Cryogenic posted:In fact, Kenobi seems to inflame the situation by appearing when he does.
Cryogenic posted:Then he draws his lightsaber first, inflaming things again.
AnakinSucks posted:It depends on the person. Lucas seems to like moral absolutes - something that I simply cannot take seriously. But I do not have to view the movies in this way. That goes for the entire saga.
skgai1 posted:But, I must disagree here Cryogenic. What do you say when Vader kills Palpatine? That's outright murder. Do you support that because to me, that film does support that action.
drg4 posted:Cryogenic posted:I don't think the attack on Vader is an expression of love. Aside from the ominous music playing during the final engagement itself, we can also look at the pre-final-engagement of Vader for clues. After Luke has battled Vader seemingly to no avail, he retreats under the staircase to gather his composure. Film is a visual medium and the fear and doubt is written across Luke's face. We see the stoical Jedi of the entire film coming undone in a single moment. His thoughts spill out and Vader has an opening and takes it. The rest is Luke's anger on autopilot. Sometime in the mid-90’s, there was a story here in the States about a particular mother bear who was renowned for charging trains, actually attacking them. Two of her cubs had been plowed over, see; it was thus assumed this animal was acting out of grief. Extraordinary story. To this day, I think about her; more specifically, I think about her rage, stemming from pure and primal love. That’s what’s teased out of Luke, when he hears his sister being threatened. He finally drops that obnoxious sage act and comes to the realization that Vader can’t be redeemed, nor should he. Finally, at long last, he lashes out, and gives Poppa a taste of what he’d doled out to the galaxy for 20+ years. That swinging sword belongs to a loving, protective brother.
Cryogenic posted:I don't think the attack on Vader is an expression of love. Aside from the ominous music playing during the final engagement itself, we can also look at the pre-final-engagement of Vader for clues. After Luke has battled Vader seemingly to no avail, he retreats under the staircase to gather his composure. Film is a visual medium and the fear and doubt is written across Luke's face. We see the stoical Jedi of the entire film coming undone in a single moment. His thoughts spill out and Vader has an opening and takes it. The rest is Luke's anger on autopilot.
drg4 posted:(I’d venture that that ominous music is a chorus comprised of Vader’s victims. Alderaanians and pilots and soldiers…demanding that their murderer meet a well-deserved death.)
drg4 posted:Do you recall what Shmi thought was most destructive? Apathy—the biggest problem in the galaxy.
drg4 posted:I’d applaud that artist, myself. Sounds like s/he actually gives a damn. Most of us don’t; if we did, we’d be very angry, what with the existence of cluster bombs and the burgeoning sex trade and the fact that many Haitians are eating clay to survive. Like the Hebrew prophets, we’d be haunting the dreams of our leaders and generals and moneymen; like Jesus, we’d be turning tables over. In short, we’d be confrontational. Anger is a gift, so long we never cease to ask “To what end?”
drg4 posted:Without Kenobi’s intervention, Padme wouldn’t have left that planet alive.
drg4 posted:Anakin was too far gone. His mentor saw this, and acted before the boy installed himself as the Tiberius of the universe. Perhaps he didn’t finish Anakin off then and there because deep down, he knew he’d be killing Padme and the twins too. Symbiosis and all that…
drg4 posted:Cryogenic posted:But who says that Luke slaying Vader means he'd have been doomed to be on the Dark Side forever? This seems to be the implication, though. Either Luke stays his hand, or he delivers the killing blow and takes his father’s place at Palpatine’s side. What exactly was supposed to happen if he wasn’t knighted then and there? The Death Star was gonna blow, and I wouldn’t want an apprehensive Luke beside me while hobbling to an escape pod.
Cryogenic posted:But who says that Luke slaying Vader means he'd have been doomed to be on the Dark Side forever?
