The Saga against Feminism?

^^^^

 

Perhaps the rebellion scenes would have improved Padmé's role in the movie? In them she is seen as actively working to stop the Chancellor and even presents him with the petion herself, which was a very dangerous thing to do (I think it was the star wars databank that stated that anyone openly critizing the Chancellor during the war ran a great risk of being branded a traitor).

 

I've always been upset by Padme's gutless death (especially when she has two babies who need her). However, your assertion is completely wrong. While she is being pushed around, she is NOT being supplanted by men and she is NOT giving up control of her life to the men around her. If that were the case, she would have STAYED ALIVE and been Anakin's reluctant accomplice. She could have lived and been Anakin's pawn; instead, she willed herself to die. A cowardly and passive-aggressive way to make a stand, one which I haven't liked, but she did it nonetheless. On the subject of parallels between Padme and Luke, Luke boarded DS2 ready to die, and even while being zapped by the Emperor he sat there and took the punishment -- he didn't fight back, he didn't rise to his feet, he didn't summon his sabre (and it may just be Mark Hamill's acting, but he recovered pretty quickly once Vader took the heat off, didn't he?). Luke was committing suicide-by-Sith.

People in life do actually give up and crawl into a ball. It is an active withdrawal from life.

Maybe Padme wanted Anakin to sense her dilemma and come to her rescue. She put herself into a hole that only he could rescue her from, and when he didn't come calling, she threw in the towel.

 

Very interesting point... I just lambasted Anakin for not being willing to give up the Jedi to be with Padme... But there are clear signs Padme was willing to leave politics to be with Anakin.

Both of them were forced into their lives of "service" as children, they didn't make the choice themselves.

My sister has two children 2 yrs old and 1 yr old AND she works full time from home. I'm exhausted just from working. Who says women aren't strong?

 

I'm sure you are aware that Western civilization is experiencing declining birth rates and specifically in Europe has fallen below replacement levels (meaning real population decrease). If you really want to complain about overpopulation, look to India and China (which together have around 2.5 billion people) as well as societies that don't have the infrastructure to support the number of people who exist in them (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa). I suppose the answer is to export Feminism to these societies?

 

"Why do we fall, Master Bruce?" -- Alfred

The circumstances she found herself in are the very reason she was needed. She had two newborn children who needed their mother. She had a galaxy in turmoil and a political system in ruins. Her mentor had staged a war to install himself as Emperor. Her husband had turned to the dark side, but her dying words were that there was still good in him. EXACTLY the reasons the galaxy needs even the dimmest, slimmest ray of light amongst all the darkness. She had plenty to throw her energy into -- raise her children, form a democratic resistance, undermine the Emperor, turn back her husband.

Vader would have never killed her (though Palaptine surely would, he tried often enough). Perhaps she could have saved the galaxy decades of war if she had stuck around.

But just like Anakin failed to destroy the sith, to bring balance to the force, Padme failed to give a ray of light to the galaxy's darkest hour. She let her light go dark and gave up when the galaxy needed her the most.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, that's the lesson of the PT. It's also the definitive statement of Padme's character.

 

People act as if dying from a broken heart was a concious deccision that Padmé made, which I think is a bit weird. It was clearly the fact that her entire world collapsed around her. I mean how would you feel if your lover/spouce murdered children and then said he/she did it for you? Plus the fact of the Republic crumbling around her, and she probably had an severe depression or a mental breakdown or something.

It's not as if she sat down and said "ok, I'm gonna die now." It was completely out of her control at that point. At least that's how I se it.

Plus the Rebellion scenes show that she wasn't passive at all. She was actively involved not only in the delegation of 2000 but also took part in clandestine meetings between her, Bail and Mon Mothma. She even presented the petition to the Chancellor, with great risk to her career (and maybe even her life).

 

I suppose the answer is to export Feminism to these societies?

Just a quick aside---it's actually shown quite demonstratively that improving the condition of women in a society---their literacy rates, their education, their ability to make independent choices for themselves including the ability to choose whether and when to bear children---is one of the #1 factors in improving the condition of a country. When you better the condition of women, the condition of the family and of the entire society gets better as well.

Evil triumphs when good men do nothing, that's the lesson of the PT. It's also the definitive statement of Padme's character.

I hadn't thought of it like that, but I think that's certainly one valid way to look at it.

 

This is true, geo. However, it's far from establishing that specifically "feminism" is the 'answer' (which I don't believe you're trying to imply, anyway)........

