CT Sexual Symbolism and Imagery in A New Hope Opening/Tantive IV Battle

I remember reading somewhere in a YouTube comment once on a video of the battle on the Tantive IV of some sexual symbolism in the opening scene. The moment where the Devastator consumes the Tantive IV can be interpreted as sexual, and when the Stormtroopers breach the door. It could be seen as a genetic battle inside a female organ. It would appear that Stormtroopers could represent sperm and the phallic Star Destroyer taking in the Tantive IV; not to mention Vader's helmet. It appears that the battle itself has some symbolic elements that could be sexual in nature. Any thoughts?

I hope this can be a honest discussion. I hope it's not inappropriate.

 

Seems like if you take a freudian approach, then surely it's the Tantive IV that is phallic metaphor here, nestling in the womb of the Star Destroyer.

Anyway, I think this whole idea is a bit of stretch. Just cause it's a ship boarding doesn't make is sexual in nature.

 

I mean, the Playboy centerfold in the Tantive IV's window can be seen as sexual

 

And of course, what do we make of the escape pod carrying C-3PO and R2?

A metaphor for giving birth, the Tantive spawning a tiny egg, with homuncula within?

But the droids are not biological, being mere simulacra of life, so what do we have here? Perhaps artificial inseminaton, the Star Destroyer representing the sterile nature of modern medicine, the storm troopers the sperm forced into the womb, wherein they find
Leia, an aspect of the feminine ideal.

Or that could all be nonsense, but hey, who can say?

 

Are you all serious? Hard to tell on an internet forum. Sexual symbolism in SW? I'm pretty sure Lucas would completely disagree. It's one thing with Alien and Giger's artwork, but STAR WARS? I don't think so. Sometimes a spaceship is just a spaceship, an armored soldier just that, an escape pod just an escape pod, without being a symbol for anything. I think this is over-interpreting things here.

 

The Tantive is a spermatozoa, Tatooine is the female egg, and the SD is a diaphragm that stops the impregnation!

 

The first and foremost analogy the opening sequence always seemed to suggest to me is that of space as an ocean with the Tantive IV being a hammerhead fish that's being chased by a space yacht, that was just about to make its "first catch of the day".

 

"And I see your Schwartz is as big as mine."

 

To address it more seriously

If your mind's open enough and you want to find some kind of symbolism, you'll probably find it, even if it isn't meant to be there. Hell, I'd bet a good deal of the SW "rhymes" and other symbolic things were unintended or just something we applied that symbolism to that works. But that's nothing to fault one for. If it's what makes you enjoy it the most, then great!

Personally, I don't see the scene in question as representing sex or anything, nor do I think SW has too much of that. I do speculate the opening to the Jedi tree in TLJ was deliberately meant to resemble a vagina, but I'll acknowledge that's more than likely not deliberate and a bit quacky. But hey, like I said, I like the symbolism it creates if it's so

 

There's plenty of sexual symbolism in Star Wars: lightsabers as phallic symbols, limbs getting cut off as a metaphor for castration, the sarlacc pit (need I elaborate?), etc....

But I think stuff like the Devastator swallowing the Tantive IV, the Death Star swallowing the Falcon, and the space slug swallowing the Falcon are more based on the motif of Jonah and the whale. In the words of Joseph Campbell:

"The idea that the passage of the magical threshold is a transit into a sphere of rebirth is symbolized in the worldwide womb image of the belly of the whale. The hero, instead of conquering or conciliating the power of the threshold, is swallowed into the unknown and would appear to have died. This popular motif gives emphasis to the lesson that the passage of the threshold is a form of self-annihilation. Instead of passing outward, beyond the confines of the visible world, the hero goes inward, to be born again. The disappearance corresponds to the passing of a worshipper into a temple—where he is to be quickened by the recollection of who and what he is, namely dust and ashes unless immortal. The temple interior, the belly of the whale, and the heavenly land beyond, above, and below the confines of the world, are one and the same. That is why the approaches and entrances to temples are flanked and defended by colossal gargoyles: dragons, lions, devil-slayers with drawn swords, resentful dwarfs, winged bulls. The devotee at the moment of entry into a temple undergoes a metamorphosis. Once inside he may be said to have died to time and returned to the World Womb, the World Navel, the Earthly Paradise. Allegorically, then, the passage into a temple and the hero-dive through the jaws of the whale are identical adventures, both denoting in picture language, the life-centering, life-renewing act."

Personally, I always thought the beginning of A New Hope was partially inspired by the opening sequence of You Only Live Twice.

 

Give me a break.... That's a lot of Freudian gibberish here. I never bought his version of "psychology" for a second. Sure everything in this world is "phallic", so is every movie, the towers in LOTR, sandworms in Dune, every single bullet, rocket, missile, airplane, gun, sword ever made..... I'm positive Lucas never once intended all that far-fetched "symbolism".

