Saga The Writing of TESB

*tired sigh* It's not in your head, but you take the comparison way further than the ESB writers ever intended. Jeez, you think if there was a "rape" scene in ESB that even *I* would like Han? No way. It's a silly (and kinda offensive) thing to bring into this.

 

I just can't understand why they would look to Rhett and Scarlett is all. The book and film never pretend they have a happily ever after, so why base Han and Leia's relationship off them? Especially since ESB is a movie for children as well as adults.

 

Okay yeah Scarlett and Rhett was one missed up relationship but where do people get the impression that Han and Leia's marriage would go to hell later on?
I don't see it.

 

That's my point. Han and Leia are supposed to be an ideal, happy couple. But they're based on an abusive, destructive relationship. Why would you do that? It's like basing your love story around Romeo and Juliet but giving them a happily ever after. You missed the entire point. And that's why I think Han and Leia's relationship is bad writing -- because it copies Rhett/Scarlett without understanding why they were compelling and how deeply dysfunctional they were. Which is acknowledged by Mitchell in the text.

 

All they were trying to set up was the love-hate dynamic at the beginning of the picture. GWTW was a convenient model of this. Rhett was a smuggler and mercenary. Scarlett was also a strong-wiled, independent woman. That's all. Why go that route? Well, with such two opposing characters, Han the smuggler and Leia the Princess, it makes sense. And it's a classic romantic storyline formula. Like Tracy/Hepburn. It's supposed to be fun. That's all. But you're taking the whole thing to this really dark place, and that's what I don't understand. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine. But there' s no reason to make the huge leap to Han being a rapist. That's just absurd.

 

Where is it said that the relationship is ideal?

 

I go that route because Han and Leia still keep the "yes means no" dynamic. Leia says no or stop but Han doesn't listen. He keeps pushing. And Leia still falls for him. And I just can't understand that. Nor can I understand why that's something you'd want to put in a movie you show to kids.

We're all adults. We know that Han and Leia are representative of a fantasy and that's fine. It's indulging and perfectly normal and I'm not saying that people are wrong for liking them.

But I don't think it sends a very good message to kids. Media shapes a big part of how we interact with others, especially in terms of dating.

I'm not saying that Han is a rapist, but I do think their relationship is problematic in regards to what they actually want to get across compared to what they actually do get across. A larger part of the unfortunate implications, I would argue, stem from the source that they based the relationship on -- Rhett and Scarlett. And that's my criticism of it.

 

Not directly pointing at you PiettsHat but I saw a post or two on a thread on here several months back saying that Han and Leia's relationship would end up badly and abusive etc. Yeah they clashed and all that but those two abusing each other? I can't see it.
They work for me.

 

They don't say it's ideal. But Han and Leia clearly have their happily ever after (unless Episode VII changes things up) and Leia clearly falls for Han because of the way he treats her in ESB and I just don't think that sends a good message or is very realistic.

I get that. And they are, admittedly, much better by ROTJ. My earlier point was simply asking why you would want to base a non-abusive relationship on one that is abusive and then not removing the problematic elements.

 

If you think Han and Leia is poor modelling for kids you must love Padme and Anakin!

I know he just tried to murder me but there's still good in him...

 

I do like Padmé and Anakin's story. Not because it's ideal. But because it isn't and never pretends to be. It shows an obsessive, pathological example of love that leads to a logical conclusion -- Anakin basically kills Padmé. It's like holding a giant neon sign up saying "Don't do this!" She might still believe there's good in him (and there is) but the faults in their relationship become apparent readily enough.

I know I would have a lot more respect for something like, say, Twilight if Meyer had had Edward murder Bella in the end. Because that honestly would have been a more fitting end to their relationship given how controlling and abusive he was.

 

So Leia liking Han for what he does is bad. Padme believing Anakin to be good after what he does is fine? Sorry PH you've lost me on this one.

 

Sure, because Padmé is right -- there is still good in Anakin (as there is good in everyone), but that good isn't enough to prevent the very real consequences of their dysfunctional relationship. There are powerful negative effects to their relationship and that's acknowledged by the film. Both Anakin and Padmé's behavior is not something one would one to emulate and the film makes that clear with the fallout.