 

The first thing that comes to mind is crap
Padme/Leia are both strong, capeable women with their own minds.
Padme becomes pregnant which will make any woman emotional, needy etc..
She was still strong enough to go it alone to Mustafar to try and
save her marriage and bring Anakin back.
She fought until she couldn't anymore.
She lost the will to fight b/c she lost everything, not just Anakin.
All of her dreams died in a short time; democracy, life with Anakin and so on.

As far as Leia goes, I can't think of any time when her character seems weak
or over-emotional. Even when Han is lowered into the carbonite chamber she
isn't hysterical or even crying a river over it. She knows there will be other
days to fight and get Han back.

You gotta remember, ANH came out in '77. Movies/TV weren't exactly filled with
strong, opinionated and spirited women like Leia at that time.
For GL to want her that way IMO shows he is far from chauvanistic.

 

As I girl who gre up in the 70's, I can attest to this! We didn't really have any action type heroes. We had Mary Richards, who was cool, for a working girl. But all the boys I knew had cool superheroes. All we girls got at the time was a female version of the boy heros. There was The Bionic Woman, to counter The Bionic Man, Batgirl, Supergirl, and even a girl Evil Kenival. So, Leia was an original, and she really was groundbreaking. However, there was a learning curve to feminism; George was right in the middle of that curve. Feminists will tell you that a good female role would be able to retain her feminity while still accomplishing what men can. Her traits as a woman would be celebrated, and would bring something new to the table, so to speak. And GL got this right in all 5 of the remaining movies. Although her abrasiveness provided us with a good amount of humor in IV, it was nice to see Leia be a little more agreeable in V, while retaining her strength. And hey, she kissed her brother "in that way" long before Angelina Jolie did.

The Padme character, is excellent IMO, from a feminism point of view. She was strong, intelligent, and had good aim. And traits that would stereotypically be considered feminine: empathy, compassion, maternal instinct, were highlighted as her strengths. It was so great to see that. And Portman does an excellent job of portraying her strength and vulnerability at the same time.

However, I do have to admit that I was a bit disappointed in GL's treratment of his two female heroines. I don't think it's intentional, or chauvanistic, though. In the PT, when you look at the deleted scenes, so many of them involve Padme. The argument made was that the scenes were not essential to the plot. This may be so, but they were so critical to Padme's character development. I have argued on another thread about why I did not enjoy AOTC, and this was one of the reasons - I could not get the Anakin/Padme love affair. I couldn't see what she saw in him. I think those deleted scenes would have allowed me to understand her and the mindframe she was in a little better. Same with ROTS (although I love ROTS). I would have liked to have seen the birth of the rebellion, and again, it would have given us more insight to Padme, and would have shown us again, her strengths (and vulnerabilities). I have often wondered how Natalie Portman must feel - seeing so many scenes important to her character cut. I realize that many scenes get cut, but these scenes were so important to the character's development. For being so critical to Anakin's fall, Padme didn't have as much screen time as I would have liked to have seen in ROTS. I was also disappointed in her death. I wish GL would have left the "She's lost the will to live." line out. Everything else is fine, and we would have still seen her prediction that their love affair would destroy them come true, and yet her strength would have remained intact.

As for Leia, there are still things that disappoint me, but they're small, really. While her character grew (and we begin to see her force powers), it appears her role in the rebellion is diminishing. She seems to be Han Solo's "hanger on" (not that I would mind that myself, but still). She went from being a tactical leader to having to volunteer to join Han on a mission. I just wish we could have seen her role elevate within the rebellion as well. In all other aspects, however, her character grew stronger, and I liked that.

So, like many people in his generation, GL really tried, and he should get a lot of credit for that. He did far better than many of his counterparts, and he broke ground with Leia.

 

Aside from the debate whether or not Padme's death was in character or appropriate, is it even possible? I know Star Wars is not based in reality, and you could easily negate my entire argument by just saying "It's Star Wars, not real life!" but is her death too far-fetched to believe, even in Star Wars reality?

I mean, is it even physically possible to lose the will to live in a perfectly healthy body? I'm sure it's possible if your body is weak or ill, and I'm sure that after an extended period of depression and anxiety it is possible to slowly weaken the body. But is it possible to give up the will to live suddenly, with a perfectly healthy body? I know that Broken Heart Syndrom actually exists - but if you look it up, the stress/shock will cause a heart failure, which is a physical problem that actually kills the body. So even though a mental state can trigger the deteroriation of your body, medically it will still show up as some kind of physical ailment. If Padme died in real life from Broken Heart Syndrome the droids would still detect some form of health failure and they could not possibly think she was "medically healthy".