 

Why are people so reluctant to accept that there's symbolism in films? If we can think of it, then so can the people making the movies. Everyone knows why dudes love swinging swords around and shooting guns. Everyone except for a lot of the guys who are most into doing those things.

edit: Like lol, here's this giant, throbbing cylindrical object which is intimately associated with conceptions of potency and manhood. Could there be a link here? Naw, that's reading too much into things. It's not like the guy making these movies is some artsy-fartsy independent filmmaker who came up during the sexual revolution, whose first film in large part revolves around sex and the integral role it plays in defining us as human, and who also happens to be an ardent disciple of Joseph freaking Campbell. Hey, remember that movie Lucas made where the central MacGuffin was literally a lingam stone, a real-world phallic artifact clearly sourced by Lucas from The Hero with a Thousand Faces where Campbell explicitly identifies it as a phallic symbol?

 

Space Slug and Cloud City, it's almost too literal...

 

Yeah, that one's pretty on the nose. The moment where Luke completes his journey to manhood.

Of course, you could write miles of text analyzing the psychology behind Luke's simulated act of impregnation resulting in the violent destruction of the receiving vessel.

 

Yeah, whatever.... You are certainly allowed to interpret whatever you come across in your life in absolutely any way you like. I happen not to see every stupid little thing as phallic or whatever. For me those things don't matter and I couldn't care less. I'm not reluctant to "accept" anything, but I interpret things differently. For me a lightsaber is a lightsaber, period. Oh yes, and never mind that Lucas made those movies also for children. Why would he pack them full of sexual symbols when the majority of the audience can't be bothered and just doesn't see them? Oh sure, I'm just too stupid to see all that mysterious sophisticated symbolism in every single damn scene? Uh... no, I just don't give a rat's ass about symbolism.

 

So you're just going to ignore the quotes I provided then?

Lucas is also the guy who made the children's movie Labyrinth, wherein David Bowie prances around in a codpiece while fondling a pair of glass balls and seductively serenading a 15-year-old Jennifer Connelly.

You're acting like abstract sexual symbolism is the same thing as hardcore porn. I think the children will be fine, Mr. Sith Lord 2015, really I do.

 

So now you are going to brand me as one of those fundamentalist religious bigots? Sorry to disappoint you, as an agnostic with zero bible knowledge I have zero interest in those things. Hardcore porn?? Don't make me laugh. I never suggested anything even going remotely in that direction. All I'm saying is that if you want to see Luke's photon torpedoes as some twisted analogy to sperm, then just knock yourself out. I'm not buying it, and that's it as far as I'm concerned. Oh..... keep enjoying SW with all your imagined symbols, I hope it improves the experience for you

 

I went back over what I wrote and I don't see where I ever called you a "fundamentalist religious bigot." Could it be that you are....reading subtext into my post? Regardless, I didn't intend anything of the sort.

But I am a bit curious. Do you believe in symbolism in art of any kind whatsoever?

e: Oh yeah and also, what are your thoughts on the quotes from Lucas I provided? You still haven't addressed those.

 

I know, you didn't write it explicitly, just got the impression someone who isn't into sexual symbolism has to be some kind of suppressed sexual pervert of something. Look, I'm as sexually liberal as you could possibly get, yet I don't feel the need to interpret everything I see exclusively in sexual terms. There are situations when a tree is just a tree, a cave just a cave and a banana just a banana.... just saying....

In certain situations, it's conceivable to me. Otherwise no, I don't tend to analyze symbolism in art generally. I mean I'm fine with some things that are meant that way, but I quickly lose patience with needless over-analysis. And least of all I'm one of those phallus fanatics like Freud, who I'm not afraid to say was something of a lunatic to me, sorry...
Oh.... I did study psychology in university, but I can say that Freud was one of those characters whose theories came across as by far the least plausible to me. Call me ignorant if you like though....

 

No one's interpreting "everything" in exclusively sexual terms. There are certain elements in film that give off clear sexual overtones and are perfectly appropriately analyzed as such. There are also other elements that are less that way.

The first post I made in this thread was me saying that I don't think the Tantive IV getting swallowed up by the Devastator was a direct sexual metaphor. That's because I don't see strong evidence for it beyond "a thing going into another thing."

The reason I see Luke firing his proton torpedoes into the exhaust port as a sexual metaphor is not simply because they're things going into another thing, but because the proton torpedoes are very suggestively shaped like sperm, the sequence consists of a long build-up of tension followed by a strong release (complete with a suggestive shot of a sighing Luke), and because the entire scenario is presented as the final step in Luke's journey to becoming a man in the story of the film. Because of these multiple lines of converging evidence, I see strong evidence of subtext. Perhaps it was unintentional by Lucas, but there's still strong evidence.

What people are doing here is actually pretty basic literary analysis. Symbolism is an intrinsic part of art. That's what art is. It's a symbolic representation of the world we live in meant to communicate a message. Many artists consciously place symbolic elements into their work. This isn't some sort of mystery. Artists are people and many of them talk openly about their work. Like, for instance, George Lucas in those quotes I provided. What are your opinions on those quotes?

 

Even the writers of "Family Guy" got it.

NSFW.

Spoiler

Same with Mel Brooks when he made "Spaceballs".

 

Sometimes a banana is just a banana