|
|
Post by Seeker of the Whills on Mar 14, 2024 4:27:34 GMT
One thing I liked about the prequels was that they showed Anakin as a conflicted young man with great flaws of character, that on the surface appeared very different to what Obi-Wan describes to Luke in ANH. That to me seemed very realistic, because time tends to create nostalgia and heal wounds, so it would make sense in one way for Obi to have fond memories of Ani even though they had difficulties together. It's a very surface level analysis when some people claim that the prequels outright contradict the OT because Obi and Ani argue on occasion. Good parents and relatives still love the members of their family who have troubles, even though they may fight and have arguments. Obi was a good brother to Ani, if not the father he needed. And even then, the two of them have many fun and light interactions in the prequel films. The picture that Lucas paints of the two is to me a very realistically multifaceted relationship with both flaws and strengths. And on top of that, Obi feels some measure of responsibility for Ani's fall from grace, thinking that he had failed him. All this makes sense to lead Obi to think fondly of Ani in ANH. Besides, Obi clearly has nostalgically exaggerated feelings towards Ani:
"He was the best starpilot in the galaxy."
Ani was certainly a great pilot, being a champion podracer and destroying the droid control ship with pure intuition, but the best of them all? Sounds like nostalgia.
"And a cunning warrior."
Ani was a great swordsman, saving Obi twice from Dooku and finally defeating him in their second encounter. And he showed hints of cunning, for sure, but again, this sounds like nostalgia-colored reminiscing.
Then came along TCW, which had a slightly tweaked characterization of Ani. He was now a master to a padawan, and a respected general in the army of the Republic. These are two aspects that I feel clash somewhat with the film characterization. One of the biggest problems Ani has in the films is a perceived lack of respect and prestige from the other Jedi in relation to his skill level. In AotC he chastises Obi to Padme and says that he is ready for the trials because he is actually ahead of his own master in skill. In RotS he is angry because he is denied the rank of master. It feels like further salt is rubbed in that wound when during Order 66 the newly christened Darth Vader enters the council chambers where the younglings are hiding, one of whom calls him "Master Skywalker." This is in stark contrast to TCW, where he is constantly called that by his own padawan. Also, in RotS, Anakin is very disappointed when he isn't chosen to lead the assault on Grievous. The films don't establish that Anakin has commanded clone troops of his own until he leads them during Order 66. Even during the Battle of Coruscant, it was Obi-Wan who was in charge of the clones sent to rescue Palpatine. I think this is an important aspect of Ani's development into Vader. He doesn't have the respect and power within the Jedi and the Republic he wishes he had, and he finally gets his own command when he turns to the dark side. It's a boon that makes more sense out of his turn. If Anakin had as much power and prestige within the Republic army as is depicted in TCW, why would he turn and especially stay on the dark side if not to gain more power over people?
I would say the films portrayed the real man, while TCW portrayed the myth of a legendary war hero more literally in line with Obi-Wan's memories from ANH.
|
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Mar 14, 2024 23:13:14 GMT
I like this approach, however, I want to point out that Anakin could be the greatest pilot (remember what he did in Revenge of the Sith, safely landing the remnants of the flagship Invisible hand and so on) but in the same time someone who is not immune to mistakes I mean every kind of mistakes. Anakin is great character but also he is a very human character: he is kind, loyal to death, emotional but also quick tempered, pick headed and impatient, i.e. he has flaws. I see that many people expect that the hero shouldn't have flaws and should always know what is the right thing to do, but is not like that at all. This a very pagan, I would say, primatial perception of human characters. The Christian concept says that people are capable of redemption and are capable to overcome their flaws (and they have such) which is very different from the concept of the heroes of the ancient times. Paradoxically this concept is adopted in the Marvel universe heroes although Marvel is a modern, I would say even postmodern phenomenon.
