Saga How can it be considered the "tragedy" of Darth Vader?

Typos because of auto correct.

Kappa~

 

That kind of greed that you are talking about is when your good intentions cause harm to others, perhaps those you intended to help or have a duty to help, and your pursuit of power continues unabated, whether you're conscious of the harm or not. That kind of greed isn't apparent anywhere and doesn't happen until Anakin suddenly agrees to go and kill all the Jedi in the temple.

 

The road to hell is paved with good intentions and his journey date back to AOTC, when he starts behaving in a manner that shows that there is greed in his heart. Long before he turns to the dark side. Because he became so obsessed with thinking that he needed to save everyone, he began his fall to the dark side and thus was fueled by greed.

 

I think the thread has become like crossed lines - but the emotional resonance is key here.

Is Vader's redemption any less satisfying at its conclusion as a result of the event of tragedy which is the fall of Anakin Skywalker in the prequels?

Possibly - but the catharsis is obviously undermined because of dramatic irony. We know what happens, the suffering is ultimately trumped by the conviction of the son Luke in the good of Anakin, the father. That's just a by-product of the order in which the story was told.

 

Personally, I think the all-but-completely grim finish of ROTS would be unbearable if we didn't already know that, in the end, Ani is redeemed and good triumphs.

 

Anakin's story is tragic in as far as it is a tale of his suffering and the ultimate effect this has on the viewer.

Personally I think the tragedy is pretty well conveyed over the saga.

You can argue that the weaker prequel storytelling makes the tragedy less compelling. Is that the complaint here?

 

"It's a downer, the saving grace is that if you watch the other three movies, then you know everything ends happily ever after. Nevertheless, I now have to make a movie that works by itself but which also works with this six-hour movie and this overall twelve-hour movie. I'll have two six-hour trilogies, and the two will beat against each other: One's the fall, one's the redemption. They have different tonalities but it's meant to be one experience of twelve hours."

--George Lucas, The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith, page 62.

 

I don't agree, do you realize the only time Anakin was free was when he killed the Emperor and died shortly. He was born a slave, followed Jedi Masters and followed Emperor Palpatine, when he killed the Emperor that was the only time he was free and used it to try to make amends for all the evil he has done.

 

Well since "weaker" is subjective, it's maybe a bit disingenuous to make a case for Anakin being less than tragic on that basis.

However. Since perceived issues with the storytelling are routinely rebuffed by taking the Jedi order or the Jedi code's perspective, it seems often that the only tragic qualities that Anakin had was the he once was a innocent wee boy and wound up being a murderer and supporter of tyranny.

 

I think one of the bigger issues is, that while Lucas argues, it is Anakin's attachment, which causes him to turn to the dark side, in many ways the films also undermine this idea. Anakin's desire to save his wife from death is presented as a bad thing, mostly because the films are desparate to prove that this is what causes him to turn, but looking at it objectively, we all have the desire to postpone death, while simultaneously having to come to terms with it's inevitability. The problem Lucas' approach is, that in order to make his proposition work, he has to turn Anakin into the most retarded person in the galaxy. He has Anakin turn on his friends based on an empty promise by the least trustworthy person in the universe.

It would be one thing if Anakin had actually witnessed these legendary Sith powers, in which case it would be a case of Eve being seduced by the snake to taste an apple of the tree of knowledge. However in Lucas' version of this legendary tale, the snake tries to convince Eve to take a chain saw, cut down the tree of knowledge, and stuff it in a woodchipper, with the promise, that there might be an apple for her, once the tree has been grinded to pieces. Even more astounding, once Eve starts sawing, the snake admits he can't produce an apple, but promises they'll look for it together, once Eve finishes the task at hand. Any person with a working brain would have to concude, that Anakin/Eve would be moronic to go along with this, but such is the tale that Lucas wants to pass off as tragic.

 

^ Ditto.

 

This illustrates well that part of Lucas' story is intended as a blown up exaggerated version of human tragedy as a concept.

So the fact that some parts are implausibly tragic in the context of how people truly behave might be missing the point of the message trying to be conveyed.

 

If you have to ignore the dramatic implausibility or the obscurity of the supposed tragedy in order to appreciate the point being made, then that is not a good thing.

 

As far as witnessing these legendary Sith powers, that is a good point. On one hand, he could conclude that Palps just took out four Jedi Masters he personally knows were probably an impossibility for all but the strongest force user. But then that contradicts him being tricked into thinking Palps was the helpless victim of those same four Jedi Masters.

Another possible way to look at it is the snake's rival constantly *keep things* from him. He *knows* they are keeping things from him. In a sense, he doesn't like the Jedi Council's "from a certain point of view" deception. So it might be more that he had come to distrust the Jedi while also finding reasons to trust Palps (acting as a father / mentor). And how many people do things for their famiily (or father) even when they know they are only doing it because they are family. Palps had tried to move into that role. If you just consider standard child raising methods today, it is better to reason with the still learning child / teenager to understand the answer rather than to just be told (yelled at) to accept the answer. Answer being "shut up. sit down." Obi-Wan became the disciplinary to a fault father, where Palpatine was the encouraging father figure.

