20 May 2005 - Friday
Clone War = War on Terror?
A large number of people have suggested that Episode III presents a parallel to the growth of American power under the current presidential administration. It is only natural, I suppose, that they should see such an analogy, tiresome as it is.
After all, the plot sounds a lot like some critics' take on the Bush administration. In Episode III, the leader of a republic does use threats to collective security as a pretext for consolidating his own universal power. He does cast himself as the representative of freedom and peace, when in reality he is causing additional warfare and loss of liberty. (Note: the enemies of the republic do include some really evil people. That's the ingeniousness of his plot.) He does get democratic approval for his actions, but he demands a great deal of autonomy in deciding what the needs of the republic are.
But there are problems with this analogy -- and they are not found in George W. Bush's being one of the good guys, which just begs the question. (So was Palpatine, remember.)
First, Lucas himself had better keep insisting that any similarities in his story and extreme views of the current administration are coincidental; one of these days, somebody's going to notice that Episode III implicitly condones assassination as a way of dealing with tyrants. The insistence of the Jedi that Darths Sidious and Vader must be killed without trial would not have upset anyone when the story was simply a paraphrase of the rise of the Third Reich, but it is dangerous now that more contemporary parallels are being drawn.
Second, of course, there are other ways of reading the story.
Suppose the Jedi, with their unilateralism in disposing of any threat to the interplanetary order, represent the United States of America. That would make sense; the Jedi, as we are told several times in the film, are distinct from the Sith mainly in the fact that "they use their power for good." They are a threat to evil because they don't have too much respect for the niceties of international opinion, which is far too sympathetic with tyranny. Sidious, meanwhile, would represent those who wish to consolidate power in the UN and incapacitate the protectors of freedom.
Either way, the analogy is annoying because it doesn't quite work. In places, either parallel is so close as to make Episode III an outright allegory, but as allegory, either version soon breaks down. Thus, I wish people would stop reading today's politics directly into the plot of Revenge of the Sith. They are thinning down what little (very little) philosophical insight the movie has.
But, just to have my share of the fun, let me propose a third, libertarian reading of Episode III.
First, note that the Jedi's insistence that they use their power for good is spurious. The Jedi were instrumental in Palpatine's rise to power. They spout platitudes about democracy, but they are themselves an undemocratic organization willing to conduct assassinations. They brutally suppress a secessionist movement that was, as it turns out, quite right to want to secede. Their messiah is revealed as the embodiment of evil; the ease with which he is converted to the Dark Side is ridiculous.
In other words, the Jedi have their own heart of darkness. Their power is not inherently "light"; it can be -- and has been -- turned to darkness just as easily as the power of the Republic's other organs have been. The only reason there is anything good about them is that their power is a check on the power of others.
A similarly libertarian reading has been proposed by Tim at My Stupid Dog (via Brandon). I think this review makes Episode III out to be of much higher quality than it actually is. However, reading Tim's post did reverse my initial reluctance to comment on the film.
With that out of the way:
As my younger brother pointed out to me, Episode III managed to eliminate the main reason for Darth Vader's existence. I'm no expert -- what a dubious distinction that would be -- but I was under the impression that Vader was supposed to hunt down and eliminate the Jedi order himself. Instead, Revenge of the Sith has him kill a few inmates of the Jedi kindergarten, leaving the grownup Jedi to the clones, who make short work (virtually instantaneous work) of them.
All of a sudden, the invincible Jedi cannot hold their own against the regulars? What is this?
| Posted by Wilson at 14:53 Central | TrackBack| Report submitted to the Humanities Desk
Yeah, Star Wars really, really, shouldn't be thought of as an analogy to modern politics. What however, do you think of it purely as a space opera?
The thoughts of Cicero on 23 May 2005 - 8:47 Central+ + + + +
I'm afraid Anakin's character has never worked for me. Hence, films built around him simply do not work. (Character development is everything to me.)
I suspect that Lucas should have gone the other direction with Anakin's character development -- made him increasingly restrained and calculating, not angsty and impetuous. That might have been believable (and easier to script).
I will grant, though, that Episode III avoided some of the other big problems with I and II).
The thoughts of Wilson on 23 May 2005 - 20:57 Central+ + + + +
I obviously enjoyed Episode III more than you did-anyhow I agree that one probably shouldn't draw too many analogies from it to the modern age. However, I enjoyed the article you quoted more than your own. If you must discuss the themes that you did, leave out the bashing diatribe. If you didn't like it-fine, say so, but don't be like every other Star Wars basher and espouse such unequal self-rightiousness as you do, as if you could make a better film (You may think you can-but I guarentee it would not be as popular as Lucas's version-it has a unique mix of different elements that give it the edge, even if it is not perfect, which is obvious of every film). To be enjoyed, Star Wars must be viewed while in a particular state of mind. If you expect negativity, you will get it. However if you watch it with an open mind, bequethed of what you think it should look like-you will enjoy it.
