Some great advice on how to start your own business online! 
For more information please visit www.onlinejobhunter.info

Episode III an "anti-Bush diatribe"

NOTE: Welcome, Michelle Malkin readers! And thanks for the link, Michelle.

The early reviews of Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith are coming in and, amazingly, critics actually seem to like it. As I write this, review-aggregator site RottenTomatoes lists 9 out of 11 Episode III reviews as favorable. Perhaps this is not surprising, given how far the previous two prequels have lowered people's expectations.

Reviewers are also noticing the same anti-Bush message permeating the film that I posted about here.

Kirk Honeycutt of The Hollywood Reporter:

The movie opens with the now traditional receding title crawl, which informs us that in the galactic warfare that has broken out, there are "heroes on both sides" and "evil is everywhere."
Joshua Tyler at Cinema Blend:
If anything, this fantasy film is a rather poignant warning on the dangers of fear mongering. A lesson on the evil men can do while wrapping themselves in the mantle of freedom, democracy, and safety. As Anakin himself points out later in the film, it all depends on your point of view.
Gabriel Shanks at Mixed Reviews:
Lucas' screenplay is his strongest in years, and even contains a few barely-concealed critiques of the Bush Administration and the Iraq War. The commentaries on democracy are offered in direct counterpoint to a government that is clearly overstepping its bounds, and the parallels are obvious to anyone looking for them. While Bush might not be an evil emperor (yet), it's not that far a trip from Senator Palpatine to Tom DeLay.
Scott at ThreeMovieBuffs:
One of the most surprising elements of this film is Lucas' political statement. "Any one that's not with me, is my enemy," Anakin says at one point, paraphrasing the famous line from a George W. Bush speech. "Only a Sith deals in absolutes," Obi-wan replies. "So this is how liberty dies,” Padmé points out in another scene as Senator Palpatine is laying out his new political strategy. “With a round of applause."
Ed Gonzalez from Slant magazine :
I imagine that Revenge of the Sith is very much the film Lucas's fans want to see, but are some of them ready for an anti-Bush diatribe? Though every Star Wars film until now has existed in an insular comic-book world, a lot has happened since 1999 and 2002 in the real world and Lucas dares, for the first time, to address how the hollow political conflict in his franchise correlates with the reality outside its panels.

...Lucas's political gestures would be easier to appreciate if he himself didn't trade in absolutes and generalities (you know the drill: the darker the couture, the closer you are to the dark side), but it's still a welcome step forward.
Ed correctly notes that Lucas's sudden embrace of Kerryesque nuance is a real laugh coming from a guy who divides the Force into a "light side" and a "dark side". Was there a grey side of the Force I missed back there somewhere?

On the other hand, I wouldn't call clear references to real-world politics in a fantasy movie a "welcome step forward". The Internet and TV are already bursting at the seams with political punditry. There's no pressing need for more of it in our summer blockbusters.

True, when Return of the King came out, some conservative commentators saw pro-Bush parallels between the battle for Middle Earth and the War on Terror. But director Peter Jackson didn't let any political allusions get in the way of his story. Lucas, on the other hand, lays on the message with a trowel.

I know, I know: it's his movie and he can do what he wants. But is it really too much to ask that we be allowed to forget about today's ubiquitous political squabbling for just two hours? There's a reason previous Star Wars movies are fondly described as "escapist fare".

FOLLOW-UP:
Lucas weighs in on the issue here.

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

This is going to out me as the geek I am, but all the messages and plot points people are interpreting as anti-Bush were foreshadowed in the original trilogy (some of it only in the novelization of Return of the Jedi) so it's only anti-Bush if Lucas is prescient. And using an exaggerated or imaginary external threat to undermine democracy and the rule of law is a basic pattern in history. You could as easily say this movie is anti-Caesar or anti-Hitler as anti-Bush. It's only anti-Bush if you believe Bush is following that pattern.

