Rogue One Relationship of Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus

We just need more Chirrut and Baze anything, really.

 

They're almost written and portrayed too perfectly, because their relationship can be whatever the viewer wishes it to be. They're either unlikely brothers-in-arms bound by comradeship and a shared struggle, or they're an old married couple, resigned to one another's fates because love won't let them go their separate ways. Or they're anything else in between. Who cares what the "truth" is? It's fiction; there is no "truth" anyway. They're a masterclass in leaving things open to interpretation.

 

This is very much a possibility. It’s also possible that it’s more of a Frodo/ Sam platonic relationship (which mirrored an officer and a batman in the books). I think all such interpretations work and should not be discouraged.

 

We need transgender actors in this franchise. In universe changing your gender must be incredibly casual and not worth mentioning so trans actors may play any character.

On the point about Baze and Chirrut and controversy. Media in general has a really gross bias towards mostly depicting AFAB queer people. It’s pandering to cishet male fetishism and fear of “feminine men”. Both gay men and trans women are underrepresented. That’s why star wars is willing to show a lesbian kiss but not much else on screen

 

Are they Star Wars’ version of Bert and Ernie? One is amiable, and one is a bit grouchy. The parallels are there.

And a shoutout to all the trans-men. They seem to be the most marginalized. Even when voices are calling for better LGBT representation they seem to be overlooked.

 

Agreed. It was cool that the Hunger Games prequel was willing to cast a transgender woman as a cisgender woman. That should happen more often too. One of the Girl with the Dragon Tattoo movies did the same thing in 2018.

 

I think the relationship between Chirrut and Baze is set up perfectly so that the viewer can interpret it on their own. My brother is gay, and at the time of Rogue One's release, him along with some of his friends didn't have a doubt in their minds that Chirrut and Baze were gay. And they seemed quite pleased with that being a part of this new era of Star Wars. I, on the other hand, saw them as close brothers in arms who share a strong emotional bond with each other. I still see it that way, and I know other people who see it that way as well. It doesn't at all bother me that others see them as being gay. But I don't consider my interpretation to be incorrect either. I don't think there ever was a controversy about the nature of the relationship between Chirrut and Baze because it was portrayed very well and allowed anybody to make of it what they wanted.

So my question is......Is interpretation not enough to be considered representation? If you see Chirrut and Baze as being gay, is it not considered representation because it's up to the individual viewer's interpretation? At what point does interpretation become representation?

 

I like the that their relationship can be interpreted in many different ways, but no, it doesn’t count as representation because there’s nothing that confirms a homosexual or non-binary relationship. Some might even say it’s an avoidance of representation, given that it’s vague enough to be easily interpreted as simply a friendship.

 

I think that's a bit of a stretch to say that it's actually an avoidance of representation. The fact that their relationship is intentionally ambiguous enough that it can potentially be considered a homosexual relationship is definitely not avoidance. As opposed to their relationship being clearly defined simply as a friendship, where it wouldn't even be part of the discussion. Don't get me wrong, I can understand why somebody wouldn't count it as representation. I don't personally agree with that, and I'd say that it can be. Neither opinion is any more correct than the other, because everybody is entitled to see it their own way. But to say that it's avoidance is not correct.

 

I wasn't saying that it's avoidance of representation... I was just saying that some might say that, given the ambiguity. In any event, the main point was that it's not an example of non-binary representation, because of the ambiguity. But I thought it was a lovely relationship, and it's one of my favorite dynamics in the movie. I'm not criticizing it in the slightest. In fact, I have zero criticisms of Rogue One. Well, one. That it's so awesome that it makes a lot of other Star Wars movies look bad.

 

Unfortunately it would be, had the original script confirmed it and then that confirmation been removed to appease conservative markets (in a more pre-emptive way than the lesbian kiss in The Rise of Skywalker being destined for the cutting room floor in China and the Middle East).

Has anybody ever asked the writers this question? I can't find anything on Google.

As great as audience interpretation is, original intent is everything. If they were written as a couple and then re-written to be more ambiguous later, then it's active avoidance on the part of whoever made (or ordered) that change. If it was deliberately vague and open to interpretation from the get-go, then it's a creative choice, but one that's only 50% supportive of representation, if you squint and tilt your head.

