Posted on 05/25/2002 3:14:07 PM PDT by GOPcapitalist
I?ve decided to jump on the bandwagon and write about the latest Star Wars movie, Episode II: Attack of the Clones. Before I get going, the usual disclaimer: This is not a movie review per se, but if you plan to watch the movie and haven?t yet done so, do not continue reading this article; I will spoil the movie and you will hate me. (Also, I?m going to only use "facts" as established in the movies themselves.) Let me lay my cards on the table: I think George Lucas is an absolute genius. Not only did he invent the Star Wars universe ? with noble knights employing a mystical Force, valiant rebels battling evil storm troopers, formidable warriors succumbing to the corrupting temptations of power, and one of the best villains in fiction (Darth Vader) ? but he also knew how amazing it would be to create the middle three movies first. In this context, I confidently state that Episode II is one of the best American movies ever made. It probably falls short of, say, The Empire Strikes Back, but that?s only because TESB is one of the best American movies ever made.
Now then, some qualifications: There is an undue amount of exposition in the first half of the movie, and the guy playing Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen) could have taken acting lessons from me. The cutesy stuff with C-3PO was a bit much, though infinitely better than the dialogue coming out of Jar Jar Binks in the previous episode. Finally, some of the less exciting action scenes (in particular when Anakin and Padmé first land on Geonosis) could have been cut a bit too, in order to whittle the movie down to two hours.
But other than that, the movie was incredible. Lucas has an amazing ability to tell a complicated story involving subtle politics and intrigue in a way that can hold the attention of a child. (This in itself is a masterful feat.) Episode II also brings back the sense of interstellar adventure that was lacking in the last installment (which focused on planetside events). Finally, we get to see the Jedi in their full glory as the guardians of peace and justice. Up till now, we?ve never really seen how they carry out "police" duties (such as tracking down Senator Amidala?s would-be assassin and rescuing Obi-Wan from Count Dooku); even Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan?s mission to Naboo in Episode I was more analogous to that of ambassadors and diplomats rather than cops. The light saber battle between Dooku and a slight, normally pacifistic fellow, is alone worth the ticket price.
I could go on and on, but I?ll stop. I?d like to take the remainder of this article to address some of the commentary I?ve seen on the movie.
First, Lucas is certainly not labeling separatists as treasonous terrorists, okay you secessionists out there? Give the guy some credit; the first three movies, after all, focus on the brave rebels resisting the Empire. In the original Star Wars, Vader smears Princess Leia as a traitor, so unless you think Lucas wants us to side with Vader, then please hold off your judgments about the treatment of separatists until Episode III.
It is entirely clear that Palpatine (who is, shall we say, closely aligned with the evil Darth Sidius) represents not only Adolf Hitler (because both were elected Chancellor and then voted emergency powers which culminated in absolute dictatorship) but also Abraham Lincoln (who used a Grand Army of the Republic to first smash his own separatists and then start an Empire). The closing scenes of Episode II ? where we see the clone army of the Republic, with its unmistakable resemblance to the storm troopers of later episodes, and hear the ominous music of the Empire ? should wake up even the dullest American teenager to the dangers of standing armies being used against domestic citizens. Yes, some of the politicians utter pro-democratic garbage during the movie, but to throw out the movie on these grounds would be like condemning 1984 since Orwell was a socialist.
(For those of you Confederacy supporters who are still skeptical: Recall that in Episode I, Qui-Gon tells young Anakin that, "I didn?t come here to free slaves." Rather than use his powers to free the boy he believes to be the Chosen One who the prophesy says will restore balance to the Force, Qui-Gon wins Anakin?s freedom by wagering on a pod race.
On this point, I?ve also heard some speculation that Qui-Gon was serving the Dark Side, and intentionally let himself be killed in order to allow the less competent Obi-Wan train Anakin. Well, we can?t know for sure until Episode III, but let?s keep in mind that Qui-Gon?s judgment was right; it isn?t Luke Skywalker who kills the Emperor in Return of the Jedi, folks.)
Now, at this point some of you may be wondering, "How can Bob possibly be right, since so many critics have panned the movie?" Well, let me put it this way: The critics are ignorant jackasses who want to sound sophisticated by criticizing a movie that "the masses" love.
This is nowhere better demonstrated than this review, in which Jonathan V. Last offers "the case for the Empire." (In case you think I?m being too uptight, I emailed Last and he said his review was more than half serious.) Among other ridiculous arguments, Last offers this gem:
But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn?t evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn?t want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.
Inasmuch as part of the Emperor?s unfortunate-but-necessary crackdown involves using the Death Star to blow up an entire planet (which Last defends on the grounds that "they" were traitors who had the audacity to lie to their oppressors!), we can only conclude that Last would just as well excuse the actions of Stalin and Hitler. After all, Hitler too promised everlasting peace and order, once those disrupting social life were eliminated.
