PT Did the PT make Anakin genuinely a tragic hero, or just an even bigger villain?

ANAKIN: "I shouldn’t have done that, Chancellor. It’s not the Jedi way."

PALPATINE: "It is only natural. He cut off your arm, and you wanted revenge. It wasn’t the first time, Anakin. Remember what you told me about your mother and the Sand People."

That right there shows the kind of influence that Palpatine has. He has been telling Anakin for years that he will be the greatest of all Jedi and that any feeling of revenge, or anger, was natural and justifiable. In the novelization, when Anakin hears Palpatine say, "Do it!", he thinks that it was almost as if he was given permission to do what he wanted to do for three years. Palpatine has been influencing him, not just through his own words, but through actions. Hence every confrontation between Anakin and Dooku following the Battle of Geonosis, was set up by Palpatine to provoke the kind of reaction that he finally got.

 

Big difference between seeing the red mist after his mother dies and killing tuskan children to cold bloodedly killing younglings in the Jedi Temple.

 

Very laconic, very droll, and very you, AF!!!

And kind of accurate, as well.

Pretty neat summary there, PH!!!

Anakin is a prowling mass of frustrations and scuppered dreams -- all the while being tweaked and corrupted by the subtle machinations of "the most powerful man in the galaxy".

That is also aptly expressed!!!

AOTC is very much a movie about transition. If TPM is the bullet leaving the gun and ROTS is the bullet shattering the pane of glass, AOTC is tracking its aerial flight, in a sort of poetic slow-motion.

Things are thickening, things are changing, evil is brewing. Mystery, assassination, secret army, forbidden love, a clone war. Good is becoming choked by the Dark Side, but Anakin is hardly blacker than black at this point in the story.

Everyone is moving forward, edging toward their destinies, but there's still a lot of ground to cover. AOTC gives us a dense snapshot, but it's still a snapshot of sorts. As you said, what's taking place is "a slow-building process".

This is a highly subjectivized reading. While AOTC lays out some very clear milestones in the descent of Anakin Skywalker, it by no means -- in my opinion -- reveals all. On the contrary, I find there is a sizeable gap between the slightly petulant, ill-tempered youth marrying the love of his life at the end, and the obsidian Sith-borg who goes around choking and torturing dissidents, and even murders his own bridge officers.

Some concerning flashes of anger and flirtations with destiny/grandeur aside, I still see Anakin as broadly on the side of "good" at the end of the second episode. Given how corrupt the whole political system looks at the close of Clones, it's honestly not obvious to me what path Anakin will take, or if his own iniquities might not actually be exceeded by various players around him. No-one is clean, everyone is tainted. Multiple destinies seem possible.

The point-of-view you've outlined is interesting, but a bit too reductive for me. If anything, I see you having articulated the perspective of Palpatine -- the image Palpatine wants Anakin to have of himself. In his eyes, Anakin is only denying the obviousness of his nature, and once he stops fighting himself, he will see the futility of his former behaviour. He pulls the same sith on Luke: "It is inevitable"; "You, like your father, are now mine!"

Only, of course, Luke shows Palpatine, shows Anakin, shows the audience, and proves to himself, that it is not inevitable. One destiny can be renounced, another fulfilled. That's kind of the beauty of the OT -- it is a counterpoint to the PT. And, through the interplay of the two, larger truths can then be glimpsed.

Star Wars: a profound meditation.

Ah, yes.

I'd be careful with Old Testament/Bronze Age lore, however.

"Beating" a character, just like "killing" them, takes numerous forms. Anakin, in my view, is certainly beaten down a fair bit by Obi-Wan in AOTC, for instance.

In fact, the hidden-in-plain-sight meaning of "Attack Of The Clones" (look up the words "attack" and "clone") is ......... "attachment of the sticks". Fascism.

Anakin is, indeed, "spoiled", due, in large part, to the guidance he received after leaving Tatooine. What happened? The Jedi happened.

Well, I mean, I know it's not quite that simple, but it's still one of the central revelations of the middle episode, in my opinion. Colourful shades of grey.

What is 'The Wars, if not that, eh?

 

Yeah...no.

I don't agree with the OP. The PT brought Vader to life as the human we saw for a few minutes in the CT.

