The Motifs and Metaphors of Star Wars

The frieze in Palpatine's office depicts an ancient battle between Jedi and dark side-corrupted creatures and aliens, and we see in the waning days of the Republic that both warring parties of The Clone Wars were dark side-corrupted. So like the Sith inculcated creatures and aliens depicted in the frieze, the clones were inculcated by the people of the Republic and thus turning the Republic and Jedi into very evil they swore to destroy.

I too have read messages from fans disappointed that there weren't enough Clone Wars and disappointed that we don't even know who wins the battle above Coruscant but the Clone Wars were never about who wins or loses. The only way the Jedi were ever going to win the Clone Wars was to never fight them at all, just by taking command of the clones the Jedi had already lost. The Jedi should have walked away from a Republic that would inculcate cloned people but the Jedi themselves were inculcated from birth just like the clones.

I say more. Tolkien's story is simple compared to what Lucas has created.

Because most fans only see the PT as the simple "how a good person goes bad" story. Lucas only talks about that level of the Star Wars story, and the closest Lucas ever came to spilling his guts was when he said, "The interesting thing about Star Wars and I didn't ever really push this far, because it's not really that important but there's a lot going on there that most people haven't come to grips with yet. But when they do, they will find it's a much more intricately made clock than most people would imagine."

Star Wars has a whole other story but he never talks about it and much to my vexation he probably never will. And when those of us who dare talk about it we get put down and shunned by the ones who want to bring real world rationale like "there were no sequels, prequels, villainous father and well written dialogue for the PT" into the equation.

 

HAHA. You're right -- that's crazy. Yet it also seems to be so. In the most literal transposition, it seems then that we actually have even more reason for believing that a certain feature was deliberately intended: the droids standing for Anakin and Padme. But this also, of course, suggests a whole rainbow of other possibilities for all sorts of things within the saga.

Right. The openings are thematically cogent. Blue is really out there and so is Artoo -- who ever really knows what he's thinking and doing? Yellow is more "within" the films, serving as the main text crawl, and we constantly hear Threepio blabbing, even telling the story so far in ROTJ. Whether we can discern actual themes from these things is unclear, but at the very least, it helps explain the "rightness" and "neatness" of the text being as it is.

Because you said so! Yes, honestly. I'm sure you previously wrote that suns connote divinity and moons destiny. I suppose the two are fairly interchangeable, but your original statement syncs up. If you think of ROTJ, with its "Tale of Two Moons" feature (the Death Star and Endor), it seems that the characters -- namely, Plagueis and Vader; sorry, Palpatine and Vader -- are being pulled to their destinies: Palpatine ends up dying in the bowels of his own creation and Vader also "dies" here, while Anakin is laid to rest and perhaps dies in transit to Endor. The constant blotting out of the sun for Anakin in key scenes of the PT suggests that he is unable to "see" and is drawing himself further and further from the light / divinity. Funnily enough, TPM is the "sunniest" film, perhaps owed to the fact that a significant portion takes part on Tatooine, because things are superficially see-able at that time, and Anakin himself is relatively innocent and uncompromised, but the occasional dusk and night shot also show up, suggesting the creeping in of the Dark Side.

 

