Idiotic Bush and Sith crap

[gwffantrav]

In hte last few days, I've heard that Lucas put in his Bush hatred in the new film. Why, oh why, does Hollywood always have to put in their political views on every single thing. I admit, I'm a die hard conservative (but not republican, like many democrats aren't looney liberals). But they (Hollywood) just get me sick with it.

I'm just guessing, if Bush is Palpatine (or a "Sith Lord"), does this make Saddam Hussein Osama Bin Laden Jedi Knights? If that's Lucas' logic, it seems that way.

But if Hollywood wants it that way, I'm sure you could compare Jabba the Hutt to Michael Moore and Jar Jar Binks to Hilary Clinton.

Now, some may think this is childish, but my friend and I had planned to see the movie next week when he gets back from vacation. But we had second thoughts. Now we may see it, but pay for another movie, but just sit in Star Wars. That way, at least I can see it, but won't shell out my $$ directly to the movie.

Sorry to rant and be childish, but hey, keep the dice rolling!!!

[Travis unable to sign in]

I heard Bill O'reilly talk about the movie and he said he didn't notice any anti-Bush sentiment creeping into the movie and he looks for that kind of stuff And I don't believe he'd "spin'" it.

[gwffantrav]

You're probably right about that. I just hate to see everything come down to conservative vs liberals. I hate even bringing up to this board because I'm not one to rub it in others faces. But I just get frustrated at it.

Thanks for the heads up Trav

[pikemojo]

I just saw the movie and it really has very little to do with politics. The only thing that is in it is about globalization. It is obvious that globalization is an issue in modern society and I don't really feel that George Lucas was too out of line to put a little of it into his movie. It is pretty realistic to see the empire globalizing the galaxy. Do not worry though...I don't really see the comparison being made to Bush. And I will say it was the best of the prequel trilogy. And last but not least...What is George Lucas' obsession with dehanding people. Anyone who has seen all 6 movies knows it happens alot.
That is all. Go see the movie if you liked the other ones.

[Chris Ingersoll]

I don't even see how people could make the accusation at all. Senator/Chancellor/Emperor Palpatine as a Machiavelian power-mongering character has been more or less established since the original trilogy (and the freakin' Carter administration), especially if you buy Lucas's "I had the entire backstory already planned" line. Even the fact that he orchestrated a large-scale war to bolster his own position/power originated with 1999's (Clinton administration) Episode I.

Any (imagined) connections or allusions to the current administration are clearly accidental and/or coincidental.

[gwffantrav]

Actually a good point Chris. Looking back, and I've heard he made a couple of comments at Cannes, he was probably catering to the cowardly French to get the movie hype. I still have a sneaking suspision that it will be overhype 101. Just people will see it because its the end of the "saga".

The story, although it may be decent, really seems to be rushed and the reason why Anakin is even turning will be rushed. Come to think of it, I guess WWE writers had a hand in writing this.

[floydthebarber]

I have to say, from what I heard going into the movie, and after having just seen it, there is clearly a few clear references to the recent US/Iraq, US/Rest of the World topics that have come up in the news. Anikin and his 'if your not with me, then your my enemy' line is direct nod at Bush's 'If your not with us, your against us' speach when trying to gain support for his invasion of Iraq. Also, the subtle shift from democracy to a state of decline into tyrany is not without merit when looking at the recent hard right turn the US has made in the post Clinton era. By no means am I saying the US is going to become an evil facist state...but there is something to be said for how easily 'fear' of war and of chaos will make people give up some of their own 'freedom' for protection.

Now this may be a little more obvious to me as a non-American...or maybe I'm slighty biased...but there are very clear parralels being drawn by Lucas that aren't just relivant today, but are an example of how history has a way of repeating itself...no matter how hard we try to avoid it.

Having said all that, I don't think Lucas was trying to be anti-Bush or Anti-American...I think he was just using recent history to make a point about world politics and how easily those in power, who feel that there agenda is 'right' or 'just', can easily stray off course if not kept in check by 'the people'.

I thought Revenge of the Sith was by far the best of the new 3 pack...and although it was a bit lame in some parts, left quite a few unanswered questions, as well as the feeling that Anikin's decline was very quick...(deep breath)...the action is amazing, there are a lot of great nods to the first 3 movies and ep 1 and 2...and it really makes the series feel complete. As a fan, I left quite happy!

[ringsyde]

I think conservatives are quick to accuse Hollywood of picking on them because of the overtly liberal nature of Hollywood and the curious manner in which conservatives think the mainstream views them as "evil". George Lucas is very liberal, and his Star Wars movies have always supported the liberal notion of rebeling against the superior governing force. Put these elements together, and you get people who can see GOP-bashing throughout the movie.

