Read

V For Vendetta (2005) explores man as the embodiment of an idea. Is violence a moral avenue under certain circumstances? What are those circumstances, and who stands to judge and define them? The film follows a questionable protagonist whose tactics suggest it is possible to be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist, given the context and goal of one’s actions.

Inspired by Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot of 1605, V (Hugo Weaving) bases his appearance and expression around the event and its era. He has no identity, no past, no history, and no face. Beneath his Fawkes mask, V ceases to become a person but a manifestation of concept, a symbol of protest against government tyranny.

Internet descriptions define V as “an anarchist freedom fighter who attempts to ignite a revolution through elaborate terrorist acts.” But by definition, it’s hard for someone to be both a freedom fighter and a terrorist. Acton.org differentiates the two, writing, “Freedom fighters usually come from oppressed or marginalized groups that have been deprived of something important, such as a homeland, and their struggle is to obtain it or gain it back. In other words, if there is a sinful motive in the dreams and actions of a freedom fighter, it is likely the sin of greed… This is not so with terrorism. Terrorists are less concerned with acquisition than they are with destruction. They are usually clever enough to cloak their motives by hijacking the popular will of an oppressed people, but their wrath is not appeased when they acquire what they say they want. The real goal of terrorist groups is not acquiring but destroying. Terrorism is thus qualitatively different from armed movement for freedom and liberty. Terrorism is not like greed; it is an extreme form of destructive envy.”

V’s motivation is driven by the terrors of his past, during which he was imprisoned and tortured by those he fights against. Risen under a new persona, he plans to exact retribution. In V’s world, the government has chosen to ignore the voice of its collective citizens, operating through totalitarianism and oppression. Director James McTiegue says, “We felt the novel was very prescient to how the political climate is at the moment. It really showed what can happen when society is ruled by government, rather than the government being run as a voice of the people. I don’t think it’s such a big leap to say that things like that can happen when leaders stop listening to the people.”

This calls back the original question - does terrorism become freedom fighting in certain contexts? There’s no denying the fascist Norsefire party controlling the UK in V’s world is a tyrannical, pseudo-Nazi party which, in the interest of mass human rights, needs to be stopped. Norsefire commands the systematic execution of minorities, homosexuals, and dissidents. It spies on its citizens with a distinctly Orwellian influence. They control the media and news and manipulate public opinion through fear mongering.

V has the courage to fight against them, the success of which would aid an entire populace. That makes him seem like a pretty good guy. But V is also a staunchly idealistic fanatic in his own right, not above torturing, killing, and brainwashing others to serve his goals. That makes him seem like a pretty scary guy.

Because of the fact that V’s ultimate goals—returning his world to a state of more democratized freedom—are viewed by us as desirable, we sympathize with his plight. His actions seem justified, however ruthless, because superficially it all works toward a positive human benefit.

By all counts, V is absolutely a terrorist, but the target of his terror is limited to those who operate through their own type of terror. The government operates with its own form of terrorism which benefits nobody but their own organization. V’s terrorism is for the good of the people. Philip Coppens says, “V is a freedom fighter who uses terrorist tactics in pursuit of a personal vendetta but, above all, he wants to force socio-political change in a dystopian Britain.”

So is V a terrorist or a freedom fighter? Yes. He is easily a terrorist, but the focus of his terroristic activity is the freedom liberation of the masses and the overthrow of a government, substantiating him a freedom fighter.