The Symmetry of The Last Jedi

Oh, no.
The symmetry model doesn't return things to where they started.
It's more that the same types of choices are being made, but that the choice will go a different route at the end than the beginning.
The fact that Rey doesn't involve in the moral symmetry was the point of the follow up.
Her only growth in this film is one between not accepting the idea that she should be the hero and instead believing that Luke is suppose to take up that role, and moving on to accepting that she is the one who has to go because Luke just refuses and she can't wait around forever.

That's why I used the metaphor of a curve ball right down the middle. She has a far more straight path than any other character in the film because her focus is existential (who am I, what's my worth) rather than moral (what's the right choice).

I don't think she's Boba Fett here. Her involvement level is about on par with Luke's in ESB. The primary difference is this is a much longer film with an Anakin arc also to run and focus on, so the same amount of material for Luke stretched out over 2.5 hours instead of 2 hours, especially when there's the massive amount of growth taking place in the Anakin arc that Kylo's running, probably feels small because even in ESB that path was already pretty small.
She also has less action scenes compared to many other characters, just as Luke did in ESB, so that also makes her situation in contrast to all of what's going on with Kylo seem pretty background and quiet.

It probably wouldn't have felt as small of an involvement if all we saw of Kylo was the amount we saw of Vader in ESB - basically a couple of scenes, and there was nothing to follow with Vader's arc in ESB; we weren't following how he felt or grew.
But instead, we have both the AnaKylo and the LuRey paths to manage and we're doing ESB + ROTJ simultaneously so there's just a ton to fit in, so I could see it feeling like she's just hanging around doing nothing.

I wouldn't go as far as to say she's Boba Fett, though, as Boba isn't even a supporting role in ROTJ - he's barely above the level of screen time given to extras.
If you were thinking of the PT Fett tangent, I'd say not really a comparison there either because that film wasn't written literally around his character.
TLJ is symbolically written entirely around Rey - she's right at the center of the primary theme of the film (you are your agency for choosing; not any given ideal which you learned from the world - or in another word: self-reliance). And that is Rey all the way.

The reason that doesn't feel like growth to some folks is because Rey showed pretty solid self-reliance and confidence in TFA, but TLJ actually pokes a wound in her by showing that even though she's self-reliant and strong willed, she also doesn't actually value herself as worth very much and still expects that she's just there to help to get help; not to be the help, and that this is rooted in her childhood trauma of being a nobody and only surviving that by telling herself that she was actually a somebody because her parents did care and her parents were someone out there who valued her, and that they would want to be with her again. Even if that turns out to be true, in this film she had to face the fear that her internal narrative she was using to feign self-worth was just a crutch. Like all before her, she had to let go of that which she feared. She did. She ultimately let go of determining her value through believing her family was out there and cared, and accepted the idea (truth or lie doesn't matter) that she was entirely on her own and that she could only determine her worth by comparison to her person alone. That's what the hall of mirrors was all about. Her absolute worst fear. A world of only Rey. An endless lineage of just Rey on repeat.

Kylo was the catalyst to this because firstly she tried to rebound from losing worth through family to worth through the closest thing that was feeling like family, as well as being the only other person outside of Luke whom she knew could help. And he shut that option down. She's a terrible mess at that moment because Kylo isn't just hurting her because she has compassion for him, but also because it pushes her back to being absolutely alone again - which he resonates again and pokes the wound of.
She pulls herself together, however, and overcomes this by determining that regardless if Kylo and Luke were refusing to help, regardless if what the mirror and Kylo said was true, screw all else, she was going to just go help her friends. It's only after this that she stops being beaten by her fear of being alone, and gains clear standing power that doesn't falter (all prior use of her powers have been amazing, and then they falter at the last moment).
That's a moment in every trilogy; the hero has to face their fear and be defined by how they react to facing their fear.
She defined herself by reacting to her fear of being alone; that's when she became a fellow rock lifter.
The rock lift was the first time she very specifically and in a controlled manner, used the Force. Everything previously was impulsive, highly emotionally charged, instinctual, self-preservation and not something she ever felt in control of (the mind trick was close, but that was very wobbly and only barely controlled - the rock lift was solidly controlled).
Now she's very much in control because she's in control of her fear of being alone.

