I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
"The whole point of this movie is to bridge Episode II and IV. Everyone knows what has to happen; the fun is to see how it’s going to happen."
ReplyDeleteAnd the answer turned out to be: In the most mechanical way possible.
:-)
Mechanical yes - but effective. I think Lucas gave what his audience expected - all tied up in a neat little bundle. But in retrospect - aside from the big shocker - that Vader was Luke's father, which we all learned way back when - have there have any huge surprises in the the Star Wars films? That's not Lucas's MO. His dialogue is crisp and forthright; he doesn't allude, at least in terms of his storyline. His strength is in his technical abilities and his ability to translate imagination into something visual.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that - did anybody notice a difference between The Empire Strkes Back (not directed by Lucas, but written by him) and the other Lucas directed episodes? (I have seen all of them, but my long term memory is pretty much shot at this point... )