Posted on 05/11/2005 6:39:05 AM PDT by EarthStomper
BRUSSELS -- I just saw a press screening of the new Star Wars movie, Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, and here's my capsule review: It's superb; the last 15 minutes are better than anything George Lucas has ever done; and as Yoda would say, "This film must you see; love it, you will."
However, I left the theater with something more than the feeling that after nearly 30 years as a Star Wars fan, a cinematic era of my life -- with plenty of ups and downs along the way -- had been closed on a thrilling and thoroughly satisfying note. I also wondered why George Lucas suddenly felt the need to add so much topicality into the story line.
Everyone knows what is going to happen in this movie -- where it starts and how it will end. Part of its brilliance is the way it turns a foregone conclusion into a kind of challenging plot puzzle. You know what the picture's going to look like at the end, but you want to see how all the pieces will fit together. And Lucas has fun with this game, throwing in a lot of cheeky references to other films -- from Frankenstein and Nosferatu to Commando Cody and Apocalypse Now and even, yes, to other Star Wars movies -- to lighten the otherwise darkening mood.
But something else is disturbingly -- and rather awkwardly - evident: a recurring anti-Bush, anti-Iraq war message. Forget about the merits of the argument in question. This stuff has no place in a Star Wars flick.
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.)
The internet has been rife with rumors that Lucas had some script-doctoring help from noted playwright Tom Stoppard. Given the greatly improved quality of much of this film's dialogue over its predecessors (Lucas has a brilliant imagination but he is terrible at scripting a believable conversation between two or more humanoids), I'm apt to believe them. Could Stoppard have injected a dose of left-wing sentiment into our beloved film franchise? It's tough to say. The Czechoslovakian-born British writer has long been a foe of communism and once had nice things to say about Margaret Thatcher. But he was a vocal opponent of the Iraq war and recently wrote a dramatic trilogy idealizing the roots of socialism.
Again, all of this shouldn't matter. The film is exciting enough that I overlooked the few annoying instances when it veered away from its fantasy world and towards today's front pages. The rest of the time, thankfully, this movie took place right where it is supposed to: in a galaxy far, far away.
Which side used chemical weopons on their own people, had rape rooms and mass graves...?
This really isn't surprising since Return of the Jedi was supposed to be an allegory of the Vietnam conflict, where the ordinary peasants (ewoks) take on the powerful empire and defeat them despite their superior technology. I'm going to ignore the political overtones.
The reference to liberty dying to thunderous applause is a reference to the rise of Nazism in Germany. The author of the review does not appear to have the knowledge of history that George Lucas demonstrates.
Well, nuts, I can't. Sigh.
In viewing most movies nowadays, I have to overlook many blatant allegorical references by filmakers trying to make a political statement rather than making a movie. The only other politically motivated wince inducing moment in any Star Wars movie is in Return of the Jedi in which ObiWan tells Luke "that many of the truths we cling to are only true from a certain point of view..." so I guess moral relativity exists in other galaxies as well.
But I'm still seeing the movie. I'm waiting for a few days after the 19th, I just can't deal with the onslaught of people dressed up like Jedi wielding plastic light sabers anymore.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Don't feel so bad. Richard Nixon wasn't fooled either when he heard about Lucas equating the vietcong and the ewoks in Jedi. He wrote in his book that Lucas apparently failed to notice that the vietcong "peasants" were trained and armed with AK-47's by the soviet union.
This is the only bit that seems to add any legitimacy to the author's complaints, and really, Obi-Wan's condemnation of 'absolutes' is more troubling to me than any reference to 'if you're not with us, you're against us.'
I find neither truth nor morality to be nuanced.
I must be a Sith.
The quote: "If you're not with us, you're against us" sure has riled a lot of liberals. Perhaps it was a little too over the top but, the meaning can't be considered controversial.......you're either with the terrorist or your with the forces of freedom. What's the problem here? Sure it's an absolute but, some things are absolute. Aren't we all against murder? George Lucas comes from an era when rejecting even 'common sense' policies passed as intellectual sophistication and was 'cool'. Many folks from his generation continue to yearn to be 'Cool Hand Luke', a 'Rebel without a Cause', or 'Easy Riding'down the high ways of America. It's a cry for attention as much as anything else. His goal is too insult the good folks of America. While it is sad and pathetic, it's the cause many in his generation has embraced.
