PT and the problem of choice: Jedi, Clones and war!

As Obi-Wan points out, the Jedi serve the senate. That the Jedi were drafted into service doesn't mean the Jedi are doing something wrong. They are trying to end the conflict. And that includes fighting in Republic systems that are being attacked. To protect them.

They are not happy in fighting a war, just like they aren't happy that there is a war. They aren't made to be soldiers, but they are capable of lending their abilities to help end the conflict sooner. And they do.


You only know the point of this war because you have seen the movies and are aware of the bad guy's plan and where it all goes. The Jedi aren't. They aren't omniscient. They are dealing with the reality that they are in and reacting to the best of their abilities. And that reality is that the Republic is about to be attacked by separatist forces.


Which mistakes are those and how is their genocide the price for their mistakes? They were killed because they were the group of people that stood for everything the Sith stand against: honor, duty, discipline, justice, selflessness... They are heroes who were betrayed, their genocide is not a price paid for any alleged mistake.


Where does that come from? There's no restoring the essence of the Jedi creed. The essence has always been there. What Luke learns from Yoda is exactly what a Padawan would have learned in the prime of the Jedi. The guidance and advice the Jedi offer in each trilogy are one. Yoda went to exile because he failed to defeat Sidious. He's public enemy number one. He needs to go into exile. Just like Obi-Wan. That's explained in the movie, along with the intent to "reappear" again:

"Until the time is right, disappear we will."


I agree that Qui-Gon is mislabeled as a rogue Jedi by people. He's a maverick, not rogue. He follows the Jedi way and respective rules. He follows the will of the Council, despite the disagreements he might have. And the Jedi are willing to listen to his take on things and evne go along with it from time to time.

So we know that arrogance was growing within the Jedi Order. This presumably provided a blind spot within which the Sith could operate. The main consensus among fans is that it was through centuries of complacency that the Jedi grew arrogant. How valid is this claim? And how damnable is it if it's the main cause?

We also know the Senate was corrupt. But just how corrupt was the Senate at that point, exactly? In TPM, Amidala herself proclaims that things no longer function as they once did. And over the next decade a growing number of systems were legitimately fed up with the Republic's problems. Can we know what the Jedi's thoughts on these matters were?
We do see Obi-Wan stating that politicians are self-interested and not to be trusted. And Dooku claims Qui-Gon was aware of the corruption but went along with it. But only because he wasn't aware of the Sith's control. None of the Jedi were because the dark side was clouding their vision. Which circles back to the putative issue of arrogance.

Now Tony brings up an interesting question: at what point do the Jedi continue to serve the Senate in their protection of the Republic despite growing corruption? In other words, how corrupt does the Seante have to be before the Jedi decide to step back out of good conscience? Their allegiance is to the ideal of democracy, and to protecting the citizens, but what about serving corrupt leadership? Just how much is it their responsibility/place to take note of, express concern toward, and/or help fix corruption in the political systems and governing bodies? Not much I'd presume.

Also, I'm not sure I could answer the question as to why Palpatine was still Chancellor at the beginning of AotC, which gives him 10 years in office. Anyone have info I might've missed?

In the commentary, Lucas says Palpatine wanted Kenobi to discover the Clone army as part of his plan to lead the Jedi down a path to accepting the army.



I imagine this means accepting the leading of the army.


I tend to think if the Jedi had admitted they did not know about the Clones, the Senate would start to see them as unfit. And if the Jedi aren't involved in the army, no Order 66.

The brilliance in Palpatine's plan, I think, was to have the Jedi learn about the Clones first, on their own, so as to give them time to get over the surprise and pretend they knew about it all along - or at least that they were ok with it.

Was hiding this fact what kept them involved in the army, just as Anakin hiding the fact he was married was what got him into trouble?

I think it's accepting in a more broad sense. Accepting its reality, buying into how it was made and for what purpose.


The senate was already starting to see the Jedi as unfit, in the sense of them being unable to keep the peace. This is more explicit in the deleted scene, but the opening of the movie states as much as well.

The problem the Jedi have in revealing their Force abilities to have diminished is not necessarily the senate, but the fact that making that information public would only draw more attention to their enemies, who would take advantage of it.


Speaking of this, I don't think this specific point is established that clearly. If anything, the opposite is implied since Palpatine says "I don't know how much longer I can hold off the vote, my friends." As if they are asking him to hold off for some more time.

We don't really know the Jedi's position regarding the military creation act. They are simply clarifying the state of things to the Chancellor. So that he doesn't count on them to act as an army capable of dealing with a possible war.