That wasn't me. I came to the conclusion that suns and moons represent divinity but destiny is whole other thing in Star Wars. Destiny in Star Wars is created both by free will and divine will. Anakin was guided to the dark side by divine will but he was also guided there by the free will of the corrupted ones around him. The Jedi, gangsters, Palpatine and the Star Wars people in general were corrupt and they corrupted Anakin. The PT films are made very much like "THX-1138" were there isn't dialogue explaining everything. Most people find this irritating, I find it to just be unorthodox. Most film makers want to explain at least some things about their movie but Lucas chooses not to and to me that's unorthodox but others just call it lazy writing. Like the entire Sifo-Dyas sub-plot is never revealed but it never had to be revealed because it's not important. What is important is the choice that Yoda and Mace make when they discover over a million people stripped of their free will that have had half their life taken because Yoda and Mace must make the morally correct choice even if it cost them their lives because they are being watched over by divine beings that have moral laws that the mortals must obey. This is the story that exists beneath the obvious story. It is never explained why Anakin has all his teenage angst other than Anakin rambling on about Obi-Wan holding him back, but Obi-Wan is just an extension of the Jedi Order because Obi-Wan was inculcated by the Jedi Order long ago. The Jedi Order is holding Anakin back. Anakin's purpose was to help the Jedi find their purpose again. Somehow the Jedi lost sight of their purpose: Guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Why the Jedi lost sight of their purpose is never really explained but I think it's safe to assume they just became indifferent over the centuries possibly because they detached themselves from their emotions. When Anakin is brought before them and they see through him, they show no interest or emotion for the people enslaved on Tatooine who Anakin's thoughts are clearly weighing heavy on. The Jedi are just dead, emotionless shells. They are no longer the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy that they once were because they can no longer see the difference between good and evil. They now just take children and inculcate them with their emotionless code in the hopes of substaining their numbers because they don't want to lose their power. Anakin was given to them to help them see the error of their ways but they just don't listen so Darth Vader will be given to them to force them to change. To make things the way they should have never stopped being. Once the New Jedi Order is created it's first order of business will be to return to Tatooine and free the slaves. The New Jedi Order will be free of the inculcation of infants and people will just join the Jedi ranks of their own free will because anyone can be a Jedi. It will be a Jedi Order that embraces emotion, change, and attachment. The one thing that always interested me is how fans think that only people with high midi-chlorian counts can be Jedi but the Jedi just test for midi-chlorians because they have become so arrogant that they only want the best candidates and they believe those with high midi-chlorians will help them retain their hold on power. The Jedi's practice of taking infants with high midi-chlorians is nothing but an act of fear. By participating in this practice the Jedi show they have totally lost their faith in the Force. Anakin was never meant to be taken from his mother at such a young age and this should have shown the Jedi that this is true of all children. The Jedi should have returned Anakin to his mother and with his return they should have brought peace and justice to the people of Tatooine including the

 

I think its extremely unfair to say that LOTR is comparitively shallow while Star Wars trumps it in deepness. They are equall and in most ways Tolkien's world is greatly more developed, though he had the advantage in that he was writing from a book and could explore the world in greater depth. If your argument boils down to stuff like "moon represents divitity" then i call heresay because to me that is just reading too much into the material--its a sci fi film and there are moons in various shots and sometimes they appear in patterns in significant events; and sometimes they don't. In terms of the world, the themes and the characters, Tolkien created something equally compelling, probably more convincing, and equally--if not more--dense, though again he had more material to flesh out his world (and more books than just LOTR as well).

 

Brilliant post, the_immolated_one. BRILLIANT!

1) The Jedi Order as flawed HELPS the story. It makes the saga more of a journey -- a journey for light, tolerance, peace, justice, love and understanding. It might sound "hippie-ish" to phrase it that way, but that's what it is. If you get a practically flawless and glorious Jedi Order to begin with, then after it's destroyed, one can lament its loss ..... but then you watch the remaining films as a simple struggle to return to what's already been shown. But what if the return is a return to something NOT shown? To a Jedi Order that arches back hundreds, if not thousands, of years before TPM? That's pretty clever and well worth the journey, IMO. It also suggests that the cold formality of characters in the PT, even ostensibly loving ones like Qui Gon, was done for effect ...... serving to willfully contrast with the warmer aura of Han, Leia and Luke in the OT. And THAT in turn suggests that Lucas has an extremely sophisticated grasp of his story and the language and power of cinema.

2) I totally agree with you on the PT bringing out what already existed in the OT. Lucas increased the strength of his spotlight in the PT ....... but the details he was shining on were there all along; you just need a strong enough light to see them.

I can agree with your general thrust here. But in terms of cinema ........ SW whoops LOTR all over the ballpark, IMO. And, to me, though arguments like these can never be settled, cinema is a more sophisticated form of art when used correctly (I stress this point because it can be easily abused -- what makes it greater also constantly risks making it lesser). And why is that? Quite simply: the medium of film encompasses more disciplines and gives an artist more facets to encapsulate and communicate their ideas with. You have static visuals, moving visuals, edited visuals, sound effects, dialogue and intonation, music and an infinite intermingling of each. What other medium boasts so many artistic schema? NONE. There literally is no other artform as diverse and layered as cinema -- when it's put to proper use.

