Saga Analysis of Yoda's arc

What's shown in the film is that the senate is divided regarding the creation of an army. Thus the debate around it.

I'm supposed to say that? What am I supposed to say had they done nothing and Dooku started his attack against the Republic? "Bravo"? "Way to go"?

You can't make that assumption. Padmé doesn't know the Separatists and how futile it is fighting for a peaceful resolution.

And what starts the war is Dooku's planned attack against the Republic.

The real problem are the Sith, who are orchestrating everything behind the scenes. But the senate, the Jedi and everyone else don't know that nor can they be judged for that lack of knowledge.

They don't know they are being deceived.

No, but there are no Jedi in ANH and we were talking about the PT.

There's corruption in the Senate. But the Senate is not corrupt.

Palpatine took advantage of it. And yes, he is completely responsible because he wasn't completely honest.

What approval? There's no approval or denial on his part. He's just stating what he expected to happen.

Doesn't make them suspiscious of each other.

Go along with what? They have nothing that should make them suspect of Palpatine.

Again, Force sensitivity is not a matter of choice.

Why is it flawed?

Why?

So they were flawed and short-sighted because they didn't know Palpatine's plan. How exactly is that supposed to make any sense? That's, once again, the same fallacy you've used before.

Why is it weak to not be more suspicious? Is there something they have that should have rang a bell? No.

And Qui-Gon got unlucky. And they didn't know he was a Sith. Nor that there was a war to prevent to begin with. There's the fallacy again.

I don't see any difference in clarity between the PT and the OT. There's nothing to be clear about in the OT. Everything was exposed already.

No, it wasn't a mistake to protect someone's life.

It has nothing to do with politics to begin with.

The force and their own intuition (granted, this would be easier in less clouded times).

What does that even mean?

He never made that statement.

Qui-Gon had knowledge that he didn't have. Yoda never claimed to know everything.

They are doubting Anakin is the Chosen One from the prophecy, not that Anakin is unable to handle certain mission.

But since the Jedi are not the audience, they don't have access to the greater picture.

Yes, father figure. Not his biological 'father'.

Not sure how you've jumped to that conclusion.

He had every reason to count him as armed considering what he did and the lies he gave before.

The prophecy (and its subjectivity) is irrelevant in that moment.

He says Mace was doing the right thing by arresting him, until Palpatine does the lightning (thus proving that he's still dangerous and armed, and as such he gives Mace no other choice).

Seriously? How exactly was Anakin's fall and crimes a result of Obi-Wan's training? The movies show that it was Anakin's inability to follow his Jedi training.

Quite a detailed (and completely subjective) description of Qui-Gon's facial expression in that moment.

His choice of ignoring Yoda's advice has nothing to do with being "wired differently" (he wasn't), the chosen one nor how physical he was.

They shouldn't, but Mace has nothing to do with them.

Doesn't make it less true.

Anakin does the right thing at the end of the film.

 

It is still shown that the Republic has the mentality that no systems should be allowed to secede. Similarly the Empire views any Rebellion, opposition to galaxy-wide conformity, as it's greatest threat.

Lol fair point, but if ongoing negotiations ultimately fail, which they didn't try for long enough, then maybe the Republic should go to war. The Republic is too eager to use war as it's quick and easy solution, like many countries in history in our world. The OT was originally written partially as a protest against leaders like Nixon after all.
But Imo the Jedi shouldn't lead them into battle. It's not the force's will that they put themselves in that position, they are pacifists - "Never use the force for attack." is inverted when they invade Geonosis. You disagree, and you are entitled to, but the whole sequence of the Jedi landing on Geonosis and Yoda ordering troops around to me has a weird vibe from the start. The ground battles in the middle of each trilogy are a direct parallel - a dominant faction that is trying to prevent a smaller group's dissonance, invades their home base (ground battles with Republic/Imperial walkers on desert/snow) and causes the "Rebels" to flee the planet. The Republic are being painted as losing their way, beginning a galactic civil war and foreshadowing their transformation into the Empire.

The Jedi are seemingly out of their element during the Clone Wars, I have already argued that they are playing Palpatine's game by spreading themselves thin across the galaxy in a vain effort to engage the Separatists. It's just a total waste of their resources and abilities, you say they can't possibly know this, but that doesn't change the fact that spearheading a false war achieves nothing in the end.

Perhaps, but that is on the Sith hiding behind them, the Republic are targeting a phantom enemy. It's like pouring water into an open drain in an effort to fill a sink, it's futile and pointless. Without the Sith's manipulation and the Republic's quickness to fight, the Separatists wouldn't even bother fighting a war they are written to ultimately lose.
Padme is symbolically the voice of peace and democracy in the PT, as she loses power the galaxy is lost to the Sith. She's the voice of reason that Anakin and by extension the people stop listening to. Granted, she partially contributes to it happening by being tricked into helping Palpatine to power in TPM, and arguably goes against her pacifist nature by taking the fight to the TF in the same film. But I don't think I am off-base with my claim that she speaks for Lucas. If you look at her dialogue; she narrates her people's plight in TPM, laments the push for an army in AOTC, looks on horrified as Palpatine declares the Empire, implores Anakin he is paying too much of a price by turning to the dark side, and her last words are the belief that there is still good in Anakin, that is ultimately proven to be true.

That is their provocation yes, but they still make the first tactical move towards a fight. We are going in circles, but the Sith want it to come to war for their own ends, how can the Republic and Jedi help anything by playing into it. They don't know this, but it is a flawed philosophy, and you can't tell me Lucas believes they should fight?

"But how am I to know the good side from the bad?" "You will know! When you are calm, at peace, passive."

You know it is my personal interpretation that this contradicts how the Jedi act during the Clone Wars.

With Anakin, like with the Senate, the problem is internal, Palpatine just helps bring it out of them.
Anakin doesn't read the warning signs in himself that he is heading towards the dark side until his morals and mindset is so clouded he no longer resists consciously becoming a Sith. Palpatine gives Anakin and the Republic what they think they want, hence the applause to losing their freedom when Palpatine declares the Empire on his own Senate-granted authority. Anakin is quite quick to kill Dooku at Palpatine's command, and from early on agrees with Palpatine's manipulative comments that a quick end to the war is what everyone needs.

Fair enough.

?? What is the difference, it is becoming more corrupt over the course of the PT. By most of the way through ROTS it is just an extension of Palpatine's will.

See above.

I disagree.
Mace approvingly states they can now use an army and he and Yoda instantly discuss going to Kamino and Geonosis.

You don't think the Senate generally is suspicious of the Jedi?

Maybe. But I still feel they dropped the ball in AOTC.

It's not about choice, their diminishing ability to sense things makes them complicit in their own destruction.

Making a vulnerable and suspicious Anakin spy on one of his best friends - and as Palpatine knew they would, not making the assignment official or Senate approved, causing the Jedi to look like traitors.
Granted, they are between a rock and a hard place by now, but Palpatine outplays them.

They should have informed the Senate perhaps. It blows up in their face.

It's just my opinion. By stagnating and focusing their power on lost causes the Jedi had less chance of breaking through the shroud. I'm repeating myself, but how can doing anything, let alone almost everything Palpatine wants be the right move?

I've given examples in past posts.

The Jedi-Sith war is always happening essentially. The Sith were never gone in the first place.

True about nature of the era in the OT. But for whatever reason, and I know you disagree, the Jedi seem wiser in the OT. Luke is wisely trained and is encouraged to develop his own wisdom rather than rely on a specific code. They still have limits and rules, but Luke can thrive in a way Anakin was never in an environment to.

I agree, but sending her off-world majorly influenced the Sith's opportunity to cause the war.

That's what they don't see. They are inadvertently helping Palpatine achieve his political ends.

Fair enough.

Qui-Gon uses his own intuition over the restrictive nature of the PT Jedi's methods. Luke conquers himself before he conquers the Sith. Obi-Wan, to me, gradually acts more submissive to the force's will over the course of the PT and in the OT he doesn't need a code, he just knows. Yoda's teachings to Luke in the OT dwarfs the wisdom of his AOTC dialogue.

