Star Wars: The Last Jedi (2)

[Franken Berry]

Really great post! I too am very surprised at how some people see and interpret Luke in particular. When the movie had recently come out, one of the Freaks here insisted that Luke was "humiliated" by having to drink the sea cow milk. I didn't remember fully at the time since I had only seen it once, but I responded that I didn't remember that scene as humiliating at all--that it was Luke almost taunting and purposely trying to disgust Rey with his drinking the milk, and further showing how in tune and balanced he had become with the island. Seeing it again on Blu Ray (and the gif that pops up every once in a while), it's definitely Luke trying to disgust Rey so she'll stop following him and bothering him. I don't remember who it was I had the exchange with, but I wonder if he still feels the same.

I agree, that Luke was both testing Rey during the combat sequence, and intentionally trying to disgust her during the milk drinking scene. However, what bothers me about the depiction of Luke is that he's embraced pacifism, seclusion and withdrawal because he feels that intervention as a Jedi would mean hubris, and a sort of domination. Luke's competence with the Force, as power, is portrayed as somehow unjust or destructive.

Take the milk drinking scene. It's very "punk rock", in the sense that Luke's almost begging Rey to "kill her idol". Remove him from the pedestal she's placed him on. I find the scene annoying in the same way I find punk rock annoying: By glorifying poverty squalor etc, you make a virtue of your deplorable circumstances. I once knew a guy who was wealthy, had a trust fund, but went dumpster diving for food as a "freegan" back in the 90's. Luke is a kind of Jedi Freegan. His pacifism and minimalism aren't meant to be absurd, because they reflect the absurd philosophy of the director. We're meant to admire Luke for his "restraint".

When people criticize Luke for being weak, they're right. His weakness has less to do with his ability, than his philosophy. He's a capable Jedi, made pathetic by his ideals. Does that not encapsulate the frustration people have with the film?

 

[ajp4mgs]

I agree, that Luke was both testing Rey during the combat sequence, and intentionally trying to disgust her during the milk drinking scene. However, what bothers me about the depiction of Luke is that he's embraced pacifism, seclusion and withdrawal because he feels that intervention as a Jedi would mean hubris, and a sort of domination. Luke's competence with the Force, as power, is portrayed as somehow unjust or destructive.

Take the milk drinking scene. It's very "punk rock", in the sense that Luke's almost begging Rey to "kill her idol". Remove him from the pedestal she's placed him on. I find the scene annoying in the same way I find punk rock annoying: By glorifying poverty squalor etc, you make a virtue of your deplorable circumstances. I once knew a guy who was wealthy, had a trust fund, but went dumpster diving for food as a "freegan" back in the 90's. Luke is a kind of Jedi Freegan. His pacifism and minimalism aren't meant to be absurd, because they reflect the absurd philosophy of the director. We're meant to admire Luke for his "restraint".

When people criticize Luke for being weak, they're right. His weakness has less to do with his ability, than his philosophy. He's a capable Jedi, made pathetic by his ideals. Does that not encapsulate the frustration people have with the film?

Your interpretation (that I put in bold) is one reason why I'm so disappointed that Luke's "The Caretakers are about to be pillaged" scene was cut from the theatrical film. In it, Rey scolds Luke harshly about how disgusting it is to her that he's sitting on his *** while his friends are going to be killed if he doesn't help. That scene is in stark contrast to the idea that Johnson was glorifying Luke for his restraint. It was actually quite the opposite.

 

[crows]

And if people get worked up enough about TLJ to boycott the franchise, there's nothing I can say to get them to see it any differently.

Rian Johnson's job was to take Abrams' story and progress it his way. If Disney/LFL wanted Abrams' vision to play out for the entire trilogy, then guess what? They could have had him write the whole F'ing trilogy and just have Johnson direct part 2. But they didn't. So, no, apparently it wasn't Johnson's job to keep doing Abrams' job.

Abrams had enough clout to get Johnson to keep the story going in a certain direction. The two interacted with one another. Now Abrams can finish the story however he wants.

sure but this is not HIS franchise. Rian doesnt own this characters or this story right ?
Rian was given the wheel of a car to drive but he wasnt supposed to drive it Off road and crash it. right? this is not Rians project.

Disney trusted Kathleen Kennedy and let her work with these directors. do you think Disney is happy that solo had to waste more money on reshoots because Kennedy couldn't be professional? do you think disney liked having to reshoot solo?

What rian did is like if i took Jurassic park and added Time traveling and added aliens. So now you have the dinosaurs in the park but at night they are visited by aliens from the future.

