What's the point of this trilogy?

I wouldn't even impose that on the story. Because then that prohibits mind trickery without the audience having to accept or assume that the trickster is mature. I don't think it truly expresses maturity any more than having a character show up smoking a cigarette.

For me the maturity starts to be expressed when Luke allows the Ewoks to take his weapon and assures the others that it's the right thing to do too.

 

Was Anakin even mature when he'd turned to the dark side? The prequels make it quite clear that he struggles to mature the entire way through that trilogy. And yet he had already mastered all the skills necessary to be a Jedi knight (offscreen) by the middle of the second movie.

 

But Anakin was a young child when he first began training, he was an adolescent in AOTC...he'd had a number of years learning skills.

 

But he was never mature. So putting certain skills hand in hand with maturity is clearly unreliable.

 

No it doesn't. That's not how Lucas speaks of that in his notes.
Just because Lucas uses psychic powers to express emotional metaphors for where the character is at in disposition doesn't mean anything about psychic powers being equal to maturity.

It doesn't because that's ignoring the artifice of the movie. Lucas didn't use psychic powers to tell where the character is at in terms of maturity, but in terms of emotional arcs.
That Luke's story was one of maturing creates a parallel relationship between the two loosely, but they weren't locked together.

This is in Lucas' transcripts. It's how he developed and chose to craft the story. It's already imposed into the story - that's how it was written.

Of course. And that makes sense when you look at Lucas' own waxings in development sessions and instances of him wandering around with a tape recorder.

The "mature" person is one Lucas sees as a human who understands their relationship of symbiosis with nature and the universe. It has nothing to do with psychic powers.
That you get more and more psychic powers doesn't mean much. That's a byproduct, a lesser value consequence of one's pursuit down the path of communing with nature/the universe.

Going "dark" along this way of looking at things is to attempt to twist nature and bend it to your whim - to fail to mature and instead stop short at base human level.

It's why he went off that seemingly weird tangent in the prequels of organisms inside you and the Force.

If he had remained on and done the sequel he was aiming for, it would have included revealing the Whills and building the character of "The Universe" for engagement.

It is possible that on a spiritual level we are all connected in a way that continues beyond the comings and goings of various life forms. My best guess is that we share a collective spirit or life force or consciousness that encompasses and goes beyond individual life forms. There’s a part of us that connects to other humans, connects to other animals, connects to plants, connects to the planet, connects to the universe. I don’t think we can understand it through any kind of verbal, written or intellectual means. But I do believe that we all know this, even if it is on a level beyond our normal conscious thoughts.

If we have a meaningful place in this process, it is to try to fit into a healthy, symbiotic relationship with other life force. Everybody, ultimately, is trying to reach a harmony with the other parts of the life force. And in trying to figure out what life is all about, we ultimately come down to expressions of compassion and love, helping the rest of the life force, caring about others without any conditions or expectations, without expecting to get anything in return. This is expressed in every religion, by every prophet.

- George Lucas​

The issue of greed, of getting things and owning things and having things and not being able to let go of things, is the opposite of compassion–of not thinking of yourself all the time. These are the two sides–the good force and the bad force. They’re the simplest parts of a complex cosmic construction.

- George Lucas​

The core issue, ultimately, is greed, possessiveness - the inability to let go. Not only to hold on to material things, which is greed, but to hold on to life, to the people you love - to not accept the reality of life’s passages and changes, which is to say things come, things go. Everything changes. Anakin becomes emotionally attached to things, his mother, his wife. That’s why he falls - because he does not have the ability to let go.

No human can let go. It’s very hard. Ultimately, we do let go because it’s inevitable; you do die, and you do lose your loved ones. But while you’re alive, you can’t be obsessed with holding on. As Yoda says in this one, [The scene in which Anakin seeks Yoda’s counsel] You must learn to let go of everything you’re afraid to let go of.’ Because holding on is in the same category and the precursor to greed. And that’s what a Sith is. A Sith is somebody that is absolutely obsessed with gaining more and more power - but for what? Nothing, except that it becomes an obsession to get more. The Jedi are trained to let go. They’re trained from birth, they’re not supposed to form attachments. They can love people- in fact, they should love everybody. They should love their enemies; they should love the Sith. But they can’t form attachments. So, what all these movies are about is: greed. Greed is a source of pain and suffering for everybody. And the ultimate state of greed is the desire to cheat death.

- George Lucas​

Said another way...hippy.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

In a way. But our very first introduction to her is a classic ‘save the cat’ moment where she unselfishly rescues BB-8. She didn’t have to. There’s no stakes for her. No investment. She does it because she’s a compassionate and caring person. “That's just Teedo. Wants you for parts. He has no respect for anyone.” Unlike herself who does. Then she proceeds to mend his bent antenna.

