Are We All Mythtaken About Star Wars?

Fans are mistaken about Return of the Jedi and Luke Skywalker (dismissing the Ewoks, and Skywalker is deemed a wuss). Might they also be wrong about the prequel trilogy? And how.

It's not often that I feel self-conscious about my pop culture pursuits. I was happily watching cartoons back when it was not socially acceptable for an adult (nor even a teenager) to do so, and I like a good chick flick now and then, and when Warren Ellis suggested in Transmetropolitan that “TV wrestling is phallocentric soap opera for retards and intellectually lazy intelligent people who get off on cultural slumming,” I may have laughed knowingly and conceded his point without protest, but I still tuned in for that week‘s episode of Monday Night Raw.

Indeed, only one thing embarrasses me: I have become a Star Wars fan.

Consider Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, pretty much unanimously held aloft as the most triumphant entry in the entire Star Wars series. Here you have a movie which admittedly boasts wildly imaginative creatures, vehicles and set designs, but which offers not a single memorable line of dialogue. Oh wait, here‘s one: “I don‘t know where you get your delusions, laser brain.”

“Laser brain”? And this is one of the world’s most celebrated works of science fiction?

A buddy of mine likes to argue that the dialogue in the Star Wars series is intentionally limp and uninspired, the better to reflect the spirit of the pulp serials that inspired the saga in the first place. I don’t want to say that my friend is wrong, necessarily. But his claim is either nonsense because he‘s wrong, or it‘s nonsense because he‘s right. Either option points to a seriously disheartening bout of creative bankruptcy on the part of George Lucas; Star Wars is intended to be the apotheosis of science fiction pulp sagas, and anyone who decides to produce the definitive space opera should also endeavor to imbue it with memorable dialogue. After all, the Indiana Jones movies are no less cheerfully absurd and delightfully over-the-top than Star Wars, but they offer dialogue that dares to make you believe in the story.

It's difficult to imagine Han Solo, for all his ostensible edginess, saying anything so menacing as what Indy says to taunt Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark: "You want to talk to God? Let's go see him together. I've got nothing better to do."

That said, the triumph of the dialogue in the Indiana Jones series is that it treats high drama with such frivolous nonchalance. As a teacher and a parent, my most recent favorite example is from Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, wherein Indy admonishes Marion to take it easy on her son, Mutt, who should be allowed to drop out of school, by Indy's reasoning, in order to pursue his own interests. Moments later, Marion reveals that Mutt is Indy's son, to which Indy indignant replies, "Why isn't he in school?!"

However, the funniest dialogue from the Indiana Jones series might be from The Last Crusade. Captured by villains who threaten to hunt down his friend Marcus Brody, Indy boasts, "He's got a two day head start on you, which is more than he needs. Brody's got friends in every town and village from here to the Sudan, he speaks a dozen languages, knows every local custom. He'll blend in, disappear, you'll never see him again. With any luck, he's got the grail already."

Soon after, Indiana's father Henry pleads, "But you said he had a two day head start. That he would blend in, disappear," to which Indy replies, "Are you kidding? I made all that up. You know Marcus. He once got lost in his own museum."

The dialogue in the six Star Wars movies, by contrast, is distressingly dull, self-serious and somber.

Roger Ebert wrote something interesting about the underrated Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull in May 2008: “The movie isn‘t a throwback to the Saturday serials of the 1930s and 1940s. It‘s what they would have been if they could have been.” ("I admit it: I loved 'Indy'", 19 May 2008)

It would obviously be foolish to suggest that any director of a sci-fi or adventure serial from the early 20th century would not have been thrilled beyond measure to have produced anything half as visually arresting as Star Wars. But while Star Wars is, perhaps, like Indiana Jones, what the serials of the ‘40s and ‘50s would like to have been, it is also clearly not all that it could have been.

Still, I found myself unaccountably drawn to the series, and so I revisited first the original trilogy, and then the prequel trilogy. My initial reaction was to concede that perhaps I’d been mistaken about the Star Wars films, which are enchanting despite their shortcomings. My second reaction was to note that everyone else is wrong about the Star Wars films, too.

For one thing, the best movie from the original series is not The Empire Strikes Back; it is Return of the Jedi. Why? There is more at stake in Jedi, if not where the plot is concerned, then certainly within the characterization, which raises another point about which the majority is mistaken: Luke Skywalker is more compelling than Han Solo.