Because thats my way right? you would be happy with that? future aliens going to jurassic park, thats what you would want right? you would defend me for doing that ?

 

[Franken Berry]

Your interpretation (that I put in bold) is one reason why I'm so disappointed that Luke's "The Caretakers are about to be pillaged" scene was cut from the theatrical film. In it, Rey scolds Luke harshly about how disgusting it is to her that he's sitting on his *** while his friends are going to be killed if he doesn't help. That scene is in stark contrast to the idea that Johnson was glorifying Luke for his restraint. It was actually quite the opposite.

No, Johnson cut the scene because it convoluted his message. If they intervened, the end result would be worse. That was the point. Violence begets violence.

 

[ajp4mgs]

sure but this is not HIS franchise. Rian doesnt own this characters or this story right ?
Rian was given the wheel of a car to drive but he wasnt supposed to drive it Off road and crash it. right? this is not Rians project.

Disney trusted Kathleen Kennedy and let her work with these directors. do you think Disney is happy that solo had to waste more money on reshoots because Kennedy couldn't be professional? do you think disney liked having to reshoot solo?

What rian did is like if i took Jurassic park and added Time traveling and added aliens. So now you have the dinosaurs in the park but at night they are visited by aliens from the future.

Because thats my way right? you would be happy with that? future aliens going to jurassic park, thats what you would want right? you would defend me for doing that ?

Johnson doesn't own the characters or the franchise. Disney does. And Disney/LFL approved Johnson's story. So, it's their responsibility - and it's their right - to tell Star Wars now. They get to approve, or shoot down, whatever they want.

I hate a lot of what Disney/LFL have introduced into the SW landscape too, trust me! But the actual story within TLJ didn't bother me. It surprised me, but it entertained me.

And I get your point about time-travelling aliens in JP, but I didn't see anything happen in TLJ that was anywhere near that much of a perversion of what came before it. Agree to disagree, I guess.

No, Johnson cut the scene because it convoluted his message. If they intervened, the end result would be worse. That was the point. Violence begets violence.

In that scene, Luke explicitly tells Rey that her pro-active reaction was exactly what the Resistance needed. Not the old Jedi way - where they'd let something like the Caretaker village being plundered happen over and over again because the Jedi would be taught to only act in order to maintain balance. That was the point of the lesson.

 

[Khev]

I agree, that Luke was both testing Rey during the combat sequence, and intentionally trying to disgust her during the milk drinking scene. However, what bothers me about the depiction of Luke is that he's embraced pacifism, seclusion and withdrawal because he feels that intervention as a Jedi would mean hubris, and a sort of domination. Luke's competence with the Force, as power, is portrayed as somehow unjust or destructive.

I can easily cut Luke some slack considering that after Vader turned on the Jedi and wiped them out (after a thousand generations of peace) that instead of *another* thousand generations of peace a brand new Vader immediately does the *exact same thing* after being trained on Luke's watch. I think it'd be pretty hard not to feel like a failure. I mean imagine if the SEAL Team Six guy who took out Osama Bin Laden then taught his own nephew how to use an AR-15 and then that kid went out and used that knowledge to recruit some terrorists and blow up six more American skyscrapers. I'm sure that guy would have a hard time not thinking "******! What the hell is the point??!?"

That's basically the position that Luke was in so I don't fault the mindset of his character but I do understand why people would be put off by watching him deal with such a tragedy in the first place.

Another thing I noticed with Luke's character is that he seems to have a meta awareness of the space opera saga that he's a part of that is shared by other characters in the new films. Han flippantly states that there's always a way to blow up whatever new Death Star as if he gets the "formula", Rey seems to have a specific awareness of the Force but *only* based on what we've seen in other films (as if she herself were a part of the audience), DJ makes note that the Rebels and Empire are in a constant state of one side blowing up the other and so forth. The characters are practically breaking the fourth wall at this point and I actually don't have a problem with it.

I like SW when they're fast and loose with the seriousness of the drama and that's an aspect that goes all the way back to the OT. The PT took itself *so* seriously with the characters' melodramatic antics cranked up to 11 in every single scene that you couldn't help but laugh at it. So I do see TLJ Luke as somewhat recognizing that there's really no happily ever after per se, just an ongoing series of conflicts (and he's literally right) and that as a film character he was almost rebelling against the actual game plan of the studio that owns the franchise which I find both bizarre and awesome, lol.

Maz Kanada: "The conflict is forever; first the Sith, then the Empire, now the FO, so mark your calendars every year to get new tickets and merchandise, go Disney!"

