In this episode we learn that Darth Vadar is nothing but a Tool - in every sense of the word, and not the brightest tool in the shed, either.
Let's get this out of the way right off the bat: the new Star Wars film sucks.
It's a horrible thing to have to admit that there seemed to be more vitality in episode 1 of the new series, even with Jar Jar Binks, than this explainer of all things that need to be explained. But most especially what disappoints is to learn that Darth Vadar is no evil genius, he's just, as Bugs Bunny might say, a gulli-bull. How stupid is Anakin? Can fix any technology going but is a total sucker for any emotionally unsubtle line any sith lord throws at him?
There's one born (or put together in pieces) every minute, it seems. But that is surely not what we expected the story of the evolution of Darth Vadar to be? A petulant teen ager? What do those Jedis teach their students if not to cope with "their stuff"?
Shouldn't Darth be a tragic figure? A Hamlet, for instance, so that we think he's grand, he's great, and when he falls, we understand but feel the ache of his loss? Shouldn't Anikin Skywalker's going over to the Dark Side demonstrate some turmoil, some struggle? Instead it's "no i really shouldn't" and the next he does; the next it's oh gosh (heavy thud sitting down) what have i done? oh, well then, i guess i'll just pledge myself to your teaching.
Does anyone care if Anakin is lost to the Dark Side? It's more like, well, at least he won't be hanging around moping anymore. There's only one place where he seems to say something mildly mean as opposed to snotty, where he makes what's a rather nasty crack at padme to the effect that the only reason she's so beautiful to him is that he's so in love with her. And he laughs in this sorta nasty way. There's hope for a moment that we're actually going to see him get an edge that mixing with darkness might give.
And then it's gone. There's no tragic loss here. When Obi Wan yells in seeming regret "You were the chosen one" it's like you're kidding right?
Do we EVER see what that means - to be the chosen one? where the promise of balancing the force is lost? And what about these great powers that he's supposed to have tapped? He does nothing that any Jedi with a light saber couldn't do - supposing he wasn't first shot in the back by a bench of storm troppers, or pitted against unarmed administrators.
Where is the force in Anakin/Darth? In the first film, all we see is little ani is good with techno and flying things. He can lay his hands on robots, but his interpersonal skills are a bit problematic. Surely technological and avianotic proficiency are not the major ingredients to balance the force: an immaculate conception (the force was his daddy, eh?) for a guy who's good with his hands? oh, and speaking of hands, it was shocking the first time, but having just about everyone's hands get cut off in this film is just a bit much. Despite this, Anakin insists in his first duel of the film that his powers have "more than doubled" since the last film. What does that mean? We're not shown anything new here.
As far as we can tell, the gloomy, egocentric geek of the previous film is just more full of himself this one. What's to love? You'd like to see the Nanny brought in to do some work on Obi Wan to help him get Anakin back into line. But that's not the story we signed up for: where's the tragedy in a self-centred prat becoming even more self-centered and more powerful and nasty when he has the old-boy's network behind him? Where's the credibility of the pathos that will come later when he says to Luke "It's too late for me, Son"?
But the evolution of Darth Vadar isn't the only problem with this film.
Can Hayden Christiansen act? He tried in "shattered glass" but that was another sort of whimp and whine and insecure fest. That aside, it would be hard for great acting to save this script, it is so weak. The acting so wooden. It's awful. Padme has gone from action girl in the first and second movies to womb gal, immobile, even when giving birth to the future hope(s).
It's almost depressing how dull the fight sequences are - it's like watching a video game. Indeed, the trailers for the Revenge of the Sith game look more emotionally engaging than these blue screened renderings. One looks back to the REAL forests of Endor (VI) or the Ice Planet of (V) and the models of the walkers and there's a sense of physicality (those guys were COLD on the set) that creates some kind of bond with action. There were models of real little robots running around the floor. The climactic "use the force, Luke" flight scene of the first first (first fourth?) film has all the physicality, risk, hope and adventure of the WWII film "the dam busters" - on which its shots seem based. THis film has lost that physicality, there's no risk, no doubt, no nothing. no fun.
The coldness in this film is not that of shots from an ice planet; it's the sterility of the project. Even on a volcanic planet for the ultimate fight between baby darth and obi wan, it's cold as in sterile, as in emotionally unengaging. Even the hooky script of the original star wars (IV) was palpable compared to this garbage because there was perhaps something real happening. A good western perhaps. Two leads fighting for the girl; the interplay among the characters. heck, they even had motives. the freewheeling Han; the naive Luke, the politically aware Leah. Here when obi wan shouts in dismay to Darth "you were a brother to me" we think "huh?" Where was their brotherliness? the badinage between them has always seemed so forced.
