Symbolism in Attack of the Clones (currently discussing shrouding and obscuring)

Funny thing, is that Lucas himself probably meant no meaning in the scene.

And was waiting for us to attribute some meaning.

Here's an interestingly written intelligent article by Steven Hart:

True influences of Star Wars

 

From reading this, I feel the man never liked Lucas. Thus, I cannot appreciate his views.

 

The article has a few good points, but they get bogged down in what I can only describe as a great fervor of bitterness. 0_o

 

Good point. The similarities cannot be denied, whether Lucas did them on purpose or not.

 

I can't say, if he ever appreciated Lucas before or not.

But I think it's a well thought-out article.

I've always seen Star Wars as a multi-layered story, as far as character motivations go. But mythologizing only started in the mid to late eighties. And the pretentious-ness that has come with it.

Why not talk about the real influences and symbolism's from the sci-fi of the 30's to 50's? Star Wars is a culmination of all those, and a very light-hearted one at that.

I agree the article title is a little harsh, but page 4 is very interesting.

An excerpt from page 3, which I think is relevant to this topic:

Campbell specialized in treating religious imagery as a set of metaphors divorced from historical context, a method that allowed him to talk, for example, about the Crucifixion as symbolizing the tree of life in an agrarian society, when in fact it was a very concrete reference to a particularly atrocious form of execution, rooted in a very specific period. Campbell's ability to generate whirlwinds of cross-cultural references makes his chatter sound tremendously erudite

 

That article has a few good points but is basically a smear job looking to tear Lucas down. I don't find it particularly well-thought-out, or intelligent. The writer has too big a chip on his shoulder, and seems too proud of himself for being nasty toward Lucas, too eager to portray himself as a gutsy truth-teller.

I'd expect nothing better from Salon.com, aka Bash Lucas Central. It also ran a ridiculous article accusing Lucas of racism, claiming Jar Jar's ears symbolized dreadlocks, that his shuffling walk and speech was inspired by racist movies of the 1930s, etc. And the review of AOTC by Stephanie Zacharek was mostly vitriol with little to no real criticism, not to mention it got several details wrong, and made ridiculous claims like, "The audience cheered when Jar Jar left." Left where? That makes no sense. Oh, and she revived the racism accusations, referring to Jar Jar's dreadlocks, and claiming that Watto is a Jewish stereotype with his greed and his hooked nose. (Remember how the PC police couldn't decide if Watto was racist toward Jews, Italians, or Arabs?)

I think that Lucas did mean for Shmi's death scene to be symbolic, in terms of the crucifixion and pieta imagery. It's too great a coincidence otherwise.

Some of the other symbolism that we attribute to the various movies may be unintentional.

 

Star Wars being racist is one of the stupidest complaints I have ever heard to this date.

Yes, Lucas is a racist and means to corrupt our young youth. He must be stopped

 

I agree Star Wars being racist is a ridiculous argument. I don't think George Lucas is a racist man. And any similarities are entirely coincidental and unintentional.

I don't think that has been even mentioned in the article and is beside the point.

I do think however, that Campbell is a bit over-rated and only gleefully shared the spotlight after Lucas's success in the 70's and 80's. I think the series has more to owe and is influenced by the pulp sci-fi of the 30's to 50's rather than Mythology. Leigh brackett contributed more to ESB than is usually recognized.

The intention of the article is not to tear Lucas down, if you read all the way through. What other articles might have said is irrelevant.

Salon has a glowing bio of George Lucas and usually has thoughtful commentaries. And, is a credible magazine, whomever you may ask.

I personally don't believe mythology is intended in that particular scene. There's no other way to hold a person once their dead.

 

Leigh Brackett wrote the first draft of the screenplay for ESB. She died shortly thereafter. According to Lawrence Kasdan, Lucas came to him and said, "Bless her, but she didn't do anything like what I wanted." Kasdan rewrote the screenplay, tossing Brackett's draft out entirely. Lucas gave Brackett a screenplay credit out of respect to her memory.

What more do you want? People generally thought Brackett co-wrote the screenplay; it was Kasdan, not Lucas, who said that her screenplay was not used.