But even this is too cute; the Emperor is obviously evil. Episodes I and II show us how this cunning individual engineers first a trade embargo, then a secessionist movement, in order to become the most powerful ruler in the galaxy.
And Sidius certainly doesn?t desire power in order to benevolently impose "order" on the galaxy. Remember the sadistic glee with which he attacks Luke in Return of the Jedi.
No, the Emperor is plainly evil; this fact could not be clearer. Yes, part of the genius of Star Wars is its sophisticated morality, showing that all of us have a Dark Side that must be resisted.
But there is another theme, even more basic: There are some truly evil individuals, and they are constantly plotting to take over. Don?t be fooled by their rhetoric.
Lincoln-hating dump.
"We don't want to be in your Republic anymore."
"Then you will be MADE to be in the Republic. This violence is for your own good, nay, the good of us all."
So now we're all slaves. Thanks Abe.
To the contrary, I simply posted an article with some interesting commentary about the Lincoln elements of the Palpatine character in the latest star wars movie. I think it is indisputable that at least some elements exist. I certainly noticed them and know several others who did as well. I don't see anything wrong with discussing them, leading me to question what your point is.
Speaking of shared elements, I do find it interesting that your ilk always arives to shout "Lincoln hater" after practically every attempt anybody makes to discuss anything less than blind worship of the man, only to depart almost as quickly as they arived without adding any substance to the dialogue. It's practically identical to another tactic we conservatives often faced not to long ago from the left.
Surely you remember the main line of a certain former president's propaganda ministry and defense squad during his troubles: yell "Clinton hater" at them and ignore everything else.
Yes, in their own context. But Palpatine's speech on the preservation of the republic as a Union was inescapably Lincolnian, including the Lincolnian elements of deception.
"If one of the federated states acquires a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other states as subject provinces and will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal government, but in reality that government will have ceased to exist." - Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America
2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.
Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones.
At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.
Palpatine's agents created teh insurrection, pluss both armies.
As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones. The same holds for the Rebel army. I woyuld never call the Confederate infantryman an automaton, but following the (il)logic of the article the author does.
Are outcomes important, or only intentions?
Lincoln was a politician. Winning an election and maintaining his office and its powers were his intentions. The consequences of pursuing those intentions and the way he pursued them resulted in his violating of the constitution with his actions.
I too was waiting for somebody to do it almost immediately after I saw the film. Grand army of the republic wasn't the line that did it though. It was the 1000 years of union line.
2. Had you or the author of this piece seen the movie the whole article falls apart.
A bit presumptuous, don't you think? I've seen the movie. Have you?
Chacellor Palpatine set up the entire situation. He ordered the creation of the clones. At the end, it was revealed that the Rebel Jedi, Lord Dooku, worked for the Sith Lord, who also happens to be... Palpatine.
No kidding! Hence my earlier reference - the cover motive was maintaining the union, the real motive was elsewhere, and the result was consolidating power in the executive.
As for the rest of this assinine piece, comparing the GAR of the movie to the Civil War is silly. The citizen soldiers who violunteered and/or were drafted are very different from the clones.
Yet again, you seem to have missed the entire point of both the article and the movie. The comparison has nothing to do with the composition of the army or its conduction (at least yet). It's all in the way Palpatine conducted himself - his rhetorical motives versus his real motives, and the result of his exercise - consolidating power in the executive.
If you missed that, you must have been sleeping through the entire speech scene. Either that, or you are angry about the inclusion of indisputably Lincolnian motifs in the character of Palpatine during that scene, and therefore resort to an escape alternative of (1) attacking the people who point it out and (2) diverting attention from it by focusing on unrelated details elsewhere that were not included in the original analogy to begin with by either Lucas or the author of that article.
He adopted that "obligation" because of political and economic interests in the union's continuity itself, prominent among those interests being personal political power and economic protectionism. But rather than concede other interests, he conducted his campaign against secession around what was, as Tocqueville put it 30 years earlier, the "borrowed name" of the maintaining the Union per se. That is where the deception lies.
I don't believe he had any intentions to do so, with the purpose of becoming a dictator and overthrowing the Constitution.
Intentions and their actualization are two entirely different things.
No kidding! Hence my earlier reference - the cover motive was maintaining the union, the real motive was elsewhere, and the result was consolidating power in the executive.
Lincoln did not create the rebellion. The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
Unless you think that Lincoln had some deal with the South Carolina Legislature, the analogy fails. If you do, you are well into the conspiracy zone.
It's all in the way Palpatine conducted himself - his rhetorical motives versus his real motives, and the result of his exercise - consolidating power in the executive.
