Anakin's father, and how i always took it for granted.

In the Phantom menace, when Shmi says Anakin has no father, i thought it obvious he was the product of rape. I thought it was said in such a way so it would fly over the heads of kids (such as my own when i first saw the movie), but i didn't think it was literal.
I mean, she's a slave. Don't they say something about Watto being one of her more generous masters? As in, not being a rapist? What else would that mean?
But Wookiepedia and the rest of the star wars fandom seems to think he was some sort of Force-Jesus, or a sidious force-insemination or something, both completely ridiculous in my eyes.

Please tell me this is at least up for interpretation.

 

Good question.

Honestly I never thought Anakin was a product of rape, I thought Shmi literally did not know how he got there, as in he was conceived by the Force itself. I thought that storyline was kind of lame but I thought that's how Lucas meant it.

Of course there was a time when I sort of hoped that Qui-Gon was really Anakin's father and Shmi just wasn't saying. (But that probably would have been even more lame. Let's see...copying the world's major religions or copying US afternoon soap operas? )

 

Shmi's story is a warning to women to use those paper rings before sitting on a public toilet. You never know what's been deposited by the person before you.

 

I thought Shmi literally did not know how he got there, as in he was conceived by the Force itself. I thought that storyline was kind of lame but I thought that's how Lucas meant it.

Yeah, its something you have to accept at face value. Even if Qui-Gon or someone else was the father, it still wouldnt explain the off the charts midi count.

 

Considering in the GFFA, we have people with supernatural powers to begin with, as well as the ability to travel to distant solar systems in hours/days, while carrying laser swords that can cut through anything but only extend a few feet, have star fighters that aren't any biiger than fighter planes but are 100% space worthy, you are complaining that an immaculate conception is somehow ridiculous?

 

Unfortunately it isn't up for interpretation. The overzealous sycophants who run the EU won't allow it.

 

qui-gon certainly believes he is a product of the force. but he does only say "its possible he was conceived by the midichlorians". If you want to interpret it a different way, go ahead I'm happy with the widely accepted one though. And I think its the one Lucas intended us to invest in.

 

I don't think rape was an intended theme in his films either....though I remember emos-edud arguing that it was implied in the Shmi/tusken scenes.

 

I can honestly say in all certainty that Shmi was not raped. Well, not around the time Anakin was conceived anyway. The virgin mother is a direct reference to the Bible. That is what "Star Wars" is, a collection of references to both mythical and real-world events to tell an all new story. While I do not personally believe the Bible to hold any real world weight, it has a lot to do with "Star Wars" in terms of storyline. Anakin is the Chosen One", aka Jesus. Shmi is the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus. As it has been previously stated, Qui-Gon said it was possible he was concieved by Midi-Chlorians. That is true. The only other way Anakin could have been conceived is that Shmi was raped by a Force sensitive, which is very unlikely, especially on the Outer Rim. There would be a very small amount of sensitives there in the first place, and it is impossible for one to happen along with a Midi-Chlorian count like Anakin's. No, the father is the Force.

 

I got the feeling after episode III that Palpatine manipulated the force to create Anakin.

Episode III says two things that lead me to believe this, one of them when Yoda says "misread the prophecy may have been" or something like that and the other when Palpatine told Anakin that the evil dark sith lord learned how to manipulate the midichlorians to create life...

 

Shmi wasn't raped, plain and simple. Star Wars is a fairy tale, fantasy. Lucas is NOT going to have the main character be the result of rape, period. Rape simply isn't Star Wars. Stop over analyzing.

 

I can respect the idea that it's supposed to parallel the bible for mythical value, but i don't accept the argument that rape is not part of the star wars world. This is a galaxy where people get tortured to death, twi-leks are sold as slaves 'for their beauty (riiight)', where entire planets are blown up without a thought. And in the EU, there is at least one mention of rape literally, though it is stopped. One of Lukes friends from childhood that became an Imperial officer stops some other imperials from raping a prisoner, and it's used as a way for him to realize he's on the wrong side.

Either way, i'd just rather believe that the heroes in the story are actually making choices, not just falling into some big 'plan' the force laid out. I like the force more of a, well, force. Not a god.
Though you could argue to death how this doesn't take away will, blahdeblah. And this is where we get into real life religion and everything goes kablooey. So let's not go there.

