ST George Lucas and the Mystery of the Treatment

What in the hell...being a slave IS dehumanizing! Again, I'll explain it: you're a slave. You're PROPERTY. You're not considered a person. You can be bought and sold at any time. I don't know what it is you're complaining about -- you say that there should have been hardship and dehumanization shown, then sneer at "straw men" when someone brings up being beaten/starved/chained. What, exactly, were you looking for? Or are you just complaining for the sake of complaining, knowing you'll be given all kinds of "high fives" for your brave, insightful post in which you show how much better a storyteller you are than that hack, Lucas?

Bountiful meals, my a**. I just pointed out that they barely had enough to eat. At the ONE time we see them eat, they appear to have barely enough for two people, let alone the guests. Saturday morning cartoon? What kind of Saturday morning cartoons did YOU watch? And it was hardly full of silly toys. Anakin amused himself by building stuff, which he happened to be good at. "Leave-work-early Fridays"? Watto said he could leave early. How do you even know that's a regular thing? And even if it is, so what? Is being a slave a "Saturday morning cartoon" if your owner lets you leave work early?

 

Incorrect. The position being put forward was that Anakin's slavery/servitude was portrayed in too light a way. Otherwise what's the issue? And if that is the issue then it is not a strawman to refute that claim by stating that chains (or whatever constitutes slavery for you) would have been tonally misplaced.

 

PJ, no one was suggesting chains or hobbling. Just some discomfort/ hardship. There is a middle ground between Anakin's "slavery" in TPM and an actual depiction of slavery.

 

Honestly, you're misunderstanding something about what's being discussed here. There's something you're not getting, that isn't about disagreeing about the film, but about some of the terms you're using.

 

One thing for sure this mystery of the treatment makes the mystery of the clone army and Sifo-Dyas look like a Columbo mystery in comparison!

 

LIKE WHAT? And why is it necessary to show discomfort/hardship (whatever your idea of it is), anyway? You keep mocking the very concept of slavery by putting slavery in quotes with regards to Anakin. Once again: he is a slave. He is property. He can be bought or sold at any time. How "kind" his master is to him, or how "comfortable" you claim his life is, is beside the point. He is still a slave. Slaves who lived comfortable lives (relatively speaking) were still slaves. Just like prisoners who have privileges (TVs in their cells, etc.) are still prisoners.

Who is misunderstanding? The people whining about Anakin's "easy, Saturday morning cartoon life" keep misunderstanding the very concept of slavery, whether by chance or by choice. They are complaining about how "more hardship" should have been shown, but refuse to specify what they mean by that, instead repeating the same complaints about how enviable and wonderful Anakin's slave life was. Huh?

 

Oh, Jesus. Really?

 

There's nothing wrong with it, but Lucas has consistently said the OT was one big script that he cut down, turning the first act into ANH, and that the PT was the backstory he wrote while working on the OT. He even asked Rinzler to insert midichlorians into his old notes to make it appear as if they were a concept from the '70s. He talks about "the story" as if it exists independently.

 

There also is that little matter of the explosive device that can "blow them up" or the he wouldn't have lasted so long if he wasn't good fixing thing and that Watto was putting Anakin into deadly pod races. That Anakin enjoyed it is beside the point. Once Watto knew that he could do it then Anakin was exploited and Watto would rather lose Shmi then Anakin any day.

 

I can't agree. I think that's a bit of rose coloured specs. Again, don't get me wrong, ANH is head and shoulders the better film, but stormtroopers have always been risible. They've been poked fun at for being crap shots ever since I was a kid. There's never really any tyranny shown in ANH, we don't see concentration camps, political assassinations... we just get told about it. And even on Tatooine (apart from Owen and Beru) we don't get to see stormtroopers beating people down etc (in fact I'd actually argue we see more tyranny in Rebels). Of course one can have both... but I don't believe ANH did. It had a clear and present set of antagonists with not much going on underneath the surface. TPM was almost the inverse of that, which I agree, has an adverse affect on the 'peril' within film... as even stormtroopers at their crapest are better than battle droids. However, I think that was something specifically played for by Lucas as opposed to it being a result of something else.

