Hoo boy, This is one doozy of an article. I'm going to have to read it a few times to digest all the thoughts in here.
My biggest grief against the Jedi has always been that line about absolutes. Is there not good? Evil? Are these concepts not absolutes or, to the Jedi at least, are grey areas fine?
I think it is that they regard it as Evil deals in Absolutes, Good in facts. It is the difference between those who preach their opinions as ‘truths’ and those who believe in the objective Truth.
I did like your comparison to people now who will say if you don't conform to my way of thinking then you are my nemeses. I could see Jedi being the opposite of that idea. Maybe there's a better word choice than absolutes like divisiveness.
Of course there was. What annoys me is the black and white perspective. Not too much and not in every Jedi, bud especially Mace or some council members in the first series are like that. But in the books the morality is as it is, but we can see their minds and thinking and that provides more comprehension.
I've never heard such an indictment of Anakin and Padme's relationship, but it's true. Their relationship was full of passion and excitement which can feel intoxicating but may not be healthy for either person. They were young and immature. No one in their positions should have entertained that type of relationship, even if the attraction is understandable.
There's no way it would have been sustainable either, because how could someone like Padme, a senator and former queen be both single and pregnant with no one knowing who the father was? Not exactly beneficial to her political career!
Very good point on the analysis of the relationship’s effect on her political career. Had forgotten to mention that point, yeah she really didn’t think things through.
Excitement and passion are natural, but neither of them are particularly skilled at hiding things. It would have required Obi-Wan’s aid to help them, but as Anakin was afraid to tap his assistance they were basically screwed.
Yet Anakin, the boy full of dreams and lonely without his mother and grandfather, whom Obi-Wan comforted and took into his arms to cry a thousand times.
If Padme and Obi-Wan failed Anakin, it was because the Jedi codes failed first. Jedi padawans were taken from their parents and moved to Coruscant or Typhon to be trained. They were taught that attachments were not allowed and slowly turned into emotionless creatures devoted to the idea of a powerful force.
As any orphan or ward of the state can tell you, removing them from their support system changes them. Imagine how different it would have been if, at the end of a long day of training, Anakin could run home to Shmi and yell, "Look what I learned to do!" and force levitate a table. What would have thousands of "That's my boy, he's doing so well" done for his emotional well-being? At the very least, it might have prevented him from falling in love with Padme, who, in my mind, was just shy of being a child molester. In Phantom Menace, she was 14, almost 15, and he was 9. She was five years older than him, and it was somewhat creepy. It was even creepier when they aged Anakin up to 19 in episode two. That's ten years of being in an emotionless cult and five years of having to hide his love for Padme.
If I had been drawn to write a Star Wars Story, it would have been one where a Jedi had run away from the order, gotten married, and used an old star freighter to haul goods. It would have been a more believable Jedi story than what we got.
The only saving grace was Luke (Pre Disney), who was idealistic and willing to work with the force instead of against it.
I love this piece and the analysis. It is original and for a Star Wars lover amazing, yet deep on every level. I love the analysis of Padme because I have always detested her in some way. Now, I know why.
Hahaha thanks, and I’m glad this piece pleased you. As to Padme, there was always something that bothered me about her, especially the scene when Anakin breaks down.
He’s sobbing, and begging for her to reprimand him, and telling her how horrid his crime is, while she justifies it. It is a strange scene that I’ve already analyzed in some detail (I think you’ll like it). But Anakin’s goodness shines there even as he is very evidently in pain.
In truth he needed Obi-Wan therewith him, not a politician.
Well yeah, imagine your partner comes to you telling you that he slaughtered the whole village including women and children and your reaction is: "It is natural to be angry." Well, the scene may be badly written, because it does not put Amidala in a very nice light.
No it doen’t, but it iss natural for her character. I found it pretty well written in that it showed the core value and ideas behind them.
It is complex because Anakin saw red and only later remembered what he did. He could not control himself, I’ve seen rage like he did and seen men and women break down afterwards. It ain’t pretty but it happens.
The thing is, Amidala justified it wayyyyyy too much, but she’s a politician and not exactly ethical. Obi-Wan would have at least known how to push Anakin in the right direction, and to rescue him from himself.
"This is why Padme could never have redeemed Anakin. She didn’t know him."
Also, Padme could never have redeemed Anakin because she was the one who corrupted him in the first place. Just as why Eve could never have redeemed Adam. Of course, George Lucas the Protestant also doesn't understand that woman also plays a role in the redemption; otherwise Leia would have played a bigger part in the Vader story. But I digress, lol.
