Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
The Politics of Star Wars; Is Lucas making a statement?
Topic Started: May 19 2005, 09:55 AM (466 Views)
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Over the course of the past month I've read a literal torrent of movie reviews where some film critic writes a critique likening the Supreme Chancellor Palpatine to President George W. Bush, or something to that affect. Having not seen the movie yet, I cannot say for certain, but apparently, the injection of contemporaneous real-world politics into this movie is so pervasive that even normally conservative commentators cannot help, but notice it.

Quote:
 
The dialogue in ROTS is rife with distinctly unsubtle references to the current political situation. "This war represents a failure to listen," Padme laments at one point, before declaring after a vote to give executive power to Chancellor Palpatine: "So this is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause." The wicked Chancellor, played brilliantly by Ian McDiarmid, talks on and on about "security", giving it an evilly sibilant S, and about "peace". As he lures Anakin over to the dark side, telling him what to say in Jedi Council meetings, you wonder if he's supposed to be Karl Rove. He does, after all, appear to be the smartest man in the movie.

The ultimate reference comes in the climactic duel between Anakin and Obi-Wan Kenobi on the planet of Mustafar, which seems to have long ago failed in its struggle against global warming. "If you're not with me, you're my enemy," Anakin shouts to Obi-Wan, who responds: "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes." Yes, and so, it would seem, do neo-cons.

Meanwhile, at that very instant in the Senate chamber, there is a cool fight scene between Yoda and Darth Sidious that, as one reviewer has already pointed out, evokes Democrats and Republicans in violent deadlock. (I was just glad there weren't any more endless Congressional debates like the ones that bogged down the previous two Star Wars chapters. Episode I: The Phantom Menace had more talk of trade pacts and intergalactic confederations than an EU summit.)

Apparently, even George Lucas is not immune to Bush Derangement Syndrome, but is it really that cut and dried? Whether or not George Lucas intended to draw a correlation between the evil empire and contemporary America, does one actually exists after facing scrutiny? I would argue that it does not.

The central axis around which many a film critic hangs this Bush correlation around is the line by Anakin Skywalker(Darth Vader), "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." They inadvertently do what Bush Bashers often accuse the president of doing -- being simplistic and looking at things in black and white terms.

The standard criticism coming from the Bush Bashers is that Pres. Bush simplistically declared to the world, "You are either with us or against us," but when one examines the context of those words, that statement is not as simplistic, and black and white as the Bush Basher would have you believe. When one examines the imperatives and intentions that lead to that statement, the 'with us or against us' maxim is covering a very nuanced view of what it means to be with us.

Quote:
 
I am going to the United Nations to give a speech on Saturday. And I am going to praise those nations who have joined our coalition. But a coalition partner must do more than just express sympathy; a coalition partner must perform. And our coalition partner here has performed; we work together.

And that means different things for different nations. Some nations don't want to contribute troops, and we understand that. Other nations can contribute intelligence-sharing, and for that we're grateful. But all nations, if they want to fight terror, must do something. It is time for action. And that's going to be the message of my speech at the United Nations.

I have no specific nation in mind, at least as I stand here now. Everybody ought to be given the benefit of the doubt. But over time, it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity. You are either with us or you are against us in the fight against terror. And that's going to be part of my speech at the United Nations.

Pres. Bush is not declaring simplistically that the world is either with the United States or against the United States, what he's doing is challenging all sympathetic nations to contribute to the fight in anyway they can; be it militarily, politically, logistically, or whatever. How a nation contributed did not matter, but Pres. Bush would no longer tolerate a nation simply expressing sympathy on one hand and on the other continuing to look the other way to terrorist ties/activity within its own borders.

I would maintain that it is the personal biases of professional and amateur film critics on both sides of the political spectrum that allow them to draw this correlation between this film's dialog and real-world political dialog. Their unnuanced, simplistic, and black and white world view of each side of the political spectrum, allows them to assume the worst of their political opposites.

Ultimately, the whole Star War series is a black and white tale of good, evil and redemption from evil, as well as speaking to the duality of man. It's too bad that some people cannot sit and enjoy the movie, instead of trying to divine some message about real-world politics.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Dr. Noah
May 19 2005, 12:01 PM
You don't want to see it just to watch Jedi's whooping butt?

I think it is the other way around - the jedii get their butts kicked in SW III.

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
captain_proton_au
May 19 2005, 12:18 PM
somerled
May 19 2005, 10:16 AM

CP was that girl dressed up  like Prince Leeha in the loin cloth and brass brazier (ie in next to nothing )at the Sydney midnight release (shown on the news tonight) you or one of your friends ? She must have been freezing !

No, I didnt see that.

Someone dressed up as Princess Leia in the Gold Bikini :drool:

See what you miss if you don't watch the news - she was a fox too.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
I finally saw Revenge of the Sith last night and after seeing it I've concluded that the attempts to draw corrollations between this movie and Iraq, Goerge W. Bush or any contemporaneous politics are totally without merit.

The most often hyped portion of the dialog Bush Bashers use to claim there's a corrolation between this movie and the Bush Administration is a scene where Anakin Skywalker tells Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy."

Then Obi-Wan replies, "Only a Sith lord deals in absolutes."