I pointed out the article about racism and Stephanie Zacharek's review of AOTC because it is evidence of Salon.com's anti-Lucas sentiment. Yes, they have one or two positive things about him on there, but the overwhelming majority of stuff about him is negative, if not downright vicious.

Personally, I think Campbell is overrated as well, and to attribute every little thing in SW to something Campbell wrote, which some fans do, is in a way just as small-minded as dismissing SW as a mindless popcorn flick. Yes, Campbell influenced Lucas. But he was not the only one who did.

You think the pieta imagery in Shmi's death is unintentional. OK, fine. I don't agree. I think it is very intentional, because Shmi's head falls suddenly back, looking very like Jesus's head in the Pieta. Some audience members reportedly snickered at that, because it seemed so jarring, so out of place. That's what leads me to believe Lucas put it in deliberately, to draw attention to the pieta imagery.

 

tossing Brackett's draft out entirely is a myth and an urban legend.

Yes, they have one or two positive things about him on there, but the overwhelming majority of stuff about him is negative, Hey, it's a free country .

- Senator Lott.

 

I have that Steven Hart article printed-out. It's a great article. SW is simply fun sci-fi. It's not modern mythology.

IMO

 

Shelley,

Here we are going to disagree. Whenever someone is held the way Shmi is held and they die, their head is going to drop backwards suddenly. Because when you die, all your muscles let go and things just fall.

In "La Pieta," Christ was already dead. So, I see any symbolism as being accidental. Sorry.

Lady Sami

 

And it could have been filmed in such a way that Shmi's head would not fall back.

I don't think the symbolism is accidental. Sorry.

 

I think it is very intentional, because Shmi's head falls suddenly back, looking very like Jesus's head in the Pieta. Some audience members reportedly snickered at that, because it seemed so jarring, so out of place. That's what leads me to believe Lucas put it in deliberately, to draw attention to the pieta imagery.

Because when you die, all your muscles let go and things just fall.

As I mentioned in this 12/09/02 post, Shmi's death scene is a parallel to Anakin's in ROTJ. Shmi's head falls backwards, because Anakin's head did the same. And yes, both are Pieta allusions.

[sarc]Salon.com is anti-Lucas? [/sarc]

IMO - they're particularly zealous and juvenile ones at that. My question is why? I suppose they get more hits when they criticize SW. Oh well.

 

Why is everything brilliant about Star Wars attributed as an "accident" of some sort?

I think Lucas is a lot smarter than some of you people give him credit for.

As for dismissing Star Wars as purely light-hearted science fiction... if that's all you get out of it, and all you like it for - eat yer heart out. But what makes Star Wars special to me is the fact that it can be both entertaining and not shorthand its timeless themes, intelligence, and all-around deeply moving moral tale about the human condition.

 

No, I was just saying that Star Wars has racist stereotypes is an accident.

 

Oh, I just read the Salon AOTC review you were talking about.

It's pretty honest if you ask me:
truncated sequences that don't string together...but pretend to be complex.

I think fans blame Ric Ollie needlessly, for the obvious expository dialogue. Lucas is Ric Ollie!

And, I think what she meant was, Racist Sterotypes in AOTC or TPM, not racism per se. I don't know if she has been saying Jewish or Arab consistently. Different reviewers are Different, not all of like mind.

But, you will notice though that the Neimodians, are distinctly Chinese or Japanese of bad WWII adventure serial stereotypes. I think this would not be a problem in the original Star Wars series. TPM and AOTC is the first time we have Aliens also speaking English. (If you don't count Yoda.)

Salon AOTC article

 

To refute the "It wasn't supposed to mean anything" aurgument re: Shmi's death 'posture'... If GL was going for the 'tradtional die in the arms ala since the advent of motion pictures' Shmi would have rested her head against her sons shoulder and closed her eyes after a leangthy and COMPLEATE decleration of love and pride peacefully closing her eyes... (As Anakin does in 'Jedi')...

In the wonderful Mythmaking book there is mention of a scene that had the whole set practicly stunned into silence at the end of filming... 10 will get you 20 that it was that one...

 

Senator Lott I think the series has more to owe and is influenced by the pulp sci-fi of the 30's to 50's rather than Mythology.

Well, let's not forget that ANH and subsequent SW films are VERY heavily based on Kurosawa as well! Thus, incorporating many influences from Oriental cultures too.

