Is the Star WARS saga anti-war or pro-war?

It's always been an interest to me if SW is anti-war or pro-war, because depending on the people who watch the films, they would come away from it saying it's pro-war, while some call it a pacifist film. So I think we should let go of our own perceptions and ideas and analyze the saga on it's own terms and merits, imagery, themes and suggestions, including George Lucas's idealizations to fathom whether the saga is for war or against violence.

Looking at the title: Star WARS, one would think immediately, oh war movie, so it's gotta be pro-war in some way, but if you look at the movies themselves and observe deeper, perhaps they are something different. For one, let's study the OT and PT separately first.

OT:

A ragtag group of rebels are fighting an evil Empire. Obi Wan as a character and the wise mentor whose wisdom is valued above all the other characters in ANH, always says how there are alternatives to fighting, and how the Jedi were the guardians of PEACE and justice in the galaxy. He dies by surrendering and letting himself be killed which is a very buddist, pacifist thing to do.

Of course though, the film ends with the rebels destroying the Death Star, a violent action, but some have noted the ending of that film's connection with 'Triumph of the Will' to be the directer advising the audience that perhaps this was not entirely a good thing.

In ESB, the rebels are sorely beaten again and again, perhaps denoting that war is not really where it's at, and how perhaps they keep losing because they keep trying to fight fire with fire. Yoda always is the embodiment of pacifism with lines like: 'war not make one great', etc

In ROTJ, the rebels fight another battle and destroy the Death Star again. But Luke tries to reason with Jabba, heeding Obi Wan's teachings that we should always seek a peaceful solution first. Then he tries to redeem his father instead of killing him and in the end throws his weapon away, which is the ultimate pacifist symbol.

PT:

The entire clone war is manipulated by the Sith lords for power, which is ultimately anti-war. The image of Boba (seemingly one of the bad guys of the film) holding his father's helmet sadly, is very anti war because it says that in war there are no winners only survivors and not many, and that your enemy is still human beings with sons and daughters, mother and fathers, families. This reminds me a little of the rancor's death with his master weeping, though a little more serious and much better done.

So what does everyone think? Is the Star WARS saga anti war or pro war?

I say anti-war.

 

I think it's anti-war also.

Some may cite the Jedi Order "defending" itself from the Separatists, which I consider to be more of a pre-emptive strike on their part, but even then they seriously compromise their moral position by fighting.

As the_immolated_one pointed out on another thread, the Jedi are leading slave-children into battle during the clone wars. The films are deceptive because of the way the clones look--older.

Throughout the films, defense is always the justified position. If one goes overboard with one's defense or outright attacks, one recieves just retribution later on.

The essence of this suggests that people who attack, or more specifically, fight in wars, must be stopped.

Even the counter-attacks leading to the destructions of Alderaan and the Death Star follow the pattern. Both are overkill in and of themselves, but are bookended by a Rebel attack preceding ANH and the battle of Hoth in TESB.

It's also the probable reason for the Greedo edit. You can't just go around killing people unless you are attacked yourself, and even then, you have to go about it carefully.

 

I say anti-war, too. But it is more about rebirth. To me it says more that a war was due in order to wipe the slate clean of corruption. Like in PT, although the greatest tragedy was the manipulation of the clone wars, it says ultimatly that it had to be so in order for the rebirth of the Republic and a new Jedi Order. In the OT war was deffenitley neccessary in order to end repression. The OT war was more about self defense, and it teaches us not to take oppression lying down. One has to fight for ones freedom, although peace should always be the ultimate goal. So, I say anti-war overall for the Saga, but some exceptions.

 

I would say that it's definitely anti-war overall and more specifically strongly anti-conscription given that from a certain perspective the Clones are a fairly dramatic example of a conscripted force. It's certainly against war for the personal political gain of those involved given that the examples of this in the films are Palpatine's overall machinations and to a lesser extent Nute Gunray's blockade on Naboo.

However, I think the films make an argument that there are times when war is completely justified as shown by the Rebellion's war against the Empire which is portrayed as heroic and noble. However, it only says that a defensive war is justified as the Rebellion's fight is defense against the Empire's tyranny and the Jedi are in their minds fighting the Clone Wars to defend the Republic(though of course they were in actuality deceived and it was just a ploy for Palpatine to gain political power.)

