1984 and V for Vendetta: The Nature of a Successful Rebellion
The novel 1984 by George Orwell and the film V for Vendetta directed by James Mcteigue both feature dystopican societies ruled under totalitarian governments that oppress their people to a brink of rebellion. Within these rebellions in both works, there exists a monumental difference in that one succeeds and the other fails miserably. Now why is this? The rebellion that succeeds is present in the film V for Vendetta, in which the leader of this rebellion, named only “V”, uses terrorism to overthrow the government. In 1984, the protagonist, Winston Smith, attempts at overthrowing “Big Brother” through an inside contact with connection to a supposed underground force, but he fails to even make a real dent. The difference is the presence of violence. Through analysis of these rebellions, it can be concurred that rebellion against supreme authorities can only be achieved through some degree of violence. Absent violence, a rebellious force is doomed to fail against totalitarian authorities who have used violence to achieve power.
To better understand the nature of the rebellions present in each society depicted in each work, it is most crucial to analyze the authorities that rule over each dystopia. In 1984 the regime is referred to as “The Party” and the supreme leader is called “Big Brother”. It is important to point out that the Party’s power lies completely within its ability to instill fear on members of the Outer Party, or regular citizens. This fear is instilled through this idea, present in each of the minds of every person, that they are constantly being watched and all of their actions are constantly being monitored by the “Thought Police”, the secret police responsible for detaining individuals guilty of “Thoughtcrime”. There is no real mention of the use or threat of violence against individuals who commit this crime in the novel, at least not specifically. The main character, Winston Smith, describes his fears of being reprimanded by the Thought Police and being “vaporized”. The act of being vaporized is what is believed to happen to people that are caught guilty of committing thoughtcrime, but there is never any proof of this present in the text.
This contrasts greatly from the authority that is present in the film V for Vendetta. In V for Vendetta, the man authority is referred to as the Norsfire Party that is headed by the high chancellor Adam Sutler. As is evident from the film, this authority came to power through the use of exploiting the need for a cure to a virus that they themselves created. Based on the film, during the time of elections, the current high chancellor was running for the position under a highly conservative campaign. There was a widespread virus going around and riots occurred as a result. Then all of a sudden a cure was found by a member of Sutler’s party and the people voted heavily in favor of Sutler. Sutler then created this totalitarian regime that included the creation of these “Fingermen”, the regime’s secret police and the equivalent of 1984’s Thoughtpolice. The Norsfire Party’s power lies completely within their use of force. They must rely on force to protect themselves as that is the only way to sustain the regime (Bulloch, 2007).
In this comparison there exist two different regimes, one sustained by fear, the other by force. Now, it is appropriate to define the main characters and the resources available to them through which they are able to attempt to rebel. In V for Vendetta, the main character of the plot would technically be considered Evey (Natalie Portman), but she is not the main proprietor of the rebellion, which would be “V”. “V”, which is all he is referred to throughout the film, is an individual who wears a Guy Fawkes mask to pay tribute to the “Gun Powder Treason” that occurred on November 5th, 1605, which was a failed attempt at blowing up the Parliament building located in London. From the first time we meet “V”, it is blatantly obvious that he is very well educated, through the complexity of his vernacular, and that he is very well skilled in armed fighting (he most commonly uses swords and very long knives). Through later development of the plot, after a series of bombings occurs and investigation is done on said bombings, in a meeting of highly elected officials, including the high chancellor, one of the officials claims that the bombs were homemade using materials that can be found in everyday homes. This official even goes further in stating that “whoever did this, he is very good”. It is also later revealed that “V” lives underground in an area that is completely secret and hidden. To summarize, “V” is a highly intelligent man with no identity, supreme fighting skills, the ability to concoct homemade explosives from simple materials, and has a secret hiding place unbeknownst to the government. All of these combined make the success of rebellion highly more likely than do the resources available to Winston.
Winston is portrayed in 1984 as an average citizen of Oceania, the state in which he lives. He works in the Ministry of Truth, the sector of the government responsible for falsifying the news and history so that it favors the ideals of the Party. There is never any indication in the text of the availability or even existence of basic weapons in the society depicted. Even if there had been weapons present, the fear of being vaporized would have greatly overcome any thoughts of trying to obtain any weapons. A huge difference between the two works is the level of surveillance that is used on citizens. In 1984 the level surveillance is probably at the highest it could possibly be, with there being microphones and telescreens covering seemingly every inch of the region where Winston lives and works. There exists seemingly no ability to rebel against the Party as the mere fear of being caught is so instilled within every person. This is obvious as technically the first time Winston rebels is when he writes “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” several times in his notebook. Even from doing such a simple thing, the fear of being caught entraps Winston.
