Re: Solo: A Star Wars Story (May 25th, 2018)
Too much money to be made from capitalizing on the "I remember that!" crowd not to have Fett as the primary villain, I'm afraid.
The film doesn't speak very highly of feminism as a workable ideology. It ends displaying the need for co-operation of both genders.
I think the biggest issue is that, despite what defenders and detractors might both prefer, it doesn't seem like the writers had a clear direction or philosophy underlining this film at all. The best example is Kylo's wacky and indecipherable character arc. Yes, there were feminist undertones. At times. There was also a clear anti-capitalist message. But they seem somewhat isolated and not necessarily connected to other elements of the film. In the case of Poe, I think the idea was more to have this character mature and develop than to try and force-feed a political agenda down people's throats. But hey, that's just my view. Anyone can find support or opposition to whatever they want if they look hard enough. But the clearer picture, to me, is of a film that lacked a genuine identity and narrative logic in many respects. On the one hand, that benefits a film in that fans can find whatever they liked and latch onto it as connected to a larger whole. On the other hand, we can have those who dislike it finding strands that connect every piece to some larger, terrible agenda. I say the truth, as with many things, is somewhere in-between. Personally, I choose not to focus too much on the politicized stuff and enjoy the parts of the film that did work for what they were. But to each her (!) own.
No, any military protocol that disallows desertion or demands strict adherence to authority is authoritarian. When you advocate for authoritarianism while depicting "toxic masculinity" via "mainsplaining" and macho, chest thumping bravado, you're appealing to egalitarianism. That's not "life according to me". Egalitarians often legitimize authority by appealing to inclusion. That's Political Philosophy 101. See: communism.
You wouldn't have a very effective military if you allow for desertion and let subordinates question authority whenever they chose to. Dehumanization is another important part of military effectiveness. And in that sense, maybe Leia and Dern were right to ignore and emasculate Poe!
In terms of Star Wars, again, I think you have different approaches and philosophies (such as they are), with the original films showing the rebels to be a loose coalition of those opposing the Empire, without much structure and organization. That would be dangerous in the real world, as you wouldn't want someone who has access to training locations, strategies, etc., just flying off and doing their own thing whenever they chose to. But it was a more optimistic view of things, where Leia and the leadership apparently trusted Luke, Han, etc., didn't fear that they may give away info. from being tortured, and weren't paranoid.
The new films have a more realistic view of how rebels get along and survive. If a member of ISIS, or the IRA in the '70s, or Che Guevara's revolutionaries wanted to just get up and leave, they couldn't really do that. There is a security consideration, there is also consideration for the precedent it would set, and the impact it would have on group cohesion.
