Skip to main content

The Value of Star Wars

Spoilers for Star Wars, mostly Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.

I promised Star Wars. Here's some Star Wars.

While my fiancée was sick recently, we re-watched Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. It's the first of the new Star Wars spinoffs that takes place between Episodes IV and V.

It made us both cry, multiple times. Other than the tears, it got me to thinking: why are some movies and books and TV shows so popular?

There's many answers to that question; more than one answer comes down to timing and coincidence. Technical skill is also relvant. (A well-written book, all else being equal, is better than a less-well written book.)

The answer that most interests me is how something reveals and encourages specific concepts- the way the world is supposed to be. Ayn Rand is good at this, which is I reference her so often and why so many people like her work.

So, to Star Wars: why is it so special? Well, it had a theme- the most classic theme, of pure heroism versus pure evil. In the original trilogy, Luke, Leia, Han, and Chewbacca form a team of heroes who right the galaxy. The journey is one from tyranny to freedom and from oppression to liberation. It's a classic.

When the prequels came out, they showed a different story. Still necessary, but different. They depict how the galaxy went from stagnant and corrupt, but free to the evil and tyrannical Empire. (It involves a lot of murder.)

Importantly: the message of the prequels is incomplete without the original trilogy. That is, Episodes IV-VI can exist without Episodes I-III, but I-III cannot be whole without IV-VI.

Then, in a complicated bid for more money, the story continues...we have the new trilogy. (This is Episodes VII and VIII at the time of this writing, with IX not yet released.) It is openly marketed as the "end of the Skywalker Saga".

True, something must happen to Leia now that Carrie Fisher is dead. True, Luke Skywalker dies at the end of The Last Jedi. But, now that every iconic Skywalker is dead, the huge problem is:  what comes next?

Confession: I love both released movies of the sequel trilogy, but in a different way. While I love the technical aspect and the lore and the storytelling, I take issue with the subversion of the values. The ethos of the original trilogy was traditional: heroes and villains. The prequel trilogy shows the primacy of evil, only as the prelude to the return of the heroes. The sequel trilogy is about change, but what sort of change?

Kylo Ren is a villain throughout the sequels, and is shaping up to be the big bad of the final movie. He also happens to be the last known Skywalker (by ancestry, Luke is his uncle). The line that Kylo Ren adopts in The Last Jedi is to "let the past die. Kill it if you have to." It became the theme of the movie and the purpose of the movie, more generally.

A quick, but relevant sidebar: I'm not a traditionalist in the sense of thinking the past is uniformly better than the present.  I look forward to the future and the growth of the civilization. But, the past has important lessons and important values that we need to make the center of our lives.

Star Wars is a story about The Story: the conflict between good and evil. This Story plays out in big and small ways in history and within each of us. With the direction that Rian Johnson, director of Episode VIII, took us, we risk muddying the water. Rey, for instance, does not come from some impressive lineage: she is the daughter of drug addicts. Luke was not a paragon of the light side, like Yoda or Obi-Wan before him: he tries to kill his nephew out of fear. Snoke is not a powerful villain: his death takes seconds and his screen time is minimal.

All this to say: Star Wars is better as a story about Ideas, instead of about people. To change this focus is to be more in line with storytelling tropes of the day, but not with what makes Star Wars so great. Star Wars was an aspirational movie series, showing us the best of ourselves versus the worst of ourselves.

If it becomes a movie series that's based on destroying what it was- about letting the past die, or even killing it- isn't it destroying aspirations?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Life is Not Suffering

I spent my childhood learning about God. What he wanted from us humans, and how we could give it to him. What we were saddled with from birth: sin. Like with other religious sects, I grew up believing in my inherent imperfection. I grew up with the belief that  life was suffering, and we had to make meaning from it. We would fail, constantly, and never live up to the standards God set for us, so we had to hope for the future. Through God's power alone could the world be set aright. Only through God's grace could we ever be forgiven. Jesus is the epitome of this viewpoint: His one time death was the only thing needed to release all men from sin and death. (Now, being Protestant, my birth religion  did  also focus on "works" not just "faith", but that's a separate concern.) Jesus needed to suffer for the world to be saved. And we, his spiritual descendants, had to suffer for the world to be saved.  My belief growing up, then, was that suffer...

Defining Prosperity

I could take this time to write a brief post on the "Green New Deal", of recent acclaim and criticism... But I want to devote the time instead to examining what seems to be the goal of the GND: prosperity. I mean this in the sense that the proponents of the deal mean it: economic prosperity, as measured by equality between citizens and the abolition of classes. Now, we can quibble (correctly) that prosperity is not, in this sense, the real word for it. A better word may be "degradation" or "impoverishment". That is the actual aim, not the named goal. The only way to make everyone equal is not to provide maximum opportunity, but instead, maximum control. Take away the rights of an individual to make their own way in life and they will only be of value to a grand scheme - and to the schemer. Ultimately, this is why socialism is immoral: it shows a shocking, horrifying lack of regard for the individual. The goal of socialism (and specifically,...

A Brief Case for Self-Respect

Of the many concepts that are ethically important, one is incredibly valuable in this age of inflated self-importance and unhealthy narcissism: genuine self-respect. What is "genuine" self-respect? It is, more correctly, just "self-respect", but needs to have the qualifier to distinguish it from fraudulent self-respect: that which is proposed by the self-help circles and certain religious traditions. These forms of fraudulent self-respect are called "self-respect", "self-esteem" "unconditional positive self-regard", etc, but amount to an unhealthy psychological concept called narcissism. Narcissism vs. self-respect is a debate which seems too muddy to consider, but can be distilled into key similarities and differences. Similarities include the focus of both concepts on what the self is, what the self does, and why the self does what it does. Differences arise from the different answers to these questions. So, while a narcis...