PT Was Anakin Skywalker a "bad" Jedi?

We don't really know what happened. We have Anakin's emphasis on "women & children" implying their innocence, but beyond that there's nothing definitively said about their role in the whole affair.

The ambiguity is probably what makes it my favorite event in the entire saga.

 

You're right - but the emphasis alone indicates to a vast group of us that in his own mind, Anakin differentiated between the guilty and the guilty by association. I think that's as conclusive as it is possible to get under the circumstances.

 

Point taken.

That is the most important distinction, but it doesn't absolve them of guilt. He assumes, probably cause of societal conditioning and patriarchal reinforcements that the women serve a purely maternal role, while the men are the main perpetrators of violence. Could be the opposite. Or perhaps the Sand People have achieved a level of balance between the sexes, a sort of twisted egalitarian utopia where acts of violence are equally committed and condoned. Maybe the kids do get in on the act as well, as a rite of passage as it was mentioned earlier.

What's most relevant, I will agree, is Anakin's state of mind. His perception is the reality of what occurred. Their potential guilt aside, he killed them under the presumption of innocence, which makes his actions entirely deplorable.

 

I'd prefer not to kill anyone under a presumption...and Anakin had zero, nada, no way of determining individual and/or collective guilt before acting. Had there been clear and presumptive proof that even the infants, kids, and women were individually guilty of the torture - well, I still don't like the idea of anyone being judge, jury, and executioner, but I realize that "frontier justice" is not desirable but is sometimes the only justice.

But I prefer to believe innocent until proven guilty, hence alive rather than incorrectly executed.

 

I don't see how Anakin was bad, he was simply flawed and needed more guidence. On the other hand Vader was just a bad dude.

 

I think it is pretty clear that Anakin had given in to evil, due to his own fears. But personally, I have never been that concerned about whether he was a "good Jedi" or a "bad Jedi". I have never regarded the Jedi as the epitome of the characters in the saga. I think Anakin would have been better off leaving the Order once he had fallen in love with Padme. It seemed quite clear to me that the rules and the lifestyle of the Jedi did not really suit him . . . certainly not at that young age.

 

Some of your observations here are a bit disturbing. Young children can never be seen as guilty of being a consensual member of a terrorist organisation & therefore fair game in being exterminated individually. That's an important point bcs Anakin went around & murdered each person here one by one. It's not like he detonated a weapon at a terrorist camp & the children were unfortunate collateral damage. He willingly chose to kill each man, woman & child. Also we see a quick shot of a Tusken woman standing in the camp with a baby in her arms. If Anakin killed "all of them...every last one of them" then that included even infants such as this. Could a small baby ever be considered part of a terrorist organisation?

 

And the fact of the matter is that he hunted each of them down, they didn't just stand there and wait for him to whack 'em. He hunted them down, chased after them like they were rabid dogs to be slaughtered.

 

Dude had issues

 

I personally don't believe there is any ambiguity by the movie when it comes to the right or wrong of the Tusken Slaughter. The movie clearly portrays it as being wrong. As many have said, there is Anakin's own dialogue that shows us that he separates the women and children from the men when he talks about the slaughter. This is done to show that while they were all part of the same tribe, Anakin does acknowledge there was a difference in the level of guilt between the men and women/children thus at the least the women/children didn't deserve what was done to them.

Then there is the voice of Qui-Gon from the beyond, screaming "Anakin... Nooooo...", again pointing to what Anakin was doing was so bad that Qui-Gon tried to reach out through the Force to stop him.

Finally, we see how the Tusken Camp is portrayed...



In the scenes of the Tusken Camp, only the men are seen carrying weapons. The women are subservient, tending to fires and hauling water, the children are playing with the family "dog". Again, showing that it's the males of the tribe that are the warriors, and the female and children are pretty much stuck in the roles that the men dictate. The level of guilt that the women of the tribe may or may not have had was directly dictated by the men, because of the culture of the Tusken species. Not because the women and children were partaking in the deeds by their own choice.

 

Am I the only one who thinks we should've seen the Tusken slaughter just to hammer home the point of just what Anakin was doing? Or would that have killed the runtime to have us watch him kill everyone then cry about it in front of Padme? My idea of the scene is that we would see him do it, but in addition, Owen would be there ('cause Shmi is his mother as well if I recall) to witness the whole carnage. Maybe he tries to save a Tusken child from the slaughter but Anakin stops him by killing the child and we see his Sith eyes for the first time.

Eh...that probably would've killed everything (no pun intended) and cheapened the confession scene.

 

I agree with that assessment. He may have been a great warrior and pilot, but he was never a good Jedi.