I disagree that the Anakin/Shmi tableau is unintended. Gl is an extremely visual filmmaker and Michelangelo's "Pieta" is a an exceedingly well-known image. I do believe GL was intentionally paying homage to this image and thus trying to convey that Anakin rejects love and redemption and chooses revenge, anger and death. The scene starts by showing us Shmi tied up in the crucification pose. This, together with the death posture, gives us two images conveying the same thing; therefore, I don't believe it is all a coincidence. Shmi's head lolling back may be a common posture after death, but why did Anakin have to hold her that particular way?

That said, I never did feel that the RotJ death image is similar to the Pieta, or that it was deliberately intended. HOWEVER, IMO, it may have given GL the idea to use the Pieta image clearly in AotC.

 

Oh, I just read the Salon AOTC review you were talking about.

It's pretty honest if you ask me:

It's pretty vitriolic if you ask me, and reading it almost gives the impression that Zacharek didn't even see the movie, but simply patched her, ahem, review together from comments of other reviewers.

truncated sequences that don't string together...but pretend to be complex.

Her review is nasty snipes strung together, but pretending to be objective and worldly-wise.

I think fans blame Ric Ollie needlessly, for the obvious expository dialogue. Lucas is Ric Ollie!

What?

And, I think what she meant was, Racist Sterotypes in AOTC or TPM, not racism per se. I don't know if she has been saying Jewish or Arab consistently. Different reviewers are Different, not all of like mind.

She says that Lucas never met a racist stereotype he didn't like, then went on to snipe at Jar Jar's "dangling dreads" (funny, I always thought those were ears, myself) and then said that Watto is a Jewish stereotype, who's "sold Shmi up the river." (No, he sold her to a man who freed and married her.)

But, you will notice though that the Neimodians, are distinctly Chinese or Japanese of bad WWII adventure serial stereotypes.

No, they aren't. Lucas says he was aiming for Transylvanian vampire accents. When I saw TPM for the first time, it never crossed my mind that they were Chinese/Japanese stereotypes, and I didn't even like TPM that much the first time I saw it.

Lucas has been accused of racism ever since the OT came out. ANH was derided for having a lily-white cast -- never mind how many other movies released in that time period did too.

 

Let's get back on topic to discussing the symbolism of Shmi's death.

 

E CHU TA! wrote: Is this what you are talking about Falls_the_Shadow?

Yes, those are screen shots from the scene of the dying Anakin and Luke. Thanks for the links. [face_smile]

Anakin's journey on the Dark Side begins and ends with a child cradling a dying and long-lost parent. It would make sense that the scenes, in camera angles or in some other way, would correspond.

 

Shmi was tied up not crucified. Anyone who wants to see what a real crucifixion looks like needs only to walk into a church. The arms and [feet] are [nailed] to the cross perhaps with ropes as well. The arms are also stretched out with the feet nailed together. I could understand the symbolism if Shmi's arms were stretched out like Jesus but they are tied together. It is nothing like a crucifixion. Sorry, but there is no symbolism here unless you make a huge stretch.

 

Shmi's wrists were not tied together. They were stretched out on the frame and tied separately. The victims of crucifixion were not always nailed to the cross -- often they were tied, and sometimes their feet/wrists were also nailed in place.

There is a difference in that Shmi is facing what she's tied to, as opposed to the victims of crucifixion facing away from what they are tied/nailed to.

Shmi was tied up not crucified. Anyone who wants to see what a real crucifixion looks like needs only to walk into a church.

"Real" crucifixion, huh? Note that on most, if not all, crucifixes, Jesus is nailed through his palms. That is impossible. The palms could not support the weight of a human being. If nails were used, they were driven through the wrists.

 

Yeah, you are right about Shmi. Forgot.

Secondly, there are many crucifixions where Jesus' wrists are nailed. But many are not accurate. However, as I pointed out, they were often nailed and tied to prevent what you stated.

I still think you are making a stretch though. Aren't you making a parallel to Christ and not some other crucifixion? If so, shouldn't her "crucifixion" look like Christs? The fact that she's facing the wrong way and simply tied without her feet bound too is too disimilar. But if you mean for just some crucifixion then you may have a point. But what relevance would it have then?