Posted on 05/11/2005 6:39:05 AM PDT by EarthStomper
Which side used chemical weopons on their own people, had rape rooms and mass graves...?
This really isn't surprising since Return of the Jedi was supposed to be an allegory of the Vietnam conflict, where the ordinary peasants (ewoks) take on the powerful empire and defeat them despite their superior technology. I'm going to ignore the political overtones.
The reference to liberty dying to thunderous applause is a reference to the rise of Nazism in Germany. The author of the review does not appear to have the knowledge of history that George Lucas demonstrates.
Well, nuts, I can't. Sigh.
In viewing most movies nowadays, I have to overlook many blatant allegorical references by filmakers trying to make a political statement rather than making a movie. The only other politically motivated wince inducing moment in any Star Wars movie is in Return of the Jedi in which ObiWan tells Luke "that many of the truths we cling to are only true from a certain point of view..." so I guess moral relativity exists in other galaxies as well.
But I'm still seeing the movie. I'm waiting for a few days after the 19th, I just can't deal with the onslaught of people dressed up like Jedi wielding plastic light sabers anymore.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
Don't feel so bad. Richard Nixon wasn't fooled either when he heard about Lucas equating the vietcong and the ewoks in Jedi. He wrote in his book that Lucas apparently failed to notice that the vietcong "peasants" were trained and armed with AK-47's by the soviet union.
This is the only bit that seems to add any legitimacy to the author's complaints, and really, Obi-Wan's condemnation of 'absolutes' is more troubling to me than any reference to 'if you're not with us, you're against us.'
I find neither truth nor morality to be nuanced.
I must be a Sith.
The quote: "If you're not with us, you're against us" sure has riled a lot of liberals. Perhaps it was a little too over the top but, the meaning can't be considered controversial.......you're either with the terrorist or your with the forces of freedom. What's the problem here? Sure it's an absolute but, some things are absolute. Aren't we all against murder? George Lucas comes from an era when rejecting even 'common sense' policies passed as intellectual sophistication and was 'cool'. Many folks from his generation continue to yearn to be 'Cool Hand Luke', a 'Rebel without a Cause', or 'Easy Riding'down the high ways of America. It's a cry for attention as much as anything else. His goal is too insult the good folks of America. While it is sad and pathetic, it's the cause many in his generation has embraced.
Actually, between the post-Star Wars VI novels (where Jedi led by Skywalker are mostly idiots), and the general idiocy of the Jedi in Star Wars I-III (we find out where the Jedi learned to be idiots), I have come to like the Empire a LOT more than I would ever like the the Republic...
Canada?
Sure thing. I guess we shouldn't have courted Stalin as an ally to take out Hitler either...
I had the singular opportunity of hearing Reagan respond to that very question when he gave a speech at Brigham Young University.
His answer: There were no good guys in that war. We sided with the side we thought was the lesser evil. We were wrong.
Isn't it intersting how liberals always demand Christ-like perfection from conservatives?
And we didn't do 1/1,000,000,000th for Saddam as we did for Stalin.
Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.
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.