In his essay, “Interrogating the Manipulation of Fear”, Andrew Schopp claims that Chief Inspector Finch (Stephen Rea) is the V for Vendetta’s “moral center”, partially because of the way he “voices [the film’s] most crucial ideas, including the central question of whether we would even want to know if our government caused the deaths of thousands of its own citizens to create the kind of fear that would lead the populace to elect a new administration” (272). For a character to be a film’s moral center, their views and actions would have to be in line with those of the audience, therefore calling Inspector Finch the “moral center” would be incorrect. Although he does pose one of the film’s most important questions, this does not automatically
…show more content…
To that end, neither V nor Finch could fill that role. Instead, there are only Finch and V’s contrasting methods of seeking justice—through law enforcement and vengeance, respectively. It is through these two methods of action that the film attempts to highlight the moral complexity of humanity as a whole. There cannot be a moral center because such a character would lack the depth of thought and action that makes defining a character or person’s morality so difficult in the first place.
Although the majority of Chancellor Sutler’s (John Hurt) “henchmen” are depicted in the film as being “inherently evil”, Schopp remarks that Finch does not share this “polarized representation” (270). However, this does not mean that Finch is inherently good either. On one hand, for much of the film Finch seems to be an advocate for the people within the government. For example, …show more content…
Mary’s, and Three Waters, if our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost three thousand people, would you really want to know?” (McTeigue). He sees the connection between V and Larkhill and realizes that it was, in fact, Sutler and Creedy who were behind the “most horrifying biological attack” in England’s history (McTeigue). Yet, he makes no mention of these discoveries to neither the government nor the people. It is in regard to this issue that Finch’s morality falls most out of line with the audience’s expectations. When Sutler asks that Finch destroy Delia Surridge’s diary, he complies even though presenting that evidence to the people would majorly undermine Sutler’s administration. Thus, even though Finch does step back at the end to let Evey blow up parliament, his path toward this end is proven to be full of morally-questionable ups and downs. He operates within the law enforcement system to achieve what he sees as justice, but because he stays within this system he is expected to uphold some loyalty to Sutler and his party, which he does when he fails to disclose the evidence he finds against the government. Since the audience would likely view the disclosure of the truth as a fitting end to England’s totalitarian regime, and Finch fails to deliver on that front,
To that end, neither V nor Finch could fill that role. Instead, there are only Finch and V’s contrasting methods of seeking justice—through law enforcement and vengeance, respectively. It is through these two methods of action that the film attempts to highlight the moral complexity of humanity as a whole. There cannot be a moral center because such a character would lack the depth of thought and action that makes defining a character or person’s morality so difficult in the first place.
Although the majority of Chancellor Sutler’s (John Hurt) “henchmen” are depicted in the film as being “inherently evil”, Schopp remarks that Finch does not share this “polarized representation” (270). However, this does not mean that Finch is inherently good either. On one hand, for much of the film Finch seems to be an advocate for the people within the government. For example, …show more content…
Mary’s, and Three Waters, if our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost three thousand people, would you really want to know?” (McTeigue). He sees the connection between V and Larkhill and realizes that it was, in fact, Sutler and Creedy who were behind the “most horrifying biological attack” in England’s history (McTeigue). Yet, he makes no mention of these discoveries to neither the government nor the people. It is in regard to this issue that Finch’s morality falls most out of line with the audience’s expectations. When Sutler asks that Finch destroy Delia Surridge’s diary, he complies even though presenting that evidence to the people would majorly undermine Sutler’s administration. Thus, even though Finch does step back at the end to let Evey blow up parliament, his path toward this end is proven to be full of morally-questionable ups and downs. He operates within the law enforcement system to achieve what he sees as justice, but because he stays within this system he is expected to uphold some loyalty to Sutler and his party, which he does when he fails to disclose the evidence he finds against the government. Since the audience would likely view the disclosure of the truth as a fitting end to England’s totalitarian regime, and Finch fails to deliver on that front,