« We Are the Champions, My Friends... | Main | Revenge of the Shakespeareans »
May 20, 2005
Review Preview
I'll write a more complete review later, but I just got back from seeing Revenge of the Sith and wanted to get the word out that it's actually a darned good movie. It still has some rough edges, and it flings the word "democracy" around a bit loosely--but definitely much, much better than the first two movies. There are aspects that both ends of the political spectrum will no doubt try to hijack for allegorical readings, but the movie definitely lends itself very well to the pro-life movement (especially as an argument against the case for fetal stem cell research and the death penalty).
Posted by Peter Terp on May 20, 2005 at 01:57 AM | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341d0c4b53ef00d83484879069e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Review Preview:
Comments
"movie definitely lends itself very well to the pro-life movement"
A user over at IMDB posted that joke a couple of hours ago. Probably got it from here. He explained how Luke and Leia saving the universe was a definite pro-life message.
Someone else on the thread missed the sarcasm and earnestly pointed out that one is just as likely to give birth to a Hitler.
Posted by: Kankean | May 20, 2005 4:35:45 AM
The movie definitely has a pro-life message, but it's not from Luke and Leia saving the universe. That doesn't even happen until about 30 years after the ending of this movie and no one knows for sure what will become of the children.
BTW, did anyone else think Luke and Leia were strikingly large babies for being premature twins? Where was Padme hiding those kids?
And Peter, with regards to Anakin and Padme: I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
Posted by: Therese | May 20, 2005 9:41:44 AM
Actually, I was in earnest about the pro-life message. [SPOILERS!] It extends beyond merely saving the babies at the risk of the mother's life, however. Anakin also refuses to let mace excute Palpatine without due process.
Furthermore, there is the subplot where Anakin joins the Sith to learn the secret powers that will enable him to heal Padme and then discovers that the Emperor doesn't actually have the powers that he promised. This works not only for political allegory, but also applies extremely well regarding stem-cell research. You can't kill people as a means of acquiring medical knowledge.
There is also the heavy-handed clone paranoia. Cloning technology comes back to haunt the Jedi who rely on it as a crutch.
And, as another point, Obi-Wan Kenobi refuses to execute Anakin--even in self-defense. In fact, he literally lets nature take its course, refusing to deny Anakin the chance to make amends before his death.
Then, of course, there is the rather glib reference to the Force Netherworld--the existence of an afterlife that offers hope for those who accept death as part of the natural life cycle.
Did Lucas intend the film to be pro-life? Who knows. Nevertheless, it makes a fairly strong case for the sanctity of life. It certainly makes a better case for life than it does for democracy, despite all the overt political references.
Therese: At this point you and Isabel have-told-me-so so many times that I can't even keep straight what you told me. :)
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 20, 2005 4:25:17 PM
Hmm... interesting perspective on Anakin joining Palpatine to save Padme. I hadn't thought of it.
I found Anakin/Windu/Palpatine scene one of the most powerful ones in the film. Some people have complained that Anakin's decision to go over to the Dark Side at that moment came too abruptly, with insufficient foundation. But it worked for me. It showed Anakin falling victim to his emotions, and it's certainly the case that people make bad decisions when not thinking clearly. I think people were expecting a grandiose Fall, but it's just as affecting as a moment of passion.
I'm wondering though... doesn't the fact that Anakin chose Palpatine over the Jedi (and prevents Windu from killing Palpatine) and turned to the Dark Side actually weaken the pro-life argument? After all, the viewer doesn't want Anakin to become a Sith (not to mention the fact that Anakin's decision led directly to Windu's death). The case of Obi-Wan and Anakin strikes me as similar - wouldn't it have turned out better if Obi-Wan *had* killed Anakin?
On the whole, I'm in complete agreement with you on the movie: good fun, much better than Eps. 1-2, though with some pretty big problems.