However, Star Wars is more classic movie as one YouTuber said on one pretty good essay I watched: even Luke who is apparently closer to this type of hero has its flaws and mistakes. Luke also looses a lot and yes, he made a couple of mistakes. Luke became the hero not because he was invincible (as Palatine tried to persuade Anakin in Episode 2) but because he did the right thing which was the the most difficult thing in the right moment: when he threw his lightsaber away in ROTJ. Anakin became the hero because he saved Luke and the Galaxy paying with his life for that (and not because suddenly he is someone who never committed what he committed).
|
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Mar 14, 2024 23:38:51 GMT
I like this approach, however, I want to point out that Anakin could be the greatest pilot (remember what he did in Revenge of the Sith, safely landing the remnants of the flagship Invisible hand and so on) but in the same time someone who is not immune to mistakes I mean every kind of mistakes. Anakin is great character but also he is a very human character: he is kind, loyal to death, emotional but also quick tempered, pick headed and impatient, i.e. he has flaws. I see that many people expect that the hero shouldn't have flaws and should always know what is the right thing to do, but is not like that at all. This a very pagan, I would say, primatial perception of human characters. The Christian concept says that people are capable of redemption and are capable to overcome their flaws (and they have such) which is very different from the concept of the heroes of the ancient times. Paradoxically this concept is adopted in the Marvel universe heroes although Marvel is a modern, I would say even postmodern phenomenon. However, Star Wars is more classic movie as one YouTuber said on one pretty good essay I watched: even Luke who is apparently closer to this type of hero has its flaws and mistakes. Luke also looses a lot and yes, he made a couple of mistakes. Luke became the hero not because he was invincible (as Palatine tried to persuade Anakin in Episode 1) but because he did the right thing which was the the most difficult thing in the right moment: when he threw his lightsaber away in ROTJ. Anakin became the hero because he saved Luke and the Galaxy paying with his life for that (and not because suddenly he is someone who never committed what he committed). Well, Achilles is flawed (his wrath). He has to set his wrath aside in the end. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Mar 15, 2024 8:13:29 GMT
I like this approach, however, I want to point out that Anakin could be the greatest pilot (remember what he did in Revenge of the Sith, safely landing the remnants of the flagship Invisible hand and so on) but in the same time someone who is not immune to mistakes I mean every kind of mistakes. Anakin is great character but also he is a very human character: he is kind, loyal to death, emotional but also quick tempered, pick headed and impatient, i.e. he has flaws. I see that many people expect that the hero shouldn't have flaws and should always know what is the right thing to do, but is not like that at all. This a very pagan, I would say, primatial perception of human characters. The Christian concept says that people are capable of redemption and are capable to overcome their flaws (and they have such) which is very different from the concept of the heroes of the ancient times. Paradoxically this concept is adopted in the Marvel universe heroes although Marvel is a modern, I would say even postmodern phenomenon. However, Star Wars is more classic movie as one YouTuber said on one pretty good essay I watched: even Luke who is apparently closer to this type of hero has its flaws and mistakes. Luke also looses a lot and yes, he made a couple of mistakes. Luke became the hero not because he was invincible (as Palatine tried to persuade Anakin in Episode 1) but because he did the right thing which was the the most difficult thing in the right moment: when he threw his lightsaber away in ROTJ. Anakin became the hero because he saved Luke and the Galaxy paying with his life for that (and not because suddenly he is someone who never committed what he committed). Well, Achilles is flawed (his wrath). He has to set his wrath aside in the end. I wouldn't say that. Wrath is not a bad treat in the ancient heroes. Wrathful=menacing=powerful, i.e. hero. Exactly the wrath gives Achilles the power to go and avenge the death of Patroclus (is not that he was less powerful before that, but he didn't want to fight, which is perceived as mistake). His weakness is his heel that makes him less powerful than he is and he dies that way, is not the wrath that causes this.  So yes, the heroes then also have some flaws but they are insignificant if are compared to their power and could be easily ignored, the heroes of these times are not incidentally depicted as semi-gods. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are exactly pleasant characters from our point of view. For us, what Achilles does with Hector's body is disgusting and bad but actually in these times is expected. So, what Palatine says to Anakin: your anger gives you power, makes you stronger is indeed the same primal understanding of anger while we know it is the opposite: the anger makes you weak, mindless machine of rage and destruction. |
|
|
|
Post by smittysgelato on Mar 19, 2024 23:11:26 GMT