If I had to simplify it down to a single phrase I'd say that it's "anti-war except for in certain extreme circumstances."

 

I think it views war as bad but inevitable.

 

I think I have to agree with this sentiment. It?s concise, yet seems to hold up a little better than simplifying the equation too much in order to get a strict good/bad answer to the saga?s take on war. To echo what others have said, the films most often endorse violence as a viable option only when it appears to be the best possible means of preserving a greater number of lives. Indeed, the two Death Stars make it clear that weapons of mass destruction must be eliminated at all costs, so much so that in either ANH or RotJ the Rebellion shows no real qualms that eliminating the battle stations will also result in claiming the lives of the countless thousands who make up the Death Stars? workforces. Sure, a major reason the 77 film became legendary was because it existed as the ultimate form of escapism, so obviously it just wouldn?t serve that film?s style to replace the crowd-pleasing action scenes leading up to the trench run finale with a moral debate in which various Rebellion leaders sit in a room and pontificate over whether or not every person aboard the Death Star truly deserves death. Plot points are still plot points, however, and it?s very true that one of those alternatives to fighting that Obi-Wan speaks of is not applicable when it comes to the Rebellion?s decision that the best means of disabling the Death Stars is total destruction. I don?t think there?s any getting around the fact that here the films are suggesting that the horrors of war, including mass murder, can be justified.

Still, the significance of Luke?s actions in RotJ cannot be ignored. As the main character of the trilogy, it?s only natural for Luke?s actions to resonate the loudest. Every time I hear Star Wars drawing critical ire for being flashy fluff that only serves to destroy the type of real science fiction that?s meant to make a person think, I want to point to the fact that the culmination of the entire saga depends upon a man throwing down his weapon and refusing to kill. Likewise, the prequels are rife with warnings against embracing violence before using your mind and exhausting all analytical options. Take a look at the nature of the Clone Wars: droids vs. clones, two factions that are capable of easy, perhaps infinite replenishment. That?s about a blatant warning as you can get that the war was manufactured from day one, yet the Jedi and the Republic as a whole willingly joined the vast war machine rather than concentrating primarily on why and how the war came to be. The situation on Naboo in TPM was similar. Rather than getting to the bottom of why the Trade Federation suddenly took such aggressive action, Amidala accepted an invitation to war (and in doing so played directly into Palpatine?s plan of galactic sabotage.) Think before acting. It?s a basic message, but it?s key. Don?t just fight, ask why you?re fighting, and act on any suspicions that come about as a result of the asking. This very much reminds me of the Jedi Order?s failure during the prequels. Given all their stated suspicions of Palpatine, it?s rather troubling that dots couldn?t be connected in time to prevent a greater loss of life.

 

Both. Generally it comes out on the side of war being bad. However, when Amidala goes back to Naboo to fight the Trade Federation, its very sympathetic of her. Also, thunk about the Rebellion. They are engaging in a war with the Empire and again the OT is very sympathetic of the Rebellion cause.

 

It's really about an internal battle, set during a galactic conflict.

 

Hmmm, I think it's anti-war, especially in the Prequels, but delves into dealing with war later on.

 

I'd say it's about both.

 

Honestly I don't think its either. The PT showcases the dangers of war, but not as to make it an evil thing. The OT seemed kind of pro-war, but as a point of necessity.

 

I disagree. What is the PT, if not a melting pot of corporate-owned governments, morally-bankrupt religious orders, toy soldiers, impotent idealists, and cultic monomaniacs? Did any of us expect the Clone Wars themselves to be the impetus for the galactic catastrophe, climaxing with a despot literally dismantling the last vestiges of democracy?

Clearly, this was not the Manichean Star Wars circa '77-83, but rather the Star Wars According to Noam Chomsky. One reason among many why I prefer this new trilogy.

 

I disagree. What is the PT, if not a melting pot of corporate-owned governments, morally-bankrupt religious orders, toy soldiers, impotent idealists, and cultic monomaniacs? Did any of us expect the Clone Wars themselves to be the impetus for the galactic catastrophe, climaxing with a despot literally dismantling the last vestiges of democracy?

