Politization of ROTS

As the Revenge of the Sith premierie is only a few days now i've noticed the media take a noticable shift, and its pissing me off. Everything has to be Red Vs. Blue now and days, and even Star Wars isn't immune to it.

Why don't people realize that Lucas came up with the plot for all three prequels before 9/11 and Bush even happened?

The events of ROTS are no secret. We've known that Palpatine will pervert democracy in one final act which grants him ultimate power. We've seen it coming since The Phantom Menace in 1999!

I have no doubt that Lucas is probably politically left, he probably doesn't agree with Bush's policies. Most hollywood people don't. Thats fine I don't turn to them for how to vote, I turn to them to be entertained.

And yet here I don't feel like Lucas is forcing his politics down on me. I've known what was going to happen this whole time. We know that he has had a clear idea of where he was going to take the prequels.

I see some conservative commentators calling Lucas the next Michael Moore. It's rediculous. Are we not allowed to make movies about the pitfalls of Democracy anymore? If i'm a Bush supporter am I not allowed to enjoy Revenge of the Sith because you believe its some form of attack on him?

I can seperate reality from fiction. Anybody that thinks Emperor Palpatine is President Bush needs to take a step back and reasses their lives, and the impact politics plays on their judgements.


It's entertainment! Does it have a powerful message about the dangers of a Democratic system under the stresses of outside forces and internal power struggles? Yes. Was it designed this was an attack or criticism of the Bush Administration? No, it was always suppose to be this way.



This isn't a political thread. It's an anti-political thread. Why can't we just enjoy life anymore without being told that this is liberal, and that is conservative. And if you're one then you can't like the other.


Is politization even a word?

 

Bush has divided the country rather well.
So people are bound to see it and view it as an attack on their dear and beloved Bush.

Lucas is discussing corruption of power. If people see things in common with Bush, that is not because Lucas has intended it, rather that Bush is following the examples which influenced Lucas in the first place.

-Seldon

 

Once the media starts clamouring for people to shut their mouths, you know the end is near.

If politics is pissing people off to that extent, then we need 1,000 Michael Moores, agitating and irritating. Not all 1,000 have to be uber-liberal, but everyone should be free to voice their opinions....

Anyway, people in the media always like making facile analogies.

Since Lucas is talking about the nature of power and politics, and this story has been already finalized for 30 years, you can't say that Lucas is directly attacking Bush.

Instead of clamouring against Lucas, shouldn't Americans be scared that the comparison can be made in the first place?

 

Heh, like Bush is the first guy to get involved with power-politics...

 

I was kind of mad when I first heard Lucas slipped in jabs at Bush. But last night I was thinking it over, and I realized that bush-bashers have always been doing this. When Halo 2 was released, people said the plot was based off Bushes policy. Same thing with the game Freedom Fighters a few years back. I played both games and realized there was no link, but people were going out of there way to find a link. People are already saying Spielberg's War of the Worlds is anti-bush, yet the Novel was written in 1898.

Besides, I really don't see the link. Palpatine himself started the clone wars. Unless you subscribe to the ridiculous thoery that Bush was behind 9/11, I don't see a link. I think think theres a closer link to be made with FDR and Lincoln.

 

This reminds me of a complaint someone on some website had about AOTC and the clones being racist concerning Morrison's Maori heritage (I think he was even mistaken for being from latin america or something, that only makes it worse).

You have to wonder what sort of person actually sees these sort of things.

 

With all the anti-Bush comments being made about the movie, I was not suprised to see Michael Moore at the NY premiere.

I tried to ask him a question about the movie but he denied being MM when I asked if it was him. My wife recognized his son and knew that his appearance was different from losing a lot of weight recently, so we were sure it was him. I think we were too conservatively dressed for him to want to talk to us.

Would have been interesting to hear what his thoughts on the movie were.

 

I can see if people want to display valid criticism of Mr. Bush, but people are becoming consumed in their hatred for him. In school during the election, a kid got jumped by 5 kids who threatened to kill him because he had Pro-Bush signs in his front yard.

 

I don't doubt that Lucas has thrown in a little allegory. After all, he admits to doing it a bit with the original trilogy and Vietnam. He had this to say when asked about it:

"When I wrote 'Star Wars', Iraq didn't exist. We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction, we weren't worried about him," said George Lucas yesterday at the press conference. And then he added, "The parallels between Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable. I didn't think it was going to get quite this close -- I hope this doesn't become true in our country. Maybe the film will wake people to see how easily a democracy can be subverted."

http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_050516cann.html

Careful though, it has that line Lucas lifted from Bush's State of the Union in there. Maybe a few other minor spoilers.