Now clearly, Han Solo has more street cred than Luke Skywalker (and we all know that street cred is all that matters in a children’s space opera), but while he is easily ten times cooler than Luke Skywalker, Han Solo pretty much remains what he is throughout the trilogy; he changes, sure, but from a smug, vainglorious, cocksure pirate of muddy morals to a more selfless and heroic pirate who is otherwise still smug, vainglorious and cocksure. Luke is the only character in the entire trilogy to undergo significant change.

Like so many awkward, confused young men, Luke Skywalker has a capital-L Legacy he feels compelled to defy, and partly as a result, he relies largely on friends and surrogate family members to provide the guidance a father is supposed to offer. Obi-Wan and Yoda serve as mentors for a young, naïve, impressionable Luke, while his father is little but a distant, ominous shadow. Still, and again like so many awkward, confused young men: Luke needs his father.

Meanwhile, the Emperor, a symbolic Grandfather Skywalker of sorts, makes the obligatory space opera references to “evil”, but he places stronger emphasis on something far more commonplace and relatable: anger. Indeed, when is Luke at his weakest? When he triumphs over his father in their final light saber duel; each blow he rains down on his father’s fallen form represents more loss of Luke’s self-control. There’s a reason the Emperor applauds the young man’s victory.

For me, Return of the Jedi calls to mind Bill Bixby and Lou Ferrigno’s The Incredible Hulk series, for if The Incredible Hulk could be said to boast a single, defining statement, it would be summarized by the first two or three seconds of footage in the opening credits sequence, as ANGER flashes in red, then the camera pulls back to show that what we’re seeing is a warning button in a science lab, which reads DANGER.

This could also be the Return of the Jedi thesis: ANGER = DANGER.

Before succumbing to his fury, Luke pleads with his dad to escape the Emperor with him. Anakin responds, “It’s too late for me, son,” which is exactly the self-pitying copout you would expect from an absent father; “it’s too late for me” sounds like something you might hear from Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler, or from real-life pro wrestler Jake “The Snake” Roberts in the Beyond the Mat documentary, wherein we see Jake flee his grown daughter to smoke crack in his hotel room. (Meanwhile, I asked some friends what they thought might have happened had Luke had been successful in his attempt to persuade his father to flee the Death Star with him before their confrontation with the Emperor. My friend Chip‘s answer: “Weird ride home.”)

Luckily, Anakin rescues Luke from the deadly consequences of his own anger when Luke himself proves incapable, leading to the most poignant exchange George Lucas ever penned:

Luke: I’m going to save you.

Anakin: You already have.

I am a very lucky son, for I got to enjoy just such a cathartic moment with my own dad, and in our case we have enjoyed the happy aftermath for 15 years now, rather than the few hurried deathbed moments the Skywalkers are allowed. Is it because my own troubled relationship with my father rebounded in such a wonderful fashion that the closing moments of the Skywalker father/son saga struck me (to my surprise and near-embarrassment) as so touching? (If so, what feelings does the Skywalker conflict and its resolution stir in my friends who are enthusiastic Star Wars fans whose fathers are absent?)

Or is it just that George Lucas paints his father-son drama in such broad, mythic strokes that it cannot help but feel powerful? (I am reminded of the Buffy the Vampire Slayer episode, "Once More With Feeling", which creator Joss Whedon suggested was a fitting and inevitable episode because the characters in his series were so histrionic that you’d always kind of expected them to break out in song.)

So Luke and Anakin Skywalker save one another; the father saves the son’s life, the son saves the father’s soul. And along the way, both men change and grow. “Vader” learns to love again, and while Luke’s furious denial of his father in The Empire Strikes Back is like a caricature of a typical teenager (“These are not my parents!”), he learns, like so many young adults, to reluctantly accept (and even stubbornly insist) that “there is good” in his father. Really, Luke Skywalker’s arc calls to mind an old quote that is sometimes attributed to Mark Twain: “When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much he had learned in seven years.”

But if fans are mistaken about Return of the Jedi and Luke Skywalker (they dismiss Jedi because of its Ewoks, and Skywalker is often deemed a wuss), might they also be wrong about the prequel trilogy?

