Anti-Bush Themes in Revenge of the Sith?

There might be spoilers in this post if you haven't seen the movie yet. Just remember to mark spoilers if you post them.
-CC

The idea that Star Wars Episode III contained anti-Bush or anti-Neoconservative themes or messages sounded rather absurd to me at first, when I came across the accusations on some conservative blogs, and heard them laughed at on Air America Radio. However, after having seen the film I’ve got to nod my head and agree that there does indeed seem to be a nod and a wink as George Lucas intentionally compares Anakin Skywalker to George Bush.

The most blatant, and probably most substantial incident is when Anakin and Obi-Wan meet to do battle on the volcanic planet of Mustafar (sp?). While words are still being thrown around before the climactic battle begins, Anakin (who has by this point fallen to the dark side) misquotes Bush saying, “Either you’re with me. . . or you’re my enemy” leaving a convenient pause in the middle, so that the audience has a moment to fill in the rest for him. Obi-Wan Responds, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes” which really seems to clinch the comparison, you can’t really respond in that way to that particular line in today’s political climate without it seeming rather like allegory.

Then again, some might counter that you can’t make a movie about a democracy turning to evil under the pretext of security, and an executive mad with the power that a compliant congress continues to grand him because of all his (light)saber rattling war mongering without there being a fair number of parallels to the neocons and Bush in particular.

So what do you think? Is it just coincidence, or do you think that the resemblance is intentional? One thing I think we can all agree on is that the acting would have been less wooden and forced if Dick Cheney had been cast in the role of Darth Vader rather than Hayden Christensen; and that is a very sad thing indeed.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is nothing wrong with being anti-bush. First of all, Bush is a country dolt. He has no business leading anything but his own horse and chasing gophers.

Second, there is no such thing as war on terrorism. War is terrorism. Anyting that brings about terror is terrorism.
To defend our land is one thing. To go overseas, and attack their land as a strategy to defend our land is quite questionable.

There is a reason America was attacked. Of course Americans don't question the motive. They automatically view America as the beautiful angel. Therefore, anybody that attacks us is the devil who's only motive is to destroy the all good angel America.

Our security measures were top of the line. Ever since the attack, our security measures have been increased drastically. The fact is, our security before the attack was sufficient enough. Any investigator would never rule out the victim as a suspect. All eveidence points to conspiracy. America allowed the attack. Of course, anybody that even utters the word conspiracy gets labeled as a fanatical conspiracy theorist.


What were the results:
More authority Bush and his campaign. Bush became more powerful as a result of the attack.
Increased security on the American public.
We now have an excuse to go to war with the middle east.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just now catching onto that Hollywood bias? I think it was National Treasure that really got me. That movie with Nicholas Cage? Let me quote it.

Sounds like a certain something, doesn't it? Hint: Think memo and 9/11.

Another one, I can't find online. But it went something along the lines of "If something is wrong, then someone has to do something about it. If the country is doing something wrong, then the people have the right to stop it." It was an obvious shot at Bush and Iraq.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

CS:

Yep. You're insane.

mumble... security measures top of the line? mumble... yeah, enough to get us attacked by dudes in planes... mumble....

 

No you are the insane one.
We did have sufficient security measures.
The United States allowed those attacks to occur because they wanted those attacks to occur.

There are people that have burnt their own houses down for money.

 

Back to the original question, I don't think that the parallels to Bush are intentional. Star Wars has always had the same themes throughout all of the movies (how that for redundancy), there hasn't really been a change. I do think that Lucas is advocating Democracy (and non-smoking) more than before, but that can also be pro-Bush as well, it would justify the situations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

I would say it's more the fault of Bush, Inc., for walking into the situation. From the standpoint of the story, the fall of the republic has been known to the audience pretty much from day one. Over the years there was some discussion of whether the bad guys knew they were bad. In the recut version of A New Hope we see a suggestion of that in the random discussion two stormtroopers have about a speeder bike while Obi Wan is taking down the tractor beam.

We've known for almost thirty years that the Emperor dissolved the Senate. We've known of the Old Republic from the outset. We knew that if the saga ever went far enough, we'd see the fall of the Republic take place before our eyes.

Bush, Inc. has had nearly thirty years to avoid this comparison, but we see what values are most important to them. It is not Lucas' fault that Bush fills the role so well. It is not Lucas' fault that so many Americans watched and listened as their government chose the path. It is not Lucas' fault that so many Americans woke up one morning and realized they were living in the Coruscant Empire of Palpatine the First.