In comparing the two main proprietors of the rebellions present in both 1984 and V for Vendetta it is obvious to point out, aside from the blatant lack and abundance of resources for rebellion in each respective work, one crucial factor that must be examined is the existence and nonexistence of fear. In V for Vendetta, the idea of being fearless is tossed around several times throughout the film. The main character, Evey, is even tortured by “V” in order to remove her fear of dying that would have disempowered her ability to assist “V” in his rebellion. Before “V” is killed in a final shootout with his main enemy, Gordon Dietrich, Dietrich states that he knows that “V” is not afraid to die. “V” was also given the option of dismissing his attempts at blowing up Parliament by Evey, but he denied this option, instead opting to face an inevitable death. This absence of fear within “V” is what enabled him to carry out the attacks that resulted in the toppling of the Norsfire Party. Had Winston the availability of resources to carry out such an attack that could have possibly defeated Big Brother, his fear of even attempting to do so, due to his belief in the inevitability of being caught, would disallow him to commit any such actions of rebellion.
Each proprietor, both Winston and “V” went about initiating their rebellion in completely different ways, as already described earlier. Winston, who had been non-violently rebelling for several months by means of an illegal love affair with a woman named Julia, decided to attempt to overthrow the Party by contacting a high-up member of the Inner Party, named O’Brien. When Winston met with O’Brien, he declared his disapproval for the Party. O’Brien claimed he was on the same side, as well as stating that the “Brotherhood”, a rumored underground group that intended to overthrow the Party, existed. Winston would later be betrayed by O’Brien, who had tricked Winston into claiming is disapproval for the Party and want for rebellion. It was Winston’s lack of any real power and failure to properly judge O’Brien’s trustworthiness that failed him in the end. He never attempted to gain any power through force, which it is not completely textually defined as being impossible. The novel ends with Winston becoming completely endowed to Big Brother, claiming he loved him.
“V” goes about his rebellion in a much more well-thought out manner. On November 5, he blew up, the Old Bailey, a statue similar to the Statue of Liberty, that was a highly regarded symbol of nationalism for London. He then proceeds to overtake the top news agency in London and broadcasts a message to the people that states he will destroy Parliament in one year, in an attempt to dissemble the Norsfire Party. The days pass as “V” kills high up members of the party, one by one, instilling panic within the government. When the day finally arrives, “V” uses blackmail to get the chancellor alone and is able to kill him. “V” is later killed, but Evey is able to pull a lever that sends a train loaded with bombs to the Parliament building and it is destroyed. As I have stated previously, it is this use of indiscriminate violence that allows “V” to be successful in toppling the totalitarian regime. Winston was unable to attain any means for instituting violence and therefore he was powerless.
In analysis of both 1984 and V for Vendetta, it is also appropriate to note the time period in which each work was created, which greatly influences these means of rebellion. 1984 is considered by many to be the most influential dystopian novel of the modern era, which V for Vendetta emulates greatly. Written in 1949, the novel highly emulates the novel We written in 1921 by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which was written in response to the author’s personal experiences in the Russian Revolutions of 1917. During this time, the world had not seen any rebellions of the like of that which exists in V for Vendetta (Khouri, 1985). V for Vendetta was produced in 2005, well after the occurrence of 9/11 and the “War on Terror”. In the film the main use of rebellion were these indiscriminate means of violence, mostly in the form of bombs and suicide vests. These indiscriminate means of violence were beginning to become more and more common around the world during this time. It is obvious that this greatly influenced the producer’s decision to have the main proprietor of the rebellion, “V”, use such means (Bulloch, 2007).
The novel 1984 and the film V for Vendetta both portray dystopian societies ruled under totalitarian regimes that oppress the citizens of their state to a point of rebellion. Each of these rebellions were carried out by much different means, with one being successful and the other not even putting a dent in the system. In 1984, Winston Smith attempts to contact a member of a secret underground revolutionary group, only to fail and be betrayed and converted to be a loyal Party member. In V for Vendetta the proprietor of the rebellion, named only “V”, uses indiscriminate terrorism to destroy everything that the totalitarian authority stood for and represented. In the end, it is the absence of the fear of failure and death and the overwhelming use of violence that enables “V” to be successful where Winston was not. Based on analysis of these two rebellions, it can be concurred that violence is necessary to topple a totalitarian regime that seized force violently to begin with.