Luke Skywalker: "Eff that, that's not what I signed up for, I'm out." I mean he actually kind of rejects Disney's company line *on screen*, lol.

 

[Franken Berry]

Johnson doesn't own the characters or the franchise. Disney does. And Disney/LFL approved Johnson's story. So, it's their responsibility - and it's their right - to tell Star Wars now. They get to approve, or shoot down, whatever they want.

I hate a lot of what Disney/LFL have introduced into the SW landscape too, trust me! But the actual story within TLJ didn't bother me. It surprised me, but it entertained me.

And I get your point about time-travelling aliens in JP, but I didn't see anything happen in TLJ that was anywhere near that much of a perversion of what came before it. Agree to disagree, I guess.




In that scene, Luke explicitly tells Rey that her pro-active reaction was exactly what the Resistance needed. Not the old Jedi way - where they'd let something like the Caretaker village being plundered happen over and over again because the Jedi would be taught to only act in order to maintain balance. That was the point of the lesson.

This is why the scene was omitted. Again, it convoluted the message. He's willing to advocate that Rey join the resistance, but he's unwilling to give her power in teaching her how to wield the force. Why? Because too much power is too dangerous. Luke contradicts himself. It makes no sense. Why would he advocate helping people, but continue to be a hermit on an island? Why would he advocate Rey helping the resistance, but be concerned about asymmetrical power in wielding the force?

There's no internal logic to the message Johnson cobbled together. We're to understand that:

1) The Jedi should end, because everyone should wield the force
2) Luke won't teach anyone how to wield the force, particularly if they're powerful
3) Rey should join the resistance and fight, but
4) The Jedi were wrong, that there needs to be a balance that is maintained

Yes, again, that's why the scene was deleted. Johnson contradicts himself. Luke won't train Rey because she's too dangerous, and yet Luke argues that it's hubris to maintain the Jedi, because the force should belong to everyone. Luke hides from the world, for fear that his intervention as a Jedi, by it's very nature is a form of imbalance, and yet he advises Rey to intervene (though not as a Jedi).

You miss the point. Yes, Rey should join in the resistance and fight, but that means she must lack the restraint required to be a Jedi. Without that restraint, she'd be too dangerous with so much power, which is why Luke won't train her. He believes the Jedi are ineffective, because the only way to wield power constructively is to allow certain ruin, in the name of balance. Sure, she can rush into battle as someone "force sensitive", but as a Jedi, her desire to rush into battle would lead her to the dark side. That was Johnson's point. There's cohesion, so long as you grant Johnson his braindead philosophy.

 

[Python]

TLJ will always be another "Alien 3" IMO. To this day I enjoy A3....

I think this is an unfair comparison personally. Alien 3 was actually a really good movie for starters. It's overwhelming hate is undeserved imo. And here's why. While Alien 3 probably isn't what people wanted after Cameron took the franchise in a very different direction. It is a better Alien movie than the infinitely more popular "Aliens". A3 stuck to the original formula from the 79 movie, it created a wonderfully dingy (and yet weirdly beautiful setting) And threw in a brilliant cast whom were inevitably and desperately picked off one by one by the fearsome Dog alien, even when they appeared to have the upper hand. It did things differently, even having the balls to kill off two of the main cast members before even properly starting, there by setting the tone and hammering home a sense of futileness to fighting the xenos as they often win. But ultimately it stuck to the already established formula of the franchise.

Rian Johnson could have learned a lot from Alien 3 now I think about it. He did not go this route. He clearly wanted to leave his mark and do things differently, but he didn't seem to care about sticking to established aspects of the franchise while doing so. Like he said himself, he just wanted to piss off a few people. And this was a good way to do so. It appears to be an ego project of his, one that clearly split the fan base as intended. I actually understand why people may not like Alien 3, it was very different (but faithful) But I cannot fathom how the opposite can be said of TLJ, it's beyond me to find much of an enjoyable movie within it, a few good scenes sure. But then we are all different of course. I just hope this ego project ends up being a one off, just as Alien 3 sadly was before the franchise went more Hollywood again....

 

[ajp4mgs]

This is why the scene was omitted. Again, it convoluted the message. He's willing to advocate that Rey join the resistance, but he's unwilling to give her power in teaching her how to wield the force. Why? Because too much power is too dangerous. Luke contradicts himself. It makes no sense. Why would he advocate helping people, but continue to be a hermit on an island? Why would he advocate Rey helping the resistance, but be concerned about asymmetrical power in wielding the force?