"The first real scene in the movie is with Palpatine and the Jedi, and it's primarily designed to set up the fact that the Jedi are having a hard time keeping peace and justice in the galaxy, and that they aren't really designed as an army. They are designed as a kind of police force and diplomatic corps. And I just needed to remind the audience here that there aren't enough of them to conduct a full-scale war, which is something that is more or less unknown in the galaxy at this point." - George Lucas

The emergency powers are not just to create an army. It's for everything else as well.

The impression I got was that the senate was mostly in favor of approving the act and Padmé had to plea for it to not go forward. Once it was revealed that the separatists themselves already had an army and were preparing for war, the debate virtually ended. It was only a matter of someone daring to bring the proposal forward.



Right, but my argument is not against the purpose of the act, but that the Jedi were advocating for or against it, which I don't think they are. I think they are simply laying it down to Palpatine what the situation is. That if he's counting on the Jedi to act as an army for the Republic, then he can forget it because they aren't one to begin with, and even if they were, their numbers are too small in numbers to act as one. Specially with the escalating unrest with the rise of the separatists.

Nice discussion and a good thread all-round! I've been meaning to add to it for a while (the original topic). But for now, I want to jump in with something regarding this new tangent:



I have to echo Alexrd and Subtext Mining . The vote wasn't really going in favour of Padme's anti-war group. As Subtext just pointed out, Padme implores the Senate to "wake up" in a deleted scene between the landing platform incident and the Jedi consulting with Palpatine in his office. As she later tells Anakin: "I haven't worked for a year to defeat the Military Creation Act to not be here when its fate is decided." These details imply she was doing her damndest against a government already tilting in the direction of staunch militarism.

I know real-world political analogies are unpopular, but Padme is more reminiscent, to me, of AOC (Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez): a young, impassioned woman, smarter than her years, up against a corrupt and bought-off Senate. Yes, there are people against militarism in democratic societies, but if you look at the modern United States government, left and right, or even Ancient Greece, where democracy was "born", it's clearly harder to dismantle militarism and imperialism than it is to get those things going.

Another bit of casual dialogue reinforces this idea at the beginning of AOTC, when Mace remarks that Obi-Wan "has just returned from a border dispute on Ansion." In that usual George Lucas manner, this throwaway comment (calmly stated but easily lost in the deluge) suggests that unrest is growing throughout the galaxy, combined with the assassination attempt on Padme and the Jedi (wrongly) pinning blame on "disgruntled spice miners on the moons of Naboo". Valorum may have been reluctant to do much against the Trade Federation's invasion of Naboo, but he was simply following procedure as it then was -- a situation Palpatine has been exploiting to rattle the Senate and provoke the galaxy into war ever since.

I also wouldn't put too much stock in the crawl. The crawls are very general and use blatantly inflammatory language, recalling the propagandised news reels used to announce war and control the American public in a pre-Internet era. Indeed, it occurred to me that AOTC's crawl is uniquely untrustworthy, based on this conversation, because AOTC is the "cloudy" installment of the saga, and after the crawl disappears, the camera goes *up* instead of down, inverting our perspective. Note that each paragraph seems to be telling a lie:

The first:
- "several thousand solar systems" (only our system is a solar system, based on the name of our sun), as well as the notion that all these systems have "declared their intentions" (language eerily reminiscent of war-talk coming from despots and dictators trying to make war sound inevitable). 

The second:
- "made it difficult for the limited number of Jedi Knights to maintain peace and order in the galaxy" (I guess they are also to blame for the Jedi's waning powers?).
 
The third:
- "to vote on the critical issue of creating an ARMY OF THE REPUBLIC" (first use of dramatic-sounding all-caps) "to assist the overwhelmed Jedi" (this makes it sound like Amidala is in favour of an army to assist the Jedi, but this is patently not the case).
 
So I think there's something fishy about the crawl, and it's basically trying to lead people into a trap. If you just had the crawl to go on, you might come away with a different picture, compared to what is actually shown in the next few scenes.

Later on in the film, when Dooku is talking with a suspended Obi-Wan, there is a very drawn-out moment when this tricky concept comes up: "the truth". In other words, it's hard to penetrate through the fog to what is actually going on, and all trust is breaking down in the galaxy.   