 

It was less the runtime and more that Lucas wanted to keep the film PG and save the more extreme stuff for ROTS. By not showing the slaughter, he could build up to the revelation in the garage and then set the stage for the Temple raid.

 

I was playing devil's advocate. I addressed my ultimate feelings on the issue in my last post. But I will say this, what we saw was a snapshot of the Tuskens before Anakin ruthless slaughtered them. It does not by any means absolve them - the women, and potentially the kids - of guilt. What we know of the Tusken Raiders is that their main purpose seems to be to inflict terror indiscriminately on the people of Tatooine. They tried to kidnap Luke, they shot at Pod Racers seemingly for sport, and they tortured and murdered Anakin's mom who was simply minding her own business.

Now we can do one of two things here. We can be Sith and think in absolute terms, which Star Wars actually tends to do as whole, or we can be nuanced about it and give the Tuskens as a race/culture the benefit of the doubt. There does seem to be something rotten about their culture, which is something the films never address at least from their perspective. Personally, I feel the men & women are equally guilty of perpetuating the savagery that seems to pervade the Tusken lifestyle. Now, before you get offended by me condemning their species, keep in mind that these are movies, and in something especially like Star Wars - a modern myth - people typically fall in one category or the other. Good or bad. I feel the Tuskens are bad, and they raise their children to be hellions.

So I guess I'm a Sith...

Anyway, you can argue that the children can not be culpable by virtue of being children and most likely being the victims of indoctrination. That's a fair point, but we do prosecute children, even try them as adults depending on the severity of the crime. It's one of the hardest things to do, and something I feel society is most hypocritical about - assigning guilt to children. I think we unfortunately determine their level of guilt based our own emotional response to the crime, instead of putting their actions in the proper perspective - they're children and still developing. I personally do not feel children should ever be tried as adults, but in the world of Star Wars where things tend to be black & white it's hard to get past the fact that those Tusken kids will grow up and most likely continue the legacy of their parents, if they haven't already started.

Regardless, and I'll just reiterate this one more time to make it crystal clear, Anakin's actions were DEPLORABLE. His goal was to wipe-out an entire people, not because he had incontrovertible evidence that each and everyone of them had blood on their hands over Shmi's death, but because he needed to satisfy his lust for revenge, and he did so by taking the lives of those he perceived to be innocent. He was WRONG, but I don't believe that makes the Tuskens right.

 

Wrote this in a separate thread that was touching on this subject, but I think it works here, too:

The biggest difference between Anakin and Luke is that when they each lost control, they reacted very differently. When Anakin lost control, he ends up slaughtering an entire village of sand people, and then cries that he couldn't save his mother later on, feeling that had he been MORE powerful that he could have prevented her death. He's not just selfish and cruel, but you could claim that Anakin tasted the Dark Side right there on Tattoine - and liked it. When Luke lost control on the second Death Star, he disarms Vader in an act of selfless rage. He then almost immediately realizes the implications of his actions, and where'd they'd lead him, and he chooses that he'd rather die than become his father. That's the biggest difference between Anakin and Luke. Anakin is selfish rage, Luke is selfless rage. Luke is a better Jedi than Anakin could have ever hoped to be. Is there a perfect Jedi? No. Are there qualities of a Jedi that should always be looked for? Yes: Kindness, compassion, serenity, knowledge, selflessness, patience. Anakin is none of these things. He's cruel, uncaring, unpredictable, selfish, and impatient. Luke displays many of the Jedi qualities by the Battle of Endor. That's what makes him a good Jedi.

 

First I will start with the children. To me, the children hold absolutely no guilt what so ever with what happened to Shmi. None, zero, nadda.

The Women?

If we really want to take your example of black and white within Star Wars to task, then why can't black and white exist within a culture? Why can't the the males be bad (black), but the females be not bad (white)? The females, while not good (leaving good to being a Jedi), aren't bad because they too are victims of the culture they were born into. They can't change anything even if they wanted too because they aren't in a position to make changes, only the males are. Do you believe that Lucas is only capable of showing black and white based on differentiation in species or by cultural lines, that he can't show that black and white motif within the same culture? Especially within the role of men and women in a primitive culture?

That snapshot of the camp does mean something, as we all know Lucas is very much a visual storyteller. It becomes clear that the action of kidnapping is the decision of the males, the warriors. The snapshot shows the male dominated culture that clearly is the aggressor. Women don't come running with guns, males do, the women and children are frozen in place by what they see, their gut reaction in the face of attack is to freeze in fear, the Males don't hesitate to come running with weapons. Lucas uses age old gender stereotypes to show who is the dominate gender in the culture.