Leia meanwhile falls in love with Han because of the way he treats her and they live happily ever after. The way he behaves towards her is treated positively since she not only falls in love with him because of it but they are also quite happy. My problem is with the tactics he employs in ESB -- I don't think it is good to portray the "no means yes" attitude as effective or worthy of imitation.

 

Don't you mean Rhett Butlers?

 

First of all, I think you have it backwards. Leia doesn't fall for Han because of the way (or how you perceive) he treats her, but rather Han treats her a certain way because she's in love with him and won't admit it.

Listen, Leia is clearly in love with Han from the very first scene in the command center. Han knows it, the audience knows it, and even Leia knows it--she's just in denial. So when he approaches in the "first kiss" scene, its really about getting her to admit it. It's not abusive, and it's not about forcing her into anything she doesn't want. If Leia didn't want him to kiss her she would've gone off and whacked him, and she would *not* be running her hands through his hair by the end.

Again, you seem to think that Leia didn't love him until he "forced" her into it, and I'm saying you've clearly misread her. She loved him before this. This was not about "making her love him", it was about breaking down those walls she had built up.

 

I get that. I understand that she already had feelings for him beginning in ESB and it took Han's behavior throughout the film to make her realize her feelings and decide to be with him. I still have a problem with this though. I don't understand how Han's behavior in ESB would do anything but drive her away.

But see, that's my problem. Just because you're in love with someone and they're in love with you (and you know it) doesn't mean you can force anything. Even if you just want to get them to "admit" it, if they say "no" or "stop" then you should desist -- if you really love them. It's what you do when you respect a person -- you respect their physical boundaries. Because I have no doubt that while Leia may love Han, there's legitimate reasons she might have to not want kiss him. Now, you might point out that she really did want Han to kiss her, and that might be true, but there's no way for Han to get in her head and know this. It's not a good idea to make assumptions about what people really want and ignore what they are actually saying.

And, to be honest, I think it's not fair to suggest that if someone doesn't "really want it" that they should have to demonstrate that with physical violence. There's a variety of reasons that someone might not hit back and that doesn't mean they're okay with the situation. Han, if he respects Leia, should back off if she says no because that's what love is about -- it means putting someone else before yourself.

It's not that Leia didn't love him before ESB -- she did. It's that I can't imagine her being with someone or falling harder for someone who clearly doesn't respect her wishes.

 

The story is scaled down, yes, but I don't see that being beneficial for Han and Leia (contrary to Luke).

This is where I disagree.

In which way does Han develop in TESB?
I honestly don't see it. All I see is a character who's even worse (in a way of what I consider to be good traits) than before. We thought Han had learnd the meaning of friendship, but TESB invalidates that. Saving money (by not paying off Jabba) was more important for him than helping his friends when they needed him. He wanted to leave them behind in a very critical situation. Nothing learnd, if you ask me.
If they had left the line "I love you too" in the end instead of "I know", you could have said he finally learnd to be honest with himself and the people he likes, recognized their feelings and adjusted his behaviour accordingly. They changed his line, sadly, because they were, the way I see it, going for bad-assness instead of development.
I could see Leia bringing herself to express her feeling as character developement. But that leads to no significant consequence for her character and honestly: that could have been achieved just as well (if not better) with a bit more plot development.

I just dislike the fact that they are exclusively concerned with themselves with no consequences for their lives and the story. The film is very personal with Luke as well, but Luke's development does impact the story in the future. So it has a lot more relevance and justification than Han und Leia.
What I mean: Obi-Wan accepting to do what he thinks is right led him to train Anakin. Padmé deciding to live a lie led to her death. Anakin failing to save his mother led to his determination "to stop people from dying". Luke deciding to leave Dagobah led him to the truth and his destiny. Han spending time with Luke and Leia on the DS led him to support the Rebellion. Padmé seeing the inefficiency of the Senate led her to take matters in her own hand.
So in what way does Han and Leia's love story shape and influence their lives and the story? You could erase it and you wouldn't lose anything. Not even their love.

Could you eleborate what makes him "more dimensional" for you? I'm interested.

 

Ideal? I'm certain that Han and Leia had their marital troubles like any other couple - happy or not.

Other than both of them lying about their marriage, what negative effects?