Dave Filoni was once asked whether Zeb and Kallus became a couple after Rebels, based on fan reaction to its series finale. He gave a very insightful, compassionate and respectful answer, but he also basically said "I never wrote them like that" and so, as much as I (and many others) may perceive them as a couple, they're not. That may change in future works, either in reaction to fan demand or the interpretation changing Mr. Filoni's mind, but for now, they're not. End of.

 

That's a fair point that I hadn't considered. If they were originally written as being in a relationship and then that was re-written to make it more ambiguous, then it would certainly be avoidance of representation. I'm not sure if the writers have ever actually spoken about it in this regard. Rogue One did go through re-writes and re-shoots, so it's possible this may have occurred. Assuming it was originally intended to be ambiguous and open to interpretation, I didn't mean to imply that it is 100% representation, just that it shouldn't be dismissed entirely as not being representation.

And I do think the relationship between Chirrut and Baze is yet another example of what a great film Rogue One is by presenting the dynamic in this way and allowing the viewer to interpret it on their own. It also allows for discussions to be had that you don't often see in this modern media landscape.

 

@MotivateR5D4 Oh hey, given the state of online discourse nowadays, I applaud you for asking the question. More people should spark these kinds of discussions. And you're totally right, at least leaving a relationship open to interpretation is more inclusive than aggressively shutting down any speculation with a couple of paper-thin, one-dimensional, out-of-nowhere "no homo" love interests (cough cough, The Rise of Skywalker, cough).

So yeah, props to Rogue One for being the mature and nuanced final product it is, regardless of its messy production and / or original intent.

 

Oddly enough, it's never occurred to me that they could possibly be lovers until now. I've just felt that they have a strong brotherly bond.
Now that I think about it, though, there could definitely be more to it. It could also be such a complex emotional bond between them that if you were to ask them, they wouldn't be sure how to define their relationship.
Soulmates, I might call them.

As for what counts as representation, when it's open to interpretation it's just ambiguous. What it is to you is what it represents in your mind. When it's interpreted, whatever it's interpreted as, it becomes a representation to an extent. I guess if a lot of people interprets it the same way, it becomes a thing. Maybe you could call that partial representation?

 

I got the same Sam/Frodo vibes too. They just felt like ride or die buddies

 

I can see both the fast friends and lovers interpretations. Both are equally valid.

 

Given that the Victorian literary climate Tolkien came out of was even more prudish than modern cinema about such things, if he'd wanted to suggest that Frodo and Sam were lovers while not offending more mainstream (intolerant) audiences, I wonder if any words in LOTR would have had to be changed at all.

 

I was referring to Baze and Malbus, not Frodo and Sam. I think the interpretation of Baze and Malbus as lovers is just as valid as the interpretation that it’s more a Frodo and Sam thing.

Tolkien was quite chest that the relationship between Frodo and Sam was more like that of an officer and his batman. I don’t think he implied anything more than a deep, platonic love.

But author intent is just that. An intent. Readers can and should bring their own perspective and experience to the story. Something that Tolkien encouraged, as he hoped his stories had broad applicability, as history does.

 

Yeh I get what you mean. But Sam kisses Frodo's head in the books.. +the way that Wood and Astin play those scenes seems to me like you could consider Frodo and Sam as brothers or as quiet lovers. I get a similar vibe when watching Base and Chirrut.

 

That's interesting. Never read the LOTR books so didn't know about that haha

 

Oddly enough, both me and my younger brother see the duo as having a sibling-esque relationship; Chirrut is the older brother trying to relax his younger sibling from doing any dangerous or oathbreaking acts, while Baze is trying to fight his own battles while simultaneously keeping a close eye on his disabled sibling. Being Autistic and having a close bond to my younger brother who's on the spectrum as well, the relationship between Chirrut and Baze kinda hits some personal spots for a person who grew up in a shared living space. We may fight like the two monks but in a scuffle (Albeit not one on Scarif mind you) both of us have each others backs in a pinch.

However, that is but my cents given, as the characters close bond can be interpreted in any different way by the audience. (Although my feelings on Pao and Bistan is for a different story and different time....)