Now, if Darth Vader had gotten out of bed and done the "little glass box" poem, or the Emperor had lectured a young Anakin in the ways of the "known unknowns and the unknown knowns", then I might be sympathetic toward those who think Lucas is plotting against Bush, but even then my only response would be to raise a glass to Jedi George.

 

Tiassa, are you forgetting that we're talking about a movie that just got released? We're not talking about RoTJ; this is about RoTS. George Lucas has had the past few years to tweak his movie as much as he wants ,and make as many comparisons as he wants.

Had this movie come about in Reagan's years, it could have been applied to him, yes. But had it come out in Clinton's years, it would not have been applied to him. Not because he's a Democrat and the other is a Republican, but because one is a Sith and the other is a Jedi (Or, in the SW Universe, a Republican and a Democrat -- but I kid).

These comparisons serve as a larger purpose; that you can take George Bush and give him the role of Hitler (Moveon.org), as a naughty boy who let 9/11 happen (CS), or as a guy who just wants to kill some Jedi (SW).

Hell, I'll give Billy Clinton the role of a lifetime: as Sam on Quantum Leap. Because Bill could do whatever he wanted to, fuck whomever he wanted to, and then move on. But maybe he's more suited to be Captain Kirk?

I find this situation laughable at best, because we are talking about Star Wars. Haven't you read my Star Wars and race article before? You can really read into any movie you want and give it any theme.

Let's analyze a few:
1. Titanic is about the environment. You can't go treading everywhere you like and expect things to go your way (No drilling in Alaska).
2. Dawn of the Dead, everyone is a zombie because no one thinks. Social commentary, blah blah (It was intentional, though).
3. Desperate Housewives. You look at DH and see that stuck-up conservative bitch and think "I wonder if that's how Laura acts?"

This whole situation is a mockery to political debate and a staple of pop culture. When we get around to it, this is a movie. But on a deeper level, can't we take any movie and twist it the way we want to? The new Battlestar Gallactica has so many parallels to September 11th that it's scary, and it pulls it off well. But you had a period where Star Trek: Enterprise had it's terrorist attack and went off to kill some towel-heads... I'm sorry, "Xindi".

I reject the theory that Bush has anything to do with Star Wars. But I like the one where we can say that C3PO is a homosexual robot.

 

Yes.

And?

Actually, I don't think so because Reagan was acting a different role. Absolutes were reviled. Ask Rumsfeld, who helped coddle Saddam Hussein. And what's that absolute about never negotiating with terrorists? Well, Ronald Reagan skipped that and just gave them what they wanted, anyway. Especially in the context of the "absolutes" line, Reagan doesn't match up.

It is nobody's fault but Mr. Bush's that he has chosen to behave in a manner that validates the desperate ramblings of a condemned Nazi. It is nobody's fault but Mr. Bush's that his administration has chosen a strategy that gives the appearance of bluffing at all times. It is hardly the Jedi's fault that Mr. Bush has chosen absolutes in pursuit of an ill-founded attempt to institutionalize the entire citizenry.

I think I've looked through it. It wasn't impressive, else I would remember more of it.

An irony that you're not in any way responsible for is that those artists who explain their intent are written off as snotty. Of course, left to the masses, we get stupid analyses like your examples.

(1) Fable from life? Our choice to take what we will from the story.
(2) Such an interpretation is dependent on the priorities of the viewer making the assessment. The criteria are most likely faulty for being oversensitive at least.
(3) I don't watch Desperate Housewives. Haven't seen much more than about the thirty seconds I spent scrambling for the remote one night.​

See, the problem is that anybody can find something to complain about in art if that is what they seek. Whether or not we legitimize such idiocy as you've documented with your examples is entirely up to us.

If it never occurred to a viewer that there might be something worth redeeming in the people behind the stormtrooper masks, that's their own choice, vision, priorities, and problem. You'll notice nobody made any bones about a large industrial "republic" being overturned by an emperor. I mean, doesn't that sound just odd in 1977 values? An industrialized, technologically-advanced republic just rolls over and turns into tyranny?

Nobody cared until society followed the course. Now, if only we had lightsabers and Jedi, politics might become entertaining in a way that doesn't resemble a drinking game.

Of course we can twist the issue any way we want. We can also jump off buildings and die if we want. In neither case is there any guarantee that the reaction has utility, or is even an appropriate response.

Insert data card here? Only if he's blowing an Atari 800. Have you checked out that mouth?

