[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
clones (spoilers?)
I just posted some thoughts on the _Star Wars_ movies to the 77s listserv
and thought I'd re-post 'em here. Forgive me if I repeat things I have
said here already; I've been involved in so many debates WRT these films
lately I've forgotten exactly what I said where and to whom.
- - -
[ snip ]
Speaking of which, one of the things that annoys me about the new _Star
Wars_ films is how nakedly cynical George Lucas's politics are. When you
think about it, the entire six-part series is about the destruction of a
corrupt democracy and the assassination of the evil dictator who took its
place -- but with what sort of government would George replace these
things? We'll never know, because he says he won't make the third
trilogy, in which the Rebels would have tried to build a New Republic.
And as a guy at the Weekly Standard just pointed out, because the Emperor
abolished the Senate and put regional governors in direct control of their
territories, the death of the Emperor in Episode VI leaves the galaxy in
chaos, with no central government and a bunch of rival warlords scattered
all across the galaxy. As far as the films are concerned, the Rebels
haven't really won yet -- the galaxy may be in an even bigger mess than it
was before -- but I guess that's all right, since Anakin fulfilled his
destiny and restored "balance" to the Force by killing the Emperor mere
minutes before the Rebels would have blown both of them up anyway.
*sigh*
I do love the original _Star Wars_ films, really I do. But the prequels
have introduced so many questionable elements to the story, and Lucas has
insisted on revising the original trilogy even *more*, that I find I
cannot enjoy the original films with the innocence I once did.
[ snip ]
> But there is not one character in this set of prequels that I care
> about.
Exactly.
> Obi-wan is the closest to being endearing, but more because of what he
> doesn't do (he doesn't whine like a little baby...and I think he's a
> good enough actor to pull-off some of the weaker dialogue).
The prequels have actually forced me to re-evaluate both Obi-Wan and Yoda
-- I once thought of them as wise and noble, but now, Yoda is clearly
shown to be a confused and muddled character (in Episode I, he says fear
is bad, then he says he "fears" what Anakin will become; in Episode II, he
says the Jedi have to deceive the Senate, then he says "deceit" is of the
Dark Side), and Obi-Wan seems to have some prejudices to deal with, too.
Consider Obi-Wan's "pathetic lifeform" remark in Episode I, and his
disparaging remark to the effect that droids cannot "think" in Episode II
-- Lucas once said that he included the scene in Episode IV where the
droids are barred from entering the cantina ("We don't serve their kind
here") in order to make a statement about racial prejudice, so either he
has changed his mind, or he is playing up one of Obi-Wan's character
flaws; then again, Lucas did let Luke treat the droids as property, as
mere slaves to be bought, sold and traded, throughout Episodes IV-VI.
Anyway, with all this in mind, it is now apparent that Yoda and Obi-Wan
learned very little from their experiences in Episodes I-III. In the
later episodes, they continue to engage in lies and deceit, telling Luke
that his father is dead, and then, when Luke learns the truth (from the
villain!), telling him his father must be killed in order to fulfill
Luke's destiny. Seen in the light of the prequels, what once seemed like
wise, if overly cautious, advice now seems like Yoda and Obi-Wan are
trying to undo one of their biggest mistakes -- by making even more
mistakes! What's more, the prequels show that the Jedi believe it is
wrong to have "attachments", whether it is to one's parents or one's
lovers, and indeed, it is Anakin's "attachment" to his mother that brings
out the Dark Side in him (as fear in Episode I, as hate and anger in
Episode II) -- so it is no surprise that Yoda continues to teach the evils
of "attachment" when he tells Luke that he must sacrifice his friends in
Episode V. The funny thing is, it is precisely because Luke disobeys Yoda
and rescues his friends (if Luke hadn't brought Artoo, they never would
have escaped Bespin) and learns the truth about his father that Anakin is
finally, ultimately able to fulfill his destiny. The great saving act at
the end of the film -- the act which redeems Vader's soul and leads
directly to the fulfillment of the prophecy -- comes when Luke cries
"Father!" and Vader kills the Emperor in order to rescue his son.