Subjective opinion on whether the novelisation is canon. It doesn't contradict what is on screen in this case.

On the isolated asteroid of Polis Massa, YODA meditates.

YODA: Failed to stop the Sith Lord, I have. Still much to learn, there is ...
QUI -GON: (V.O.) Patience. You will have time. I did not. When I became one with the Force I made a great discovery. With my training, you will be able to merge with the Force at will. Your physical self will fade away, but you will still retain your consciousness. You will become more powerful than any Sith.
YODA: Eternal consciousness.
QUI-GON: (V.O.) The ability to defy oblivion can be achieved, but only for oneself. It was accomplished by a Shaman of the Whills. It is a state acquired through compassion, not greed.
YODA: . . . to become one with the Force, and influence still have . . . A power greater than all, it is.
QUI-GON: (V.O.) You will learn to let go of everything. No attachment, no thought of self. No physical self.
YODA: A great Jedi Master, you have become, Qui-Gon Jinn. Your apprentice I gratefully become.

Yoda states he has much to learn because he didn't stop the Sith, not just because of the ability to retain consciousness.
In the novelisation he states he didn't let the Order change, and that is why they lost.

But he is unsuitable for the task. "Very dangerous putting the two of them together. I don't think the boy can handle it."

I guess. I just disagree with the thought that the Jedi's actions had no effect on Anakin's fall.

And? I agree.

You state that the Jedi not knowing means they have no part in what happens to the Republic.

Like I said many times, the novel, the script and Lucas commentary indicate Mace thought Palpatine was disarmed when Mace goes for the kill. We're not going to agree on this issue.

So do you argue Mace could successfully kill Palpatine? If not, then Palpatine is playing him by giving him this window for Anakin's benefit.

He also says Mace "should have arrested him". It is clear Lucas thinks he shouldn't try to kill Palpatine, as much as you try to argue otherwise.

On the surface, but remember Anakin is taught from a young age to fight the Separatists and kill the Sith. His first assignment is even to protect Padme, something he turns to continue to do. And both Palpatine and the Jedi teach him to defeat the Separatists through force.

Plus, Jedi training tells Luke to kill Vader, and Luke only ultimately succeeds because he refuses to kill him. Luke grows up with attachments and succeeds where the past Jedi failed. It's not clear cut, but interesting.

True, just my reading.

Physical? I was referring to his psychic intuition. He has several accurate premonitions over the PT.

I would agree that he just ignored Yoda though, because he wasn't offering him what he wanted, it is part of the greed of his fall. He should have just left the Order if he wanted a wife or disagreed with how they did things. But both Anakin and the Jedi kind of just sit on it and hope it will go away.

I still believe he was wired differently though, he was never close to being a normal Jedi.

He does from Anakin's point of view, and Palpatine plays on the schism.
Imagine if, during the turn scene, Obi-Wan was the one facing Palpatine. Whole different ball game. Anakin initially loved Obi-Wan as did Obi-Wan. Mace never made a real attempt to get to know Anakin.

So because Dooku is a Sith and not to be trusted, they should automatically assume everything he says is a lie, even though he is telling them what they need to know?

The Sith speak in half-truths. Imagine how different the throne room scene in ROTJ would be if Luke kept accusing everything Palpatine states as a flat-out lie. The Rebels have been led by Palpatine into a trap? Don't believe you. The Death Star is fully operational? No it isn't! If I kill my father I take his place at your side? I'll kill him anyway!

Yes, but in ROTS they assume he can't come back from the get go. The tragic circumstances of the confrontation on Mustafar mean they never find out.

 

The issue is not leaving the Republic. The issue is the separatists creating unrest and the limited number of Jedi not being able to keep the peace.

Isn't a sudden attack against the Republic proof that negotiations failed?

You could say the Republic is eager to have a line of defense. That's not the same thing as wanting war.

They are not 'using the Force for attack'. Using the Force for attack is what the Sith do. Yoda never said the Jedi shouldn't fight, which is what they did.

