'Cause I just can't resist the near-pleonastic "Ep III, Pt 2" title, and since this part of the post takes a big left turn (no pun intended) from my previous post on the topic, I figured I'd go ahead and break this into two separate posts…
And you know what? The parallels are there if you want to see them. They've been there in all three of the prequels. And if you didn't notice them before and are just getting upset now, you weren't paying attention.
But here's the thing… Thirty years ago, George Lucas set out to create a mythology, in grand SF Space Opera tradition (evil galactic empires, plucky rebel freedom fighters, FTL drives and self-aware robots included). One of the themes he chose for his space opera was the apparent tendency of Republics to devolve into Empires (i.e. the Roman Republic which became the Roman Empire) or Dictatorships (i.e. the Weimar Republic, which became Nazi Germany). I remember coming out of Star Wars (the original and still first for me, no matter the "Episode IV" moniker) and wondering why it was that, when Science Fiction needed an evil empire, they so often turn to Rome for their template.
So if you want to get upset about the politics in Episode III, it shouldn't be because George Lucas has drawn parallels to modern day events (that's what storytellers DO, by the way). What should concern/bother/upset you is that, thirty years after he started telling this story about the collapse of a Republic, it's so damn easy for him to draw those parallels.
One thing I did find interesting about the politics, and one of the things NOT mentioned by either strident voice in the great Star Wars debate of '05, is the way Lucas clarifies the opposing sides in the "what is loyalty" argument.
On the one hand, you have the Jedi Knights… Yoda, Obi Wan, Mace Windu and the rest. Their loyalty is to the Republic, the state as an ideal, if you will. On the other hand, you have Anakin (and, presumably, others that feel as he does) who is loyal to the Republic as represented by Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. Both sides believe they are loyal members of the Republic and both sides believe that they are right and have the best interests of the Republic at heart. And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with either position. Either one has the possibility (even likelihood) of being correct. They're not even necessarily mutually exclusive. It just so happens in this instance, that loyalty to the man instead of to the state leads to the downfall of the state that Anakin swears he is loyal to. But that's not a function of his loyalty. His belief in Palpatine is misplaced, but his loyalty, at least until he kills Mace or the Jedi "younglings" is still to the Republic.
Which is pretty much the argument that's going on today. The jackholes yelling that celebrities need to shut up and sing/act/dance/whatever or that disagreeing with the President is disloyal and un-American are expressing their patriotism as an extension of their loyalty to the President. Those of us complaining about the President or current policy and yelling about violating the Constitution are expressing our loyalty to the state and to the ideals of that state.
Of course, that makes us liberals the Jedi and conservatives the Sith. But I'm okay with that, you know?
So what about the politics?
There was all kinds of uproar right before Sith opened about Lucas' politics. The knee-jerk conservatives were calling him treasonous and urging boycotts, reactionary liberals were pamphleteering local theatres to call attention to parallels they could find to current Senate judicial battles.And you know what? The parallels are there if you want to see them. They've been there in all three of the prequels. And if you didn't notice them before and are just getting upset now, you weren't paying attention.
But here's the thing… Thirty years ago, George Lucas set out to create a mythology, in grand SF Space Opera tradition (evil galactic empires, plucky rebel freedom fighters, FTL drives and self-aware robots included). One of the themes he chose for his space opera was the apparent tendency of Republics to devolve into Empires (i.e. the Roman Republic which became the Roman Empire) or Dictatorships (i.e. the Weimar Republic, which became Nazi Germany). I remember coming out of Star Wars (the original and still first for me, no matter the "Episode IV" moniker) and wondering why it was that, when Science Fiction needed an evil empire, they so often turn to Rome for their template.
So if you want to get upset about the politics in Episode III, it shouldn't be because George Lucas has drawn parallels to modern day events (that's what storytellers DO, by the way). What should concern/bother/upset you is that, thirty years after he started telling this story about the collapse of a Republic, it's so damn easy for him to draw those parallels.
One thing I did find interesting about the politics, and one of the things NOT mentioned by either strident voice in the great Star Wars debate of '05, is the way Lucas clarifies the opposing sides in the "what is loyalty" argument.
On the one hand, you have the Jedi Knights… Yoda, Obi Wan, Mace Windu and the rest. Their loyalty is to the Republic, the state as an ideal, if you will. On the other hand, you have Anakin (and, presumably, others that feel as he does) who is loyal to the Republic as represented by Supreme Chancellor Palpatine. Both sides believe they are loyal members of the Republic and both sides believe that they are right and have the best interests of the Republic at heart. And, frankly, there's nothing wrong with either position. Either one has the possibility (even likelihood) of being correct. They're not even necessarily mutually exclusive. It just so happens in this instance, that loyalty to the man instead of to the state leads to the downfall of the state that Anakin swears he is loyal to. But that's not a function of his loyalty. His belief in Palpatine is misplaced, but his loyalty, at least until he kills Mace or the Jedi "younglings" is still to the Republic.
Which is pretty much the argument that's going on today. The jackholes yelling that celebrities need to shut up and sing/act/dance/whatever or that disagreeing with the President is disloyal and un-American are expressing their patriotism as an extension of their loyalty to the President. Those of us complaining about the President or current policy and yelling about violating the Constitution are expressing our loyalty to the state and to the ideals of that state.
Of course, that makes us liberals the Jedi and conservatives the Sith. But I'm okay with that, you know?
Comments
The 'turmoil' surrounded a specific exchange between Obi Wan and Anakin. I'll paraphrase best as I can:
OBW: The Jedi defend DEMOCRACY!
Anakin: You're either with me, or you're my enemy!
OBW: Only Sith deal in absolutes!
The complaint was over Anakin's words echoing Dubya's words regarding Islamic terrorism. Blah, blah, blah.
Lost in the political 'outrage' over the dialogue was something that REALLY bugged me...
Lucas clearly inserted the dialogue to take a swipe at Dubya. But, no one mentions the REAL problem with the dialogue is that THE WHOLE FREAKING SAGA IS ABOUT ABSOLUTES AND THE JEDI ARE TOTALLY ABSOLUTIST! This is good v. evil! Black v. white. Anger v. "your emotions will be the end of you". Obi Wan's words make no sense in a fantasy world built upon absolutism. There is no grey in the SW universe! Do, or do not, there is no try!
So, it bugged me that Lucas threw this out the window for a brief moment of political nose thumbing that will be long forgotten 20 years from now. My grandchildren will watch it and go, "Huh? That totally makes no sense."
Q
As for the exchange you're referencing, I am SO tired of that bs. Bush's "you're either with me or you're my enemy" was hardly original when he said it (perhaps most famously echoing the 60's activist mantra of "if you're not part of the solution, your part of the problem"). So, to me, complaints about anyone using it to mock the President tells me more about the complainers hypersensitivity than anything else. (Not that I doubt Lucas put it in there for that reason. I just don't see any point in getting worked up over it.)
To your point… yeah, it is an awkward and pointless exchange. But Lucas has bent over backwards throughout the prequels to shoehorn contemporary notions of democracy into his space opera. Amidala was a queen, but she's a elected? I once had a girlfriend who told me she was a Catholic Pagan. That made just about as much sense as Lucas' elected queen.