Exactly. Palpatine even tells the Jedi: "I don't know how much longer I can hold off the vote, my friends." Why would he say something like that, and then break off to allow a small loyalist committee into his office, if the situation wasn't already growing desperate, and he had people at his back (or at least wanted to lend this impression to the Jedi) pushing for the creation of an army? All the details of the film seem to point in the direction of the clamour for an army becoming incessant, and poor, beleaguered Palpatine holding things off for as long as possible (but already knowing, when the time is right, that allowing the vote, or allowing the vote to be circumvented, will swiftly put those emergency powers in his lap).

Padme seems to be one of the few senators speaking out. She has influence and commands respect, while it seems implied that most of the other senators are either corrupt or afraid of making a stand against the direction the Republic is heading in. Even hot-headed Anakin, impatient with "the system", tells Padme a little before then: "I think the Republic needs you." The film paints a dire situation, not unlike our own world, of only a few moral, principled people trying to head off the slide to autocracy and greater evil. Yes, you can blame the Sith for some of the corruption, and for exploiting it for their own ends -- but that also sounds a little like our world, doesn't it?

I sorta wish Lucas had left that deleted scene in.

Thanks for the video link. It's good to see a full version of that scene in decent quality on YouTube. Unfortunately, the sound is a bit messed up: sounds very thin, harsh, and tinny; and the subtitles are in French (though not a bad language to use for the PT). There were things that leapt out at me that I never really consciously noticed before, like just how often characters are interrupted by Palpatine (and the Jedi). Or, in the case of Bail, plain ignored ("Do you really think that's a wise decision under these stressful times?"). Palpatine is so sneaky. He pretends to listen to everyone and be open to all ideas, but there's always a patrician side poking through, and he manages to work a room just-so. I guess we're all a little bit like Palpatine. I had also never consciously noticed (as you point out) that Mace doubles down with the same line after Palpatine initially interrupts him. "If they do break away..."; (more slowly) "If they do break away..." Brilliant! 


You make a good argument, but I don't think they particularly desire that outcome. Especially not with Yoda in their midst. Maybe there is some clamour and dissension internally within the Jedi Order for an army, and maybe Mace himself flexes a slightly imperial muscle when he reminds Palpatine that the Jedi are "keepers of the peace, not soldiers". I am willing to go along with you to that extent. Maybe. But I think you are projecting your own assumptions onto the film and also ignoring Yoda at your argument's own peril. So let me just elaborate on the "Yoda" side of the equation: 

Yoda is nine-hundred years-old. I have to believe he's a bit shrewder and wiser than most: he sees the folly and the danger inherent to what is happening here. Obviously, when Palpatine asks him if he thinks it'll come to war, he basically gives a non-answer. He never waves a finger at Palpatine or stamps his little green feet and tells him war is a terrible and likely outcome, or that they need to work flat-out to vote down this wretched Military Creation Act immediately. But I would argue that Yoda is a natural anti-war advocate who counsels caution and dispassion over fear, hatred, and violence and the bugle sounds of war.

Moreover, he expresses clear relief when Amidala -- a staunch anti-war campaigner -- personally arrives in Palpatine's office: He calls her tragedy on the landing platform "terrible", and tells her: "Seeing you alive brings warm feelings to my heart." Why would he be that relieved and that warm toward her if he were hoping the Military Creation Act would pass? She is the act's greatest living opponent -- and Yoda's only going to express the greatest relief (and not rebuke her or try to claw his "pro-military" sentiment into her head in some way)? That makes very little sense to me. Yoda clearly holds a good deal of affection for Amidala -- almost as if she restores his faith in the goodness of non-Jedi. Just witness his sorrow when the twins are being born and Padme passes away. 

And you can't really have a Jedi Order without Yoda. Not here, not in this timeframe. Yoda is really the heart and soul of the Jedi Order. If you want a good insight into Yoda's attitude toward militarisation, you only have to watch the final act of the movie, and almost the final scene (the last spoken words of the film): "Victory?! Victory, you say? Master Obi-Wan, not victory. The shroud of the Dark Side has fallen. Begun this clone war has." Notice how Yoda repeats the word "victory" and utters it three times in the space of eight words. That kind of emphasis from Yoda is rare if not unique.

Furthermore, both Ki-Adi-Mundi and Mace Windu get a little pissy with Amidala when she dares to suggest that Dooku might be behind the attempt on her life. They coldly tell her that Dooku is a "political idealist, not a murderer", and that "he couldn't assassinate anyone", because (according to Mace) he was a former Jedi and murder is "not in his character". Their condescension aside, they obviously have some degree of (blind) faith that the Separatists are unlikely to go to war with a former Jedi leading them. That doesn't mean they rule it out, of course. But they seem unwilling to accept that war is inevitable at this stage. One of their own is leading the movement: it's in good hands...