There's no internal logic to the message Johnson cobbled together. We're to understand that:

1) The Jedi should end, because everyone should wield the force
2) Luke won't teach anyone how to wield the force, particularly if they're powerful
3) Rey should join the resistance and fight, but
4) The Jedi were wrong, that there needs to be a balance that is maintained

Yes, again, that's why the scene was deleted. Johnson contradicts himself. Luke won't train Rey because she's too dangerous, and yet Luke argues that it's hubris to maintain the Jedi, because the force should belong to everyone. Luke hides from the world, for fear that his intervention as a Jedi, by it's very nature is a form of imbalance, and yet he advises Rey to intervene (though not as a Jedi).

You miss the point. Yes, Rey should join in the resistance and fight, but that means she must lack the restrain required to be a Jedi. Without that restraint, she'd be too dangerous with so much power, which is why Luke won't train her. He believes the Jedi are ineffective, because the only way to wield power constructively is to allow certain ruin, in the name of balance. Sure, she can rush into battle as someone "force sensitive", but as a Jedi, her desire to rush into battle would lead her to the dark side. That was Johnson's point. There's cohesion, so long as you grant Johnson his braindead philosophy.

If I missed the point, you're going to have to forgive me for missing it even further here. Luke was objecting to the idea of "Jedi" because that idea hasn't been keeping the same tragedies brought forward by the likes of Dooku, Vader, and Kylo from happening. In fact, the Jedi led to them! That's his objection. He wants Rey to follow a different path. He fears her power because he's seen how power like that has been fostered by the Jedi, only to have it bite them on the *** when they turn to the Dark Side. He's seen a Rebellion take down a second Death Star without people using the Force. He saw Han's crew (and freakin' Ewoks) take down a shield generator. That allowed Lando (and more non-Force-wielding people; non-Jedi) to destroy the Death Star. No Jedi necessary there. Emperor Palpatine still would have died. Vader would have died there too.

Without the Jedi there would have been no Vader in the first place. There would have been no Kylo; only a Ben Solo. That's where Luke's head is at in TLJ. He's not preaching against fighting the good fight; he's saying that the Resistance shouldn't rely on Jedi to overcome the First Order. The Jedi are what Luke believes is at the root of the problem throughout most of the movie.

It's not about pacifism. It's not about doing nothing. It's the opposite. It's about not relying on ancient mysticism, and on the old ways that have done nothing but recycle and worsen the problem of the evil threatening the galaxy.

The deleted scene was cut for fear that it might make Luke look like an even bigger jerk. Instead, you're assuming semi-nefarious motivations for cutting the scene, when there's no justification for believing that.

Again, sorry for missing the point.

 

[Franken Berry]

I can easily cut Luke some slack considering that after Vader turned on the Jedi and wiped them out (after a thousand generations of peace) that instead of *another* thousand generations of peace a brand new Vader immediately does the *exact same thing* after being trained on Luke's watch. I think it'd be pretty hard not to feel like a failure. I mean imagine if the SEAL Team Six guy who took out Osama Bin Laden then taught his own nephew how to use an AR-15 and then that kid went out and used that knowledge to recruit some terrorists and blow up six more American skyscrapers. I'm sure that guy would have a hard time not thinking "******! What the hell is the point??!?"

That's basically the position that Luke was in so I don't fault the mindset of his character but I do understand why people would be put off by watching him deal with such a tragedy in the first place.

Another thing I noticed with Luke's character is that he seems to have a meta awareness of the space opera saga that he's a part of that is shared by other characters in the new films. Han flippantly states that there's always a way to blow up whatever new Death Star as if he gets the "formula", Rey seems to have a specific awareness of the Force but *only* based on what we've seen in other films (as if she herself were a part of the audience), DJ makes note that the Rebels and Empire are in a constant state of one side blowing up the other and so forth. The characters are practically breaking the fourth wall at this point and I actually don't have a problem with it.

I like SW when they're fast and loose with the seriousness of the drama and that's an aspect that goes all the way back to the OT. The PT took itself *so* seriously with the characters' melodramatic antics cranked up to 11 in every single scene that you couldn't help but laugh at it. So I do see TLJ Luke as somewhat recognizing that there's really no happily ever after per se, just an ongoing series of conflicts (and he's literally right) and that as a film character he was almost rebelling against the actual game plan of the studio that owns the franchise which I find both bizarre and awesome, lol.