The things you are complaining about are common sense moralizing such as is found in the rest of the Star Wars movies. Look at the ideas you are dismissing as "anti-Bush":
1. There are heroes on both sides of most wars.
2. Even the good guys often do evil things.
3. A black-and-white if-you're-not-with-me-you're-against-me attitude is simplistic and usually counterproductive.
4. Those with bad intentions often wrap themselves in the rhetoric of democracy and freedom.
Do you really object to any of those common-sense messages?

There's plenty to criticize about the mishmash nature of Lucas' expressed morality, and in his uneven storytelling, but judging from the popcorn nature of the series so far, it's probably better to treat it as the escapist fantasy that it is and not try to read any deeper messages into it. 

Posted by Big Ben

Anonymous said...

Hey, Big Ben, it's not me saying the movie is anti-Bush. I haven't even seen it. We're talking about the consensus opinion of a number of different critics.

The critics are sensing that this particular installment in the series, out of all six of them, seems to be trying to comment on current events. And one doesn't have to personally  think Bush is doing bad things, to nevertheless recognize that Lucas's movie is echoing common criticisms other people have made about Bush and the War on Terror.

Even if such criticisms ostensibly reflect basic truths about war and politics, in the current climate it is disingenuous to pretend they are not meant to be an indictment of Bush's policies. 

Posted by GaijinBiker

Anonymous said...

Mwaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...... 

Posted by Liberal Boogeyman

Anonymous said...

Obviously I haven't seen it yet either (hmm...maybe we should both shut up until it opens in Japan), but I get the feeling that people are projecting things onto the movie that aren't there. All the things I've heard people say about the movie that are supposed to be "anti-Bush" are plot points I have had firmly lodged in my imagination since junior high, so I have a hard time believing they are truly anti-Bush. This plot arc connects directly with Episode 1(1999, far too early to predict GWB's policies) and Episode 2(2002, pre-Iraq war and filmed before 9/11) so to think that Lucas set it up as a criticism of the Bush administration is a bit of a stretch. Even the "with me or against me" line or some variant of it had been used in hundreds of movies before Bush was tone-deaf enough to use it in real life.
It's sad that America has become so politically polarized that even something like Star Wars gets politicized like this, but I think that is the fault of the critics trying to find a hook for their stories, not something inherent in the plot. (It's not Lucas' fault that the Bush administration behaves the way it does--he wrote the story first.) 

Posted by Big Ben

Anonymous said...

Nothing tone-deaf about saying that the world at large had a choice about allying with the United States or with the terrorist nations, Ben. Nor about saying that the normal "nuanced" or 'diplomatic' excuses would not be accepted. If an American president had had the courage to say that friendship with the US is unreconcilale with supporting its enemies when the Beirut Marine barracks were bombed (or when the FIRST WTC bomb was exploded-remember that?), we might still have a WTC today.
However, moral relativists- people just like yourself, spouting the same line of ethical cowardice- prevailed in the end and enabled Bin Laden, Carlos, Arafat, JRA Faction, et cetera; and we now have a memorial. To paraphrase Orwell, if you're not anti-evil than you're objectively pro-evil. I'm sure that they would have thanked you for your "nuanced" position.

I agree that the fact that this movie was turned into a vehicle for propaganda is shameful, but that's Hollywood all over: always trying its best to rewrite history or change facts it's uncomfortable with, and never too proud to attempt a low blow.
 

Posted by DaveP.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for proving my point for me DaveP. It must be comforting to live in a simple world where everyone is either an enemy, and therefore 100% evil, or an ally and therefore 100% good, and it's easy to tell the difference. In the real world, however, noticing that there are shades of gray is not moral relativism, it's a sign of having a brain that functions above pre-school level. (By the way, if you're going to accuse someone of moral relativism, it might be a good idea to understand what it actually means. There's a good explanation here  if you're interested in actually knowing what you're talking about rather than just throwing around meaningless accusations.)
Anyone with any knowledge whatsoever about diplomacy realizes that the arogance of a with-me-or-against-me ultimatum is more likely to alienate potential allies than to accomplish anything constructive. It's a truly impressive feat of logic to deduce that knowledge of basic diplomacy destroyed the WTC.  