That said, Mace and other Jedi, perhaps those of a more pragmatic persuasion, might see more the benefits than the hazards of the Republic having its own army. In ROTS, Mace is the one who casually says: "The Jedi would have to take control of the Senate in order to secure a peaceful transition". Yoda, on the other hand, urges caution: "To a dark place this line of thought will carry us. Great care we must take." So there is something to work with there. Yoda can't control the thoughts and actions of all the Jedi. But he clearly has tremendous influence nonetheless.

I would ultimately come down on the side of the Jedi not wanting the Military Creation Act to pass. Yes, they may be stretched thin, but that's because they're trying to maintain the shaky peace that exists. The times are a changin', but they're still attempting to keep tensions cooled and resolve disputes before they get out of hand. They might be tempted to use stronger tactics from time-to-time ("aggressive negotiations"), but that's not really the Jedi way. An army would mark the immolation of their values and ultimately make a whole bunch of problems worse. Local armies are one thing (like the ones on Naboo), but allowing the central government to have one is a whole other matter.

Indeed, after writing out all of the above, looking for a bit more material to layer into this post, I found the following excerpt from the AOTC "Junior Novelisation" by Patricia C. Wrede. The front cover bills it as "Based on the story by George Lucas and the screenplay by George Lucas and Jonathan Hales". George Lucas gets a double mention, and you can bet he had a conversation with the author and read her work closely, given the book's intended audience. It describes the later scene in the movie after the clone army has been discovered and Anakin and Padme have just relayed Obi-Wan's message from Geonosis about Separatist treachery (courtesy of Google Books):
     

So here, in this one short excerpt, the tragedy of the Jedi is cleanly laid out: They did not really want the Military Creation Act to pass, but they were reluctant to interfere in the politics of the Republic, even when the Republic was heading in a dire direction. Instead, they provided careful council and grimly took on the task of leading the army -- yet still with a flicker of hope some way could be found to resolve the conflict -- once the army was found and the situation degraded after Obi-Wan uncovered the Separatists' treachery.


Or the Jedi's concerns are concentrated upon the possibility of Palpatine's negotiations failing. Honestly, it can just be that simple, and I think the above excerpt, though focused on a later scene, bears that out. The more immediate issue is that a vote for the Republic to get its own military -- as Padme later says on Naboo -- might push the galaxy into a civil war. That is surely the worst of outcomes and a situation the Jedi would rather avoid. Again, I think the previous excerpt brings clarity to this whole matter.


You later accuse me of foisting presumptions onto the text crawl (we'll come to that), but this sounds like a presumption to me. But presumptions are fine. We all make them. And the films only give fragmented information. The Jedi could just be there to remind Palpatine of the gravity of the situation even as the film presents it. But now there's the excerpt. Here is what I had already written before finding it:

It is much more likely, in my opinion, that Palpatine is warning the Jedi that they're basically out-of-sync with the Senate, and their cautioning against the Republic acquiring an army is coming to an end. Just holding a vote on something (especially when there are agitating conditions) is an enticement to change -- and change is already happening. If thousands of systems have already left the Republic, that's a crisis situation (for the Republic) right there. So if something like a military being created is put up to vote on, there's a risk of it actually passing, with all the constitutional shocks that that entails. That, to me, is what Palpatine is saying. He even adds: "More and more star systems are joining the Separatists." He's reminding the Jedi that the push for an army -- for something to be done about this deepening crisis -- grows more pressing by the day.

The Jedi have known a thousand years of relative peace. They have established a peaceful contract with the Republic and helped ensure its prosperity (even if they haven't been able to stop corruption festering) over centuries. Yoda's lifespan basically parallels the lifespan of the Republic. In many ways, even more than Amidala, he is the Republic's greatest emblem for peace. Politicians, on the other hand, are (mostly) scheming charlatans, or well-meaning do-gooders who become corrupted by power, and they all come and go. They lack Yoda's wisdom and grace. Moreover: they don't all care about wider consequences like he does, lacking both his foresight and forbearance. And now there is a well-liked, cunning strategist who has been Supreme Chancellor for ten years, and corruption has increased rather than decreased. Why would they be happy about this and keen to see such a shocking alteration to the constitution? 