As for the "only a Sith deals in absolutes". It's one of those things that would make sense if you apply some nuance in it, as you said. I'll be honest, I used to make fun that line too. And for what it's worth, the criticisms are understandable. After all, Jesus Christ did say, "he who is not with me is against me". Is Jesus Christ a Sith? Or was George Lucas going for some other meaning?
I think the mistake is that people thought Obi-Wan was referring to Anakin's line per se rather than his state of mind. He's not saying that only a Sith would say what Anakin did, he's saying that only a Sith would engage in this retarded friend/enemy distinction that Anakin did. All Obi-Wan did was reject Anakin's proposal, and now Obi-Wan's the enemy? No, Anakin should absolutely talk to Obi-Wan. Obviously, he's not gonna go along with Anakin's plan for a new empire, but I'm sure he would have helped him with his Padme problem. Maybe Anakin and Obi-Wan can team up together and murder Palpatine. I'm sure at this point, Anakin knew that Palpatine was lying to him the whole time. See what happens when you talk to people instead of resorting to violence?
I agree with every word you said, and even agree with your statement regarding Christ, he did say that if under different circumstances. What Vader does is say a perversion of that line by the Saviour.
But yeah Padme corrupted Anakin in the first place, but here’s the interesting thing Leia’s the last person to be visited by Anakin’s ghost, she refuses to forgive him at first, but then when she becomes pregnant she discovers her grandmother’s video-diary and forgives her father, exorcises the ghosts of the Tusken’s he killed, bonds with Kitster and names her own son Anakin in honour of him.
And then his spirit is at last at peace, and reincarnated into her son it is implied. So she plays the ultimate role in forgiving and redeeming Anakin, and even defeat Palpatine when he’s revived briefly at one point (I’ll get into that down the road).
Excellent article. On Anakin declaring, “If you’re not with me. Then you’re my enemy.” Supposedly, this line is inspired by Bush Jr.’s line, “If you’re not with us, then you’re with the terrorists.” Would you agree that’s where the line comes from?
I thought it did, but also from the way LBJ talked in the Vietnam conflict according to Lucas. He was inspired by both, and apparently very disturbed by the way they spoke, and abused Scripture for their personal gain.
Lucas is a fascinating man, one who is very intelligent and very well read and who made a lot of commentary on a lot of periods in history (including our own) via his story.
Hoo boy, This is one doozy of an article. I'm going to have to read it a few times to digest all the thoughts in here.
My biggest grief against the Jedi has always been that line about absolutes. Is there not good? Evil? Are these concepts not absolutes or, to the Jedi at least, are grey areas fine?
I think it is that they regard it as Evil deals in Absolutes, Good in facts. It is the difference between those who preach their opinions as ‘truths’ and those who believe in the objective Truth.
I did like your comparison to people now who will say if you don't conform to my way of thinking then you are my nemeses. I could see Jedi being the opposite of that idea. Maybe there's a better word choice than absolutes like divisiveness.
Fair enough
I agree, although in the books the Jedi are not so black and white. Only in the movies this view of the order is that annoying
Can I ask how is this view of the Jedi Order annoying? And I'd argue even in the books there is some measure of straightforward morality.
Of course there was. What annoys me is the black and white perspective. Not too much and not in every Jedi, bud especially Mace or some council members in the first series are like that. But in the books the morality is as it is, but we can see their minds and thinking and that provides more comprehension.
Fair point
I've never heard such an indictment of Anakin and Padme's relationship, but it's true. Their relationship was full of passion and excitement which can feel intoxicating but may not be healthy for either person. They were young and immature. No one in their positions should have entertained that type of relationship, even if the attraction is understandable.
There's no way it would have been sustainable either, because how could someone like Padme, a senator and former queen be both single and pregnant with no one knowing who the father was? Not exactly beneficial to her political career!
Very good point on the analysis of the relationship’s effect on her political career. Had forgotten to mention that point, yeah she really didn’t think things through.
Excitement and passion are natural, but neither of them are particularly skilled at hiding things. It would have required Obi-Wan’s aid to help them, but as Anakin was afraid to tap his assistance they were basically screwed.
Yet Anakin, the boy full of dreams and lonely without his mother and grandfather, whom Obi-Wan comforted and took into his arms to cry a thousand times.
If Padme and Obi-Wan failed Anakin, it was because the Jedi codes failed first. Jedi padawans were taken from their parents and moved to Coruscant or Typhon to be trained. They were taught that attachments were not allowed and slowly turned into emotionless creatures devoted to the idea of a powerful force.
