The Politics of Confusion and Explosives

Rating: 1/10 (18 June 2013)

I'm guilty of thinking "V for Vendetta" was great, awesome, and even inspirational when I first saw it. But at the same time I knew why I felt that way, I knew that it was because of how I felt about the attacks of September 11 2001. That was what moved me while watching "V for Vendetta", and so to some degree it was "what I brought to the table" (so to speak) that made me like this movie.
Of course the similarities between the movie and the attacks of September 11 2001, are in how those attacks took so many lives and traumatized the nation, and in how the people then rallied politically behind a certain political party or administration, and how that party or administration then rode those attacks for all their political worth, into unrivaled political power and unprecedented spending authority (which was war powers and astronomical defense budgets in the real-life case of the US).
But in "V for Vendetta" the story then had the administration that benefited from the attacks to also be the true authors of them. To paraphrase V, while he was pretending to be an inside and missing operative, and in explaining everything to the investigator, "those in power realized it would be both easier and more beneficial, to launch a terror attack on their own people, rather than against any enemy."
But for all the appeal and emotion that story had for me, I was still confused and bothered by something in the movie, which over time became greater and more pronounced.
After V had taken Evey to his hidden lair, and after he had given her his speech about how the government has been taken from the people, and that he (and he hopes others) are going to take it back, Evey asks him "And so blowing up buildings, and especially blowing up Parliament, is going to do that?"
It is of course a perfectly good question, and the answer V gave to it was vague and obscure and in truth, abstract unsatisfying nonsense.
And that bothered me and stuck with me, and later in the movie it happened again, when Evey was about to pull the switch that would send the explosives-laden subway car towards it's Parliament target, but the Inspector stopped her at gunpoint, and when she said how this was in some way necessary, that it was what the people needed, the Inspector asked her how blowing up Parliament would accomplish that...
And Evey then gave an answer every bit as vague and obscure and unsatisfying and as nonsensically abstract, as V had given earlier.
It's central and key to the movie's story and message, blowing up a building, Parliament, as a political act... but why, what does it accomplish?
Let's wrap this up: the movie "V for Vendetta" is as morally ambiguous a political movie as has ever been made, and should it inspire any young and confused knuckleheads into thinking that blowing up a building is a righteous and constructive political act, then "V for Vendetta" is immoral, and V is certainly one of the world's most dangerous movie terrorists, with perhaps a real-life following.
And I find it somewhat disturbing, that in real life, the actor who played the Inspector, Stephen Rea, is the former husband of Dolours Price (exact spelling), who herself attempted to blow up the "Old Bailey" (the Central Criminal Court building in London), exactly as V did in the beginning of this movie.
I want to do more than give this movie the lowest possible rating, I want to see it charged and convicted of a crime, and sentenced to life in prison, as Stephen Rea's ex-wife Dolours Price was.