PT To everyone who thinks no respectable author would have a character "die of a broken heart":

I'm not trying to change your opinion on this. You and GL just don't see eye to eye, that's all there is to it.





- I feel the good in you; the conflict.
- Don't listen to him, Anakin!
/LM

 

I get what Lars is saying. I just don't appreciate Padme's death, it doesn't really fit my personality. I didn't really need to analyze it, the idea is pretty obvious and simple and my rejection of it was instantaneous and strong.

If anything, it's too romantic (to the point of extreme absurdity) for my tastes. It's sorta like too much of a good thing.

(the irony of that comment and the relationship between A&P does not escape me)

 

This is why I can't wait til the ST comes out because I think (I hope) the new trilogy will stay away from these type of themes. When SW tries to take itself too seriously it comes off as very uneven in the movies. You have these summer movies that are suppose to be fun but also go deeper into some of mythological symbolism. That works to a point, but when you start getting plot points like losing the will to live which are trying echo a Shakespearean Tragedy is just comes off as a bit pretentious. IMO.

 

It's actually a perfect demonstration of what the Jedi warn against with attachments isn't it? Quite a contrast with her daughter (the one Padme was too devastated to stay alive for), who has her entire planet blown to bits before her eyes and yet still carries on for the greater good.

 

*gentle reminder*

All we actually know is that Padme is a fictional character in a fictional universe.

Lucas, or the product of his labour, isn't bound by our rules, our sense of what's just, realistic, sacred, or right.

There are, no doubt, things in Star Wars that outrage reason, and defy "good" taste. But that's half the reason, in my view, to dig Star Wars in the first place. Like any art, it can say and do things that might be silly, irresponsible, dangerous, or taboo elsewhere.

Art can allow us to work through things in a "fantasy" construct: safely, at a distance, where contemplation is preferable to action or complication. Which is not to say that Lucas can do whatever he likes. Or that some art might not be hazardous or detrimental in some way. But we generally need to give artists, or those artists we say we cherish, the benefit of the doubt, I think.

Not that you have to alter your opinion or anything. There are, of course, no right or wrongs. Whatever shall be your truth, in art, can be. In this case, however, I think you're doing a disservice to the enlarged poetic dimension of the PT, which draws on numerous depictions of tragedy (and beauty) from antiquity to the present-day. You're still entitled to think it fails in that regard or to want something else out of it, though. To each, their own.

You might be.

But we're all guilty of that.

Yet you've just offered some very interesting contentions to think about.

This is an important issue to me, too, because I have a friend who, at the moment, is going through a difficult time, having just lost her partner to suicide (he was the same age as Padme, too: 27) about six weeks ago.

I don't know quite where I stand on the matter of "glorification". I'm not sure Lucas is really glorifying that path through Padme so much as noting that it happens; it's a strand of human experience, for better or worse, and it's not inherently wrong, I don't think, for Lucas to cap the prequel storyline off in this manner.

Also, I would suggest that his contriving a sad end for Padme, where she, in some sense, dies of grief, might rouse something inside people -- at least, in their more lucid moments -- that gets them to recoil against the notion that "death is preferable to them being apart" and inspires them to see over that mental hill which Padme could not.

I take you back to the yin-yang cloud symbolism right at the prequel trilogy's centre (AOTC Chapter 50: Nightmare). Art is neither good nor bad. It really exists outside of morality; and its effects upon a person, or a populace, can vary widely according to prevalent social mores and inherent personal biases.

That doesn't stop me wondering about the "wisdom" of some art, though. Certain blockbuster movies, for example, kinda rub me the wrong way, and it's hard to shake the feeling that they're "bad" in some way, and actually harmful to society. I think we all get that. I suppose, in the end, I have to personally weigh up what I think about the artist in question, through as much as their art as I can find, and see if a more general picture emerges. But even then, it's still subjective.

Difficult to find solid ground on matters like these, I think.

 

Yeah, it is difficult and subjective when a fictional character in a fictional world is involved. But audience's reactions are based on their own emotional background and experiences in this world and I think it's unrealistic to ask people to completely detach from that when deciding whether something rings true.

 

Fortunately, I wasn't doing that.

 

And, fortunately, I wasn't suggesting that you were. Just an observation about art : life.

 

Throw some more of those observations out, then.

I very much like this one (there's more in this thread from various people I need to go back and comment on):

You've pulled out an excellent contrast there.

Luke and Leia -- a mix of their parents.