As any orphan or ward of the state can tell you, removing them from their support system changes them. Imagine how different it would have been if, at the end of a long day of training, Anakin could run home to Shmi and yell, "Look what I learned to do!" and force levitate a table. What would have thousands of "That's my boy, he's doing so well" done for his emotional well-being? At the very least, it might have prevented him from falling in love with Padme, who, in my mind, was just shy of being a child molester. In Phantom Menace, she was 14, almost 15, and he was 9. She was five years older than him, and it was somewhat creepy. It was even creepier when they aged Anakin up to 19 in episode two. That's ten years of being in an emotionless cult and five years of having to hide his love for Padme.
If I had been drawn to write a Star Wars Story, it would have been one where a Jedi had run away from the order, gotten married, and used an old star freighter to haul goods. It would have been a more believable Jedi story than what we got.
The only saving grace was Luke (Pre Disney), who was idealistic and willing to work with the force instead of against it.
Fair point there
I love this piece and the analysis. It is original and for a Star Wars lover amazing, yet deep on every level. I love the analysis of Padme because I have always detested her in some way. Now, I know why.
Hahaha thanks, and I’m glad this piece pleased you. As to Padme, there was always something that bothered me about her, especially the scene when Anakin breaks down.
He’s sobbing, and begging for her to reprimand him, and telling her how horrid his crime is, while she justifies it. It is a strange scene that I’ve already analyzed in some detail (I think you’ll like it). But Anakin’s goodness shines there even as he is very evidently in pain.
In truth he needed Obi-Wan therewith him, not a politician.
Well yeah, imagine your partner comes to you telling you that he slaughtered the whole village including women and children and your reaction is: "It is natural to be angry." Well, the scene may be badly written, because it does not put Amidala in a very nice light.
No it doen’t, but it iss natural for her character. I found it pretty well written in that it showed the core value and ideas behind them.
It is complex because Anakin saw red and only later remembered what he did. He could not control himself, I’ve seen rage like he did and seen men and women break down afterwards. It ain’t pretty but it happens.
The thing is, Amidala justified it wayyyyyy too much, but she’s a politician and not exactly ethical. Obi-Wan would have at least known how to push Anakin in the right direction, and to rescue him from himself.
"This is why Padme could never have redeemed Anakin. She didn’t know him."
Also, Padme could never have redeemed Anakin because she was the one who corrupted him in the first place. Just as why Eve could never have redeemed Adam. Of course, George Lucas the Protestant also doesn't understand that woman also plays a role in the redemption; otherwise Leia would have played a bigger part in the Vader story. But I digress, lol.
As for the "only a Sith deals in absolutes". It's one of those things that would make sense if you apply some nuance in it, as you said. I'll be honest, I used to make fun that line too. And for what it's worth, the criticisms are understandable. After all, Jesus Christ did say, "he who is not with me is against me". Is Jesus Christ a Sith? Or was George Lucas going for some other meaning?
I think the mistake is that people thought Obi-Wan was referring to Anakin's line per se rather than his state of mind. He's not saying that only a Sith would say what Anakin did, he's saying that only a Sith would engage in this retarded friend/enemy distinction that Anakin did. All Obi-Wan did was reject Anakin's proposal, and now Obi-Wan's the enemy? No, Anakin should absolutely talk to Obi-Wan. Obviously, he's not gonna go along with Anakin's plan for a new empire, but I'm sure he would have helped him with his Padme problem. Maybe Anakin and Obi-Wan can team up together and murder Palpatine. I'm sure at this point, Anakin knew that Palpatine was lying to him the whole time. See what happens when you talk to people instead of resorting to violence?
I agree with every word you said, and even agree with your statement regarding Christ, he did say that if under different circumstances. What Vader does is say a perversion of that line by the Saviour.
But yeah Padme corrupted Anakin in the first place, but here’s the interesting thing Leia’s the last person to be visited by Anakin’s ghost, she refuses to forgive him at first, but then when she becomes pregnant she discovers her grandmother’s video-diary and forgives her father, exorcises the ghosts of the Tusken’s he killed, bonds with Kitster and names her own son Anakin in honour of him.
And then his spirit is at last at peace, and reincarnated into her son it is implied. So she plays the ultimate role in forgiving and redeeming Anakin, and even defeat Palpatine when he’s revived briefly at one point (I’ll get into that down the road).
Excellent article. On Anakin declaring, “If you’re not with me. Then you’re my enemy.” Supposedly, this line is inspired by Bush Jr.’s line, “If you’re not with us, then you’re with the terrorists.” Would you agree that’s where the line comes from?
I thought it did, but also from the way LBJ talked in the Vietnam conflict according to Lucas. He was inspired by both, and apparently very disturbed by the way they spoke, and abused Scripture for their personal gain.
Lucas is a fascinating man, one who is very intelligent and very well read and who made a lot of commentary on a lot of periods in history (including our own) via his story.
But thanks for the high praise!
Your welcome. Keep up the great work.
Merci and I will