Saga Is Star Wars more liberal or conservative?

Agreed. If it wasn't clear before, Lucas made it clear in his Charlie Rose interview a couple years ago that he doesn't subscribe to the claims of any organized religion and simply views religion as a mythological projection of human psychology, just as his mentor Joseph Campbell did. He believes in a power greater than ourselves that he calls "God," but it's not a god any religious conservative would ever recognize, because it's not something that can be conceptualized as a person or constrained by any words scrawled in a book from a pre-scientific age.

 

I think Lucas was a lot more cultured and artsy than his typical American audience, who tend to frame things in ways which often seem baffling to fans in the rest of the world (such as myself).

The vision of the GFFA describes a much larger world than US politics, but it's obviously shaped by American culture primarily (especially the matinee/serial format). From my perspective, American cultural exports are predominantly right wing, pro individualist, anti-collectivist. Even Lucas, who clearly had no love for American authoritarianism and consumerism, protested them in a right wing way in THX1138, and as someone pointed out earlier, there were deleted references to the evil Empire nationalising commerce and taking private land into public ownership in ANH, which are vintage right wing bogeymen. He's a product of his environment.

Something that strikes me as increasingly apparent as time goes by is the casual racism displayed by Star Wars' protagonists (which arguably undermines the concept of the human-centric racist Empire depicted in the EU). I can understand why some right wing ST-haters are upset to have that aspect of the storytelling challenged somewhat these days, but I don't respect them for it. I think the casual racism of Star Wars is a little like that seen in Tarantino dialogue; I don't think Tarantino knowingly or gleefully promotes racism any more than he promotes bank robbery, but it is highly reflective of American politics (in the wider cultural sense that I'm interpreting it).

I don't think the Empire was an avatar for only the USSR, or Nazi Germany, the USA, British Empire, etc. I think it was a feudal authoritarian system with regional governors answering to an all powerful emperor, as that's what was explained to us on screen. Americas earliest propaganda successfully demonised monarchy, and they never stopped picking at that scab.

 

I honestly think it has mixtures of both, and I love that to be honest.
I'm very much a conservative and very Right-leaning ( don't kill me ) but there are a lot of Liberal values that I very much love and respect, and semi-share if they weren't so detrimental to human society.

That's partly why I'm NOT a fan of the ST and especially TLJ, as they're so on-the-nose Left leaning in the wake of Trump's victory, that it doesn't feel neutral anymore, and more like a plotform to boast instead of all-inclusive entertainment.

I prefer my entertainment to be neutral, not in favor of any political view, left of right. Or indeed like the OT/PT ( imo. ) a balanced mixture of both.

 

Even without the "allegory" Tolkien despised, the clash of the agrarian lifestyle (represented by the Hobbits) and the industrial lifestyle (represented by Saruman/Sharkey) is extremely political.

It's a movie about human evolution, and specifically the role violence plays in it (Moonwatcher kills his rival after exposure to the Monolith; HAL is also exposed to the Monolith but Dave kills him as his consciousness blossoms and is the one "gifted" with the final sequence. Highlighting violence over cooperation (it's introduced, with US/Soviet relations, but not developed) as the tool to evolution feels like a pretty political statement to me.

Unfettered capitalism is a deadlier monster than the titular Alien in that series.

I haven't watched the second and third movies in a while, but even Zemeckis has said if he were remaking the first film, he'd change Marty's reward at the ending: him getting the truck is steeped in the prosperity morality of Reaganomics.

Another series I've not watched in a long time, but I mean, it's set in the dead middle of the Atlantic slave route, which is a plot point.

Explicitly political; it's the mythologized "immigrant's story".

I don't know how to help you here friend, if you don't see the politics dripping off every frame of these movies. They are NOT subtle about it...

I could go on (there are whole books written about the politics of slasher films) but I hope I've made my point.

 

Though in the 2001 novel the Star Child destroys the US & Soviet nuclear weapons orbiting Earth. Which I believe are also glimpsed in the film during the bone > spaceship transition, though what they are isn't explained.