I communicated one of my own problems with LOTR (there are others), in terms of its adaptation as cinema: its tedious lack of irony. Unlike Lucas, Jackson does spell everything out, and while any film -- no matter how badly made -- still has themes and depths that are subject entirely to individual interpretation, when the approach is evidently flawed from the outset, one does have a sort of compass for comparing two isolated works ..... to some extent. I also think Jackson's composition skills are nowhere near Lucas' (but then, only a handful of filmmakers' are). That's maybe no fault of Jackson's own, but simply who he is, where he's come from, what he knows and what he's capable of. There is a tendency to attribute tremendous depth to LOTR as films because they come from a respected literary source -- but that's fallacy of association. Just because the films bear the name "Lord of the Rings" and feature the same basic characters and plots ..... that doesn't mean they *are* "Lord of the Rings" as Jackson conceived it and people commonly perceive th

 

Its my right to defend a statement i find as unfair. And yes, i do usually stay away from topics i find uninteresting or just plain dumb, which is why i am hardly ever present in the PT forums. But to say LOTR is shallow is unfair, and i maintain this. In fact, i would say that Jackson's adaptation is more entertaining than Tolkien's own books, which i found tedious, boring and over-indulgent; certainly Jackson's films have their problems, they are not perfect, but if we are going to compare at least he knew how to construct believable characters and a touching story, something Lucas failed miserably at with the second half of his series. Those films of Lucas' have more subtext as a film series but subtext doesn't matter much when you haven't done anything with the surface material itself, its just intellectualising for the sake of it. But now we are getting off-topic.

I don't have much to add to your original post because it was well thought out. I just find some things to be reading far, far too much into material that not only wasn't meant to be meaingful, but that isn't very meaningful, when things such as "moon representing [insert object here]" aren't consistent--for instance there are plenty of moments when "destiny" comes into play that obviously lack moons, and the more realistic theory that its just a coincidence when they are present because its a sci fi film and moons make for good visuals is a far better one. Your arguments have to stand up to logic. I know part of the fun of being geeky fans like us is taking these things too seriously and finding little interpretations that make things more interesting but sometimes you have to realise that the films can lack symbols and meaning and still be entertaining. Carry on though.

 

It may be your "right", but that's fallacious and beside the point.

See? You're doing it again.

That can be contested. You love giving your opinions as objective and irrefutable fact; in fact, your cynical contempt for the PT, not to mention people who take the saga seriously, betrays the veneer of it's-my-right-to-defend-a-statement-i-find-unfair rhetoric you've tried using in here. There are literally HUNDREDS of other threads for you to peddle your negative opinions and THAT is *indeed* your right, but this thread was not created for ANY of the purposes you have tried to destabilise it for.

Hey, you said it. And "intellectualising for the sake of it"? I wasn't asking for whether people agreed on what I wrote or not; I was asking for people to contribute their own ideas and constructively add to what I started. Of course, a certain amount of discussion and disagreement is natural, but you haven't bothered giving anything positive back, unlike EVERY OTHER CONTRIBUTOR who have all tried to bring something extra to the table.

The sun / moon thing is pretty far out, I agree. But if you think this topic isn't merely intellectualising, but "intellectualisng for the sake of it", then you're essentially saying you have no innate interest in the topic, which means you've only posted to stir the pot. It'd be like me posting in a fan film thread when I couldn't care less about fan films.

And sometimes you have to realise that these films can be entertaining and still contain symbols. Moreover, if you consider yourself a "geeky little fan", yet seem to think half of the films are a trainwreck (there is no other way to read a statement like: "at least [Tolkien / Jackson] knew how to construct believable characters and a touching story, something Lucas failed miserably at with the second half of his series"), I wonder how honest and constructive your replies in a thread like this are consciously intended to be. Let's remember that this thread was created and exists in the SAGA forum whose description reads: "This forum is for the in-depth discussion of inter-trilogy subjects, in addition to the philosophical, mythological, and symbolic values of the overall saga." In-depth discussion. Philosophical, mythological and symbolic values. Overall saga. Yet here you are, cutting down the PT and us "geeky little fans"

 

I hope Stryph doesn't mind me stepping in here, but can I just ask that you both cool it down a bit?