Posted by Big Ben

Anonymous said...

Darfur, Ben. Now I know that genocide is just ducky with you (heroes on both sides, remember, and just shades of grey)... but what has anyone that YOU would consider "smart" done about it? Except, of course, to profit off of it or to rape some of the survivors.

Come to think about it, I can count a LOT of reigns of evil (go look the word up) that were ended by people you would consider "dumb" and immature: Nazi Germany, the Slave South (and later the Segregated South), the Gulags of Soviet Russia and the lesser versions in its satellites...

Can you name one SINGLE genocidal crisis that was ended by people who would have agreed with YOU? Other than by ignoring things till the bad guys ran out of space for the bodies, that is...Rwanda, Cambodia.

Reagan, Eisenhower, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Thatcher, Churchill, Meier, John Paul the Second... George Bush. Freedom fighters and liberators, who left the world a safer and better place than they recieved it from your kind.

Who have YOU liberated? Whose freedom have YOU assured?

WE make history, Ben. YOU just whine about it.
 

Posted by DaveP.

Anonymous said...

Darfur? Wow, full points for no-sequiturs, too!
'cause you know, the Bush administration has done so much to make Darfur a "safer and better place", and this is directly connected to his brilliant diplomatic skills.

So I take it that YOU, personally, have liberated lots of people, eh?

It's amazing that you can quote so much history and yet be so ignorant about the forces that drove it. For example, the movement to end slavery was led by liberals, and the only Americans who sided with the Nazis were right-wingers. Of course, I'm not daft enough to think that this reflects one way or another on the people who identify as liberals or conservatives in the present, but you might want to bear in mind that liberals were on the side of justice and freedom on every major human rights issue in history (with the brief exception of communism)--divine right of kings, religious freedom, racial equality, women's rights, freedom of expression--on all these issues it has been the conservatives of the time who tried to stand in the way of progress.
Anyway, you've managed to pull us wildly off topic with your free-asssociation "everything evil is directly connected, and you libruls are responsible" schtick, and made all sorts of ludicrously bad guesses about my political beliefs. Changing the subject when you start losing the argument is just bad form. And Michael Moore is fat. 

Posted by Big Ben

Anonymous said...

Wow! Ben proves it is indeed possible to fit your own foot into your own mouth, up to the knee!
Let's smear him line-by-line, shall we?

"Darfur? Wow, full points for no-sequiturs, too!
'cause you know, the Bush administration has done so much to make Darfur a "safer and better place", and this is directly connected to his brilliant diplomatic skills."

How is talking about a signal failure for your philosophy a non-sec. Ben? The Bush Admin has done EXACTLY WHAT YOU WANTED; i.e. stayed out of it and let the "sophisticated" powers handle it instead of simply cowboying in and fixing things. The people who are handling Darfur agree EXACTLY with your moral philosophy, Ben. Why so ashamed of them?? Why not be proud?
Similar note, why is it that freeing two more nations than anyone else alive suddenly makes Bush responsible for ALL of them? Can't you handle even ONE on your own? ...well, obviously not.


"So I take it that YOU, personally, have liberated lots of people, eh?"

I had the honor to have indirectly supported two of the greatest liberations of all time, Ben: Reagan's over the Soviets, and Bush's over Afghanistan and Iraq (and indirectly, Jordan and we'll see what else...)
Whose liberation did YOU support? Oh yeah, that's right: By your lights, slavery isn't 'bad'... just a shade of grey.
"It's amazing that you can quote so much history and yet be so ignorant about the forces that drove it. For example, the movement to end slavery was led by liberals..."

Who YOU would have opposed and ridiculed for their "childish" worldview that slavery and racism was objectively bad, that they were called to fight it, that there could be no compromise with it, and that violence was needed to end it... and who had almost NOTHING in common philosophically with YOU

"...and the only Americans who sided with the Nazis were right-wingers."