So many people have commented on how this new series of star wars has been so bad:the only thing good about the last one was watching Yoda go nuts on "count duku" (dookoo? doo doo? really!), so problematic: racial stereotypes, poor character choices, loss of the fun. and master races: when did the force change from "flowing through everything" to either you're born with lots of force or you aren't? Such arian absolutism makes "May the force be with you" an existential irony, not a prayer of the possible. Maybe that's why these last three films are so problematic compared to the first three: the first three are hopeful; these last three seem so baldly facist.
So many were hoping that this last last film would be somehow like Star Wars's Abbey Road - the great comeback of all that was right about the original films. Alas, no.
This last star wars may tie everything up nicely from why Jedi's don't die they just fade away to why Leah and Luke don't know they're related, even to why Luke stands the way he does to look at the suns-set in IV, but jeeze, is Darth's story at all credible? Are the meicloreans or meti bleachs or whatever they are so lame as to infest someone so thick, immature and gullible? And why is there no spark between Ani and Obi? no banter no nada.
Ah well. The best thing that may possibly be said about this is that it's over. There will be no more George Lucas exegesis about life the universe in everything as an oversimplified no longer fun, structurally black and white (with brown boots) epic.
What happens when technologies go transparent? when they become so common that we no longer think about them? What's happening with mobile phones in some countries is a case in point: the techno has gotten to a place when it's only noticed when someone doesn't have it: "What do you mean you don't have a cell phone?" This is an example of a technology in the process of going transparent.
One technology that is pretty much transparent in most of the "first" world is oil - and its derivatives. Oil based products, whether energy, plastic or synthetic materials, have gone effectively transparent. We rarely see these technologies any more: we take synthetics for granted; although the price of gas has goes up, we don't think that the gas will run out.
But what happens when it does? or as it does - run out, that is. Because it will - and according to at least one expert, it will run out a lot sooner than most of us would care to believe.
Salon recently published an interview with James Howard Kunstler author of "The Long Emergency" to discuss his predictions/scenarios of what life will be like when the "oil fiesta" is over - in 15 years.
Try to imagine all the things we do - including looking at this Web page - that presume abundant energy. The plastic in the computer you're using; the milk jug in your fridge; the clothes in your closet; the shoes on your feet; the cheap flight you took on holiday; the food in your grocery, trucked in from god knows where, but not your back yard, the dvd you rented.
Now imagine it gone.
Kunstler suggests that people at least in the States are too overwhelmed when presented with a scenario postulating the immanent demise of a way of life that they are in a state of denial. They won't consider it. And consequently the opportunity of a "smooth transition" from the Way It Is Now to the Way It (Soon) Will Be has been effectively lost.
Thus the question may worth be considering, what would we need to rebuild, reknow, relearn, regenerate, to get along in a world that may be more like the Victorians (or at least Neal Stephanson's digital version of that era [see the Diamond Age]) than the Space Family Robinson. Danger danger, Will Robinson: you're running out of oil.
What would we hate to lose most? how would we keep it?
What would it mean to become again far more locally/community oriented?
What would it be like not to be able to travel at the drop of a hat? or if Pirates once again became a formidable thread to global exchange of goods?
What would it mean if the suburbs collapsed?
These are hard things to imagine. Or not - there are periods of history that reflect these ways of being; there are parts of the globe today that live in this disconnected (but highly impacted) way. But we like to think of them as a part of the past, not our future.
How do we psychically and practically prepare for such a transition?
Once upon a time in the Catholic Church, May 4 was the Feast Day of St. Monica. Feast days in the Catholic Church serve a variety of purposes, but celebrating the lives of the saints is one of the biggies: saints are exemplars.
Alas, we get the story of Monica only from her son, Augustine [bio and bio with refs], the post-pagan, totally one with the Church, post-manachean Augustine. Augustine is known as one of the great Doctors of the Church, engaged in arguing theology and church doctrine in the early years of the established church (the 300's). Prior to this phase, Augustine (according to himself, again) was a brilliant, randy lad, who sampled spiritual philosophy with the same vigour he sampled life's pleasures.
The story we hear about Monica from him is one of a devoted mother in a rough marriage who prayed and drank and prayed some more for the conversion of her son to the one true church, and by this, hopefully to a more stable life. In other words, this is the prototypical story of a mother obsessed with her son's life and focuses all her energies on saving his soul, and whose prayers eventually won him round. No wonder she is the patron saint of
"married women, abuse victims, alcoholics, alcoholism, difficult marriages, disappointing children, homemakers, housewives, married women, mothers, victims of adultery, victims of unfaithfulness, victims of verbal abuse, widows, and wives ."[ref] Talk about polymorphism.