Actually, between the post-Star Wars VI novels (where Jedi led by Skywalker are mostly idiots), and the general idiocy of the Jedi in Star Wars I-III (we find out where the Jedi learned to be idiots), I have come to like the Empire a LOT more than I would ever like the the Republic...
Canada?
Sure thing. I guess we shouldn't have courted Stalin as an ally to take out Hitler either...
I had the singular opportunity of hearing Reagan respond to that very question when he gave a speech at Brigham Young University.
His answer: There were no good guys in that war. We sided with the side we thought was the lesser evil. We were wrong.
Isn't it intersting how liberals always demand Christ-like perfection from conservatives?
And we didn't do 1/1,000,000,000th for Saddam as we did for Stalin.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
And who took down the Empire?
"I'm Han Solo. And I am the NRA."
"I'm Lando Calrisian. And I am the NRA."
"I'm Leia Organa. And I am the NRA."
"I'm Luke Skywalker. And I am the NRA."
Not only that, but Reagan admitted the mistake. Whne was the last time you heard a liberal admit to making any mistakes.
The most disgusting thing I ever saw was Bill Clinton on Oprah (I had to watch with my wife) he pretty much summed up his extramarital affair with Lewinsky as "The Republicans made me do it..." and of course, Oprah, the feminist who has ALWAYS put women's rights first, kissed his butt! Oprah's "all men are pigs" mantra clearly doesn't apply to liberal democrats.
My point is, liberals never admit to making mistakes. Never. Nixon did. Reagan did. Bush Sr. did. Bill Clinton never will, Jimmy Carter, never. It's a sad commentary on their political philosophy.
The original statement by Bush was clear and principled: no civilized human being could take the side of the forces that had flown jetliners into the WTC. You are either with civilization, or you are with the barbarians. Some commentators took that to mean, "Either you support every strategy and tactic that the US decides to employ, or you are with the terrorists," which isn't what Bush said or meant.
It's been said that Lucas did that intentionally, because he resented how Reagan "hijacked" his films for the SDI project.
I can understand Lucas' viewpoint, though I do not agree with him. One must be sympathetic to a young director seeing his defining masterpiece used to promote something he finds abhorrent.
Goerge Lucas only makes loose connections to the Expanded Universe (novels, games, non-fiction SW books and so on). For example C3PO was NOT built by Anikin Skywalker. He was build 112 years before A New Hope/Episode 4. Boba Fett was NOT the son of Jango Fett. He was a cop gone rogue. The Star Destroyers in Episode III should have been Victory-class destroyers rather than the Venator-class. There are tons of others but too many to list here.
Still, George Lucas wrote his 9-episode series before even A New Hope came out.
You actually don't have any detailed memory of that time do you?
Yep. He lost me when he said Darth Sidious 'might' be Karl Rove. That is stretching things too far and trying to read meaning in everything.
And I am certain i can take anything, from the theatrical presentation of 'Little Women' to the made for TV 'War and Peace' and, with a smidget of imagination, find allusions and parallels with 'current events' as well as 'proving' how the characters are alluding to current politicians. And I would definitely make it seem stronger than saying Darth Sidious (Palpatine) 'might' be Karl Rove.
Palpatine 'might' also be the Easter Bunny and Sasquatch rolled into one.
Sometimes people read too little into some things, and too much into others. This is one case of someone seeing bogeymen under the bed where there are none. While there are certain allusions (for example strong ones with the rise of Nazism), it would be folly trying to see the entire Bush cabinet in SW:ROTS.
bttt
Here in D.C. they have already started lining up at the premiere theater, the Uptown, for next Wednesday night's openeing. Sheesh, get a life!
Sad but true. Ever see the sci-fi movie Paycheck? I lost all my respect for John Woo when I saw that anti-Iraq War piece of filth.
That is bogus. The Libs called SDI "Star Wars" as an insult to it. I believe Teddy K. was one of the first to publicly brand it thusly.
I know what you mean. We need a Tarkin; "fear will keep the local systems in line." We must be absolutly ruthless when dealing with our enemies. If terrorists destroy one building, we nuke one of their cities. If they nuke a US city, then we nuke mecca, medina and the rest of their holy cities.