I, too, reject the Bush/Sith paranoia going around. And yes, it's people's right to believe any stupid thing they want, but then again, it seems to me that trying to set those people straight would be an inexcusably cruel act of elitism. Besides, I think those people who believe Lucas is bagging so openly on Bush are just dealing with feedback from their own guilty consciences; in their hearts, they don't understand why the Sith are evil.

 

It wasn't meant to be impressive, it was a blurb from a drunken rant.

I pulled those things from my ass. But if you think you can do better...

Bingo.

A USB thumb-drive would fit perfectly.

Good to know that we agree.

 

“Either you’re with me. . . or you’re my enemy” leaving a convenient pause in the middle, so that the audience has a moment to fill in the rest for him. Obi-Wan Responds, “Only a Sith deals in absolutes”
********************
That comment was obviously the Lucas retaliation against Bush. That whole bit of nonsense was never mentioned in any of the previous episodes. Star Wars indeed had been influenced and tweaked according to Lucas's opinion towards the current corrupt administration.

 

Personally, I think it's the guilty consciences of conservatives getting to them. After all, they're human, and generally not sociopaths. Simply, something they either find cool, or acknowledge a good number of people find cool, has said something they disagree with. And it stings, especially if it's something they actually think is cool. And so, rebuked by their own perception and conscience, they lash out.

It's hypersensitivity, brought on by recognition of their own actions. And no, that's not limited to conservatives. Tipper Gore's adventures with the PMRC were born out of her own dirty mind.

 

It is not hypersensitivity.

The prequal trilogy was horribly written. Especially the third one for many reasons. The dialogue that only siths think in absolutes is absolutely obsurd. The statement that only siths think in absolutes is a dam absolute statement itself.
Episode 3 was being thought about, drafted, written, and polished from the time Episode 4 was being written up until the time it was in post production.
Who knows when Lucas tweaked the lines to match political America.

Many know that Lucas based Episode 4 on the vietnam war. A story of a farm boy, possibly into cars and racing that becomes a fighter pilot in vietnam. Using current trends influence the storyline of star wars is nothing new.

Palpatine became emperor as a result of winning the war and freeing the people. Of course little did the people know that he controlled the entire force that the people were fighting against. All for the purpose of tearing down the democracy in order to create an monarchy that he would rule over. I'm sure this plot was set up long before Bush came about. But there are nonetheless tweaks to the plot that do blatantly compare the whole situation to our farce administration such as that of the particular dialogue between anikin and obiwan. Furhtermore, this episode preached war to for the sake of peace.

The movie was written way before Bush came about. But many of the lines in the movie seemed to me to be tweaked towards Bush.

 

If you say so.

Not if it's true. Perhaps the statement would be more correctly written, "Only the Dark Side feeds on absolutes." True, it would be more accurate, but I can only imagine the uproar.

Seems, sure. And here we look back to conscience and perception.

 

Tiassa: "Not if it's true."
You are saying that if the statement is true, it would not be absolute?
How?


I'm sure Lucas researched history to study how democratic societies turn into dictatorships for his script.
Then the situation started occuring in America.
The script itself was in no way themed specifically after American current events. However, there are lines in certain scenes that are geared towards GWB.

 

Hollywood bias? Is George Lucas Hollywood now? I was under the impression that he hated working with studios and that "Hollywood crowd" which is why he built his own facilities in the middle of fucking nowhere Wyoming or Montana or wherever (Hey they're all pretty much empty, I know it'd take about a half second google search to get the exact location. . . from above via satellite, even, but they're interchangeable really). The dude lives in the wilderness has a beard and dresses in flannel, don't try to brand him as some sort of evil liberal movie producer (Ok I know that Michael Moore wears flannel and has a beard too, but he doesn't count).

As for the idea that Hollywood is all liberal and wah wah wah, they play on conservative ideologies and fears just as much as liberal ones, and really who cares if Alec Baldwin sometimes stands up and says something a bit political? I honestly have no idea why some hicks take such great offence when they realize that some people they occasionally see on the movie screen have political views of their own that they like to put their voice and their wallet behind. I don’t hear any liberals belly aching about Tom Hanks throwing his lot in with Bob Dole to get the WWII memorial built.

As far as "National Treasure" goes, I think you're streching a bit far, and even if it was an off hand reference I don't see that that's anything to be upset about. I mean, that second quote especialy is just a principal of democrasy, isn't it? What have you got against freedom?

 

Major motion pictures = Hollywood.

But do you disagree that certain ideas are injected into movies and that most are liberal? I mean, The Day After Tomarrow? Life of Brian. The Passion of the Christ (Conservative). There's a two to one ratio there, man.