And how.

The author and his daughter as Luke and Leia, from
Disneyland's Star Tours

First, though, let us all agree on something: the Star Wars prequels are painfully corny and overwrought. But so was the classic trilogy. Since I’d always derided the entire six-film series, I feel no sense of betrayal when viewing the prequels. I lack the powerful emotional attachment that most geeks my age bring to these films, and so just as I can admit that the old Star Wars movies are good despite their glaring flaws, I can admit the same about the prequels.

Especially the most derided of the bunch: Episode I: The Phantom Menace.

Next Page

The year in song reflected the state of the world around us. Here are the 70 songs that spoke to us this year.

70. The Horrors - "Machine"

On their fifth album V, the Horrors expand on the bright, psychedelic territory they explored with Luminous, anchoring the ten new tracks with retro synths and guitar fuzz freakouts. "Machine" is the delicious outlier and the most vitriolic cut on the record, with Faris Badwan belting out accusations to the song's subject, who may even be us. The concept of alienation is nothing new, but here the Brits incorporate a beautiful metaphor of an insect trapped in amber as an illustration of the human caught within modernity. Whether our trappings are technological, psychological, or something else entirely makes the statement all the more chilling. - Tristan Kneschke

Keep reading... Show less

This has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it.

It hardly needs to be said that the last 12 months haven't been everyone's favorite, but it does deserve to be noted that 2017 has been a remarkable year for shoegaze. If it were only for the re-raising of two central pillars of the initial scene it would still have been enough, but that wasn't even the half of it. Other longtime dreamers either reappeared or kept up their recent hot streaks, and a number of relative newcomers established their place in what has become one of the more robust rock subgenre subcultures out there.

Keep reading... Show less

​'The Ferryman': Ephemeral Ideas, Eternal Tragedies

The current cast of The Ferryman in London's West End. Photo by Johan Persson. (Courtesy of The Corner Shop)

Staggeringly multi-layered, dangerously fast-paced and rich in characterizations, dialogue and context, Jez Butterworth's new hit about a family during the time of Ireland's the Troubles leaves the audience breathless, sweaty and tearful, in a nightmarish, dry-heaving haze.

"Vanishing. It's a powerful word, that"

Northern Ireland, Rural Derry, 1981, nighttime. The local ringleader of the Irish Republican Army gun-toting comrades ambushes a priest and tells him that the body of one Seamus Carney has been recovered. It is said that the man had spent a full ten years rotting in a bog. The IRA gunslinger, Muldoon, orders the priest to arrange for the Carney family not to utter a word of what had happened to the wretched man.

Keep reading... Show less

Aaron Sorkin's real-life twister about Molly Bloom, an Olympic skier turned high-stakes poker wrangler, is scorchingly fun but never takes its heroine as seriously as the men.

Chances are, we will never see a heartwarming Aaron Sorkin movie about somebody with a learning disability or severe handicap they had to overcome. This is for the best. The most caffeinated major American screenwriter, Sorkin only seems to find his voice when inhabiting a frantically energetic persona whose thoughts outrun their ability to verbalize and emote them. The start of his latest movie, Molly's Game, is so resolutely Sorkin-esque that it's almost a self-parody. Only this time, like most of his better work, it's based on a true story.

Keep reading... Show less

There's something characteristically English about the Royal Society, whereby strangers gather under the aegis of some shared interest to read, study, and form friendships and in which they are implicitly agreed to exist insulated and apart from political differences.

There is an amusing detail in The Curious World of Samuel Pepys and John Evelyn that is emblematic of the kind of intellectual passions that animated the educated elite of late 17th-century England. We learn that Henry Oldenburg, the first secretary of the Royal Society, had for many years carried on a bitter dispute with Robert Hooke, one of the great polymaths of the era whose name still appears to students of physics and biology. Was the root of their quarrel a personality clash, was it over money or property, over love, ego, values? Something simple and recognizable? The precise source of their conflict was none of the above exactly but is nevertheless revealing of a specific early modern English context: They were in dispute, Margaret Willes writes, "over the development of the balance-spring regulator watch mechanism."

Keep reading... Show less
Pop Ten
Mixed Media
PM Picks

© 1999-2017 All rights reserved.
Popmatters is wholly independently owned and operated.