Posted on 05/15/2005 8:24:10 AM PDT by gopwinsin04
'The Force' ins't with President George W. Bush, as least as far as George Lucas is concerned.
The blogosphere has been abuzz for days with reports that Episode III contains several barely concealed digs at the Bush Administration.
In a much cited scene, Ewan McGregors Obi Wan Kenobi decares, 'Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes,' after Hayden Chirstensen's Ankin Skywalker/Darth Vader character says, 'If you're not with me, you're my enemy,' an obvious reference to President Bush's statements regarding the war on terror.
As the Senate cedes power to Palpatine under the guise of 'intergalatic security,' Natalie Portman's Princess Padme Amidala exclaims bitterly, 'So this is how liberty dies-to thunderous applause.'
No surprisingly, right wing leaning cineaste critic Michael Medved says George Lucas' script shows just how liberal Hollywood political sensibilities can infect a mass market fantasy like 'Revenge of the Sith'.
'What's striking about the Bush digs is not that they are that important to the film, but that they are so unimportant to it.'
None of this stuff is probably worth getting worked up over, but it's just another indication of the obvious and underlying partisanship of the entertainment industry coming out in places where you would least expect it.'
In an interview with the Associated Press last week, Lucas claimed has was less insipred by the current political climate than by the Nixon and Vietnam era, how the French turned their backs on democracy to support Napoleon and how the Romans did the same thing with Caesar.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
I liked parts of Ep. 6 as well, and watching it again the Ewoks do not compare in annoyance to Jar Jar.
I've been watching the old Starwars movies and was struck by Ben Kenobi explaining why he had told Luke that his father had died, (not that he was Darth Vadar) "It was true from a certain poin of view. Luke, you must remember that many of our "truths" are based on our own point of view." While I understand the sentiment, it leaves no room for what is (definitively) morally right and wrong - just a lot of moral equivalency.
Yes and no.
It merely means that for those who loved Anakin, it was better to think of him as dead while the actual truth is something different.
It doesn't really render the Emperor less evil.
That was not my point, my point is that George Lucas seems (to me) to be promoting the "moral equivaleny" arguemnt - ie, there are no hard and fast "truths", just our personal opinions.
The advance orders at Fandango are FIVE TIMES the previous record of the Passion of the Christ.
Ani was what, 7 years old in the first movie? Maybe you find that perfectly normal, but most of us wouldn't.
Anakin was 9 and Padme was 14. Five years difference. What does his age in the first movie have to do with the real Hayden Christensen and Halle Berry dating in real life?
I'd guess bet. 40 and 50 mil.
Who the hell is talking about real life? Why don't you go read the entire thread of what was said and actually pay attention instead of making stupid comments that have nothing to do with it.
I was responding to your actual post where you stated you found it perverted that Hayden Christensen was hitting on Halle Berry. Did you want me to post the #.
"Portman was creepy enough, but little Ani hitting on Halle Berry? She's got to be what, 20 years older than him?"
Maybe this will make it clearer for you.
Yes it does- it is now quite clear that you suffer from massive reading comprehension problems and the inability to separate reality from fiction to the point where you have confused a 9-year old boy in a fictional movie (played by one actor) with a different actor playing him at a different age in another fictional movie.
Please, don't ever post to me again and waste my time with such nonsense.
"GL's created a fantasy world. Its a stretch to link GL's politics in SW with real world politics."
Fantasy and "real world politics" are by no means mutually exclusive. Orwell's Animal Farm is of course fantasy but it is very political. Not that I think SW is explicitly, politically allegorical. However, movies are very much a product of their times, especially today; the pop-cultural and political stuff are suffocatingly ubiquitous. It is a stretch to maintain that SW takes no political position, that SW never lets the "real world" slip in. For example, obviously the movie and GL favor republicanism over imperialism. Most of us don't give this much thought only because we implicitly agree with the movie. Medved is simply saying that the movie has allusions or references to today's real world, namely political references. I'm not aware that he claims SW is comprehensively liberal, or comprehensively anti-Bush, or anything so sweeping in focus. In fact, most scripts are not politically so uniform; they tend to be a mess, IMO.
Why does the unmasking of Vader have to be intentionally disappointing? Is this your own personal read on the story? But since art, or at least Star Wars, is subjective, I was hoping for a more extreme visual. I think Mr. Shaw's kind, warm face is a matter of taste. Personally, he looked like a pedophile piano teacher.
And NO, I did NOT miss the part in Empire where we see Vader in his meditation chamber. I don't even know why you would even assume that I did. Empire is one of my all-time favorite films. In fact, the back of the head seems much more scarred and damaged in that film. I was hoping for something a little more extreme in the third film, instead, we get a slightly bruised and pasty, second-rate Sontarian Warrior look alike.
No offense.
Jar Jar was evil, and even I can see the horrific racial stereotype that good, liberal Mr. Lucas was perpetuating. Of course, I do believe at the time that Rolling Stone had made Jar Jar their cover boy, saying he was the coolest new screen presence since Chewbacca, or something.
A true parallel would be "like the Drug Czar or the Energy Czar". Those offices, while not lifetime appointments and not inherited, use the title of such.
So was Princess Lea elected?
That's the truth! To be honest, the first time someone called him "Ani" and he didn't knock them unconscious, I lost all respect for him!
Lucas probably figured he needed a character to get the new generation of kids hooked on the series.
I blame the directing and the writing in the second movie- Anakin was written to be an anoying little crap, and he was played as such.
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.