This all strongly implies that the Jedi are mostly against the act passing. Palpatine is basically saying: "Sorry, lads. I can't stem the tide forever." Him referring to them as "my friends" is his sneaky, condescending way of pretending to empathise with their concerns and acting like there is no other course available. He gives off the impression that the vote happening is inevitable: his hands are tied. This is what Palpatine does: makes a situation seem like it can really only go one way. In an extended version of the scene between Anakin and Palpatine in ROTS (their first scene together on Coruscant after the opening act), Palpatine outright tells Anakin that he "must" take direct control of the Jedi Council and that he has "no choice". In that moment, he also refers to Anakin as "my friend". Just like he tells the Senate in AOTC that "it is with great reluctance" he has agreed to the calling. There are deliberate patterns in these films. Because it's so damn good, here is that extended scene from the ROTS screenplay:


Back to our discussion here:


Mace is a realist (a mystical-realist). He is, of course, telling Palpatine something he already knows. That is part of Palpatine's ruse. Mace may not be interested in Palpatine's posturing, but that posturing is itself just a feint -- something Yoda actually begins to pick up on when Palpatine comes across as over-eager to express sympathy toward Amidala, recommending that she be placed under the protection of the Jedi (the wonderful "stink-eye" close-up):



Yoda is obviously growing suspicious of Palpatine. Would he really trust this guy with an army under his command? Because it ultimately means giving more power to Palpatine; and other rules and braking mechanisms falling away thick and fast. Especially if the Jedi can't control the situation with their waning powers.

But does Mace actually want an army? It's never made entirely clear, but I think I've addressed the general Jedi perspective above. Mace seems more worried that things will go pear-shaped than anything else. He notably remains seated, holding his chin in deep thought, when the other Jedi move off with Palpatine when the Loyalist Committee arrives:



Just look at the guy. He appears lost in deep thought and incredibly troubled. He is isolated from the other characters for a pregnant moment. Isolation is a theme that comes up very strongly in Anakin's character. In Episodes II and III, he's often strolling to a window, looking to a distant horizon, full of anguish, desperate for the internal tumult to end. Yoda's words, in both their cases, can only do so much to assuage their worries. Again, Yoda carries on, while Mace remains fixed where he is. Great symbolism.

And again, with that excerpt from the junior novelisation, most of this becomes moot -- unless you want to doubt the excerpt or something. Granted, we get more insight into Yoda's thinking than we do Mace's in the excerpt, but it's clear he finds the outcome of Palpatine receiving his emergency powers a grim moment. The Jedi held back, to let the people (or the Senate) decide, but it's clear they're not happy with the outcome. But as servants of the Republic, they accept it and do the best they can. Pressing on:


Her sudden arrival might dull the Senate a bit, but it's only temporary. That vote is still looming like a shadow over the Republic, and the situation with systems leaving the Republic is deepening. Palpatine quickly schemes to have Amidala removed from the picture so that the vote can lean more and more in his direction. Although, yes: ultimately, he manages to convince the Senate to give up decision-making power to himself. I think this merely hastens the destruction of the Republic from democracy to dictatorship. If the vote had happened, Palpatine would probably still have got an army out of it and simply found other means to put ultimate power in his lap. It would have been a longer road if the Senate initially maintained control of the army -- that's all. Palpatine would have had to pull a few more levers to transfer more and more executive decision-making to his office. As usual, he finds a way to "kill two birds with one stone" and speed everything up for his own gain. 


Even if Padme's sudden appearance initially shocks the Senate and prompts "cheering and applause" (per the script directions above), her speech isn't as soothing as you're making out. Those same directions punctuate her speechifying as follows:

- Many of the SENATORS boo and yell at SENATOR AMIDALA.
- There is sporadic yelling for and against her statements.
- There is an undercurrent of booing... and groaning.

Booing, yelling, groaning, and an "undercurrent" (of booing and groaning). The only positive there is some "sporadic yelling" that is allegedly "for" (as well as "against") her statements. Not a very positive picture.

Lucas clearly depicts the Senate as a circus environment, dominated by "greedy, squabbling delegates", rife with a cacophony of animalistic vocalisations, and "pods" that look like bumper cars. He later throws in a critical line of dialogue from a side character, one of Padme's advisers from the first film, who says: "It's outrageous, but after four trials in the Supreme Court, Nute Gunray is still the Viceroy of the Trade Federation. I fear the Senate is powerless to resolve this crisis." Again, not a positive picture for "democracy".