Cheers

G.

 

I am cool.

But it *is* lame if you don't see what's going on. Read the description for the saga forum. Then go through all of zombie's posts in here. I even called for imagination and a conception of the story being a saga in my opening paragraph (in other words, I was stating my aims from the start). If people want to contest how deep the films are, then that would make a fascinating thread in its own right (do we even have one?) -- but it ain't what this one's about, G.

 

Not really. I was pointing out a statement i found unfair and that really all there is to it.

Exactly. Just like the statement you yourself were making. I disagree with it, and i find your argument unconvincing and inconsistent in this manner because you trash one film while praising another for reasons that don't strike me as consistent.

I'm not peddling negative rhetoric, I am disagreeing with a statement; that disagreement happened to bring out a negative view that you disagree with but putting up with this is part of posting public opinion. There really aren't any threads created for the purpose of negativity (barring the now-defunct Bashers Santuary which i never even posted in), so i think its also unfair to write off negative statements simply because they are not positive. You have to deal with these things. People don't have to disagree with you or refrain from disagreeing simply because you don't like it.

Its not always necessary to give something positive back. If there is a statement that is disagreeable then anyone is free to point out a percieved inaccuracy, inconsistency or contention.

I did say that 90% of what you wrote was interesting thoughts, and i still maintain that so it was never my i

 

LOTR has nothing do with this site. And I didn't intend for this thread to be a commentary on it. It was actually mentioned by drg4, who kindly contributed thoughts on topic within the same post (indeed, he mentioned LOTR in brief summary), which is consistently what I've pledged I'm looking for. Then the_immolated_one picked it up and also just mentioned it in passing. YOU were the one to isolate those one-line remarks and spin an entire paragraph out of it -- an entire paragraph on that and nothing else. You were the one that deliberately posted against the topic, as you have continued to do since its inception. Perhaps I should have ignored your remarks and proceeded as if nothing was said, but your paragraph also happened to include other blanket statements on the PT and fans "over intellectualising" the saga -- in the SAGA forum. If other people cannot see the contradiction there, then something is desperately wrong here. In fact, if that were to be the case, this forum might as well have no specific name or function and threads needn't exist at all. But clearly this forum DOES have a specific name and function and threads DO exist for very particular purposes.

I will simply not deal with the rest of your post or get further embroiled beyond this point. G-FETT has asked for things to stop and I think that's a sensible request -- on multiple levels. I just want this thread to be directly about the motifs and metaphors of Star Wars. How hard can that be?

 

quite easy if you don't dwell on these things and make an argument out of them. I said in my initial post that i just wanted to point out that that was an unfair comment to make and that it was all i have to say. So, now, for the third time i will bow out, unless you have anything further to argue about.

 

Here's a motif:

People doing what they are told BECAUSE they are told to do so.

There's the obvious "Qui-Gon told me to stay in this cockpit so that's what I'm gonna do," which shows that little Ani's blind obedience was there form the start...

I watched AOTC earlier and found a couple of examples dealing with Padmé:

"Senator Amidala will not refuse an executive order. I know her well enough to assure you of that."
AND
"But when the Queen asked me to serve as senator, I couldn't refuse her."

These lines are dealing with the characters who subject themselves to the will of other people as opposed to themselves, much like one of the key flaws in the Jedi Order--not having one's own conscience, only passing instead of acting, etc. (The "You can't follow the will of the Force alone because it might be bad" idea.)

Padmé and Anakin turn out pretty unhappy and essentially dead because of this--"Don't try to grow up too fast" is ADVICE--Padmé didn't have a childhood (I'm not sure I was old enough. I'm not sure I was ready"), and she is later described as "sad." When Ani shows up, it's the only spark in her dreary life--"She's happy. Happier than meesa seein' her in a longo time." Sort of like the clones--having no childhood is BAD for you...

