"To be angry is to be human" - Was Anakin angry to kill the Emperor?

If there is thread similar to this (although there are connections here and there), please direct me. Thanks.

So, we hear this from Padme. She basically tells Anakin that since he was angry he did the horrendous act.

Now, lets skip to ROTJ. Vader sees his son electrocuted, by the Emperor. He goes through the motions (we wonder what he is thinking) then in one quick swoop, picks up E. throws him down the shaft.

Now, heres my q. Was Anakin (by now turned back to the good side), who's action kills the Emperor, angered by what is happening to his son?

So Anakin who is redeemed, has to kill, to get that job done? Did he remember what Padme told him? So he's still so called "good"? Any relation in some way with the Tusken act?

Discuss.

 

I think one of the things that people realize by the end of the Saga is that things that were attributed to having evil meaning really aren't evil in and of themselves. Being angry isn't having an evil feeling, and it's not the feeling that matters in the long run. Rather, what matters is what you do with that anger. If you use the anger to slaughter a tribe of Tusken Raiders, your anger is being used for evil. However, if you use your anger to save the life of your son and to kill the most evil man in the galaxy who has destroyed your life and the countless lives of others, your anger is being used for good. Also, his anger at the situation shows that he actually FEELS and CARES about the situation. If he just nonchalantly threw the Emperor down the shaft, where's the power behind that? He's human, he's his true self, he's angry, but most importantly, he's a good person. Anger isn't an evil emotion. And, to paraphrase Nietzche, "whatever occurs out of love occurs behind good and evil."

 

Edit - meant to say "beyond good and evil", not "behind".

 

However, if you use your anger to save the life of your son and to kill the most evil man in the galaxy who has destroyed your life and the countless lives of others, your anger is being used for good. Also, his anger at the situation shows that he actually FEELS and CARES about the situation. If he just nonchalantly threw the Emperor down the shaft, where's the power behind that? He's human, he's his true self, he's angry, but most importantly, he's a good person. Anger isn't an evil emotion. And, to paraphrase Nietzche, "whatever occurs out of love occurs behind good and evil."

No see thats where the problem lies at Anakin destroyed his life because he wanted power so badly the empereror didnt do anything Anakin committed the crimes.The empereror knew to be seduced to the darkside one had to actively want to join, anakin was that person. Anakin was the fool not the empereror.

 

In Attack of the Clones, Anakin learned the pain of those shots of energy. He felt them as they burned into him and left him on the ground moaning in agony. He fully realized that it was not a good feeling. In The Empire Strikes Back, we learn that Vader is an emotional storm. There is a struggle within him. He has been totally taken into the Sith ways. He plots his masters downfall and he has an emotional connection to Luke. He is not all machine, there is a man beneath the mask and he has feelings, desires, ambitions. In short Vader becomes a human to us even before he announces that he is a father.

So when he sees Luke in pain he realizes a few things. He knows how that feels and he knows this is his son, the one he cares about. Vader has always known on different levels that Sidious has that name for a reason and that the guy is evil. In the end all that matters his saving his son from death. Vader understands that Luke is emotionally stronger than he is and that the boy could resist the power of the Emperor. It then becomes easy to save his son.

-Seldon

 

You bring up a very interesting topic. I think Anakin was angry, definately to kill the Emperor. But I think we have to understand the difference from Anakin's words. "I killed, I killed them all. And not just the men, but the women and the children too. They're like animals and I slaughtered them like animals."

Here he is admitted he killed the innocent, murdered them like cattle without even caring. That is why he says, "I'm a Jedi, I know I'm better then this." Now as for Darth Sidious, there we have a completely different situation. An evil Sith that is killing his son, destroyed the Jedi Order, apparently single handedly created the Clone Wars to become an Emperor, possibly killed Mace Windu, etc.....
That is someone who does deserve to die, it would be Anakin the Jedi Knight's duty to stop that evil.

 

openmind - This is an excellent question. All of the previous posts have likewise been excellent and the issues raised here are very thought-provoking. I would have to agree with Ogmios22188 - as we see Vader in "Empire Strikes Back", there is the beginning of a conflict, although I think that Vader was genuine in his 'offer' and his temptation of Luke; he wanted Luke to help him overthrow the Emperor so that they could rule the galaxy together. The "human" aspect of Vader is arguably revealed once Luke chooses to fall to his death in Cloud City (and is saved by that weird chute device) rather than join the darkside. At the end of ESB, there is a series of shots that are well orchestrated by director Irvin Kershner: the dissolves focusing on Luke and Vader's "father" - "son" 'force connection'; and more specifically,as it pertains to my argument, the shots of Vader on the Executer as the Millenium falcon escapes into hyperspace. Some of the long shots Kershner uses of Vader help to convey his emotional state - we don't know precisely what Vader is thinking, but we are aware that he is (at least) somewhat stunned by the preceeding events. Hence, Kershner is able to suggest a 'change' or preoccupation in Vader's overall psychology, at least concerning the events that just took place. The fact that Vader chooses not to adress/hold responsible, any of the commanding officers in this scene, further accentuates Vader's dissapointment and emotional connection. This scene has a bigger and unexpected payoff because Vader's quick 'dissmissal' of incompetent officers has been set up as a running joke/recurring event throughout the film.