Then you also have to consider Palpatine represents, at worst, a possibility of cheating Padme's death. The Jedi represent no hope on the matter. It might be a Dumb and Dumber "so you're saying there's a chance", but 1 in X is better than 0 in x.

And it fits in with the theory that the Jedi were very much a fault of Anakin's turn. Think of Anakin and Mace.
Anakin: Had to be encouraged to strike down a Sith and still tried to fight the temptation. Not worthy of Master status.
Mace: Was being discouraged from striking down a Sith and did nothing to fight the temptation. Worthy of Top Master status.

Jedi definitely were not short of supply on double standards and hypocrisy.

 

It's not obscurity - nor really related to the dramatic presentation I'd say.

The weakness lies in the detail of Anakin's presentation. But the ultimate message is valid and is not obscured. The message remains entirely relatable and it is a message of tragedy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

How can it not be obscured if the motivation and the details are not recognisable to people who know and understand actual greed and actual selfishness?

Michael Corleone works as a tragedy because, in spite of his ideals, he had witnessed the successful way his father protected his family and when the time came that Michael felt he had as much to lose, he was able to ignore or suppress the moral questions of killing to remain in a position of power to protect those close to him.

 

It definitely was not a tragedy for Anakin in the eyes of the Jedi.
Surviving Jedi response:
Yoda to OB1: Kill him. He's already dead to us.
OB1 to Luke: Light him up. It is the only way.

The Jedi only viewed the tragedy in the terms of what they could use Anakin for. Bragging rights as the victors in the never ending Hatfield and McCoy feud of the galaxy.

Sith: Finally we will put an end to the Jedi
Jedi: Finally we will put an end to the Sith
First Order: Finally we will put an end to the Republic

Galaxy bystanders: Why can't they both just go away so we can live our lives.

Jedi: We will indoctrinate kids too young to realize what we do is not normal
First Order: We will indoctrinate kids too young to realize what we do is not normal.
Sith: Our apprentice will choose to join us. We might use some used car salesman tactics, but that's why we make the big bucks.

Sith actually have the high ground on the last one.

 

This thread may as well be merged with DrDre 's thread on the PT board.

It's virtually the exact same subject and it relates only to events and dialogue from the prequels.

 

Anakin is the father, isn't he? I'm so sorry.

You were my brother, Anakin! I loved you.

Do not underestimate the powers of the Emperor, or suffer your father's fate, you will.

 

As I posted in another thread, I look at Anakin's big, wrong decision as similar to somebody who's caught in a lie or a crime. After all, Anakin, in his mind, just aided in the murder of a Jedi Master. He's already on their list as untrustworthy. He's desperate to save his wife from death. So, when Palpatine offers at least a chance of pulling a victory from the jaws of defeat, Ani grabs at it. Yes, it's a con, and had Ani given things a bit more thought he might've decided differently. But, he was in a crisis point, and the Jedi seemed to have no sympathy for him or his troubles. And by the time he realizes the truth, it's far too late. He's trapped, and all he has left is to obey, while plotting Palpatine's overthrow.

It's like some otherwise law-abiding, mid-mannered person who's given into temptation just once, and is terrified someone will find out. Suddenly, with the threat of exposure looming over him, anything is permissible. Lie to his friends, destroy evidence, get rid of somebody who might know the truth...anything. Put in old radio terms, Ani's dilemma would make a great episode of "The Whistler". ("It went so well, didn't it, Anakin? Just turn against the ones who were out to get you. Get rid of them before they got rid of you. And now you have it all. Your wife is safe, the war is over, your enemies are dead, and you're in position to take over, when you're ready. It all worked out fine...until Padme disagrees with you. You can't allow that, can you? You've gone too far, haven't you?")

 

He wasn't as slave as a Jedi, but he was as a Sith. Which was part of the tragedy.

Because he is the only person who will give him what he wants. He believes that the Council won't teach him the kinds of skills that the Sith have used, because of their dogmatic view of the Force. And their own inability to trust him only adds to this. So he will go to someone that has trusted him for years and years and is offering him hope where there is none. Remember, Lucas has compared Anakin's fall to that of Faust, who knew that he was getting what he wanted from the most untrustworthy of sources. So it is with him. And again, Palpatine never claimed that he was the Apprentice of Darth Plagueis. Thus he couldn't have the knowledge. But he tells Anakin that he knows enough about the dark side that they can find it together. There is no one else who can teach him like he can.

 

I think I have perhaps been unclear in my own argument. Apologies.