I just think the line "she is perfectly healthy", is unnecessary because a perfectly healthy person can't just suddenly drop dead - there has to be SOME physical reason even if the physical reason is triggered by a mental state, unless there is a medical expert who can prove me wrong. If that line wasn't included, we could assume that childbirth caused a lot of stress to her body, combined with the stress of being choked, and then being so exhausted and depressed that she couldn't take it anymore. That is reasonable. But the "perfectly healthy" line kind of invalidates that line of reasoning because it implies that she had a very healthy and perfect childbirth and she suffered no problems from the choke.

Also, I don't know how much her broken heart can be blamed on the Empire. Palpatine took over a while before her death, and while I'm sure she was devastated, she was quite content to live and keep putting faith in her husband. She wants to run away with Anakin, still. Her mind is no longer on the politics, but her personal life. The Empire was only recently announced, and I doubt there were many significant changes in how the Senate and politics operated between the time Palpatine announces the Empire and when Padme leaves for Mustafar - except for Order 66, but even she doesn't understand what that is fully about. So Padme really didn't have any time to live under the Empire. Life was almost the same as it had been before Palpatine announced it, in that brief period of time. The real change is within Anakin and Padme's realizations of Anakin's behavior. I think that's what really does her in - not the Empire, because she hardly had time to understand how radically life would change under it. That's why it makes sense to argue that the Empire crushed her soul, if she had lived under the Empire and seen everything become lost. But in the brief time she lives under the change - it's short and not long enough to demonstrate any real dramatic change, except for Order 66. So while it makes sense to contribute that to her broken heart, I really don't think it's applicable, because she never says or does anything significant in regard to the change in politics (except for the one line about liberty dying), while most of her attention is on Anakin. I wish more attention HAD been given to her reactions over the Empire and the Jedi massacre, so her death would be more sympathetic. She's given little time to speak or display emotion save for a few lines and the bulk of her time is spent worrying over Anakin.

 

As far as Leia goes, I can't think of any time when her character seems weak
or over-emotional. Even when Han is lowered into the carbonite chamber she
isn't hysterical or even crying a river over it. She knows there will be other
days to fight and get Han back.

I remember one particular scene in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK - when she was encouraging Chewbacca to strangle Lando out of revenge for what had happened to Han. She may have been in a state of anger, but I feel that it was a very weak moment for her.

 

I've noticed that women become more submissive after marriage.

 

i never saw Leia supressing her emotions as a good thing. she's afraid to love Han because she might lose him - her whole planet got blown up. if that happened to me i'd be cautious about getting close to people.

 

or you'd cling to them more vehemently.

 

"she's afraid to love Han because she might lose him - her whole planet got blown up. if that happened to me i'd be cautious about getting close to people. "

I think it's more b/c she's had to be so strong for so long
and acted as leader to so many that after awhile you become so stoic
you put walls up. To allow herself to love someone like Han would be
to allow the softer side to come through and she's not used to doing that.

 

some maybe, i know at least one that became very competetive and dominating, i think it depends on the individual.

i think that oppinions on things like this should end at other people's door.

it is not the buisiness of an individual or society to judge how a man and woman act when married, if she is the one in charge has a CEO job and he stands her shadow fine, if she stays home with children and stands in his shadow fine.

Individuals make these choices, there is no right or wrong and nothing to cricize no matter what is choosen, as long as they are happy.

I do not like Padme as a character and i don't like the actress who played her much, but i do give her credit for being able to convey that she was happy in RotS happy to be married and happy to be pregnant.

there is nothing wrong with her role as a "weaker woman" in rots because it's something she choose and she was happy with it.

 

Horsecrap.

Why is she a 'weaker woman' exactly?
B/c she's happy to be pregnant and married?
Since when does that make someone weak?
Good grief. Try firing off some neurons once in awhile.

 

I find it interesting that so many people find it difficult to accept a strong-willed person like Padme having weaknesses. It seemed as if today's society refuses to accept the idea of strong characters having weaknesses of any kind, let alone barely being able to overcome them or failing to. I get the feeling that we may have grown increasingly intolerant of human flaws, despite what we may say. Everything has to be perfect. Perhaps this is why so few people have a talent for fictional writing. Each character has to be one way or the other. There seemed to be little tolerance for a character's complexity, let alone possessing imperfections.