For years I have heard how the problem with Anakin is that he was a whiny, arrogant brat. But all young people are whiny brats and grow out of it at various ages (if ever) - and all of the Jedi were arrogant. So I really didn't feel this was enough for Anakin to stand apart. He has an aggressive personality, full of impatience and zeal, but you have to consider that the most powerful Jedi with all those midos running around inside and also the feel of all of that potential would make him rather antsy - especially sitting around doing guard duty or meditating. He was a man of action and a
teapot on the brink of a boil. So I never had a problem with any of that.

Anakin was not blameless or perfect and we know in the end he made a lot of bad choices, but he had to after all, become Vader. That meant that he had to be an aggressive, over-achieving, pompous, driven, stubborn individual, who could bury the light side, but not submerge it altogether. That is the important point. The way you interpret everything he says, does, feels and chooses to do, has to mesh with the ultimate outcome. He is the Chosen One - the Savior of the GFFA - the REAL only hope, but as such he still had to choose to be that. The light that remained inside was there because he chose for it to be - not because it just hung out in case he decided he would use it. For the sake of the CT, we had to see the innocent child, the strong and bright Jedi and then the fall to darkness and appearance of a nonredeemable soul, so that his turn around in ROTJ would be meaningful and miraculous.

I loved Anakin's story. I think it made him a way more sympathetic hero in the CT. Knowing what he'd come from, what he'd been through, how the Jedi failed him so miserably, how they blindly fed him to the Sith (even not feeling the evil, they should have realized that being mentored by a politician was the height of idiocy) - it was easy to understand what had happened that turned the greatest Jedi into the second most formidable Sith and then back into the greatest Jedi of all.

 

"Fascism is Capitalism in [a state of] decay." - Lenin. A nod of approval to the previous post (CRYO).
"A lie told often enough becomes the truth." - Lenin. A nod of disapproval...

Apologetics and willful injections of only the most shallow "depth" or "meaning" aside, the debate has been / is / will continue, distilled as follows:
The so-called "chosen one" was identified, nurtured by the Jedi/Sith, and ultimately fulfilled prophecy.
(some may apply this fulfillment of prophecy directly to Luke - but it is simply untrue, by the numbers)

Camp 3 : The "chosen one" was "adopted" by the major players. Sids/Palps and the Jedi victimized the boy whose midichlorian counts were "off the charts."
Especially with regard to victimizing the people at large, tragedy is defined.

Camp 2: The most desired. Turn off the analysis and enjoy.

Camp 1: The "chosen one" was a new appellation to an established character who dripped with imposed depth and intrigue.
The bar was set after no less than 2 retcons in the OT, and expectations have not been lowered - the "chosen one" is not a victim, and tragedy is yet to be defined.

My tent is in camp 1 and I always enjoy a visit to camp 2. I really enjoy dialogue with camp 3 while in camp 2, but remain unmoved.

***

Lucas' story was evolving - and the success of Star Wars (not ANH or Ep IV) allowed him to express that evolution.
He sought to whittle and shape it into a more grand story. The responsibility of that undertaking was in adapting an established success into a greater expanse.

In order to grow, he was compelled to retcon aspects of what was to become "ANH" and even "ESB". In the end (final sequences of ROTJ), it worked because Vader and Luke's relationship was woven with mystery and heartache.

More oft than not, the stories of the PT remain vague as opposed to decisive. That's not mystery - that's skirting responsibility - especially when retconning not only the last story, but the whole story.

We can seek to justify the weakness of the Anakin character as portrayed in the PT until the end of days - but we as viewers don't have to skirt our own responsibility to ourselves, by lowering our expectations.

It's done. We can't turn back time. Lucas' story is his to rebuild however he wants. Some viewers embraced, others didn't.

The one thing I will not do, is twist the official story to myself or others with a desire to FORCE it to be something that it isn't - playing upon the very vaguery that Lucas chose to use.
For shame.

Sub-Zero faith.
Heart SW.

 

xx_Anakin_xx, you're appreciation appears to be of the scaffolding - not the monument itself.

From your perspective - I agree.

The finished monument simply doesn't represent the character.

 

An absolutely beautiful and wonderfully elegant post!!!!!

Thank you for that contribution, xx_Anakin_xx!!!!

Ha! Powerful quotations!!!

