PT Padmé Amidala MEGAthread - Don't look at her that way. It makes her uncomfortable

Kuro I think you're being overly literal about Padme's death if you believe that she consciously chose to die out of a narcissistic obsession with her own feelings. I can understand how you would get that interpretation if you were, say, reading the screenplay rather than watching the movie. But the way it's portrayed on screen, it seems clear to me at least that her death is beyond her own control, that she was so damaged on a spiritual or energetic level (which is not the same as psychological) that her body simply gave out.

About Anakin, he was troubled in the prequels, yes. I guess you would have preferred to have an unambiguous hero who would eventually somehow lose himself in the dark side? Not that there's anything wrong with that, but clearly that's not the story Lucas decided to tell.

 

It's all about the "horrible old cliches" that Lucas breaks again because she is NOT supposed to exit the story that way. It's WRONG. She should get a gun and go after Anakin for revenge.

REVENGE!

REVENGE!!

The point is that they are so much the same in so many ways but Anakin makes the wrong choices more than right and Luke is the opposite.

This is where it all gets clouded because in the OT the good and evil of (the Light side of) the Force and the Dark side of the Force was simpler. Going by the OT Anakin was as Obi-Wan described him in ANH and ROTJ. A great Jedi Knight who then turned to evil.

Why though? As the OT unfolded there really didn't have to be any concrete thought out reason. The Force was a much simpler good vs evil. He turned evil then after 20 odd years against everything the Jedi knew to good again. Based on the way it was presented in ROTJ with Luke almost turning to the Dark side was fairly simple. Within mere minutes Luke was almost taken by the combined actions of Sidious and Vader. Temptation can be easy to give into and hard to stay on the straight path.

If Anakin and Luke were about the same as presented then this conversion could be quick for Anakin as it almost was for Luke. The prequels upset this fairly simple good to evil conversion to make it a multi-layered character journey. I find it ironic that for some the problem with Anakin's turn was that it was too fast. In comparison to Luke it was interminably slow. Like 13 Minutes compared to 13 years.

Yet I suspect if Anakin had been presented in the "horrible cliche" hero version and had in essence been another version of Luke in TPM and AOTC into ROTS then had actually turned to the Dark side virtually out of nowhere after a few minutes prodding from Palpatine then many would be totally fine with it because that fits the simpler OT ethic that Lucas had first set up.

To me that is quite a quandary because what they didn't like was too fast but what they would have liked which is 100x faster is what they would have wanted?

The reality of production is that Anakin and Vader were two different characters but when crafting the story of the prequels Lucas had to make Anakin's story Vader's and not the original Luke-like Anakin. That version simply wouldn't sustain over 3 movies that well with Anakin at the center since that story was already told in another form with Luke. The far more interesting and character drama is Anakin as Vader the impatient student who's greed and want for power turns him to the Dark side. That the greed and want for power came from wanting to help those he loved is the character flaw. He wants to save his family, friends and anyone he cares for. That is what is used against him by the Emperor.

Yet I have no problem seeing the good young boy in TPM, the good young man in AOTC and young hero in ROTS in the least. That would be like wondering if Luke were so in the OT to me.

The deep friendship between Anakin and Obi-Wan in AOTC and ROTS emanates off the screen to me and always did. As I have said the friendship of Anakin and Obi-Wan is so active in the movies while Luke and Han is fairly inert because they spend so little time together and Han has no real part to play in Luke's story when he actually goes on the Jedi path. Han can't relate to him on that level. The only really meaningful relationship they have is a few moments in ANH when he's just a kid who can handle himself.

To me it's quite interesting that the lack of Luke and Han actually interacting in a meaningful character way is what seems to make their friendship so strong while for those people Anakin and Obi-Wan who interact in meaningful character ways takes away from their friendship for them.

I have to say when I think of flawed heroes Luke does not come to mind. Anakin clearly does and Luke is no Anakin in that specific way.

