In Fair Verona

mh67511

Yeah, but we don't have Iraq war action figures or mail-in-offers on the back of cereal boxes for the Iraq war! I haven't seen the movie yet but looking forward too.

Drekkan

Good lord people. All of a sudden two lines make the film "Political". Come on, it's just a freaking movie. Weren't the original scripts/ideas written (in book form) back in the 1970s?

AlexEvans

There are lines in the movie that are clearly meant to express views on current political issues and actors, and it is irritating - but hardly the biggest flaw in the movie, which was enjoyable anyway.

I find it interesting that Palpatine isn't being quoted. "Good depends on your point of view." Seems he agrees with Obi-Wan! Only his endorsement doesn't seem a good thing.

Or Obi-Wan "Palpatine is evil." Obi-Wan doesn't agree with Obi-Wan. No wonder he can't get through to Anakin.

Drekkan

I agree with the Obi-wan thing

I still say that many of the lines aren't necessarily political - it's just too heavily analyzed (sometimes a cigar is just a cigar).

The "This is how liberty dies..." line just works. The Emperor is destroying peoples' liberties, and they're applauding loudly.

The "If you're not with me line..." is less reflective of modern politics and more about how the Sith think. To a Sith Lord, you're either with him (as a tool) or you are standing in his way to power. That's unacceptable. Once again, the line just works.

UnsilentMajorty

Sometimes people don't want to look in the mirror because the reflection they see isn't pretty. And if it is one thing art does, it is reflect the times in which it is made.

The basic view the film is expressing is that most people, especially those in America, view the Republic as a place where real freedoms and the right to disagree in a civil manner are considered the right way to live and considered to be good.

Palpatine wants to take all of that away and have it be only how he and Vadar think people should live, be it not giving other systems/planets in the galaxy a choice of whether or not to support the actions of the Emperor, or just the right to disagree with what Palpatine and Vadar and thus, crushing any opposition to their will because they (Vadar/Palpatine) don't agree with opposing points of view themselves.

It's the same thing that is going on in the United States right now.

There are those who believe in absolute rule of the current administration to do whatever they want as long as it either doesn't effect them (citizens) and or keeps them safe.... Even if it means going to war under false pretenses (Iraq) and only supporting the ultra-rich and letting everyone else fend for themselves.

Most people with enough experience in the world would argue the above is not a good way to live (as a society) and this is the basic, moralistic view the film (and most stories written in free socities) take and why it is obvious Palpatine has clouded and confused Anakin's mind when Anakin says he thinks the Jedi are evil considering what he and Palpatine are doing (and plan to do) and that is bring totalitarian rule and a dictarship to the entire Galaxy where no one has a choice except to swear their alliegence, or die.

This is why what Obi-Wan says about Sith dealing in absolutes is dead on: In absolutes, there is no middle ground, or the right to disagree and find a compromise. Remind you of a certain President?

AlexEvans

Either there are absolutes, or there are not. Moral relativism is the idea that good depends upon one's point of view (usually based on the culture one comes from).

being able to disagree and compromise is not, of course, directly related to whether you believe in absolutes. Two people who believe in absolutes could still disagree on specifics. Moral relativists, as Obi-Wan briefly pretended to be, cannot present a coherent argument for any view - but provided they do not abide by internal consistency or other rules of logic they can still disagree, and frequently do.

I find it quite ironic that there are constantly editorials and opinion columns in major American newspapers criticizing the Bush Administration for removing the right to criticize.

Indeed, those who say certain things should not be allowed to be said are those on the left - who pretend that their 'freedom of expression' is trampled upon whenever people disagree with them, and who pretend that when people on the right say that certain things should not be said, that this is the same as calling for restrictions on speech. I suspect this is partly because those on the left consider identifying a problem the same as calling for a government solution to that problem - an automatic reaction not shared by their opponents.

VU&NICO

I don't think the movie is too heavily analyzed...IT'S CLEARLY POLITICAL. And in Europe, Lucas himself was clear about its political value. European film critics consider this movie a masterpiece AND a POLITICAL work of art.