Who were supporting ISOLATIONISM, a fairly cogent idea after internationalism got us into the First World War, and who put politics aside and supported their nation valiantly when the Second World War broke out. Where were YOUR bunch when America was fighting the Cold War and the Terorist War since 1978? Oh yeah... running off to Canada, carrying signs explaining how ashamed they were of their own country, how little loyalty they felt to it and how the murderers of America's civilians and soldiers were really just 'heroes on the other side'.

" Of course, I'm not daft enough to think that this reflects one way or another on the people who identify as liberals or conservatives in the present,"

...but you try to use it anyway, identifying with the 'heroic' liberals and smearing me as a 'Nazi-supporter' right-winger (BZZT! Violation of Godwin's Law! Two points taken from Ben!). Do you just have a short memory?

"but you might want to bear in mind that liberals were on the side of justice and freedom on every major human rights issue in history"

...except when there was a Republican in office, when you cheerfully pulled for whoever hated America most...

"(with the brief exception of communism)"--

Yeah, let's just let those >30 MILLION murdered and the NINETY-THREE YEAR reign of terror (in the former SSR; y'all are STILL supporting Cuba, etc.)slide; your heart was in the right place, and besides it wasn't really evil, just a shade of grey...(and a Republican was in office or running for election; that makes it different )

"--divine right of kings, religious freedom, racial equality, women's rights, freedom of expression--on all these issues it has been the conservatives of the time who tried to stand in the way of progress."

BZZT! Self-contradiction (AGAIN... this one I'm calling you on)!! You say that you're "not daft enough to think that this reflects one way or another on the people who identify as liberals or conservatives in the present", yet you think you can then go back and claim ex post facto victory for a philosophical tradition you DON'T EVEN CLAIM TO BELONG TO, and then claim that it was YOUR philosophy that won the victory?  
Jeez, where did YOU learn to argue? Could you even DESCRIBE classical definitions of 'Liberalism' or 'Conservativism'? Do you even KNOW what the people who fought against the divine right of kings thought? Do you even KNOW what ANY of the people who fought those battles would have thought of your 'there is no real evil or good' BS?

"Anyway, you've managed to pull us wildly off topic with your free-asssociation "everything evil is directly connected, and you libruls are responsible" schtick, and made all sorts of ludicrously bad guesses about my political beliefs. "

You have no clue, and possibly didn't read my post. I jacked YOU up for being a moral coward ... nowhere did I call you a liberal (though, since the shoe seems to fit- you certainly argue like one...)

"Changing the subject when you start losing the argument is just bad form."

You certainly do enough of it; why shouldn't I? By YOUR philosophy, there's no such thing as 'bad form', and by MINE, I follow the Jacksonian Golden Rule: "Do Unto Your Enemies as They Have Acted Like They Wish You To".


And Michael Moore is fat.

So was Bogdan Kabul. So what?


One last thing, genius. In your response to my post, you say (ahem): "noticing that there are shades of gray is not moral relativism, it's a sign of having a brain that functions above pre-school level."

Yeshua son of Joseph, Mohammed (HNBP), Martin Luther, Saint Thomas Aquinas, Saint Augustine, Zwingli, Cromwell, the Pilgrims, John Wesley, Washington, W.T.Sherman, The King of Spades, George S. Patton, Mickey Marcus, all of the valiant men and women who knew that there could be no compromise with wrong... If I AM in a preschool, I'm more than happy here in such good company.

Whose company do YOU keep?

 

Posted by DaveP.

Anonymous said...

Everybody,

I want this blog to be a place where people can have debates, not flamewars. Please try to keep things civil.

Attack the argument, not the person making it. And play nice.

Thanks. 

Posted by GaijinBiker

Anonymous said...

GB, I'm sorry for taking such a condescending tone on your blog, but apart from the tone, I think my attacks are wholly aimed at the content DaveP's arguments, such as they are. I'll try to tone it down.