Anyway, the best example: "I will do whatever you ask." You'd think that in becoming a Sith Lord, Anakin would become more selfish and do only what HE wants. But no--it is the flaw present in the JEDI taken to the extreme here. He only follows the will of others. The difference is that he listens to ONE person as opposed to thousands or millions.

It's sort of like COMPASSION GONE AWRY.

Well, I hope that puts things back on track a bit. Any more examples/elaboration?

 

Zombie, look I'm sorry about taking a few pot shots in your "Secret History of Star Wars" thread. Honestly, I am.
I realize you feel you need to come in here and take a few pot shots back. I realize you see yourself as some kind of Keeper of Star Wars History but we don't need to be rescued from what you perceive as our ignorance. I don't care if my interpretations of Star Wars sound irrational to you. See that's the difference between me and you, I don't need to rationalize everything in Star Wars and I surely don't need to rationalize the making of Star Wars like you did in your 400+ page book. It's just a visual story and it doesn't matter if Lucas really didn't see the original as the tragety of Vader and it doesn't matter if Lucas doesn't see suns and moons as divinity. So how about a truce. I'll stay in my little irrational threads and you stay in your rational threads. Cyrogenic truly does see your book as an important literary contribution to the Star Wars fan community. I know because he speak high of your book so for the sake of a fan of your work stop this assault on his thread. I on the other hand think the book should be banned from the net. In my world you're not allowed to say anything bad about Lucas because Lucas rules. Yeah, go Indy 4, Red Tails, Star Wars TV shows and Lucas' future art house movies that no one wants to see.

 

I'm not here to take pot shots at anyone and im struggling to even comprehend what shots i was making and whom they were directed at when i was agreeing with the majority of what we being said. Your taking things in a personal direction now. Go do that if it makes you feel better but its only further derailing this thread.

 

Gosh, MisterVader! You just about broke my heart with that post. It's one of the saddest and most touching interpretations of the saga I've ever read.

And that seems to be exactly what's going in -- particularly in the film we find those lines. "Attack of the Clones" = Assault of HOMOGENY on nature. Everyone is bound up and is the same: clones, droids and Jedi. All three are involved in a war beyond their understanding, yet defined by their very involvement. And don't those Force visors, so fitting on Luke, look impossibly large on those wee younglings? And what about Yoda's deeply ironic remark: "Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is". Yet here he is indoctrinating them and reducing their unique insights to nill, even though he can't actually see it. Yoda might as well be wearing his a Force visor and reaching out with his feelings; he's clearly become too dependent on the immanent nature of reality around him. The saddest part is that the Jedi truly mean good, but they are inadvertently a force for evil.

Another one of my favourite motifs is in AOTC. "Our mentors have a way of seeing more of our faults than we'd like. It's the only way we grow." Padme is clearly speaking from experience when she says this ... and doesn't it call to mind Palpatine and his relationship with Anakin and Luke? Technically, Palpatine sees everyone's faults around him, only missing his own ..... and this leads to the ultimate growth of everyone but himself. The Force is balanced because of his unique insight into other people's failings and their own journeys of enlightenment that ultimately stem from that. Out of great despair can come great hope. Learning, through the conduit of compassion, is the great contribution of the saga.

 

Absolutely. Recall Yoda's advice when Anakin (rightfully) airs his anxieties:

"Rejoice for those who come into union with the Force. Mourn them do not. Miss them do not."

Far be it from me to argue the wisdom of these words, but it sounds like the sage is citing the Jedi playbook, leaving little consideration for the fact that the student sitting before him is young, afflicted and, well...a human being. The cosmology isn't faulty, per se, but the context in which it's espoused certainly is; sentimental as this may sound, I wished he'd cupped the boy's hands and initiated some attempt at salvaging an obviously fractured psyche. No wonder Anakin's investment in the Order was less than total.