Well, yes -- intriguing breakdown.

I think, in part, this comes down to how much taste people have for victimization. It is clearly a concept disdained by many -- or a projection that is disavowed as untenable, offensive, and/or ridiculous. Some see Anakin as a victim of forces (at least somewhat) beyond his control, while others lament the fact that he couldn't "man up", or that other people play the victimization card at all. I can understand how some don't like to see victimization parleyed as an explanation for Anakin's fall (which, again, to some, is probably no real fall, at all).

I don't see Anakin as having "imposed depth", myself. The prophecy motif is intentionally jarring (jar-jar-ing) on a socio-political level. I mean, what is such a rancid, ring-fencing device doing there at all, right? Why can't Anakin just be a talented young Jedi? Well, the odium of him being "chosen", above and beyond the other players of the story, is part of what brings him down, in my view -- Palpatine, for example, plays on his special status a lot; most of his ego-stroking is predicated on that idea. One could therefore read the prequel trilogy as a polemic on the notions of prophecy and destiny, and how human beings constantly invoke unwarranted intimations of grandeur for their own self-serving purposes. In other words: the psychology of power.

So Anakin is ruined, in a way, because he believes he's special, and meant for great things, in a way that nobody else is. That belief is imposed on him from outside, from beyond his quotidian dust-bowl world, and then exploited by the malignant force of Palpatine for his own gain. Meanwhile, the Jedi's own concealed vanity means that they flirt with the idea that the prophecy is veritable confirmation of their own power to remedy everything, and by bringing Anakin onboard, they stand a chance of saving themselves and protecting their interests in the social fabric -- only, of course, Yoda fears a grave outcome, and he is vindicated (at least, at the end of the PT). The push-pull dynamic of doubt (Yoda) and credulity (the other Jedi) then comes into play at further corrupting Anakin. Palpatine is the unconscious scheming of the Jedi in bioform. Look how "Jedi" Palpatine himself is: his apparent humility, his infinite patience, his quiet demeanour, his careful mentoring. And then consider what is hidden just below that surface.

It's not all vague -- not as I see it, anyway.

Lucas is very, very precise, and very, very upfront, about a lot of stuff in these films.

The Jedi are corrupt (they're even portrayed like "movie monsters" at the start of TPM -- their bursting through the smoke and cutting down hapless battle droids mirrors Vader appearing through smoke after a hallway fight).........

Anakin and Padme are doing something they shouldn't..............

Anakin makes a "Faustian pact" because he is unwilling to deal with death and uncertainty......

The Clone Wars are a shell-game for greater power...........

Yoda and Obi-Wan both announce they've failed at the end of the third movie..........

Etc.


Which isn't to say there isn't a whole host of vaguery. There is.

But this murk reflects the uncertain nature of human psychology, of consciousness, of corruption........

It's like a painting with a vanishing point. Or a Buddhist koan.

More than mere ambiguity, the series plays openly with paradox. And it doesn't care if you like it or not.

That's Star Wars, alright. A serpent chasing its tail.

 

Cryo - I admire your fire. I commend your command of language, definition, and context.

I don't have any retort other than to embellish upon that which I've already said at this point - time and again.

The most important part of the entire saga was on-screen in theatres in 1983.

Luke tossed aside his saber. He gave up, and forced the "chosen one" to have his moment.

***
I must point out the very convolute parallel that you attempted to illustrate:

In TPM - it was Jedi vs droids. The stakes were low in the grand scheme.
In ANH - it was human on human action. The stakes were high.

There's no mirror. Just wasted intent, regardless of nostalgia.

 

Thank you, XAeon. It's just rambling, mostly.

Well, I agree with you there. That is one of the most powerful moments in Star Wars, in fantasy cinema -- a real gestalt moment.

The saga only has a lot of the depth and intelligence it does, in my view, for that one scene. Quite a statement, perhaps, but I see it as a brilliant epiphany -- maybe the only one a character ever has. There, finally, Luke is making a more conscious decision to resist evil, and it now comes after six films of cacophonous violence and stupefying blindness. A change, a turnaround, a poignant expression of true self-realization.

Fair enough.

I'd actually say, though, that the stakes are pretty high in the TPM example. I mean, if the Jedi don't succeed there, and don't make their way through, the bad guys get to have their way with Amidala -- the bad guys essentially win.