What the Bush Bashers in the media don't tell you is that just a few moments later Obi-Wan tells Anakin that he's evil and Anakin relativistically responds by saying that from his point of view the Jedi are evil.

So much of dealing in absolutes.

Another scene often cited as symbolic of contemporary politics is when Padme said, “So this is how liberty dies—with thunderous applause.”

What the Bush Bashing critics don't tell you is that in this scene, we witness the actual creation of the Empire, with Chancellor Palpatine declaring himself emporer over a new Galactic Empire. It is that which causes Padme to utter that line.

Another thing that the critic does not tell you about that scene in which that line was uttered, and that is at that point in the movie, Padme is unaware that Palpatine is the Sith Lord that was responsible for the attack on Naboo in Episode I and the start of the Clone War in Episode II. As well, the critic doesn't explain the backstory of the force and how a person strong in the force can influence someone to do something they would not normally do.

As for the film, visually it was stunning! Sadly the dialog could have been better. It really seems entirely too bad that Mr. Lucas didn't hire his good friend and fellow director, Steven Spielberg to take the directors chair. I think that Mr. Spielberg could have fleshed out the humanity of the story much better than Mr. Lucas.

All that said, I still loved the movie. It did a very good job at bringing the whole series full circle. I cannot describe the mere statisfaction of seeing how young Anakin goes from the last, best hope for bringing balance to the Force, then christened Darth Vader by the evil Palpatine and then to the climatic battle with Obi-Wan Kenobi that leave Anakin so badly injured he requires a significant number of prosthetic devices, and a face mask to breath and hide his hideously disfigured face.

Episode III made so many other small details from episodes 4, 5 and 6 more clear. For example, has anyone ever wondered why C-3PO never recognized the Lars moisture farm Luke grew up on? That question is answered. Has anyone every wondered why Darth Vader was conflicted about his alliance to the dark side of the Force, which allowed him to be turned back to the light side? In a round about way, that is answered. Have you ever wondered how Obi-Wan and Yoda were able to transcend death, yet when Obi-Wan told Vader in Episode IV, "strike me down and I'll become more powerful than you could ever imagine," Vader really had no clue what he was talking about? That too is answered.

So much of this episode is geared towards setting up the final 3 movies, but at the same time helps explain the previous two. In that context alone, the charges from some critics of a contemporary corrolation with modern politics renders that argument moot.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Actually, I found a very key part of the movie to be something that lambasts a tactic that some liberals* use.



(Spoilers, don't read on if you don't want to know)













It was how Anakin was turned in the first place. The doubt put into his mind about the Jedi Order by Palpatine, Padme, and his own arrogance. Palpatine in particular told Anakin that the Jedi and the Sith were really not that different. That would seem to fit in line with those that constantly compare America in particular and the West in general with terrorists. They equivocate so that people will lose faith that their country is doing the right thing. Whether they mean to or not however, all that accomplishes is that the terrorists become that much more powerful.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
doctortobe
May 21 2005, 12:46 PM
Actually, I found a very key part of the movie to be something that lambasts a tactic that some liberals* use.



(Spoilers, don't read on if you don't want to know)













It was how Anakin was turned in the first place. The doubt put into his mind about the Jedi Order by Palpatine, Padme, and his own arrogance. Palpatine in particular told Anakin that the Jedi and the Sith were really not that different. That would seem to fit in line with those that constantly compare America in particular and the West in general with terrorists. They equivocate so that people will lose faith that their country is doing the right thing. Whether they mean to or not however, all that accomplishes is that the terrorists become that much more powerful.

I thought about adding that point, but good Doctortobe, I just didn't want to introduce more contemporary politics into it.

But now that you have, let me continue on in that vein ... there were way more scenes -- if one wanted to -- that corrolated America to the Jedi than the Sith.


M
O
R
E

S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S


In one scene Mace Windu defeated Palpatine and Mace was going to kill Palpatine instead of allowing him stand trial, because it would be too dangerous to allow him to live. Essentially, Mace Windu was concerned that Palpatine could unduly influence his jury.

This corrolates with the same delimma faced by America in its war with Jihadist butchers. When we don't outright kill these Jihadists, they influence the people around the world into thinking that making a man stand naked is a much worse act than mercelessly sawing a mans head off.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
I was going to say something ,since I saw it this afternoon, but I have already mentioned it elsewhere.

I quite like the Darth Sythius <==> Bush Jr , Darth Vader <==> Rumsfeld metaphors , but think it should be other way around as I suspect Rumsfeld is really in charge and Bush Jr only thinks he is.

It was refreshing to see those sanctomonius jedi exterminated. Too cocky by far.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
^^^^

Pity you don't have your metaphors straight, or your politicians.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
Admiralbill_gomec
May 24 2005, 10:21 AM
^^^^

Pity you don't have your metaphors straight, or your politicians.

Not to mention, he's having problems spelling the names.

Back to the movie ...

In the end, Revenge of the Sith is a move about how Palpatine uses moral relativism to convince Anakin that dark and light are all just a matter of perspective. And once Anakin accepts that as truth, he is then easily convinced to strike down his fellow Jedi as enemies of the Republic.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus