The Empire Strikes Bush?

[zakur]

Story

This is how liberty dies -- to thunderous applause."

So observes Queen Amidala of Naboo as the galactic senate grants dictator-to-be Palpatine sweeping new powers in his crusade against the Jedi in the final "Star Wars" movie opening this week.

It's just one of several lines in "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith," that reveal the movie to be more than just a sci-fi blockbuster and gargantuan cultural phenomenon.

"Revenge of the Sith," it turns out, can also be seen as a cautionary tale for our time -- a blistering critique of the war in Iraq, a reminder of how democracies can give up their freedoms too easily, and an admonition about the seduction of good people by absolute power.

Some film critics suggest it could be the biggest anti-Bush blockbuster since "Fahrenheit 9/11."

I can't wait until Sean Hannity calls for a boycott.

 

[Brown]

Read Scott's review from the Times (referenced in the Post story) here (registration required). Although called a "rave" review, the Times review has some reservations, most of which are humorously expressed:

...Mr. Lucas's indifference to two fairly important aspects of moviemaking - acting and writing - is remarkable.

Nevertheless, the review is positive as a whole. Like the Post, the Times observes that some of the characters' lines seem to be commentaries on current events, even though they happened long ago in a galaxy far away:

Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." Obi-Wan's response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes."

 

[aerocontrols]

You mean his latest film lacks the subtlety of the others?

 

[Jocko]

The biggest anti-Bush blockbuster since Farenheit 9/11? Are you really that certain you want Condoleeza Rice in the White House come 2008? Because that's precisely the effect these "blockbusters" have had so far, in case they haven't noticed.

And leave it to the NYT to pan it for bad writing and acting, yet still give it a thumbs-up based on a perceived political message. Remember when movie critics reviewed movies?

BTW, the only other source I've seen quoting the political depth of Star Wars is KOA. Take it as you like.

 

[aerocontrols]

From Brown's New York Times link:

...everybody knows the big revelation of the end, since it was also the big revelation at the end of the previous trilogy: Darth Vader is Luke's father.

Depends on the definition of 'end', I guess. Or maybe A.O. Scott didn't believe it until the mask came off?

 

[LostAngeles]

From Brown's New York Times link:



Depends on the definition of 'end', I guess. Or maybe A.O. Scott didn't believe it until the mask came off?

Or maybe he blocked all of RotJ from his mind rather than the standard repression of the memories of the EMPIRE FALLING TO EWOKS.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Regardless of Lucas's personal politics, we can be very sure that Palpatine doesn't represent Bush in any way, because Palpatine is the ultimate in cool. That guy rocks! Even Bush's nearest and dearest aren't going to claim he's that kind of cool.

And he certainly wouldn't start wearing a ratty blue bathrobe after conquering the galaxy. I don't like Bush at all, but I have to admit he's got damn good taste in clothes. Remember Clinton's suits? And Reagan's? Those two could make a five thousand dollar suit look like it came off the rack at JCPenney. Bush has some pimp threads.

 

[aerocontrols]

Regardless of Lucas's personal politics, we can be very sure that Palpatine doesn't represent Bush in any way, because Palpatine is the ultimate in cool. That guy rocks! Even Bush's nearest and dearest aren't going to claim he's that kind of cool.

And he certainly wouldn't start wearing a ratty blue bathrobe after conquering the galaxy. I don't like Bush at all, but I have to admit he's got damn good taste in clothes. Remember Clinton's suits? And Reagan's? Those two could make a five thousand dollar suit look like it came off the rack at JCPenney. Bush has some pimp threads.

Palpatine was Nixon in the first trilogy. I assume he remains so.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Palpatine was Nixon in the first trilogy. I assume he remains so.

I wasn't around for Nixon, so I didn't form an opinion on his suits. Although all the film footage and photos I've seen suggest the man slouched, which would pretty much kill the line of any jacket. (As would mysterious back-bulges, but that seems to have stopped!)

Seriously, though, I think people tend to read too much into things. I'm sure that somewhere out there someone's making a case for Lord Voldemort as Tony Blair. It's only funny that it's politics people keep seeing--it used to be religion. I went to a rather religious college, and every single work of literature, when discussed, brought out scores of students seeing Jesus in the protagonist, everything from The Iliad (neat trick!) to Don Quixote to Catcher in the Rye. Okay, yeah, an argument can be made for the last two, but I'm pretty damn sure Achilles is not meant to represent Christ!

Although I did write a kickass paper demonstrating that Madame Bovary was the Virgin Mary. I forget how I backed that one up. What was I drinking back then?

 

[Skeptic]

(Shrug)

Possibly... possibly... but it seems an awful waste of CGI animation just to make a few vague snipes at those who "believe in absolutes" or use force or whatever, and hope everybody will understand it's Bush. It's more likely, I think, that this is more of the same "we are gentler and caring as opposed to those evil bastards who use force" stuff that was in the series since its beginning.