I think this site says it well:

http://psychologyinfilm.weebly.com/the-flawed-hero.html

All great (and even not so great) works of fiction have flawed characters. It is especially important that the narrative's protagonist be flawed. Without a character flaw, there is nothing for a character to overcome. As humans, we are all flawed creatures. Consequently, it is nearly impossible to identify with a character that is flawless. Character flaws can range from minor, to major, to tragic. Minor flaws are small idiosyncrasies that don't have a strong impact on the story. Rather, they make the protagonist accessible and set them apart from the rest of the film's characters. (Remember, Western cultures put a high value on individuality). Major flaws are more central to a character's struggle and become defining themes of a story. A tragic flaw is a trait that brings about a hero's downfall, and often leads to the character's death. In other cases, the "downfall" comes early in the story, and the hero performs some act of redemption later on.

Luke has minor flaws in comparison but Anakin's is a tragic flaw.


An example of a tragic hero in film is Anakin Skywalker, from the Star Wars series. InStar Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005), he dreams that his wife, Padme, will die in childbirth. He is consumed by fear and anger at this prospect. In order to save her, he turns to the Dark Side of The Force, known as "The Sith." As Padme gives birth, the knowledge that Anakin has turned to the Dark Side causes her to give up--to dye of a broken heart. Anakin, overcome by anger (and believing that he accidentally killed Padme and their unborn child), becomes the heartless, evil Darth Vader. In Episodes 4-6, Anakin continues on his evil path. At the end of Episode VI - Return of the Jedi (1983), Anakin rejects the Dark Side in order to save his son, Luke. This final act of redemption, and the death that follows, brings his character full circle.

Here's the thing. People are not used to heroes failing. Anakin and Padme are heroes but they fail so to the eyes of some that in itself disqualifies then from being heroes.

Anakin fails in the PT and Padme "fails". It is through Luke that they both ultimately "win" and that he creates their triumph by bring out the hero in Anakin that once was and that Padme still felt was there good in him (and that was passed onto Luke through his being like his mother).

Great point. The answer is not nearly as much as they should if they held him to the same standard that they hold Anakin and Padme and that Obi-Wan does in the OT as per ROTJ.

Obi-Wan does fail with Anakin and not recognize what Qui-Gon probably would have from Anakin's inner character flaw to Palpatine's meddling.

Obi-Wan certainly gets an undeserved pass from many.

Please don't use the tactic of calling my argument a "straw man" I really don't appreciate it and think it's a useless term in the context of fictional arguments like the ones we have here. I think we are having a true argument here. If straw man to you means that what you see is objective (Anakin is not a hero) and what I see is subjective (Anakin is a hero) then the whole thing is utterly pointless.

I accept that you see what you see. If you don't accept that I see what I do and I am just doing it to make a point then there really is no point at all in us exchanging views is there?

They also very clearly portray Anakin and Padme as heroes. With flaws and all. They fail because they don't choose their exits while Obi-Wan does in ANH and Anakin does in ROTJ.

The PT is only half the story. The OT is only half the story.

I'm sorry I don't address every simply point in a point by point way every single time. When others do the same to me I usually don't bother with it because I know how long this can all take. I thought I had addressed the overall essence anyway without having to make it line by line so I wouldn't say myself that I had ignored it. I don't think I did. I mean this thing is long enough without line by line coverage.

You seem to want "concession" on your or my part. That is not at all my purpose in this. Mine is to explain what I see and to get from you what you see which is so different (and far less satisfying ).

As I have said many times I get to see 6 great movies and one amazing story over those movies with great performances all around and one of the best stories ever. That of Anakin Skywalker brilliantly played by HC with NP and the rest of the cast.

If others saw them as I do I think they would be a lot happier then they are now as regards the SW movies.

I get to see the great love and friendship and tragedy of the characters that some others do and some others don't. I hope that my feelings can enhance others viewing. In the past it actually has and they
say that it does help them out some.

 

I mean figuratively and as in ROTS symbolically.

Interesting. It really made you angry in a movie sense about the characters?