It used to bother me, when I was a kid, that Luke's disobedience to Yoda
and Obi-Wan had turned out to be a good thing. I wanted to believe
Obi-Wan was a Christ-figure who could do no wrong, and Obi-Wan spoke so
highly of Yoda I wanted to believe Yoda was even better. But now, I see
Luke's rebellion in a very different light. The Jedi teaching against
"attachment" seems to be rooted in the Buddhist idea that the big problem
in our world is suffering, not sin, and that the way to reduce suffering
is to reduce desire, including the desire for personal attachments.
(Coincidentally, two weeks ago, I bought the DVD of _Shadowlands_, and
there, the point is made repeatedly that all loving relationships are
going to end in pain -- but the love is worth the pain!) So now, Luke's
refusal to abandon his friends, and his refusal to dehumanize his father
(does Obi-Wan's claim that Anakin is "more machine than man now, twisted
and evil" echo his prejudicial attitude towards droids?), seem like a
*good* thing. What's more, if the prophecy is fulfilled when Vader allows
himself to feel an "attachment" to his son, and if the prophecy is
fulfilled when Vader takes his son's suffering upon himself to save his
son's life, then it seems like an almost Christian sensibility has risen
up to refute the Buddhist sensibility of the Jedi. Love is good, etc.
The big question is where George, a self-proclaimed "Buddhist Methodist"
whose thoughts on politics and the benefits of "benevolent despots" sound
eerily similar to young Anakin's, stands on all this. If Lucas were
writing this story today, would it still have such a Christian ending?
Would the Buddhist emphasis on "detachment" be given more credit? It is
interesting that Yoda insists anger and fear are of the Dark Side, even
when the anger (at the Empire's injustice) and fear (of the Empire's
success) are legitimate, and that the good alternative to these things is
not love and hope, but being "calm" and "passive"; instead of having bad
emotions, Yoda does not say have good emotions, but have no emotions. I
was thus a little surprised when I realized that the lyrics to the Ewok
song at the end of Episode VI included the words "Celebrate the love!" I
couldn't remember anyone in the films promoting "love" as an alternative
to hate, not in so many words -- but okay, if you thought about it, it
seemed pretty clear that Luke and his father had saved each other out of
love, so that made sense. However, this song is now missing from the
"special edition" of Episode VI, which replaced the music at the end of
this film with an entirely new theme. Has Lucas decided "Celebrate the
love!" is the wrong note on which to end his story? Or did he simply
replace the song because he found the singing Ewoks embarrassing?
Either way, it will be interesting to see how Episode III fleshes out the
idea of "attachment", and to see what role this plays in Anakin's fall.
> Annakin makes me scream for more Jar-Jar screen time.
And didn't you hate the way C-3PO was turned into another Jar Jar? When
does he ever become the resourceful, if high-strung, droid we knew and
loved in the original trilogy? (And why doesn't Owen remember working
with him before, on that very same moisture farm, in Episode IV?)
> And I actually think that working on these movies is making Natalie
> Portman a worse actress...she was so good in The Professional and also
> that Walmart baby movie.
Yeah, I've been having troubling thoughts in that direction, too.
> I don't find any element of these past two movies uniquely interesting.
> The only curious things are tied back to the original trilogy--bobba
> fett, storm troopers, star destroyers taking off at the end, the
> granting of power to the chancellor, etc.).
Yeah -- and it bugs me to see Boba Fett so prominent here, actually. He
was just a bounty hunter before. Suddenly he's the genetic brother of
every stormtrooper in the galaxy!? This is not quite as silly as
revealing that Darth Vader built C-3PO when he was a boy, but still, it
makes you think that this must be one of the most underpopulated galaxies
in the world -- everyone keeps running into each other all the time!
--- Peter T. Chattaway --------------------------- peter at chattaway_com ---
"I detected one misprint, but to torture you I will not tell you where."
Winston Churchill to T.E. Lawrence, re Seven Pillars of Wisdom
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/OtR/
Follow-Ups: