ST The morality of TFA

I'm not sure Lucas ever subscribed to the notion of Palpatine's machinations as being "deep". Narratively, he's just the figurative face of the darkside... just as Obi-Wan and Yoda are the face of the lightside. It's the ideological juxtaposition that drives the drama, not the reason for why Yoda is good and Sidious bad. I'd also posit that Lucas purposely portrays the Jedi order as being out of touch, bound up by their own rules and regulations, blinded to their own downfall.

In terms of the Jedi being evil... I think you are taking Anakin's words too literally. The point being, IMO, that 'evil' is a social construct, and what behaviour is ascribed to evil is largely based on the subjective morality of 'the state', or group, at a given moment in time.

On your other point. To think that Anakin needs some form of justification from Palpatine seems to miss the story being presented. Anakin's number one interest, at this point in the story, is in saving his wife. A wife that he can't even tell Yoda, Obi-Wan et al about. Anakin has foreseen her death. And even when he surreptitiously asks Yoda for advise, the advise he's given is effectively 'forget about it'. But it's something he MUST prevent. He's not just going to let her die. He's selling his soul because he's desperate. For me, that's the only motivation Anakin really needs to side with the Devil. I don't believe Lucas is telling the audience that Anakin thinks Palpatine is good. Lucas is telling the audience that Anakin no longer cares. Good. Bad. What does it matter to Anakin if he loses Padme? He's just going to side with whomever can offer practical help...

I'm not sure why that doesn't make sense? It all seems quite clear to me. Do you mean you don't believe it rather than it doesn't make sense?

I expect we won't get any further nuanced explanation in the ST, other than what we got in TFA. In terms of Kylo Ren himself, we're being presented with a character condensed into a purée... so much of that opportunity to expand has already been lost, unless they do more flashbacks... which is possible, but would obviously be very convoluted. The problem is, IMO, I could believe Vader was evil in the OT, I could believe Anakin could turn to the darkside to save Padme (even if somewhat over melodramatic), but I don't get Kylo/Ben's reasoning... and I don't get why Han, Leia and Luke would just stand by and watch (or would be too stupid not to see it). And I think that woolliness of motivation/characterisation is unfortunately baked into it now... unless, as I said, they are planning on more flashbacks.

 

I could see us getting more flashbacks. Personally I'm hoping for some from Kylo's POV.

Re Jedi being out of touch. Yes, for sure. But there is a difference between being out of touch and completely incompetent and they largely (as a group) fall towards the latter end of the scale for me.

Re the POV thing - I would agree with you on the literal point, if I didn't get the impression from George that he wants to have his cake and eat it re feeling Anakin is not totally in the wrong here. I think that gets further muddled when you also have George saying on the Blu-Ray commentary that Yoda is right to tell Anakin not to mourn people. It's all over the shop. For the tragedy to work properly imo you need to feel for the characters and you need the conflicts and motivations to have built organically where you don't end with a scene between two characters yelling kill him, he's a baddie. I think it's a powerful moment, and somehow also a really awful moment. You then have further equivocation with Anakin basically killing Padme but not because she dies of a broken heart and Palpatine lying(?) about it? It's a mess IMO.

The tragedy, for me, lies in the power of where we know it's all going. Not what is actually earned. Now I can see that applies a bit to TFA - especially with the Han death - a lot of that works (for those it works for) because of how well you know that character and because personally I think it's a well staged, written and acted scene. But I can appreciate that the build up to that relationship is largely offscreen as a result of the decision to tell the story they decided upon, with perhaps a whole trilogy as backstory.

As for Anakin not needing justification, I get that Anakin wants to save Padme and that he thinks Palpatine can help him, but I'm talking about the scene beforehand. This is supposed to be the guy he trusts the most. It's all been a lie. Everything. It just about works on a surface level, but I find it personally unsatisfying. But that's a symptom for me of the whole way the turn is handled and where the focus is storywise in the previous films.