 

Slavery is an issue with a lot of politics to it, and should always be written about thoughtfully, however one portrays it.

In a film set in our world, a depiction of slaves with the relative comfort of Anakin and Shmi would either be something deliberately done as part of a story exploring the nuance in a master/slave relationship in a sensitive way, looking at how and why those in servitude can seem to accept their lot, to an extent. Or, if not handled sensitively and simply presented as "these are slaves - we won't go into the horrid bits, just know they're slaves", it could be almost irresponsible.

In the Star Wars universe, we're not really given anything other than the face value of what slavery means, and so, while everyone here OBVIOUSLY totally agrees that slavery is inherently dehumanising, the film didn't do anything to show that that's the case, and if anything what it showed suggested that it wasn't that bad. Should a slave say "yippee" in response to his master at the end of the first scene they share?

 

What? I'm asking for the people complaining about "easy, comfy slavery" to explain just what it was they wanted, because none of them have done so. They've just reiterated the same so-called "talking points" about how Anakin's slave life was "equivalent to suburban comfort," although it was no such thing.

 

You, Sir, need to relax. Chains and whips are not necessary. Just a more visceral sense of danger and humiliation. Show, don't tell, when you're depicting slavery.

One scene is all you really need. Watto's ugly jowls in Anakin's face as he punishes him for even daring to ask to leave work early. "For your insolence, you will scrub floors all night. I want to see them shine in the morning. If not, it will be back to the pit with you." And then Anakin, being the daring and adventurous type he is, skips out to help the Jedi, knowing the consequences, but incapable of holding back his heart. That's still a kid-friendly moment, but it drives home to humiliation of slavery, and hints at the kind of severe treatment Lucas may not have wanted to show on screen (such as he wisely avoided showing Owen and Beru's murder, etc, and just gave us the aftermath, which was horrible enough).

Atmospherically, a brand on Anakin's arm, obvious contempt from locals, a glimpse of some other slaves in a pen (and Anakin saying something like "I used to live in one of those"), a lack of free-spirited friends hanging around like it's suburban Ohio in 1955, the need to share one small room with his mother rather than having his own quarters, etc.

Either a few major changes, or a series of minor tweaks, could have made Anakin's situation much more dramatically compelling.

Honestly, these are some of the most legitimate and constructive critiques of TPM imaginable, IMO. And if George had done it that way, you would have likely defended him to the hilt. The fact that these critiques inspire such a vicious reaction from some is, frankly, very worrying. I mean, why so implacably defensive?

 

Note: OK, I hate to interrupt your engaging discussions about slavery, but this is too far off topic. I know you guys think you're discussing examples of where Lucas failed the story, but it's still too far off topic. The topic is NOT "Lucas, and anything Lucas ever did in the past, including the PT"; it's Lucas in relation to the ST and his treatments for the ST.

 

I'm not saying it is perfect villainy in ANH, I'm saying that if you compare ANH to TPM, it's no contest. You're of course right to say that's hardwired into the nature of the plot in TPM, but as with the slavery angle, there is a middle ground. It's like Anakin being 9 again - George would say "that's the story". I would say, rubbish - making Anakin 9 hobbles some of the key relationships moving forwards. So, a lot of the problems with the PT are IMO as you suggest, exactly what George was going for. I'm suggesting some of those choices were not only not inevitable but also problematic for the films themselves.

This is why it comes back to this "this is the story" line that George keeps pulling - it's as if he had no choice but to tell it that way. But that is just not true. It may be that's the story he wanted to tell, and that's his right and fair enough. But if that telling is problematic, there will be criticism - in exactly the same way that such criticism will apply to JJ. If a decision to hold back Luke (if that is what has happened) and not have the big 3 onscreen is not executed very well, it may well backfire, and JJ will deservedly cop the flak for that decision.

EDIT - sorry EHT I just saw your post - I did try and get it back on topic.

