Discussion Joseph Campbell, The Monomyth and the ST

Well, then you're in for a major disappointment: Campbell devoted a great deal of his attention to Jung, and his attitude towards psychology, specifically the human psychological need for mythology, was primarily Jungian by way of Adolf Bastian's concept of elementary ideas in folklore, which links with Jung's concept of archetypes of the collective unconcsious. Campbell edited a comprehensive collection of Jung's writings, The Portable Jung, and you can still get that book today; his opening lecture in his Mythos series is almost entirely an explanation of Jungian concepts. Campbell was all about Jung, so if you're looking to get away from that kind of thing, you've come to the wrong place.

Campbell most certainly acknowledged other psychological models, including the Freudian and the Adlerian, but he found Jung most interesting because he thought Jungian psychology was geared more toward the very thing we've been discussing: coping with adulthood and old age. Freud, more concerned with the psychological will to sex, and Adler, more concerned with the psychological will to power (the Nietzschean ideal), Campbell regarded as being more appropriate for the younger stages of life, when one is more concerned with achievement and procreation.

How does this relate to Star Wars? Well, it actually backs up the position you guys have had that Luke should have a more significant role in the ST than just to pass off his saber to the next generation and then get killed off, in a manner similar to that of Obi-Wan in ANH. We have to accept at the start that Luke has already achieved the accomplishments one would expect of a younger man, and whatever the story of the ST is going to be, Luke's best days as an active character are going to be as behind him as they were for Obi-Wan in ANH. But this did not preclude a story arc for Obi-Wan had they chose to go with one, which would have had equal validity as being part of the Monomyth cycle and the Hero's Journey, nor does it preclude Luke having a significant role in the ST beyond just the mere cameo some seem to fear - but it would have to be one appropriate to his age now, and to do that both realistically (in terms of offering us lessons on the living of a life, which is what the Saga - and mythology itself, according to Campbell - is primarily concerned with) and be consistent with Campbell's ideas (on which so much of the Saga is based), Luke has to confront, if not death (at least not yet), then at least aging, and the acceptance of the inevitable decline in the vitality of a person because of aging.

It's entirely consistent in mythology for heroic characters to have their youth contrasted with their old age; think of Beowulf, where the second half of the epic poem is entirely about old Beowulf confronting and slaying a dragon only to die in the process (which is largely what you see depicted - with some embellishments - in the recent Robert Zemeckis film adaptation of the poem) - he is still the same hero in spirit that he was when he slew Grendel as a younger man, because his heart has not changed, but he is now in the position of Hrothgar before him, older, slower, and he has to deal with that when he is tested. He meets the challenge appropriately for a hero of his age, and so must Luke do if we are to genuinely believe in him as a character and as a person in Episode VII or, perhaps, beyond that into Episodes VIII and IX.

And I'm hardly rambling when I mention marsupials, I'm relaying what the man specifically said in at least half a dozen lectures (and I've listened to most of his recorded lectures, you can get them easily). There's nothing pseudo-intellectual about it, and it's certainly not drivel; Campbell was an intellectual, and the cream of his crop at that. If we're going to seriously discuss Campbell in relation to Star Wars, and what that means for the ST, it's foolish to expect us to go about it from a non-intellectual approach. It's "rambling" or nothing.

 

I'm going to respond on this one more time, but after that we will simply have to agree to disagree because this is getting very repetitive and drifting OT.

You say that the Big 3 have the most commercial appeal. Not anymore they don't. The OT was a very very long time ago, when the Big 3 actors were young and in their physical prime. Harrison Ford is the only one of the Big 3 who was ever a bona fide box office star in his own right, and even his prime is long since past. Hollywood wants young, attractive leads, period.

The quotes I posted show that Lucas has frequently changed his mind about the plot of the ST. Again, I direct you to Appendix D in "The Secret History of Star Wars" for a fuller list of Lucas' conflicting quotes. And really, anybody who has followed Lucas for any length of time knows that one of the man's most consistent traits is his inconsistency. In short, he changes his mind a lot. So if, as it seems, you are hanging all your hopes on what Lucas was saying back in the early 1980s, I think that's a dangerous game.

