Does Lucas' approach make the saga inherently more philosophical?

Do you think the manner in which George Lucas has evolved and adapted the saga with each film -- and especially the prequel trilogy -- made the saga inherently more philosophical? More precisely: Was there another approach that Lucas could have used with the same philosophical "weight", or was the one he finally settled on when he slotted the final piece in with "Revenge Of The Sith" the best? Could the original basis for "Star Wars", as it existed in 1977 when the original film was released, have been sustained and given it the same philosophical depth, or could some other "imaginary" approach have done just that, or was the final approach the *only* one? Is "The Tragedy Of Darth Vader" and everything entailed the most organic and cogent and profound solution to the story, or could another approach have yielded the same qualities?

This was inspired by reading zombie's epic treatment of "The Secret History" of SW. I'm curious what the thoughts are here. Obviously, the original film is impressive all in its own right, pointing to many latent story possibilities all on its own, but is the final way the saga was actually realised inherently "right" and "best"? Or could something else -- and what "something" else -- have carried the same gravitas?

 

I think the core philosophical views were the same throughout but as each film (and later changes) came, the more depth he went into concerning it.

Vader, from ANH to ROTS was always a tragic character. That was fully revealed in TESB.
The themes and lessons have remained constant - compassion and love vs greed and hate being paramount.
Lucas has expressed (in all of his films) the human neccessity to accept change and let go of things.

I think all that has remained the same. But like I send, it just becomes more complex and detailed as the saga goes on...or at least when you watch 4-6 and then 1-3!

 

Lucas' main problem is his lack of the gray area. Life is full of them, something such as the Force is full of them, but Lucas hardlines on the black and white issue and I feel a lot of philosophy is lost because of that. Luckily for me I found the EU where the gray areas are accepted and explored, but that's not the case in the films and that's the one area where Lucas doesn't give the story as much depth as people try to say there is. When you have an issue like the Force that Lucas goes out of his way to clearly define as black and white there's really not much philosophy there other than one is good and the other is evil. Now you can get into micro-philosophy by analyzing each side of the Force over and over again, but that's not Lucas' doing as much as it is the inherent concept of good versus evil. He does do a good job of fleshing out characters throughout the saga so that you can delve into them and debate their actions over and over again, but in my eyes he fails at giving the Force real substance.

 

I'm surprised to hear you say the prequels don't deal with the gray area between good and evil. It seems to me they do.

Isn't that what Anakin's story is about? How someone can start off on the good or light side, and then slowly move towards the gray into the dark side. In fact, that's how it happens, as opposed to someone simply switching from good to evil in an instant. That's why Lucas made Anakin a 10 year old. So he could move him through the shades.

This is what the gray side is. A path towards the dark side. The grayer you get, the darker you get.

I'd say Episode II is about the gray side.

Anakin's struggle to be a good person, dealing with the dreams and then the death of his mother, along with his inability to be with Padme, was all about being right in the middle.

He does some bad things, but he never really goes to the dark side.

At the end of AOTC, Anakin is right in the gray area.

 

I agree Obironsolo. AOTC in particular is about about the grey area's. Throughout the whole movie you really don't know who the good guys are and who the bad guys are. It isn't clear until the very last moment that actually the whole thing is being controlled by The Sith.

I remember all those puzzled looks as The Jedi lead the Clones (stormtroopers) into battle.

 

I disagree with both accounts. I don't think it was ever in question in all of AOTC who the bad guys were and who the good guys were. Throughout the movie Palpatine is evil, the Republic is good, and all those aligned with Dooku are evil. And about Anakin walking in the gray, I never got that either. He comes the closest, but even then Lucas makes sure that every action he takes that is not in the good light or on the Jedi side of things isn't in the gray, it's evil. That's where Lucas fails, there is no gray to him, you are either good or bad, there is no in-between. In then end there is good in both the "evil" side of the saga and in the "good" side. However, Lucas makes everything so defined, so clear cut that it's obvious he doesn't want that to be the case, he wants the bad to be the bad and the good to be the good with no room for anyone who might fall in the middle. Individual characters may fall into this gray area, but on a purely philosophical viewpoint and by taking only the grand philosophical message that Lucas wants the entire saga to give there is no gray area of thinking with Lucas, there is only right and wrong, and no in-between.

 

Agreed, and it's partially why I think there's still something to be said for the 4-6 and 1-3 order.

I think Lucas's lack of grey area with the Light Side and the Dark Side is entirely purposeful. We do see some gray characters, such as Jango Fett who is a decent man, a good father, and a tool of the Sith and Han Solo in the Cantina in A New Hope. The Force however has a duality(which was established back in A New Hope) and as such all who touch the Force are either Light or Dark, good or evil.

