Posted on 05/16/2005 2:07:19 AM PDT by Savage_Nation
CANNES — The last episode of the seminal sci-fi saga "Star Wars" screened at the Cannes film festival Sunday, completing a six-part series that remains a major part of popular culture — and delivering a galactic jab to U.S. President George W Bush.
"Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith" was seen ahead of a celebrity-laden evening screening to be attended by its creator and director, George Lucas, and its cast, including Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen.
Reaction at advance screenings was effusive, with festival-goers, critics and journalists at Cannes applauding at the moment the infamous Darth Vader came into being.
But there were also murmurs at the parallels being drawn between Bush's administration and the birth of the space opera's evil Empire.
Baddies' dialogue about bloodshed and despicable acts being needed to bring "peace and stability" to the movie's universe, mainly through a fabricated war, set the scene.
And then came the zinger, with the protagonist, Anakin Skywalker, saying just before becoming Darth Vader: "You are either with me — or you are my enemy."
To the Cannes audience, often sympathetic to anti-Bush messages in cinema as last year's triumph here of Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" attested, that immediately recalled Bush's 2001 ultimatum, "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."
Lucas, speaking to reporters, emphasised that the original "Star Wars" was written at the end of the Vietnam war, when Richard Nixon was U.S. president, but that the issue being explored was still very much alive today.
"The issue was, how does a democracy turn itself into a dictatorship?" he said.
"When I wrote it, Iraq (the U.S.-led war) didn't exist... but the parallels of what we did in Vietnam and Iraq are unbelievable."
He acknowledged an uncomfortable feeling that the United States was in danger of losing its democratic ideals, like in the movie.
"I didn't think it was going to get this close. I hope this doesn't come true in our country."
Although he didn't mention Bush by name, Lucas took what sounded like another dig while explaining the transformation of the once-good Anakin Skywalker to the very bad Darth Vader.
"Most bad people think they're good people," he said.
The political message, though, was for the most part subsumed by the action and heroics the series — set "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away" — is known for.
And for fans hungry for a last look at "Star Wars" elevated above the disappointing two other films that preceded "Sith," it was satisfying closure.
"Whatever one thought of the previous two installments, this dynamic picture irons out most of the problems, and emerges as the best in the overall series since 'The Empire Strikes Back,'" the Hollywood trade magazine Variety said.
The buzz meant the movie was the hottest ticket at Cannes this year. It also signalled the end of a cinematic era for a generation of filmgoers.
"Revenge of the Sith" is the last of three prequels to the landmark trilogy that burst onto the screens in 1977, 1980 and 1983.
It is in fact the middle episode of the epic story arc, explaining the events that led young Luke Skywalker to battle Darth Vader in order to save Princess Leia, before going on to vanquish the Empire.
Its success could be measured in the claps and smiles in the theatre, which were light years away from the tepid response engendered by the first two prequels, released in 1999 and 2002, widely panned for their boring exposition and wooden dialogue. (Wire reports)
This dialog doesn't even have a good cadence. Oh, wait.. I forgot... dialog in Episode I and II, bad they were.
Thank you! Well said.
My point is that we helped arm and support two of the three in the axis of evil. One of these coutries we have already defeated in war. But we left Saddam still in power. My point is that this country does not always do the smart thing. And as a result, people die and money is spent like it is water.
Thanks for that witty insightful post. I shall ponder your infinite wisdom thoughout my day.
STFU
We left Saddam in power because the UN resolution did not permit us to march into Bahgdad in 1991.
Saddam broke the peace agreement of the first Gulf War. Even Clinton and Kerry realized this and planned to resume the war in 1997/1998.
I would not bother to pay to watch the drivel that comes from Lucas.
The last installment I saw was on par with the old Flash Gordon movies in terms of special effects.
The script was awful.
Now we get Lucas political bias too?? No thanks.
Most people don't want to politicize every moment of their lives. If I ignored everything I disagreed with you'd have to to throw out most of Western culture. Most American writers of the first half of the 20th century were borderline communists for instance. However if you want to live in a cave feel free.
I understand the parallels he was getting at. But my main question has to be is did he deny the comments that he allegedly made at Cannes? Also, What did you mean by when you said he's not a part of Hollywood?
He works independently. Lucasfilm is in Northern CA not one of the Hollywood studios. Not all movies made in America are made by Hollywood. I don't see any reason to think he didn't make the comments attributed to him. I just think they've been taken out of context by these articles. And they were pretty innocuous to begin with. (My movies are about war...and there is a war on now! What a coincidence!)
It's a movie. It's entertainment. See it or See it not.
I think this is why the last two movies he produced were much inferior. He used them to grind his political axe. If he would have stuck to character development and personal relationships, his legacy would have been one of best producers in history. Now we have to hold our nose a bit when we say that.
You're right about his film being about war and there's a war going on. The article was probably for domestic consumption anyway, Considering the newspaper.
Like exactly when did we begin to give a rat's a$$ about the U.N.? The current Bush in power seems not to care about the wishes of the U.N. Bush I did not have the testicular fortitude to finish the job when there was a real reason to remove Saddam from power. How many Iraqis did we leave to be tortured and killed by Saddam when we left the country high and dry after not finishing the job the first time? At least then, we had a real coalition of allies and not one where we end up the ones stuck paying the check at the end of the evening. Sadly, the price for two Bush presidential screw ups is being paid in American soldiers and more Iraqi civilians blood.
So you are saying that in 1991 when we did listen to the UN we should have violated the resolution. This time we ignored the UN and did not wait for a resolution.
It is worse to break a resolution than to decide you don't need one.
Again, Clinton and Kerry both defended the right of America to go to war against Saddam for what was in our own best interest (this was back in 1997). The quote and link is on my profile page and I invite you to take a look (click on my name "weegee" at the end of this post.
Good grief! Has Dubya done ONE dam* thing you agree with?
Shut up George and write 7,8 and 9... while you're at it kick Bob Salvatore's butt for killing off Chewie in Vector Prime...
I dunnot about Anakin necessarily killing Jar Jar (not necessarily), but my question will be, who's gonna kill Mace Windu? Will it be Boba Fett, driven to revenge from Mace killing his father a few years eariler in the battle on Geonosis, or will it be Anakin, whose training in the Jedi Order was opposed from square one by Jackson's charachter, and also opposed promotion to Jedi Master...
Well he has to show how a semi-democratic aristocratic republic can become a tyranny, it's not a "political axe" that I can see. As much a combination of Hitlers rise as Lincoln's abuse of power or anything else. I don't think any connection with Lincoln is really intentional, or with any other of so called good dictators per se. It's just how it always happens, democracies become dictatorships by a combination of demagoguery, warmongering, and/or enfranchisement. There are limites to what he can represent, he can't make the government more democratic by giving power to the capite censi for example, that would look too much like a knock on democracy itself.
hayden is a wimp & now we know that dorky-vader is just a whoosie in a black cape!
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.