If Moore was so great and popular playing Bond over 50, then why was he replaced? Why isn't he still playing Bond today? As for Kirk and Picard, no I don't know what their ages were supposed to be. But I think the Trek film Generations is a great illustration of what I'm talking about. That was the crossover movie, the one that blended the old crew and the younger crew. Kirk played a pivotal role, but as a supporting character. He was not the lead; Picard was. And then Kirk dies at the end, to make way for the next generation to take over.

The "return" phase of the hero journey does not follow the "initiation" phase. The three stages of the hero-journey are: 1) Initiation 2) Fulfillment 3) Return. So it follows the "fulfillment" phase, which Luke has already been through. Luke has already achieved his goal of becoming the good and powerful Jedi knight he always wanted to be. He found his father, atoned with his father, and helped defeat the empire. That's fulfillment, big-time. The only thing left in Luke's hero-journey is the return, which Lucas skipped over in ROTJ.

But I simply don't believe that the return phase of the hero journey can be stretched out to support an entire new trilogy -- or at least not a trilogy that will make big money at the box office. No matter how many times you post those series of quotes, they don't mean anything unless they can be worked into a viable script (actually three scripts) of a film series that can make huge gobs of money with a 60-something lead character. I don't think it can be done for one film, let alone three. Not to mention the pesky problem of a 30-year intermission between two acts of the same story.

As for George's quote re the final trilogy I would point out that one, Lucas is known for changing his mind frequently and two, Lucas is not driving the bus anymore. Disney is. If the next trilogy does make huge gobs of money, I'm willing to bet my buns that Disney will find a way to continue the story and put out more films.

But it's clear we are never going to agree on this, and it won't be until 2015 until we find out for sure who's right, so we will simply have to agree to disagree.

 

And most of what Jung wrote is considered outdated by todays standards. It might be interesting in some way but I'm not sure why it should be important in this discussion. Unless you really think debating typical Jung concepts like Anima and Animus is relevant when it comes to future blockbuster movies? If you do, I disagree.

What I am looking for here is how the general structure of the heroes journey could or could not be used in the ST and how the plot can benefit from it, not some esoteric discussion about how mythology is a symbolical womb for humanity.

I'm always a fan of inner conflict and if it is about aging I'm on board with the idea as long as it fits with the general structure of an action movie. If not, other internal conflicts could serve the same role like for instance if Luke and his pupil had different viewpoints on what the role of a Jedi in the galaxy should be.

Why should I care what happens in Beowulf? The most recent beowulf adaptation was a flop, I think. Just because something is based on Campbells heroes journey doesn't make it successful or even good. Eragon follows the model of the heroes journey too and I was bored out of my mind while reading it. Heroes journey alone doesn't make a tale good or even interesting.

If he isn't, why would he then cite Jung who was imo a pseudointellectual himself? I read some of Jungs books. All the wonderful theories he had were barely backed by evidence.

 

Campbell also loved Jung because Jung understood the importance of symbols on the human psyche, which ties in with mythology very nicely.

[/quote]

How does this relate to Star Wars? Well, it actually backs up the position you guys have had that Luke should have a more significant role in the ST than just to pass off his saber to the next generation and then get killed off, in a manner similar to that of Obi-Wan in ANH. We have to accept at the start that Luke has already achieved the accomplishments one would expect of a younger man, and whatever the story of the ST is going to be, Luke's best days as an active character are going to be as behind him as they were for Obi-Wan in ANH. But this did not preclude a story arc for Obi-Wan had they chose to go with one, which would have had equal validity as being part of the Monomyth cycle and the Hero's Journey, nor does it preclude Luke having a significant role in the ST beyond just the mere cameo some seem to fear - but it would have to be one appropriate to his age now, and to do that both realistically (in terms of offering us lessons on the living of a life, which is what the Saga - and mythology itself, according to Campbell - is primarily concerned with) and be consistent with Campbell's ideas (on which so much of the Saga is based), Luke has to confront, if not death (at least not yet), then at least aging, and the acceptance of the inevitable decline in the vitality of a person because of aging.[/quote]

First I agree that Luke can have a pivotal role in the ST, where he gets to do much more than just hand off his lightsaber, and he can have a meaningful character arc. The arc you talk about here is very interesting, and yes, Campbell often talked about the pedagogical function of myth as helping us move through the inevitable stages of life, including old age, physical decline, and death. This can be translated into modern-day storytelling -- for example, in the second Trek film Wrath of Khan, this is a major theme for Kirk.

