Crossposted at Daily Kos
I saw Star Wars: Episode III on Thursday. Yes, I saw the parallels to the Administration in power. But what struck me most viscerally was Anakin’s personal path to the Dark Side.
Anakin turns to the dark side driven by fear of losing what he has. Driven not by hatred, but by fear, he is ultimately consumed by evil — and still suffers the pain he hoped to bypass…
I have heard it said innumerable times that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, but I disagree. I believe it is paved with steel forged in fear.
Each step Anakin takes down the path to hell is increasingly indefensible. It starts with ignoring Windu’s order to stay at the Temple. By doing so, he unwittingly aids in Palatine’s murder of the Jedi Master. Having made such an irreversible error, he gives in to the Sith Lord — by deliberately ignoring the obvious lies and rationalizing his actions, telling himself he is still on the path of righteousness.
At each point thus far, Anakin is still redeemable. Even when he accepts the assignment to slay all the Jedi Knights, the good in him is still able to believe the lie that he is doing it to save the Republic. But on every man’s road to damnation there comes that fork — the decisive moment when he must choose to turn right or left, thereby cementing his spiritual fate.
Anakin’s Rubicon comes when he kills the “Younglings” — the children in Jedi training. There is no going back after that, and some part of him knows he has turned to the Dark Side completely.
Still, he rationalizes his conversion. He allows himself to believe he has saved Padme (though his true motive was not to save her, but to spare himself the pain of losing her), that he has strengthened the Republic (though in truth he has doomed it to years of fascism).
And the man who began his journey to hell finally gives himself over to it completely when Darth Sidious informs him he has killed Padme. Fully aware for the first time that he has been the instrument of his own damnation, the newly incarnated Darth Vader succumbs utterly to his Dark Side. For him, there is literally nothing left to lose.
But we all know he redeems himself in the end, right? Even those whose actions throughout their lives, born of their fears and their willingness to embrace evil rather than bear the pain of a life lived selflessly, have a chance to renounce it in the end.
That’s the theory, anyway, that the so-called religious right must be banking on like their souls depend upon it. Last minute forgiveness for sins — what a win-win situation they’ve created for themselves, eh?
Myself, I lean strongly in the hope of redemption. But I don’t believe in painless forgiveness. That’s where I think the Catholics may have a slight edge in the theory department (though their interpretation of penance leaves much to be desired). Surely, anyone can be forgiven, redeemed and allowed into the kingdom of heaven, even after a lifetime of dissolution and despicable deeds? I hope so.
But I have a feeling that Purgatory isn’t as simple and swift an experience that people may think it is. When I imagine what sort of penance men like Hitler, Stalin, Bush, Rove, child molesters and corporate rapists face, I always see them reincarnated as their victims. (I don’t want to delve too deeply into that, into karma — because I don’t like what a believer in this theory must infer about those who suffer here and now. Smacks of Calvinism, in a way.)
Well, there you have it. My ruminations on the nature of evil and how a man ends up bathing in it. I wouldn’t have bothered, but it’s been swimming around my cranium for three days now, and I hoped to purge it with keystrokes…
that is a great movie review. It’s great because it didn’t spoil the movie by giving away the plot. I still have no idea, really, what happens in the new Star Wars film, but I have a good understanding of the path Darth Vader took, which is the only thing that I am curious about.
I’ve heard rumblings that the movie is considered a critique of the Bush administration. Do you think that is intentional? Or are the parallels more coincidental?
the parallels are coincidental — if inevitable, considering the ageless, timeless struggle of evil for power.
whatever its faults, the Carter administration was clearly fighting against the Empire, not for it. So what happened in the interim?
Iranian Hostage Crisis = the hostage crisis in Episode III? (Doesn’t come across well, if so.)
I sent this to all my pals/relatives who’ve seen, or will see, the movie! THANKS!