 

Actually, I'm indebted. Among the very few rushes I've experienced in a theater came during the first ROTS screening--the opera exchange, to be specific, at which point we realized the extent of Palpatine's dabblings in this confection. I tell you, my hairs were standing on end, and this couldn't be ascribed to any mere novelty (the impression, for instance, that all this time Luke may have been staring down his grandfather). Something else was a-stirrin', and I haven't come close to comprehending it until reading your post. Still, you must forgive me, as I won't be giving an appropriate response. This needs to digest.

Thank you, also, for this thread. I recall Ebert's recent reassessment of The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, wherein he expressed regret that his younger, insecure self had awarded a paltry three stars to a feature he knew was a masterpiece (it was a Western, alas...). This predilection was common amongst his contemporaries. Of course, Sergio Leone triumphed in the end--admittance into the pantheon--and I can't help but wonder whether the legacy of Lucas will undergo a similar transmutation.

Keep it up, folks. I'm loving this.

 

Cyro, to be fair, others brought up the LOTR vs. SW theme in this thread, not zombie. He was just commenting on what you and two others had already stated in this thread. That makes it fair game. Now, if you want it off-topic then that's cool. If so, as the forum mod, I will back you up. But that also means that 'LOTR is better or more deep than SW' posts will also become off-topic, as well. It's your call.

 

I think this thread pretty much underlines one thing - George Lucas is a visual filmmaker. His films, all of them, are pretty much "pure cinema", accompanied by sound and music. Furthermore, obviously, its art. Now sure, some fans interpretations of the saga do seem a little out there and many are (most likely) not the intention of Lucas...at least not directly. But what Lucas does is create a visual feast. Every shot has something going on. And its through this and his use of colour, camera angles, and well, everything we see in the shot that gives the viewer maximum exposure to whats on screen. Lucas is a master of this. He knows the language of cinema better than anyone. He understands fully how an audience reacts to abstract things such as colour for instance. So for me what he does is first and foremost create his vision. In terms of his films so far, its been about presenting narrative in a visual way (anyone who has seen "Star Wars - A Musical Journey" can probably see how the saga works without dialogue!). But then beside that he ensures that there is a density in each and every shot - so the audience has a lot to work with. Due to this, you can look at every scene in the saga and interpret something from it. You can see something going on. Is that luck? Is it just fans going too far? I don't think so. Its no coincidence to me that when interpreting Star Wars it all seems to make sense. Take any shot and you can't really find an inconsistency. It all adds up - and doesn't take you away from the narrative or plot or more importantly, the themes. Its like Star Wars, IMO at least, is made up of millions of individual pictures. Each picture itself could be a work of art. The genius - when put together it flows into the greatst film saga of all time - yes, far better than that story set in middle-earth!

So I don't think there is really any danger of "going too far" when viewing the saga and interpreting it. Like the films of David Lynch, Lucas offers us a feat of visuals that we consume and critique. They have their own specific visual things going on - there is a narrative to tell! But at the same time, there is incredible craft in giving us something extra as well as the probability that the filmmakers themselves put on screen their own "subconsicious art" (not sure if that expression makes sense!). For David Lynch and "Twin Peaks" fans - did he really know what the "red room" was all about? Nope. It was a vision. He made it part of the series and narrative (Although you could say it never really had a context). But there are probably parts of it that he himself knows little about!! I'd guess Lucas does the same. He works viually and then these visuals become part of the narrative. But at the same time there are elements to these visuals that are open and will always be open to interpretation.

I can't really offer to much to this thread right now - there are just too many motifs and metaphors to think of! Perhaps we could assess the series scene by scene and question what is going on in each?

 

Although I usually quote posts and people in chronological order, I'm going to break that rule here, just to get this out of the way:

I'm all for balance in a thread -- I honestly don't mind (indeed, enjoy) diversions, provided people are making an effort to also contribute on topic -- but if it has to be one way or the other, my answer is resolute: no "LOTR is better or more deep than SW" posts. Of course NOT! Why would I want THAT, Stryphe? But you're saying that "LOTR is worse or more shallow than SW" posts are allowed? COOL! Kidding! Of the two choices, I don't want any diverting discussion about filmic quality. And I take it you were using that concept as a "motif" of your own? LOTR discussions are only one facet of what I've been speaking against. The problem is entirely bound up in dissent. I don't want off-topic dissent. That's the best way of putting it. On-topic dissent? Sure. But if it's BOTH dissenting AND off topic, then that is the worst kind of material with the most amount of redundancy, and I simply don't want to see it.

