PT Defending Anakin and the Tusken

We see a few on screen in AOTC, but they don't do much. The children are short, and the women wear metal masks with slit visors, instead of goggles.

 

I was talking about the women and children of the gang from Training Day.

And you're right, we do see the women and children in AOTC. If I remember rightly, they look in shock as the men charge.

 

Sure, he also had the choice of just leaving Shmi's body right at the camp, go back to the Lars home, have a nice family dinner and be glad he would no longer have nightmares about his mother's death.
That would NOT be Anakin, the future beloved villain of the saga. If he didn't want revenge and give in to his grief and wrath there may not have been a story for the OT. He may just have left the Jedi, settled down with Padmé on Naboo and created a family, living happily ever after.
But then again the OT would have had to be seriously retconned. Maybe we could have had 3 movies showing us Leia's and Han's family life in some Endor tree village surrounded by Ewoks?
Anakin was MEANT to turn to the dark side and his mother's death and resulting massacre were his point of no return. It HAD to happen that way.

 

Hence our arguments that massacring Tusken children who did not deserve to die, was a huge step toward the dark side.

 

There is no defense for this. What Anakin did was a heinous and evil act. End of story. There is no justification for the unjustifiable. If someone goes on a killing spree, do you defend them? Do you sympathize with them and justify them killing a bunch of people because they had a tragic event in their life? Or we can even go down the route of one line of argument here. If your mother dies after being attacked by a dog (an animal), is it justified to go out and kill a bunch of dogs because of one dog? So again, there is no justifying the unjust. End of story.

This is why I hate the way the entire scene is portrayed. Having Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskens being reactionary to his mother's passing, open the door for excusing Anakin's behavior. It ends up painting Anakin's actions as justified because his mother just died in his arms. Anakin's killing of the Tuskens is not the action of someone wrought with grief over losing his mother. It's the actions of an egotistical, self-absorbed, narcissistic, petulant, entitled little ******* who has to make everything about himself. It's a pissant having a temper tantrum.

Edit: Spin it however you want, there is no defense of his actions. There is no justification for the slaughter.

Edit to my original edit: Anakin is an adult who is supposed to know right from wrong. He repeatedly states throughout the movies he knows the difference. And yet he constantly does things that are wrong. This is not someone who is conflicted. This is someone who thinks he can do as he pleases, then plays the victim card when it blows up in his face.

 

In that case this thread wouldn't even exist. However it made it to page 64 already so far. This should show you that there ARE different opinions on this topic. This is a discussion thread about a fictional character in a fictional story. And in a discussion differing opinions need to be tolerated, as long as there are no personal attacks. For example it should be possible to say "I like Chancellor Palpatine and think he is a great politician" or even "I like the Sith", without being attacked personally.

 

Ahhh the good old "your opinion doesn't count because we have X amount of pages of discussion" argument." And at what point did I attack you or anyone personally? I stated my opinion. If you decide to take it personally, that's on you.

 

So then you admit that Anakin IS killing them because what species they belong.
You said this earlier;

But here you argue that he totally did. They were Sand People and so he killed all of them, even the children. But if they had been human, he might have spared the children.
So his actions ARE in part based on species.

Tusken is a whole species, we are dealing with individual men, women and children.
And since the film makes a point of using those terms, esp children. Then the film is saying that Anakin killed innocents in his rage and fury.
That some Sand People had done a horrible thing, yes that is very clear.
But that does not make what Anakin right any less bad.
Two wrongs don't make a right.

Two things, first here you mix "culture" and "species".
You argued that Anakin might have spared human children.
But say that this band of humans had a "culture" or torture, killing for fun and the children were taught and trained into this.
Would that change anything for Anakin? That now he would kill all of them?

Second, the difference is that I and some others here are not ok with killing innocents in order to get at the guilty but you seem to be.
A Justice system might say that if guilt can not be established beyond reasonable doubt, then no punishment can be given.
If a court can not determine if this person or persons actually did anything, then they would not sentence them to death. At least that is what I hope a court would do.
"Burden of proof" means that it is the person making the accusation, most often the state, that such and such did this. If the state can not provide this proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, then the accused would not be condemned.
A criminal court has this higher demand for proof than a civil court, were the balance of probability is used.
Because the consequences for the accused is more serious.

Killing everyone in order to get at the guilty, that is not a concept I am in favor of.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

As far as the argument of ‘there’s no law on Tatooine’ goes...

And? You can live in a country that’s in total lawless chaos and not stoop down to depravity. It’s called having morals and a conscience. Given we later see Anakin crying about it and going, “I know I’m better than this” should be a hint.

 

Agreed.

Here, I disagree. The film sees it for what it is: a heinous and evil act.
What the scene does is make it understandable - not justified, just understandable - that the death of Shmi would make him hate the Tusken Raiders and want to kill them.

We may disagree on whether it succeeds in painting it that way, but that's clearly the intention. We're supposed to see and understand why and how Anakin does what he does. Not to sympathize, just to understand that people with good intentions can become monsters; that fear can drive a person to commit unspeakable atrocities.

