Rogue One The Moral Choices/Dilemmas of Rogue One

Yes but this movie is about the motivations of the Rebels and their were various elements within their ranks that were pulling the Rebels to Restore the Republic in different directions. Jyn and Cassian went one way at the end which ended up being the correct approach. The Senators who refused Jyn's plan went in an entirely different way and the like of Mothma & Organa also had clear objectives that differed from the members.

 

It seemed to me (based on the novelization, his appearance in Rebels, the Catalyst prequel - and the fact that Galen sends Bodhi to Saw) that one of Saw's overarching goals is "find out what the Empire's up to - what their kyber-collecting is intended for - what mysterious superweapon are they making - and thwart it."

 

Granted. But he thinks purely in terms of the fight. There's little evidence of his purpose beyond simply fighting the Empire, where the likes of Mothma and Bail have the purpose of overthrowing Palpatine and restoring democracy, with the actual fighting a means to that end and a necessary part of the plan, whilst to the likes of Saw the fight IS the point. Where Cassian feels guilt and doubt about the shadier sides of his job (the attempted assassination of Galen being the prime example) Saw showed no qualms whatsoever about having Bodhi's mind attacked and damaged by psychic octopus creature. The brutal and blunt approach was his first and seemingly only resort.

 

Congratulations looks like you just figured out why Tarkin would have the Death Star fire on his own military facility. It was Krennic's HQ and he had no concern for what happened to any of those guys.

 

Given the phrasing "Saw broke from the Rebellion" maybe he was the one to choose to leave, thinking the other Rebels were not active enough in their anti-Imperial activity - rather than them kicking him out.

 

Seems a bit of a quibble when the end result is the same - Saw is far more combative and uses shadier tactics than the main Rebel alliance and for whatever reason is not associated with them beyond having a common enemy. Saw racking up collateral damage and civilian casualties and use of mind raping octopus beasts is not at indicative of the Rebellion's moral stance - whether he jumped or was pushed.

 

I disagree. I think the only reason that Tarkin quashed Krennic's suggestion was that he didn't want Krennic taking too much of the credit. Not to mention, he was still skeptical the weapon would fire at full capacity, even at all given his earlier conversation with Krennic.

 

Yeah, given the willingness to use the laser later on I think Tarkin was more concerned from a practical perspective than a moral one. And given that Krennic is ultimately pretty small fry in the Imperial hierarchy suggests just how deeply ingrained the 'rule through superior firepower' mindset goes in the Empire

 

I don't believe Tarkin was any less morally repugnant than Krennic as evident by the Tarkin Doctrine of wiping out planets at will. What i would point out was Krennic's seeking an audience with the Emperor in order to show up his Imperial superiors whereas Tarkin sought consent from the Imperial council before taking out Alderaan. What i am getting at is method of killing. Krennic would authorize the death of innocent lives for his own amusement. Tarkin's was a tactical move to neutralize the Rebellion in one swoop thereby receiving the praise of Emperor and the cheers of his staff members.

 

That seems more like something of a sociopath than someone who enjoys killing. If you notice, the only time Tarkin actively causes collateral damage is when he asks to fire upon Alderaan, and when he steals Krennic's credit for blowing Jedha to bits. Tarkin only involves civilians for purely tactical reasons, such as destroying Alderaan, whereas Krennic just doesn't care. Of course, Krennic's operation are often a bit more messy than Tarkin's because of this.

 

I'm not sure Krennic is really that into killing people one way or the other... he's just obsessed with showing off his machine and getting the credit and accolades for its creation. He doesn't care about the consequences or collateral damage.

 

That's what makes him such a dark but also cool character.

 

Part of the reason i liked Jabba the Hutt in ROTJ was that he was not a conventional Imperial villain. He was a sadist so it made him more interesting. The same could also be said of the Partisans devoid of any ethical behaviour in RO. Hard to be on the side of many of the players in the Star Wars universe. It is a war at the end of the day so characters like Krennic, Saw and Jabba do very well in periods of conflict.

 

Cassian definitely felt bad shooting his informant in the back on the Ring of Kafrene. The look on his face was one of remorse. But he had to get out of there and couldn't be bogged down by an injury...and if the informant was captured he could have been interrogated and the Rebel Alliances' intelligence network exposed.

So it's risk capture and lose/reveal intel or commit murder.

 

One thing that I couldn't really get my head around was Cassian shooting the rebel on the balcony.

It took a couple of viewings to realise that the was protecting Jyn, who would have got schwacked if the rebel had been allowed to chuck his grenade at the vehicle Jyn was taking cover by, as he was just about to.

 

The first time I saw this, I thought it was because he saw a much better use of the grenade - killing all the imperials directly below the guy throwing the grenade.

 

My favorite secondary worlds are those created by George Lucas and JRR Tolkien. And one thing I really love about Rogue One is that despite arguably featuring the least amount of overtly "fantastical" elements, it's the most Tolkienian Star Wars film in terms of its themes (hope arising out of despair), narrative (two unassuming heroes/ spies sacrifice themselves and enter the belly of the beast) and tone (the bittersweetness of self-sacrifice).

First, on themes. Tolkien, in his letters, referred to what he described as the "eucatastrophe," or "good catastrophe," as being central to his story in LOTR. This phenomenon, he noted, was about "hope" arising during the very moment of the greatest despair. The moment of the greatest death and destruction gives way to light. Jyn and Cassian, at the heart of the Empire and on the beach as the surface detonates is a clear mirror of Frodo and Sam, in the heart of Mordor, as Mt. Doom threatens to engulf them. The eagles, even, can be seen as a symbolic death. On the Profundity, the demon Vader tears through the Rebel soldiers - an avatar of pure despair and horror. But we end with Leia in her shining white ship and her bright white dress. Hope in the face of despair.