Well, let me see if I can't cook your goose some more:

This is a small observation, mind you -- take it lightly. In the opera scene, or rather, directly preceding the main scene, as Anakin runs to greet Palpatine and enter his box, George Lucas himself is stood outside. Given that ROTS is the last SW film (or so we presume to know), it doesn't seem unreasonable that he would have a cameo, nor does it seem unreasonable he would choose a crowded place like an opera house to do it. But the timing itself is uncanny: he appears on the screen, in disguised form, like his doppelganger, just before Palpatine gives his great tale, which itself is deeply self-referential. Lucas and his avatar are one.

There is more to Palpatine than just being a politician and Sith Lord (a more accurate name would be "Palpidious", BTW). Were he merely either of those things, it is doubtful he would be able to do what he does. He is also: a mentor, a father, a midi-manipulator, the Dark Side personified, a Force balancer and the author. On mentor: he not only mentors Anakin / Luke and the galaxy, but even uses words and phrases that echo Qui Gon and other Jedi ("I foresee"; "Trust your feelings"; "Search your feelings"). On father: he is not only the metaphorical and metaphysical father of Anakin, but father to the Republic / Empire, and in many senses of the phrase, the saga itself. His actions set the entire story into motion. He essentially seeds the story. A midi-manipulator: Palpidious' manipulation of people (the Senate) and individuals (Anakin / Luke) are one and the same. As stated, the Galactic Senate is treated like a body, with Padme even addressing it as such in TPM (coincidentally, the opening installment, and the one where we are first acquainted with midi-chlorians), and every body is meant to contain midi-chlorians, so the senate pods

 

LOL - absolutely. I dont think ANYONE "embraces their subconscious" like David Lynch! But what I was really getting at is that they are visual filmmakers and they create their films visually rather than literally. But I would say that Lucas is probably more meticulous in his work and not so spontaneous whereas Lynch is just willing to fly by the visions has, be it in a dream or on set! But it is interesting to note that Lucas wanted Lynch to direct Return of the Jedi! Now that would have been interesting!

I know what you mean about having "too much control" and it could be behind one of the critisisms of the PT. Lucas perhaps went "too visual" and didnt give the dialogue/characters enough substance. But what we get is classic Lucas - a wonderful looking, dense saga with hokey dialogue!

 

I would have liked to have seen that. Anyone with an interest in film, I think, would be intrigued by this idea, even if some might balk at "Lynch" and "Star Wars" in the same sentence. ROTJ is a solid film with some interesting layers of poetry / myth / metaphor / meaning -- which I tried to bring out at the start by talking about the Death Star. Apparently, I was remembering DARTHIRONCLAD incorrectly: he never said that moons connote destiny; he said that suns and moons connote divinity. I remembered a divide where there was none. Though they are closely related concepts if you stop and think about it. But maybe it's slightly more correct to say that Palpidious has a god complex. By constructing artificial moons, he is trying to be a god within SW. Yet he cannot compare to a real SW god. The second Death Star shows him completely exceeding his grasp and paying for it by dying along with the symbol of his fake divinity.

It depends what you mean by "substance". If you mean "humanity" -- perhaps (even that is an exceptionally broad word). The characters have an element of abstraction to them not evident in the OT. If you mean literary depth, I completely and absolutely disagree. Anakin could not possibly be deeper, yet he is also remarkably simple to understand. That duality may be something unique. SW is clever no matter how you look at it.

 

I don?t think it?s any coincidence that the 77 film and the trilogy that evolved from it revolved around a young upstart managing the impossible, much in the same way that young a filmmaker managed to carve a canyon out of a mere sliver of chance. Similarly, it only seems natural that the prequels are mainly the story of long-standing, and in some cases stagnating social constructs greatly contributing to the consumption of one man. If I had to bet, I?d say there?s at least a small part of Lucas that has trouble coming to grips with the fact that, for all intents and purposes, Star Wars defines the totality of his creative life.