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)
More like "Shut up and retire." The last two Star Wars movies were among the worst movies ever made.
The scene in episode 2 where Anakin reacts to his mother's death and the Darth Vader theme begins reminds me of a cult leader I know who started going insane after the death of his 9-year-old daughter. Lack of control of the personal life leads to desire for maniacal control of others. These types of enduring psychological themes about the birth of evil are what interests me about the movies.
MJM59: "What am I trying to squash?"
This is what I alluded to before, with the links to the Gramscian threads.
A fellow like MJM59 comes along, ostensibly to stand up for a good thing like free speech. We can all agree on the value of that?
But what does he (or she?) object to? Our expression of free speech. In his subtle way, he undermines our way of communicating freely, by trying to coerce us into repressing some of what is being said...in the name of free speech.
It's a microcosm of campus speech codes. In ostensibly trying to widen debate, there are certain things you can't think or talk freely about, and I mean things beyond derrogatory comments about race groups or women.
Good and decent things like free speech are turned on its head, beyond their intention, by people who, deep down, do not share such values, and wish to take basic freedoms away. Short of sending in the troups and black helicopters, gramscian techniques such as that used by MJM59 are meant to make us jail ourselves.
But to the "fight fire with fire" part, think about the natural limits of free speech. You don't have the right to yell out fire in a crowded theater, just for kicks. People will wind up hurt in a stampede, or at the very least, the police and firefighters will be called in for nothing, wasting public resources. I suggest you also lose your right to free speech if it's your intention to use it to prohibit others' free speech. Isn't that common sense?
If we live in a society that came together throught a social contract, as embodied in the constitution and a bill of rights, fellow citizens won't try to deny others in the same contract to the common rights. And if it does happen, isn't that an attack?
Back when one of the Dixie Chicks expressed her views abou the Iraq war, somehow the mere peasants in America weren't allowed to voice *their* opinions in response. Isn't it dictatorial for just the elite to get their opinions out, but no criticism? Is that equality? No. It's a two-tiered system, and that's exactly what pigs like MJM59 are trying to push on us.
Pigs! All your righteous indignation went down the toilet when you resorted to cowardly name calling. You talk about campus speech codes, when your speech code has failed to leave the playgrounds of elementary school.
Another reason not to go see his latest snorefest.
Typical left-wingers....applauding the rise of evil.
That's because his stereotypes are so transparent.
Why?
seriously man, watch some of the threads. people both on FR and DU go out of their way to get offended over ANYTHING!!
Remember the roast Laura Bush did about the President a couple weeks back? There were 2 or 3 threads that had damn near 1000 posts to it.....mainly by people that thought it was a horse masterbation joke....
Good bye
People who try and turn everything political and try to tell me what to watch can go screw themselves.
Get your own brain and try to use it.
AMF
What they have in common (from the leftist mindset) is that freedom, anywhere and everywhere, isn't worth fighting for.
Does this guy write for newsweek?
That seems to be what it comes down to. If you see Star Wars, you are a...
gay loving,
America hating,
Koran reading,
Godless,
commie,
father raping,
feeding tube unplugging,
sack of whale vomit.
Oh, the horror of it all.
It also saps our precious bodily fluids.
POS
Who loves ya' baby!
Come on, now, you can't be unaware of how the fanbase for these films has enjoyed the effects and action of the last three but think they are hugely inferior to the original and Empire Strikes Back? Return of the Jedi is considered a HUGE letdown by most fans, and Phantom Menace is even worse. You may have liked them but that doesn't mean the prevailing emotion from the last three movies has been disappointment after the high quality of the first two.
This article does not report what I read today, which is that Lucas said "When I started this we were GIVING WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION TO SADDAM." In this piece, published in the Boston Herald, Lucas is blatantly attacking Bush.
So what?
I don't ask the people at the grocery store their views before I buy food there. We're all Americans. We can have differences--I know that's a shock to some of the lockstep mentality people here, but I am far more pro-W than some FReepers and I don't have any problem paying money to see a movie because the director doesn't think exactly like I do about politics.
Remember how we made fun of the DUmmies and their "Not One Damn Dime" Day? How times have changed...
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.