Second, on narrative, a team of spies attempts a suicide mission to take down an oppressive entity. Enough said, really. They go directly for the belly of the beast, enter through a small opening, disguise themselves, and then successfully carry out a mission which fatally weakens the enemy. In part, they are successful because of a diversion executed by their friends. Again, Jyn and Cassian are essentially Frodo and Sam, and the Rogue One crew (and Raddus' fleet) is Aragorn, Gandalf, friends and the army of the West.

Lastly, the bittersweet tone. While Frodo and Sam complete their mission, it comes with great loss. Essentially, Frodo and Sam sacrificed themselves, as did Jyn and Cassian. And though they complete their mission and emerge from the fire (albeit on the wings of angels), neither of them will ever be the same. Indeed, Frodo receives little recognition on his journey home, and then sails off to the Undying Lands (i.e. a poetic death). Also, the destruction of the One Ring means the fading of the elven rings, which essentially ends the age of faery (or magic, if you like) and ushers in a more grounded, mundane age, where the elves pass away to the West and the realm of men arises. Essentially, though a great victory is achieved, much life was lost. And much beauty was lost. This leaves us hopeful, but a bit sad, at the end of both RO and LOTR. Jyn and Cassian are consumed by light, while Frodo sails into the light. The endings of both are deeply akin, both narratively and visually.

In short, Tolkien would have been proud of this film as it shares a lot in common with the stories he liked to tell. LOTR in particular.

ETA: This one's really for hana_solo

 

My friend, you bow to no one.



This is such a wonderful post and the part about Frodo sailing into the Light, while Jyn and Cassian are consumed by the Light ("rejoice for those who return to the Force") has me in tears. Thank you!

 

Thanks hana_solo

One thing I forgot to add is that the transition from the hell of Vader's assault to Leia's hopeful intervention has a very similar visual and emotional resonance as the transitition from the hell of the slopes of Mt. Doom to the arrival of the eagles. It's about as elementally spiritual a moment as one can find in Star Wars.

On another perhaps more trivial note: Jabez Olssen, editor of the Hobbit films and part of the editing team on LOTR, was editor of Rogue One...

 

Oh, wow! That explains the symbolic visual cues. Great find!

 

I think this is mostly coincidental.

They could be, but were they? Most of us saw the eagles as hope and salvation. Once they get involved, things always turn for the best. There is no such thing for Jyn or Cassian.

Yeah, but that was all Lucas and continuity. What else could Princess Leia be wearing? She had to be wearing what she wore in ANH. She had to be on the Tantive IV. The director basically took advantage of that continuity to juxtapose light and dark. But he couldn't have done that and still tie into ANH without those things already being part of the story.

True, but this is a common theme. Diversions in wartime are a common tactic. One Tolkien knew as well.

Frodo for sure. But not Sam. Sam got all the rewards that come with being a hero, he won the girl, he ran for and successful achieved political office for consecutive terms, he inherited Bag End which is basically a hobbit mansion from Frodo, his family grew and became the core of many successful and close alliances throughout the Shire. Then after his wife died, he was granted the privilege of sailing to the Undying Lands.

This applies to Middle Earth but not a GFFA. The rise of the empire resulted in the destruction of much beauty and many lives lost. Destroying the Death Stars did not usher in anything more grounded or mundane.

Not "deeply", just superficially. Jyn and Cassian died in combat from enemy fire (Death Star). Frodo sailed away alive but in need of healing on a ship. The end of Return of the King shows that Frodo is still alive when they reach the Undying Lands.

“And the ship went out into the High Sea and passed into the West, until at last on a night of rain Frodo smelled a sweet fragrance on the air and heard the sound of singing that came over the water. And then it seemed to him that as in his dream in the house of Bombadil, the grey rain-curtain turned all to silver glass and was rolled back, and he beheld white shores and beyond them a far green country under a swift sunrise.”

A lot? Not really.

 

Oswin Oswald

Re: the eagles, as per my second post, I think they parallel quite well with Leia. Hope unlooked for amid catastrophe. Yes, that's a common theme, but Rogue One presents it in an elemental way that is similar to the mythic language of LOTR. In any event, the point is not that Rogue One is directly copying LOTR. The point is that there are very similar thematic, narrative and character dynamics at play, as broad brush strokes. Which makes them akin, in my mind. Parsing out the different experiences of Frodo and Sam, as compared to Jyn and Cassian, is missing the larger point. Rogue One is about a nearly hopeless, nearly sacrificial mission which ends in a hellfire from which hope is born anew. In that way, they belong in the same class of story. Indeed, were I to teach this sort of subject, I would include the two in the same lesson.

So yes, they share a lot in common in the important respects. Their differences are rather minimal in comparison.

ETA: Also, Frodo sailing to the Undying Lands is about as clear a metaphor of death as one can find. And if you don't see that in the text, JRR himself made it clear in his commentary. Again, on this point as with others, you're splitting hairs. The narratives are not exactly the same. Of course they're not. But the thematic beating heart of both films, and the final journey of its main characters (in broad strokes), are very similar.

 

It's not catastrophe though. It's a battle they went into, not sure they were going to survive. And they were losing. What they got was a break - not for themselves, but for their mission. Frodo and Sam got a break for themselves.

If you're saying on the one hand the themes are similar using "broad brush strokes" then the differences cannot be minimal, as you claim. They are just as general and superficial as I said.