Padme herself seems to have accepted Sio Bibble's grim view in the next film when she asks Anakin: "Have you ever considered that we may be on the wrong side? What if the democracy we fought we were serving no longer exists and the Republic has become the very evil we've been fighting to destroy?" Already, in the timeframe of Episode II, democracy doesn't really exist and the few vestiges of it are sliding away -- the Senate is a sham and is little more than an amphitheatre stocked with paid toadies and braying jackals. Lucas said it himself:


Lucas has a lot of contempt in his bones for politics. He said very bluntly in 2003 (p. 95, "The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith", J.W. Rinzler):


And in 2015, speaking to Charlie Rose, he was still at it:




So now we have some firmer grounding to what is actually going on in these movies. I don't think it's any coincidence that the inside of the Senate chamber has a Sarlacc quality to it (Senate/Sarlacc), either. Democracy is basically eating itself again in another cosmic cycle.

Where were we?

A hawkish senator wanting the vote to be deferred is merely a deflection: a stall tactic for more time. A deferral is just a postponement. Contrast it with Amidala: She wants the whole act shot down, the other senator merely wants the vote delayed. The script direction that you supplied states that Amidala looks angry straight after the senator's interjection. If you've read Orn Free Taa's Wookieepedia description, you'll know he's actually incredibly corrupt:


The bolded part is highly reminiscent of Sio Bibble complaining that Nute Gunray had been tried four times, but he still managed to keep his position as Viceroy of the Trade Federation -- yet another measure of the insane corruption of the Senate and another example of Palpatine's string-pulling.

Palpatine is also immensely shrewd. His "reminding" the lively senator that "peace is our objective" echoes the ironic signage in "Dr. Strangelove" (a huge influence on Lucas): "Peace is our profession".



We know that Palpatine has a different idea of peace to that of the Jedi or Amidala. Palpatine's doublespeak is also just his way of reminding Orn Free Taa not to overdo it. "Peace is our objective." They want the same thing (ultimately). Why? Because strife is profitable. Both are playing the long game. I mean, really: every word out of Palpatine's lips is hilarious. The great joke is that we do know more than the characters, and we see exactly what he's up to. This puts Palpatine's orations in a different light to us vs. the characters. The characters should be smarter than this, but they aren't. Palpatine is therefore a kind of mentor (a Prospero figure if you like) orchestrating many events and instructing us the other side of the screen. As Padme aptly puts it: "All mentors have a way of seeing more of our faults than we'd like. It's the only way we grow."


Well, actually, he still uses the Senate to rubber-stamp laws and play the various systems against one another, until he's able to completely dissolve it once the Death Star becomes operational. The Senate still has to work (or have the appearance of working) -- just in an increasingly minimal way that suits his purposes.


The Jedi try to keep relatively neutral. But they're surely allowed their opinions and don't want to see the Republic falling into chaos and ruin. If they understand the threat that the mere act of creating an army poses to the galaxy as a whole, do you think they're going to just sit there and not say anything -- not try and counsel reason? Nevertheless, as the junior novelisation excerpt shows, they restrain themselves from getting too involved. They offer guidance and try to maintain the peace, but in the words of Mace, they're not soldiers -- neither soldiers of war nor political doctrine.


Right. But that doesn't imply 50/50 leaning. The other three senators that speak in that scene are all keen for the Republic to get an army (whether they refer to it as an "army" or "security"). And when Amidala speaks, she is mostly met with boos and groans -- that's all right there in the script extract you provided. She even begins her speech by imploring the senators to "wake up". This implies she feels they are basically sleepwalking into disaster. That is: some want it, some don't, but most are going to vote FOR it, or at best, abstain. She had a hard time convincing them that the invasion of Naboo was real in Episode I. But now they're scared (and corrupt) and again not listening to her. I think she has good reason to be concerned that the vote is going to pass. 


You keep bringing up the "hawkish senator" angle. Repetition doesn't increase the validity of an argument. Maybe that one senator wants peace for now, war later? Hmm? He surely has his own reasons for calling for a deferral. A deferral also implies he feels he can get his way down the track. If you ask me, Palpatine tactically reminds him of that: "Don't worry. War is coming."
 

Fine. But you just spent more time attacking her than I did praising her. And you ignored my second sentence entirely. No offence, but you sound a bit triggered. I made a simple analogy (albeit with praise); you responded in a way that suggests a desire to school me. Your animosity toward AOC is lacking any kind of nuance. You certainly didn't have to call her a "twit" twice in adjacent sentences. You're denouncing her based on a technicality. This fact-checking page does show that she was factually wrong in what she said, though it recognises her main point is valid:


People sometimes misspeak and get their facts wrong. It shouldn't be a big deal. Or is that people you dislike aren't allowed to make mistakes? The man who is currently President has spewed countless falsehoods in his time (including the brazen denial of serious existential threats like climate change), but I guess we'll be swiftly ignoring all of those -- even when he's trying to cling to power at any cost (relevant to the above and this entire discussion). This is the problem with playing "gotcha" and trying to dismiss someone over an error. There's actually a difference between facts and truth. One can be factually correct but fatuous or incomplete in their comprehension. It's also possible to be factually incorrect but right on a larger point. This doesn't always hold, but it's dishonest to ignore a wider point if the wider point happens to be valid.


Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. The crawls are blatantly propagandistic. They are based on old newsreels from the 1930s and 1940s. Much of Star Wars pulls from that pent-up period in American and world history. The music and the 20th Century fanfare are another example of how the viewer is jolted into a state of heightened anticipation: there's a marching-band flamboyance to the fanfare and the main theme (the latter being based on the former). Lucas even specifically re-introduced the old fanfare because he liked it that much.

Flash Gordon is itself soft-power American techno-futurist propaganda. Just the kind of thing that captivated little-boy dreamers like George Lucas growing up, but it is essentially of its time and lacking the dramatic gravitas and the self-awareness of Star Wars. Lucas to Charlie Rose in 2015:




And Flash Gordon wasn't the only historical cinematic influence on the crawl. Another was Cecil B. DeMille's 1939 cowboy western "Union Pacific" (see here). Yet another influence, on the more abstract side of things (one that the more avant-garde side of Lucas was probably aware of), was likely Robert Smithson's 1966 art-piece "A Heap Of Language":



From this page:


There is an important lesson -- a serious moral slant -- in all of this. If you read a Japanese newspaper that called the United States "The evil empire", you'd automatically trust it?

I mean, that's how the United States (or its war-press machine) all but painted Japan after Pearl Harbor. Note the bold type, the repetition of the word "WAR!" (like at the start of ROTS), and the blatantly racist language happily employed by all the major newspapers of the time (a true ATTACK OF THE CLONES):








The bellicose, cloned rhetoric of those newspapers is shocking and appalling to modern eyes -- or, at least, I hope it is.

Lucas is very aware of history and the crude cycles of violence and cruelty humans have constantly visited on one another. These movies actually have a very stark anti-war quality. And they warn repeatedly about how language is a tool of power. If we don't learn from history, we are doomed to repeat the mistakes and evils of the past.


I've highlighted the critical sentence. Poems naturally yield multiple meanings with words carefully chosen for a rhythmic and painterly effect. Hence the crawls are not to be taken at face value. Language implies deception. There's no language in space. Space is mostly empty. Lucas floods the screen with text to create a surreal, shocking effect. 


That's actually a good way of putting it. Although I'd say it's a blend of the two. You get the background, but you also get a little more. Star Wars is so compelling because it has all these layers to it. You can doubt they're there, but nobody is bound to a literal-minded view. It's actually what doomed the prequels and kept discussions shackled in ignorance for so long. And Lucas has called Star Wars his "onion" -- meaning there are many layers to everything. Seems poignant to cite this page at the moment:


Thanks, Mister Rinzler. I'm ordering that book as an early Christmas present.

(Do get a tinge of sadness seeing that page also.)


Yes -- I'm trying to parse words. Though it's also the way it's all knitted together. Your boss being an ass doesn't change the issue with your knee; even if you have a physical job? Okay. Believe dat. I also never called the Separatists asses. That's your interpolation. The point I was trying to make is that the paragraphs suggest a lot of blame lays with the Separatists. This, in fact, is the position Anakin adopts in ROTS. Basically, if you follow the progression of the crawls, it's interesting. They are handicapped and shallow because they never actually explain Palpatine subverting the Republic into the Empire: the main tragedy of the saga! All these fantastic and terrible events, but Palpatine escapes blame entirely. The destruction of the Republic via fear and greed is never really a concern of the crawls. Even though it changes everything for the characters. So they are brittle and can't easily be believed: the picture they paint is incredibly one-sided and insular.


Exactly. He uses all-caps to express something ominous. Though the first use (in story order) lacks the context of the latter. That was what I was conveying. It therefore sounds not only ominous, but impressive. And again, the crawl says nothing about Amidala's stance, even though she is extremely against an army being created. The crawl lulls you into a false sense of security and serenity. Much like the opening scene of the movie. The camera panning up instead of down, and then the main spacecraft spinning around, also adds to the mood. Even the first spoken word of the film is a lie: "Senator..." (It's the decoy).