But the SW films have always been much more in the mythological mode than the Trek films, and in the monomyth a big part of the hero-journey is bringing back a boon that will benefit many other people, not just the hero himself. And the acceptance of old age and death is an intensely personal journey. Perhaps I could see a scene where Luke helps Han and/or Leia to come to terms with aging and death (perhaps the death of the other one). But a story where Luke comes to terms with the decline of his own body and the inevitability of his own death doesn't really fit in the hero-journey mold because it is so personal. I think it only really works if Luke is the main character, as Kirk was. But again, I don't think Luke will be the main characters and if the main protagonists are young, old age and death has no meaning for them yet.

But it's a very interesting idea.

 

A 20-30 year old son-of-Luke as protagonist is precisely how I envision the story. Not saying it will come to pass, of course, but the story of this protagonist and Luke, set against whatever evil has befallen the GFFA is by far the story I most desire to see.

 

I just wanted to note that I heartily agree with you on this, Pevra. The swashbuckling tradition of Star Wars should not be compromised, particularly during this, the conclusion of the 'episodic' saga (that is to say there may be room for SW films of a wholly different nature down the road).

Any exploration of the aging / mortality theme would not have to come at the expense of action, humor or any other of the qualities which make for a successful Star Wars feature. This is true not only for the greater story / characters at-large, but for Luke himself. There's no good reason to think that Luke shouldn't exhibit his lightsaber skills / power in the Force, etc., in these films, even in the midst of such a story arc.

 

No, you're quite right, there isn't. There was also no good reason to prevent Obi-Wan from exhibiting those things either in ANH, even in the midst of a story arc that was primarily not about him. And indeed he did exhibit those things; he was as heroic as he was back in the Clone Wars, and yet he acknowledged that he was not that same younger man anymore - "I'm getting too old for this sort of thing," he said. And all he was doing there was acknowledging reality. But that did nothing to compromise the tone of the film as a swashbuckling adventure tale, nor did it come at the expense of action, humor, or those other equally necessary qualities you've referred to. It didn't even take away from Luke's story; it enhanced it.

If this all worked so well for Obi-Wan in a story primarily about Luke, why should it not work with Luke in a story primarily about someone else? Your vision of the ST story as basically based around Luke and a son/main-protaganist-figure is one I share, particularly because it's the scenario that to me makes the most sense, structurally speaking; but if that's what you favor, what's certain is that Luke will not be the same man he was in the OT, not even close to it. I think we all agree with that; you only have to look at a present-day picture of Mark Hamill to make that point more eloquently than I ever could. I don't treat this matter as a bad thing; I have no issue whatsoever with an older Luke who isn't in his physical prime anymore, and I don't believe that to see one would be stupid-looking or would destroy the tone of the film if done properly; what's at issue is what can be done story-wise with that kind of character. Based on Campbell's ideas, there's no reason at all that we can't all have our cake and eat it too regarding Luke; he can still be a vital, active figure that has great significance to the story, and at the same time acknowledge his own age and fulfill a mythological role as an example to guide people through the stages of aging.

These things may sound esoteric, and therefore irrelevant to some of you, but they're not. It's deeper issues like this that make Star Wars interesting and engaging; it's what gives it a shelf life long enough to have lasted thirty-five years and beyond. For this reason, I have to take issue with describing Star Wars just as an "action movie," or needing to fit in the general requirements of one, when we all know the franchise is something beyond that. If it's an action movie alone that I want, I'll go see Die Hard. I want more from Star Wars, and the saga at its best has trained me to expect more.

 

Actually I expect more from Star Wars too. What fascinates me most is the melodrama and the psychology. I desperately crave to know what goes on in Lukes and Vaders head for instance. And I Iove how deliciously over the top these movies can be.
But I'm also a hardcore positivist. I don't care much for esoteric aspects. For instance: Vaders kybernetic. To some it symbolises his disconnect with "nature" but I don't think it makes him less a human than any other.

But anyway, Star Wars also needs to be an action movie.

I'm optimistic about the aging/morality theme. The movie could show Luke and his Padawan traveling together similar to Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon in TPM and while they defeat badguys during their travels there would certainly be some opportunities to bring the age theme into play.