She has violent tendencies, yeah. She has a lot to be angry and resentful about. But the film shows us the true content of her empathetic character right up front. She’s a good person.

But she could have killed him in that exchange if she wanted - taken his head clean off. They had no bond at that point. He was just an aggressor. An assailant. A “monster”. She chose not to take the life of someone who'd violated her, maimed her friend and murdered her mentor. That should count for something.

Yeah, I’m onboard with you on that one. TFA introduces this innovative concept of, not just humanizing the previously faceless troopers, but painting them as sympathetic victims. Children, stolen from their families, and conditioned to be these soulless murderous automatons.

But just as soon as it raises that provocative idea, it immediate leans back on blowing them away like disposable human tissue. And doesn’t really come back to it until the third movie where it’s mostly a plot convenience than a genuinely mindful examination of anything.

“Friendship”. Now don’t let’s be silly. It was a manipulation through and through. Coming from a genuine place of want, sure. But taking his hand meant letting the Resistance die. That’s the condition of his “friendship”. Of course she rejected it.

And of course she pulled the saber back. She brought it to him because she believed he would turn. And when she threw it to him in the fight, she believed he had. When she discovers she was wrong, she tries to take it back. That all checks out to me.

But not without purpose. Her increasing violence, and the corresponding collateral damage to her friends, was a pivotal part of her character progression. It’s why she’s so fearful of her power and where it comes from.

Mostly I found the staging odd. The circumstance seems like a clear reference to the Mace/Palpatine confrontation in ROTS. They’re pretty similar in construct. But the context of that sequence is one of moral confliction. It’s presented as ethically ambiguous as to whether what Mace is doing is condonable or not. Anakin voices it as being wrong. It’s certainly in the same tone as what he’d done to Dooku earlier on and that was unambiguously wrong.

But Anakin’s perspective is compromised in that scene. His motivation isn’t really the preservation of life in a principled sense, but in a self-serving sense. He only actually cares about Palpatine’s life in so much as it supports Padmé’s and his own wellbeing. He’s isn’t impartial. The whole thing is gray and murky.

The climactic scene with Rey has her clearly recognize that her actions are causing severe harm to her aggressor, then knowingly makes multiple pushes in order to inflect more harm and then death. No ambiguity here. Rey definitely knew she was actively killing this person and the movie says ‘that was morally OK’. It was for the greater good.

I don’t hate the ending. I just wish the confrontation between “all the Sith” and “all the Jedi” had been more a personification of opposing ideologies. Which isn’t totally absent. Palp attacks. Rey defends. That’s representative. But I wish that final victory had been one of compassion conquering hatred, rather than redirected hatred conquering hatred. That didn’t feel quite right to me. I think they missed the point.

Luke’s stated goal was to ‘learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi like his father’. ROTJ deals with the continuation of that aim pretty darn directly.

He introduces himself in his recording to Jabba, “I am Luke Skywalker, Jedi knight”. Bib doubts his claim, “He's no Jedi.” Chewie evidently refers to Luke as a Jedi to Han when they reunite who also responds incredulously, “A Jedi knight? I'm out of it for a little while, everybody gets delusions of grandeur.” When Luke returns to Yoda, he’s told “Already know you that which you need.” His response? “Then I am a Jedi.” And Yoda? “Not yet.”

Is Luke a Jedi yet or not? That's a huge question being asked in the film. This underline thread of Luke’s Jedi status culminates with his declaration at the end “I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”

That Luke shows up to Jabba’s palace dressed the way he is isn’t insignificant. His outward appearance has noticeably changed. His costuming, which is obviously evocative of both Vader and Obi-Wan, but also his demeanor. He’s calm and collected now - serene. He has “the most serious mind”. He’s ACTING like a real Jedi.

The abilities he uses in that scene are also part of that Jedi adornment and not insignificant. Jabba outright calls it “an old Jedi mind trick”. Point is: He looks like a Jedi. He talks like a Jedi. He acts like a Jedi. He’s using these abilities like a Jedi. Reaction? Holy crap, Luke really is a Jedi now! THAT’S the response you’re supposed to have.

Luke’s progression toward becoming a Jedi is a metaphor for his maturation from child to adult. It’s not a subtle metaphor. The abilities he shows toward that end are external signifiers to the audience that he is indeed maturing.

It’s been established that these are things that a Jedi does. Luke is doing those things. 1 + 1 = 2, therefor Luke is a Jedi in our mind. This isn’t exactly string theory here.

 

You said it better. All of my paragraphs in my previous post were trying to convey this.