Posted by: Danny | May 20, 2005 4:52:45 PM
Part of Anakin's problem is that he upholds other people to the Jedi Code, but not himself. He kills a disarmed Dooku at Palpatine's command, even though he knows he shouldn't. When he sees Mace has Palpatine effectively at his mercy, he tries to force Mace to follow the same law that he himself broke. It was a good thing that he prevented Mace from striking down the Emperor (it always bothered me that Mace struck down a disarmed Jango Fett in AOTC). Indeed, Mace was doing a pretty good job letting the Emperor kill himself by deflecting the lightning blasts. But so much of the point of the original trilogy is the hope for redemption and so much of the point of the prequels is that you shouldn't give up hope in your beliefs because the moment you sacrifice them you become complicit in the evil you were trying to prevent.
Removing the Emperor from power would have been a good thing. Executing a disarmed Emperor is a more complicated moral question--just look at all the fiasco emerging about whether or not Saddam Hussein's rights are being violated by publishing pictures of him in his underwear. Or look at how everyone in England fell in love with Charles I AFTER they beheaded him. As for killing Vader, this would have only been useful if the Emperor were killed as well, since the Emperor would have just gotten himself another apprentice. Rather, by sparing Vader, he has a chance for redemption.
An even more complicated version of this dynamic appears in the Hobbit, when Bilbo spares Gollum...and its later reference in the Fellowship when Frodo wishes Bilbo had just killed Gollum when he had the chance. Gandalf's reply is to stick to the sanctity of life and mercy and let Providence figure out the role of evil. Just as Gollum inadvertantly becomes the one who destroys the Ring, Vader intentionally becomes the one who kills the Emperor. Frodo fails in his mission to destroy the Ring, just as Luke would have been no match for Palpatine in ROTJ. Wow. I just exceeded my geek quotient for the day.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 21, 2005 11:07:39 AM
First off I would like to congradulate Peter for his correct prediction on the origins of Anakins conception and the Emperor's involvement in it. As much as I thought it was a good idea when you suggested it, but I really didn't think it would happen.
Second, I still say that Anakin is responsible for Padme's death only from a certain point of view(no quote intended)
Sorry didn't mean to break the conversation
Posted by: Sebastian | May 21, 2005 11:42:15 PM
Actually, I'm surprised by how much fan chatter seems to be suggesting that Anakin was "made" by Palpatine because of his lines about the Sith Master that had the power to create life. I'm still not sure that Palpatine is being entirely honest though--evil has a way of promising things that aren't always what they seem.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 22, 2005 2:18:32 AM
Not to be too nerdy here, but I'm going to have to take issue with "Anakin also refuses to let mace excute Palpatine without due process." The late Pope JP the Great said that there are virtually no cases in modern times where the death penalty is morally ok, but of course in theory such conditions could exist (and have in the past). If were going to evaluate Star Wars against Catholic morality we need to look at it through the lense of the that galaxy far, far, away. In that galaxy a tool exists, the Force, which can be used for moral good or evil. This is a uniquely powerful tool and the Jedi know all too well how powerful the Sith can be. Because of how dangerous the Sith are to public safety (one of the death penalty requirements) it could easily be argued that any Sith master is deserving of the death penalty.
Now, to the issue of due process. Mace could have killed Palpatine and it not have been a morally evil act on the grounds of self defense. The emperor was clearly using the Force to manipulate Anakin, as such putting his life in grave danger. The nature of this tool, the Force, is such that you could argue, the only way to neutralize a Sith is to kill him, so the only way to neutralize the threat against Anakin immediate at that moment is to kill Palpatine. It's analogous to someone holding a gun to someone else's head and they're ready to shoot and you're accross the room with a gun. If there is no other real choice, you can kill that person.
Haha, there is my nerdy two-cents.
Posted by: msci | May 23, 2005 7:09:53 PM
I can see your point, and I realize we're applying a consistent Catholic moral theology to a notoriously inconsistent, fictional pagan universe.
Nevertheless, Mace clearly has the upperhand at the moment. The Emperor has been defeated (unless he is intentionally holding back just to win sympathy from Anakin).