Indeed, the church some time ago, in its infinite wisdom and love of models of women as servants moved Monica's feast day from May 4 to August 27 - to be right before her precious son's - thus reducing any consideration of Monica's value as a saint independent from her role as the Great Augustine's Mom.
And it's enough to make a person spit.
The picture of Monica as the mother triumphant is a horrifying model: it encourages catholic mothers to pray for their kids to come to Jesus, and to be justified in their prayers. In my neighborhood growing up you could just see moms leaning on this saint's example as a justification of their views of their kids' behaviour, and reinforcing with sanctified example, the "mother knows best" response.
That was bad enough, but it used to really bother me that Monica as a figure didn't seem to stand on her own. Her best strength was her persistence in bugging God (and her bishop) about her son. But what about putting up with that husband? or dealing with alcoholism? or just being a struggling prayerful gal, likely cut off from much of a social life? Who was there to help her? She had to create her own 12 step program.
I remember once going to mass with my family on the new Aug27 feast day and this young sexist (troubled) priest only spoke about Monica as the great man's mum; without him, she wouldn't be a saint, and what a great exemplar of a life dedicated to her son etc. Several times a restraining hand kept me from standing up and shouting "Bull!" - but i did share my views with him afterwards: that his was a rather partial view.
But who knows? again, we only have Augustine's portrait of her which mayn't have separated himself from his view of her - perhaps if she had written her own diary or been interviewed by Jon Snow, she would have suggested that there was more to her life than day and night contemplation of her son (but then again maybe not) - or maybe he just made it all up. We are talking 332 AD or so.
In any case, i prefer to celebrate my Name Sake's feast on May 4, a lovely day in mid spring when the light is getting long and the days brighter - and several months away from her codependent son.
My Latin teacher said Monica comes from the Latin "moneo" i advise from the verb monere- to advise. That's inspiring. There's some debate about this - other origins may be possible - phonetian perhaps - but maybe they mean the same thing as the Latin: adviser. And maybe instead of whinging to god so much, Monica became a rather centered person who got her own stuff together and advised her son to grow up and get a life - in the nicest possible of ways - as she got on with her garden, accounting and philosophical writings that her son later copied.
It's the British Elections tomorrow, and thanks to the Iraq War becoming the issue of the election, the Labour Party under Tony Blair is not assured the cake walk into a third term that was anticipated.
So it seems there's a real opportunity to feel one's vote will have an impact. As in the states election, however, it seems that the youth vote is an under tapped resource for any party. In the states, despite major effort by a variety of venues from the parties themselves to MTV, student numbers weren't any higher than the previous election. What's with that? In the UK, there's been no such out reach. Perhaps they feel it's not worth it? It doesn't seem that 20 somthings in or out of university care to "get out the vote." Why not? What's different here? Various programs featuring interviews of 20 somethings in pubs have shown them saying "there's nothing interesting for me" and "i have to go somewhere to vote? i'm not doing that" or "it's the politicians fault: they're not offering me anything." This seems to be a bit of a surprise. For youth contemplating an education, there does seem to be an issue.
The Labour party introduced top up fees for university. The Liberal Democrats have said that they would scrap them. For selfish reasons alone, wouldn't it be worth voting for a group that would kill your major debt burden?
I've heard some mature adults here say students will just get used to fees being part of their lives. Ask some North American students how they feel about getting used to student loan debt and how crippling it can be for decades following graduation. It will be interesting to see if students who protested top up fees this past year will take the opportunity to create change here.
[Update: students ARE voting] more...
Perhaps the media has been rather misrepresenting the Youth vote - at least the Student youth vote. I've had the chance to speak with first years, third years, fourth year students and researcher assistants and they've each said, but one, that they're voting, or for that matter have postal voted already. Walking down the hall today, i heard my first political argument: it wasn't about voting or not, but about who these two "youth" had decided to support. Fantastic (the grown ups have seemed far more reluctant to "talk politics:" is that a British cultural thing, this reticence?). One of them was talking about how he's been proselytizing the need to vote to his peer group.
So what's with the media portraying the Youth of the UK as apathetic and uninterested in the election? Perhaps heading to the pubs isn't the best place to ask these probing questions?
Or is there a divide between students and employed 18-21year olds? Dunno. But today i heard if not overflowing joy at the opportunity to vote, at least a commitment among student youth to do so.