So the entire story's motif is centered around her solitude; even structurally.
I find it fitting, then, that she spends a huge amount of the story away from everyone else in her party.

She went to Ahch-To to find Luke to save the Resistance, and instead faced her fear and found herself.


Cheers,
Jayson

 

I think there's the difference.
I think these two films are wonderfully written mythical stories, and the chiasmus structure is being handled better than I've seen it handled in many classic literature cases and that's very impressive indeed!

I don't think anything is clumsy in these films, and I also don't see Canto Bight as inserted as social commentary on political points in any manner different than Star Wars normally does, and more importantly, the point wasn't to be political about anything really, but to be the Jabba Palace, Pod Race, Bespin, and Kamino rolled up into one. That is, the symbol of decadence and the betrayal of neutrality rolled up into one.
If someone can relate to something in their culture and time out of that, fantastic!

However.
To be more clear, when I write symmetry, I can only refer to ESB, AOTC, and TLJ. ANH, TPM, ROTJ, ROTS and TFA are not symmetrical films.
Only the second act of any Star Wars trilogy is symmetrically designed.

The first and third acts in the past two trilogies weren't symmetrical. Instead, they were written as counter points to each other's themes (with bleed over into some themes in the second acts because SW isn't a perfectly ordered chiasmus - more like spilling coffee across three napkins and folding the middle one).

When I say the three second acts are symmetrical, I mean that they go beyond refraining themes from the first half to the second. They are also symmetrical as to when events happen on both sides of the film.
I'm looking forward to buying TLJ and pulling it up in one window playing forward, and another window playing backward simultaneously (I've also considered re-editing the second half of the film to play forward, but in reverse scene order since that's more what's going on).

And, indeed, the whole point of releasing stand alone films is to start introducing films that are free to do whatever they want, since the Saga must follow a certain structural form.

Ultimately, I look at the same things you are seeing and see very competently accomplished work, whereas to you; they are not so.
I can't really address that. That's just what it is.

If you are fully aware of all of the moving parts of the films and don't like them; rock on. That's just your vibe. I can't really address that. That's an aesthetic.

I'm sorry that you haven't enjoyed them.
I hope you do get to enjoy a new SW in the future as much as I'm enjoying these current ones!

Cheers,
Jayson

 

We have come to a point of aesthetic disagreement.

I believe we both fully understand and respect each of the other's views and thoughtfulness, but I think we simply value the content differently in quality.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Well, I have considered Fist of Legend a masterpiece specifically because the fight scenes were absolutely amazing, but the symmetrical form of the film is not the only constituent property which I enjoy.
A lot of the parts in which you have expressed frustration with, do not bother me and I enjoy some aspects which you directly do not.

I'm not, in this thread, really interested in trying to change your opinion about how well the story made sense to you.
You recognize the symmetry, but at the very least think that it does not redeem the film.

To me, the film never needed redemption. I enjoyed the entire film and I enjoyed aspects of the film which you did not.

Because I enjoyed the film, I moved beyond thinking about the scenes I liked, or the story's basic plot points, and moved on to looking at the structural form of the narrative itself.
That's what this thread is about.

It's not about whether the story made sense, or had quality writing, and I'm not going to debate the quality of the narrative story itself (things like whether it left plot holes, or altered the value of something from before, or was unbelievable, or illogical, etc..).

Primarily, I will not do so because I quite simply do not agree with those opinions and this is not the thread where I wish to address those discussions (there are plenty more threads for debating the quality of any number of given topics regarding the story elements' quality).

I enjoyed the film, and I marvel at the quality of the work that went into making a symmetrical plot line wrapped around a central theme and carried through incrementally through each character's narrative path.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Again, we disagree on the grading of the quality.
There are plenty of threads here to discuss those issues, and I have done so elsewhere than this thread.

If you find them not of good quality, in here what I will say is, I'm sorry.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

I'm happy to have provided good reading, and thank you!

I did read the series, but I was pretty young. Well. I didn't exactly read them. I listened. They were read to me as a kid along with the Chronicles of Narnia, and a Wrinkle in Time, and the like.

