From: mohr@leland.Stanford.EDU (Paul William Mohr)
Subject: Re: Themes and things (was: Just how much of SW did Lucas make up as he)
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 92 23:31:46 GMT

In article <1992Jul30.185055.17129@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> gene@midway.ecn.uoknor.edu (Gene E. Johannsen) writes:
>talcott@Apple.COM (Adam Talcott) writes:

>>I don't think when Ben did in ANH would be called lying.  What Ben tells Luke
>>is very consistent with the facts.  If memory serves, Ben tells Luke that his
>>father was "betrayed and murdered" by a young Jedi he was training who was
>>seduced by the Dark Side of the Force.  The facts were that Ben was in the
>>process of training Anakin when the latter was turned to the Dark Side by
>>Palpatine.  In Ben's eyes, by turning to the Dark Side, Anakin betrayed all
>>that he stood for as a Jedi Knight.  The fact that he says he is murdered
>>should not be taken literally; it was more of a symbolic murder.
>
>>Also, Uncle Owen mentions that he is afraid that Luke does have "too much of
>>his father in him."  One could argue that Owen is aware of Anakin's seduction
>>to the Dark Side and that he doesn't want Luke to follow down the same path.
>>Owen's refusal to let Luke communicate with Ben helps support this conclusion
>
>  Oh please!  You are stretching this far beyond the point of believability.
>Ben's explanation in RotJ for what he said in ANH makes me cringe every time
>I watch it.  It is the lowest ebb in the trilogy and inconsistent in a
>profound way.
>
   While I am also extremely uncomfortable with Ben's explanation in RotJ
for what he said in ANH, I would offer a one-word counter to the claim that
it is the lowest ebb in the trilogy: ewoks. :)
   More seriously, though, I _do_ accept the idea of Vader as Luke's father
and do not find it in conflict with the themes of ANH.

>...I'm sure Lucas planned more than one, 
>but he could not count on having the ability to make them.  I contend,
>therefore, that it is wrong to go beyond Star Wars when trying to explain
>anything in it.  Anything that happened in Star Wars happened because of
>something in Star Wars.  It has no bearing on any future movie.

   I think you meant to conclude from your above argument that "No future
movie has any bearing on ANH."  That's nitpicking on my
part though, and your point is a valid one to an extent-- that is, it is 
probably not right to try to explain Lucas' motives in making ANH by watching 
ESB and RotJ.  I _do_ think, however, that it is appropriate to view all 
three movies, and then try to make sense out of the trilogy.

>   Just so we're all clear on this, let's look at some of the underlying
>themes of Star Wars:

>   Luke is living a boring life as a farmer on an out of the way planet.  But
>he has hero potential.  Where does this potential come from? His father was
>a great warrior and a great pilot.  Therefore, we know that Luke can be the
>same.  (Remember, it's a movie, not real life.  In movies, connections like
>this make sense all the time).

   Agreed.

>  Why is Luke's father dead?  If Luke already were a hero, the movie would
>lack much.  The under-dog appeal.  The self discovery angle.  Things like
>that.  If Luke's father were alive, the first sign of talent and he would
>be in training, and would already be a great pilot.

   Agreed.

>  To make the movie thematically interesting, just the opposite has to
>happen.  Luke has to be stifled, his growth stunted.  This is Owen's function
>in the movie, since he fears the adventure that Luke's father craved, the
>adventure that ultimately killed him.  Owen's statement that Luke had too
>much of his father in him is consistent with the fact that Owen is simply
>performing his function as stifling agent.  Owen had to be removed before Luke
>could grow.  In essence, the Storm Troopers who killed Owen actually unleashed
>Luke, which ultimately destroyed them.  (Things like that are what make movies
>interesting to me.)  I doubt Owen had any idea who Darth Vader was, let alone
>that he was related to him.

   You make several good observations about the structure of the Star Wars
script.  However, in my view none of these are mutually exclusive with the
notion of Vader being Luke's father.  My personal opinion is that this is
not an accident, that Lucas had some idea (probably in the back recesses of
his head) that Vader was Luke's father.

>  Now, to step a little higher on my soap box, here is what I contend ANH
>is all about: 
>  1) Luke's father is dead.  As in door nail.
>  2) Darth killed Luke's father.
>  3) Luke is a stifled hero.
>  4) Owen is the stifler. (Sounds like a nutty job to me. :-) 
>  5) Obiwan is the teacher who shows Luke how to find the potential in him.
>   (Obviously there are more, but these are the ones that pertain to the
>    argument.)
>
   If you ask me, Star Wars is not "about" the five things you stated any
more than it is "about" the Death Star blowing up.  It is about good vs
evil and how the human spirit can triumph despite tremendous adversity.

>  It contains no clues about the future.  Stop trying to justify the Darth as
>Luke's father argument.  You sound as silly as Ben did in RotJ.  
 
   I completely disagree that it contains no clues about the future.  It is
well known that Lucas wanted to make additional SW films from the very
beginning.  Since that is the case, I think it is wrong to assume that he 
stifled all urges to put hints at some of his other ideas into the film.  I'm
not saying that the clues that Vader is Luke's father are necessarily there,
but "no clues about the future"?  I just don't buy it.
   I agree that Ben sounded painfully moronic in RotJ when he tried to explain
his words in ANH.  However, that's just plain bad dialogue (of which RotJ seems
to have an abundance) and I don't find it indicative of a serious flaw in
the _story_.  I personally think that he should have just fessed up to the
fact that he told a half-truth in order to protect Luke.
   Please don't tell me that you want to leave a post like this on the
newsgroup and expect to hear an end of people trying to justify the Luke/Vader
relationship, 'cause it ain't gonna happen.  I think you make several good
points in your article.  I respect your arguments, and can see where you get
some of your conclusions.  I don't necessarily agree with all of them, but I'm
interested in hearing and debating them. 
   If you don't want to hear any more about it, just KILL the subject, but 
please don't ask people on the other side of the fence to stop trying to 
justify the argument that they believe.  Unless I'm mistaken, that's one of the
purposes of the newsgroup.

>  Darth as Luke's father is one of the most bone headed gaffs I've ever seen.
>It destroyed the themes in ANH (see above).

[more points deleted]

>  It caused that unforgivable
>back peddling scene on Dagobah.  

   Nope.  What caused that scene was bad dialogue.  In my opinion, what
makes that scene painful is that it seems that Ben is trying to squeak out
of a lie by hiding behind some pseudo-philosophical gobbledegook.  The fact
that he lied in the first place is not the bad part.

>I wish he (Vader) had died
>earlier so that the Emporor might have fixed Luke's hair with his magic
>fingers.

   I couldn't agree with you more-- I guess the budget must have run out
before the hairstylists were hired.  Check out the blond, bearded general (or
admiral, I'm not sure) who gives part of the briefing in RotJ-- maybe he and
Mark Hamill cut each other's hair.

>  That's what I think about RotJ.  The thing that sticks in my mind is
>Luke's butt ugly hair cut.

   I don't think I can expand on that.
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  mohr@leland.stanford.edu  |           /)| | /|\|\                      |
|                            |          /  |/|/ | \ \                     |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.starwars