I’d love to believe the films’ sometimes apalling ineptitude is some kind of avant-garde attempt to comment on the nature of storytelling or something, but unfortunately I think it more likely that this one just got away from poor Mr. Lucas. And because of that, I absolutely do not blame anyone who just doesn’t care about the subtext because the main text is so lacking (for the record, I personally enjoy watching all three prequels immenesely even while admitting their sometime massive faults). I felt the same way about SOUTHLAND TALES — sure, there’s something he’s trying to get at, but who cares if you don’t even care about the plot? The myth I’m fighting here is the idea that the prequels are some kind of creative wasteland, devoid of anything of value. In fact, I consider them remarkable documents despite their unmistakable flaws, a case where Lucas shot higher than anyone wanted him to or cared to follow him.

I’ve been listening to Lucas as he goes around promoting his new book looking for some hint as to wether he sees his prequel trilogy the same way I do or not — but he’s almost completely mum on the subject except from a technology standpoint. He talks a bit about the original trilogy and its relationship to Joseph Campbell, though, and seems to noticably exclude the prequel trilogy from that school of though. True, there’s a slight whiff of some specific myths in there (Sigurd and Fafnir, Orpheus and Eurydice) but mostly the prequels are byzentine, freewheeling affairs which have little to do with Campbell’s overarching mythic types (especially the Hero’s Journey Myth which provides the skeleton for the original trilogy).

Saberman’s right that the plots resemble more of a rambling, weirdly embellished longwinded free-form tale told live by someone who can imagine cool things faster than he can incorporate them into an actual story. Lucas even acknowledges his writing was more like a “jazz riff” with a few themes and thensome noodling around in between. But wait a moment. Is that reason to write them off and assume there’s nothing in them? I say no. Lucas is an oddly details-oriented guy, and when he tosses off some fact like Qui Gon was Dooku’s apprentice, I gaurentee that he had considered its implications. Likewise, George may not have been able to keep his story together, but I’m pretty sure he can spot the fact that “Only a Sith Deals In Absolutes” in fact expresses and absolute in itself. When this sort of thing occurs, where the narrative seems to go oddly out of its way to express surprising facts and then leave them without explanation, I think it deserves at least as passing thought about what the guy is trying to get at.

More and more, I’m beginning to think the prequels are actually more of a postmodern criticism of the original trilogy than a straight continuation. Lucas knows the myths that will work on us; he spent years thinking about it an studying it. Instead, he produced something which is not only complex, dense, and mysterious, but actually dramatically alters what we thought we understood about the original trilogy (its almost a BLAIR WITCH 2 type meta-sequel, or ADAPTATION if you’re in a more generous mood). I think its an oddly appropriate trilogy for the decade that it spanned.

The original trilogy presents such a simple, clear-cut conflict which provides an upliftng emotional payoff about our ability to fight for good. The prequel turns all that on its head — everything gets all confused. We end up with many morally ambiguous parties dispatching bloody mayhem over spectacularly trivial issues. And the survivors there go on to be the moralizers we trusted so readily in the original trilogy. Turns out Obi and Yoda have hardly any moral highground over Palpatine or Anakin. They’re hypocrites and often coldhearted zealots. But when you present the issue as simply as the original trilogy does, we simply accept them as the voices or righetousness — so much so that we never even bother to ask why they’re startlingly wrong about Luke and Vader. And part of the reason we accept it so easily is we know who they’re supposed to be — the wise teacher and the oracle, respectively, in Campell’s terms.

I think Lucas may be trying to tell us a little something about how easy it is to manipulate people using Campbell’s model, and how quick people are to buy something as simple and true when its presented that way — even if we know in our heads that the real world is more like the prequel trilogy: messy and complicated.

In fairness, I think SLJ did have some badass moments in Attack. Not nearly as many as there should have been, but they’re there. “This party’s over.” bleep yes, sir, over sir, FLY AWAY FLY AWAY AAAAHHHHH!!! {g} The insects knew why to run.

For quasi-SLJ doing some of the badass things the real SLJ should have been doing as a Jedi, see Gennedy Tartarkovsky’s (sp?) 2-hour “Clone War” series. Mondo Jedi action with a nod to Mean Joe Green! (Plus, the reason General Grievous acts like a croupy wimp for most of his scenes at the beginning of Revenge? Because after fighting and killing off a bunch of Jedi, he gets insta-crushed by SAMUEL L JACKSON!! AT A DISTANCE!! AS A WAY OF EXPLAINING EXACTLY WHY HE SHOULD RUN AWAY NOW!!! {g})

Meanwhile, the opening trilogy makes far more entertaining sense (yes, including the pod racing) when it’s explained as being the result of a group of role-playing adventure gamers making up the story (and often the rules) as they go along. See: http://darthsanddroids.net/ (The writers are just about to start the Collesium Execution scene in “Attack of the Clones”.)