OT: Maturity
PT: Immaturity
ST: If Lucas, Social Maturity
ST: Actual one, Self-acceptance

Which is why I think it sort of strikes an odd note to a lot of folks. It somewhat goes in a different direction than what Lucas, being the hippy that he is, would have gone. Probably because self-acceptance is a bit too close to "Maturity", perhaps, for him - or just more simply, he's more interested in our place in this world existentially. How do we fit in, how should we live, what does it mean to be human, what's the bigger picture?

I think, maybe, exploring the topic of self acceptance, while a perfectly great topic, isn't exactly as interesting to Lucas compared to asking what we owe to society and to other life.

Which, you know - perhaps that's why you felt like the ST seemed somewhat "lesser"? A bit hollow in comparison. It's not that self acceptance is a bad vibe, but in a way, it kind of is trite to a certain extent compared to a discussion about the mature human and their prospective role in a symbiotic relationship with the life force of the universe.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

Actually, if I squint and think for a moment, I can kind of see how the ST we got is about Social Maturity.

Exegesis:

Everyone of the old crew is definitely going through that topic, so that's easy to see there. They all are wrestling with what they owe tomorrow, in different manners.
Society (Leia), family (Han), pupils (Luke).

Said another way, The physical, the emotional, and the spiritual.
In each case, they judge themselves to have come up short - fallen. Given a broken society, family, and lessons to tomorrow.
And now they hope they can fix it in each of their last efforts.

Side note: I think this gets a little muddled with Fisher's untimely death - it's easier to see it in Luke and Han, and I believe Leia would have had a more pronounced moment that was more clear as to her last ditch efforts related to Society, but instead - quite possibly due to the restrictions - ended up repeating Han's tangent.​

However, Star Wars is always about its topic through the main protagonist.

But our protagonist is going through the topic of self acceptance.
Actually, both of our protagonists (Ben/Rey) are. Just in different ways.
And they are one in the same person metaphorically. Two sides of the same coin.

Inside of both of them is contained the history of the Saga's past. All of it. They are both lineages of it all.

But both are judging themselves against their idolizations of that past and, for the bulk of the story, coming up short of finding themselves worthy in their own minds.

They overcome this (in the end) through accepting themselves as themselves beyond their idolizations, fears, and frustrations with what has come before them.

Which, if you quint through the haze, says that we have the dark and light within us, that in spite of all best efforts the world is given to us broken, and the noble endeavor is to rise beyond our indignations and easy excuses of justifications, and find our maturity (i.e. symbiotic human) in spite of it all (acceptance).

That is, that humanity's loftiest goal is acceptance, and that acceptance leads the way to symbiosis.​

Discussion:

I think that's the metaphor that was attempted.
I also think that it gets horribly muddy because, more than anything, they aren't Lucas.

One of the things Lucas gets a ton of flack for is his dialogue. I've defended in the past, and I think this shows a good reason why his dialogue is the way it is in ONLY Star Wars movies.

Keep in mind, other writers wrote on these movies. Several. And Fisher script-doctored the dialogue of the prequels.
I think people overlook this point FAR too easily.

It takes intention and design to have dialogue be consistently one style, even if you're not directly the one writing it.
People often will say that Lucas just forced his way through, and again - I think this gets overlooked for its value.

If Lucas had final say, and he had writers (even when he was writing), then the final lines we get are very explicitly BY DESIGN.
It's not that Lucas couldn't GET better dialogue. He could have written these things and handed it to other writers to polish the dialogue to something better than "wooden". In fact, he did do that repeatedly.

So it's not "bad dialogue" that "happened" because Lucas doesn't know what good dialogue should look like.
He has other movies. Some with even the same writers (Kasdan).

Strangely, that "Star Wars dialogue" form isn't found in there.
Could he not convince the same writer on Empire Strikes back and Return of the Jedi to write the same style of dialogue in Indiana Jones?

No. It's more that he wanted that dialogue in Star Wars.
And the reason is this muddy bit above the ST is having in conveying their idea.

In the first six movies, regardless of anything else, you're not left wondering where someone stands and what for. The general metaphor isn't hard to pick out.

But when you get more standard with your dialogue, less "wooden", you get the ST - the metaphors get a bit muddied, harder to clarify.

So I think this is the read of the ST that ties back to the same tangent Lucas was using Star Wars to discuss, but it just gets muddied by "modern" dialogue treatments that didn't stick to the "wooden" form of expository statements everywhere.

Cheers,
Jayson

 

In my opinion, the ST is an epilogue to the OT. Ultimately, this is why it is acceptable that Palpatine is the main villain. Classic characters also had to give way to new ones. The method of implementation can be criticized, but there is really nothing to argue about it. Luke died a hero, as did Leia. Han's death wasn't meaningless in some ways either.

I'm looking forward to what the new era will be like.