Anyway, the man definitely seems like a liberal and it's not a stretch for him to want to make a few comparisons to what's going on today in his movie.

 

If you think about it practically anything and everything is about politics now-a-days.

Take the whole Shivo (sp?) case. You had a normal person who was on life support for the past 15 years and the husband and family had disagreements on what should happen with her. Newsflash, people go through that situation everyday and many fail to recognize it. But no, Terri's family had to get politics involved and it created much controversy.

And if it's not politics that ruins things, it's other controversial issues. Let's face the facts, controversy (weather it be politics or otherwise), are everywhere. No matter what movies and/or tv shows are done someone will always have a problem with it for some lame reason.

 

I'm politically neutral on all of this, but I find the story movement fascinating. Take a look at the parallels:

TPM: the invasion of Naboo by the Trade Federation is the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1990. Saddam Hussein is played by Nute Gunray. In both cases the invader is destroyed by soldiers of the Republic/US, yet the leader of the invading forces is somehow allowed to stay in power. Yet at the same time a ruling person/family grows their power. Palpatine in Star Wars, the Bush family in real life.

AOTC: fast forward roughly 10 years. There is a new enemy now, terrorists. In the real world it is Osama Bin Laden, in Star Wars it is Count Dooku. Both have a network of henchmen to do their dirty work. Eventually, a war is created, when the old nemesis from the war 10 years ago starts working with the terrorist. Now, the war in Star Wars is quite clearly fabricated, and some believe the war in the real world is fabricated. But either way it is the connection between Dooku/Gunray and Bin Laden/Hussein that are seen as a key component.

Post-AOTC: prior to the start of ROTS, we see Palpatine increasing his power by putting 'security measures' in place to 'protect' the people under his rule. We hear about security checkpoints on Coruscant in some of the novels. These fall under Homeworld Security, which is obviously a play off Homeland Security.

Again, I don't want to say any of this is right or wrong morally in our real world, but I don't think you can question that Lucas is pulling this stuff out of real life.

 

One of my signatures is one from Linus, "There are three things I've learned never to discuss in life: religion, politics, and the Great Pumpkin." However, that doesn't mean never talk about it.

Okay, the problem with the Bush talk is that so many of his supporters happen to be in the media. Honestly, they loved to bash Clinton, didn't they? But look at the many things Bush has done the past five years and it's been slipped under the rug. It's great PR. You want to see how good PR people do things, watch what this administration does (not that I advocate following in their footsteps though). To say that Lucas charted this out with having Bush all in mind, no. But again, that's how the media interprets it. It frustrates me, personally. The matter of fact we are the ones to draw from what Lucas is saying. Those that have power to interpret, they feel it's a bashing Bush moniker.

I really don't like this subject and I feel like I'm showing where I stand but I think people just need to simmer down about it being an attack on Bush. I agree with many of you, we should see this movie and reflect on our political dealings and change it if we don't like them. All the more reason for people to vote!

 

Actually, it would have been impossible to plan it all as an attack against Bush, since TPM came out too early. I think he just lucked out that it parallels world events.

Regardless of whether people like or dislike it, after seeing the whole PT in context now I definitely think it is a cautionary tale with the US in mind.

I'll bet the Democrats are kicking themselves that the movie didn't come out in an election year...

 

I don?t think people should compare Palpatine to George W Bush. Palpatine takes power from the Senate. Caesar took power from a willing government. Hitler did too. While George W Bush has alienated a lot of former allies in other nations and successfully divided the US population like no other President in 40 years, one should not assume that he is comparable to Hitler or Palpatine. I think that is just ?stirring the pot? and causes more problems in the US than it solves.

If there is a little bit of allegory, get over it. After all, there is no overt reference to the President. It isn?t Emperor Bushatine or the Clones invading Iraqistan. These must be conclusions drawn by somebody ? whether liberal or conservative. Any claim that Lucas meant reference of Bush to Palpatine is either liberals ?stirring the pot? or conservatives ?jumping at ghosts?. To me, although I?m not on board that a valid comparison can be made, it is just like Garth said, shouldn?t American?s be more concerned that a comparison can be made than if that comparison is 100% accurate? Trust me, coming from somebody who doesn?t support most of Bush?s policies, Bush can?t reasonably be compared to Palpatine.