To all reading this, what I say is not objective truth, and you are entitled to disagree. However, Wilson's essay is also subjective, and some opinions are worth more than others. It is for you to decide which take on the film is more valid.
As to Wilson's younger brother, he is factually wrong. It is quite simply a missunderstanding that is being asserted here. Order 66 was the beginning of the Great Jedi Purge, and Anakin's mission to the temple was not fully expressed in the film for a variety of reasons. After becoming Darth Vader, he does indeed "help the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights" as is apparent in literature following Revenge of the Sith and the fact that the Emperor explicidly says in Revenge of the Sith (to the whole Senate) that this is what will take place, implying that many Jedi, up to several hundred, survived the initial extermination. It is naive on the part of Wilson and his brother to suggest otherwise, as the original words of Ben Kenobi must be seen in their full context-indeed Vader did hunt and destroy, the beginning of that process is documeneted in Episode III and Obi-Wan's words are forsightly stated by Palpatine on screen. The 'regulars' are many in number, and formidable- I'm afraid that only a few Jedi can be overcome as such. After all, remember the conversation in Episode I, between Anakin and Qui-Gon Jinn-"no one can kill a Jedi," to which Qui-Gon sadly responds-"I wish that were so..." Wilson is convincing in his argument because he has conviction-but you can argue anything if you have conviction. As such, Wilson, you and your brother were wrong I'm afraid. Not all the Jedi succumbed at once.
In closing, all I can say is I'd rather read positive commentary that negative commentary-and as far as I'm concerned Star Wars is spectacular enough to warrant that.
Then again, few of you will agree...
+ + + + +
Ben, if you must discuss the themes that you did, leave out the bashing diatribe. If you didn't like Wilson's opinions--fine, say so, but don't be like every other Star Wars groupie and espouse such unequal self-righteousness as you do, as if your opinion counts more and you could write it better (you may think you can, but I've just seen your writing ability--purloined it, even). To be understood, a film review must be read with an open mind--scratch that--must include reasons for it's opinions, not just a word of yea or nay. If you expect a stereotyped Star Wars diatribe, you will succeed at reading it into the material.
PS- Yes, mine is a callous heart.
+ + + + +
Indeed your heart is callous. I'm afraid that I provided a great deal of evidential proof behind my opionions following the first paragraph, which you either did not read or did not heed.
And thank you SO much for bagging my writing ability; I am now so deprived of confidence I think I will commit suicide. My writing ability is not yours to judge, by the way, and the point I was making was not that Wilson was a bad filmmaker; indeed he could do better than me, it was simply that the unique mix of elements in Star Wars give it a feel unlike a similar film that Wilson my undertake.
However, your self rightiousness is worse than mine, if indeed I had any, and is quite frankly laughable. You are one who has the uncanny ability to appear to have endless conviction contained in your opinion, which will ensure that anyone reading you will become wonderfully commited to your cause.
I stress opinion. I admitted that it was not objective truth I was espousing, you didn't even mention that. Neither did you give any time to the several quotes and arguments contained within my opinion, which I remind you I have the right to hold. "Oh, but I didn't need to look at any of that, my opinion is perfectly valid anyway"
Ha! You of all people should know that when writing an essay or putting foward an argument, evidence should be provided from the text that is being studied. I succeeded in this; you have not yet done so.
Although my first paragraph was a terribly nasty attack upon Wilson, of which you so eloquently purloined, it was a response to what I perceived as typically self-rightious Star Wars hate. However, at least Wilson provided evidential proof for his arguments. In later paragraphs, it is those arguments that I dealt with, using quotes and evidence from the films.
Of coarse it is a film review, and of coarse I come to it with a perfectly open mind! I simply DID NOT AGREE WITH IT. As I said at the end of my argument, few will agree with mine. I was perfectly correct in that respect...
Once again, I stress that I admitted my arguments were subjective...you should too.
The thoughts of Ben on 10 November 2006 - 18:24 Central+ + + + +
(You must preview your comment before posting it)
Surprise. That, and overwhelming numbers in some cases. And there were still more Jedi left at the end. Just not very many.
The thoughts of Knight's Disciple on 20 May 2005 - 23:14 Central+ + + + +