Maz Kanada: "The conflict is forever; first the Sith, then the Empire, now the FO, so mark your calendars every year to get new tickets and merchandise, go Disney!"

Luke Skywalker: "Eff that, that's not what I signed up for, I'm out." I mean he actually kind of rejects Disney's company line *on screen*, lol.

In the OT, the force was used in self-defense, as opposed to attack. There was a need for balance, but "imbalance" wasn't a systemic ideal, so much as a balance of character traits. If you are "imbalanced", you become filled with fear and hatred. When there was an "imbalance" in the world, it was implied that the world had unchecked fear and hatred guiding behavior. When tyranny ruled in the form of The Empire, it was because hate and fear had caused an imbalance.

The new trilogy applied the concept of "balance" to a criticism of power. Johnson is being critical of utilitarianism, arguing that the Jedi represent a kind of monopoly over power, justified in allowing for less harm. This changes the mythology.

I love Shakespeare. I love that Hamlet, Othello, Lear and MacBeth are deeply flawed protagonists, whose flaws drive the plot forward in promoting ideas about virtue, or knowledge. I also love Breaking Bad, which is very Shakespearean. Want to make Luke a tragic figure? Great! However, when the subtext of the film amounts to idealistic brain puke, hack-written with heavy-handed plot tangents and amateurish dialogue, that's a problem.

The Last Jedi created an anti-climax for Luke's character arc, while advocating divisive ideas that everyone is currently arguing about within our culture. It took escapist fantasy and turned it into nauseating propaganda. I understand Johnson's "vision". It wasn't subtle. Like Luke's penchant for Space *******, I just found it distasteful.

 

[Franken Berry]

If I missed the point, you're going to have to forgive me for missing it even further here. Luke was objecting to the idea of "Jedi" because that idea hasn't been keeping the same tragedies brought forward by the likes of Dooku, Vader, and Kylo from happening. In fact, the Jedi led to them! That's his objection. He wants Rey to follow a different path. He fears her power because he's seen how power like that has been fostered by the Jedi, only to have it bite them on the *** when they turn to the Dark Side. He's seen a Rebellion take down a second Death Star without people using the Force. He saw Han's crew (and freakin' Ewoks) take down a shield generator. That allowed Lando (and more non-Force-wielding people; non-Jedi) to destroy the Death Star. No Jedi necessary there. Emperor Palpatine still would have died. Vader would have died there too.

Without the Jedi there would have been no Vader in the first place. There would have been no Kylo; only a Ben Solo. That's where Luke's head is at in TLJ. He's not preaching against fighting the good fight; he's saying that the Resistance shouldn't rely on Jedi to overcome the First Order. The Jedi are what Luke believes is at the root of the problem throughout most of the movie.

It's not about pacifism. It's not about doing nothing. It's the opposite. It's about not relying on ancient mysticism, and on the old ways that have done nothing but recycle and worsen the problem of the evil threatening the galaxy.

The deleted scene was cut for fear that it might make Luke look like an even bigger jerk. Instead, you're assuming semi-nefarious motivations for cutting the scene, when there's no justification for believing that.

Again, sorry for missing the point.

You haven't contradicted anything I've said. Yes, the Jedi are inadvertently responsible for the Sith. In a way, that is Luke's concern: that power begets power. That's why the subtext involves pacifism. It's the idea that if you refuse to exert power, power will somehow dissipate. How? Pacifists never explain that. In TLJ, Luke knows that there are no more Sith, and that he's The Last Jedi. His hope is that Ben won't become a Sith, and Rey won't become a Jedi thereby rekindling the endless cycle. The existence of Power is the problem.

Luke won't meddle in the affairs of his friends, even though he realizes they need him. Why? Because he's afraid of his own power. The entire film rails against asymmetrical power, whether it be with the force, or "space vegas". It's a film about egalitarianism.

 

[ajp4mgs]

You haven't contradicted anything I've said. Yes, the Jedi are inadvertently responsible for the Sith. In a way, that is Luke's concern: that power begets power. That's why the subtext involves pacifism. It's the idea that if you refuse to exert power, power will somehow dissipate. How? Pacifists never explain that. In TLJ, Luke knows that there are no more Sith, and that he's The Last Jedi. His hope is that Ben won't become a Sith, and Rey won't become a Jedi thereby rekindling the endless cycle. The existence of Power is the problem.

Luke won't meddle in the affairs of his friends, even though he realizes they need him. Why? Because he's afraid of his own power. The entire film rails against asymmetrical power, whether it be with the force, or "space vegas". It's a film about egalitarianism.