Whizkid I don't think most people actually think for a minute that Bush was behind 9/11. However, are you suggesting that FDR was behind Pearl Harbor (and the US entrance to WWII) or Lincoln was behind the secession of the southern states before the American Civil War? Just want clarification before I respond to this statement.



Bee


EDIT: marajadebean, I agree with you that the Bush administration should be the model for all PR firms to follow. They certainly have managed to spin their version of the truth (and perhaps focus on issues they could more easily defend their record on) into being believed by the current majority.

 

I'm anti-Bush but Star Wars is the last thing that I would have thought of to compare him too. I thought everybody already knew that there was going to corruption in this movie. How could anyone not after seeing the OT? Some people need to get a friggin' life.

 

beedubew, what I meant was FDR used Pearl Harbor to gain executive power and eventually relocate many japanese people to what some might call concentration camps. Even before Pearl Harbor, FDR used the depression to gain to take away rights (social security, New Deal, etc,) when none of these things help end the depression. Anyway, i'm done with analyzing the politics of Star Wars with ROTS less than 3 days away!

 

One last thing. I was thinking about the 2 trilogies about realized they have opposite ideological messages. The OT is about good vs evil, an evil Empire, and band of ragtag rebel heroes. Its very black and white (aside from Vader). The PT is more shades of gray and stresses moral relativity.

 

FDR used the depression to gain to take away rights (social security, New Deal, etc,) when none of these things help end the depression

Actually, those things DID help end the depression... Even Dewight Eisenhower, who was a moderate Republican, bleived Social Security was neccisary and good.

But Lucas is NOT above using current events. Chancelor Vallorum, who was "Mired in baseless accuisation" was modeled after Clintons situation (At least according to Terrance Stamp and how he decided to play it)

 

Actually, Whizkid, I totally agree that the OT is black and white, good Rebels vs. Evil Empire, whils the PT is morally grey, with a much more sophisticated plot.

And one reason the PT isn't as popular? People don't get it. They don't know who the villains are, and who the heroes are, besides Obi-Wan and Yoda.

 

Whizkid, I am not trying to create a political debate here. Personally, I don't think Star Wars is the medium to do that. However, I do think FDR?s New Deal did help the American economy. The reason I questioned your post was based on this quote:

?Besides, I really don't see the link. Palpatine himself started the clone wars. Unless you subscribe to the ridiculous thoery that Bush was behind 9/11, I don't see a link. I think think theres a closer link to be made with FDR and Lincoln..

While raising a good point that Bush being behind 9/11 is fairly ridiculous, your quote frightened me by implying that FDR schemed behind the scenes with Japan to plan Pearl Harbor ? in essence saying FDR played both ends against the middle as Palpatine did with the Seperatists.

In my opinion, it is outrageous to imply that FDR was ?behind? (to use your word) Pearl Harbor and I hope that was not truly what you were trying to convey.


EDIT: One other thing. I agree on the black and white vs. gray issues surrounding the PT and OT. I find it interesting that (at least from an American perspective) today's "good/bad guys" are gray and "ellusive" while in WWII things were black and white.

 

It's a story as old as democracy, not as old as W's first term. From Rome to the Reichstag to 1984, there are certain reoccuring events you can see.

Like Lucas' use of archetypes and Campbell philosophy in the OT, this loss of democracy theme is an ever present nod to all of humanity, not just one politician or party.

With that said, though, there is the one line that is a definite critique of W, without a doub. It's either that or Lucas really can't write dialogue. But even if there are certain parallels with W, it's not about him and it's not an anti-Bush diatribe like the one review claims.

Instead of thinking of how SW is commenting on W, think about how W's actions fit into a pattern seen throughout history.

 

Some slight spoilers on the "SOTU" line:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7750917/

When the Ottawa Sun asked Christensen if the flick ?takes metaphoric shots at the war-mongering politics of U.S. presidents Richard Nixon and the two George Bushes? the star answered: ?Absolutely.?

 

I firmly believe that Lucas was following historical patterns when writing the PT.

If any current leader follows the same patterns, then thats a reflection on THEM not Lucas

 

I doubt ROTS would be much different if it weren't for Bush and Iraq, but I bet he changed it a tiny bit (maybe a few lines) to register even more with the audiences.

 

PEOPLE! Please! Give me a break!! It's S-T-A-R W-A-R-S!!! Not Hanity and Colmes!

Let Bush be Bush, FDR be FDR, and Palpatine be Palpatine!

Sheesh!