Chefelf.com Night Life: RisanF - Viewing Profile

People complain about a lot of things about the prequels. The goofy battle droids, the clunky dialogue, the suspect romance, and the endless, endless hatred for Jar Jar Binks. All of this is just icing on the cake for me, though, compared to my problem with the Prequel Trilogy. That issue is, of course, its central theme: the no-attachments policy of the Jedi Order.

I was weaned on the Expanded Universe. I loved hearing about Luke's various relationships; his never-ending stream of feisty girlfriends. And of course, there's all his platonic relationships with his friends and family; Leia, Han, Chewie, the droids, and Vader. Being told that a Jedi can only have superficial, business relationships came like a punch in the face to someone like me, who invested so much in SW relationships.

I can understand the points in favor of this no-attachments policy. It's the whole greater-good over the private-good philosophy, trying to avoid situations like what happened to Luke at Bespin. At the same time, I don't know if it's entirely fair to slap the Dark Side label on someone like Luke for making a decision to save his friends from being tortured. (makes you wonder if the Jedi should take the masked-crimefighter route) Having no attachments is not something someone should train you to live by; you have to decide to live like that yourself.

In the end, the entire thing is taken to ridiculous extremes by the Jedi Order, which turns the whole "only a Sith speaks in absolutes" phrase on its head. (that's right, Anakin, don't bother taking the week or so necessary to free your mother from slavery; let her die instead) Yoda's comments to Anakin about attachments (as well as George Lucas') are cold and chilling, succeeding in ruining the entire Revenge of the Sith film for me. Saying that sealing off your emotions and letting your friends die is the best way to lead a good life is cold and sad, a twisted moral that turns Yoda into the frostiest individual around. And as a moral, I can't see how many people, who are all attached to someone, would take that to heart.

I'll give RotS due credit for making its point about the no-attachments policy. When it comes down to it, Anakin should have let Padme die rather than slay a roomful of kids. However, Lucas’ comments about Anakin loving Padme too much is still suspect in this situation. Even the most devoted husband should be able to step back and see that killing innocent children on the wild hunch that it will lead to your wife living is not a viable option. (this is why Anakin is often referred to as a psycho idiot on Star Wars hate boards)

The no-attachments policy rears its head again when Obi-Wan must slay Anakin for the good of the galaxy. A sad decision for him to make, but it ultimately reveals that Obi-Wan IS actually attached to Anakin, despite the Jedi Code. This presents a double issue concerning the no-attachments policy, the first being that having unfeeling, unattached heroes makes for boring heroes and lame movie making. The second issue is that the no-attachments policy is simply unfeasible; even with the creepy policy of taking a Force Sensitive child away from his mother, the child is just going to form a relationship with their Jedi Master, even if said Master is a by-the-book stickler like Prequel Obi-Wan.

Now that we've got a rundown on the problems with the no-attachments policy, let's get on to perhaps the biggest issue: where does it fit in with the Original Trilogy? There are numerous continuality errors concerning the PT and the OT, and the no-attachments policy is no exception from this. Certainly there are echoes of it in the old movies; Luke's decision to fly to Bespin reflects this clearly. Return of the Jedi touches on this as well...but to what end?

Wading through Return of the Jedi is a murky and confusing affair. Don't get me wrong, RotJ was my favorite Star Wars film for many years, and I maintain it was pretty well put together, Ewoks and all. However, I find there is lots of confusion concerning the final confrontation aboard the Death Star, what with Vader, the Dark Side, and what Luke is actually supposed to do. It's confusing enough that I'm not even sure where to start, but I'll bungle through it anyway.

Lucas said that Luke was given the same choice in RotJ as Anakin was in RotS, only that Luke says no. Taking his comment at face value, I'm going to assume that he's talking about when Luke throws his lightsaber aside instead of killing Vader for threatening his sister. Bear in mind I'm not at all sure about that, but let's assume the point of this is that Luke is willing to sacrifice his sister for the greater good. As displeasing as this concept is, this should help considerably in making Lucas' point valid.

If Lucas was really serious about driving home the no-attachments policy, if he was trying to create this theme from Day 1, Return of the Jedi should've ended with the death of Leia. (and perhaps Han and Chewie) We should've been treated to an image of Luke looking at the graves of his fallen friends, knowing that with their death, he has saved the galaxy for many people. But in the end, we just can't believe Lucas' claim that everything ties together is the real truth. Let's explore what actually happened in RotJ.

After Luke lays down his arms, Palpatine gets to torturing Luke with his Force Lightning. Luke appeals to his father for help, seeming to hope that some humanity remains in the black machine-man. After some hesitation, Vader bites and sends the Emperor on a one-way trip down a Death Star energy well, saving his beloved son. A very attachment-driven decision, and one with a positive outcome.

Moving on, we see Luke trying desperately to save his father by dragging his fallen body through the Death Star. Vader shares some touching words with his son, wanting to look at him "with his own eyes." Luke pleads with his father to hang on, refusing to give up on him. In the end Anakin Skywalker dies, and Luke breaks down in tears, just like any son would when their father passes on.

Finally, we move on to the Ewok celebration. Luke shares many warm greetings with his war buddies, all smiles and hugs. At one point, he steps back to view the spirits of those that have left this world, who all look upon him with pride. Then, Leia appears, and drags him back to the party, back to the world of attachments.

So we can clearly see that the overall moral of Star Wars is...what? Luke didn't give up a single attachment; not his sister, not his father. The Expanded Universe authors, despite being in a position to truly understand Star Wars, obviously didn't get this either; Luke maintains relationships with people throughout the books written before the Prequel Trilogy, some platonic, some romantic. If the people who contribute to the fandom can't see no-attachments policy, then maybe it wasn't even there to begin with.

It's hard enough deciding what the meaning of the Original Trilogy is without the no-attachments policy. Yoda and Obi-Wan imply that Luke must eliminate his father to secure the future of the galaxy, yet killing his father because he threatened his sister is a one-way trip to the Dark Side? Obi-Wan didn't think Vader could be saved, yet Luke spends all his time with Vader trying to save him, and in the end succeeds. Why is it bad for Luke to kill the Emperor, but okay for Vader?

All of this leads back to the same point that we've all realized long ago; that Star Wars is a mess. The no-attachments is a mess, and doesn't fit in any better with the OT than Padme Force-Feeding memories in Leia does. I haven't read everything on what Lucas has to say on the matter, and I admit I don't wish to; I find his approach to Star Wars cold which rubs me entirely the wrong way. Given his perchance of weak excuses (in my opinion; I’m not a Lucas fan), it may not be worth all that much; nothing he says can change what is shown on the screen.

All things considered, I maintain that I just don't like the no-attachments policy, so I'll make up my own mind on the issue; attachments should be cherished but handled responsibly. Anakin may be wise to forgo saving Padme in exchange for murder, but he should spend every second trying to save her without hurting anyone. Obi-Wan choosing to put aside personal feelings and slay his twisted apprentice may have merit, but he damn well better feel like crap afterwards. Making these kinds of decisions is what any human might have to do, and I believe the right path can be taken without turning yourself into a stone-cold husk.

(unless this was Lucas' point all along, in which case this post many be a bit redundant)