Star Wars = Shakesperian Tragedy (theory, please read)

I have been reading many, many posts on this board and have enjoyed the maturity and good nature of all the posters. I thought I'd post something for myself though seeing as I strongly believe in something that has never been discussed greatly in any thread I have read so far.


I believe that GL intends the SW saga to mirror a 5-ACT Shakespearen tragedy like Othello or Macbeth. This is something that people entirely overlook. Their are some key things that make up a good Shakespearen tragedy and SW has quite a few of them.

For one, it follows the five act structure. When you consider Episode I to be the prologue of the series, Episdoes II-VI make up the five act rise and falling action of the tragic hero (Anakin). This also explains why Episode I contained a lack of plot compared to the rest of the series.

Anakin is the perfect tragic hero. He is the 'chosen one' and thus starts off with a high place in society (I know he was a slave but thats before the story really starts). Anakin falls to the 'dark side' across the next 5 acts and ultimately redeems himself by killing the villian Sidious. Anakin reminds me a lot of a Macbeth or Othello kind of tragic hero.

Also related to tragedy is the manipulative villian Sidious. He is a SW version of Othello's Iago. Iago manipulates the situation behind the scenes in order to benefit himself. Most other Shakespeare villians follow similiar paths of deception and illusion.

What else? Oh yes... the Elizabethean World Order. The way Elizabeathen saw the world in the time of Shakespeare was one where the entire Universe followed a strict 'chain' order and that disorder on one level would be felt on all. It went something like Cosmos-Monarchy-Religion-Man-Animals-Plants-InAnimate Objects. I deduct that the 'Force' in Star Wars may play some credence to this Order. As Anakin turns to the dark side chaos slowly spreads to all levels... the Jedi Order (Religion), Monarchy (Birth of the Empire) and Man (Star WARS). This is observed in King Lear, Macbeth and countless other tragedies where the disorder of the tragic hero, the chosen one causes disorder on all levels of the order of life - the force (recall Obi Wan sensing the deaths when the planet was destroyed in ANH).

Yet another key similarity is the idea that through the disorder in the chain all of the 'old generation' are wiped out. In every Shakespeare tragedy this takes place and it also happens in Star Wars... as the credits close on ROTJ all of the old generation are dead. Only Luke and Leia remain.

I could write for hours and hours and hours discussing the similarities.... the droids quite obviously play the part of the fool, the highplace of women in society (Leia, Padme), etc. etc.

I love to study tragedies and every time I watch Star Wars I get upset that it never gets recognized as the modern masterpiece that it is. At its core, I believe that Star Wars is a great Tragedy of Anakin. My theory probably has holes so go ahead and point them out.

The reason why I posted this was to see if anyone agreed with me and more importantly to see how people believe my theory will play into Episode III.

I believe when Anakin falls to the dark side in this Episode the thing that will most be apparant is the idea of disorder on all levels. In ROTJ when Anakin redeems himself disorder on all levels is halted (the jedi return, man stops fighting wars, empire is destroyed). However in this episode the opposite will happen... as Anakin falls to the dark side what will come with it is disorder on all levels. I believe the Jedi purge will be the equivilant of religous disorder, the creation of the empire is the monarchy disoder and the militancy of the new order will be disorder for mankind.

Act II, in this case Episode III is often credited as being the most important in a good tragedy. In this Act disorder will be apparent on all levels as the hero submits to his tragic flaw.

Any thoughts are welcome and very much appreaciated. Thanks for reading.

 

Very interesting thoughts, man! Nice work.

I really do like your ideas here. Star Wars as a Shakespearian tragedy has gone through my mind many times. An excellent comparison. I believe, especially in Episode III, there will be many parallels.

EDIT - Or not. I suppose it does have to do with Episode III.

 

That's awesome...I totally agree. Star Wars is...well, deep, well structured, and VERY well written. "Oh Romeo, Romeo- where for art thou Romeo..." IS NOT A GOOD LINE. It's just not. Yet, it is said that Romeo and Juliet is one of the best written love stories ever. Well, it's VERY well written; a worded masterpiece. BUT some of the dialogue is bad, and never does it get critiqued like Star Wars does.