It's like that other recent movie, "Kingdom of Heaven", with the Muslims (Saladin especially) as gentle cosmopolitan all-around nice guys. Political swipe at Bush and the war on terror? Maybe... until you consider that in Hollywood today, it is inconcievable to make a movie which shows any non-western societies as anything BUT cosmopolitan, "understanding", "close to nature", blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

That Hollywood movies are in general anti-Christian and pro-non-western societies, anti-science and pro-supernatural, anti-coroporations and pro-activism (of whatever sort) is obviously true. If you see a main character in a recent Hollywood movie who is a CEO, a Church official, or a scientist, then--far more likely than not--they are the "bad guy"; while if you see a non-westerner, a psychic, a conspiracy theorist, or an enviormental activist, they are almost invariably the "good guys". There are exceptions ("Men In Black", for instance, spoofing conspiracy theorists), but not many of them.

But this general Weltanschauung (so I can't spell it, sue me) is no proof of any deliberate conspiracy against Christians or Bush or anybody. It's just the general fashion right now.

Then again, I still think that the original "Star Wars" trilogy was, in effect, "Snow White" with the sexes reversed, which is why these "prequals" suck regardless of political or worldview slant: do you really CARE how Snow White's evil stepmother became evil?

 

[LostAngeles]

(Shrug)

Possibly... possibly... but it seems an awful waste of CGI animation just to make a few vague snipes at those who "believe in absolutes" or use force or whatever, and hope everybody will understand it's Bush. It's more likely, I think, that this is more of the same "we are gentler and caring as opposed to those evil bastards who use force" stuff that was in the series since its beginning.

It's like that other recent movie, "Kingdom of Heaven", with the Muslims (Saladin especially) as gentle cosmopolitan all-around nice guys. Political swipe at Bush and the war on terror? Maybe... until you consider that in Hollywood today, it is inconcievable to make a movie which shows any non-western societies as anything BUT cosmopolitan, "understanding", "close to nature", blah blah blah, yadda yadda yadda.

That Hollywood movies are in general anti-Christian and pro-non-western societies, anti-science and pro-supernatural, anti-coroporations and pro-activism (of whatever sort) is obviously true. If you see a main character in a recent Hollywood movie who is a CEO, a Church official, or a scientist, then--far more likely than not--they are the "bad guy"; while if you see a non-westerner, a psychic, a conspiracy theorist, or an enviormental activist, they are almost invariably the "good guys". There are exceptions ("Men In Black", for instance, spoofing conspiracy theorists), but not many of them.

But this general Weltanschauung (so I can't spell it, sue me) is no proof of any deliberate conspiracy against Christians or Bush or anybody. It's just the general fashion right now.

Then again, I still think that the original "Star Wars" trilogy was, in effect, "Snow White" with the sexes reversed, which is why these "prequals" suck regardless of political or worldview slant: do you really CARE how Snow White's evil stepmother became evil?

I'd like to take a moment to recommend Gaiman's short story, Snow Glass Apples just for that last paragraph.

My problem with the current setup of the story... or one of them at least, is the subject of an essay I'm working on and may or may not hold for submitting to a class. I need to brush up the arguement either way.

The problem with the prequels is that it's almost impossible to give a rat's fanny about Anakin. I don't know if it's the performance or the writing, but we should be sympathizing with a young man who has a good heart and wants to fix the world, yet has the arrogance to believe that his talents are capable of doing so and the resultnant fall when the horrifiying realization that he can't hits him and he seeks other ways.

...and I'm brushing it up already.

 

[Ladewig]

Then again, I still think that the original "Star Wars" trilogy was, in effect, "Snow White" with the sexes reversed, which is why these "prequals" suck regardless of political or worldview slant: do you really CARE how Snow White's evil stepmother became evil?

I think the description of how Scrooge started down the path towards his all-consuming miserliness is one of the more fascinating aspects of "A Christmas Carol." Furthermore, definitions of evil and how people become evil were the subject of an award-winning Broadway musical and best-selling book: "Wicked." I agree that the prequels suck, but I disagree with your conclusion - a good story about how someone became that evil is what could have saved (too strong) might have saved the other movies.


But more importantly, which characters are you assigning to the roles of dwarves? Because I can spot only five:
Furry,
Stubby,
Nelly,
Speedy, and
Sauve, (played by the inimitable Billy Dee)

 

[LostAngeles]

I think the description of how Scrooge started down the path towards his all-consuming miserliness is one of the more fascinating aspects of "A Christmas Carol." Furthermore, definitions of evil and how people become evil were the subject of an award-winning Broadway musical and best-selling book: "Wicked." I agree that the prequels suck, but I disagree with your conclusion - a good story about how someone became that evil is what could have saved (too strong) might have saved the other movies.