I don't want to assume things here, but based on your assessment of Anakin, I'm guessing you don't find him remotely relatable. I'm happy to say I'm not like him, but on some level, I can still relate to his pain. I feel that he cares and wants to be a good person but that his greed, fear and arrogance keep getting in the way. I don't approve of that, but I can easily understand it.
That's why this scene and others like it do work for me as intended.

 

I fully understand the intent of the scene. But the lack of execution of that intent is why I said, "as the scene is portrayed." You're right, we're supposed to see and understand how and why. But as the scene is portrayed, sympathy for Anakin takes over as the primary feeling towards him while he's slaughtering the Tuskens because we have nothing between Shmi dying, and Anakin having his tantrum. Nothing to override the feeling of sympathy towards him. Nothing to give the viewer a chance to move past feeling sympathetic for Anakin. This is where it opens the door for defending or justifying Anakin actions.

As I've said in other threads, for me, the scene would have worked better had Shmi already been dead when Anakin got there, and then show him looking for the Tuskens. It still gives the viewer the moment of sympathy for Anakin, but it gives the viewer a chance to move past that emotion so when Anakin is slaughtering the Tuskens, sympathy is not the overriding emotion powering the scene or the viewer's reaction to it. It shows the cold calculation going on in Anakin's mind, and puts all the emphasis on his committing a truly heinous and evil act. It conveys the early stages of Anakin's fall more effectively, and shows how much the dark side has influenced him.

No, I don't relate to Anakin. My father passed away when I was 14, but I didn't go on a killing spree as a result. I didn't have a tantrum and make it all about myself and my pain and my loss. I don't relate to someone who is a narcissistic, self absorbed, petulant, entitled little brat. And I disagree that Anakin wants to be a good person. If that was the case, he wouldn't act the way he does. If Anakin truly cares, he wouldn't make everything about him. Being good and caring are conscious decisions. And considering he was raised to be a good person, he knows the difference between right and wrong. He just doesn't care, as long as it's all about him. That's not a good person. Outside of TPM, at no point do we see Anakin do anything that is for someone else. He could have mourned his mother's death and vowed to honor her wishes for him tobe a good person and a good Jedi, but instead he slaughters Tuskens because he cannot live with out her. In other words, it's about him. He turns to the dark side to save Padme, not for her, but because he cannot live without her. Again, all about him. Has a tantrum in front of the Jedi council because they didn't make him a Master. Why? You guessed it, it's all about him. I can go on, but you get the point.

Someone who wants to be good doesn't act anything like how Anakin acts. They actually make an effort. Anakin never does.

 

I'm sorry to hear that about your father. I don't know how long ago it was and this isn't why you brought it up, but my condolences.

You make some decent points, but I still think he wants to be good. The problem is that he wants other things too; things that clash with that aspiration.
Narcissist? I really don't think so.
We're probably gonna have to agree to disagree

 

For me, the problem is that Anakin doesn’t learn from this. He still clings to the false hope that he can somehow destroy death, even when the people close to him say either ‘that’s impossible’ or ‘I’m not afraid of dying, I just want my baby safe.’ Instead, he runs to the obviously evil guy who says, ‘sure, but you gotta help me enslave the galaxy first so go kill all your friends in the Temple.’

As Darth Chuck Norris said, it’s all about him. A good person, while sadden, will try to move on. He doesn’t.

 

Sorry about your loss. You said "passed away", so I don't know the details. I can only assume he was not kidnapped and tortured to death for a month. If something like that happens, a lot of anger and wrath can build up, even in a good person. Maybe not everyone would have reacted like Anakin did, but I'm sure at least SOME people who considered themselves as "good" may have simply gone crazy temporarily and taken revenge. As I said "some", not all.
This thread is called "Defending Anakin....." for a reason. It's for expressing understanding and being able to relate to a person even if he did terrible things. So everyone reading here should expect some opinions that oppose their own "proper" reaction and condemn Anakin completely. I have written all there is to say on the subject already in countless posts. So no need to repeat myself.
Just one little example: the first Mad Max movie. In the end Max brutally took revenge on the last surviving gang member (don't remember his name), even though he wasn't 100% sure he actually took part in the brutal killing of his wife and kid. If you haven't seen the movie, Max chains the bad guy to a burning car, which is about to explode, and gives him a handsaw. Max says something like "the chain is hardened steel, it might take you 15 minutes to saw through it. If you are lucky you can saw through your ankle much more quickly". Pretty brutal I'd say. I wonder how audiences reacted. Did they still see Max (who made two sequels after all) as the hero or did they condemn him? That gang member was also practically a kid, maybe 18 or 19, and maybe he never even killed anyone himself before. But I'm pretty sure most of the audience cheered for Max.