"mecca, medina and the rest of their holy cities."
You know, that would include Jerusalem (Al-Quds). I don't think the Israelis would like that very much.
If a movie stars Ben Affleck, I avoid it. Anyway, Hollywood has really cannibalized Phillip K. Dick stories. But that movie Paycheck looked like dud just from the previews.
I never meant Jerusalem. Well aside from that...
It seems these people never shower either. When Episode I came out, we waited all day in line to get in. There were nerds "dueling" each other with plastic light sabers in the parking lot adjacent to the theater. And they stunk up the crowded theater. I vowed at that moment never to do that again.
Then came "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy. How quickly I forgot the lessons from Phantom Menace.
What can I say? I'm a sucker for opening day.
Nuking Holy City #3 might tick off the Israelis.
Yeah it is about some device that can see into the future. Which includes a nuclear attack on Seattle in response of the US launching a preemptive strike against a nameless country. The enemy country is never mentioned but the angle that the ICBM warhead hits in the movie is obviously from North Korea. The moral of the movie was "no preemptive strikes to disarm enemies before they become a threat." though.
> One must be sympathetic to a young director seeing his defining masterpiece used to promote something he finds abhorrent.
One must then wonder about the flimmakers behind "Deep Throat." Do they harbor ill will towards the Watergate source?
Canada has rape rooms and mass graves filled with their own citizens killed by chemical weapons? I guess I’d better rethink purchasing those Blue Jays season tickets next year, then.
That’s an interesting comparison. Weak, but interesting.
In any case, the point was to illustrate how laughable it is whenever people use the ‘rape rooms and mass graves’ as our reason to invade Iraq. By immersing ourselves in the affairs of the Middle East by taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war, and aligning with the “lesser of two evils”, we failed to pay attention to the words of our Founders when they warned us against entangling alliances with foreign nations. We are paying for that mistake still today.
I’m no liberal, but believe me, I gave up expecting anything CLOSE to Christ-like performances from George W. Bush long ago.
If you keep that up, somebody's gonna start calling you a Voice of Reason.
"So you want to compare our opposition to the Ayatollah in Iran with Hitler and Nazi Germany? That’s an interesting comparison. Weak, but interesting."
Unsupported claim...
"In any case, the point was to illustrate how laughable it is whenever people use the ‘rape rooms and mass graves’ as our reason to invade Iraq."
No one has done so. We went in because, of the nations that support terror, Iraq was the only one that could be taken down with force. Also b/c the Iraqi people are the most civilized in the region, the most fertile ground for an Arab Democracy that would create a SEA CHANGE in the ME. Or do you think Libya and Syria threw in the towel out of boredom?
"By immersing ourselves in the affairs of the Middle East by taking sides in the Iran-Iraq war, and aligning with the “lesser of two evils”, we failed to pay attention to the words of our Founders when they warned us against entangling alliances with foreign nations."
Naive. We were locked in a Cold War with the Soviets. We could not allow them to outflank the oil reserves of the ME.
And I doubt our founders would have kept us out of WWI and WWII. The world is just not that big anymore. A Fortress America mentality is a suicide pact.
The fact is it's true. Libs really do fear that Bush might be Hitleresque. Their fears are baseless and originate from partisanship more than anything, but the neo-cons haven't helped much by insisting that the neither the party nor Bush can be critizised. The Neos play right into the liberal demigogue's hands by rising to the bate. The truth is we don't need Bush necessarily, our ideology shouldn't be contingent on an individual, but the neos keep making it out like it should be.
This is because liberals are babies.
very good. I bet Lucas and friends never considered that.
>>"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.<<
...And Jesus
That said, the comments about "security" and "peace" go against libs and potential future leaders more than Bush. The securit one sort of fits, but Bush's message is one of freedom, which the leaders in this movie never discuss.
Liberals and socialists are notorious for talking about security and peace, so the movie really DOES warn against future leaders, while warning somewhat against the current administration.
In the future will be able to look at this example as much as they do the popular literature of old as a way to drive home political points.
IOW, the warning is against all leaders, existing and future, and should always be considered.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.