If it works for you, it works for you (and vice versa with Kylo/ Snoke). I don't buy the turn as presented in the films (though I love the motivation, I think that's genius, I just think he dropped the ball on the execution partly for two reasons - the first, which is not relevant to this debate - is that I don't feel he comes close to nailing the characters and key relationships (specifically Anakin and Padme, and Anakin and Kenobi) in the previous episodes. The second, is that Palpatine pulls this big switch, and all the machiavellian plotting of the the films to that moment falls by the way side and it all becomes "he said, she said" in terms of the storytelling. So "don't believe" would be appropriate as much as "doesnt make sense".

re Kylo / Snoke, I don't think we're even close to the true story, but I buy it as much as the Old Ben tale about Anakin in ANH. I don't need anything more than yet because they're not attempting to show us more. There is also clearly more to it than "bad parents". I'd rather have vagueness I can read into after 1 film, than a muddled mess that doesn't work where it needs to after three films. But yes, you are right, after three films the whole Kylo storyline could be a disaster. As of now, my personal feeling is that it;s already Anakin done well as opposed to the PT. But as we know from the other thread, we all look for and take different things from the films.

Anyway, just my tuppence.

Also, I appreciate this is off topic again. Will stop now. PJ if you want to continue we can do so over DM.

 

Kylo shows Lor San Tekka the Dark Side. He kills him outright. He then orders all the prisoners to be killed. This is bad, based on our own moral standards. Finn watches the massacre and it greatly upsets him. He cannot join in and does not fire his weapon. This is good, based on our own moral standards. The complexity of the moral dilemma in Finn when he is forced to kill Stormtroopers in his escape route or when he becomes fully opposed to the First Order and fights on the other side for sake of Rey and his new friends is interesting.

The discussion about whether or not the Empire or the First Order can be justified in their actions during the entire saga is actually spurious. Whatever faults the Republic, the Rebel Alliance, the New Republic, or the Resistance had or have, they are hugely overshadowed by the sheer scope of the evil displayed by the Sith, Empire, and First Order. If one cannot get that from the saga it really raises the question of seriousness of debate and position defense for its own sake. Even in a tangential and hypothetical discussion such as this, what we have been shown of the Sith, Empire, Snoke, and the First Order leaves any room whatsoever for moral ambiguity. No, the constituent parts of those organizations do leave open areas of discussion, but as entities, that is cut and dried.

 

Many moons ago, I started a thread which pointed out that C-3PO is a war criminal. On Endor, he offers the Empire a lawful surrender but what he was really do was leading the troops into an ambush.

That is called perfidy and that, my friends, is a war crime.

The smoking remnants of the Lars Mosture Farm respectfully disagrees.

There is earth-like gravity everywhere in the GFFA. On small moons. In asteroids. On ships traveling through space.

 

This thread?

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/c-3po-war-criminal.50014893/

3PO is not exactly a soldier.

 

Yes. The thread entitled "C-3PO: War Criminal" started by me is the thread I was talking about when I said I once started a thread that said C-3PO is a war criminal.

C-3PO acts on behalf of the Rebellion. You do not need to be a soldier to commit a war crime.

 

Jean Moulin defied the legitimate Vichy government in power and was one of the most prominent anti Nazi freedom fighters in France. He was deemed a war criminal and when betrayed, was summarily executed by the Gestapo.

Luke of course is a war criminal for dressing up like a Stormtrooper. Han also. Vader should have had both of them summarily executed. Obi-wan is a traitor and deserter. Order 66 was a legitimate order from his government for which he fought. Yoda also. They should have stood and allowed themselves to be executed. C3PO sucked the Stormtroopers into an ambush. If the end result had not been the destruction of DS2, he should have been disassembled. Han and Chewie and Rey and Finn are all saboteurs. Luckily for everyone (but Han), they escaped, but they are war criminals (Finn is also a traitor and deserter).

From a certain point of view ... that is irrelevant to the overarching morality of the situation.

 

Exactly. The morality as presented by the films, is distinct from the viewpoints and philosophies of the characters.

From Kylo's pov, it makes sense to view Finn as a traitor, or to try and purge the light from himself.

We're not meant to think he has a point.

 

That was a domestic dispute gone awry when a wife was getting rather upset that her husband was keeping secrets from their nephew.

Right, I just don't think we have ever seen places requiring massive artificial gravity, especially in places where it might not make sense. Polis Masa could be the only exception, but we don't see a whole lot of that.

Edit:

So did Han when at the bunker. He was captured, raised his hands in surrender and then Leia shot the stormtroopers.

 

Everything shown in a movie is the result of a conscious choice. Each choice can be examined for meaning.

The Tuskens are native to Tatoinne. My point is that the impermanence of this camp can imply that these people are from somewhere else. They came to Jakku to hide.

The idea (which was in the fourth point you didn't include) is that they are actively seeking to undermine the First Order. They have the map and give it to the Resistance and are therefore enemies of the First Order. However, they are not shown to meet the standards necessary to be considered combatants. So, they fall into that same grey area as terrorists. As such, they are not slaughtered like animals - they are executed by firing squad.

I wonder what you all believe should have been the logical outcome. Does the First Order not have a right to self-defense? (The New Republic seems to recognize it as a government.) Would it make it better if they were taken prisoner and executed later? Should they have been released?

 

So you're cool with the summary execution of unarmed combatants?

 

I often see people question Finn saying he goes from not wanting to kill AT ALL to killing his comrades like a jerk, when he states specifically that he wont kill for the FO to Rey, I dont know how he became some pacifist, another thing that comes up is that the village was armed so they cant be innocent nomads or something, but what interesting is that there is a deleted scene, "Finn and the Villager," before he refuses to fire on the people there he sees a woman and her baby, he lets her go, now this scene is not necessary but it clears up that no the FO didnt come in so they could battle some military group, but it adds more weight to his decision, this woman was surely in the group that was slaughtered, as for her baby Im guessing they took it as well.

Now I do think the engaging for troopers is interesting, some have said hes a bad person for this, but I thought the second he left the order was to kill him, when he is on Takodana, there is this idea he should drop his weapon and plead with the other trooper to lay down there weapons, but they would just blow his brains out and keep it moving, also when he fights the riot trooper and gets disarmed, what does the trooper do, he raises it over his head in an attempt to KILL Finn obviously, so I dont see how hes supposed to reason with his fellow troops when they all have an order to kill him. I understand some points made where JJ and Kasdan could have used more nuance but Im confused by the hes a heartless bastard dialogue.

 

i don't think Han is bad because he is a smuggler. he does'nt usually kill people in cold blood. and when it matters the most he is a great leader and hero. i agree he strays to nuetral in this film, but not bad.

 

I cannot believe Hater and McLaren are actually serious. Has to be an elaborate wind up.

 

I recall an awful lot of PHIERY threads/posts in exactly the same vein.

 

If it's satire, it's supremely well played.

 

It is definitely satire and a wind up, because any genuine attempt to argue this would actually engage with the overwhelming amount of imagery and lore which makes it abundantly clear that it's not the case; it's not enough to thrown in little smoke bombs and snippets of law with an "a-ha"; you'd need to completely knock down the case that the resistance/Light side/Heroes are good, and then build up the opposite case. That's if you want to be taken seriously.

 

The scene takes place at night because that's when Kylo Ren and his Stormtroopers arrive. Anything else is just interpretation on your part, looking for subtext that isn't there. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Besides, every film prior to this one starts during the day.

We don't know that. Jakku is like Tatooine, a planet full of settlers from other worlds. Some of whom have been there for a few millennium.

First off, the First Order is not the legitimate government. So any action taken against it is not an illegal one. The map does not belong to them, but to the Resistance and Master Skywalker, the latter of whom gave it to a friend of his.