 

Well, I don't interpret them this way, that's all. If you try very hard, you may find something political in absolutely EVERYTHING. This reminds me of the thread about sexual symbolism in SW. If it's there for you, well, "good" for you. It isn't for me.
I should have made myself a little clearer I guess. Sure, some of the movies you mentioned might have "political" (which can mean many things) aspects as well. What I meant specifically is not clearly "liberal" or "conservative", which was the original question. So while some movies doubtlessly have political elements, that's not the same as having a rightist or leftist bias or agenda.

 

That's not even @Jedi Princess trying very hard. All of that stuff is pretty blatantly shown in their respective films.

Most political messages fall on a scale that we refer to as the left and the right. I mean, can you honestly tell me that "Capitalism = Bad" is ambiguous as to where it falls on that scale?

 

Haha, your claim that most movies' message is "capitalism = bad" is really funny! Considering the fact that one of the most capitalist institutions there is is the Hollywood movie industry itself.

 

I'm not.

It was an example directly taken from one of the movies you said "had no message".

 

Everything is ultimately made by labor; the fact that labor produces art that is critical of capitalism should not be surprising, given the parasitic nature of the institution. And the capitalist ultimately doesn't care what labor creates as long as the capitalist gets the money from that endeavor.

There's also a difference between being critical of capitalism and being truly anti-capitalist in art; we don't really see any Soviet-style productions, after all. Even our (the US film industry; Hollywood) most "anti-capitalist" movies over the years eschew any real display of collectivism and cling to an individualist narrative structure (one "Everyman" vs. the system) which is in capitalism's interest as a propaganda tool.

 

OK, I see your point. Just for the record, I consider myself as moderate "liberal" politically and non-religious. Neither communist nor extreme anti-capitalist. I hate extremes, and always prefer a moderate middle path when available and possible.

 

There's nothing "extreme" about communism or anti-capitalism, unless one is to consider capitalism and anti-communism "extreme" as well. What one considers "a moderate middle path" is entirely defined by the political environment around us; America's political environment has very little leftist representation, and most "moderate" USAmericans are considered right wing by the standards of Europe and South America, even (to a lesser extent) by our Canadian neighbors.

 

Yup, your 'extreme' leftists are the equivalent of our centrists here in the UK. The USA has no viable political left wing and is presided over by a right wing extremist who enjoys the support of actual Nazis, the KKK, televangelists, gun nuts, and the Russian kleptocracy. We have those sorts of people here too but they tend not to get elected into high office. They do quite well in referendums though, sadly.

 

What I'm saying is you can easily find extremists among both capitalists and communists. Never once did I say that the theories behind such extremist views are extreme per se. It's how strictly you follow one single course or how you interpret it that makes you extreme. The same is true not just for political views but religions as well.

Well, I'm neither American nor Canadian, nor have I spent any considerable length of time there. As for extreme views, I have seen those in most societies I have had contact with. One of the most tolerant societies I have ever lived in is China, paradoxically. I'm not talking about the government or anything, but people you meet in everyday life. Only very rarely, if ever, have I heard anyone strongly in favor of socialism or communism, even after almost two decades of living there, let alone anyone trying to convince ME of any type of ideology.

 

Michael Moorcock, at least, argued that the first movie was kind of authoritarian - it's just that the rebel leaders are the "authority to be obeyed unquestioningly" so to speak:

https://everything2.com/title/Starship+Stormtroopers

An anarchist is not a wild child, but a mature, realistic adult imposing laws upon the self and modifying them according to an experience of life, an interpretation of the world. A 'rebel', certainly, he or she does not assume 'rebellious charm' in order to placate authority (which is what the rebel heroes of all these genre stories do). There always comes the depressing point where Robin Hood doffs a respectful cap to King Richard, having clobbered the rival king. This sort of implicit paternalism is seen in high relief in the currently popular Star Wars series which also presents a somewhat disturbing anti-rationalism in its quasi-religious 'Force' which unites the Jedi Knights (are we back to Wellsian 'samurai' again?) and upon whose power they can draw, like some holy brotherhood, some band of Knights Templar. Star Wars is a pure example of the genre (in that it is a compendium of other people's ideas) in its implicit structure -- quasi-children, fighting for a paternalistic authority, win through in the end and stand bashfully before the princess while medals are placed around their necks.