And I'm not quite sure the analogy of holding the gun to someone's head is equivalent, only because holding a gun to someone's head is an immediate threat, whereas the Emperor, once disarmed and subdued, is at the moment only a potential threat.
Mace only knows that Palpatine is a Sith Lord...and that he just killed three Jedi. He doesn't have any evidence that he started the Separatist movement or that the clones have secret orders to exterminate the Jedi. The Sith have the potential to endanger public safety, but to execute one in cold blood without a trial amounts to a vigilante's parody of justice.
I'm also not sure what you mean when you say that Palpatine was using the Force to manipulate Anakin...unless you are suggesting he is using some kind of Sith mind trick to make Anakin act against is will. As far as the movie goes, Palpatine merely baits Anakin with promises of special powers that he may or may not have.
What I find particularly fascinating is that the Emperor cries out in pain and suffering that he is inflicting on himself--he makes himself look like the victim...
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 23, 2005 11:11:03 PM
The way I interpreted the scene was that the Palpatine WAS holding back some of his powers in fighting Mace to gain sympathy from Anakin. If that was the case, I think it would be morally permissible to go ahead and kill him, along with the other qualifiers msci posted.
Just a side note: NEVER shoot at someone who is holding a gun to someone else's head. The impact from the shot will likely be such that they could reflexively fire the gun into the person they're holding and it would take someone with sniper training to hit the person in the right spot so that wouldn't happen. I took a self-defense course from the sheriff's department and one part was hostage situations and they said to never, never do anything like that.
Posted by: Therese | May 24, 2005 11:17:57 AM
Haha, Therese, thanks for the disclaimer, I wasn't planning on it, I used the situation simply as an example, I would hope most people are fully aware that shooting people in close range to others is not a good idea unless you are professionaly trained, but you never know i guess...
Peter, I agree with Therese's interpertation, that Palpatine was purposefully holding back, he was not in as dire a situation as he made it out to be, the alternative never occurred to me (that he was actually in trouble) and I would be very skeptical of that being the case.
Posted by: msci | May 24, 2005 4:32:15 PM
So let's say that Mace hadn't defeated the Emperor...then striking the final blow would have failed even if Anakin was not present. Mace would have been throwing his life away. (When Yoda realizes he cannot subdue the Emperor, he flees.)
If Mace believes the Emperor is not defeated, then a final attack is a desperate act--it is essentially suicide. It certainly is less hopeful than flight.
However, if Mace believes the Emperor is defeated, then he is striking a disarmed adversary. Not very sporting.
As for the hostage crisis analogy, Anakin's life is not in immediate peril. It's not as if the Emperor is electrocuting Anakin, and Mace has to intervene--as Vader does in ROTJ.
It's more like a pusher is offering your kid illegal narcotics while you have a gun to the pusher's head. You can't blow the guy's head off because his offer will ruin your child's life. You can't say, "Stop tempting my kid or I'll shoot!" Well, not outside of Texas anyway.
Think about what happens in A New Hope. Obi-wan Kenobi knows that Darth is now the physically more powerful swordsman, and that Luke is watching. Rather than take one last feeble swing at the Sith Lord, he allows himself to be sacrificed...he allows Luke to see a Jedi passively accept death...and it makes Vader's malevolence all the clearer.
Now Anakin was hardly a close chum of Mace, but imagine if, instead of saying he would strike the Emperor down, Mace had stepped back and allowed the Emperor to attack him. He would have appeared the sympathetic victim and the Emperor would have appeared the malefactor BEFORE Anakin had become complicit in Mace's murder. Indeed, Anakin might have instinctively defended the Jedi master instead.
As it is, the Emperor kills an unarmed (and unhanded) Mace Windu--the bad guy is the one who kills defenseless opponents. He does what Mace would have done to him. Anakin recognizes the crime, but he also recognizes his complicity in the crime. This is what finally turns him. He has to justify the murder to himself.