DaveP,
I have never denied being a liberal, I've denied believing in the caricature of liberalism you attribute to me.
You assume, on no evidence whatsoever, that I believe 'there is no real evil or good', that I oppose military intervention in all circumstances, and that I don't believe slavery and racism to be objectively bad. I never said anything of the sort, believe nothing of the sort, and none of those beliefs have anything to do with liberal philosophy.
That you thought I was smearing YOU as a 'Nazi-supporter', when the only people I called Nazi-supporters were those who actually supported the Nazis, shows the basic flaw in your reasoning. As I said in my last post, I do not operate under the assumption that everyone on the other side of the political fence have the same views or are responsible for what others on their side have done in the past. I do not assume that since you are a conservative that you are the same as Hitler, yet you seem to assume that since I am a liberal I must agree with every mistaken belief ever held by anyone on the left.
The only reason you see contradictions there is that you are reading implications into my arguments that are demonstrably not in what I wrote. Argue with what I said, not with what you mistakenly imagine to be the beliefs underlying what I said.

Finally, of the list of great historical figures you mentioned, I can only judge from those whose writings I have actually read, but Jesus, Luther, Aquinas, Augustine, and Washington all had no problems acknowledging that there are gray areas in morality and ethics. They would not be regarded as great thinkers if their philosophies were so simplistic as to not recognize that. 

Posted by Big Ben

Anonymous said...

Ben,

I just wanted to point out that although some conservatives were sympathetic to the Nazis before the outbreak of war, once the war started all those on the right supported their country. There isn't any evidence of even one right wing American betraying his country to the Nazis. Contrast this with the American left in the cold war. 

Posted by Miramichi

Anonymous said...

STAR WARS IS RACIST!!!

http://www.detnews.com/2002/entertainment/0205/18/d01-492788.htm 

Posted by Stop Star Wars

Anonymous said...

This has nothing to do with what's in the movie. This about Lucas kissing French butt by disparaging his own country. I'm sure a lot more French jerks will line-up to see this movie because Lucas likens Bush to Darth Vader and Americans to idiots for following Bush. He wouldn't say this crap in America.

Obviously Lucas hasn't been following current events. France was one of the many countries that Saddam bought off. France was one of the countries fighting to drop the sanctions against Iraq because they wanted its oil. France was supplying Saddam with the weapons used against our troops.

Lucas probably thinks the only reason we went into Iraq was to find stock piles of WMD. 

Posted by Gary

Anonymous said...

You people are pathetic and paranoid. Get over yourselves. Was George Bush or Iraq specifically mentioned in the movei? I doubt it. Get you head out orf your asses. 

Posted by Kiwi

Anonymous said...

If Bush is Palpatine, then Geroge Lucas is Santa Claus.

To wit:
Both are corpulently fat
Both have F*&ked up beards
Both have mutts (Santa's Elves; Lucas' adopted children)
Both make toys for a living
Both are latens homosexuals
Both don't know how to make movies
Both are red
I stopped believing in either when I was 6.

Anyone who votes a certain way because Lucas or Madonna or Mary J. Blige tells them to doesn't deserve to vote. In fact, they deserve to be shot for being a yes-man.

1776er 

Posted by Daniel Miller

Anonymous said...

Obviously Lucas hasn't been following current events. France was one of the many countries that Saddam bought off. France was one of the countries fighting to drop the sanctions against Iraq because they wanted its oil. France was supplying Saddam with the weapons used against our troops. 

following current events ? like this one ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,1485546,00.html

the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.  

"The United States was not only aware of Iraqi oil sales which violated UN sanctions and provided the bulk of the illicit money Saddam Hussein obtained from circumventing UN sanctions," the report said. "On occasion, the United States actually facilitated the illicit oil sales."

Sure, they were crooks outside US -- among them some french... But France was hardly alone here, as you can see from theses numbers. Try to face your own dirt. 

Posted by nico

Archives

Pages

Powered by Blogger.

Followers