V for Vendetta: Misinterpreting Locke?

“Voilà! 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 valorous visitation of a by-gone vexation, stands vivified and has vowed to vanquish these venal and virulent vermin van-guarding 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.”

Although this is a relatively long quote, and takes a bit more intentional concentration because of the repetition of the letter “v,” there are some very key points to the character and purpose of the character of “V” based on his word choice. He is victim and villain; he is the “vestige of the vox populi.” These concepts remind me quite clearly of Locke, and consequently the principles that Thomas Jefferson and Thomas Paine (Common Sense) interpreted from him, as I will explain below.

At the heart of Locke’s philosophy is the understanding of the individual man as having been gifted by God with the gift of reason. Because man is reasonable and self-interested, Locke expects that he will mix his labour with the fruits of the earth to obtain only what he needs and can enjoy. There will be a few bad apples however, and it is for that reason that individuals come together and form government, for the protection of their property.

In V for Vendetta, that is the case. The people of England accepted the High Chancellor because he promised them safety, and a protection of their property in that he saved their lives (one’s property consists firstly of himself). But Locke, and Jefferson after him, feel that it is one’s duty to overthrow a government if it has stopped fulfilling its initial purpose. Locke explains that by nature people are averse to change, however, and will actually stand a lot of abuse before taking revolution upon themselves, answering the concern that with this mindset the government would constantly be changing. Locke did not want to encourage this sense of perpetual change; in fact, he was arguing against a state of chaos.

This is where the movie differs. In one sense it is the same; it is to the people that V commences his “war of words.” The movie depicts many shots of what could be construed as the “average citizen,” those in a bar, those in a nursing home, a family in an ordinary home– all with the same response to V’s words– contemplative silence and stillness. Their stillness is almost unnerving. The movie-makers believe, as Locke does, that people are inherently good, and when given the opportunity to act upon the truth, they will. V does this by blowing up buildings. Locke might also have approved the use of violence in the case of self-defense, however, that violence would be for something. As opposed to a rebellion, that simply proposes anarchy, a revolution involves a “turning,” or a restoration of government to its proper role. The movie might have vaguely implied that an alternative would be found after the present government was gone… but it is decisively vague.

Evey’s character contributes to this greatly. V teaches her a whole new worldview, if you will– a view that makes him sound like a “crazy person” at first (perhaps there is a similarity between V’s discipleship of Evey and how one might disciple someone into faith in Christ? A topic for another time). But in the end, although V is dead, Evey has clearly been converted, for it is she who pulls the lever and blows up the building. When the inspector asks her why she is doing it she says it is because people need more than a building… they need hope.

This reminds me of one of my favorite quotes from the movie: “But regardless of what weapons they try to use to effect silence, words will always retain their power. Words are the means to meaning, and for some, the annunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country.“

Even though the methods V uses to fight for truth might be a little… untruthful, to say the least, constituted by violence, destruction of property, and chaos, the mindset behind his endeavor is a noble one. The movie talks a lot about fear, and how many of the people have been forced into inaction by their fear. But V finds a way to rid himself of fear, and he teaches that to Evey as well. And his fight is a fight of love. He had forgotten that in his pursuit of revenge… but he is reminded of it by his encounter with Evey as he falls in love with her. We could debate the difference of romantic love vs. Christian love, however for the point of this conversation I’d like to include another quote:

Evey: I don’t want you to die.

V: That’s the most beautiful thing you could have ever given me.

Death is not something that should ever be accepted as “good” or “truthful.” I heard talk today of a “happy fall,” but I think that is extremely dangerous. Death always is an unwelcome intrusion into our lives, and Christ conquered death for that reason. So although V’s methods might have caused the death of others, ultimately he was fighting against a society that was orchestrated by death. That does not excuse him and his misinterpretation of Locke, since he did not even fully articulate an alternative to the present government… however, its initial attraction to me was because of this fight for Truth. A pacifist would do it with far less violence, of course.

V is the “vox populi,” the voice of the people. His role is our role, and his fight is our fight. He fought for those citizens… and because he is them, they should be constituted by the same actions. Sounds sort of familiar… maybe like Christ and the church.