As a liberal, I think the conservatives who voice concern over this are looking at ROTS the same way I watched The Phantom Menace. You know, the movie where the big-nosed alien with all the money and all the slaves was voiced by a Jewish man. The evil, domination-seeking aliens (with slanted eyes) were voiced by Asians. And who could forget the annoying alien with the dreadlock-looking ears, voiced and acted by a black man in a role befitting step-n-fetchit himself.

I guess what I'm saying is this; ANY of the Star Wars movies and virtually every movie can be viewed in a way that either insults a group, culture or class, and Lucas's movies don't exactly hide his liberal leanings. Put enough thought into this and you can safely argue how the Star Wars films promote patricide, abuse of women, devil worship and inner hatred. Yes, they are far-fetched notions, but they can be made and supported as easily as this sith-conservative bashing nonsense.

[pikemojo]

Here is a suggestion. Just watch a frickin movie and enjoy it for being a movie. I am a very conservative guy and I did not feel that there were serious Bush bashing issues here. As stated there are a few parallels but I don't feel it intentionally out to really stick it to us conservatives.
Just go to the movie and have fun. That is what movies were made for. That is why National Treasure made so much money. People, I think, look to deeply into alot of movies.

[Chris Ingersoll]

pikemojo said:

People, I think, look to deeply into alot of movies.

I blame our schools, specifically English Class. Nothing sucks the enjoyment out of reading a book like over-analyzing it as to what/whomever the author is representing with such-and-such character. I've always harbored the suspicion that half of the "allusions" in the books I read in high school were fabricated ("maybe Orwell just wanted to write a story about talking pigs?").

There are exceptions, like people who are political satarists (e.g., Orwell; I used the above example as a joke); and then there are actually books that expect you to catch the spoofs and parodies (e.g. Pratchett, but he uses broad pop culture references that a casual reader would pick up).

If I want policitcal commentary, I know where to find it; I also know where I don't WANT to find it, and I'm quite good at ignoring things I don't want to see (or hear).

I'm with you: sit down, shut up, and enjoy the stupid movie/book/whatever. Oh, and shut up again.

[ringsyde]

Pardon me for perhaps using a bit too much reasoning, but isn't the whole purpose of movies (and books and other entertainment) to stimulate thought, challenge what we know and touch some part of us - agitate our perceptions?

I think the "Sit down, shut up and enjoy" routine is pretty ignorant (check the definition before reacting, here) and uninsightful. I'm clearly not advocating running your mouth at the theatre. Sharing an opinion, expressing a thought or defining a perception of what a movie speaks to in your life is brilliant.

Of course, I'm an English teacher, so I'm clearly part of the problem.

[moparpaul]

pikemojo said:

Here is a suggestion. Just watch a frickin movie and enjoy it for being a movie. I am a very conservative guy and I did not feel that there were serious Bush bashing issues here.

I agree with that 100%. I think some people just try too hard to look for something that simply isn't there. Any true fan of Star Wars will be able to see through this quite easily imo. The "with us or against us" line has been used over and over by many people. I think Arn Anderson even said it a couple of times during the 4 horseman days.

This movie was incredible. It's really amazing to see everything unfold just as we had been told in the original trilogies.

[Swarm]

I've seem the movie twice now and it has nothing to do with Bush, or anything related to current politics.

Anyone who can't see that is just looking to strike up contreversy.

[Nemecys on AOL]

I'll admit, the line, "If you're not with me, you're against me," did make me think of Bush at first. Then I remembered that the phrase has been around a lot longer than Bush himself.

Overall great movie, though they did seem to jump from scene to scene too quickly at times, and Grevious came off as comical instead of entertaining, at least to me. Maybe I was exceptcing too much after reading the book.

Jay

[Chris Ingersoll]

ringsyde said:

Pardon me for perhaps using a bit too much reasoning, but isn't the whole purpose of movies (and books and other entertainment) to stimulate thought, challenge what we know and touch some part of us - agitate our perceptions?

It would depend on the movie/book/play/etc. Some*, yes, are intended to be conscious-expanding, thought-provoking treatsies on the human condition or whatever.

Others* are just meant to be entertainment. Something to take our minds off the world around us and make us happy (or scared, or weepy, as the genre dictates) for a few hours. The only people who know for sure which category a given piece falls into are the creators (and whoever they tell).

However, even the ones that were intended to be deeper than a "popcorn flick" can -- or at least should be able to -- still be enjoyed at that base level, both by the people who know better and the people who are ignorant of that fact.