Sadness is certainly part of it for me but to me it was more about excitement because the larger point I always accepted about the PT that is it's Star Wars history and it was about revealing the actual events that preceded the story we already now which at the same time made that story better, stronger and deeper in ways that we couldn't possibly know at the time.

Now I see Padme in Luke and Anakin's face and voice behind Vader's mask that was not possible before the PT.

That would have been the weakness we are talking about besides the fact that if she was alive then the Anakin in Vader would know it therefore he would know about the child. It doesn't work for the story and never really did outside of the "he never knew about the children in the first place and it was hidden from him" which is a whole other story.

Which is the crux point. Those who think Padme "gave up" and those who don't.

You can not give up and still be overcome. Being overcome does not mean you've given up. You can not give up and still be overwhelmed.

 

Compared to Leia, Jyn and Rey, Padme was a disastrous female lead. A shame, as I was really rooting for Natalie.

 

No way, no how.

I personally think, compared to Leia and Padme, Jyn is a disastrous lead -- dour character played by an ill-fitting actor giving a lousy performance.

I'll take Padme and the prequels, and Leia and the original trilogy, any day, over that sorry excuse for a Star Wars outing "Rogue One", thank you very much.

 

Cryo with the put down! Hey-oh!

 

Oh, good. Film bashing.

 

You've become a ccaricature of yourself.

 

Oh, good... poster bashing.

And Gigoran Monk, the person I was responding to, implicitly bashed all three prequels.

But you're all just fine with that. Of course.

Oh... I've become a caricature of myself?

On the contrary, in my opinion, you invited that response with your lazy, one-line bash at the Padme character.

But hey, whenever it's the PT under attack, in its very own forum, that's fine. Don't bother making an argument; just take a pop and watch the approval roll in.

As soon as someone bashes the precious Disney movies, however, opprobrium quickly follows; including direct personal attacks. Funny stuff.

 

I think the distinction is in tone. I was really pulling for Nathalie and wanted Padme to be great. She started out promising in TPM, but I believe was let down by the script in II and III (for reasons many are likely familiar with, and which I'd rather not drag up). I thought that was fair-minded.

Your criticism of Jyn (and Jones) was comparatively nasty and insulting.

Decency's all I ask for.

 

This may be a presumption on my part, but I feel like this attitude is born out of a sort of conviction that female leads must be good role models first and foremost, and indeed that anything else is actually irresponsible on the filmmaker's part, a societal expectation that is never assumed in the same way for male characters. Padme is a victim, therefore she must be a "disastrous" female character. So the thinking appears to go (sorry if I'm mischaracterizing your reasons for finding her disastrous). Personally I think she's far more of a developed character than Rey (who to be fair I still like and has only had one movie) or Jyn (who constantly seemed overshadowed by Diego Luna's character who actually had a clear motivation and arc).

 

Boys and girls, let's not go down this road. Wouldn't want to see another PT thread (temporarily) closed.

 

Since throughout the history of fiction women have often been made to play second fiddle, or relegated to a role of damsel in distress, I think it's only natural that many object to a film maker perpetuating this female stereotype. In ancient times women were sometimes entombed alive with their dead husbands, and ROTS is more or less content to do the same.

 

Let's get one thing straight here. You are arbitrarily choosing what's an acceptable tone; and condescending to me to boot.

The basic fact of the matter is, you directly compared Padme to the leading female characters in the other Star Wars movies, and flatly asserted she is "a disastrous lead" next to all of them.

That's a sweeping attack on Padme, on Lucas, and the PT, in my opinion. And not a particularly stimulating one, either.

You get decency if you engender it. Flip, one-line attacks do not make for edifying contributions to the flow of a discussion.