Just got through viewing the movie… most excellent! In regards to parallels to current events, this is my $.02… the movie is filled with powerful archetypes that this particular packed theater breathlessly responded to… whether the parallels are intentional or not, only Lucas can answer, but I would tend to agree that they are unintentional… wingnuts will probably just as easily be able to distort the plot into something that they will enjoy… With all of this being said, I personally found a compelling undercurrent of fighting the evil Bush empire throughout the movie, but hey, I’m a left-hand threaded wingnut…
The interesting thing that leads me to think that people are correct in saying that it is anti-Bush is this: I love movies and still tend to see many of them on the big screen, but mostly, I’m a home theater buff… I have seen a lot of movies in the theater in the last couple of years… The only two movies that I have seen on the first weekend of release that the packed audience was compelled to give a spontaneous standing ovation at the end were Fahrenheit 9/11 and this one… everyone seemed to have a similar feeling of fulfillment and closure with both movies.
and good to see you here MSO. I butted in line here to answer about the parallels to Bush”s Empire. Lucas was asked about this and he answered that he wrote it during the Vietnam era, so no not about Bush. But as you say, Good vs. Evil has alwys and will always exist.
I too saw movie Fri. night and I wondered though if he changed some dialogue recently, especially the line “You are either with me”.
he would have had Anakin say, “If you’re not with me, you’re against me.”
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes,” is Kenobi’s response. That exchange was chilling.
I think Lucas is getting credit for creeating a parallel of the existing Administration and current events, when in actuality he was working off timeless mythology, archetypes and basic truths that have been around since time began. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, evil is a shortcut to power, etc.
The fact that the Bush cabal seem to be following the BLUEPRINT to the Dark Side is merely an unhappy coincidence for us, and a boon to Lucas’s reputation as a prescient.
“Only a Sith deals in absolutes”…YES! I knew there was another line that sent a chill though me. Just had this conversation with my son yesterday and he reminded me of that line. I agree with you 100%. Thanks again for a great diary. I always love reading your take on things….especially your rants!! Oh, the best!
question of balance.
[IMG SRC = Tai Chi LA]
Om Mani Padme Hum
from the Dalai Lama
The Catholic Church taught me that innocent suffering can
be offered up as a sacrifice. I guess you gain ‘points’ or
indulgences, or have your prayers answered from your sacrifice.
Self-sacrifice was also practiced by pagans. Buddhists believe that
compassion is ‘the boat’ that can carry you through great suffering.
Suffering is not seen as punishment, at least in my interpretation.
In Buddhist teaching, the law of karma, says only this: `for every event that occurs, there will follow another event whose existence was caused by the first, and this second event will be pleasant or unpleasant according as its cause was skillful or unskillful.’ A skillful event is one that is not accompanied by craving, resistance or delusions; an unskillful event is one that is accompanied by any one of those things. (Events are not skillful in themselves, but are so called only in virtue of the mental events that occur with them.)
Therefore, the law of Karma teaches that responsibility for unskillful actions is born by the person who commits them.
So Karma doesn’t mean suffering, it’s more like bad luck
from bad decisions, taking the consequences, etc.
A Buddhist through meditation, detachment and the
compassion of others can sail through suffering.
Forgive the sermonette. I did enjoy the diary run down of Star Wars
and it got me thinking of the existence of “HELL.”
was truly illuminating.
Thank you for posting it.
Everything I know about Buddhism is summed up in these words (though they may not be exact): “Life is difficult.”
that’s all I know about Buddhism, not that Buddhism can be summed up thusly.
of Buddhism and come to think of it, the main tenet of
every major religion except the for Right Wing Christianity.
Strange, the major sin in Buddhism, about which more is
written, is jealousy/envy.
But I’m no scholar, I’m just trying to find my way in the world.
Jesus taught compassion (and against Hebrew law and exceptionalism), but Jesus was not a “Christian”.
Christianity is all about personal salvation through “faith in Christ” and is inherently selfish.