But maybe we'll get something extremely different, like an ensemble of various young protagonists like in the OT. In that case giving Luke so much character development would be difficult because he wouldn't get a lot of screentime.

We'll have to wait and see. Personally I'd like to see as much Luke as possible as long as he doesn't steal the limelight from the new protagonist.

 

Don't look now but I think we are finding common ground to agree on!

I have only to point to the EU where the Big 3 are still selling the most books - in all stages of their careers. Don't confuse box office success of Mark or Carrie with the box office DRAW of Luke and Leia.

Moore stopped playing Bond because HE didn't think it appropriate for him at his age to be "canoodling" with women in their early 20's. He was supposed to continue as Bond but declined. We know Kirk and Picard were supposed to be in their 50's and 60's by looking at them and their character history. One 50+ lead passed the torch to another 50+ lead.

And are you saying the audience (and you) didn't have a problem with them because it was never stated that they were 50+? If so, that must mean that if they never say how old Luke is supposed to be that you'd be fine then.

The Phases are:
1.) Departure/Separation
2.) Initiation
3.) Return

Not sure where you got Fullfilment from.

George still drove the bus as he provided the treatments for the ST that are being used for the screenplays. Disney will put more films out, just not more Episodes.

Yep.

Looks like we agree again.

For the record, I don't think that Luke or the other OT characters will be doing most of the action scenes, but I do believe that the core of the story, the main theme of the ST, will focus on Luke

 

From the book version of "The Power of Myth" in the chapter on the hero's adventure:

Moyers: So the hero evolves over time, like most other concepts and ideas?

Campbell: He evolves as the culture evolves. Moses is a hero figure for example. He ascends the mountain, he meets with Yahweh on the summit of the mountain, and he comes back with rules for the formation of a whole new society. That's a typical hero act -- departure, fulfillment, return.

But we're never going to agree on this and the question of how old the protagonist of the ST is going to be is not exactly germane to the main point of this thread, so I'm done with this argument.

 

Ok, I think I see the problem. The 1st time you listed it as 1) Initiation 2) Fulfillment 3) Return and now you have it as departure, fulfillment, return.

Initiation and fullfilment are the same step, step 2 sandwiched between step 1 departure/separation and step 3 return.

 

Yes. Semantics. I was writing from memory, so I used the word initiation where I should have said departure.

 

Unfortunately it wasn't just semantics because:

Return does follow Initiation.

And Lucas didn't skip over the Return phase in RotJ because RotJ ended at the conclusion of the Initiation/Fullfilment phase. The Return phase is yet to be seen (and has already been theorized as part of the ST by myself and others).

Yes they do

 

Yes, return follows initiation -- what I would call fulfillment -- so my mistake there. But they are two acts of the same story which should happen in tandem. Not with a 30-year gap in-between.

And yes, Lucas did skip over the return part of the story because if that story were going to be told in any depth, it belongs at the end of ROTJ. Not a thread to be picked up again 30 years later.

But it's clear your heart is dead-set on seeing Luke as the main hero of the ST, so all I can say is: Good luck with that.

 

I don't believe in luck...

Return does not have to follow directly after Initiation, the different steps involved in Return can be years later - and take years to complete.

Anakin's redemption took place ~25 years after his fall.

I would like to understand where you get the idea that they must be simultaneous or one immediately following the other. That is certainly not part of Campbell's work.

Return being able to take place years after Initiation has nothing to do with my thoughts on Luke and the ST. It's not my heart, but my mind, that views that Luke's arc will be the main theme of the ST based on Lucas himself.

 

I don't want to offend anyone and repost the description of each, but the longer description with Campbell's views and examples don't really support this interpretation.

When I get home, I'll review the video I have of Star Wars: The Magic of Myth. It had wall placards that described various stages of the Hero's Journey and how they relate to Star Wars. I'll also review the companion book. Those should shed light on where we were at at the conclusion of RotJ.

 

I suppose Luke could have waited 20 years after ROTJ to marry a much younger woman and knock her up. Thats the only way his kid could be 20 years old 40 years after ROTJ.

 

great point. Same for Leia and even moreso for Han.

Timline would need to be closer to 30-35 and then there wouldn't be an issue with either Solo or Skywalker children.

Maybe adoption will play a roll as it did for Lucas and his children.

 

Agreed. I will present what I find for addition to the discussion and leave it up to everyone to take what they will from it.