And prequel fans have put up with constant detraction of these films; and endless vilification of Lucas for "sexist" and "racist" stereotypes in addition. Both sets of things have happened in this very thread. Without naming names, if you go back to pages eight and nine, you'll see Padme in ROTS declared to have an "absolutely" sexist character arc; with the smuggled-in implication that anyone who thinks differently must themselves be sexist or deficient in some way. Another poster was also accused of "mansplaining" for having the sheer chutzpah of explaining their own opinion. That's right -- they were negatively attacked and dismissed on the basis of their gender (by someone else stressed about "sexist" portrayals in a Star Wars film).

Some people have striven to constantly negativize the discussion space around these films in particular. I find it a bit sick, and a bit rich, personally, to be told that my opinion, harsh as it may be, means I was being "nasty and insulting". This is the prequel trilogy forum for one thing; I never heavily throw my opinions around pertaining to TFA and R1 like some people do with the prequel films. Most of the time, to be frank, I simply bite my tongue and try and focus, as best I can, on the movies I enjoy. You'll notice that this is not the case with the prequels; people are forever denigrating them right here in the PT forum. Over and over and over; on and on and on.

I also find your qualification relatively meaningless. You were rooting for Natalie -- how noble. The prequel actors, their characters, and their performances have been attacked here and elsewhere without limit, for literally years; and it still goes on. So much so, in fact, that it is sometimes said that prequel fans, to this very day, are being "defensive" or acting like "apologists" when they don't accept the criticism, or if they show the temerity to express praise and approval. Every time a prequel actor supposedly says something negative in the press, it is gleefully seized upon as more "proof" that the prequels are bad and that even the actors "obviously" hate their own work.

Fair-mindedness really doesn't come into it. Especially when a person can't even call Rey a "Mary Sue" in the TFA forum without being punished. People are allowed much greater freedom in the PT forum; and it's clear that some gladly seize it to hiss at prequel fans and slam, kvetch, and upbraid -- and even ambush -- every chance they can. There is an enormous disparity between what you're allowed to say and do on other movie forums and on the PT forum. If it were anything like the other forums, half the discussion in this thread would never have happened. And people would have been barred from calling Jar Jar a "racist buffoon" character years ago. Again: Calling Rey a "Mary Sue"? Outlawed. Jar Jar a racist caricature? Go right ahead! Different rules for different movies.

And for all that, you appear to be trying to shame and censor me. For the record, I tried to give the Jyn Erso character (and all the characters of R1) the benefit of the doubt, but it turns out (for me, at least) that I found Felicity Jones to be miscast in R1; and that neither her character nor her performance impacted me very much. Or is it that women -- young, wealthy, white, well-educated women -- are magically entitled to extra protection? That for anyone to dare to call a performance by such a person "lousy" automatically makes one "nasty and insulting"? I mean, WOW. This isn't even the R1 board; let alone the Felicity Jones/Jyn Erso Fan Club. But I guess, increasingly in a weirdly imbalanced world of social justice and prequel bashing, some opinions are now nasty by definition; while other types of nastiness and negativity are completely normal and appropriate.

 

Am I still permitted to point out rules like no bashing without being falsely accused of bashing a guilty party?

 

I understand where you're coming from. The problem is that you're grouping me in with the incessant "prequel-hater" community, and that simply is not a part of my identity. I greatly appreciate the prequels, liking TPM a lot and appreciating large parts of AOTC (a little less enamoured of ROTS), but I see real originality, boldness and creative energy in the PT that's sorely lacking in most, if not all, genre blockbusters. In that context, I sometimes wish the execution of the PT was better at times, because if so, I think they would have blown the lid off the static state of genre cinema. I also see Rogue One as right in line with the Lucasian spirit, with some kinks ironed out, and so am excited about the prospect of Edwards carrying Lucas's legacy forward (if rumors pan out, he may be given the Obi-Wan film). I believe Lucas sees it that way as well. They have a very similar world-building eye, in particular, and treat the GFFA as having both mythic and historical resonance.

 

I think Padme ultimately fails to live up to the promise she had as a lead character in TPM and in AOTC.

Leia suffers tin the same way by her third movie too but that has been successfully redeemed by TFA, in my opinion, and I have great hopes for her and Rey in TLJ (and beyond).