Also, when you defend Episode I like that, and although I, sir, wholeheartedly agree, you will most likely recieve some backlash. People HATE it when Episode I is praised.

Anyway, very well thought out, and I hope this thread grows into the thread it should.

"Oh thread, oh thread- where for art thou, thread?"

 

Good points Kevin954!

I don't suppose that the jappor snippet could really = the handkerchief from Othello. Perhaps Palpatine is going to try and convince Anakin that Padme is really in love with .... Jar Jar Binks!

No seriously.

Alright maybe not Jar Jar but how about C3PO or Watto? Oh ... you wanted maturity. Sorry!

I wish I had something more intelligent to say but I'm tired. Good ideas though!

 

I wish I had something more intelligent to say but I'm tired.

Don't worry; happens to me all the time.

..for instance, this very moment.

 

"Oh Romeo, Romeo- where for art thou Romeo..." IS NOT A GOOD LINE.

Actually, a lot of Shakepeare's dialog is written with the intention of maintaining a consistant syllabol count. Many of his works are structured to have 2 consecutive lines with identical syllabol counts.

Oh Ro-me-o, Ro-me-o = 7 syllabols
Where for art thou Ro-me-o = 7 syllabols
De-ny thy fa-ther = 5
And re-fuse thy name = 5

It sounds clunky with the language, but Shakespeare was a master with structure.
Sorry, but the english major in me could not be silenced.

 

I agree that Star Wars is in some ways Shakesperian. But it is not, on the whole, tragic. It has a happy ending, and this is not mitigated by the fact that good people die along the way. Even from Anakin's point of view the end is not tragic - he is restored to the light side before he dies.

Perhaps episodes I-V could be viewed as a five act tragedy, but with the twist that there is a sixth act in which everything is rectified. This, however, implies a fundamental division between ESB and RotJ, one that does not really exist. I think the best way to view the series is as a tragedy I-III followed by a 'comedy', IV-VI (in the older meaning of a work in which things are better at the end than they were at the beginning).

 

A very well thought out post!

It is a shame that alot of people (critics!!) don't really see those epic and tragic elements that SW has.

The beauty part of it is that SW is so accesible to the masses. Most people wouldn't read classic literary works like Othello, which is unfortunate. But SW wraps all those elements in a fun-filled package that everyone can enjoy!

It's also quite funny to think, that in Shakespere's day, his writing was considered poor and his plays were written for the 'rabble'. Now, in this day and age, we hold his works in much higher regard.

Hey, who knows, maybe in a hundred years they'll think as highly towards the writings of the bard Lucas!

 

I always saw it as more of a Greek Tragedy than a Shakespearean one, mostly because of the Family element involved. Not that Shakespeare didn't use family dynamics, but Star Wars just seems more like the Orestia or something rather than Hamlet. Though I'm no student of either.

However, the Elizabethan World View thing is something I had NEVER heard about and is very interesting even outside of starwars, if you can imagine that.


-JWAC

 

Prince Hal(Henry IV) - Anakin - young,impulsive,spoiled then becomes a powerful warrior(Henry V)

 

Actually, a lot of Shakepeare's dialog is written with the intention of maintaining a consistant syllabol count. Many of his works are structured to have 2 consecutive lines with identical syllabol counts.

I understand that now actually, but that still doesn't make it a good line.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'm not going to pretend I know anything about Shakespeare, but those are some interesting points, especially EpI being an prologue to the saga (I think many people believe that GL could have started with AotC and just referenced the events in TPM more).

What do the five acts in a play traditionally include?

 

Romeo and Juliet

Act 1, Prologue: PROLOGUE
Act 1, Scene 1: Verona. A public place.
Act 1, Scene 2: A street.
Act 1, Scene 3: A room in Capulet's house.
Act 1, Scene 4: A street.
Act 1, Scene 5: A hall in Capulet's house.