I have enjoyed the discussion so far, but would like other views on Campbell, the monomyth and how they relate to the ST.

One question, do you have the Power of Myth book or the companion book to the exhibit, Star Wars: The Magic of Myth with 3PO on the cover? They are 2 separate books. Both very good.

 

I have both the Power of Myth miniseries on DVD and the book which was published as a companion piece; I have Magic of Myth, softcover and hardcover, on my shelf; and I have the seminal Hero With a Thousand Faces book. But believe me when I say that's just the tip of the iceberg. There must be a total of thirty books by Campbell of one kind or another, and though I have a bunch of them I haven't collected the entirety by a long shot: Pathways to Bliss; Myths of Light; Myths to Live By; The Inner Reaches of Outer Space; The Masks of God series; the Historical Atlas of World Mythology series (never finished in his lifetime). I've found about fifteen or twenty recorded audio lectures that I've listened to extensively, and I know there are about as many more that I've never heard. I've read much of his official biography, Fire in the Mind. There's a huge buttload of material out there concerning Campbell that I believe could contribute to a fascinating series of discussions about Star Wars - where it's been and where it's going - and I haven't anywhere near scratched the surface of it all. But that's why I find this thread so exciting, and it's why I take it so seriously.

 

Jumping into this debate, it's been mentioned about the how the OT characters are still popular and do well with EU books etc, That may be true but the image on most of the books is of young Luke and Leia even when they are meant to be old. They even came out with nonsense that 60's is the new 40's or something like that. Besides which there is almost no character development in the books many of which are not that great anyway but that's by the by.

For films it is very different medium than imagination and young men's mental images of Carrie Fisher in her metal bikini are going to be dented, she has even made the point herself. That I also think was a problem with Indy 4 it ruined the image people had of the young Harrison Ford not just simply because of Nuclear safe Fridges or Shia La Beouf swinging with Monkies but simply the destruction of that old image.

As for Star Trek well the Next Gen films were awful and Picards journey was finished the TV arc, Worfs over on Deep Space 9 etc. Those films were unessecary, While the best ones were generally about Kirk and his own issues, in 2 it was with death and age, in 6 it was over his son's death and hatred for the Klingon's. Even the much maligned 1 had him dealing with issues over the Enterprise and basically taking it away from Decker, starkly made with the point where Decker saves them from Kirks order since Kirk didn't know the ship like he thought he did.

Ironically enough the person who has the most type of journey, still left to do, is Anakin/Vader himself, yes he is no longer bad after RTJ but he has a hell of lot to make up for and taking out Palpatine should really only be the start of the redemptive journey and not the end.

 

Look at this from a narrative storytelling POV and maybe you'll see what I mean. Because we can talk about mythic elements all day, but there are three big elements at work for the ST: the mythic roots, telling a good story that makes sense in the SW universe, and the economic aspect, e.g. these films need to be blockbusters.

Of course a character's redemption can come many years after the fall. It's easy to write a story where a character lives for decades as a fallen character before finally finding redemption. But how do you write a story where the character waits 30-odd years after a major event to pick up the threads of his old life again? Because that's what the return phase entails in some form -- a return to the ordinary world, normal life, trying to go home again, whatever you want to call it. He returns with his boon or new found wisdom, and tries to incorporate back it into regular life.

Often he finds that he cannot go back. A classic example is Frodo in LOTR. As he tells Sam in ROTK: "I tried to save the Shire, and it has been saved. But not for me."

So what has Luke been doing for 30-odd years that he has postponed trying to resume some kind of regular life after his big adventure? Sitting in a cave? Because if he does anything else -- especially finding a wife and having a child -- then ipso facto Luke has already "returned" including whatever consequences that go along with that, and resumed a regular life.

BTW, I say 30 years because that's about how long it has been in real time. Nobody knows yet how long after ROTJ the new trilogy will be set. But since the actors are 30 years older, and they can only fudge the ages of the characters so much based on how the actors look now, I do think it will be somewhere around 30 years, give or take a decade.

As for the next generation, that's easy. Just because a couple hooks up, whether it's Han and Leia or Luke and some unknown woman, doesn't mean they have to procreate right away. As long as the woman is still fertile, which in the real world can still be true well into her 40s, the couple can wait quite a few years to have a child.