It's one of the few remnants of the homage to the old Flash Gordan serials that Lucas originally intended Star Wars to be.

As far as the topic, I do think Lucas could have used another approach, but that would require far more editing of the Original films, which I think would be a mistake.

 

No.

Throughout the movie Palpatine is not evil. He appears good but is really evil. Characters suspect him and his intentions but that just defines how gray he is.

The republic is controlled by Palpatine and people are under his alias' control.

Just watch the prequel trilogy again because I don't really want to right it all down. It's really cram packed with gray.


Lucas is just retelling mythos that inevitably involves good vs. evil in a defined way. But there is no doubt gray that comes right along with it.



Give me an example of something "gray" you wanted because I can't think of nything thats not in there really.

 

Here's some examples of the gray side in SW.

Han Solo in Ep IV - At the end, he becomes good, but along the way, there is definitely gray there. "I'm in it for the money." "better her than me."

Lando in Ep V - "I've got my own problems."

Anakin in Ep II - "I will be the most powerful Jedi ever."

Young Boba Fett - would you classify young Boba as good or evil?

All of these characters are purposely placed in situations where they are caught between good and evil. Two of the four above make one choice. Two make the opposite choice.

But at one point in the Saga, each falls into the gray. For someone watching the films from I - VI for the first time, they will not know which choice each of these characters above will make in the end (granted, Han may be easiest to predict). But IMO, when you have characters that you don't know whether they are good or bad, I'd say that's gray.

 

Lack of gray area? I must ardently disagree with you. Although there are countless other ways of supporting my claim I will simply say that the Jedi are about as gray as you can get. In the original trilogy there are two Jedi remaining: Yoda and Obi-Wan and frankly I didn't trust Yoda the first time around or Ben after ROTJ. Yoda is mischievous and the ways he goes about doing things are controversial (the cave). Ben lies to Luke (from a certain point of view) because he knew what Luke would think and that was opposite of what was intended. Then you get to the prequel trilogy and you don't know who to believe. Everything is muddled and murky. You have Dooku claiming that the Jedi have lost their way and become corrupted. You see that the Jedi's teachings may not be perfect. You also see that they still are fighting against evil, but that they're creating a new evil themselves. The whole thing is so dense and so complex and so GRAY that I have to restrain myself from not insulting you.

 

As for Cryo's original questions I must say that I couldn't be more satisfied with the outcome and overall treatment of Star Wars. I feel that what was there at the beginning (even if we didn't fully realize it) maintained whatever IT was until the end (or in this case the beginning). I know Lucas changed things as he went along, but that's just the process of clarification and editing. J.R.R. Tolkein rewrote The Lord of the Rings from page 1 to 1000 I believe three times. You can't just know it right away. That being said I feel that Anakin's journey (and that is what these films are about) are completely believable, poetically justified, rational and thematically original. I wouldn't change anything about these movies, story wise or any other way. I couldn't be happier.

 

How was the cave controversial?

 

It's a controversial teaching method. Was Luke ready to go through with that? For some people it could have scarred them mentally. I find it one of Yoda's great strengths as a teacher, but in all fairness it is a trick.

 

I suppose, but had Luke been ready, and not afraid he wouldn't have seen what he did. However, I can see where you're coming from I just hadn't ever thought about the cave from that angle before.

 

There's nothing controversial about the cave, it's simply facing your fears. As for all of the gray area in characters, like I said there was individual gray, but overall for the way Lucas wanted his philoosophy to be there is no gray. You are either good or you are evil, there is no in-between. Here's the way Lucas worked out most characters, and I'll use Han as an example,

Han is struggling with what to do, but according to the philosophy of Lucas he has to fully join the rebels in order to be good, because if you are not on the side of the Rebels then you are bad. If he wanted a gray area then he would have actually made it seem like there was even a possibility for Han to say, "This isn't my war, while I understand and sympathize with what you are doing, this is just something I can't get involved in." However Lucas never even made it seem like taking a middle of the road approach like that was an option, you had to choices in his philosophy, you eitrher join the rebels and are good or you don't and you are bad. That's a distinct lack of gray area in the overall structure of the philosophy that Lucas implement. So, once again, while an individual character might have displayed some qualities of being in the gray area, in the end according to Lucas' philosophy you weren't gray, you were either good or bad, black or white.

 

"You are either good or you are evil, there is no in-between."

Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader. Darth Vader is Anakin Skywalker.