 

I think you are missing a major distinction. Where between Scarlett and Butler there is an attraction that Scarlett comes to believe is 'love', the affection and respect required for it to be love is not requited in the case of Butler. That is an abusive relationship not because Butler is able to recognise Scarlett's attraction to him (which is very real) but because he wishes to use that to his own end. That relationship is abusive because Butler is an abusive man. Han, for all his scoundrelnous, actually loves Leia and is not pushing so he can take what he wants. There is a difference in motive.

I'll make the point again - it is clear that Scarlett is attracted to Butler, just as Leia is attracted to Han; what is important is the motive behind the man's actions.

What I find a little difficult to understand, in terms of what stories and ideas we tell our children, is that you find hideously offensive the Han-Leia love story (though by ROTJ Han is ready to let her go if that is what she wants) but yet you defend the Anakin-Padmé relationship. If anything screams abused partner it is their on-screen relationship throughout ROTS. Padmé never challenges Anakin, and will make excuses for him if he seems upset or angry. "You ask too much of yourself". The one time she asks him to do something and he reacts with anger she immediately rushes into 'sooth mode' - "hold me. Like before" (again making excuses for his reaction). And, after he has killed 'younglings', is set on destroying everything she believes in and has fought for; after he has throttled her to unconsciousness she says..."There's still good in him" - 'it's not as bad as it looks, he's just had a bad day'

When was it she sensed this 'good' in him? Was there something affectionate about the choke, perhaps? Was there some warmth in his playful use of the term "Liar!"?

Nor do you seem to find his brushing her skin with his hands - completely unbidden - in AOTC as invading her space? Or the strange far-away smile he has after she tells him the way he looks at her makes her uncomfortable a little..creepy?

Personally I can 'buy' the Han-Leia relationship far easier than I can that between Anakin and Padmé. There are too many questions that relationship begs of me to believe in it.

 

Of course Anakin was angry. What she was asked him to do was close to what Obi-Wan wanted him to do. She wanted to use his close relationship with Palpatine for her agenda. If this is your example of their abusive relationship, I find it way off the mark.

And yes . . . Anakin had good in him. Padme had witnessed it. And she also witnessed the bad. Even she and every other major character had good and bad within . . . including one Han Solo. You're trying to judge the relationships in the Saga from a black-and-white point of view. And it just doesn't work with me.

As for Leia and Han's romance, my only quibble with it was the lack of set up regarding their initial attraction to each other that led to them exchanging longing glances at the beginning of ESB.

 

I'm talking about her response to his anger. But...does he have a right to be angry? Really? It's Padmé's fault that he is angry? He's right to step away from her, point a finger and accuse her of...treason? But her response, as one would see from an abused partner, is not to challenge him, not to defend herself but instead to wilt at his anger - blame herself for his anger, sooth him and excuse his outburst.

She doesn't say I have seen good in him, she says there is still good in him. I was questioning where she got that impression from within those scenes, that there is still good in him. What she says is the sort of justification that abused partners will offer in the presence of others, witnesses; 'it's not as bad as it looks'

I'm trying to understand how someone could respond to Han-Leia so antagonistically (when Han is willing to let Leia go because he believes she loves Luke)...while at the same time finds no problem with a woman who has been choked to unconsciousness by a man who has just committed mass murder and not heard, actually, a word she has said, saying "there is still good in him"

..and that this line isn't showing how deluded their destructive relationship has made her but is actually supposed to be true. Within that whole scene, where he is attempting to kill his wife, we are supposed to believe that she can sense good in him...

 

The biggest distinction is that Han is not abusive but Rhett and Scarlett are (it actually goes both ways in the book). See, I'm not saying Han is abusive, but I do think his treatment of Leia in ESB is problematic and wrong. I don't understand why people defend him ignoring her saying "no." He might love Leia, but that doesn't mean his behavior can't hurt her without meaning to.

Anakin and Padmé I defend because I don't think the story presents them in a positive light. Padmé ends up dying at age 27 and Anakin is horribly burnt and enslaved for the rest of his life due to the obsessive, pathological nature of their love. I find them compelling as a story element, but I think the movies make it clear that their is not a relationship you want to replicate. It's the same with Rhett and Scarlett. They are horribly abusive, but the way their story plays out means this is acknowledged my the text -- they suffer painful losses and in the end Rhett walks out on Scarlett. It's a realistic end to their relationship.