Cryogenic posted:Well, I don't think the murder of Palpatine is condonable, unless you see him as a non-human entity. Lucas seems to lean this way in certain aspects in ROTJ, and he went the extra step of giving him these demonic tones (via deliberate, post-production electronic processing) in ROTS. However, if that sounds like a cop out, then let's not consider Palpatine non-human. I think it would have been better for Anakin to step in the way of Palpatine's lightning if -- note: if -- he was certain that it would jointly end his life and Palpatine's own. Just picture it: the Vader machinery somehow amplifies Palpatine's lightning and causes it to feed back on itself, killing both individuals simultaneously. Then, neither death is directly intended, but, paradoxically, both of them are recognised as inevitable. It's not then murder as much as pure defense of another. The way Anakin actually carries the deed out in the film suggests a kind of murder, however. I agree with you there. But Palpatine is attacking another person directly as Anakin intervenes, unlike the "unarmed" Palpatine Luke almost beheads after Palpatine's insidious goading. In effect, the unbalanced equation of intended murder is balanced by a sort of collateral suicide. Of course, this doesn't happen in previous killings by Anakin, but Palpatine is like his guarantor; as long as he's alive, Anakin is spared death; when he's killed, by Anakin no less, than nobody can hold back the tide anymore. Quite a complex philosophical point, really .... but I think Anakin's act is as simple as can be. The juxtaposition of the two is what gives the act its transcendent power. Basically, it's no ordinary killing. This wouldn't apply anywhere in real life (IMO) because there is no such analogue. Art doesn't have to play by the same rules. In effect, the killing of Palpatine is a special case, and I believe the machinery of the films has contextualised it as such.
Cryogenic posted:No, let's not be selective in this. You cannot have a society built on vengeance. "Murder is wrong" applies universally -- to me, to Lucas, to many others. I saw some graffiti on a wall earlier: "Tory Corruption! Vote SLP!" It struck me as a violent act. To so carelessly, but, at the same time, so consciously, do something like that. In the grand scheme of things, a little bit of illicit white lettering on a wall isn't a big deal, but it's still not entirely right. And it's in the "not entirely right" part that I see aggression. Just a small bit of aggression, but aggression nonetheless. The person or persons probably thought they were justified to condemn one party and endorse another, even if meant breaking a law and writing on someone's property, however trivially. Now extend that anger to a proportion where killing a tyrant is somehow right. Again, to the people doing it, it might be an admirable expression of "righteous idignation" or whatever against a corrupt political system, but it's still morally unacceptable. I'm not saying graffiti and murder are equivalent, but anger is insanely destructive, and it can begin in a surprisingly small way, then grow into something surprisingly big. In the Science Fiction satire "Galaxy Quest", Alan Rickman's character has a mantra: "By Grabthar's hammer, by the sons of Worvan, you shall be avenged." Now, why is that satirical? Is it just because Alan Rickman is saying it? Or is it maybe to do with something else? What if vengeance is an outdated concept? I say it is. And I say "Star Wars" is a blueprint for the 21st Century.
Cryogenic posted:The problem with this analogy is that you're talking about a bear -- a wild animal; not a human being. A bear would think nothing of attacking a human being if it felt threatened, even if there was no actual threat. That sort of reveals my point, in fact. We may have similar genetics and brain chemistry, but we're not entirely the same as bears, right? Our brains are the most evolved of any species of the animal kingdom. We have the most intellectual and moral potential. Of course, we may still attack where there's no threat, just like a bear. In fact, we can surpass any wild animal in cruelty. But there's a difference between what we can do and what we should -- or could -- do. It's an awareness of this disparity that makes us superior to any other animal. Luke may be physiologically justified, but he's morally not (IMO).
drg4 posted:Sometime in the mid-90’s, there was a story here in the States about a particular mother bear who was renowned for charging trains, actually attacking them. Two of her cubs had been plowed over, see; it was thus assumed this animal was acting out of grief. Extraordinary story. To this day, I think about her; more specifically, I think about her rage, stemming from pure and primal love. That’s what’s teased out of Luke, when he hears his sister being threatened. He finally drops that obnoxious sage act and comes to the realization that Vader can’t be redeemed, nor should he. Finally, at long last, he lashes out, and gives Poppa a taste of what he’d doled out to the galaxy for 20+ years. That swinging sword belongs to a loving, protective brother.
drg4 posted:When Luke brings his sword down on Palpatine, he’s defending a value system against a malevolent head-of-state; when he attacks Vader, he’s defending his sister against a monster who’s threatening to torture her for a third time. As far as I’m concerned, Luke’s final assault on Vader is an expression of love, the only emotionally honest moment in an otherwise sentimental, cloying film. [quote] To me drg4 accurately explains why Luke attacks Vader. Love of his sister and his need to defend her. However, his anger about the situation is completely uncontrolled at that time. It gave him more "focus" and more "power." He clearly was kicking Vader's butt when he used his anger, but it was completely uncontrolled. drg4 are you saying that Luke attempting to kill Vader here was the right thing to do or merely explaining why he did it? Also, Cryogenic, I think it completely reasonable to compare Luke to this bear story. When we are blinded by our anger we act as animals and we go back to our basic instincts (which as that movie has told us is not always a good thing). Cryogenic posted:[quote=drg4]Without Kenobi’s intervention, Padme wouldn’t have left that planet alive. That's a sweeping presumption.