Star Wars carries the paternalistic messages of almost all generic adventure fiction (may the Force never arrive on your doorstep at three o'clock in the morning) and has all the right characters. it raises 'instinct' above reason (a fundamental to Nazi doctrine) and promotes a kind of sentimental romanticism attractive to the young and idealistic while protective of existing institutions. It is the essence of a genre that it continues to promote certain implicit ideas even if the author is unconscious of them. In this case the audience also seems frequently unconscious of them.

EDIT: Link needs replacing - has now been replaced.

 

It's a worthwhile point for discussion, especially given the Leni Riefenstahl influence in the ANH end scene.

But Moorcock also argued JRR Tolkien was a "crypto-fascist" and that LOTR has an unearned happy ending that ignores the stark realities of death (which seems to me to be a serious misunderstanding of the book). His opinions as a political analyst are questionable to say the least.

 

I think it's overly simplistic to label THX 1138 "right wing" simply for its pro-individualist stance, or for its negative depiction of a society which has become extremely collectivist at the expense of any last trace of the individual. I also take issue with your characterization of Lucas's opposition to state nationalization of commerce as betraying an inherently right-wing ideology. If you read some anarcho-syndicalist or libertarian socialist literature you'll find similar sentiments about such things, and I would hardly call those ideologies right-wing. It seems to me you're dividing things into a stark right-left dichotomy based on whether you deem them to be more superficially "individualist" or more superficially "collectivist," when the reality is far more complicated and nuanced than that.

I'm also not quite certain what you're talking about when you refer to "the casual racism displayed by Star Wars' protagonists," nor what the ST is supposed to have done to rectify this supposed flaw.

I would vehemently disagree with this characterization. It seems to me you are making the same mistake that many do in confusing "the system" with the "the people." The individualist narrative structure is completely agnostic in terms of the left-right political axis. It's a narrative structure which can be utilized by leftist or rightists to promote their respective causes. It's all about who does it more convincingly. Given the almost universal popular appeal of this narrative structure, it seems to me that any leftist aversion to it represents a horrible self-kneecapping more than anything else.

If you're going out there telling people that leftism is anti-individualist, then that would be both totally untrue and detrimental to the cause. It's also conceding to right-wing framing.

 

@The_Phantom_Calamari
Some examples of casual racism by the protagonists:
General treatment of droids (not technically a race, but still sentient people used as slaves)
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. ~ Obi Wan describing a diverse multi-racial community
I can't abide those Jawas. Disgusting creatures. ~ C3PO
The ability to speak does not make you intelligent ~ Qui Gon (to Jar Jar Binks, a person)
What's this? ~ Obi Wan (referring to Jar Jar Binks, a person)
Master, why do you keep dragging these pathetic life forms along with us? ~ Obi Wan (referring to Jar Jar Binks, a person)
What was it? ~ Obi Wan (referring to Darth Maul, a person)
They're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals. I hate them! ~ Anakin
Those Tuskens walk like men, but they're vicious, mindless monsters. ~ Cliegg Lars
Sand people ~ Obi Wan, Luke (racial slur)
These Federation types are cowards. ~ Qui Gon (describing Neimoidians)
Wesa no like da Naboo! ... Day tink day brains so big. ...Wesa no care-n about da Naboo. ~ Boss Nass
He picked a fight with a Dug. ~ Anakin (offering racial information when none was requested)
Wookies are known to do that ~ Han (stereotyping people from Kashyyyk as violent and petty)
Laugh it up, fuzzball ~ Han
Jabba, you're a wonderful human being ~ Han Solo (talking to Jabba, a Hutt)
The Hutts are gangsters ~ Panaka (describing an entire race as criminals)
Will somebody get this big walking carpet out of my way? ~ Leia
I'd just as soon kiss a Wookiee. ~ Leia

There are more, but that's surely enough to get you started.

 

Droids are MACHINES, neither a "race" nor "species". They are programmed to appear to have emotions, but in fact do not. And no, they are not "sentient people". They are not any less machines than HAL 9000 (who can also speak and win a chess game) or the Skynet Terminators. Do you ask your computer first if it wants to be used, or even switched on? Have you ever considered its feelings? After all you are using it as a slave.