Other movies: A HISTORY OF VIOLENCE
MYSTIC RIVER (I won't spoil the movie, but the ending is one of the most political and fierce attacks on American society ever made)
etc....etc...

In Fair Verona

... I don't think that's really making sense to me. The Bush Administration removes the right to criticize, and you think that it is ironic that editorials are criticizing the Bush Admin. in turn for doing that? That action makes perfect sense to me, as criticism is a huge part of editorials. If they're going to right about the Bush Admin, most likely they're going to criticise it. That much makes sense. If the same Admin is taking away their right to do that, that's even more reason for them to criticize the Admin.

I also don't understand what this has to do w/ political references in movies.

Drekkan - Who said the film itself was political? It's merely that people believe that there are political undertones and references hidden in them. Naturally, SW always was and always will be a sci-fi movie.



Ha. Obi-Wan. Yes, well, as much as I love him, there are certain hypocrisies about him. A Jedi must not know love, but it's clear that he loves Anakin. I've always wondered if anybody would be willing to specify if it's really that a Jedi must not know romantic love, because nobody's getting on Obi-Wan's case.

And yes, obviously the lines work in the movie. They have to. You can't just throw in "... Bush sucks!" in the middle of the Republic's senate session. But even if they aren't intentionally supposed to be interpretted to reflect onto America politics, they would also work if they were applied there.


Mystic River was great, and by no doubt was it political. I didn't expect anything else from Sean Penn.

mh67511

Wait Mystic River was political? I saw the movie and it was good, though the ending kind of shocked me...how was it political though? I might have to rewatch it again.

AlexEvans

Think about it. Please.

People criticizing. Over there being no ability to criticize anymore.

It's one of the suggested 'parallels' between movies and real life.

sum1

Lucas destroys the whole Star Wars thing by mangling the original films and then putting out a new trilogy that's third rate tripe. And now, to get his crap more respect, he goes around trying to tie it into politics. That's cheap, very cheap. Bad enough to shove such awful films down our throats under the name of Star Wars, without also cynically hijacking a very serious topic just to give his drivel more standing.
When? When Lucas called Star Wars that as his excuse for making the new ones so juvenile.

Oh, and Harry Potter IS children's stuff, it's just that it's found itself a market amongst adults too.
Who said it was political? Lucas himself has, made a big fuss about it. Plus various critics.

Revenge of the Sh it is a crapass film, it doesn't deserve to be respected as a political statement or anything else. George Lucas has flushed Star Wars down the toilet in recent years, I'd appreciate it if he didn't compound that by trying to pretend his awful film is a serious political statement when it's really just a shallow piece of plastic aimed at making money.

sum1

In other words, people criticising because they supposedly can't criticise, when the very fact that they ARE criticising proves they ARE allowed to criticise, making a joke of their whole point.
Actually, a lot of European film critics consider the film a load of crap and have no respect for its pretenses to being political.

Personally, I think the attempt to make a mindless piece of drivel like ROTS look "Important" by making political claims for it is ludicrous and laughable. But that's what Lucas has done.

ceilirose

Focusing on what the media can or can't say about Bush is too narrow a focus. It's not their rights that are being denied but others. They're simply trying to be the watchdog of the government....which some of us grew up believing was important.

For example, Bush doesn't allow critics of his Social Security privitization plan to attend his so called town meetings. Those meetings are carefully scripted with pre-screened audiences and often there's a rehearsal of what can and can't be asked. Anyone who has a Kerry bumper sticker or one that's against the Iraq War are turned away at the door. His national road tour is funded by taxpayer's dollars and not private donations.

Is that an example of Bush not allowing criticism of his policies in a public arena? I'd say so but others would disagree.

VU&NICO

As I said, I won't spoil the movie, but the ending of Mystic River is TOTALLY political, no doubt. It's a metaphor of the American society, where the police and criminality are basically the same thing and there's no space or mercy for the outcasts.

Sum1, yeah, I think I should have written "a lot of European film critics" too in my post, since I obviously can't read ALL the reviews of every single magazine or paper in Europe, so I'll say "a lot of european critics", I won't generalize.