To be honest, it's been so long that I couldn't tell you if I was remembering something from the book or the film.
I think I'll have to propose this to my wife as our next series for nightly reading (I read to her nightly) after we finish Discworld (which...that'll be a while, but hey! We've finished the Watch tangent, and are on Rincewind's series now - almost done, so after that it's the Witches, and then we might be done).

Anyway, I am nevertheless pretty familiar with Tolkien's methods, however, because I studied him and how he went about writing at one time.

I would say that they aren't directly correlated, but that they ring a bell of the same cast because Tolkien - like Lucas - studied story telling of mythology.
Tolkien did it without the modern aid of such folks as Campbell, and really learned everything by being a sharp student of literature and myth; specifically mythologies.
This is someone who translated Beowolf first-hand, and is the one who put it back on the map as a worthy classic by pointing out the poetic symbolism and allegory in the work which, at the time, no one was paying attention to - just considering it simple monster tale literature.

He was very interested in what makes a myth, and like Lucas, wanted to make a modern mythological story, and so he examined his breadth of knowledge with exactly this in mind, and started out in similar ways which Lucas did - with world building right along narrative building - each feeding the other in a loop.

I honestly don't know if we have Campbell without Tolkien. He was really the rebirth of myth. Before Tolkien, there's just a giant gap in myth outside of local oral superstitions, but most of those were just variously remembered from older myths, and they weren't woven into a modern narrative.
Tolkien was really the first one to do that.

I have never read Tolkien's work from the perspective of examining the structural form, but I do recall that he thought of the ring as a mythical representation that power, or force, will, however we wish to think of it, must be externalized to be power or else it isn't anything, and that by the very act of externalizing the power some control of that power is inherently forfeited - regardless how much we may attempt to bind it up and keep it all.
But that man tries to keep that power under his direct control, regardless.

So, everyone is after the one ring that keeps the power of the power. (ring of rings)

I would say that this is different than the Force in that it's not egalitarian like the Force, nor a neutral concept which resonates back the individual.
I mean, the ring definitely resonates back the individual as everyone goes through various existential and moral issues regarding it even by being in its proximity, and I think that's where the two are capable of being compared (the Force and the Ring), but I think that is about as close as they seem to me.

After that, it's more that one is about the paradox of power inherently requiring the loss of power to be expressed (the Ring), and the other is about the civic responsibility and the individual's response to being aware of a larger responsibility than one's own ambitions (the Force).

I do think, however, that they both are similar in their role within the story's as the prime mover of the narrative exploration of their character's moral dilemmas, however. I just think they explore different parts of humanity than each other.


Now, as I mentioned, it's been ages, and I've never examined Tolkien for symmetrical structural form like there exists in Star Wars and old myths scattered about antiquity.
Is there a symmetrical form to Tolkien's structure that you've noticed? It's been ages since I picked up anything with his name on it. I think the last thing I read was back in high school at the local library - the history of middle-earth, and the atlas of middle-earth.


Cheers,
Jayson

 

Sure, I'll do my best.
(I'll be honest, most of my interpretations of the Force are from how Lucas et. al. talk of it, and from the symbolism in the films' relations to matching religious ontologies.)

I would think that our current cultural perspectives would render Tolkien's One Ring as evil, but I think it translated a bit differently during his time - considering the differences in morals and ethics at the time.
Keep in mind that Frodo could wield the ring and fend off the urge to do evil with it; though it strained him.
Also keep in mind that at the time, having the ability to do something, but not actualizing anything with it was not looked upon well - it was your duty to do something if you had the ability to.

This was Tolkien's philosophical dilemma that he was setting up, I believe.
Power is nothing without actualization, but actualization of power is easily employed for evil and inhumane governance.
Sauron is a victim of the paradox of power, from this perspective, and not purely evil. He himself becomes chained by the very actualization of his power to his power.
Once he puts it out into the world, it owns him, and he is dependent upon it.

Which I think has many relations to the Dark side and the Light, but that the Dark is, as you note, defined by the sufferings and trappings of Sauron, while the Light seems more along Frodo - in regards to the struggle to use power as per one's duty, but not to be owned by it.

On a related note, we should probably move over to PM's and then once we have something compiled, have you kick off a thread dedicated to the idea.

Cheers,
Jayson