Posted by: Peter Terp | May 25, 2005 1:05:52 AM
If you mean 'pro-life' in a 'life-is-good-death-is-not-so-good way, then sure, the film has a pro-life message.
But I don't think it has an anti-abortion message as such.
Padme's life was not put in risk because of the babies.
As for that bit about Anakin stopping Windu, that was a commentary on whether circumstances and pramatism in the time of war should influence a long-held policy, Especcially if upholding that lond-held policy might be to the detriment of society.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 5, 2005 10:27:41 PM
>If you mean 'pro-life' in a 'life-is-good-death-is-not
>so-good way, then sure, the film has a pro-life
>message. But I don't think it has an anti-abortion
>message as such.
Perhaps. But the scene with the medical droids certainly has all the trappings of the classic moral dilemma of whether or not to proceed with birth when the mother's life is at risk. Furthermore, there is a more fundamental pro-life message embedded in Anakin and Padme's CHOICE to carry out the pregnancy--to count it as a blessing rather than as a curse. Certainly, any would-be Sith Lord could easily terminate a pregnancy just by imagining the fetus dead.
Then, of course, there is the matter of Jedi defending all life--even life that has been corrupted by evil--especially when Obi-wan spares Anakin, and when Anakin expresses his belief that it would be wrong to execute Dooku.
I realize I must be sounding awfully contrarion, but I'm also not entirely sure that Mace's decision to kill Palpatine can be squarely placed in the context of war. Someone with better recall of the dialogue might correct me, but assassinating Palpatine is not a matter of war--it's a matter of Jedi vs. Sith. As far as I recall, Mace has no evidence to connect Palpatine with the Separatists. Killing Palpatine will merely release the Senate from the influence of the Sith and perhaps better preserve the future of the Jedi. Furthermore, assassinating the Supreme Chancellor would probably breed further chaos in the middle of a time of war and create general distrust of the Jedi. I mean, think of the hearing...
MACE: "We killed the Chancellor you duly elected because he was the member of an ancient and secret order of evil-doers."
JUSTICE: "And what evidence do you have that he was a member of this cult?"
MACE: "Well...uhm...he had a red lightsaber...that I threw out the window...and he shot lightning from his fingertips."
ANAKIN: "Yeah. I saw the lightning. It was cool...but...I mean...very evil."
JUSTICE: "So you killed the Supreme Chancellor because his lightsaber was a different color than yours and he had a problem with static electricity?"
MACE: "What? No...I mean...I'm telling you, he was evil, man! EVIL!!!"
Even without Sith mind control, there is no way whatsoever Mace would have been able to justify himself before a court of law.
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 5, 2005 11:49:43 PM
Hey Peter, thanks for the reply.
"But the scene with the medical droids certainly has all the trappings of the classic moral dilemma of whether or not to proceed with birth when the mother's life is at risk."
I might be missing something here but it seems to me that the children were posing no risk to the mother's life so I don't see the relevance.
"to count it as a blessing rather than as a curse"
Sure, child-birth is almost without exception a blessing. I don't think that is relevant to the abortion argument since neither party is saying that childbirth is a curse.
"realize I must be sounding awfully contrarion"
No worries, that's where all the fun is. :)
As for evidence that he is a Sith, Palpatine practically confesses to Anakin and Windu when he doesn't deny their repeated charges of him being the Sith lord. He also is evidently very powerful with the force and came after the Jedi when they tried to arrest him.
_________
MACE WlNDU: You Sith disease. I am going to end this once and for all.
ANAKIN: You can't kill him, Master. He must stand trial.
MACE WlNDU: He has too much control of the Senate and the Courts. He is too dangerous to be kept alive.
_________
As for trying to save the life of the bad guy, this happens in most action movies where the hero only kills the bad dude when he doesn't have another choice.
You know the whole villian-falls-off-cliff-but-hero-gives-him-a-hand scene or variations of such.
