Lightsabres and After
Apr. 12th, 2012 08:17 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
krpalmerOne minimal consolation in the face of seemingly too-frequent collisions with unexpected off-topic slams on the new Star Wars movies is to suspect that, for all the strident declarations about "the real movies" there's a terrible shallowness to just how the "four-plus good, one-on bad" crowd think of their chosen numbers. A mixture of "cool" design work, Han Solo, and special effects produced using old-fashioned technology does just seem a thin gruel to venerate to me; at times I've actually yearned for complaints different from flat dismissals, whether they be annoyed or just smug. However, through a twist of fate a little more elaborate than usual, not that long ago I did happen to see someone holding up "Luke casting his lightsabre aside" and in the next breath dismissing the new movies as "settled with just lightsabres." As if to prove you should indeed be careful what you wish for, I have to admit a "thrill of terror" coursed through me that maybe this criticism did have some bite... and then I started thinking about it.
It did seem to be asking too much from an off-topic slam for any elaboration, as usual; I was left to take the chance of poking at my own immediate reactions. I suppose the thought that worried me the most was to go from Return of the Jedi's climactic duel to Revenge of the Sith's with the thought that someone somewhere might say Obi-Wan winning by finding "the high ground" was "too easy" or "too quick." I did manage to come up with an idea or two in response, though, that perhaps there's something to "small things" being important; I've wondered in the past about whether things being "spelled out" would have attracted their own complaints.
Beyond that, though, one thought started to seem more and more obvious. Luke had defeated Darth Vader when he cast his lightsabre aside; the example held up took into account more than just fight choreography. Once I started thinking about that, the obvious contrasts were not just to contrasting Luke and his father to Anakin and Count Dooku (Anakin, obviously, was in a situation where "not taking a life" wasn't so clear an option), but to Obi-Wan leaving what was left of his opponent alive and the possible reasons he might have done that. From there, I could go back to Attack of the Clones and contemplate how Dooku had escaped the duel by presenting Yoda with a dilemma (which could either show how bold declarations of individual sacrifices serving the greater good aren't so easy to live up to in real life, or just suggest how Yoda came to that point of view in the first place) and further back to The Phantom Menace. As much as it might be said that initial duel was more just to establish the general enmity between Jedi and Sith (with the "personal" resonances to follow), it could still be suggested Obi-Wan won by moving beyond anger and pointed out how the "duel of the fates" had consequences to follow. In the end, too, the whole point of Luke "renouncing violence" seems to be its uniqueness; if the Jedi before him had been better able to reach the same sort of resonant state, there might not have been a saga in the first place.
I suppose that in thinking through all of that, I went from worrying to feeling almost frustrated again at another smug criticism not seeming so "obvious" after all. Of course, that just might mean I was right back to wishing there'd be a little more thought to the attacks, putting myself back where I started to be worried at some unforseeable point in the future.
It did seem to be asking too much from an off-topic slam for any elaboration, as usual; I was left to take the chance of poking at my own immediate reactions. I suppose the thought that worried me the most was to go from Return of the Jedi's climactic duel to Revenge of the Sith's with the thought that someone somewhere might say Obi-Wan winning by finding "the high ground" was "too easy" or "too quick." I did manage to come up with an idea or two in response, though, that perhaps there's something to "small things" being important; I've wondered in the past about whether things being "spelled out" would have attracted their own complaints.
Beyond that, though, one thought started to seem more and more obvious. Luke had defeated Darth Vader when he cast his lightsabre aside; the example held up took into account more than just fight choreography. Once I started thinking about that, the obvious contrasts were not just to contrasting Luke and his father to Anakin and Count Dooku (Anakin, obviously, was in a situation where "not taking a life" wasn't so clear an option), but to Obi-Wan leaving what was left of his opponent alive and the possible reasons he might have done that. From there, I could go back to Attack of the Clones and contemplate how Dooku had escaped the duel by presenting Yoda with a dilemma (which could either show how bold declarations of individual sacrifices serving the greater good aren't so easy to live up to in real life, or just suggest how Yoda came to that point of view in the first place) and further back to The Phantom Menace. As much as it might be said that initial duel was more just to establish the general enmity between Jedi and Sith (with the "personal" resonances to follow), it could still be suggested Obi-Wan won by moving beyond anger and pointed out how the "duel of the fates" had consequences to follow. In the end, too, the whole point of Luke "renouncing violence" seems to be its uniqueness; if the Jedi before him had been better able to reach the same sort of resonant state, there might not have been a saga in the first place.
I suppose that in thinking through all of that, I went from worrying to feeling almost frustrated again at another smug criticism not seeming so "obvious" after all. Of course, that just might mean I was right back to wishing there'd be a little more thought to the attacks, putting myself back where I started to be worried at some unforseeable point in the future.