That in itself makes the crawls deceptive. Lacking detail, one can arrive at (or draw) the wrong conclusion. That's exactly the danger in assuming the crawls have benign intent. I probably won't convince you, but look at it this way: There's a dark irony in the AOTC crawl stating that the army is to "assist" the overwhelmed Jedi. It's closer to the mark (based on ROTS) to state that the army is to "assist" in overwhelming the Jedi. See the difference? This army will ultimately (and quite literally) stab (or shoot) the Jedi in the back. The crawls are slimy and evil because they are deliberately divorced from the underlying nuance of the narrative. They allude to murder and treachery without outright saying it. Once again: language is deceptive. 


I think I've covered the "hawkish senator(s)" aspect enough by this point. Palpatine is basically fomenting a situation he can seize on one way or the other. He wants there to be enough clamour for an army, yet enough reluctance for senators to sign on the dotted line, that he can secure those emergency powers for himself. So it's in his interests to drag things out a bit. But if the Senate gave the army straight to him, he'd more or less achieve the same thing in time. The army (in conjunction with bribery) is his ultimate wedge for gaining more and more power -- like Caesar. Despite having many enemies in life, Caesar was even proclaimed by the Roman Senate after his death to be a Roman god. Palpatine basically ascends to a Force god after the Senate grants him everything he wants. Caesar eventually had the Senate wrapped around his finger. Palpatine likewise. "The Senate demanded that he stay longer."


Sure. And Palpatine made certain to fill it with a few war hawks and people that could be persuaded to support him no matter what. They are easily able to override Amidala's influence once Palpatine has sent her packing. We witness this close-up with Jar Jar. He is easily guilt-tripped into opening a new motion that allows Palpatine to circumvent the Senate altogether. The crisis conveniently deepens when the clone army is discovered. It is implied that the Senate would have difficulty giving the go-ahead to an army of clones: manufactured slaves made and grown far beyond Republic law. So that's when Palpatine is able to wing it and bypass the Senate. The Republic's constitution is meant to recognise slavery as bad, but if the Senate hands decision-making to Palpatine due to the exceptional circumstances, no one senator is to blame and he can gradually (in accordance with more and more power being transferred into his hands) revise the constitution as he sees fit. It's like the most blatant power-grab of all time: a stunning allegory for our current times.


Some senators likely have decent reasons for believing in increased militarism, but it doesn't change the fact that it's mostly based on fear and greed. The situation with the Senate is more complicated than people merely believing that enhanced security is a reasonable response. There are plenty of corrupt senators, and corruption has been a major part of the Senate since we saw it for the first time in Episode I. Obviously, under Palpatine, the corruption has only grown worse. The fact there appears to be relatively little debate (in reality) is quite damning. Nobody is really held to account and facts and positions aren't rigorously heard. There is plenty of dialogue peppered throughout AOTC that indicates the Jedi and other characters are weary of the Senate and (at least in the case of Obi-Wan) Palpatine's role in manipulating things to his advantage. In Obi-Wan's words: "He is very clever at following the passions and prejudices of the senators." Beware demagogues. There are a few of them kicking around at the moment. It's disgraceful that these movies were met with such sustained bitterness and hatred. They are some of the most cogent films of all time.

Exactly.


I wouldn't say that. I think the point Lucas is making in that scene is not that the Jedi wouldn't be involved in war if it came to it, but that the Chancellor, and the Republic itself, can't count on the Jedi to be an army for them.

It's important to remember that the Republic wants an army not to attack, but as a means of defense against an evergrowing separatist faction. The danger, and the reason why Padmé is fighting against its creation, is that the decision to create an army would basically signal the separatists that the Republic intends to go to war or attack them, and in turn they would create an army too and go to a war.

Fear is basically driving all the decisions. The Republic fears the separatists, Padmé and the loyalists fear the separatists's reaction, and the separatists fear the Republic.

The Sith take advantage of all that for their purposes and the Jedi are caught in the middle with no way out.

Mace is basically saying "Look, I don't know what you're planning to do, but if you're counting on us to be your army, forget it. Not only that's not our purpose, but we don't have the numbers either."

The Jedi aren't saying that they won't fight if they have to. They aren't saying that they can't lend their services and skills and help an army defend the Republic. They are just saying that they aren't one. That they aren't a solution to the Republic's problem. That they won't be able to protect the Republic if the separatists for some reason decide to attack it.

It's why I like talking about these films so much with other people. There's so much going on, so many threads in the tapestry, and cogs in the clock. So much to sift through and sort out. As Lucas said, they're like onions.

And on a surface level they're highly enjoyable as well. A marvel of our time.