Everyone can take their own subjective interpretations away from any story or plot. You see the film, at least in part, as being a social commentary on the dangers of power being possessed and wielded in an asymmetrical way. You see Luke as an embodiment or metaphor of that larger concept. So, you interpret a message of pacifism being preached. But I see it differently. I see the central theme that power doesn't need to lie exclusively in the hands of a chosen few, but that it can be harnessed and magnified with a collective effort of like-minded individuals resisting the oppression wrought upon them by evil. It's not about power, or even great power, being a problem. It's about the hubris behind the idea that great power is something that should be the exclusive domain of a small sect (the Jedi).

Luke knows there's a Snoke out there. Luke knows there's a Kylo out there. It's too reminiscent of what Luke saw before. In his view (at least to start the film), history repeating itself was a sign that something needed to change. In his remorse over his nephew turning to the Dark Side, Luke isolated the Jedi/Sith dynamic as being the problem. His lessons to Rey weren't about being a pacifist; they were about being an activist not beholden to some ancient tradition with an antiquated philosophy that rests too much dependence of the fate of an entire galaxy on these select few Jedi practitioners. And these Jedi, in their hubris, have been ineffective at preventing the spread of the Empire and First Order . . . all because of the notion of "balance," and reliance upon their Jedi order to be the main peacekeepers.

Rey could be the way forward, as Luke views her, by using the Force. But, not using it as some exclusive entity owned by the Jedi. He explicitly tells her that the Force shouldn't belong to the Jedi. That doesn't suggest that she should sit it out and be a pacifist. Luke sits it out because he feels that his role as Jedi Master would make the problem worse, and only foster the cyclical nature of the Jedi/Sith conflict. His view changes in the end. His redemption. He tells Kylo that the war is just beginning (not exactly a pacifistic message). He tells Kylo that he (Luke) is not the last Jedi. "See you around, kid" is his way of saying that he's not going to abandon the effort to prevent Kylo from winning the ultimate struggle. Rey and the Resistance will take care of things. As Leia says, they have all that they need. And what they need doesn't involve being a pacifist who does nothing in terms of using power to thwart evil. Quite the opposite.

 

[crows]

 

[Franken Berry]

Everyone can take their own subjective interpretations away from any story or plot. You see the film, at least in part, as being a social commentary on the dangers of power being possessed and wielded in an asymmetrical way. You see Luke as an embodiment or metaphor of that larger concept. So, you interpret a message of pacifism being preached. But I see it differently. I see the central theme that power doesn't need to lie exclusively in the hands of a chosen few, but that it can be harnessed and magnified with a collective effort of like-minded individuals resisting the oppression wrought upon them by evil. It's not about power, or even great power, being a problem. It's about the hubris behind the idea that great power is something that should be the exclusive domain of a small sect (the Jedi).

You're contradicting yourself. If the film is about the dangers of power "exclusively in the hands of a chosen few", then it's about assymetrical power. So it is about power.

And these Jedi, in their hubris, have been ineffective at preventing the spread of the Empire and First Order . . . all because of the notion of "balance," and reliance upon their Jedi order to be the main peacekeepers.

Again, it's a story about egalitarianism, where "imbalance" pertains to unequal power, as opposed to "imbalanced" character traits like hatred and evil, as was the case in the OT. You're confirming everything I've been saying. You just can't admit that it's moronic. In order to stop someone from being malevolent, you have to exert power over them. Only a pacifist would say that power should be "evenly distributed", as if one's outlook is irrelevant to power. Luke's exile is proof that his ability is irrelevant if he's unwilling to use it, so if everyone has "equal ability", those willing to use it will be more powerful. That's how power works. Most people would say that malevolent people have to be dominated: have their power taken from them. Johnson disagrees, in a way that is inexplicable. It's dumb.

Perform whatever mental gymnastics you want. The subtext is explicit, poorly written and on the nose. You're agreeing with my interpretation even as you disagree, because it's too obvious to ignore. It's a film about centralized power causing conflict. The Vegas scene wasn't irrelevant or superfluous. It was Johnson's statement of intent behind the entire film. Those who sell weapons, sell them to both sides of the conflict, because violence perpetuates itself.

 

[ajp4mgs]

You're contradicting yourself. If the film is about the dangers of power "exclusively in the hands of a chosen few", then it's about assymetrical power. So it is about power.