That might sound obtuse, though. I realize you probably intended to address the fluidic ease with which the Jedi cut down their robotic opponents, not so much the consequences of their failing to do so. In which case, sure, the Jedi seem to be having a much easier time of it... well, until they come up against the destroyer droids, anyway. But they are super-powered, and there are two of them. Although, again, I'm missing the point, I suppose.

Perhaps a better way of approaching it is to note that both scenes involve a certain amount of shadow-play. The droids are a rather easy, knock-down threat: a fake menace, mirroring the wider blockade subplot. Similarly, while it might seem like a virtuous struggle between stormtroopers and ruddy-faced rebel officers in that brightly-lit corridor (another rhyme-y contrast), it's inevitable that the rebels will be subdued, enough for Vader to board and confidently take a moment to survey the carnage with his hands on his hips. (He's like a dark Qui-Gon).

There is a more primal struggle of sorts in the OT, while the conflict in the PT is grander and a little more remote. Plenty of stylish villainy and heroics in both. Apples and oranges, IMO.

 

Ah yes, well it was a "tongue in cheek statement", however the essence of that proverb isn't about beating rather the need for discipline and the structure that it gives a child. Although when handled properly, that discipline still allows room for personal expression. It isnt restrictive, just protective.

In view of that I wonder if fundamentally the reason why Anakin fell to the dark side and Palpatine's influence was because the Jedi were too restrictive.

"There is no emotion", "There is no passion". "Fear, anger is the path to the dark side".

Perhaps to fulfill the prophecy of the Chosen One, Anakin didn't need to be restricted but rather needed to be helped to control. He needed help not allowing his emotions control him but rather learn to control them and use them effectively.

To a degree then he is a tragic character. But certainly not a hero. Afterall, brought up badly or not, we are all ultimately responsible for the choices we make. Anakin chise to side with Palpatine, Anakin chose to "Force choke" his wife due to unwarranted jealousy, Anakin chose to slaughter younglings (of which there is no forgiveness in my opinion).

Perhaps if a "balance" had been found in understanding the force and the relationship between the light and dark side, then Anakin may well have brought balance a lot earlier. Afterall Luke used the fear of Leia suffering at the hands of the Emperor and anger at his Father threatening him with it to ultimately defeat Vader, but he didn't let those emotions control him. Ultimately, when he saw Vader beaten he controlled that anger and found peace.

 

Yes, I think Anakin's change was - for the most part - the result of a bunch of disappointed expectations. Anakin had a lot of expectation when he was leaving Tatooine, and those were expectations that children typically hold. They have an idealized vision of their future, their future job and how everything works in the world. As a 9-year-old, Anakin couldn't possibly evaluate what it means to be a Jedi.

He thought he was finally free, not realizing that a life as a Jedi (and an adult) still means a lot of restrictions. He thought he would come back and free "all the slaves", it didn't happen, he couldn't even save his mother. And he probably also didn't go to "see them [systems of planets] all".

Many children have an idealized version of the "job of their dreams", but these ideas and dreams are normally corrected very gradually through the course of them growing up. They go to school, they learn more about life, they make and share experiences and ultimately become more mature and all those steps prepare them for reality. Anakin didn't have that. He wasn't prepared. We went from child-like dreams and visions to the tough reality of being a Jedi within a few days and weeks at best. He didn't go through a proper transition from (ideal) childhood (dreams) to (real) adulthood.

Qui-Gon tried to warn him ("Anakin, training to be a Jedi will not be a easy challenge. And if you succeed, it will be a hard life."), but - of course - who child listen in such an euphoric moment? They are concerned with their wishes and dreams ("But it's what I want. What I've always dreamed about. Can I go, Mom?!"), not worries.

Frustration hit Anakin hard and then there was Palpatine, who took and exploited that sense of disillusionment for years.

 

The difference is that one was a moment of blind rage. The other is actively choosing to use negative emotions and embrace the dark side, in order to achieve a set of goals. Anakin did something bad on Tatooine, but he was not beyond hope at that point. This was the warning that the Father had for him on Mortis. If he stayed on the straight and narrow, he would bring balance to the Force and save the galaxy. But he doesn't because he chooses to be greedy and selfish. Going into the Temple was his way of achieving his goals.