Is it any wonder that so few SW fans understood what Padme was going through at the end of ROTS? I don't think that GL was to blame for this inability to understand. I think that many people have a dogmatic and intolerant view of what it means to be human, let alone a sentient being.

 

What I don't understand is why does being married and pregnant make
her weak. She still maintained her morality. Despite her emotional
state and pregnancy she went after Ani on Mustafar. She refused to
join him in his quest for galactic rule. She was willing to walk away
from him despite how much it hurt her. Doing what's right in the
face of such emotional conflict takes great strength and Padme
exhibited that. Being human and having feelings does not make anyone
weaker, it just makes them whole.
No woman, nor any man should be considered weak b/c they have strong
emotional ties to a spouse or children. Those same "weak" people
would battle the devil or sacrifice their own lives for their
loved ones. There is nothing stronger.

 

I don't see Padme as 'weak' due to being married and having kids! Thats just crazy. I have nothing but admiriation and respect for any women who can be a good wife and who has had kids.

The weakness I saw in Padme was exactly the same as the one I saw in Anakin. She was just blinded by her love for him as he was for her. If she stuck to her priciples and did what she knew was right in the first place she would have avoided this weakness so to speak.

But even when she was with Anakin, she let things slide too much. To be honest, i don't think she was a good wife (well, thats a bit harsh) as she swept too much stuff under the carpet and fed Anakins attachment.

But I don't think we can say this means the saga is against feminism. There are plenty more weak male characters in Star Wars than there are weak women. Besides, Padme's character had to be this way else Anakin's story wouldnt have made much sesne if he had the support of a stronger character who didn't put up with his child killing antics.

 

I don't think that Feminism is defined as being about "butt kicking, strong, smart, passionate and self-suffiecent women". Feminism is about advancing social and economic equality between men & women.

I'm not sure how Leia is ever shown to be submissive anywhere in the OT.

 

here is my idea of modern femininism. when i got married 18 years ago, i decided that my husband was the head of the household. he was always right unless i thought he was wrong. when that happened, which has been quite a lot i might add, we discussed my view. sometimes i win out, sometimes he does. but after the discussion, we are united and we value each other's opinion. he is the head, and i am the neck and it all works out.

the problem i have with padme is she professes by her actions to be honorable and a do the right thinger. she allows her emotions to stop her from acting like herself. she sacrificed her morals for a man until it was too late. that is her weakness. she was a strong independent woman. until anakin.

 

I doubt Lucas is against Feminism. Not that I'm for feminism; I'm not much for any kind of 'ism'. I think if people are decent there shouldn't need to be an 'ism' in the first place. But as far as women having equal rights and a fair shot at being included and essential for the story, I'd guess that Lucas doesn't really know how to write women as well as men. That being said, women do have an essential role in the saga. It's because of a woman that the central conflict in the story happens at all. Also I felt both Padme and Leia carried themselves with dignity throughout the series. They were not treated as sex objects; well perhaps except in Jabba's palace but that was attributed to Jabba's choices NOT Leia's.

Padme's only "image" of weakness was in her being in love with Anakin and acting accordingly in some scenes. This is not a weakness though but a strength and directly shows how Anakin let ego get in the way of reason where Padme didn't. I think only someone who doesn't feel love would think otherwise. Also a woman being pregnant is a natural and normal thing and it shouldn't be looked down on as if it implies that she should be barefoot and in the kitchen; neither is the truth and they were not presented that way.

Leia however was never shown in a negative light in my opinion. Sure she had some emotional turmoil over the fate of Luke but I don't think crying makes one weak; it makes one human. Some feel that kindness is weakness. These are the kind of people who harbor hate; people like the Emperor. Now perhaps Lucas didn't want to have a woman as one of Sidious' apprentices because he didn't want to get feedback that it might seem anti-feminist. Because the fact would be that the woman was in the lesser role in the Sith relationship. Also since Anakin was destined to become the apprentice, his victory 'might be interpreted' as saying that the woman lost because she was weaker than the man. All of this is ridiculous ofcourse, but Lucas had a story to tell and in telling it, he needed to sell it and selling it means appealing to as many types of people as possible. Then again it could be that he simply wrote the thing on a creative level and never had any alterior motives concerning feminism or anything else. That's probably the most likely scenario.

On the plus side, perhaps we'll see a female Jedi in the TV show. That would be a welcome story element from where I'm standing.