I don’t think they were; though they did think the political party currently in place matched their own ideals pretty well.

But they were brought in to _mediate_ a dispute between the trade federation and Naboo. i.e., they were brought in as neutral arbiters who wouldn’t pick one side or the other and who would have the ability to tell if one or the other side was lying in negotiations.

And since the Trade Federation knew very well that they were abusing the system (and Naboo) for their own benefit, it makes sense they would try to eliminate the negotiators by an ‘accidental’ discharge of gas into the room. But if “Darth Sidious” has been telling them that the Jedi are only the pawns and enforcers of the Republic, then their initial over-reaction becomes even more explainable. (First, blow up the ship–which alerts the Jedi to expect an attack, and so to watch for things like the gas discharge into the room.) Why? Because the Republic sent their enforcers!–from the Fed’s perspective, that’s tantamount to starting personal hostilities right there. (”There are two of them?!” “We will not survive.”)

One thing that always irked me about the prequels was that jedi were like some sort of offshoot of the Republic. Like in Episode one, Lucas reveals the two ambassadors to be Qui Gon and Obi Wan. I mean WTF? I just always assumed they were just a sort of religious sect, studying the force, finding inner peace, etc. I didn’t know they were naturally aligned to a political party.

And if you look at it, Lucas might be subtlety making a point here about the danger of mixing politics and religion. Now this might just be my view, because I agree with separation of church and state. But look at how the movies progress, first the jedi are ambassadors for the Republic. In the second movie they are just assisting the Republic in the war against the separatists. But by the end of Episode 2 and the start of 3 they are pretty much leading the clone army around the galaxy in the war. Obi Wan’s and other jedis are now generals in the army and they are pretty much leading a driven and ruthless mission to destroy this bunch of people who are sick with a defunct political system. They are just as ruthless to the Separatists as the Empire will become against the Rebellion.

When Obi Wan says his little speech in Episode 3 he pronounces, “My allegiance is to the Republic, to Democracy!!” Now where exactly in the annals of jedi lore does it state the force is to be used to protect peoples right to vote democratically?? C’mon. He’s blind to see his statement is just as ridiculous as Anakins supposed dedication to his new empire. Although when Anakins says it, you can tell from his voice he doesn’t really believe it. Whereas Obi Wan says it with pure conviction.

Now Palpatine is obviously not a good guy, even if he think he had some good intentions in his actions, by Episode IV he is blowing up planets for fun. Which is not cool. But you have to think, if they weren’t being lead by the dark side, those separatists really had a good point. Did you see that Senate? There’s no way anything could be done without some other planet vetoing it or something. Of course, Palpatine in the end was just using the Separatists as a distraction, but to try and correct the same supposed faults with the Republic. He just saw dictatorship as the solution rather than separation. And I can’t help to think he was also a subtle nod to Bush as well. Not the dictatorship thing, but bringing back the idea of politics and religion. Now he didn’t announce that he was a Sith Lord when he becomes the Emperor, but hey, he’s a Sith Lord. Obviously it’s going to motivate his actions. Now when you look at Bush, his obviously conservative religious views affected his presidency.

Anways sorry again Vern, Mr Subtlety and Co. have just got the gears turning in my brain. I’m just glad people have pointed out some good points from the prequels that I never considered before

Just have to say thank you to Mr Subtlety geoffreyjar and everyone else for that insight into the Star Wars prequels. I’ve always been a big fan of SW and was admittedly dissapointed at the prequels. Yet I still bought them on DVD and watch them occasionally. I’ve always convinced myself it must be because I still just like the whole SW universe and although flawed, the prequels are at least part of it.

But maybe as Mr Subtlety has said, maybe I just was confused that I was expecting that Jedi’s = good, Sith = bad. The idea that Lucas might be shaking up the whole mythology that we built up in our heads never really occured.

I like the idea that maybe the whole ‘balance of the force’ may be the ultimate destruction of the Sith and the Jedi. I mean, the force is obviously a natural element. And along come these people a few thousand years ago and start manipulating to give themselves super powers. If the natural order to things is balance then the Sith were necessary to even things out. Yet both these sides are too obsessed with wiping each other out to come to that realization.