Again, it's a story about egalitarianism, where "imbalance" pertains to unequal power, as opposed to "imbalanced" character traits like hatred and evil, as was the case in the OT. You're confirming everything I've been saying. You just can't admit that it's moronic. In order to stop someone from being malevolent, you have to exert power over them. Only a pacifist would say that power should be "evenly distributed", as if one's outlook is irrelevant to power. Luke's exile is proof that his ability is irrelevant if he's unwilling to use it, so if everyone has "equal ability", those willing to use it will be more powerful. That's how power works. Most people would say that malevolent people have to be dominated: have their power taken from them. Johnson disagrees, in a way that is inexplicable. It's dumb.

Perform whatever mental gymnastics you want. The subtext is explicit, poorly written and on the nose. You're agreeing with my interpretation even as you disagree, because it's too obvious to ignore. It's a film about centralized power causing conflict. The Vegas scene wasn't irrelevant or superfluous. It was Johnson's statement of intent behind the entire film. Those who sell weapons, sell them to both sides of the conflict, because violence perpetuates itself.

You're making an argument that "in order to stop someone from being malevolent, you have to exert power over them" as if TLJ defies that logic in its overall plot (as opposed to just that stupid quote from Rose). The problem with your suggestion is that in the actual movie, a Resistance leader exerts power to destroy a fleet of Star Destroyers. In the same movie, Rey (the main protagonist, mind you) destroys TIE Fighters from the Falcon (exerting power against these tools of the malevolent First Order) as she gleefully says "I like this!!" In the same movie that Leia grants Poe permission to exert power and "go blow something up" belonging to the malevolent antagonists. The same film where Finn exerts power to kill (presumably) the malevolent Phasma. And so on . . .

This is supposed to be the movie that you allege is preaching pacifism as a central theme? But, I'm the one performing mental gymnastics? Okay, fine. I'll let anyone reading this whole exchange make their own judgment about that.

Franken Berry, you and I see eye-to-eye on more than you realize. I've enjoyed reading your posts (even if I disagree with some of them) ever since you joined. I will continue to enjoy reading your posts going forward. But our debate here is probably boring the crap out of everyone else. I'll keep it going if you want, but I think we both know that neither one of us is going to convince the other.

I stand by everything that I've written as my personal (and obviously subjective) interpretation of TLJ. I'm not performing mental gymnastics to enjoy TLJ or defend it. All I do is reiterate what played out on screen. I've watched the movie several times - I see it for what it is in its overt presentation; and any subtext people want to read into it is up to them. I think your perception about the pacifist theme as an an overarching message for the whole movie is misguided, but I won't be able to do anything to get you to agree with me.

It is what it is. TLJ doesn't work for you. It does for me (not on all levels, but in general).

 

[Franken Berry]

You're making an argument that "in order to stop someone from being malevolent, you have to exert power over them" as if TLJ defies that logic in its overall plot (as opposed to just that stupid quote from Rose). The problem with your suggestion is that in the actual movie, a Resistance leader exerts power to destroy a fleet of Star Destroyers. In the same movie, Rey (the main protagonist, mind you) destroys TIE Fighters from the Falcon (exerting power against these tools of the malevolent First Order) as she gleefully says "I like this!!" In the same movie that Leia grants Poe permission to exert power and "go blow something up" belonging to the malevolent antagonists.

Johnson entered into a franchise where there were good guys, and bad guys trying to blow each other up. So he carries the narrative of oppressor and rebellion, as a pacifist, who demonstrates that the violent resistance of the oppressed fails to end conflict. There's no contradiction there. He's not condemning self defense on moral grounds. He's demonstrating that violent resistance is impractical. That's still pacifism. The entire climax of the movie involved Luke as a hologram, winning the day by not fighting so that the Rebels can flee. He maintained his withdrawal, while saving the day. What message does this send? A convoluted one, at best. However, there's a whiff of righteousness in Luke's refusal to engage in combat, no? We're meant to believe that this is the ultimate expression of Luke's evolution: his ability to save his friends, without using his power for violence.

Personally, I'd have sliced Kylo in half, and invited everyone back to the island for some Space ***** milkshakes. Ah well.

 

[Khev]

In the OT, the force was used in self-defense, as opposed to attack. There was a need for balance, but "imbalance" wasn't a systemic ideal, so much as a balance of character traits. If you are "imbalanced", you become filled with fear and hatred. When there was an "imbalance" in the world, it was implied that the world had unchecked fear and hatred guiding behavior. When tyranny ruled in the form of The Empire, it was because hate and fear had caused an imbalance.

The new trilogy applied the concept of "balance" to a criticism of power. Johnson is being critical of utilitarianism, arguing that the Jedi represent a kind of monopoly over power, justified in allowing for less harm. This changes the mythology.