The attack on Geonosis was done to prevent an attack against the Republic (a democracy). It didn't manage to. Doesn't mean the effort wasn't warranted.

To compare it to the battle of Hoth where the Empire (a dictatorship) is fighting a group that wants to restore democracy is flawed.

Look, this is argument is going in circles. I've said it again and again that nobody, except the Sith, know that it's a false war. Had everyone known that it was a false war, it wouldn't exist in the first place. But. They. Don't. Know.

If I give you a beer and put poison in it without you knowing, would you blame yourself for drinking it?

 

"I will not allow this Republic, that has stood for a thousand years, to be split in two."
Seems Palpatine speaks for the Senate on this one; they don't want any systems to secede.

Fair point on the war being a result of the Sith inciting the Separatists to attack. But the Republic still strikes first, and I don't think this is intended to be overlooked. It's a commentary on many of our own world's greater wars.
The Jedi are having trouble being solely responsible for keeping the peace... so they lead a Clone army into war? I don't see strength in this logic.

I don't understand how Mace's response to Palpatine receiving emergency powers - "It is done, then." - can be read as anything but ominous sounding and final. That line is there for a reason. They are dooming themselves by supporting him.

We have to agree to disagree again I suppose. I'm with Padme generally on this - "This war represents a failure to listen."
Your main argument is that the Jedi not knowing who was behind the war means they were doing everything they could, but my reading of the movies watched 1-6 is that by fighting the war at all they were losing before they even began. Like I have stated, victory for the Republic over the Separatists is hollow, and is essentially the main motivation for the existence of the Empire.

Which attack are you referring to? Technically they hadn't attacked yet. Granted, they were going to hold the Galactic government ransom and force their demands, but we never hear what those demands are. I do agree that with the Sith being to blame (realistically) it is hard to say how far they were willing to go. Although remember, the TF's main motivation in TPM was to have the trade tax removed. Before Sidious repeatedly intentionally fans the hatred on both sides, who knows if they would have settled this peacefully. Even if it just meant the Republic removing the tax.

It is subjective, but for me the Republic's eagerness to go to war foreshadows they will develop into the Empire, rather than be defeated by it.

Imo the growing strength of the dark side and the increasing stress on the Republic's patience make them more eager to fight. The Senate scenes and Dooku's dialogue in AOTC paint a picture of a Republic losing it's faith in democracy and wanting the "quick and easy" solution in going to war.

Remember, Padme resists using war as a solution in TPM - "I will not condone a course of action that will lead us to war." - but when her people's lives are threatened, and Palpatine repeatedly coaxes her on Coruscant, she takes the fight to the (future) Separatists;
*Door slams* "Now Viceroy, we will discuss a new treaty!" / / "And now your highness, we will discuss the location of your secret Rebel base." *Door slams*
It's clearly a role reversal between mother and daughter.

Plus, significantly Anakin confronts and kills the Viceroy last in ROTS ... "The war is over... Lord Sidious promised us peace! We only want to..."
It's a bloated or warped continuation of where the Republic was symbolically heading by going to war as far back as TPM.

Maybe.

Although - "Attack those Federation starships, quickly!" - seems a little ironic.

I guess I'm not going to change your mind, but I see Obi-Wan's eagerness to fight in the PT (he always lights his saber first in the PT, much like Mace and Yoda do when confronting Palpatine in ROTS) means the PT Jedi are essentially failing the lesson of the Dagobah cave. You know my stance. "This weapon is your life!" vs "Your weapons, you will not need them."

Again, they went into it with the mentality that they were going to fight. Something Luke never truly understands the fault in until he spares Vader's life at the end of ROTJ.

True, fair point.
There is still a parallel though, in AOTC the Republic is trying enforce conformity to avoid the breakdown in their democracy, but before long the same group are just enforcing conformity, period.

It's still blindness. If that is the analogy you are using, the Republic still willingly took the beer because it was convenient.

 

Great thread!!!!!

More to add later, I have.

 

Thanx Cryo, would love to hear from someone like-minded.

This debate is kind of going in circles

Personally I think the story is richer if Yoda goes through some discernible changes.

