Posted on 05/19/2005 11:51:29 AM PDT by ScoopandDizzy
Picking apart film releases for political overtones has become an American cottage industry, with media types tripping over their grandmothers, to be first to attack the latest release on cable talk shows.
Two more important elements have emerged, however, that overshadow film content analysis:
--- How "Star Wars" reveals, in its critical reactions, the new media's pecking order.
--- Secondly, the need to look at whether conservatives should really be picking films apart frame-by-frame, looking for bias.
(Excerpt) Read more at radioequalizer.blogspot.com ...
"No, sadly, it simply doesn't occur to critics to include increasingly boring, stale, irrelevant talk radio hosts in this mix. Why, when there are exciting things happening on the Internet- lively, rapidly growing blogs and other websites?"
It neglects to mention Michael Medved's own coverage of the statements made in Cannes.
Just because MSM ignores talk radio does not mean it doesn't happen.
First of all, the new Star Wars is not NEARLY as politically charged as people are making it out to be. Yes, George Lucas is a liberal, but he insists that this was all written 30 years ago and it wasn't meant to be a jab at current politicians.
Secondly, the writer keeps saying that Talk Radio is in decline without giving any evidence of this dubious claim.
The rest of this blog makes it sound as if the author is upset to learn that George Lucas himself has said that it is an attack on the Bush Administration and the war in Iraq. The original inspiration for Lucas included Nixon and Vietnam but he has essentially said "here we are again, who would have thought it".
I don't pay to go to see a performer (or his work) only to be told from the stage that "Repubilcans are evil".
Revenge of the Republicans (Star Wars head George Lucas confirms this view)
"I didn't think it was going to get quite this close," he said of the parallels between the Nixon era and the current Bush presidency, which has been sacrificing freedoms in the interests of national security. "It is just one of those re-occurring things."I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is ... The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable."
"Because this is the back story (of the Star Wars saga), one of the main features of the back story was to tell how the Republic became the Empire," Lucas said. "At the time I did that, it was during the Vietnam War and the Nixon era. The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?"
Lucas cited the Roman Empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the Revolution and Germany with the rise of Hitler as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators.
"They all seem to happen in the same way with the same issues: Threats from the outside; they need more control; and a democratic body not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling."
It is quite clear that the obstructionists on the left seek no compromise. Their way or nothing. They forget that they are out of power.
What is your point? All of those quotes verify my claim that YES, he is a liberal, but NO, this particular movie does not refer to Bush.
"I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is ... The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable."
How do you draw the conclusion that this is JUST about Nixon?
check World Net Daily link in story for the talk radio decline background.
He didn't say it was just about Nixon. He said it's taken from many historical examples of a democracy becoming a dictatorship. He personally feels that Iraq resembles Vietnam, so what?
My complaint is that everyone seems to be accepting that Darth Vader is supposed to represent Bush. Lucas never said that and has in fact pointed out otherwise.
I saw the movie last night. I did not think that it was overly political.
And even if the Emperor is supposed to represent Bush and Darth Vader Rumsfeld or something I have been thinking that the Rebel Alliance were a bunch of Terrorists. I think I am turning to the dark side :)
I turned to the Dark Side some time ago.
Between taking my 2.5 year old out because he wanted to "play" and only like yoda, I did catch some Bush/Conservative bashing bias. The most obvious, was when Obi and newly crowned Vader were first fighting. Anakin says, "You are either with me or against me." <<< remember Bush to other nations after 911? Then Obi says, "why is everything so with you sithes. Everything is right or wrong." or something like that. It seemed Lucas was associating Moral relativism with being good (Obi wan) and good vs. bad as a sithe trait. oh, well, what does it really matter? ;-)
Moral relativism is what starts the slippery slope.
Again we are discussing "quality of life" issues. Especially as the state comes to pay health care bills.
Nazi Germany first went to kill the terminally ill and mentally retarded.
Those who make allowances for murdering patients in a hospital (without their consent, and in the absence of a contract, Terri Schivo gave no credible consent), we have independent arbitors deciding who should live (in the absence of punishment for a heinous act).
Which really doesn't make sense because for the first half of the movie it is the Sith who is trying to morally equate himself with the Jedi. It's the Jedi who see things in absolutes
Lucas seemed to have had it right at one time (the whole good vs. evil thing), other than cross contamination from Hollywierd folks, I wonder what happened?
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.