But like the OT, it shows the need to fight for something noble and against something evil. The difference being that in truth, both sides are evil. Not all parties within the armies themselves, just the masters of both sides. As it says in the ROTS trailer: There are heroes on both sides.

 

Maybe it's to show us that the PT is an example of a "wrong" war, whereas the OT portrays a "good" war. Kind of a Vietnam vs WW2 thing.

 

Only TPM and the third act of ROTS stressed the need, and even those conflicts were tinged with fatalism (we knew, after all, Palpatine was to be appointed/survive assassination). AOTC and the better part of ROTS merely illustrates the desire--harbored predominately by the young--that is so easily exploited by the architects of war. In the end, it didn't matter if Anakin and Obi-Wan were True Believers or not. Their valiant efforts only prolonged a war that served but one purpose. And let us not forget that Padme, the conscience of the PT, was ambivalent in regards to conflict and vainglory. Hers was the need to cease fighting.

And yet Lucas doesn't show us these heroes--for good reason. When I read about America's ten-year assault against the Vietnamese people, I don't devote much time pouring over accounts of courageous/selfless acts by U.S. soldiers (jumping on grenades, etc.). Those sort of things are distractions when considering the enormity of the hideousness and the waste.

 

"Wars not make one great." From the OT.

 

Exactly, even the Original Trilogy presents war as a last resort.

 

It's anti-war. Its main message is that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

It uses war and technology to preach a very anti-war, anti-technological message.

 

Only TPM and the third act of ROTS stressed the need, and even those conflicts were tinged with fatalism

And in AOTC. Obi-wan learns the Separatists are amassing an army to invade the Republic. This revelation is what sends the Senate and Jedi into a pro-war stance.


And yet Lucas doesn't show us these heroes

Not on the Separatist side, but ROTS opens with a scene of Republic people (mostly Anakin, Obi-wan and R2) acting heroically to rescue the Chancellor and attempt to stop the Separatist leaders (Dooku and Grievous).


"Wars not make one great." From the OT.

This statement is neither pro or anti-war, it merely declares that fighting wars is not the path to greatness. Neither the PT Jedi nor the heroes of the Rebellion engaged in their wars as a means to achieve greatness. In the early portion of the OT Luke was in danger of falling into this path. but even he did not.


Exactly, even the Original Trilogy presents war as a last resort.

Not really. The OT shows nothing of political movement to nuetralize Palpatine's abuse of power, nor does it show any peaceful protests to the Empire's senseless destruction.

 

I think Star Wars is broad enough philisophically that you could make a case either way. I think Strpyhe makes good points that it's not reaaly either in the SW films. The subject of war is handled as somewhat of a neccesity. Any society is going to have wars, it's what they are about and how they are dealt with that in my opinion is what the SW films touch on.

 

That's true. The "Wars not make one great" line really is more that someone's ability to fight in a war is no reason to view them as a great human being.

 

Political movements are pointless against an Empire that has eliminated even the last pretense of democracy and wields a Death Star.

 

Agreed, but a true-Anti-war themed work of any kind will always so "there is a better way."


That's true. The "Wars not make one great" line really is more that someone's ability to fight in a war is no reason to view them as a great human being.

Right.

 

I don't think Star Wars is either pro or anti war. War is necessary in Star Wars to overthrow the empire. It has positive and negative aspects. The Jedi may be "peace keepers" (and remember that was the nickname of the MX missile!), but they keep the peace through expertise with the martial arts. In the end it is through violence and warfare that the Rebels win and that Palpatine is killed, so it is clearly not against war; on the other hand, Yoda's lines and the like suggest that they only use violence as a last resort.

A true anti-war film would be something like Bridge of the River Quai which is really about the evil of war and its very futility, or Paths of Glory.

Pro-war films would be the propaganda films of the Second World War (there are to many to list); but they are merely patriotic, as the country was at war and they were designed to encourage support for the cause, not for the abstract notion of war; a film which was abstractly "pro-war" is hard for me to think of, but I doubt I would pay to see one if it did exist.