But more importantly, which characters are you assigning to the roles of dwarves? Because I can spot only five:
Furry,
Stubby,
Nelly,
Speedy, and
Sauve, (played by the inimitable Billy Dee)

You forgot Squidy and Flamey. Unless by "Nelly" you meant "Flamey." So then maybe you forgot "Ghosty and a LIAR. ...-y"

 

[RandFan]

It seems to me that it is liberals who often point out that the world is not black and white and that such things are never as simple as good vs evil. But why let your philosophy get in the way of your ideology, right? I guess in Bush's case they are willing to make an exception.

 

[shecky]

Interestingly, the neocons over at The Weekly Standard are finding much to admire in the Empire, because Palpatine and Vader bring order to the galaxy.

Telling, the belief that without iron fist rule, society falls into chaos.

 

[neutrino_cannon]

Well, if Lucas is doing what I think he's doing, then this might not be so bad.

Supposedly, Episodes 1 and 2 were all about telling a story. To be honest, I think he got it right the first time around when he crammed everything those two regretable wastes of celluloid (shut up, it's a metaphor, I know they weren't using that much actual celluloid) told into the opening scrawl of A New Hope.

If Ep 3 is all about the means by which a free society regresses to an authoritarian one, then I can hardly vouch for originality. On the other hand, it could make it a lot more fun to watch.

 

[LostAngeles]

It seems to me that it is liberals who often point out that the world is not black and white and that such things are never as simple as good vs evil. But why let your philosophy get in the way of your ideology, right? I guess in Bush's case they are willing to make an exception.

You know, it's funny how often I agree with you on some things (minus Ann Coulter for one, unless she's really as kinky as they rumor-mong) yet, I'm supposedly a liberal.

There's a HUGE difference in Bush compared to Palpatine. I'm not even going to pretend that anyone here does not know Palpatine is Sidious, all right. No spoilers.

Palpatine has been mainpulating events for years. And I mean years. It's implied that he's been manipulating EVERYTHING and I mean everything. Palpatine causes the Naboo Conflict and works both sides of the Clone Wars to propel himself into power and then some. The man is evil and he's damn good at it. This is the understatement of all existence. The devil tips his hat to Palpatine, to borrow from (The Cuban) Voltaire.

At worst Bush is really cynical or an idiot. He may have taken the opportunities caused by national tragedies and war, he may have knowingly lied to the country and went to war on knowlingly false premises, but that doesn't even compare to Palpatine.

On the other hand, Palpatine is fiction.

 

[Darat]

I'd like to take a moment to recommend Gaiman's short story, Snow Glass Apples just for that last paragraph.

My problem with the current setup of the story... or one of them at least, is the subject of an essay I'm working on and may or may not hold for submitting to a class. I need to brush up the arguement either way.

The problem with the prequels is that it's almost impossible to give a rat's fanny about Anakin. I don't know if it's the performance or the writing, but we should be sympathizing with a young man who has a good heart and wants to fix the world, yet has the arrogance to believe that his talents are capable of doing so and the resultnant fall when the horrifiying realization that he can't hits him and he seeks other ways.

...and I'm brushing it up already.

Can I ask you to please add my often posted pet whine about how Lucas destroyed one of the foundations of the original trilogy with his rewriting of the relationship between Obi and Vader?

e.g.

Can I just put in my pet peeve about the "new episodes"? For me they almost totally remove any meaning for Obi Wan letting Darth Vader kill him in the first movie.

In the first movies we learn that Obi Wan was responsible for Darth Vader because out of pride he tried to train him and he should have realised he wasn't up to the task. His letting Darth Vader kill him can then be understood as the ultimate redemption for his pride that caused so much suffering, it also removes him from destiny and what this does is to then allow a new balance to form within the Force. Guinness as Obi Wan portrays all this in the one look he shares with Luke before he surrenders to what he has now realised is not just inevitable but necessary and allows his death at the hands of the pupil he betrayed because of his pride. From the moment of Obi Wan’s death change once again enters the universe.

So what happens in the new movies? Well we find that Obi Wan did not try to train Darth Vader out of pride but out of duty to his master! Totally and utterly destroys the meaning of his death! Pish and twaddle!

 

[Darat]

...snip...

On the other hand, Palpatine is fiction.

You mean Bush isn't? *gulp*

 

[RandFan]

You know, it's funny how often I agree with you on some things...

A true sign of the apocolypse.

(minus Ann Coulter for one, unless she's really as kinky as they rumor-mong) yet, I'm supposedly a liberal.

Yes but bear in mind that I agree that she is strident, pompous, illogical and often intellectually dishonest. And I don't care how kinky she is. She could lay there and read the phone book for all I care.

Good post,

RandFan