Second, they're killed period for nothing more than protecting the last means of finding Luke. They were no threat to them. Simply executing for that is both immoral and illegal. The New Republic, the Alliance and the Resistance would not do that to any citizen of the Empire, or the First Order. Much less any soldiers. That's why you see the Scout Trooper who was captured being stripped of his uniform, but was not killed on Endor. Nor does Leia order the termination of Finn for being a Stormtrooper.

Third, the Stormtroopers should have let them live and leave with Poe. Kylo and Phasma only ordered them to be terminated because they're still supporting a corrupt ideal that was toppled thirty years earlier.

 

There is absolutely nothing in the movie that suggests they went to Jakku to hide. They could have easily been native nomads.

According to the rules of war, the civilians should have been released and the combatants should have either been released or taken prisoner and treated humanely.

 

Heh..... okay then. That's an interesting point of view.

 

It's not clear to me that the First Order is the legitimate government of Jakku. In fact, I got the distinct impression they are not, though we may need some clarification. I think the implication is that like Nazi Germany, the First Order has vastly more military might than permitted by treaty. Poe certainly seems surprised by the Finalizer.

The entire scenario seems to model itself on Europe of the 1930's... a war-weary Republic is anxious to appease the growing power of the First Order in any hope of maintaining peace. Only Leia and the Resistance are willing to oppose them.

 

No problem in not wanting to shoot innocent villagers who are not fighting back. I see why Finn refused to do it, who would want to do such a thing?
But then he has no problem shooting at First Order troops when he is trying to escape. And he kills a few more later in the movie. I get he's trying not to get killed himself, but a scene showing some reflection on what he has done to the people he grew up and were trained with would've been nice. It's not a big deal though. I wouldn't want to fight for a cause I didn't truly believe in and I definitely wouldn't kill innocents who are not a threat to me.

 

The one everybody brings up is him blowing away a bunch of Storm Troopers during the escape in the TIE Fighter but the thing that actually stood out the most to me was Finn and Han glibly deciding to throw Phasma down into a trash compactor for the sake of a cutesy callback. I mean yeah, she's an enemy but that does seem pretty darn cruel to do to a disarmed prisoner. I cannot help but feel if certain other Star Wars characters had done that, though I won't name names I'm gonna guess you'll be able to figure out who I'm talking about lol, with the same scene playing out we'd still be hearing about how they were some sort of sadistic psychopaths for doing so. Now I'm not saying this is some kind of movie shattering issue for me, and as per usual I need to highlight that it's all just me speaking for my own opinion rather than trying to put down anyone else's, but I'm just trying to highlight further why I personally agree with the camp that says that the way that Finn treats the other Troopers after his defection could have been handled more thoughtfully.

 

Could be a case of


"they weren't going to activate it, they knew she would eventually escape - the goal was to keep her out of the way until the mission was over."

 

I took the Phasma episode as their bantering with each other, and the storytellers know that we will see Phasma again after that interlude. It was a gratuitous call back, and one of the things about the film I thought was a bit too much in slipping in OT references. From a morality standpoint, it is not any issue for me, since when I saw the film for the first time I knew Phasma would be back already based on what Kathleen Kennedy had already said.

I certainly do not quite understand this continuous recalling of Finn not wanting to kill disarmed villagers, and then killing Stormtroopers. Finn's objections to killing unarmed villagers does not imply Finn is a total pacifist, just that he has somehow shaken his conditioning and cannot bring himself to kill unarmed people. Post that event, Finn is in a self defense mode. Even this is somewhat mitigated by his wanting to escape to the Outer Rim to avoid the entire conflict.

I can see some feeling somewhat uncomfortable at times with what seems to them a moral juxtaposition, but in the context of the whole film it was clear enough for me since they needed to move Finn from reluctant Stomtrooper to Rebel in a bit over a couple hours.