No, he's supposed to let go of his selfishness and act compassionately towards his son, thus saving him and the galaxy.

 

Are you distinguishing the 'character ideal' and the 'character as you perceived it' on screen?

 

I think I am to a degree.

I share your conceptual praise of how it went down on screen. Yes - we as viewers expected to see the illustration of abject innocence that fates itself to stark tyranny. On a certain level - that illustration was delivered, as you said.
I think I am left wanting because despite delivering the "fall" and touching upon Anakin's loss in a very elementary way - it felt anecdotal and hollow. Intelligent people with such depth of emotion are not so simply led by the nose.
That goes for the Jedi at-large also, not just Anakin.

I realize that a first-time viewer watching Episode 1-6 in order would have a different perception of the saga as a whole - but there are various waterings down of the mystique introduced by they OT/CT by the PT - that would in all honesty probably switch me off by the end, if I had the presumed luxury of being a first-time viewer.

Objectively - I can't ooze enough appreciation for the QuiGon character in the PT. Without him, what he stood for, and the implications of his "point of view" on the over-arching storyline: even as a first time viewer I probably would have lost interest.

Sooooo... back to your question, Yes: I'm distinguishing "ideal" and "perception" - probably to a greater degree now at the end of my response.
The way you express your own appreciation struck me as more for the intent rather than the actuality - which I share. Its why I'm here on these forums.

If I misinterpreted - apologies.

 

I get what you are saying, but I did not really have a problem interpreting what I saw to fit my ideal. So my experience with the movies is a bit different. I tend to fill in the detail for those things that would otherwise come across as hollow or anecdotal. I think we got enough character detail to do so over the span of the movies.

I agree that watching 1-6 might put a completely different perspective on things. I saw them in the order released, which likely played a role in my being able to easily link the PT to the OT.

 

I saw them in the order of release as well, but that mystique of the force at large (it's general implications and those upon characters) was effectively erased for me by the PT.

As I suggested, Qui Gon (a completely new character) was my anchorpoint for "filling in the details." However, his impact initially created contradictions for me also as the PT progressed.

I'm one of those that was initially unhinged by the introduction of midichlorians (I accepted it, like a dose of bad medicine, but reconciled with it). The illustration of Anakin's defiance of the will of "the living force" despite his born-in elite membership to the mickey mouse force club helped rehang the door.

I suppose the lingering contradiction (or even the new mystery) to me is that his fall could have been illustrated through what I personally define as qualitative character development (ideal, I suppose) as opposed to dependence upon a newly invented device that was not value-added: "unobtanium" with a different nomenclature, that served not only to retcon -but undermine what I perceived as very valuable elements of the OT/CT.

Those elements were presence of mind and heart, determination, training, practice, and integrity. Not that these elements are abandoned in the PT, but they are diluted to me in the case of Anakin - and I find him neither tragic hero or evil villain. If I'm to accept that this is the point - well, I am not entertained. One can select any living human at random right now and make a case for wasted potential - myself included. We weren't born of magic mitochondria either, though, and we yet thrive and die by our own choices.

I'm not attacking star wars or anyone with a differing perspective. I'm just fond of something that let me down a little in the end - because snapshots don't make characters. If I'm left to flesh out a character from another person's story by my own devices, well it should be no surprise that I take issue from time to time.

No faith.
Heart SW.

 

Did the PT make Anakin genuinely a tragic hero, or even bigger a villain?..for me personally? it did neither.

 

That's kinda the point. Anakin had everything that he could ever want in life, but he wanted more.

"What drove me to make these movies is that this is a really interesting story about how people go bad. In this particular case, the premise is: Nobody thinks they're bad. They simply have different points of view. This is about a kid that's really wonderful. He has some flaws - and those flaws ultimately do him in."

--George Lucas, The Making Of ROTS; Page 53.


"The Jedi are trained to let go. They're trained from birth," he continues, "They're not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can't form attachments. So what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith; page 213

"It's about a good boy who was loving and had exceptional powers, but how that eventually corrupted him and how he confused possessive love with compassionate love. That happens in Episode II: Regardless of how his mother died, Jedis are not supposed to take vengeance. And that's why they say he was too old to be a Jedi, because he made his emotional connections. His undoing is that he loveth too much."