No one better than Anakin understands that. He understands the Tusken culture, he grew up on Tatooine. That is why his dialogue specifically makes sure to separate the guilty (the men) from the not guilty (women/children). When Anakin went on his rampage, he made no presumptions at all, he didn't care who was guilty or not, he simply saw them as one entity that needed to pay for what happened to Shmi.

Afterwards, Anakin tries to rationalize and justify what he did, even to some small degree, by trivializing the Tuskens as animals, yet he knows deep down what he did was wrong, so very wrong. It is almost the exact same thing that happens in ROTS. Anakin does his dark deeds, we see him with his tears on Mustafar, showing that he knows what he has done is wrong, but, he still tries to find some way to justify it to rationalize it away, "The Jedi are evil".

 

Yes it does. When the kids are infants & babies of course it absolves them of guilt. Even the tiniest shred of guilt. Babies can barely form thoughts let alone willingly partake in terrorism. Taken on their own the Tusken babies Anakin murdered were completely innocent victims. End of story.

Oh well to be angry is to be human

 

mikeximus It would be an interesting thought to see how the scenario would have played out if it was an all male Tusken camp with Shmi still going through the same treatment and Anakin wiping out the all male Tusken camp and have no women and children present or even mentioned by Anakin to Padme when he tells her about the slaughter? I wonder what the audience reaction would be? But it was shown the way it was because it was meant to show how Anakin had no control over his emotions. He went from being born to 9 years of age learning and having feelings and then the next ten years up to that point living with a society that thwarts emotion. So at the end of the day we all know Anakin had issues and severe issues with his emotions.

This is just the way I see the scenario anyway. I in no way justify or try to justify what he did. It was wrong, dead wrong at that. But he also knew it was terribly wrong. That was very clear. But when we look at Anakin post Tusken slaughter, even thru his time as Vader out of and in the suit he paid a very hefty price for a lot of his actions he committed during his younger days.

 

I think the whole scene is more gray than black and white. The males would not be fully in control of their culture. Just as the females may have been expected to cook and raise kids, the males are expected to be salvage warriors to go out and collect resources and protect their tribe and give up their lives if need be to achieve these goals.

 

"The sins of the father are forever visited upon their sons." In a way, Anakin killing the children would represent judging them for their sins, even if they have not yet sinned. Take note that in light of the slaughter, Luke's situation where he's dragged by the Tuskens to his speeder is even more frightening. He was still alive and it is possible that he could be taken by them, once they were done with his vehicle and taken him back to their camp. In which case, torture would be visited upon him as it was his grandmother.

 

Again....this is something that is back-projected onto the Tuskens, The Tuskens in the OT were undoubtedly dangerous...but they were far more interested in looting Luke's gear than in Luke. Given what was going on at the time (of aOTC)...well, that's what makes that particular angle on the Tuskens so discomforting to me.

And...as for "The sins of the father...."...one more reason to object to the particular scope of religious symbolism incorporated into the PT....

 

First, that's kinda the point. Seeing something from a different view would color our perceptions of what is going on. That's part of the reasons why Lucas made the PT. He wanted us to see things in a different light from when the OT was made originally. Things that happen take on a whole new meaning now that we've seen the backstory. Hell, for first time viewers who go I-IX, they're going to see Luke in danger and connect the dots back to Shmi. There is a hint of fear for Luke's safety that's added and then Obi-wan arrives to save the day.

Second, that isn't about religion. Sins of the father isn't all religion, but rather the crimes of one generation being passed on to the next. It owes its origin to religion, but actual religion is a whole other matter. For instance in "Stark Trek: The Next Generation", there was an episode called, "Sins Of The Father", where we learn the origin of Worf. That his parents were killed by Romulans when he was a young boy and years later, the House of Duras is accusing his father of betraying the Klingons at Khitomer and allowing the Romulans to do what they did. Though his father is dead, his name and honor was still going to be charged with treason. Worf and Picard find evidence of Mogh's loyalty, but if presented, it would cause upheaval among the Klingons and result in a war. So as a result, Worf accepts the punishment which means that shame is brought upon his bloodline for his father's "crimes". The sins of the father being visited upon his son.

So in this way, the sins of the Tuskens carry over to the offspring. It doesn't have to be a religious allusion, nor is it really.

 

Not to mention, we've known since 1980 that Luke would be dealing with sins of his father. The moment we found out that Vader was Luke's father, we knew that Vader had committed atrocities that weighed heavily on Luke, and it was up to him to right those wrongs. Luke would make the right decisions whereas Anakin made the wrong decisions.