 

I'd recommend checking out the above video, think it is very fitting to this thread.

 

YODA! His life was a true tragedy, it is a great video. You gotta feel bad for that little green gremlin.

 

yoda's arc has a huge "curve" in tcw. it is then he starts to realize "wars not make one great."

 

^^^ Agreed.

Anyone looking to revive this thread's discussion?

Possibly Cryogenic or Darth Nerdling.

Eager to hear thoughts.

 

Missed this earlier. This seems like a good place to post some of my thoughts on this. From my thread about Kenobi's emotional arc, post-ROTS, Yoda came up. Here is what I said.

 

Good thoughts xezene

 

I've already wrote my opinion on this very thread (and others) about any perceived "change" in Yoda, but since it's being brought up again:

There are no contradictory behaviour on his character as far as the movies are concerned. It's not a criticism, nor does it mean he's a lesser character because of that.

Not a contradiction. War was happening, wether people like it or not. Knowing that reality, Yoda did what he could by trying to rescue the hostages on Geonosis and arrest those who were going to attack the Republic.

Yoda saying that will miss the Wookiees doesn't contradict what he told Anakin. Because his advice to him is to not dwell on attachment, to learn to let go. Yoda will miss the Wookiees but he's not attached to them. He's not going to act on that sense of loss. That's what the Jedi do.

Because it's futile to see more pain and suffering. Both Yoda and Obi-Wan know deep down who did the Temple massacre, but Obi-Wan is in denial and wants to watch the records. Yoda says not to watch it in the sense that Obi-Wan should accept the reality that Anakin had fell.

?! How so?

See above.

Jedi have feelings. But to be a Jedi is to control those feelings and not act on them. That's what the Jedi do, that's the Jedi way. "Mourn them do not, miss them do not" is an ideal that Anakin (and any Jedi) should strive for. Not act on feelings. Not cloud your judgment. Be compassionate, not passionate. Selfless, not selfish.

 

Our differing takes on the saga have appeared whenever we come across each other's posts. With full respect, I don't think either of us are going to change how we see things. In regards to Yoda, none of what I'm saying is a criticism of the films, but reconciling the different sides of what I see to be complex characters. So, to each their own, but I simply disagree with you in regards to my reading of the characters and films.

Thanks HevyDevy.

 

Fair enough. Although the consistency of a character doesn't make it less complex.

 

True.

Although in the case of the PT I think the inconsistencies are an intended part of the complexity.

 

Yes, just of other characters.

 

I disagree about Yoda, but I'll move on.

What are your thoughts regarding Obi-Wan? His character arc seems set up in a way that the loss of the Order effects him more than Yoda perhaps. He seems quite different in ANH.

 

There was an evolution in maturity and wisdom throughout the PT, but character-wise he's the same as he was in RotS (in the sense that his ideals remain the same).

 

I enjoyed your discussion, HevyDevy and Alexrd. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Personally I'm more inclined to Alexrd's moral evaluation of the Jedi. But I would distinguish the Jedi Order's spiritual and moral dimensions.

From the moral perspective, ie conscious, Enlightenment-product triumph of man's rational will over himself and his environment, the Jedi Order's actions, in light of what they knew at that time (both by the usual means of intelligence and by perception through a clouded Force-sense), cannot be faulted overall. There's their tragedy. On the level of atomistic, rational, utilitarian analysis, their conduct accorded as best as any reasonable person could expect with their own moral (ie, prescribing right conduct in practical situations) teaching.

(FWIW, I recall an essay by Molly Domenjoz over at Saga Journal soon after TPM which may have been one of the earliest to explicitly compare Obi-Wan with Oedipus. I would point out it should be remembered that Oedipus, far from being an arrogant fool, was a good man, an upright citizen, a beloved father and ruler who wanted to use his power to help his people -- but that wasn't enough.)