The caveat is that is ultimately just an opinion - but I find it very difficult to accept that the notions of greed and selfishness presented in the PT are not, at their most simple, a reflection of actual human behavior.
Star Wars, like much of fiction, sacrifices realism and/or replication of human activities in favor of a moral, a theme, a lesson. In this case, SW is dealing in tragic themes, and is using the storytelling tradition of Tragedy.

Yes, people don't actually cave into their desires so readily like Anakin does. Yes, he becomes blinded by greed too easily - all of these points are valid and are weaknesses. But the ideas at work here ring true. People do succumb to avarice, violence does ensue, often in breathtaking proportions. But the Star Wars context allows for the smallest tragedies to explode into galaxy-devastating events. Lucas has said that SW is 'Soap Opera' in space - and this is a significant explanation of it.

Going back to the original question - how can it be considered Vader's tragedy - I agree totally that if you cannot emotionally connect with the tragic themes of the drama as they are portrayed (i.e. you are unwilling to suspend your disbelief) then it won't be a tragedy for you (catharsis would have failed) - it will be a farce. Just like you might consider any fantasy/sci-fi farcical because it does not ground itself in realism. It's just a form of storytelling that some people dislike. Fair enough.

 

I don't know what the tragedy of Darth Vader is, but it's clear what Anakin Skywalker's tragedy is.

It's the archetypical moral tale of somebody falling over his own fears and desires by being lured by empty promises he wants to believe; Anakin out of fear to lose those he loves, craves for power and control, and thereby destroys those he swore to protect.

It's the mythological Faustian packt with the devil. The brilliant thing here is that Palpatine is not the devil: he is a mere demagogue tricking and manipulating people, playing them by their fears and desires. He cannot deliver what he promises! It would have been utterly naive and unrealistic fairy tale writing if Palps could actually provide what he had promised Anakin: Demagogues and autocrats almost never can, all just serves their own purpose and people just follow them blindly.

Accordingly, the cynical and creepy thing here is that Palps kept his promise to his own advantage: he kept Anakin from dying, but not by teh Force but by putting him into the life sustaining Vader suite. The Sith tale is complete (as foreshadowed by Darth Plagueis).

It's one of the best bits of storytelling out of the last decades; the leading art critic professor Camille Paglia in her book Glittering Images, even called Revenge of the Sith the greatest work of art of the past 30 years.

 

But the problems being observed aren't with the blasters, lightsabers and spaceships. They are with the actions and emotions of the characters.

The problem, for me, really isn't the concept(s). If Lucas started the PT with a 5 to 10 page treatment of all 3 PT movies, it would probably appear to be a masterpiece. Born a slave, losing his mother, fear of losing Padme, a puppet master pulling the strings, creating wars for the sake of political gain. It just got muddled in the details. And as I posted recently, some of those problems might be the result of adhering to the OT format when this trilogy story really cannot be done justice within those confines. Lucas tried to park a tank of a story in the OT one car garage.

Going a bit off topic now. It might have been better to have Palps create the clone wars (his story arc) with more scenes of Anakin fighting in them performing amazing feats, but still coming up short simply because he is only one person in a galaxy wide war. He starts out wanting to save *the people*. And he keeps going further and further down the rabbit hole in what he considers necessary to do that, leading to his *seduction by the darkside powers". His goal was pure, but his methods were not.

Perhaps not make the Sith Apprentice the leader of the Separatists. Make them somebody Anakin runs across while fighting a battle on a planet. The Sith Apprentice sayst he is just a former Jedi Master that left the order to come back to his home planet. He fights with Anakin, leaving Anakin in awe of his abilities. This prompts Anakin to distance himself from OB1 so he can learn from the Sith. Eventually, he admits he's a Sith, but that the Jedi have lied to him about just what a Sith is.

 

Yeah. , who knows what tragedy I was on about there - should've been Anakin's. My mind's going to mush.

I think you're right, and also agree entirely that the message is weakened by the detail - but I think there is also a case to argue that the PT has this certain 'density' for a reason - it shows an environment almost closer to our own than the OT because of cramming together of motivations, intent, exploitation etc. of many many different agencies. That is the context for the tragedy. The tragedy of Anakin is provoked not just by internal doubt and internal feelings, but by external powers. Again, I would focus it on the 'theme'.

Regarding the issue being about emotions/actions - I think if you establish a continuity of characters who act similar but in overblown ways to real human beings, you can allow for Anakin's actions in that context. That is to say, it's not just Anakin who might act in an unbelievable way, it's other characters too - throughout the films - they're all tied up together in one setting. That said, maybe I'm playing devil's advocate here. But I think doing something outrageous/unexpected with a character can often provoke true emotion from the viewer.

I think this achieves the less convoluted aim perfectly - but I wonder whether the whole "too much detail" is really "too much bureaucracy/intrigue" and hence integrated into the whole story trying to be told. I.e. that the Republic is corrupt/decadent anyway, and the Anakin's acts blow the whole thing to bits.