 

in regard to thwe Yoda quote - from a dramatic storytelling point of view, the line is really only there to make us doubt Anakin as the chosen one. if he is, we know its certain 1-6 that he will eventually destroy the sith. so that line is there to give us a sense of uncertainty (much like the "no, there is another" line in ESB which was there only to make us think there would be a chance Luke may die at the hands of Vader).

officially, Lucas has stated "the prophecy is true." so Yoda's doubt in it is later proved incorrect. that Anakin would become "the very thing he swore to destroy" was not prophecised. As for Palpatine's words, they dont suggest he was definitely created by Darth Plageuis. its ambiguous and left for you to decide. it doesn't really affect the prophecy though.

 

"Some dude" backwards?

I would need to get out my AOTC novel, which I haven't looked at in years, but I thought it was implied in the Shmi/Tusken scenes in the novelization, although not in the film. Maybe I'm wrong about that, maybe they just beat the crap out of her over the course of a month in the novelization as well. I remember that the novelization was fairly detailed in how she was beaten, and left the reader much more sympathetic to Anakin's at least taking out all the men in that camp.

In the TPM conversation between Shmi and Qui-Gon in which she says there "is no father," there was more to it in the novelization as well, although it was more about how mysterious Anakin was, and a bit of implied attraction between Shmi and Qui-Gon. Again, going on what I remember from reading it years ago. There was no indication that Anakin was a product of rape though.

However, as far as there being no rape in the Star Wars universe: Jabba the Hutt and his slave girls. 'Nuff said.

 

Oh, I agree that rape would certainly happen in the "Star Wars" universe, it's a rough place; I'm only saying that rape no sense when it comes to Shmi in the events that led to Anakin. Chances are that she probably was raped when held captive but the Tuskens before "Attack", maybe even before "Menace", but Tuskens are not humans and they certainly do not have the Midi count of a Jedi, so that is out as a possibility for Anakin's father. As for the Qui-Gon/Shmi relationship, I'm pretty unfamiliar with it apart from what we've seen in the films.

I do believe that the characters make their own choices, Anakin joining the Dark Side was certainly one of them, but I think that at one point they're meant to do one vague thing. For Anakin, it's bringing the Force back into balance, and he did it. And I agree that real life religion doesn't make sense, but ignoring that it plays a part in "Star Wars" is ignoring a crucial part of it. It's more symbolic than anything. The Sith and the Jedi both hold to their own doctrines and both are quite eccentric, but all prophecies in the "Star Wars" universe are not exactly false.

 

And how exactly is someone the size of a hutt going to have sex with a twilek? How does that work exactly? Further, where is it implied in any of the 6 films that they were anything but dancers? The EU is irrelevant, we are talking about what Lucas presented to us, taken as is.

Rape IS out of the question, as far as the films go.

 

Agreed.

 

And how exactly is someone the size of a hutt going to have sex with a twilek? How does that work exactly?

Heh, Hutts are hermaphroditic. Jabba could rape himself just fine, no need for a twilek.

 

Slowburn, i understand that view of it all, though i'm still not sure if it was the intended view. It does make sense though. I'm probably just stubborn.

For those of you saying rape doesn't happen in fairy tales, may sources claim that in the earliest versions of Little Red Riding Hood Little Red was made to strip. Although she was not raped, nor even eaten in this version because she escapes, Forced stripping definitely counts. And this is a child.
If we're thinking mythology, i can't think of anything dirtier than Greek mythology. Horrible atrocities all aroud.
And even if we're thinking of biblical connections, numerous rapes occur in the bible.

The point is, morality tales and myths still often occur in worlds as real as ours aside from the parts they change (such as adding talking wolves). They may focus on one aspect of that world, like Star Wars focusing on, well, War, but the other parts still exist. And although star wars is mostly family-friendly, it wasn't made for children, and the universe the movies exist in is not any sort of Ideal existence whatsoever. Although the movies would never outright mention a rape, not only because of thematic incongruity but respect for the seriousness of it, i don't believe the possibility of one occuring offscreen for the sake of the story to be impossible.

 

I can't get into the rapist father theory, mostly because the "no father" thing is explicitly religious in tone, and it intentionally ties in with the "prophecy" theme. Think fairy tale, not crime drama. As far as Shmi and the Tuskens, a bunch of wild men run out and capture a woman from a neighboring tribe and keep her tied up in a tent. In any other mythological war story, everyone knows what that means.

 

Loupgarou: At least we find ourselves in agreement about that part of it.

 

Although it disproves the religious view that abstinence is 100% effective.

 

I'd bet that the guy who trained Obi Wan and Batman would have some mighty powerful children if he ever fathered any.

 

Heh. But that would bring up the question of whether the midi counts of the children can be greater than the sum of their parents.