 

Yes, I understand what defending means. I understand the intent of the topic. My argument is there is no defense for his actions. You can "understand" why he did it, it doesn't make it right, nor does it mean there is any defense or justification for his actions. You can explore the motive, but there is still no defense or justification for what he did. The circumstances surrounding her death are irrelevant. Losing a loved one is a traumatic event in anyone's life. While there is no right way to grieve, as everyone will grieve in their own way, what Anakin did was not grieving. It was a tantrum. The succeeding dialogue further emphasizes that it was nothing more than a tantrum, and it was all about Anakin. This is not the action of someone wrought with grief. This is the action of a sadistic psychotic individual. This is not a good person who did a bad thing. Can I sympathize with him in losing a parent? Absolutely, but it stops right there. Can I relate to Anakin going on a killing spree as a result? Not at all. If your thought process is, "I can relate. If my mom died, I'd probably go on a killing spree too," then you need to seek professional help. Yes, it's hyperbole, but the point remains.

Comparing Anakin's actions to another's actions in another movie doesn't make Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskens is any less evil or heinous. Also, you're comparing two characters who are the diametric opposite of each other. Max was an anti-hero in a kill or be killed society. At no point was he painted as being good or moral. Does it make Max's actions any less sadistic or heinous? No, but it's more easily accepted because being sadistic has already been demonstrated as part of his character. Even then, there is still no defense or justification for Max leaving the kid in the position of having to cut his own foot off to survive. Same as in the Saw movies. The motivations are different, but both are sadistic and heinous.

And thank you for your condolences.

 

Fair enough!

 

To add to what Darth Chuck Norris said,

The first Mad Max is a revenge film in part, esp the second half. And it is pretty dark and bleak.
Max ,when he goes "Mad", looses his humanity, however much he had originally and becomes, as the second film said, "A shell of a man."
And the ending is not happy in any way. Max had taken his revenge but he is hollow and drives out into the waste lands.
So I doubt there was much cheering.

If there is a climax then it would be with Toe Cutters death as that followed a chase.
The kid's death is quite sadistic and a downer shows what Max has become.
Also, suppose that the young guy had a girlfriend with him and a small child and Max killed them as well.
That would most likely make the audience despise Max.

Bye.
Old Stoneface

 

OK, I guess you are right. Hadn't seen Mad Max in years and forgotten some the details. But the man had certainly become an anti-hero by the end of the 1st movie.

 

There had to have been some kind of authority on the planet. (The ANH novelization mentions there being a planetary governor, whom Vader ignores.) It can't be complete anarchy, otherwise the Hutts could never maintain control and keep the profits coming in. So, I figure there was some kind of police or security force. Corrupt, perhaps, but enforcing some sort of law.
That said, any complaint would most likely have gone nowhere. The main question would be, "Does this cut into our percentage?" Seeing that the answer would've been, "No, it doesn't," the authorities would probably have said, "You did a bad thing out there. Don't do it around here. Hit the road."
Referring to earlier posts, I don't believe the movie wants us to just dismiss the killings. Yes, we can feel sympathy for Ani's loss, but we're clearly meant to see that he did a terrible thing. Even he believes he did something very, very wrong. But it's done. All we can do is hope that Ani mends his ways. Sadly, we see him go from killing in the heat of anger to cold-blooded assassination.

 

Hahahaha...... they would have put Anakin to justice and left the Tusken alone?
I believe Anakin's lightsaber would quickly have put that "justice" to rest, authority or no. The good old Sith power would quickly have put any Tusken defenders in their place ! Anakin against some local backwater "police force"??? Haha... guess who would have won!!!!!
And Sidious was behind everything from the beginning. Good luck to outer rim "security" against a real Sith!!!!! Does anyone think some local "police" would control a (future?) Sith? Think again. Sidious and Anakin would have seriously kicked ass, trust me.

 

At that time, Ani wasn't Palpatine's hatchet man. He was deeply remorseful over his actions, and questioning what to do. He'd probably turn himself in, if Padme convinced him. The cops would've listened to his story, maybe found the remains of the village, and sent him away with a stern talking-to. It'd be too much trouble to pursue a case that, in their and the Hutts' eyes, was none of their concern.
And I don't believe that Sidious was behind everything. He was a powerful Sith Lord, and a brilliant con artist. But for him to be behind all of the PT events, including Shmi's abduction and Ani's massacre, he'd have to be pretty much all-powerful. And he most certainly was not, as a successful rebellion, two destroyed Death Stars, and a tyrant thrown screaming to his doom can attest.

 

Nor do I. Still, Sidious COULD have somehow increased Anakin's wrath subtly through the dark side, just enough to push him over the edge at the Tusken camp.

 

Ani's Mom, whom he deeply loved and hadn't been allowed to see in nearly a decade, had just died in his arms after being abducted from a happy home and tortured for weeks. Ani didn't need a push; he was plenty wrathful as it was. Besides, Sidious was busy setting up the Republic to go to war; he can't do everything.

 

Watching that scene now on TNT. I can definitely see how one might react in the way he did.