Well, Achilles is flawed (his wrath). He has to set his wrath aside in the end. I wouldn't say that. Wrath is not a bad treat in the ancient heroes. Wrathful=menacing=powerful, i.e. hero. Exactly the wrath gives Achilles the power to go and avenge the death of Patroclus (is not that he was less powerful before that, but he didn't want to fight, which is perceived as mistake). His weakness is his heel that makes him less powerful than he is and he dies that way, is not the wrath that causes this. So yes, the heroes then also have some flaws but they are insignificant if are compared to their power and could be easily ignored, the heroes of these times are not incidentally depicted as semi-gods. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are exactly pleasant characters from our point of view. For us, what Achilles does with Hector's body is disgusting and bad but actually in these times is expected. So, what Palatine says to Anakin: your anger gives you power, makes you stronger is indeed the same primal understanding of anger while we know it is the opposite: the anger makes you weak, mindless machine of rage and destruction. Hmm. Yeah, it seems rather unclear whether wrath is a flaw or a strength. Achilles' wrath does allow him to avenge Patroclus, but it is also his wrath that causes the deaths of many Greek soldiers including Patroclus. Whether that makes it a flaw is unclear because this is all according to the plan of the gods. It seems that wrath is atleast a double edged sword here. Achilles' wrath is also a problem because it alienates him from his community because he can't accept that some losses cannot be adequately compensated. By the end of the story he had to set this wrath aside so that he can accept inadequate compensation and rejoin his community. Now, that being said, this isn't a case of redemption. Redemption does seem to be a specifically Christian notion, so I will agree on that much at least. This conversation really does leave me wondering whether or not wrath should be seen as flaw within the context of The Iliad. |
|
|
|
Post by tonyg on Mar 22, 2024 14:15:44 GMT
I wouldn't say that. Wrath is not a bad treat in the ancient heroes. Wrathful=menacing=powerful, i.e. hero. Exactly the wrath gives Achilles the power to go and avenge the death of Patroclus (is not that he was less powerful before that, but he didn't want to fight, which is perceived as mistake). His weakness is his heel that makes him less powerful than he is and he dies that way, is not the wrath that causes this. So yes, the heroes then also have some flaws but they are insignificant if are compared to their power and could be easily ignored, the heroes of these times are not incidentally depicted as semi-gods. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are exactly pleasant characters from our point of view. For us, what Achilles does with Hector's body is disgusting and bad but actually in these times is expected. So, what Palatine says to Anakin: your anger gives you power, makes you stronger is indeed the same primal understanding of anger while we know it is the opposite: the anger makes you weak, mindless machine of rage and destruction. Hmm. Yeah, it seems rather unclear whether wrath is a flaw or a strength. Achilles' wrath does allow him to avenge Patroclus, but it is also his wrath that causes the deaths of many Greek soldiers including Patroclus. Whether that makes it a flaw is unclear because this is all according to the plan of the gods. It seems that wrath is atleast a double edged sword here. Achilles' wrath is also a problem because it alienates him from his community because he can't accept that some losses cannot be adequately compensated. By the end of the story he had to set this wrath aside so that he can accept inadequate compensation and rejoin his community. Now, that being said, this isn't a case of redemption. Redemption does seem to be a specifically Christian notion, so I will agree on that much at least. This conversation really does leave me wondering whether or not wrath should be seen as flaw within the context of The Iliad. I would vote "no" if we see the wrath as such: as warrior's power, as the ancient people consider it as something that makes the warrior power. Yes, Achilles "rage" brought ills to the Greeks but also without the this there will be no Iliad, no heroes. While I personally consider Hector as the real hero of the Iliad and Odysseus as the real Greek victor it doesn't mean that the Iliad actually depict them as such. That is what I call primal: it is primal to be wrathful after some close friend's death. The interesting thing is that Achilles is beaten technically by not so strong opponent (Paris) but in the same time after the intervention of Apollo (which means that Achilles is practically invincible, however he is not merciful neither calm and reserved) but for a while the only thing that saved Troy were its impenetrable walls: it's hero was dead and Achilles triumphed. Achilles is perceived as hero being wrathful, pick headed and egoistical (the reason he refused to fight was a personal dispute over a female slave, i.e. personal desire and power) but he is the hero. If you ask me for my point of view: no, he is not a hero for me. Achilles is even more unpleasant for me than Hamlet who I consider as one of the most egoistical, whiny and unpleasant characters in the classic literature but if you ask, more people will cite Achilles as the hero. |
|
So yes, the heroes then also have some flaws but they are insignificant if are compared to their power and could be easily ignored, the heroes of these times are not incidentally depicted as semi-gods. Of course, it doesn't mean that they are exactly pleasant characters from our point of view.