Freaking Lady and the Tramp had bias in it. Dogs out of wedlock? I've never been so outraged in my life.

 

You mean just like those fiendish Hollywood liberals didn't make a movie called Wag the Dog to capitalize on the Clinton sex scandal back in '97? Come on now, cherry picking is just intellectually dishonest (or dysfunctional). I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here; Better to be a liar on the internet than a genuine ignoramus.

Also, RotJ came out while Reagan was in office, and Lucas didn't throw in any sub-plot about the Emperor illegaly selling arms to the Ewoks or anything, he had the chance, but didn't take it. I don't know if that really says anything about this topic, but it's something to think about.

 

You're mixing absolutes. Now, that may be fine with vodka, but ....

The absolute asserted by Anakin is one of principle. The absolute expressed by a true fact is one of fact, and hardly qualifies as a "dam absolute".

Consider two "absolutes":

• No Christian should be trusted.
• This Christian should not be trusted.​

There are still Catholic priests I would allow around children. I cannot extend to such a broad assertion from such a specific fact.

If we consider the absolute asserted by Anakin in an American political context:

• Assertion: “Either you’re with me ... or you’re my enemy.”
• Ronald Reagan: Obviously not applicable: Iraq, Iran-Contra, &c.
• George W. Bush: Asserted, but not practically demonstrated: Saudi Arabia, Israel, Russia, &c.​

In the context in which Anakin delivered the line, it represents the essence of the Dark Side. The self has given over to cause, and measures only according to that cause in the most basic, least subtle manner possible. It is the moment the Dark Side truly seizes control.

Look, for instance, at your characterization:

That dramatic pause is a standard tool of the trade. It works very well for accentuating dualisms. A different delivery would characterize Anakin's transition differently. It is a bitter pleading; given without the pause it becomes a belligerent challenge. As it is, Anakin has not given over until that moment. Without the pause, Anakin has already made up his mind, and we are deprived the moment in which darkness crystalizes within Darth Vader.

I mean, that's one proactive reception you've offered. Perhaps if Mace Windu wasn't black, Bill Frist would claim that role of the noble Jedi seeking to save an out-of-control Senate from the evil, aspiring Emperor Harry Reid or Joe Biden.

Of course (spoiler omitted, since it's obvious to anyone who's seen the movie what concession to counterpoint that creates).

But this is one of those things that gains influence from attention. In the end, y'all ought to be congratulated for cementing the parallel. Discussions of Star Wars will hereafter include a communal memory that links Coruscant to the Bush administration. And while that comparison is justly earned, it's hard to believe conservative complaints will set the point in stone.

 

As a student of film (I've minored in it in the course of getting my BA in Digital Multimedia which I should have by the end of this summer, woo hoo go me), and having taken several film theory and script writing classes I feel obligated to bring up the point that these themes you're pointing out probably aren't direct references to any single social issue, but instead simply the result of good writing (with the exception of Desperate Housewives, I've never watched the show, so I'm simply not qualified to comment on that particular one).

Very few films, not even mindless action films, are completely about what you see in the trailers. Titanic simply couldn't have been a movie about a boat sinking, it would have been boring, people would have known exactly what to expect, and no one would have cared to see it. Same with dawn of the dead - zombie movies are fun, sure, but after an hour or so of watching a film with no more substance than some people fighting to survive zombies the audience will realize that this is a completely forgettable film. You've got to add in some sort of story, or moral, not necessarily anything specific and completely defined, just some aspect that provokes a little bit of thought, or seems to give the story some kind of philosophical pretext and really ties everything together - gives some reason for the events of the film, and indeed some cohesive reason for telling a story in the first place.

Most people only realize this when the underlying theme seems a bit incongruous with the plot of the film (or the advertising that bought them in in the first place). A good example of this is M. Night Shamalamadingdong's Signs in which audiences were largely expecting a "War of the Worlds"esqe alien invasion story, but instead got the tail of a rural farmer regaining his faith in God through a rather incidental alien Invasion.

When we can see real-world parallels to general concepts and themes in a movie it doesn't necessarily mean that the writers or director were a bunch of sleazoids with an agenda trying to indoctrinate us after we've paid eight bucks to sit in the dark for two hours. Usually what it means is that the movie did what a good movie is supposed to do, it illustrated some idea, and really got you thinking, and remembering the meaning behind the flashy effects and big-name stars dancing around on the screen for you. It's not necessarily all allegory but instead, as JRR Tolkien put it, the story is "applicable". That's just good writing.