CT A Tarkin question

Well, force choke appears to work well over distance, as Vader demonstrates in ESB.

Although if he had assassinated Palps and Vader and attempted to take over the Empire would he have been able to stop the other "boot lickers" also wanting the vacant position?

 

It's all been re-purposed, so I'm not sure how much it matters now. The Emperor and Tarkin were kind of afterthoughts, I think, to avoid the maniacal "Ming The Merciless" syndrome. George didn't want Vader to be the All-Powerful, buck-stops-here Guy, which was kind of a cliché.

 

I seem to remember that it was Vader, not Tarkin, who was the afterthought. Wasn't Lucas surprised that people were so impressed with Vader after seeing the first movie?

 

Wasn't his logic something like the audience needs a real flesh and blood villain that they can take seriously?

 

This is the quote I was referring to: "I didn't want Vader to be all powerful. In the first film it would have been very easy to make him into some kind of evil superhero. But I decided not to do that. In fact, he is one of the Dark Lords who is working for the Emperor, and he has to do the Emperor's bidding. You will see at some point in the future that the Jedi have the same relationship to the Republic; they're like public servants, they're like marshals or policemen. They basically do what they're told to do. They're not independent agents who can do whatever they want. In the case of the Jedi, they work for the Republic, and in the case of the Sith Lords, they work for the Empire. So I obviously didn't want to make Vader too weak, but I didn't want to make him so you thought that he was in charge of everything. That's why I had Tarkin in the first film, although he was more of a bureaucrat."

 

No, but having Vader survive was somewhat of an afterthought.

 

This raises the question of whether or not Vader would back Tarkin in such a situation.

 

Yes, Tarkin served rather pathetically as 'Human Face of Evil' such a shame to use an ill man with unique features like that. Unfortunately, it appears common practice in Cushing's career.

 

Dunno, playing a villain is usually a challenge that actors love. And it's not as if Cushing didn't know what kind of role he signed up for.

 

I don't agree on either count.

 

You think he didn't know that he was going to play a villain?

 

Cushing's a Hammer veteran, heck, the version of Frankenstein he was in has the most 'deliberately' evil version of Dr Frankenstein we've seen on screen thus far. He'd played villains before quite happily. He knew exactly what he was signing up for.

 

When you say "ill man," are you implying that because Cushing was sad after his wife died, he was not in good health? I know he did age a lot after her death. He even ended his autobiography at her death. I thought he signed up for Star Wars because he thought kids would like it. In any case, Cushing was a great actor, and he was a fabulous gentleman fo sho.

 

I can think of any number of terms to describe Peter Cushing's portrayal of Tarkin, but "pathetic" ain't one of them.

 

Peter Cushing played both the hero and the villain in many of his films, more so than his friend Christopher Lee. But yes, he knew that he was going to play an evil character in Tarkin. The fourth draft shooting script, with elements of the third draft, was used to sign him on.

 

I believe I've read somewhere before that Cushing originally auditioned for the role of Obi-wan Kenobi, but Lucas thought he would make a better antagonist, because of his facial features. Hey, at least they didn't make him a widower, seriously that must of been hell for him, all those widower roles he had, especially after his wife's death.

 

Indeed. However I think he may have chosen that deliberately because he suffered so. I have as well and I feel Obi would've made much more sense given his nature and his state on the SW shoot. Trying to convince the world he looks 'evil' is pretty sad.

 

Yeah, that was probably his way of helping with the grief. With the whole Kenobi thing, I think it would've very interesting, I think would've made a great Kenobi, though I have to admit it comes off as a bit odd sometimes, only because I have Guinness as the face of Kenobi in the OT ingrained in my brain.

 

Agreed. I suspect most of his roles through the '70s were cathartic for him, particularly in as you say he is a widower often and even suicidal in some cases. It's fascinating to consider them in flipped roles which honestly I think would've been the stronger for it. At least Peter does so much better when he's allowed to be natural. Even as Tarkin he is himself but almost no one sees it because they hyper-focus on the main thing that is not him: Alderaan. Quite sad.

 

It isn't just Alderaan people focus on, it's his behaviour toward Leia (TCW's depiction of his behaviour toward Ahsoka, and Tarkin's description of his behaviour toward captured female adversaries, makes it clear that it isn't just a one-off).

 

Alderaan is actually all Tarkin's idea though. Vader doesn't argue the point at all but the idea of threatening Leia's homeworld was Tarkin's... and the order to go ahead and blow it up was also from Tarkin. The only way it's NOT him is the fact he was literally the one to press the Big Red Button (or lever, or whatever) to actually fire it, but the order came from him. Quite apart from which, Leia clearly despises Tarkin on a level beyond 'He is yet another Imperial', there is a personal hatred going there. And from what we do see of the dude, he's not exactly a gentleman.

Cushing was/is quite famously a true gentleman on set but that doesn't mean all the characters he played are automatically 'nicer'. He was a kind man, and a consummate professional, playing a monstrously evil character. It's that simple.

 

It may not for you and most but it does for me. I don't divorce performer and character with Peter and some others as most seem to insist doing here. I know Peter informs his parts and that does include his mild character.

 

Yeah, I do tend to divorce the actors from the characters if I can, I find it helps. Otherwise I would go around believing Christopher Lee is a vampire, James Earl Jones is a lion, Ian MacDiarmid is a psycho who likes to electrocute people via magic lightning from his fingers and Ewan McGregor is a reoffending criminal drug addict. I don't think any less of Cushing as a person or as an actor because of the role of Tarkin. But I don't think that being a nice guy in real life meant he couldn't play evil characters if he wanted to. Look at his version of Frankenstein for crying out loud. He's a murderer and a rapist by the end of the movie, I don't apply either of those to Cushing.

 

Cushing represented the best acting in the series, for my dollar, especially considering the sheer ridiculousness of some of the script.

 

Not to mention how he was in "Rebels".

Exactly. Same with Robert Englund. Great as the sleezy and downright evil Freddy Krueger, but a very nice and charming man in real life. Likewise, even the actors who often play the good guy aren't so nice in real life. Take Mel Gibson. You look at him in the "Lethal Weapon" series where he worked with a number of African American actors and think, here's a good guy who is totally for equality between the races, yet a few years ago he used the N word during an argument with his girlfriend.

It isn't that difficult to separate. If you want to talk separation, look at OJ Simpson and "The Naked Gun" series.