based upon a basic moral duty to preserve one’s life and freedom. Once a war has begun, it seems best to proceed with consequentialism, which overall is a much more flexible form of morality. Consequentialism simply appears to be best strategically. Success in battle is based upon outcome, not intent.

            One thing Team America strives to highlight is ambiguity of intent within this war. Many Americans believe the initial response to be justified, but the continuation of this war and the ephemeral nature of the enemy have bankrupted the morality of this conflict. This war is questionable in terms of both discussed moralities: deontology, and utilitarianism. The generally cited reason for the continuation of the war is our duty to destroy terrorism. Of course, terrorism is not a tangible enemy. Who and what we are fighting is hard to grasp. The war on terror takes place on the streets of foreign nations, not on battlefields. Soldiers face bombs, not the approaching enemy front. Our intent and duty in entering this war are unclear. The rationale has changed, which according to deontological reasoning for a just war, it should not.  The utilitarianism that should govern the battlefield is difficult to implement in this war because without a solid and comprehensible enemy, it is next to impossible to determine the consequences of this war, let alone measure their outcomes against perceived gains. The ambiguity of terror as an enemy leaves us without closure, for it is impossible to know when and where the enemy will fall, or even if it is possible to defeat terror. Without closure, we cannot judge consequence, and thus this war appears fruitless and amoral. 

A World of Human Beings

Many questions arise when discussing both morality and war. Especially when dealing with film, the question arises of whether or not morality is judged on an ethical or a utilitarian scale. Because when dealing with war it becomes more and more difficult to classify morality under the categorical imperative, I will argue that the motives of the characters in Apocalypse Now act in a consequential and utilitarian manner, favoring the happiness of most in the outcome of the war.

Captain Willard (Martin Sheen) enters the movie as a flawed character morally. He is clearly struggling with a decision made in the past… the decision to follow the orders of the military. In following these orders he had murdered someone “off the record” for the greater good of the cause of the war, and is being asked to do so again. He must take out Colonel Kurtz (Marlon Brando) who has camped deep in Vietnam, starting a backward and almost monarchical society of his own, scarily mirroring a primitive ground worshiping him as a god. Kurtz had previously taken out three Vietnamese civilians which had not been targets yet had stopped militant activity in the area. Now he ruled it. Upon meeting Kurtz, Willard gets the same inspirational speech that had sold several soldiers and the people of the society in the past, yet Willard ultimately follows his orders and does what he is told in hopes that what he is doing is for the greater good. Ethically, murder never flies, especially in regard to a higher-ranking officer in war; however Willard knows that by following orders he is progressing the war in which his 

country is fighting.

The death of his squad mates alone serves as “justification” for the murder of Kurtz, but not a moral right. Throughout the film, we as an audience build strong connections with several of the characters that ultimately lose their lives on this classified journey. A shared frustration rings out on the boat as they first realize that they are struggling simply to kill one of their own men, yet they continue. As the world around the characters shifts from ordered to without order to a backwards order, the one thing that remains is Willard’s sense of a utilitarian justice that needs to be served. When passing through the battle without order, Willard inquires, “Who is the commanding officer here?” only to hear back, “aren’t you?” This is the first sense of personal freedom to follow orders or take control of what he believes is justice in this case, and he persists. Ultimately Willard has made the decision at this point to follow through with his orders as that is what is justice and for the greater good.

An interlude in the journey appears as the squad stumbles upon a French plantation. They are served great food and treated as allies as they should be. While this part in the movie seems almost unnecessary, it continues Willard’s sense of self-control. The French are staying out of the war in that they are taking a piece of land for themselves that they can call their own. This mirrors the land that Kurtz controls. The difference being that it would be an unethical and irrational decision to contest the French’s decision to post in Vietnam; however it is a Utilitarian decision to kill Kurtz and free his followers from the brainwashing to which they have been exposed.

When Willard is ultimately imprisoned in Kurtz camp, he hides in the darkness, which slowly comes to mean the knowledge of good and evil. While darkness usually signifies mystery and evil, Willard grows to understand the truth. Just as Kurtz had been portrayed in the dark earlier as he prophesized to Willard, there is now a truth in the sense that all forms of order, especially Kurtz’s, are ultimately the same. Where there is power, there is order, and where there is order, there is oppression, which usually leads to skepticism and questioning. So yes, Kurtz is right in his betrayal of the army, but he knows what Willard must and will do. He knows the idea of the utilitarian good that will arise in the war heroes returning from Vietnam. He knows, so he allows Willard the opportunity to strike him down. Even dying from malaria, Willard and Kurtz both know he will be struck down. Will it free those under his oppression? Will it bring back those lost on the journey? Will it win the war? No, but following order, especially in a time of war is essential to the balance of the ether of happiness in a world inhabited by human beings.