But spiritually -- in terms of pure, not applied wisdom; in terms of authentic communion with the deep ultimate reality behind their merely moral decisions in response to particular events -- the Jedi were in decline in the PT. And they were conscious of it, and even say so. Mace and Yoda allude to it repeatedly. They know something's wrong, but they don't know how to begin to fight it. I don't think they can be blamed, because the spiritual cancer they faced isn't something that can be "fought", except in terms of a metaphor so misleading as to be dangerous. The clearest instance of this for me was when Obi-Wan tours the cloning facility. He looks sickened, but also completely lost/clueless as to how to reconcile this instinctive, almost pre-moral spiritual recoil in himself with the Jedi's political and moral duties to the Republic.

Alexrd I never really saw that connection before. Thanks for that! I remember feeling puzzled the first time I saw RotS about this emphasis on this particular crime of Anakin's, and how it was framed. I was thinking that the prohibition on killing an enemy hors de combat is such a basic common-sense thing, it's a little odd for it to be put as "not the Jedi way" -- surely it would make more sense to frame it as simply inhumane! Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, GL was emphasising (possibly post hoc, but still consistent within the Saga as a whole) that Obi-Wan and Yoda did not intend that Luke had to kill Vader (or rather, the person then known as Vader), regardless of circumstances.

Doctrinally, they still had their ideals right; their moral teaching was the same as in the PT, but they were unable to reach or fully manifest the spiritual depths that lay beyond the moral outlines. It was Luke who restored the full awe-inspiring nobility of the Jedi ideal of faithful selflessness, true. But spiritual clarity, true wisdom, communion with the ultimate ground of reality -- all are precisely the attainments which aren't susceptible to simply trying harder, being stronger or smarter etc.

Their moral teaching and philosophising was the same in the PT...but circumstances conspired to encourage a cognitive dissonance whereby, for example, the only good Sith was a dead Sith ("Sith lords are our speciality." "He's too dangerous to be left alive!") For Obi-Wan in particular, what he subsequently goes through forces him to confront that dissonance on the banks of the lava river -- THIS Sith is so very dear to him. The dissonance continues with "a certain point of view". Yet even his self-justifying little speech sounds self-consciously resigned and exhausted to me, the words of a man who knows his emotional limitations, even after death, are too much for him too look the truth steadily in the eye without blinking.

I've been reading a fascinating biography of Joseph of Paris, born Francois Leclerc du Tremblay, Aldous Huxley's Grey Eminence. Of course, du Tremblay's crimes were far more egregious and caused suffering more directly than the Jedi's actions, but his life still sheds light on how intensely monastic, cenobitic spirituality can coexist with realpolitik utilitarianism.

 

There is more study and thought on Yoda arc in this thread than I have ever dreamed possible. It's a great deal to absorb!

One thing that has struck me about Yoda and the difference I see in him from before the fall of the Republic to Dagobah is the way he refers to the Force as an Ally, and how he says that the Force should never be used for attack. I think he knew that the only way for Luke to defeat the Emperor was for Luke to have faith in the Force when he confronted Vader and the answer was not to fight him. That's why he never trained Luke to fight, only how to resist the Darkness and use the Force for knowledge and defense.

 

He already knew that wars don't make one great, it's not sudden realization he has in TCW (as some try to imply). The Jedi are not happy that there is a war, and there's nobody more saddened about its start than Yoda.

That's consistent throughout the movies. The Jedi, unlike the Sith, use the Force for defense.

Luke was never meant to defeat the Emperor, nobody expected him to (and he didn't do it anyway). He was meant to confront Vader.

Of course he did. He didn't get his lightsaber skills from nowhere.

 

yes that's obvious in ep 2 but they became more comfortable with fighting. in the tcw arc yoda faces his own darkness and realizes he's now part of the problem. they went along with the war which they never should have done in the beginning.

 

I don't see that. I see them trying to end the war as soon as possible.

Everything that's part of the Sith game is part of the problem. The real problem is that nobody knos they are being played. That's on Sidious, not Yoda. And not fighting isn't a solution. Not fighting leads to a Separatist invasion and more death and suffering.

They didn't have a choice to begin with. Staying in the sidelines isn't a solution.

 

"They didn't have a choice to begin with. Staying in the sidelines isn't a solution."

tell that to yoda, obi and gl. "you can't win but there are alternatives to fighting."