 

Exactly, thank you for further enhancing my point. Anakin Skywalker is good, and Anakin the individual starts to question some of the things that make him good and thinks some of the things that make him bad may be alright. Now, were this truly a gray matter he would have continued down that path, continually questioning, not succumbing to either the good or the bad, but no, since in Lucas' philosophy that's not possible he doesn't continue to question instead he does a complete 180 from good to bad. Look at his redemption, there is no gray there, there's no "My actions were wrong but I still don't agree with the way the universe is or the teachings of Yoda." Instead we get the viewpoint of "I was bad, tell your sister she was right, I was evil, but now thanks to you I'm good once again." For Anakin to truly be redeemed he can't be in the middle, because there is no middle, he has to do yet another 180 and come back completely to the good side. There are only two polarities in Lucas' vision and that is good and bad, and Anakin's character best highlights that.

 

I made that response extremely ambiguous...

Well, for the sake of debate:

Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader as a moral creature is about as gray as a character can get.

When one says that the films or the characters are gray, they're talking not about specific instances and actions at a given time, but overall tone. Mace Windu does good and bad stuff. He's a gray character. Han Solo does good and bad stuff. He is a gray character. Etc.

Balance is the main theme of the films, and the 180 degree shifts you see aren't really there. Anakin/Vader (which is is?) on Mustafar crying after he killed the Separatists is a pretty gray moment if you ask me...

 

Characters are allowed brief snippets of being in the gray, but in the end they are forced to make a choice, good or bad, black or white. For all his supposed grayness Mace Windu is blindingly good, every action he takes is one that in the spectrum of what Lucas has designed the philosophy to be is a good one. Anakin crying could be a gray moment, but the point I'm trying to make is that he's only allowed that moment, in the end he is forced because of the philosophy in place to make a choice, good or evil. In a world full of grays not everyone makes that final ultimate choice a good portion of people stay firmly in the middle never taking a side one way or the other. In Lucas' world this isn't the case, everyone has to take a side, everyone has to be aligned when all is said and done.

Now, don't get me wrong, I still greatly enjoy every SW movie, they are very good theater. However I wish this area had been explored more and the final destinies of the characters in the movies hadn't been resticted so much by the philosophy that Lucas employed. I think it's a testament to the movies that when they were designed to be viewed in simple black and white so many people, myself included, still view them in many different shades.

 

The philosophical spin of the saga we knew from the OT took a dramatic turn within the first half of The Phantom Menace. Here-to-fore Lucas had crafted Luke as the OT hero, in line with Joseph Campbell's "Hero With a Thousand Faces." As the TPM and later the entire PT unfolded, Anakin clearly is fitted into the hero's role.

Anakin is the hero archetype of Campbell's monomyth. Anakin's introduction changes many perceptions and impressions first formed in the pre-1999 OT series. His pre-ordained destiny becomes the underlying theme for the complete saga, giving an entire new meaning of almost every moment in the OT, from Vader's entry on the Tantiv to the ending of ROTJ. Luke, the OT hero archetype, is relegated to the righteous redeemer son of the true saga hero, Anakin.

Anakin thus more accurately and completely matches Campbell's stages for heroic transformation almost to the letter -- from a unique birth, a notorioius childhood, departure of the homeland, initiation, supernatural power, a warrior, lover/father, rebellious, the fallen or oppressive her/king, existence in hell, the redeemed or resurrected hero, and finally the savior and/or ascended hero.

Luke did not fill all of these roles, although Campbell felt Lucas did a magnificent job portraying Luke's hero quest in the time alloted by the practical finances of the film industry. Anakin's precise role regarding a heroes quest was unclear at the end of ROTJ. By the end of ROTS, Lucas demonstrated full compliance with Campbell's hero's journey. The mythological and philosophical concepts introduced via the PT inexorably transformed the entire saga into an "inherently more philosophical" delineation of Anakin as the hero of the entire saga. This is no mean feat, as the OT completely won Campbell over, the 'Master of Myth' complementing Lucas on being a good student.

But the icing on the cake as far as the topic of this thread goes is in my mind the Opera scene. The back and forth between a confused Anakin fearful of losing his beloved Padme, and the crafty secret Sith, Palpatine, blurs the logic as well as perception between what is good and what is evil. This is a masterful scene.

The 'sprinkles' on the icing are little things, such as the meanings of names -- Padme is a lotus flower that dies after seeding (giving birth) -- (tips hat to previous use of this analogy by Cryogenic) and Jinn, which is a shortened version of 'Jinni' or 'Genie,' a spirit being.

So yes, I think Lucas showed himself all the more a philosopher with the completion of the PT.