But on a one trilogy basis, she's no worse than any lead character you'd care to mention. (Even Vader is disappointingly passive in ROTJ until the climax)

We're stuck with a lot of distracting ambiguities and ambivalence about the way that Padme's exit from the saga. Her sudden demise would have been a poignant tragic enigma that people would have been able to relate to. But it got unnecessarily and counterproductively droidsplained to us.

 

I have to say that is stunning to me to call it disastrous.

I don't think any of Leia, Rey or Jyn are disastrous female leads in the least but in comparison to Padme and what she does they are if one would talk in that way (going to extremes) especially Rey and Jyn. As I said I don't think they are at all.

Leia is like Han a solid support character in ANH, actual co-star in TESB and useful for the plot but both under served as characters since there wasn't much for them to do outside of moving the plot. The character stories for them were done and they could play no real part in Luke's story though Leia was at least used for some support to tie the "there is another" storyline. It was always awkward and still is but through the PT and ST it's going to smoothed out pretty well.

Rey and Jyn are fine overall but if they were male instead of female would it really matter? Are they being women really crucial to the story? Nothing that wouldn't easily be adjusted. Even their names are gender neutral.

They fit somewhat into the larger female warrior type that became more popular 20 years ago first with Xena and Buffy but unlike those characters where being female really mattered to the entire ethos of the storytelling that is not so much the case with Rey and Jyn. It might develop with Rey going forward but not so much in TFA. Obviously there is a huge difference between being on TV and having the canvas available there as opposed to movies where things have to be gotten over very quickly.

Leia is clearly a female character that couldn't be switched to male unless you then change Han and they that throws off the entire dynamic of Luke and Han and then Luke has a brother instead of sister etc etc.

I think Jyn works very well overall. I wish they hadn't adjusted the character in the reshoots as she seemed more interesting there in terms of motivations with more drive and anger. Obviously even what was in the trailers was putting people off so they made her more muted than angry which I would say hurt the character. If there had been more time to develop a father/daughter vibe with Galen and Saw then that could have been different but the story didn't lend itself to that. That would require a time shift between where the opening was and then the present.

I would say that she exceeded all expectations after TPM and AOTC. I really don't know what more that could have been done outside of some basic plot movement like the seeds of rebellion.

The really important things were all addressed both in character and story. I don't know what more could be done that would fit. Having her survive doesn't work.

Since you feel that way why then is Padme not "redeemed" by ROTJ where Luke also believes their is good left in Anakin like she did?

That is because Anakin has been reawakened by Luke as he remembers Padme through him. The TESB Vader was so shaken by the experience and admitting to himself that he is still Anakin despite trying to destroy himself.

Obviously not are far as Lucas was concerned. It's with precision that he did what he did and made sure it was a droid. As pointed out in AOTC the difference between knowledge and wisdom.

 

Padme's death was a waste. But then that's sort of the point, isn't it? And yes, on the one hand it does play into the tired and troublesome trope of women being "fridged" to provide some cheap motivation for the male protagonist. At the same time, though, the idea of self-sacrifice, of freely giving up everything for someone else, is a powerful and universal theme. When a male character does such a thing we automatically interpret it as Christ-like; when a female character does the same thing it's viewed as exploitative and irresponsible. Isn't that a double standard as well?

 

I think if there was outright in your face dialogue that said 'Obi-Wan I am going to sacrifice myself to protect the children' then it would probably work for many of those who find Padme weak not strong. As it is they see her as a failure for not dong the "horrible cliche" of making a comeback.

The thing that strikes me about it is that we see the connection between Anakin and Padme through the Force that started in TPM goes through AOTC and is evident again in ROTS.

As long as she is alive then he will know it even as Vader. If she is alive then the child is alive and so is in danger. At some point Vader would likely figure out there are twins as well.

I don't know what more to say about this. Very simply if Padme lived then it means the movies already made simply don't work. Vader and the Emperor would be looking for the kid(s) from then on.