Palpatine rhetoric (I don't want this authority and will return it) was not what gave him the power. The vote occured before he even spoke to the Senate. Moreover, it was Palpatine's treasonous machinachations that gave him the power.
If you missed that, you must have been sleeping through the entire speech scene. Either that, or you are angry about the inclusion of indisputably Lincolnian motifs in the character of Palpatine during that scene, and therefore resort to an escape alternative of (1) attacking the people who point it out and (2) diverting attention from it by focusing on unrelated details elsewhere that were not included in the original analogy to begin with by either Lucas or the author of that article.
Only someone who considers Lincoln a villain would read into the speeches what you do.
It is a rohschat (sp?) test. For Neo-confederates, the symbolism is clear.
Unfortunately, you are using a leftist technique of deconstructing the work to suit your political ends. Lucas has made it very clear that the fall of the Republic is only loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic.
Lincoln opposed the Mexican war (some warmonger) and lost his Congressional seat for it.
Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.
Finally, Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were far less heavy-handed than those of the Radical Republicans. He wanted to give up power andadmit the Southern states quickly.
You are still missing the entire analogy. Re-read my previous post.
The fighting armed rebellion (see sedition) commenced before he was sworn in.
Lincoln was sworn in on March 4, 1861. The first formal acts of armed warfare did not occur for another month. Lincoln launched a fleet of warships tasked to fight their way into Fort Sumter for the purpose of reinforcing its garrison on or about April 6, 1861. Confederates caught word of Lincoln's plan and took the fort on April 12, 1861. Lincoln's fleet arrived on April 13, 1861, too late to do anything.
Unless you think that Lincoln had some deal with the South Carolina Legislature, the analogy fails.
No, as that was not the analogy to begin with. Had you read the article, you would know that. But instead, unable to deal with the fact that strong Lincolnian elements appeared during Palpatine's speech, you launched into a diatribe in which you created that alternative analogy of straw in order to divert attention from the actual one made in the article.
If you do, you are well into the conspiracy zone.
Surely I would not be deeper into the conspiracy zone than a person such as yourself who constructs his own false analogies and assigns them to his opponents so that he may replace their valid analogies with something easier to combat in argument, and all of this for the purpose of allowing himself to avoid the reality that strong Lincolnian themes appeared in the speech of one of the great villians of movie history.
Palpatine rhetoric (I don't want this authority and will return it) was not what gave him the power.The vote occured before he even spoke to the Senate.
Again you are constructing a creature of straw with which to joust. The real analogy, not the straw conspiracy one you have created, was drawn between Palpatine's appeal to the union of the republic itself in opposition to the secessionist movement he created. Also, if you had watched the movie while you were in attendance there last Friday night, you would know that the motion itself was prearranged, again on an appeal to the union and its "needed" army.
Moreover, it was Palpatine's treasonous machinachations that gave him the power.
No, they merely facilitated it.
Only someone who considers Lincoln a villain would read into the speeches what you do.
No, as I don't consider Lincoln to be a villain. Rather, he was a politician. It is a rohschat (sp?) test. For Neo-confederates, the symbolism is clear.
On the flip side, it could similarly serve as a test for those who view Lincoln as a "greatness" beyond his historically skilled and inescapably flawed person. For Lincoln worshipers, the symbolism is willfully ignored.
Unfortunately, you are using a leftist technique of deconstructing the work to suit your political ends.
Am I? Cause I have readily identified several propaganda techniques commonly employed by the left (i.e. the construction of straw men) in your own attempts to discredit, or more appropriately distract from the analogy of clear Lincolnian elements in Palpatine's speech. That would seem to indicate that you, rather than myself, are currently engaged in the very techniques you speak of.
Lucas has made it very clear that the fall of the Republic is only loosely based on the fall of the Roman Republic.
Indeed, but that fact bears little relevance to and certainly does not exclude him from drawing upon historical motifs from elsewhere.
Yet to an even greater degree, he crafted his politics to win them.
Lincoln opposed slavery and lost his Senatorial race to Stephan Douglas.
Untrue. If you recall back in 1858, senators did not run for election. The state legislatures picked them.
So where then did the debates with Stephen Douglas come from? Quite simply, they were campaign appearanced made in attempt to win seats in the legislature for each figure's respective political party. As for those debate appearances, Lincoln was by far the bigger "waffler" of the two, tuning his message carefully to his audiences. He changes positions to his audience between stops so much that Douglas openly accused him in later debates of contradicting himself between appearances.
Finally, Lincoln's plans for Reconstruction were far less heavy-handed than those of the Radical Republicans.
Yes, but Lincoln was securely in his second term when the time for "reconstruction" emerged. He was not up for election any more.
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.