I don't think that all those films are anti-abortion messages.
Just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean that they value human life less or more than their couterparts on the other side of the fence.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 6, 2005 3:25:26 AM
1) In a visual medium, an artist can reference certain concepts without explicitly naming them. So, for instance, in Attack of the Clones, Lucas can reference the Vietnam War by having "Republic gunships" that give the impression of Vietnam-era military choppers.
2) The Jedi consistently defend life throughout the movies, and Lucas goes out of his way to make Han shoot in self defense rather than in cold blood in A New Hope.
If the good guys always choose life and the bad guys always choose death, then the story seems to tend towards a pro-life message rather than a pro-choice message.
This actually brings to light a very serious inconsistency with pro-choice ideology, the notion that "I would never have an abortion because I value life, but I respect the position of a person who does not respect life to destroy it." To say you value something, but that it's none of your business if someone else destroys the thing you value calls into question how much you really value the thing.
That being said, I have a very hard time imagining Jedi--or indeed many heroic characters in pop culture--believably articulating a pro-choice rhetoric. It is the language of despair and relativism, whereas our heroes represent our culture's view of hope and justice.
Try to imagine Superman at an abortion rights rally, Bruce Wayne channeling money to his girlfriend to have an abortion, or Spider-man whisking a girl by pro-life protestors so she can have easier access to a clinic.
As for the hero sparing the villain hanging off the cliff, this might not be pro-abortion or even anti-death penalty. The point of these scenes is that the true hero never takes the law into his own hands. The true hero never believes that individuals have the right to choose life or death for another person. The true hero shows mercy and holds out a hope for the redemption of the villain. If you lose hope or intentionally take the life of another, you have become the villain yourself.
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 6, 2005 9:48:51 AM
Sure the artist can reference things without explicitly naming them but the viewer can also interpret meanings that are not there and mistakenly attribute them to the artist.
Of course the Jedi defend life throughout the galaxy. They are the good guys.
Doesn't make them anti-abortion though.
Or are you suggesting that people holding pro-choice veiws are bad and that they want to go around killing everybody?
I can't see Superman helping pro-life protestors by forcibly preventing that girl from getting to the abortion clinic either.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 6, 2005 9:55:23 PM
What I'm saying is that someone who is consistently good values life and would not defend someone else's choice to intentionally terminate that life. It would be inconsistent for the Jedi to defend life only after it was born. "Judge me by my size do you?"
The problem with the pro-choice ideology is not that pro-choicers want to kill people themselves. The pro-choice mentality is that it's none of my business if someone else wants to kill someone--which is precisely the kind of ideology that would have kept Luke Skywalker on the moisture farm on Tattooine...precisely the attitude that would have kept Han from helping the Rebellion.
Pro-life is more than just anti-abortion. It is a consistent ideology that defends life at ALL its stages.
And just because Superman might not block the entrance of an abortion clinic doesn't mean he is not pro-life. The fact is that most pro-lifers don't block entrances. Instead, they are actively involved in charitable organizations and peaceful prayer groups.
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 6, 2005 11:51:21 PM
Unfortunately for the Jedi, they have to look at the greater good. Sure, keeping the defeated enemy alive to stand trial is the Jedi way and in most cases it is the best and only option, but what in this case there was no chance that Sidious would have gotten a fair trial. He has everyone in his control.
If there was a madman shooting innocent bystanders and if you were a police sniper with a clear shot, you would take it for the sake of the greater good instead of worrying about a fair trial.
Similarly the pro-abortion folks think that a greater good is being achieved by their position. You and I may not necessarily agree with them, but there is no doubt that both sides have the best interest of society at heart.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 7, 2005 12:24:33 AM
ABORTION:
The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. The pro-choice ideology might profess to have the good of society at heart, but the fact of the matter is that the pro-choice ideology is an ideology of evil. It is inherently wrong and we must pray for the conversion of those who declare themselves pro-choice. Medical abortion in humans always involves the unnatural invasion of a woman's body through chemicals or instruments, intentionally causes death, poses multiple health and psychological risks to the mother, and discourages society from engaging in charity and sharing responsibility. Life, however, promotes family, social responsibility and charity, offers the hope of human potential, and accepts the natural processes of death. There are plenty of inherent evils in abortion--not the least of which is death. Anyone who would argue that an unnatural death is not in and of itself an inherently bad thing needs to re-evaluate their worldview.