To use an example I've mentioned in my last post, if Orwell hadn't been deliberately satirizing Communism (and specific members of that movement) in Animal Farm, you could stil enjoy it as a fantasy where the basic message is the same: power corrupts, no matter what the original intentions. (The reason I keep bringing this one book up is because it's one of the few from my education that I still remember fondly, essentially because of this fact.).

For a more popular/recent example, just look at The Lord of the Rings. Adults reading the book are probably able to pick out the messages that Tolkein wove into the tale: a dark, menacing power in the East, a commentary on war as a whole (I believe Tolkein lived though both World Wars, so he definitely had the influences there), and even an environmental commentary or two, among others. But the people who usually pick up those books for the first time -- young teens -- may not be, but the overall power and quality of the story keeps them entertained even though they lack the "higher appreciation" of it.

Even the Patron Saint of High School English, William Shakespeare, knew this. He designed his plays to appeal to both the unwashed masses and the more intellectual nobility at the same time.

* I'm only including works of fiction here. Things like documentaries and biographies are clearly different beasts, especially where guys like Roger Moore are concerned.

Sharing an opinion, expressing a thought or defining a perception of what a movie speaks to in your life is brilliant.

Agreed. But that's where the difference between intended meaning and implied meaning creates problems. Everyone who saw Jar-Jar as an annoying Jamacian stereotype saw something that was (hopefully) never intended by Lucas; the rest of us just saw him as annoying comic relief and/or marketing ploy (which more or less were the reasons for his existance).

My problem comes from people who let their own personal biases derail the intended purpose of something. It's one thing to say "RotS sucked becuase Lucas is more concerned with selling toys than telling the great story he created", it's quite another to say "RotS sucked because it was a glorified parody of the Bush Administration". You wouldn't hear any liberals saying that last one (although if they enjoyed it because they thought it was meant to be a parody then they're just as wrong).

This doesn't even have to be entertainment-related. You and I have argued over stereotypes and their implied meaning before, and that's basically all this is too.

Of course, I'm an English teacher, so I'm clearly part of the problem.

I never said the teachers were the problems, just the cirriculum. I have nothing but great memories of the three women who provided my high school English education. But that doesn't mean I enjoyed every book I had to read in those three years (my senior English was a writing class).

[ringsyde]

Chris, that English teacher comment was sarcasm; I meant nothing by it.

Aside from that, you make some pretty indisputable points here. I've actually used Orwell's work quite a bit in one my classes to show the effects of propaganda and political posturing in films.

[abe froman]

* I'm only including works of fiction here. Things like documentaries and biographies are clearly different beasts, especially where guys like Roger Moore are concerned.

Let's not go slamming James Bond, Chris.

IMHO, he's a top notch fella, plus he bags chicks of quality that I've yet to encounter.

[Chris Ingersoll]

abefroman said:

* I'm only including works of fiction here. Things like documentaries and biographies are clearly different beasts, especially where guys like Roger Moore are concerned.

Let's not go slamming James Bond, Chris.

IMHO, he's a top notch fella, plus he bags chicks of quality that I've yet to encounter.

D'OH! Clearly I meant Michael Moore.

Man, that's what I get for thinking early in the morning after playing cards all day previously. And Moore's my second favorite Bond, too (Brosnan takes first narrowly, but that's a different thread).

[Wad]

The only person who really knows what's behind the meaning of every character, motivation and politics is George Lucas. But then again, he had writers and cast members who collaborated with him on the project, so there are several inputs.

The similarities between the Bush administration and the Sith could be purely intentional, purely coincidental or both. Then again, you could show this to other societies and see the same comparisons with other leaders. Play this in the 1930s and 1940s and people would see Hitler. Play this in the late 1700s and you could see Napoleon. There were always leaders like this. There will always be leaders like this.

Second, this is an overall commentary on ... political commentary. Keep this in mind. I have my own politics, but I'll refrain from them to criticize the general political framework. The problem with discussing politics in America is that has to be stultifying. Most people's political attention spans is limited to what you can get on a bumper sticker. There's wit, but no thought. There's heat, but no light. The problem is that political messages all boil down to, "All we ask is that you show up to the polls on election day, vote for us, and then leave us the hell alone." Politics is not meant to be engaging. Both Democrats and Republicans are in the business to write laws for their campaign contributors. Ideologies, "liberalism" and "conservatism", are nothing but street theater. Liberalism and conservatism are so far removed from their intellectual framework that they in themselves have no other meanings than to be insults. What was "liberalism" meant to "liberalize"? What was "conservatism" meant to conserve? And do these terms have the same meanings in other societies?

Very few people have ever asked these questions, or even bothered to really inquire what forms their political positions. Strange how this never gets brought up in political science classes.