The other day Star Wars Episode II happened to be on the TV and, having nothing better to do at that precise moment, I decided to see how long I could watch it before I got bored and turned it off. Just like everybody else, I was rather disappointed with the prequels when they first came out, so I wasn't expecting to really find Episode II to be all that gripping. I remembered it being rather slow, but with some pretty great action scenes, and I was curious to see whether I'd hold out until Yoda's famous duel at the end.

However, this was the first time I watched Episode II after having seen Episode III and it is surprising how much better the film is after having seen the last installment. It's not like you didn't know what was going to happen in Episode III, I mean we'd all seen Episode IV, but in the same way that "Titanic" managed to grip some people despite having a predetermined ending (it's a film I haven't seen by the way...thank god) there actually are some surprises in how Lucas plays out his themes. Watching the prequels with the advantage of having seen each of them one time already allows you to see them for what Lucas was trying for instead of what you were expecting and hoping to see, and, I have to admit, there's some pretty good stuff in there.

The big thing I noticed watching Episode II after having seen Episode III was that a lot of the dialogue scenes became a lot more poignant. The scenes that had previously only been a bunch of talking heads now actually made a bit of sense. This helps pick up the overall pace of the whole film. There's still really nothing that can be done about the awkwardness of Anakin and Padme's developing love scenes, but hey, you can't hope for everything.

The thing that I find the most interesting, and something that hasn't been discussed AT ALL but all our vaunted critics, is the question of just what exactly is Lucas trying to say? The theme of the prequels, that becomes apparent only when you see them as a whole, is so bizarre and so contrary to the messages of propaganda that appear in our other mainstream media, that it is impossible to deduce just from watching the first two episodes. You get an inkling of what Lucas is trying to say, and then you say to yourself "well he can't be trying to say THAT, therefore I'll assume that he's made some clumsy errors in his writing."

Surprise....he is trying to say THAT.

What is THAT? Well, the major theme of the prequels seems to be that romantic love is a weakness. It's a far cry from the bullshit "love conquers all" message that everybody likes to force-feed us every day.

What is the evidence for the "love is weakness" interpretation? Well it's everywhere if you accept the possibility that such a strange idea could be the theme of a major movie. Consider that the Emperor engineers Anakin and Padme's romance by insisting that they be together. He knows this is going to tempt Anakin. That's pretty strange isn't it? I mean, usually good characters are tempted by sinful, sex-only liaisons or something like that. Star Wars has to be the first movie in history where a character is "tempted" by a loving relationship with a smart, loyal, and caring woman.

Most of American society is built on the premise that all you need to do to find happiness is find your partner and build your life with him/her. But look at the rules of the Jedi order. I don't think that I'll get any argument from people if I suggest that Lucas intends the Jedi to be a representation of an idealistic way for people behave. The Jedi simply represent "goodness" and there is never a point in the movie, despite the fact that the Jedi are utterly defeated by the end of it, that the Jedi way of life is questioned as anything other than perfect (except by Anakin, who is quite clearly meant to be taken as "bad" at that point...that is, his arguments are not meant to be considered seriously).

But what is the Jedi creed? Well, in Episode II (in another dialogue scene that suddenly becomes more interesting) Anakin explains that Jedi cannot have possessions and are encouraged to be compassionate, but they can't have romantic relationships. They're monks. You don't see Yoda running around tagging everything that moves, and Obi-Wan seems quite content to enjoy his life of celibacy. But Anakin is just not at the maturity level in his emotions where he can just disregard his desire for some kind of meaningful relationship. He needs external support. So of course, this begs the question...why doesn't Yoda or Obi-Wan or somebody give it to him? I'm not referring to sexually of course, but why don't they offer him some counseling? (but this is a digression, one that points to a flaw in how the Jedi are organized rather than a continuing discussion on Lucas' interpretation of love)

Anakin is an emotional time-bomb and his state of mind is understandable enough. He was born a slave and he watched his mother die in his arms after being tortured. This background has left a deep scar and it makes him susceptible to...well...turning into a ruthless dictator so that he can absolutely protect everybody he cares about. But the fact remains, if Anakin hadn't fallen into the "trap" of romantic love, he probably would have eventually grown into the kind of dedicated Jedi Obi-Wan became. But Anakin took the quick and easy path, and got his emotional peace by banging Padme.

So really, is the message that we're supposed to draw from this movie the idea that people who find happiness and comfort in their life as a result of their marital partner are emotionally, intellectually, or morally inferior to those that remain solitary and celibate? Actually, this philosophy is not so unusual now that I think about it, and has precedent in most religions. In Ghandi's...it was either his autobiography or a documentary about him...he says that he considered sex a selfish act and he stopped performing it with his wife because he thought it took him away from a philosophy of true altruism. In most cases, Ghandi is considered an absolute saint so are we supposed to just flip-flop on this one and declare him wrong or stupid?

Getting back to Star Wars, the thing that I find interesting about the movie is that, intentionally or no, it presents these questions that refer to religion and the quest for morality or spiritual wholeness in a way that seems to expose many of the contradictions in what we take to be commonly accepted truths. Star Wars suggests (and believe me that much of the popularity of this movie is due tot he fact that people take it as a religious type text, or a text that has some answers or suggestions as to how you should live your life) that you must be compassionate but that you shouldn't fall into that kind of "possessive" or "dependent" type love. It suggests that you should resist those feelings rather than embrace them.

Wow...weird. What kind of society would we live in if everybody did that? What if finding some kind of spiritual center was considered a higher goal than finding a life partner and raising a family?

Well, Star Wars doesn't get into any philosophical musings on those issues, it just does what Lucas always does...take a bunch of archetypal themes, dust them off, give them a new coat of paint, put them in space and Voila! Still, that doesn't mean that Lucas hasn't done something special. Sometimes all you have to do is put an old painting in a different frame and you notice completely different colors. Bear all this talk in mind the next time you watch the prequels, and, at the very least, I bet you'll find them a lot more interesting.

The End