Works Cited
Bulloch, Douglas. V is for Vendetta: P is for Power A Film Reading of V for Vendetta. Millenium-Journal of International Studies. 35 (451). 2007.
Khouri, Nadia. Reaction and Nihilism: The Political Genealogy of Orwell’s 1984. Science-Fiction Studies. 12 (136). 1985.
To better understand the nature of the rebellions present in each society depicted in each work, it is most crucial to analyze the authorities that rule over each dystopia. In 1984 the regime is referred to as “The Party” and the supreme leader is called “Big Brother”. It is important to point out that the Party’s power lies completely within its ability to instill fear on members of the Outer Party, or regular citizens. This fear is instilled through this idea, present in each of the minds of every person, that they are constantly being watched and all of their actions are constantly being monitored by the “Thought Police”, the secret police responsible for detaining individuals guilty of “Thoughtcrime”. There is no real mention of the use or threat of violence against individuals who commit this crime in the novel, at least not specifically. The main character, Winston Smith, describes his fears of being reprimanded by the Thought Police and being “vaporized”. The act of being vaporized is what is believed to happen to people that are caught guilty of committing thoughtcrime, but there is never any proof of this present in the text.
This contrasts greatly from the authority that is present in the film V for Vendetta. In V for Vendetta, the man authority is referred to as the Norsfire Party that is headed by the high chancellor Adam Sutler. As is evident from the film, this authority came to power through the use of exploiting the need for a cure to a virus that they themselves created. Based on the film, during the time of elections, the current high chancellor was running for the position under a highly conservative campaign. There was a widespread virus going around and riots occurred as a result. Then all of a sudden a cure was found by a member of Sutler’s party and the people voted heavily in favor of Sutler. Sutler then created this totalitarian regime that included the creation of these “Fingermen”, the regime’s secret police and the equivalent of 1984’s Thoughtpolice. The Norsfire Party’s power lies completely within their use of force. They must rely on force to protect themselves as that is the only way to sustain the regime (Bulloch, 2007).
In this comparison there exist two different regimes, one sustained by fear, the other by force. Now, it is appropriate to define the main characters and the resources available to them through which they are able to attempt to rebel. In V for Vendetta, the main character of the plot would technically be considered Evey (Natalie Portman), but she is not the main proprietor of the rebellion, which would be “V”. “V”, which is all he is referred to throughout the film, is an individual who wears a Guy Fawkes mask to pay tribute to the “Gun Powder Treason” that occurred on November 5th, 1605, which was a failed attempt at blowing up the Parliament building located in London. From the first time we meet “V”, it is blatantly obvious that he is very well educated, through the complexity of his vernacular, and that he is very well skilled in armed fighting (he most commonly uses swords and very long knives). Through later development of the plot, after a series of bombings occurs and investigation is done on said bombings, in a meeting of highly elected officials, including the high chancellor, one of the officials claims that the bombs were homemade using materials that can be found in everyday homes. This official even goes further in stating that “whoever did this, he is very good”. It is also later revealed that “V” lives underground in an area that is completely secret and hidden. To summarize, “V” is a highly intelligent man with no identity, supreme fighting skills, the ability to concoct homemade explosives from simple materials, and has a secret hiding place unbeknownst to the government. All of these combined make the success of rebellion highly more likely than do the resources available to Winston.
Winston is portrayed in 1984 as an average citizen of Oceania, the state in which he lives. He works in the Ministry of Truth, the sector of the government responsible for falsifying the news and history so that it favors the ideals of the Party. There is never any indication in the text of the availability or even existence of basic weapons in the society depicted. Even if there had been weapons present, the fear of being vaporized would have greatly overcome any thoughts of trying to obtain any weapons. A huge difference between the two works is the level of surveillance that is used on citizens. In 1984 the level surveillance is probably at the highest it could possibly be, with there being microphones and telescreens covering seemingly every inch of the region where Winston lives and works. There exists seemingly no ability to rebel against the Party as the mere fear of being caught is so instilled within every person. This is obvious as technically the first time Winston rebels is when he writes “DOWN WITH BIG BROTHER” several times in his notebook. Even from doing such a simple thing, the fear of being caught entraps Winston.
In comparing the two main proprietors of the rebellions present in both 1984 and V for Vendetta it is obvious to point out, aside from the blatant lack and abundance of resources for rebellion in each respective work, one crucial factor that must be examined is the existence and nonexistence of fear. In V for Vendetta, the idea of being fearless is tossed around several times throughout the film. The main character, Evey, is even tortured by “V” in order to remove her fear of dying that would have disempowered her ability to assist “V” in his rebellion. Before “V” is killed in a final shootout with his main enemy, Gordon Dietrich, Dietrich states that he knows that “V” is not afraid to die. “V” was also given the option of dismissing his attempts at blowing up Parliament by Evey, but he denied this option, instead opting to face an inevitable death. This absence of fear within “V” is what enabled him to carry out the attacks that resulted in the toppling of the Norsfire Party. Had Winston the availability of resources to carry out such an attack that could have possibly defeated Big Brother, his fear of even attempting to do so, due to his belief in the inevitability of being caught, would disallow him to commit any such actions of rebellion.
Each proprietor, both Winston and “V” went about initiating their rebellion in completely different ways, as already described earlier. Winston, who had been non-violently rebelling for several months by means of an illegal love affair with a woman named Julia, decided to attempt to overthrow the Party by contacting a high-up member of the Inner Party, named O’Brien. When Winston met with O’Brien, he declared his disapproval for the Party. O’Brien claimed he was on the same side, as well as stating that the “Brotherhood”, a rumored underground group that intended to overthrow the Party, existed. Winston would later be betrayed by O’Brien, who had tricked Winston into claiming is disapproval for the Party and want for rebellion. It was Winston’s lack of any real power and failure to properly judge O’Brien’s trustworthiness that failed him in the end. He never attempted to gain any power through force, which it is not completely textually defined as being impossible. The novel ends with Winston becoming completely endowed to Big Brother, claiming he loved him.
“V” goes about his rebellion in a much more well-thought out manner. On November 5, he blew up, the Old Bailey, a statue similar to the Statue of Liberty, that was a highly regarded symbol of nationalism for London. He then proceeds to overtake the top news agency in London and broadcasts a message to the people that states he will destroy Parliament in one year, in an attempt to dissemble the Norsfire Party. The days pass as “V” kills high up members of the party, one by one, instilling panic within the government. When the day finally arrives, “V” uses blackmail to get the chancellor alone and is able to kill him. “V” is later killed, but Evey is able to pull a lever that sends a train loaded with bombs to the Parliament building and it is destroyed. As I have stated previously, it is this use of indiscriminate violence that allows “V” to be successful in toppling the totalitarian regime. Winston was unable to attain any means for instituting violence and therefore he was powerless.
In analysis of both 1984 and V for Vendetta, it is also appropriate to note the time period in which each work was created, which greatly influences these means of rebellion. 1984 is considered by many to be the most influential dystopian novel of the modern era, which V for Vendetta emulates greatly. Written in 1949, the novel highly emulates the novel We written in 1921 by Yevgeny Zamyatin, which was written in response to the author’s personal experiences in the Russian Revolutions of 1917. During this time, the world had not seen any rebellions of the like of that which exists in V for Vendetta (Khouri, 1985). V for Vendetta was produced in 2005, well after the occurrence of 9/11 and the “War on Terror”. In the film the main use of rebellion were these indiscriminate means of violence, mostly in the form of bombs and suicide vests. These indiscriminate means of violence were beginning to become more and more common around the world during this time. It is obvious that this greatly influenced the producer’s decision to have the main proprietor of the rebellion, “V”, use such means (Bulloch, 2007).
The novel 1984 and the film V for Vendetta both portray dystopian societies ruled under totalitarian regimes that oppress the citizens of their state to a point of rebellion. Each of these rebellions were carried out by much different means, with one being successful and the other not even putting a dent in the system. In 1984, Winston Smith attempts to contact a member of a secret underground revolutionary group, only to fail and be betrayed and converted to be a loyal Party member. In V for Vendetta the proprietor of the rebellion, named only “V”, uses indiscriminate terrorism to destroy everything that the totalitarian authority stood for and represented. In the end, it is the absence of the fear of failure and death and the overwhelming use of violence that enables “V” to be successful where Winston was not. Based on analysis of these two rebellions, it can be concurred that violence is necessary to topple a totalitarian regime that seized force violently to begin with.
Works Cited
Bulloch, Douglas. V is for Vendetta: P is for Power A Film Reading of V for Vendetta. Millenium-Journal of International Studies. 35 (451). 2007.
Khouri, Nadia. Reaction and Nihilism: The Political Genealogy of Orwell’s 1984. Science-Fiction Studies. 12 (136). 1985.