--George Lucas, Rolling Stone Magazine Interview; June 2005.

Anakin's situation isn't because of how he was born, but how he was trained. He was taken in during a point in his life where he had an attachment to his mother still and this would stay with him, because he didn't understand how to let go of his attachments despite his training. He falls because of his feelings and through the corruption of a wolf in sheep's clothing.

 

Both I'd say. He is more tragic and more of a villain.

He had everything he could possibly want and yet he wanted more. That is his tragedy and that is why he became a villain in the end.

From Sidious' POV Anakin was like a gift from the Dark Side to him because he knew that the Jedi could never train him properly because they didn't have what they wanted. Power over Anakin from the start. They didn't know how to do that.

Qui-Gon could have done it. He was what the Jedi needed to be in those times but they were ill-suited to do that. They were too ridgid and unchanging while the Sith were not.

 

Not really. He didn't save his mom. His relationship with Padme had not yet reached a partnership in terms of how they were to influence the GFFA. *EDIT* TOGETHER

Sorry bro, anyone can quote the GL too, live and unedited. I presume that you have seen what most vets have seen, let's not be simple and subjective on the "how vs. why" as a means of justifying a point of view.

Still the same old JCF after all these years. I won't be baited with foolishness. I don't care that much: even on shallow GL self-justification.

 

The thing is that the Jedi could have succeeded as we see with Luke, but the problem is only partly the Jedi's fault. The rest is Palpatine undermining Obi-wan. Luke succeeds in part because he was left alone with the Lars and when he finally begins his training, he is better able to judge right from wrong without someone coloring his perceptions.

That's the nature of the greed from his point of view. From the outside looking in, Anakin had everything. He had his mother for nine years of his life. He had Padme for three years and was going to be a father. He was a Jedi Knight, sitting on the Council and a hero to all. He had everything, but he wanted more which he even says.

ANAKIN: "I’m not the Jedi I should be. I want more."

Yet it is a fundamental point. The father and son go down different paths, though with similar origins. The moral lesson that's been there since Lucas decided that Vader was Luke's father, was that good people can go bad from the choices they make. Anyone can go bad. No one exists in a bubble. And sometimes those who go bad are those who had the greatest potential for good.

 

IMHO Anakin is tragic in the sense that, he was honestly just a young man with a lot of emotional issues and because of the way the Jedi Order works he felt like he had no one to turn to. If the poor kid just got therapy I think he'd have ended up quite differently. Plus, it's clear that Anakin believed the Council hated him, and is implied (at least in the novel) to more or less have PTSD after the Clone War.

 

The funniest part in all that is that Padme actually points that out to Anakin in the novel, she's a politician living on the most advanced planet with the most advanced medical care in the entire galaxy, to think she'd die in childbirth (something humans in our world generally don't do) would be insane.

 

To the extent a person could he actually probably did. For nigh 40 years he was a Jedi and a Sith Lord. That's about 15,000 days. He could easily have seen a thousand worlds on various missions for the Jedi Order and the Empire.

He also technically came back and saved his mother, but she died some seconds later.

Which makes me wonder if the last part might also have come to pass. There's no direct evidence of slavery in the OT. But we do have the clone army being replaced by volunteers. The only logical explanation for exchanging an elite clone army with a more expensive (clones don't get paychecks I reckon) and less efficient army is as a public relations move. Palpatine is acting the humanitarian. And since we see an Imperial presence on Tattooine, and Uncle Owen not contemplating bying a slave to replace Luke like his father had once done, then I see it as almost definite that this public relations move also included abolishing slavery, at least on Tattooine. If you want to run wild with it you can imagine Vader suggesting these ideas on the argument of pr and possibly economics (only poor and underdeveloped worlds like Tattooine are showed to have slavery, Padme is shocked when she finds out).

Of course none of them panned out quite as he had imagined. He visited worlds, but in the employ of war and tyranny. He saved his mother, but only so he could watch her die. He freed the slaves, but only to replace it with a worse tyranny.

Strong in the force Skywalker was.

 

Slavery seems pretty common in the newcanon so far - it comes up in Lords of the Sith. And in ROTJ, there's Jabba's slave girls.

Can't see any reason to believe Vader got it abolished anywhere.