 

A floating probe with a hypodermic needle attached, coming at the heroine; the hero's home burnt, with his aunt and uncle's charred remains right there for all to see; bodies of the small, cute aliens being piled onto a fire after a massacre. While the events happen offscreen, we see clear, specific threats and/or consequences.

 

EHT I won't bang on about it, and if you're steadfast that this is too far off topic, then fine. But can I just in one post try to argue that since we don't know the content of the treatments for VII,and given that using story choices in the past to inform opinion on directions the story may have gone is the only thing we have to go on, that occasionally the discussion will zero in on small areas that don't directly, immediately link to the ST story and potential of it, but do all feed into that context ultimately? Especially since Lucas himself has drawn a distinction between his story being about the Skywalker's, making discussion of whether his writing of the Skywalker's is inherently unimprovable valid?

 

This is simply not the case, and oddly revisionist. Before we even leave Tatoooine, the Empire's henchmen were shown choking rebel leaders to death, taking rebel women prisoner, torturing those women, blowing up entire planets, burning innocent farmers alive, and massacring Jawas with impunity. Yes, we often saw the "aftermaths" of these grave injustices. But we saw them, and what they implied was deeply unsettling.

 

You mean like Anakin and Shmi had adapted to their life? Anakin amused himself by building things. Shmi just accepted what their circumstances were and encouraged Anakin, her only child, to go because she loved him and wanted him to have a better life. (When he would have been so much more comfortable in his cushy slave digs, right?)

What is your idea of horrid bits? Again, what is it you wanted? Isn't being owned bad enough, or do you need to see beatings and starvation? Don't shriek "straw man," you're the one who's trying to muddy the issue with vagueness and faux-lofty moralistic statements.

Clearly they don't, or they wouldn't put slavery in quotes when talking about Anakin's circumstances.

For the fiftieth time, or at least it seems like it: they live in a crappy hovel. They barely have enough to eat. WHAT IS IT that you wanted shown? You've already sneered at "chains and beating and starvation" as being a straw man.

Uh...what does "yippee" have to do with anything, or are you just dragging out an exhausted complaint and pretending it's a crucial matter, thus relying on supposedly "common wisdom" about the faults of the prequels to make your point (whatever that is)?

Anakin is portrayed as a sunny-natured, generous child. He has learned to make the best of his circumstances, but he recognizes what being a slave means. That's why he bristles at being called a slave. What did you want him to do, exactly? Mope around and act like a brat? Lie to his mother? Stick his tongue out at Watto behind his back? Curse up a storm instead of saying (horrors!) "Yippee"?

 

That's like saying someone is a prisoner of war and then not showing a single hardship that goes along with that. So are we supposed to just assume what being a slave is like in the Star Wars universe? Are we supposed to just take their word for it? This is yet another example of the thousands of Lucas telling and not showing. This is a movie, a visual medium - the biggest advantage films have over books is this visual medium aspect. In what way was Anakin a slave? Other than being sold to qui gon in what was the most complicated and confusing "bet" in the history of movies - you keep asking "what do you want to see to prove he was a slave" how about something, anything. Because all we saw was Anakin being a regular kid in a normal environment for the most part. He had guests over for dinner, he does whatever he hell he wants to do, has access to whatever the hell he wanted to build whatever he wanted, is it too much to ask for visual storytelling or should we also just assume that The Rebels won too without showing how? All anyone is saying is that it would have made Anakins story a little more interesting and found him sympathetic had he actually been IN some bad conditions and struggles during his time as a slave other than just assuming it.

Rey is a scavenger living on Jakku - one way they are going to show this supposedly is she goes hunting for scraps and sells them for WATER
You see how that one thing tells a huge story already about Rey's struggles on an every day level?

 

OK, but I thought that was what was being attempted already, and then in turn just got off topic with endless posts about said topic (such as pages of arguments about slavery). So yes, one post as you said. But everyone should be aware that this thread's days may be numbered.

 

Many have already offered up alternatives to shackles and beatings. Here are mine again, since you seem to be persisting with your defense of the strawman.