He is talking about the high crime rate in Mos Eisley, certainly not the fact that there are a lot of non-human species. The first one to attack Luke was HUMAN.

They randomly pick up any droid they can find and either sell them or scrap them, so yes, from a droid's perspective such treatment may be seen as "disgusting".

Certainly true. My Windows 10 system also "speaks" to me, that does not make it intelligent.

These I can agree with. Maybe the point was simply to clarify the contrast between a wise older Jedi and a younger more arrogant one?

They just murdered his mother in a particularly despicable and heinous way. So yes, Anakin is justified in his word choice. Also there is an entire thread dedicated to the Tusken incident, where this is already being discussed.

They ARE. They just abducted his wife. Again, see other thread.

Nope. The Tusken are generally known as "sand people" (hint: they live in the DESERT, where, you know, there is a lot of SAND). "Racial slur".... don't make me laugh.

Yes, as an ORGANIZATION, not species. They would be called cowards if they were human as well.

The Naboo are their enemies, and possibly invaders to the planet. What if the Gungans were there first and the humans colonized Naboo, oppressing the natives?

Give me a break... you can't be serious. Also, you are confusing RACE with SPECIES. Another "race" would still be human, like Lando. Where is Lando ever discriminated against for his skin color? Finn? Species on Earth would be dogs (they ALL bark), lions (they ALL eat meat), giraffes (they ALL have long necks), spiders (they ALL have 8 legs).... Is stating those facts being racist?

Maybe they ARE? Proof to the contrary?

Oh PLEASE!!!! Han used a harmless nickname for an old friend.

CGI Jabba was inserted later. Originally he IS a human being.

Leia criticized Luke and Han ("flyboy") as well, not just Chewie. Most posters found her reaction to the rescue entirely justified, see other thread!!

So what? Chewbacca is another species. Why would Leia have an urgent desire to kiss one? I would never in my life kiss a dog. Am I being racist then?
Sorry, none of your "arguments" hold any water whatsoever. Fail.
Unless you are being ironic of course. Sometimes that's hard to tell.

 

I read through all of these. It just seems like you're purposefully overlooking blatant analogies, and falling into some of the exact same prejudices that you "debunked".

I mean, you compare a Wookie (A sentient individual) to a dog.

 

On the contrary, I find that some people are nitpicking absolutely every single line to death and try to find racism just for the sake of nitpicking, when none at all is present. What for you may be blatant is not convincing to me. It's a non-issue. Unless you provide hard proof that racism was intended I reserve the right to have my own point of view and interpret things my own way, thank you very much.

If you mean to discredit my statements then please at least do so correctly. When did I write Wookies were not "sentient"? He is a pilot after all. So I don't see your point. Leia doesn't want to kiss one, sentient or not, which is her perfect right. Not wanting to kiss a dog has NOTHING to do with it being less intelligent than me. Hell, I wouldn't want to kiss a super-smart alien like the Engineers or E.T. either. Nor Jabba, nor Dexter, nor Boss Nass, nor an Ewok, nor Greedo, nor Admiral Ackbar, NOR Han Solo for that matter. So sue me.

 

You're absolutely free to have your own opinion. Just as @V-2 has that same right. And considering your consistent use of derogatory statements and emotes intended to make V-2's opinion look like a "fail", I wouldn't sit too high on that horse of yours.

Nowhere. It was implied when you compared one to a non-sentient creature.

Besides, your post discredits itself. I don't need to do anything in that regard.

 

You have yet to show me where I made a "derogatory" statement. If you make accusations you had better come up with something to back them up. And you were the one who wrote:

Neither am I "purposefully overlooking" anything nor am I "prejudiced". I happen to have a differing opinion and interpretation from yours. Live with that, or come up with valid counter-arguments. Calling someone "prejudiced" simply won't fly. You do remember the old guideline "criticize the statements, not the one making them". Prove that I am prejudiced in any way, or else stop making such accusations, it's really simple.
Anything else?