Padmé excusing Anakin's faults is understandable (from my perspective given her character-- I see her as a bit of a martyr type), but it was also a horrible, horrible mistake given what happened. Had she told Obi-Wan about it earlier then the events of ROTS may not have come to pass. The negative trajectory of their relationship throws their flaws into stark contrast. They love each other, but they're very unstable people (particularly Anakin). And while that makes for good drama in terms of the plot, no one wants to end up like they did, I think you'll agree. Her faith in him at the end -- while based on a truth (that there is still good in Anakin) -- is not enough to save her or pull Anakin from the darkness.

Their relationship is deeply, deeply unhealthy in a lot of ways and I don't think I've ever pretended otherwise. And I don't think the movie does either, given how it plays out.

But I don't see a problem with him brushing her hand. They're standing in an open area, surrounded by servants. If Padmé doesn't like it, she can leave, she can go see one of the servants, she can contact the Jedi and tell them that she doesn't want Anakin as a bodyguard. Most importantly, though, she doesn't ask him to stop and then he refuses. He leans in for the kiss -- and so does she. When she breaks away and says she should not have done that, Anakin apologizes and puts more distance between them. I'm not asking that Anakin or Han get verbal permission each time they want to initiate something. But I don't think it's too much to ask for them to stop when Padmé or Leia say no.

I'll tell you why the Han-Leia interactions in ESB bother me: because I've been in Leia's situation and when a man stops listening to you, when you say no and he doesn't stop kissing you, it's not sexy or attractive. It's frightening. You're suddenly aware of just how small and physically weak you are compared to someone that has over a foot in height over you and twice the strength. And it's really freaking painful to have someone you have feelings for ignore your feelings. For them to dismiss your words and just keep doing what they want. And all you can do is pray they'll listen to you and not push for more.

 

I'm certainly not condoning Han's behaviour in that instance. No means no and he should've backed off. No debate there. But you seem to be suggesting that the film portrays Leia falling in love with him because of that particular interaction and I don't think that's the case at all. She was attracted to him initially and over the course of three films fell in love with him. Isn't it possible that, like Padme, she identified the good in the flawed man and was prepared to invest in the relationship on the strength of his more noble attributes? If Padme can still identify good in Anakin after he tried to take over the galaxy and attempted to murder her and her unborn children, surely Han's indiscretions can be overlooked. The fact that they are together at the end of ROTJ doesn't necessarily suggest that theirs is an ideal relationship or that it will necessarily last forever. If it's written so in episode 7 then that's the concern of that film, not episodes 5 and 6. I don't want to derail this thread by going into the message that Padme's losing the will to live may send to impressionable viewers.

The Scarlett / Rhett connection is certainly there, but only in the sense that there's an 'I act like I hate you, but I actually like you' dynamic going on. To say that it glorifies or condones anything more sinister like rape is a big stretch too far in my opinion.

 

Exactly what "behavior" are you talking about? When he selflessly risked his life by saving hers when he went back for her in the command center? Or how he temporally put aside his plans to pay off Jabba (again, another big risk for him), to try and get her back to the Rebel fleet? They share some light barbs at the beginning of the film (and Leia gave as good as she got, so don;t feel bad for her), but other than that he was considerate and protective of her. Damn, the guy took the brunt of an ice cave collapse for her, and then stepped in front and took shots at *Darth Vader* to protect her.

You're right, what an abusive jerk.

What did he "force" exactly? I mean, besides trying to push her to admit her feelings? He took her hand. Jeez, you're acting like he grabbed something else, or pushed her up against a wall or something. He took her *hand*. And he didn't "force" her to kiss him either. Watch that scene again. See how slowly he moves in on her. If Leia didn't want to kiss him she could easily push him away. Or duck her head. She does not. She succumbs to the kiss. This is no different than what guys do all the time when they're into a girl. They don't always know if it's the right move, but they go for it. If the girl is into it, she'll respond to the kiss (like Leia), if she's not, she'll back off from it.

Jeez, I didn't say Leia *should* knock him one if she didn't want it, I was just saying that, knowing Leia, she probably *would* have.

Listen, as a woman, I've dealt with sleazy behavior from guys and I've dealt with nice behavior from guys. And I'm telling you, there's nothing in Han's behavior that would've set off alarm bells for me. At least not the kind of alarm bells you're suggesting.

 

Personally I felt most for Chewie when he was cruelly described as a walking carpet.