STAR WARS:
While it is true that man must always adhere to his conscience, having the "best interest of society at heart" does not morally justify an act. Following one's conscience might reduce one's culpability, but it does not make an evil act a good act.
Mace Windu might believe he is acting for the greater good, and, no doubt, his reason is in part clouded by the urgency of the situation.
Nevertheless, it is still wrong to assassinate a person.
For some reason people are awfully fond of analogies involving firearms in this thread...but I still hold that the comparison between a madman shooting innocent bystanders and a would-be tyrant wielding his power are incompatible.
As far as I recall, Palpatine has yet to use his power as Chancellor to kill any innocent people before Mace attacks him. He strikes down three Jedi, but that is in self-defense--after all, the Jedi can't be trusted to bring him to a fair trial. He does advise the Neimoidians to invade his own planet of Naboo, but the Jedi have no proof of this. He has not been caught sitting in a bell tower with a sniper rifle.
Specifically what crime does Palpatine commit?
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 7, 2005 2:02:10 AM
As long as you as agree that their position is also based on good intentions then I am fine with that. Not here for a debate on abortion because I am probably largely on the pro-life side as well (except when the life of the mother is in danger or in the case of rape).
"it is still wrong to assassinate a person."
Not always. I think my analogy is entirely apt. Do you think it would be wrong of you to take down the madman?
You would be doing it in defence of the kids. Windu was doing it in defence of the Galaxy.
The guy is a Sith. The very definition of the Sith is someone who is powerful in dark side. Windu, having just fought the guy knows how powerful he is. The Jedi had for a very long time known that the sith lord was controlling the senate.
It is pretty clear that it was not self-defence. The Jedi were not there to kill him. They are the galactic super-police. If the police came to arrest someone and they started shooting I wouldn't classify that as self defence.
Of course after the guy killed off the three jedi Windu realised how powerful he really was...
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 7, 2005 4:19:21 AM
But what were the Jedi there to arrest him for?
For being Sith?
Is this is a punishable crime in the Republic?
While I'm sure the Expanded Universe gets more into the history of the Sith, but we really don't have a whole lot to go on in the movies as to why being Sith is justification to kill a person.
When Palpatine issues the command to exterminate the Jedi, he is doing so because they threaten the stability of the Republic. It's easy to see this as immoral because John Williams has a depressing score, the Jedi are better looking, and there are more of them. But Mace has made exactly the same choice when he tries to exterminate Palpatine.
It doesn't make a difference how powerful Palpatine is--wielding power is not an excuse to exterminate someone. If it was okay, then why doesn't Luke just lop off the Emperor's head in Return of the Jedi--for the sake of the Galaxy. Why doesn't he strike down the defeated Vader--for the sake of the Galaxy. Because his own moral identity (soul even perhaps) is worth more than the whole Galaxy.
Jedi make mistakes. Remember Yoda at the end of Attack of the Clones reprimands Obi-wan for saying they have achieved a victory through the clone army?
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 7, 2005 9:36:04 AM
The Jedi are arresting him because he was unwilling to hand over his executive powers even when the war was over.
If you recall, Windu and co. were on their way even before Anakin told them that he was a Sith.
How are the Jedi threatening the stability of the Republic? The only thing they are threatening is his future hold on power.
Was using the clone army really a mistake? That was the only option that they had. How else could they have stopped the Confederacy?
In any case it wasn't the Jedi who Commisioned the clone army, and it wasn't them who had the power to authorise its use. It was the democratically elected Senate. The Jedi were mere following the law. Both in arresting the senator and using the clone army.