 

Are they a mix though? Where does Leia's ability to deal with the worst of adversity and carry on come from? Neither of her parents really demonstrated the ability to deal with life once the bonds of over-attachment were broken. Even the prospect of such a severing drove Anakin to the dark side, whereas when the strongest attachment in Padme's life was broken she, well, gave up altogether.

In my pre-ROTS universe, the twins' inner fortitude came from their mother. Maybe Padme's parents or the midichlorians had it and it skipped a generation on both sides...

 

Everyone makes mistakes, even JRT.

I think the whole idea of Padme dying of a broken heart over Anakin, while she has newborn twins, is stupid. And I think the idea of being able to die of a broken heart is ridiculous too.

 

I cant remember if this was debunked by Lucas or not, but what about the possibility that Padmes death is a more science fiction-y development, like the E.T./Eliot connection? In other words, Anakin is so attached to her that he really is killing her, pulling her down with him as he dies (and is then artificially jump started by the suit) the medical droid just doesn't understand. In which case it doesn't reflect on her character any more than if she were hit by a bus.

 

^ The scene does seem to implicate something to that effect. It harkens back to the theme of symbiosis in TPM, where the Naboo and the Gungans depended on eachother for their societies to work and the same was true for midi-chlorians and life.
Those were examples of healthy symbiosis. What's happened to Padmé and Anakin by ROTS, though, is rather unhealthy, as evidenced by her death.
What I take away from this is not that you should choose death over not being loved (I frankly don't understand that conclusion at all), but that it's dangerous to devote yourself so completely to someone else, to become so attached that you can't function without that person.





- Now, the Jedi are all but extinct.
- Mourn them, do not. Miss them, do not.
/LM

 

Implicate? I meant "imply", of course





- I can't get involved!
- They will kill you if you stay.
/LM

 

Personally, I have no problem with a character dying of a broken heart... if the story and the character are well written. Gotta give Padme's death two thumbs down.

 

Quite the contrary.

I'd hardly call her independent, but whatever. Why is this brought up as though my post had something to do with her being in or out of character?





- I'm so confused.
- Sometimes, I don't understand human behavior.
/LM

 

But does ROTS really show that, anakinfan? What I mean is, if Anakin truly was the most important thing (the only thing) to her, beyond anything else, then why wouldn't she have gone with him when he asked her to? And even if she couldn't stand what he had done enough to be with him, why not try to turn him back? She hadn't given up hope in him -- in fact, her very last words to Obi-Wan were to tell him that there was still good in her husband.

If anything, I always felt that Padmé was trying to protect her kids (and, in her own way, save her husband from himself) with her final act. If Anakin had owned her identity, I don't think she would have ever gone against him.

 

What's wrong with the "medically she's completely healthy" line?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

you cannot die from being completely healthy, in order to die from broken heart syndrome, your organs need to fail and stop working, that is far from being perfectly healthy.

And to be honest, Being killed by the force choke would be far much more convincing than what we got,

what Anakin can be redeemed when killing Jedi children but not if he force choked his wife? eh?

 

Well, in response to the original assertion that began this thread, this is how I look at it:

Once upon a time, in a kingdom far, far away...

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...

When a story or film begins with a phrase like that, then it shouldn't really come as a surprise when the writer of that literary work uses a trope like someone dying because she has a broken heart or lost the will to live. I mean, it's not as if assaulting someone with a magical strangulation power is perfectly in keeping with our everyday reality. Also, since dying of a broken heart is just a fairy tale convention, I don't see how someone can say that only certain personality types would succumb to it. It's a fantasy ailment, so who knows what type of person would suffer from it.

 

While I think the execution of this scene (inexact pun intended ) could have been better, the overall concept and its function/effect in the film still worked for me as a whole. Given the extreme circumstances Padme had just faced (I would characterize Anakin's turn to evil and his starting to kill her as amounting to much more than a relationship that merely "didn't work out"), it didn't strike me as implausible for her character as a whole (even someone who is generally strong, etc. can be pushed past a breaking point). I also don't see the idea of "dying of a broken heart" as somehow wholly different from or contradictory to the exact line which references "losing the will to live." Padme obviously became broken-hearted in the previous scene, then the med droid says she's lost the will to live even though she's medically fine... therefore her broken heart is the cause of her losing the will to live, which is in turn the cause of her death according to the dialogue.

However, ultimately, I think it just comes down to subjective responses on both sides of the issue. It worked ok for me and for some other fans, but, for others, it didn't (and I can understand that). I don't think the fact that it didn't work for everyone means that it can be summarily dismissed as an "objectively" terrible plot point or scene.

 

This right here is the ultimate counter to any criticism or complaint you could levy against Star Wars, the prequels in particular.