 

Perfect Cell I don't even understand where you're coming from now. Let's throw another idea out there since you aren't getting it. Anakin and Padme's love. Never was this a perfect relationship or even as you put it, a "good" one. There's constant ideas going back and forth and the audience is never even quite sure, in the end whether, Anakin breaking Jedi rules to get love was a good idea. The great thing Lucas does with the relationship is that it is a pathway to the dark side, but in the end a redeeming factor in the good side. If Anakin didn't love Padme he: A. wouldn't have gone on a kill rampage across the universe and B. Wouldn't have felt the connection only attained through kinship with Luke. If that isn't white, gray and black all-in-one, I don't know what is.

 

I just realaized Cryo that I didn't actually answer your question. The answer is yes, Lucas does make the saga moer philosophical with each movie. When I first saw A New Hope there was little to no philosophy for me. Then ESB came out and bam there's tons of philosophy, which also made new revalations for A New Hope that I hadn't known before. Than ROTJ blows the lid right off the can. Then the prqeuel trilogy. Each movie was a stepping stone to a deeper and more complex philosophical universe. Whatever his approach was (and that seems to be a hot topic these days) was the right one.

 

I think I'm getting it perfectly, you on the other hand, not so much. In Lucas' world there is only the end, only the final choice you make, nothing you do before hand has much philosophical merit because you are destined to make the choice of either being black or white, you can't make the choice to stay in the middle. In a world like that there is no gray area, and there are no true gray characters. There are characters that struggle with what path to take, but in the end they all choose a one of two paths, none of them stay ambiguous, none of them stay in the middle. That is the one flaw in Lucas' vision, he made a world where everyone chooses a side, and no one ever stays in the middle. Padme in the end chose to abandon Anakin, what he was doing no longer ascribed to what is considered good, so she abandoned him. Anakin did likewise with Padme, she was no longer on the same path that he was so he left her behind. I've come to the conclusion through the years that the majority of important Jedi knew about their marriage or at least their beyond friendship relationship, and with that being the case their marriage is thrust into being not ambiguous like they thought but actually good, because when the beings that Lucas has made the blinding light of good in the universe condone it then the marriage is good as well. But the marriage in itself really doesn't matter, what matters and what shows a lack of the gray area is that when all the chips are down and every character has to make a choice they all do, not one character stays in the middle refusing to go to the light or the dark, and that is the the clear evidence of Lucas' world forsaking the use of a gray area. I really don't see why this is such an argument when Lucas himself has stated many times that he created the movies to be and wanted them to be as clear cut black and white as possible, evil versus good, and with little to no ambiguity to take away from the two contrasting sides.

 

Excellent way of putting it. I agree.

If you look back to the encounter on the Death Star, when Obi Wan is felled by Vader, Luke clearly lets his attachment get in the way and wants vengeance; look at the way he screams out and pauses, with a look of anger / desperation on his face. This is not unlike Anakin's experience with his mother and the Tuskens. The basic ideas were in place from Day One, and Lucas has carefully caressed and coaxed out the additional details with each new chapter, IMO.

Again: Agreed.

Thanks for the response. I do think that Lucas has made everything naturally fall into place, even if the saga and the joins aren't perfect. Ultimately, I think it all goes back to what Shaitan said. Without that basic glue holding everything together, Lucas' feat wouldn't work, but that glue's there and so it does.

Interesting perspective. I think Luke is still the archetypal hero figure, whereas Anakin is the tragic hero. Luke is the hero of the hero, or a second "Son of the Suns", if that makes sense, for Anakin and Padme are both portrayed as mythical characters, seemingly destined for something greater, and it's Luke and Leia that come from their union. Lucas certainly seems to have been more stringent, and significantly more detailed, in his elaboration of Campbell's epic paradigm in the creation of the prequels. But I am still genuinely curious if other people feel some alternate treatment might have brought the same philosophical depth.

Nice comment. I also think that Lucas journeyed deeper into the philosophical soup of his own making with each new movie.

 

I think that's right as it's also interesting just how close Anakin is to Aristotle's definition of the tragic hero.

1. Nobleness (of a noble birth) or wisdom (by virtue of birth).
Fits as you could say his birth by midichlorians would make him a noble from a certain point of view, and being the Chosen One certainly
would.

2. Hamartia (translated as tragic flaw, somewhat related to hubris, but denoting excess in behavior or mistakes).
Fairly clearly fits with his oft mentioned and shown inability to let go.

3. A reversal of fortune (peripetia) brought about because of the hero's tragic error.
Fits with his joining the Sith/destroying the Jedi to save Padme.

4. The discovery or recognition that the reversal was brought about by the hero's own actions (anagnorisis).
Mostly in Jedi when he seems to have realized what he's become and that he's responsible, may climax in his redemption.

However, he also fits the alternate view that starts with a tragic virtue instead of a tragic flaw, so I suppose it's possible that Lucas used either or neither in his planning the PT.