It is true that Windu was going against the law when he wanted to kill Palpatine, but did he really have a choice?
If you knew that Palpatine was a Sith, if you knew he had used his powers to kill the authorities who came to take him away, and if you knew how powerful he was and you knew that if you didn't kill him, he will surely take over, what would you have done?
As for the nature of the Sith, they are the Sith because they are evil. We can't use the relativist argument because this was the way Lucas wanted it: Sith = Bad, Jedi = Good.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 7, 2005 10:20:34 PM
1) What law says that Palpatine must turn over his executive powers when the war is over? In ATOC, he promises to relinquish the powers that he has been democratically given.
2) The Jedi do pose several threats to the stability of the Republic. a) They do, in fact, attempt to assassinate a duly elected official and install themselves as an interrim executive branch, b) As stated in ATOC, the younger Jedi as a whole are growing too arrogant, c) they are no longer a reliable means to protect the Republic.
3) The clone army was a huge mistake--obvious from the fact that a genetically modified army can be programmed to exterminate all the Jedi. The Jedi played with fire and they all got burnt. If they had been employing a militia of free-thinking, genetically-unmodified soldiers, the army might have resisted the Emperor's commands and sympathized with their immediate commanding generals. Even if the clone army was the only option, that doesn't mean that it wasn't a bad option and a mistake. After all, what did the Jedi gain by using the clone army? Nothing. The Separatists were being controlled by Palpatine himself. The war was a bluff. The Jedi are supposed to be keepers of the peace, not military commanders. If they had stuck to their original roles, they would have called Palpatine's bluff.
4) What should Mace have done: Trust in the Force. The Force is always to be used for defense, never attack. By attempting assassinating Palpatine, Mace compromises on his own morals. If you compromise your morals, what difference does it make whether or not you are ruled by a tyrant? The moral absolutes of the Star Wars universe are precisely why it would be wrong for Mace to strike down the Emperor. He would give up the path of Light to preserve a democracy. Killing the Emperor seems like the only choice, but there is also the choice not to act and let Providence...or in this case...the Will of the Force, take its course.
Look what trying to assassinate the Emperor achieved--the final fall of Anakin to the Dark Side. If Mace had spared the Emperor, Anakin might not have turned and the story would have been very different.
And this returns us right back to the pro-life message. The pro-choice rhetoric is one that says certain women believe they have no option but abortion, and therefore we should not prevent them. The pro-life message is that no matter how bleak or desperate the situation is, one must have hope.
Posted by: Peter Terp | Jun 7, 2005 10:51:57 PM
1) I am not the biggest expert on Galactic Senate laws in Relation to Executive Powers, but (according to Chapter 5A Section 343) emergency powers are called emergency powers for a reason.
Once the emergency has passed, the chancellor must give back the powers to the senate.
2) The Jedi don't assasinate duly elected official. They attempt to aprehend a powerhungry sith who has refused to hand over his almost dictatorial powers.
That 'arrogance' comment by Yoda was intended as "Hmm these young ones are a bit cocky aren't they? Need a good talking to they do" type thing, not "eradicate the entire Jedi order including the younglings" type thing.
3) Sure the clone army was a bad option. Even the Jedi knew that. But it was the only option. If there was other viable options the Jedi wouldn't have taken it.
They couldn't call out Palpatine. You underestimate the power of the darkside.
However I agree that the Jedi can make mistakes. But they always have good reasons for their actions.
4) Just because there are moral absolutes doesn't mean that there are only simplistic circuimstances. Windu is acting on the moral absolute of protecting the Galaxy.
Sure Anakin might not have turned and there might not have been an empire. Who knows? It's not like the Jedi were looking for it to happen.
Sometimes hope is foolhardy and can prevent us from cutting our loses or taking steps that are necessary to minimise the disaster.
Posted by: Kankean | Jun 8, 2005 2:54:44 AM