Act 2, Prologue: PROLOGUE
Act 2, Scene 1: A lane by the wall of Capulet's orchard.
Act 2, Scene 2: Capulet's orchard.
Act 2, Scene 3: Friar Laurence's cell.
Act 2, Scene 4: A street.
Act 2, Scene 5: Capulet's orchard.
Act 2, Scene 6: Friar Laurence's cell.


Act 3, Scene 1: A public place.
Act 3, Scene 2: Capulet's orchard.
Act 3, Scene 3: Friar Laurence's cell.
Act 3, Scene 4: A room in Capulet's house.
Act 3, Scene 5: Capulet's orchard.


Act 4, Scene 1: Friar Laurence's cell.
Act 4, Scene 2: Hall in Capulet's house.
Act 4, Scene 3: Juliet's chamber.
Act 4, Scene 4: Hall in Capulet's house.
Act 4, Scene 5: Juliet's chamber.


Act 5, Scene 1: Mantua. A street.
Act 5, Scene 2: Friar Laurence's cell.
Act 5, Scene 3: A churchyard; in it a tomb belonging to the Capulets.

Hope that KIND of describes acts in a play. As you can see, ACTS I and II are setup- ACTS III and IV are the meat of the story, where the main antagonist/problem arises, and of course, the final ACT (V) is the resolution. As for the actual names of a 5-ACT play, I have no idea. If I run across it, I'll post it here.



ANAKIN
I am haunted by the kiss you should never have given me.

OTHELLO
I kiss'd thee ere I kill'd thee: no way but this;
Killing myself, to die upon a kiss.

I think Lucas was trying his best to pay homeage here. Lucas is really intelligent when it comes to homeages.

 

I think that's why most people rip on the fireplace scene because it is very 'Shakespearean'. I thought that was one of the best scenes in the movie (with the exception of the 'I wish' line....aww geez, George! )

 

Actually, I didn't really like the fireplace scene at all...but I see what Lucas was doing.

 

"(I think many people believe that GL could have started with AotC and just referenced the events in TPM more)"

Why is that? It doesn't make any sense at all. I mean, sure GL could've done that. I mean, heck when you think about it he could've started at episode IV and none of us would've cared.

-JWAC

 

Good one.

 

Well yeah, exactly. A lot of people don't seem to like TPM (I do though!) and would like SW without it. I thought it was interesting to see in interpreted as a prologue...

 

(no message)

 

Er, who?

EDIT: Doesn't matter now... ?

 

Sorry, the message board is on deathsticks.

 

I always said that Lucas was the Shakespeare of our time. his dialogue is not the usual structure; some of it seems kind of Shakespearian.

Also, I think that Episode 3's ending will be very Romeo and Juliet: Anakin falls into the lava, Padme believes he is dead and dies of a broken heart (Ok, so she killed herself in R&J, but its similar). Whether Anakin will 'kill himself' (and become Vader) when he learns she is dead I'm not sure of.

 

In defense of Shakespeare, the line reads:

JULIET: Romeo, O Romeo, wherefore art thou Romeo?

The word "wherefore" means "why" or "for what reason"...she is asking why this wonderful young man, with whom she's now in love, can't be an acceptable suitor rather than a forbidden one.

To be more obvious she is basically saying "Why do you have to be a Montague? Why couldn't you have been someone I could really love"

Does that make the line better for you?

Shakespeare's drama is in Iambic pentameter and it usually rhymes. It is drama and poetry at the same time. In fact the idewa of using prose instead of poetry in plays is relatively new.

As for a shakespearean structure, I am intrigued. If it helps, the division of plays into parts and the trilogy structure go back to the Greeks. A play can be a tragedy and have a happy ending; but the ending comes after much suffering.

 

Well I certainly don't think Shakespeare SUCKS by any stretch of the mind. In fact. he's a creative genius. However, I don't think he's the best writer ever...and his dialogue is certainly not the best dialogue out there. Sure it may have deeper meaning, but all the meaning in the world doesn't make the line incredible.

Sure isn't bad though.