It is interesting that the prequels have, in my opinion, given more depth and emotional significance to the OT; that said, it is difficult to answer the stated question due to the fact that a large piece of the saga remains to be told. It is possible that "Revenge of the Sith" will add further emotional resonance to events that occur in "Jedi". As it stands, though, I would suggest that Vader's actions against the Emperor in "Jedi" are motivated by love - he is ultimately confronted with the choice of remaining at the Emperor's side or saving his son - he must choose where his loyalties lie. Obviously, Vader can't simply ask the Emperor to stop 'roasting' Luke in a polite manner - that would be ridiculous. Palpatine would be just as likely to use force lightning on Vader at this point, I imagine. This choice or development is more difficult to accept in its abstract form; that is to say, if you haven't seen (at least) "The Empire Strikes Back", it has less emotional power. Seen as a pivotal point in a larger mosaic, it is surprisingly moving: Luke chooses to sacrifice himself (ie. lowering his defenses) in the hope that his father will save him, consequently resulting in Anakin's redemption - and as a contrast to the prequels, the death of Darth Vader.

Padme's assertion that "to be angry is to be human", from "Attack of the Clones", is technically true, but lacks sophisticated thought. Of course anger is a very human emotion, and it would be foolish to deny that, but anger represents a small piece of a broad spectrum of human feeling. It is more powerful because, like love or lust, it is easy to give into. Padme's line suggests a logical, almost neutral manner in which she chooses to respond to Anakin's disturbing confession. In other words: "I care about you, but this is really scaring me. I don't know what to say. How can I be supportive without upseting you further?" In "Return of the Jedi", Lucas and director Richard Marquand make it clear through a series of slow zooms and close-ups that overthrowing the Emperor is not a simple thing for Vader to do; how can he betray his master, someone of whom he is no doubt afraid ("You, like your father, are now MINE!"), and yet at the same time, how can he remain passive and let his son die (particularly considering Luke's wounded screams of "Father! Please!")? In this scene Vader must decide what is truly important to

 

I agree with THEFORCEROCKS

 

This is an interesting subject. One of the things I think george is trying to show in the prequels in particular AoTC and RoTS is that neither the Jedi's or the Sith's views on the force are complete. The jedi supress their emotions and the sith totally embrace them. Both of those things are not good to be a healthy being you have to find a Balance of the two. The Jedi are unhealthy because they bottle up their emotions. The sith are unhealthy because they there emotions have pretty much driven them insane. In the end I think that Obiwan and Yoda realized this after the fall of the order. The jedi were too distant for their own good and this help palpatine turn the people of the galaxy against them. I think they Realize that their is such a thing as righteous anger and that it can be used for good but only in extreme situtiations. This is why they lie to Luke about his father. They actually want Luke to be angry at Vader so that they can destroy Vader and the Emperor. I know everybody hates it when people bring The EU into movie conversations but if you haven't already read the last NJO book the Unifying Force. By the end of the book both Luke and his nephew Jacen realize that sometimes a jedi needs to use anger.

 

If someone were trying to kill your son, would you be angry? I know I would. I would do everything I could to save him.

 

I understand what you are saying, Virgilius, but I think that it's somewhat more complicated than that (see my above post).

 

Ah, I see what you mean. I agree he was motivated by love. Good point. Palpatine was certainly filled with anger and hatred because he was not able to get Luke on his side.

 

I don't beleive that Anakins killing the Emperor was an act of anger. I truly feel it an act of love. Anakin awakens in this steel shell to find this cackling beast slowly murdering his son.

The boy pleads for his father to step in and help him, to end his pain. Anakin in his desperate need to help his son grabs the tormentor and tosses him into the shaft.

He makes the thing that was hurting his son go away.

It was not an act of anger because his feelings were not for Palpatine at that time or even for himself. His feelings were motivated by his love for his son. Because something was hurting him and he wanted to help his child.

 

It was not an act of anger because his feelings were not for Palpatine at that time or even for himself. His feelings were motivated by his love for his son. Because something was hurting him and he wanted to help his child.


I couldn't agree more, love was his motivation. At that moment, speaking from a metaphorical standpoint, Anakin awakens from a deep sleep and realizes what he has done.