Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: Outgeeking Bainbridge

« Getting Ready for Hong Kong | Main | Idealist? You must be joking »

Outgeeking Bainbridge

Now, I'd never take on Professor Bainbridge when it comes to wine: I haven't the taste buds. And on corporate law? More fool me to challenge the guy who authors textbooks. But outgeeking? There we're on more equal ground. And I'm afraid that his accusation that George Lucas has sold the soul of Star Wars to the Democrats just rings hollow.

Basically, the good Professor is upset because:

...Lucas betrayed the basic story arc of the Star Wars mythology in order to score these cheap political points. In the original trilogy, Luke struggled against the absolutism of Obi-Wan and Yoda. It was Luke who insisted that there was still good in Vader, which Yoda and Obi-Wan rejected.

The betrayal in question is in having Obi-Wan say to Anakin, after the latter has muttered some you're-for-me-or-against-me line, "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes."

Now, I've not seen the movie yet, and to the best of my knowledge, neither has Prof. Bainbridge, but to my mind his internal critique doesn't hold up. Bainbridge spends a great deal of time talking about how an older (presumably wiser) Obi-Wan was still doctrinaire and absolutist in his consideration of the Force. But if we consider this Obi-Wan to be less mature than Alec Guinness (and who wouldn't), then the plot still hangs together. Obi-wan may just be full of it. And there's no "betrayal" for "cheap political points" so long as the elder Jedi isn't doing anything more than the lightsaber equivalent of Godwin's Law: you know the conversation's over (and someone's limbs are about to go) when somebody mentions the Sith.

So why are so many assuming that Old Kenobi needs to be taken seriously? It seems that the New York Times found political meaning in the film:

"This is how liberty dies - to thunderous applause," Padm observes as senators, their fears and dreams of glory deftly manipulated by Palpatine, vote to give him sweeping new powers. "Revenge of the Sith" is about how a republic dismantles its own democratic principles, about how politics becomes militarized, about how a Manichaean ideology undermines the rational exercise of power. Mr. Lucas is clearly jabbing his light saber in the direction of some real-world political leaders. At one point, Darth Vader, already deep in the thrall of the dark side and echoing the words of George W. Bush, hisses at Obi-Wan, "If you're not with me, you're my enemy." Obi-Wan's response is likely to surface as a bumper sticker during the next election campaign: "Only a Sith thinks in absolutes." You may applaud this editorializing, or you may find it overwrought, but give Mr. Lucas his due. For decades he has been blamed (unjustly) for helping to lead American movies away from their early-70's engagement with political matters, and he deserves credit for trying to bring them back.

Dear goodness, we can only hope. I mean, if Democrats can't do better than Lucas's tin-ear for dialogue for their political bumper stickers, then I suspect the Republicans will get the geek vote. But now the New York Times has done the impossible: it's made me curious about the final Star Wars film.

Let's face it: Lucas is about as subtle as a chainsaw running through a screen door, at least when it comes to dialogue. I'd expect that even if Chewbacca were mouthing Bush-lite rhetoric, you wouldn't need to be Han Solo to figure out the reference. On the other hand, the New York Times could probably scan Beowulf and find hidden anti-Bush meanings.

So who is it? Is George L. taking on George B.? Or is this all a figment of the Times' fevered fantasies? Sadly, I'll have to see the film to find out, because when it comes to a conflict between the Lucas lack of subtext and the Greying Lady's determination to find same, we reach a level of difficulty almost equal to that of the Great Sci Fi Paradox: What happens when a bunch of clueless red-shirts, guaranteed to survive less than three minutes after a beamdown, meets a platoon of Imperial Stormtroopers, who can't hit a barn from inside it?

Comments

This article on a Cannes press conference might save you the trouble of going to the movie.
http://midwestsummerassociate.blogspot.com/
A wise man once pointed out that "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar", and I think someone needs to remind Prof. Bainbridge that sometimes a trashy sci-fi B flick is just a trashy sci-fi B flick.....
The "wise man" was Freud, on the sometimes-noninterpretation-of-dreams. Less well known is his debt to Kipling. The original line went something like "Wine is only wine, but a cigar is a smoke."
I've noticed that people who are absolutist often think that they are nuanced. (Often because they know other people on their own side who are even more extreme, or have unexpressed feelings which are much nastier.)
TTP: I know it was Freud; I was under the impression that the quote was familiar enough that nobody (at least nobody well educated enough to be follwoing a first person narrative of American legal education) needed to be told who said it. :-)
Oh, perhaps I've underestimated folks. I was under the impression that a lot of people didn't know the source. Eh. Also I was trolling for the exact phrasing of the Kipling quote.
"Now, I've not seen the movie yet, and to the best of my knowledge, neither has Prof. Bainbridge..." And thus continues the conservative tradition of critiquing movies without having seen them. :)
If you notice, Dave, the above isn't a critique of a movie, but a series of questions about it. And having now seen the movie, if you want to carry water for Lucas's dialogue, I hope your back's pretty strong.

Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

NOTICE TO SPAMMERS, COMMENT ROBOTS, TRACKBACK SPAMMERS AND OTHER NON-HUMAN VISITORS: No comment or trackback left via a robot is ever welcome at Three Years of Hell. Your interference imposes significant costs upon me and my legitimate users. The owner, user or affiliate who advertises using non-human visitors and leaves a comment or trackback on this site therefore agrees to the following: (a) they will pay fifty cents (US$0.50) to Anthony Rickey (hereinafter, the "Host") for every spam trackback or comment processed through any blogs hosted on threeyearsofhell.com, morgrave.com or housevirgo.com, irrespective of whether that comment or trackback is actually posted on the publicly-accessible site, such fees to cover Host's costs of hosting and bandwidth, time in tending to your comment or trackback and costs of enforcement; (b) if such comment or trackback is published on the publicly-accessible site, an additional fee of one dollar (US$1.00) per day per URL included in the comment or trackback for every day the comment or trackback remains publicly available, such fee to represent the value of publicity and search-engine placement advantages.

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]

Choose Stylesheet

What I'm Reading

cover
D.C. Noir

My city. But darker.
cover
A Clockwork Orange

About time I read this...


Shopping

Projects I've Been Involved With

A Round-the-World Travel Blog: Devil May Care (A new round-the-world travel blog, co-written with my wife)
Parents for Inclusive Education (From my Clinic)

Syndicated from other sites

The Columbia Continuum
Other Blogs by CLS students
0

Trouble in Tibet

Yak e1275211601484 Trouble in Tibet

Tibetan walking his colorful yak

Tibet has a mystical allure. For centuries it’s been closed off to much of the world due to its desolate terrain and sheer isolation. For the past 50 years, China has guarded it with an iron fist. With images of yaks, saffron-clad monks and mountaintop monasteries dancing in our heads, we had to see it for ourselves.

Sitting atop the roof of the world surrounded by the world’s highest peaks, Tibet is home to roughly three million people. A large majority of inhabitants live nomadic lives or in small villages along the Tibetan plateau. It’s a massive area of land, nearly four times the size of Texas or all of Western Europe combined.

Tingri Tibet e1275211491832 Trouble in Tibet

The beautiful Tibetan sky in Tingri, Tibet

The devout Buddhist nation had for centuries, peacefully bordered China, India, Bhutan and Nepal. In the 1950’s, however, it was invaded and swallowed up by its Chinese neighbor. Under Chinese rule, the Tibetan people have lived as prisoners in their own country and suffered unfathomable torture and abuse.

To strengthen its presence in Tibet, China has spent billions of dollars trying to encourage Chinese people to immigrate there. They’ve offered massive incentives to get them to move to west, including better pensions, higher wages and even lifting the one child per family law. To make it even easier for families to make the move, they recently spent $10 billion alone on improving Tibet’s infrastructure.

China Town e1275211871613 Trouble in Tibet

Influence of the Chinese in the town of Lhotse, Tibet

With the arrival of the Chinese, however, comes a loss of Tibet. Mandarin is now taking the place of Tibetan language in schools, and the strong traditions and customs of the people are being suppressed. Changing more in the past 50 years than in the last 500, Tibet is experiencing a cultural genocide, a loss of who they are. We realize the time is now to see Tibet, before it’s gone forever.

As you would imagine, China’s tyranny has lead to massive uprisings and bloodshed. In hopes to hide the reality of the situation from the international community, China has made it very difficult for foreigners to enter. At times, borders are completely closed off while at other times entrance is limited and strictly controlled.

With a recent uprising in 2008, China has tightened its grip even more. They no longer allow tourists to enter the country unless part of an organized tour – organized of course by the Chinese government. They want to control where you go, how you go and who you go with. They want to control the story you get and the story you tell the world.

Window e1275212781606 Trouble in Tibet

A window in Tibet

We couldn’t really plan ahead for getting into Tibet. It would all come down to whether or not our timing would match up with China’s willingness to let foreigners in. We learned they actually close all borders to Tibet during the month of March – the month that marks the anniversary of the Chinese takeover – to ensure no foreign visitors are there to witness any possible political tension and Chinese oppression of the Tibetan people.

Luck was on our side. When we arrived to Nepal, it was early April, which meant the border was just being reopened again. We made arrangements with a Kathmandu travel agency and had high hopes. We were going to experience Tibet after all.

Check out our seven day journey through Tibet here.

pixel Trouble in Tibet

Comments (0)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

Comments are closed.