Cryogenic posted:[quote=drg4]Without Kenobi’s intervention, Padme wouldn’t have left that planet alive.
DarthDuckie posted:I don't think the Ewoks are celebrating killing. They're celebrating perceived freedom from oppression, which is what they believe has been achieved by the killing. If we put philosophical musing aside for a minute and consider the grim reality of war, very often the extermination of a particular person or regime can bring about a great improvement in the lives of millions of other people. The Ewoks don't care about the motivation behind Luke or Vader's acts, they're just happy to be free from tyranny. The end of ROTJ reflects that.
skgai1 posted:To me drg4 accurately explains why Luke attacks Vader. Love of his sister and his need to defend her. However, his anger about the situation is completely uncontrolled at that time. It gave him more "focus" and more "power." He clearly was kicking Vader's butt when he used his anger, but it was completely uncontrolled. drg4 are you saying that Luke attempting to kill Vader here was the right thing to do or merely explaining why he did it?.
skgai1 posted:She certainly would have died in Mustafar if no one had come and got her. And I fully believe Vader would have killed Padme with his choke hold if Kenobi wasn't there.
Cryogenic posted:I don't know why he doesn't finish Anakin (but I have my beliefs); all I know is that saying he once loved him, past tense, combined with leaving him to burn to death, is a hideous gesture for anyone to enact. Imagine if this happened in ROTJ and Luke did this to the Emperor. Would he still be the same heroic figure to us all? In fact, even that cannot underscore the brutality of Obi-Wan's actions ... for Obi-Wan actually had a relationship with Anakin, which only makes him look even more uncompassionate, and only makes it more painful for Anakin. Obi-Wan's actions on Mustafar are atrocious. He also has a strong hand in birthing Vader here. To many, a Jedi is about upholding peace and justice. To me, a Jedi is about engendering the best in other people; everything else, peace and justice included, flows from that. On this basis, Obi-Wan is a poor excuse for a Jedi in the PT. But he's not alone; the whole Jedi Order is the same way. No wonder it begins a rebirth in Luke, for it clearly requires the very things it's missing in the PT -- inner wisdom and compassion, derived from empathy and experience.
drg4 posted:This seems to be the implication, though. Either Luke stays his hand, or he delivers the killing blow and takes his father’s place at Palpatine’s side. What exactly was supposed to happen if he wasn’t knighted then and there? The Death Star was gonna blow, and I wouldn’t want an apprehensive Luke beside me while hobbling to an escape pod.
Cryogenic posted:Well, Anakin was very apprehensive when he bowed before Palpatine. And he became quite the subvervient Sith, didn't he? No, I think Palpatine was just playing mind games with Luke, and it very nearly worked. In fact, why wouldn't it have? It had always worked for Palpatine before.
BaronLandoCalrissian posted:nowhere in Jedi is it said that Luke will turn just by killing his father. Killing bad guys is A-OK in the Star Wars universe. Ben WANTS Luke to kill vader, and considers it necessary. The emperor wants Luke to kill vader because he expects it's gonna feel GOOD and put Luke on a path that lesser men have often taken, especially in wartime (where killing becomes pleasurable and easy).
Cryogenic posted:Well, Anakin was very apprehensive when he bowed before Palpatine. And he became quite the subvervient Sith, didn't he? No, I think Palpatine was just playing mind games with Luke, and it very nearly worked. In fact, why wouldn't it have? It had always worked for Palpatine before. I never understood this before the PT. By establishing this motif of seduction from TPM to ROTS, the PT has rooted Palpatine's actions in a relevant and recognisable context. If you watch I-VI, by the time you get to VI, you should be saying: "Ah! I've seen this guy and his bag of tricks before!" Consider the way Palpatine manipulates Vader's wife in the first movie. If he can trick Padme, he can trick anyone.