With all due respect it boggles my mind how so many people who hate TLJ latch on to Luke's mistakes as the "message" of the movie or a restructuring of the Saga's mythology. It really is quite bizarre. It'd be like me saying that Rocky III sucked because instead of promoting hard work and picking yourself up after defeat that the message of the film is to quit and be a p***y. Who would say that? Anyone who closed their eyes during the entire third act I guess.

Luke's full of **** for pretty much the entire film until Yoda shows up. "I can't accomplish anything by facing the entire FO with a laser sword. It's time for the Jedi to end. Powerful light, powerful dark. Boo hoo bla bla bla." All bull**** that he pretends is true in order to cope with his failures. But Yoda sets him straight (and his reaction to Yoda burning the tree proved beyond a doubt that he never believed his own BS rhetoric) and he puts himself out there, reconnects with the Force in pretty much the most dramatic way possible (so much for fearing the Dark Side "balancing" nonsense) and declares that the Jedi Order *will* continue through Rey thereby giving it his full endorsement.

The movie literally shows an extended dramatic close-up of his lips saying those exact words but your take-away was that all the BS he stated when Rey first met him on the island was the true message of the movie?

 

[Spartan Rex]

 

[Franken Berry]

With all due respect it boggles my mind how so many people who hate TLJ latch on to Luke's mistakes as the "message" of the movie or a restructuring of the Saga's mythology. It really is quite bizarre. It'd be like me saying that Rocky III sucked because instead of promoting hard work and picking yourself up after defeat that the message of the film is to quit and be a p***y. Who would say that? Anyone who closed their eyes during the entire third act I guess.

Luke's full of **** for pretty much the entire film until Yoda shows up. "I can't accomplish anything by facing the entire FO with a laser sword. It's time for the Jedi to end. Powerful light, powerful dark. Boo hoo bla bla bla." All bull**** that he pretends is true in order to cope with his failures. But Yoda sets him straight (and his reaction to Yoda burning the tree proved beyond a doubt that he never believed his own BS rhetoric) and he puts himself out there, reconnects with the Force in pretty much the most dramatic way possible (so much for fearing the Dark Side "balancing" nonsense) and declares that the Jedi Order *will* continue through Rey thereby giving it his full endorsement.

The movie literally shows an extended dramatic close-up of his lips saying those exact words but your take-away was that all the BS he stated when Rey first met him on the island was the true message of the movie?

The film lacked cohesion, thematically. It was a cluster#@$! of ideas stitched together in a haphazard way. Was Luke giving his endorsement of the continued conflict between Jedi and Sith? Or was he conceding that the Jedi would continue to exist, because Yoda told him so? Big difference. There's no indication that Luke decided he no longer thinks everyone should use the power of the force. He wasn't suddenly enthusiastic about the Jedi order, or tradition, or the idea that power be centralized the way it had been. He could just as easily have meant that everyone can be a Jedi. Cue broom-boy.

The point of that scene, is that the conflict Kylo engaged in was futile. He killed his father, but now Han will always be with him. If he kills Luke, Luke will always be with him, too. And the Jedi? Still going. No point in fighting. Sounds a lot like hermit Luke to me. And he did it in hologram form! If all of his "Boo hoo bla bla bla" was just nonsense, why not show up to, oh, I dunno, actually end the conflict? Kill Kylo?

It's an absurd film. I don't know why you think Luke would suddenly embrace a monopoly over the force, after railing against it. All he did, was acknowledge the futility of Kylo's violence. It in no way endorsed the traditions he'd been railing against. It was just out of his hands.

 

[Khev]

It looks to me like you simply didn't understand the movie Franken Berry (great username btw, lol) or that maybe you simply don't want to understand it. The "point" of Luke facing Kylo as stated by both the director himself and the film's on-screen narrator (Poe) was for him to simply stall the FO long enough for the Resistance to escape. You're trying to make it into this big convoluted mess for no other reason than you apparently hated the previous set up leading up to it.

Johnson thought that a viable explanation for Luke sitting out TFA was that he had cut himself off from the Force on account of guilt/despair over not preventing Ben Solo from becoming Kylo Ren. He spouted a lot of BS to justify his actions but in the end came to his senses and helped the good guys in the only way that he could. Johnson didn't want Luke to die violently and he couldn't kill Kylo halfway through the trilogy so he came up with the idea of Force Projection which solved both problems. The end. It really isn't convoluted. At all, lol.