Strictly speaking, but Jesus did say there is one
commandment above all others, to love one another.
That IS compassion.
“This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you. 13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” King James
More exhortation to love one another by Jesus Christ:
http://tinyurl.com/cy3yn
Yes, but again, Jesus was not a “Christian”, and did not found a “Christian Church”.
“Christianity”, as a religion, is not about following the teachings of Jesus, but about “salvation through faith”.
“Jesus Christ” is a false conjunction perpetrated by Christians . . . one cannot defend Christianity by reference to what Jesus said, because Christians do not follow the teachings of Jesus. You’ll look long, and fruitlessly, to find a Christian “creed” that puts “works” (compassion) ahead of “faith” (or Jesus ahead of Paul) or that allows for “salvation” by “works” (compassion) without “faith”.
Jesus says somewhere, “You are Peter, and upon this
rock, I will build my church.” is that translation
wrong?
The Apostles’ Creed:
I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:
2. And in Jesus Christ, his only begotten Son, our Lord:
Yes, faith comes first, also faith in Jesus Christ
and that means following his teachings doesn’t it?
His teaching are a continual exhoration to love one
another, to be our brother’s keeper.
There has been a swing in favour of the teachings of
St. Paul and the hallucinations of Revelations in the
fundamentalist Super Churches in the US. They rarely
refer to the teachings of Jesus Christ.
I don’t consider myself a Catholic/Christian anymore
so I am not defending my position on the basis of faith, just observation. You are right “faith” always
came first in any teachings I received.
No, I know of no “creed” which equated “faith” with following the teachings of Jesus.
And you left out the crucifixus, mortuus, et sepultus; descendit ad inferna; tertia die resurrexit a mortuis part of the Apostles’ Creed.
Of course if you already believe that there is no problem with believing something the resurrected Jesus allegedly said to/about Peter, even if it is ignored in other (Synoptic) Gospels and outright denied in the Gospels of Mary and Thomas. But that brings you back to the circularity of Christian belief . . . one believes that Jesus was resurrected and is “the Christ” because the NT says so (despite widespread denial at the time); one believes the NT because Jesus was resurrected and is “the Christ”. That is to say, really, that all Christians, just like the fundamentalists, take the NT on “faith”.
None of which addresses the reality that the Christian churches of today all trace their founding, and their creed, back to Paul, not to Peter (or Jesus) . . . although the Catholic Church does more lip service to Peter (and the Apostles) to justify their hierarchy than do most Protestant churches.
Pauline “Christianity” is what “fundamentalists” (right winger, left winger, or no wings at all) believe because it is what all Christians believe. But there is nothing about “following the teachings” in the Apostles’ Creed . . . either for “fundamentalists” or for “mainstream Christians”.
And that’s the problem, for me, anyway. I have yet to get a “mainstream Christian” to clearly articulate what they believe that is different from what the fundies believe. Until one does I’ll go on believing that they’re “all the same” . . .
two commandments (per Jesus), not one. “Love your neighbor as yourself” is the second . . .
comment, as I posted this on dkos this morning. But I feel it is perhaps worth considering for those who have not seen it:
It seems to me that redemption is in one’s own hands, and if it is something that we wish to have it is best accomplished by living in the knowledge that this moment we are in is all we have. Now is the only time that exists and so to wisely use our enjoyment and fulfillment of now can lead us to an acknowledgement of personal responsibility through our choices. In every moment we have the choice to take the higher road or the lesser road. In every moment we make that choice.
Enjoy your now and aspire through intent to experience it for the highest and best purposes for all.
Namaste`
Yoda knows fear is what drives people to the dark side:
“Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” -The Phantom Menace
He also has a few words for our War President:
“Wars not make one great.” -Empire Strikes Back
.
In real life, social relationships don’t come with traffic signs.
BOLTON BUSH-CHENEY MANDELA
.
To Win Election 2008
DEMOCRATS!
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité