The reason that shadow imagery is used for the Emperor is because, at least in the first part of his life, before coming to power, that's literally his thing. Working in darkness to subvert the galactic gouvernment to the point where he gained enough power.
Thanks for this! I guess I would counter: Isn't the fact that this is the most popular of all modern entertainments a sign that it has something profoundly right in its mythology - huge numbers of people are responding to something very deeply right. The storm troopers are white as they are the agents of order, and dearth Vader is also in military uniform as the head of the order - he's not a shadowy figure though the black suggests he's touched by darkness and the bug eyes suggest a loss of humanity. I see the emperor as the corrupt soul of the endeavour, obviously his physical deformity is a big clue to this, but the shadowy hood is both that he is the hidden corrupted soul behind the shiny exterior of the empires troops and technology and also there's a more literal religious aspect - he is a monk gone wrong, i.e. The oppressive parts of religious organisation.
Exactly! It's important to remember that Palpatine and Darth Vader rose up from within the old galactic republic as a sort of revolutionary force, not only rebelling against the democratic norms of the republic but even more importantly against the Jedi Order (note the word "order" there... which Palpatine continually characterized as an excess to Anakin, like an excess of light). And even as leaders within the new empire, Palpatine and Darth Vader still continued to be shadowy, dangerous figures that weren't entirely trusted by officers throughout the empire and they were feared for their stunning displays of disordered, passionate killing of subordinates. Remember the choking scene with Darth Vader? The officer who was mouthing off to Vader mocked him for his "sorcerer's ways" which he characterized as useless compared to the disciplined technological effort that had produced the Death Star. In other words, the vast majority of officers and leaders within the empire, truly were part of the "light" in the mythological sense of order, mastery of one's self and one's surroundings, and military might. But Palpatine and Vader were different figures within the empire, always continuing to be part of a shadowy and ultimately destructive group (the sith) that used the empire for their own ends without ever leaving behind the shadowy realm from which they arose.
This sounds perfect. It makes the symbolism problem an outgrowth of the original trilogy not doing a good job identifying "the people". If "the people" are the Empire, then Order is the hierarchical principle. It should be nauseating that Chaotic Dragon Vader gets away with anomalous casual murder of other officers just because he's frustrated. The Hero should rise through the ranks because of his Heroic Orderliness, and conquer Vader, re-affirming the efficacy of Order, improving its ability to ward against future Vaders. BUT, if "the people" are the Old Republic, then Anakin, the presumptive Heir, was willfully blind to the Emperor's Corruptive Influence, turned to Tyrannical destruction of Order instead of protecting it! The story requires a Hero Incorruptible to rescue Anakin, teach him to pierce the Emperor's illusions, and cast him down!
I just watched your video and I really liked it. As someone who is very much into Star Wars and both the Expanded Universe and new Canon, I can say that a lot of this has been fleshed out in why the emperor acts the way he does, and why the Dark Side isn't utilized in the sense you ask for. The simple answer stems from the philisophy of Palpatine and his perception of Bane's rule of 2. In the EU (Legends), there was a great Sith / Jedi War. The reason the Sith lost was their perception of seeking power. The idea behind Dark Side and Light Side is understanding how to control and seek power in which they can then utilize to control and seek after this kind of eternal life. Only problem is that the Light Side is the one that can actually accomplish this because their concept of power is that they do not want to rule but be closer to the Living Force (which has been explored further in SW: Rebels and Clone Wars). In many ways, it is similar to our understanding of Theosis, seeking after divinity because God in His perfect Communion wants us to join with Him in His Glory. The seeking of power of the Light is the ascetic approach to the Force. But the Dark Side looks to immortality in that all power must be willed and that the one who seeks true immortality is the one who controls. Even when they die, their legacy is what lives on and corrupts the Force, breaking the balance. This said, the ancient Sith believed in this philosophy but due to their being too many seeking it, it caused too much competition and therefore Darth Bane created this idea of the Rule of 2, where there can be many who follow the Sith way but only 2 can be Sith Lords, a Master and an Apprentice. The role of the Apprentice is to kill the Master. The role of the Master is to become as powerful as he can, corrupt the Force, but ultimately he is killed by the Apprentice. Palpatine, not wanting this to continue in this same manner sought after an approach where if you remove the competition and only allow those to seek to be his apprentice, you can prolong your life and power. Palpatine sought the same immortality that the Light did, but wanted it to be utilized in the Dark. And what I'm trying to say is, he saw Bane's system and said in a way, "this is our code, but I must make sure there is no more Apprentices that I cannot personally kill myself." He only had apprentices he could control and Vader becoming Vader in the manner he did is proof of his ultimate goal. Even though Luke is his father's son, he doesn't have the training to combat this ideas. Palpatine thought he could manipulate him like his father, but he had no intention of allowing him to really take over as Master. To somewhat summarize, Palpatine's legacy was to corrupt the Force by destroying as much life as possible but also sort of destroying Bane's rule of 2 in that he would make competition impossible. This is why the Force and sensitives were considered illegal in the Empire. If they knew you could wield the Force, you were killed. It should be noted that Palpatine's plan was this from the beginning, but as a follower of the rule of 2 himself, he was open to allowing his apprentice to kill him, as is his dialogue with Yoda before the Mustafa fight and Vader's loss. In the novelization of both Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi, Palpatine was pleased to have a controllable Vader and Chosen One. It meant that he could elimate competition but also have the ultimate way to corrupt the Force and let his legacy live on for eternity. So that was a nerdy and long statement, but this is the big reason he hides in the dark and lets others do his bidding. He wants fear and destruction because it hurts the Force and prevents real balance. Anyway, that is just my 2 cents, hope my tired response makes some sense.
Sidious uses the guise of order as propaganda. Palpatine's reclusive behavior and clothing choices is a pretty fleshed out issue both in the books, Shows, and movies. It gets into why the Empire utilizes such hyper ordered symbols as seen on-screen. Think of it this way: Palpatine/Sidious was not just a Sith Lord (an agent of chaos and imbalance), but he was also a shrewd politician and strategist. Order, for Sidious, was a way to harness power while maintaining eternal control, and in doing so saddled the unbroken mare of the upheaved galactic expanse. His path to "order" is through chaos (albeit controlled chaos), and is why he is seen through the prequels in his classic black hooded robes, to hide both his identity and his nonverbal thoughts from those under his command. He was a force user who hid his powers from the Jedi during the republic, along with his true intentions, while creating a false projected image of self. This also happens when looking at the Empire he created. The white, uniformed storm troopers, the pyramid looking ships of the galactic armada, and the structures of the imperial Palace (formerly the Jedi Temple, a symbol of order) and Senate building, are all facades of order for Darth Sidious to hide behind. Under the Empire, Palpatine is often projected in hollow vids as a kindly old man, though one with a face disfigured from previous assassination attempts, but not even his closest guards saw hardly any of his true nature. When he does display his powers in public, he kills any witnesses. Why? Because the galaxy can't know that their Font of Order is actually an Agent of Chaos, using the borrowed symbols of order to mask his true intentions. I haven't even got into the fact that under the empire, the criminal syndicates were essentially not bothered by the authorities as long as they provided services from time to time, let alone mention Darth Vader (that's another can of worms). TL;DR there is a ton more material thematically and narrative wise to digest through the books, comics, and TV shows where this is fleshed out in the canon.
You see light side and dark side as order and chaos, in the Star Wars universe they do not represent that, but rather good and evil. The Empire is an evil order, hence essentially dark, while the Rebel Alliance is a good order, hence light side. The problem comes when the most recent two movies want to pretend that the dark side of the force (evil) is somehow essential to the universe.
@@bibliusz777 if anything, the prequels did that by introducing the prophesy of bringing balance to the force, something that was never stated in the OT.
Except the problem is that they muddle that with the light side being austere ascetic self-flagellation, and the dark side being passion, strength, power, etc. The positives of the dark side and negatives of the light exist, and must be accounted for
This is exactly what´s bothered me for all this time and you just nail it! Is like in the SW the story is not been told from a impartial point of view. Is told from the a narrator on the margin so the powerfull are depicted always as deformed and dark while the resistance is aways good and pure even when the later destroys and kilsl just as much as the first. This is something that I found a posetive surprised me on TLJ, when Yoda guides Luke throught the burden of acceptance of his ows failures at the same time that Kylo Ren is portrayed more as a person suffering from the inbalance of its emotions, what looks to me as potencial chaos, not just evil. Thnaks for the excellent content, I am subscribing and waiting for more videos! :D
You’re missing the obvious Yin/Yang parallel man. There’s a black dot in the white paisley (a greedy, sneaky, spider-like Emperor, who rules his “Solar” Empire like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz), and a white dot in the black paisley: the true Solar hero, light incarnate, leading a band of rebels. In the first movie, when the Rebels are victorious, they hold an extremely visually orderly medal ceremony (the shot composition was lifted from Triumph of the Will), which is presided over by the Princess (solar royalty) symbolically rewarding her heroes: on the visual level, positive and aesthetically beautiful/spiritual order is restored (ceremony is held in a Mayan Pyramid), at least momentarily in the narrative, against the stifling, eunuchoid, bureaucratic, oppressive Solar order of the Empire.
Thinking about this and watching the video again, I hope I can share some random points: 1. Via the prequels we learn the Jedi order was flawed. They had a kind of absolutist justice system-in which love didn't figure prominently. Children were removed from parents so no attachments could be made. Luke succeeds *almost* for the same reason Anakin fails. His love for the people he cares about. Note, Luke saves Leia against Yoda's protests, whereas Anakin, held back by the Jedi, fails to save his mother. 2. The Jedi were easily duped into a war to serve as tools for evil. Though it's true the Emperor via Count Dooku manipulated both sides into war, the Separatists movement is that which evolved into the rebelion, more or less. The Separatists were in a sense at least closer to the side of good. 3. As opposed to Roman iconography, what about Nazism and Fascism? Wouldn't we find the use of black more prominent under these movements. Note, these evil movements were a reaction to the movement *away* from traditional liberal ideas and toward communism (scientific utopianism). All of Europe was dealing with anarchists, communists, and socialists-and they were creating a problem. There was a strong desire for someone to just step in and end the nonsense. 4. The emperor throughout the prequels hides that he is a Sith. I think the clear implication is that this would undermine his authority. When Star Wars (episode IV) begins, has he let it be publicly known that he is a Sith? Probably not. I guess he is maintaining a kind of dual identity. Not sure. 5. It might be worth keeping in mind that a traditional liberal order is one in which individual actions create a spontaneous order. Law is important-not rulership. Maintenance of the law, maintains the order. But law is allowed to evolve-especially where you have common law as opposed to centralized authority. 6. Nazism and socialist utopianism tend toward unitary thinking-and thus centralized governance. We all have to get into a lockstep. We all must accept the doctrine. I mean, there's a complete lack of contrast and evolution becomes stunted. The reality could aptly be described as dark. White and black become the same. Not sure about any of this. I'm deeply fascinated by iconography but have almost no knowledge of it.
I don't think you can interpret the original trilogy with the prequels in mind, a lot of the things added and expanded upon by the prequels and legends stuff muddle the good ideas represented in the original trilogy.
Well, the prequels can be taken for Lucas' further explanations on what is going on with his symbolisms, but even in the OT the Emperor is a shadowy figure most of the time. He doesn't really want order, but he uses it for his own ends. The order of the Empire is corrupt and the Rebels who want to restore the just order are forced to use chaotic tactics. It's all upside down like it's the end times.
Yes! It was indeed an eschatological set of films, from the outset. There is a reason that fiction, film and TV today is more and more occupied with the theme of the end of all things. Star Wars (OT) was the most significant precursor to this trend, a demarcation of the start of the end for our species. Fiction authors frequently intuit the future (often not knowing they are doing so), as is well known.
Very good comments... both the light and dark sides, the Republic and Senate, the Jedi and the Sith, the core and the outer rim, and the trade union and warmongers are all juxtaposed...
Also consider the symbolism of light/dark between the two sides from an Eastern symbolic perspective. The original trilogy is full of Eastern philosophy and symbolism, most specifically Taoist. Consider the structure of the symbol for Yin/Yang. Within the greater half that is light and orderly there is a circle in the core of darkness and chaos. And within the chaotic half is a center of order. By this symbolism, it would make sense that the inner circle at the heart of the ultra-regimented empire would be one of darkness and chaos. This aligns with the idea of bringing *balance* to the force. The light side of the force can not and should not try to overcome and destroy the dark side, but rather the two halves must be kept in balance. We see this at the end of Return of the Jedi, what makes Luke the ultimate Jedi master who surpasses the generations that trained him is that he spends time walking the path of both the Light side and the Dark side. He does not deny his emotions like an old Jedi nor rule by his passions like a Sith. He is compassionate.
I could be wrong in this but in a Lucas quote he said that we all see a different part of the cow, referring to traditions in Hinduism. That kinda reminds me of the quote from the Bhagavad Gita " I am become death", perhaps representing the emperor & Vader.
After discovering you and Dr. Peterson I started to draw parallels between Star Wars and other Hero's Journey tales and concluded to myself that the Death Star is like a combination of both a dragon (massive, destructive, breathes "fire") and a castle (grey, fortified, holds troops and prisoners), from which the hero must save the princess and ultimately defeat. Tarkin, in the case of Episode 4, would be the "malevolent king" figure, while Vader would be a black knight in contrast to Luke wearing white for most of the film. Luke even starts off as a farmer. Although the film does harken back to the "dark colored order" of Nazi Germany, I find it interesting that the further away from the command structure one would be, the lighter in color their uniforms become. It's as though the lightness of order is difficult to contain. The introduction of the Emperor starting in episode five also makes some sense that he is a shadowy figure because until that point no one knew who he was or who was pulling the strings (and the fact a trilogy wasn't on the books until after the first film's success). In a sense, he's like the popular depiction of George Soros, a sunless philanthropist who feigns aiding others and instead funds disruptive elements of society for personal gain. Another example would be Scar's kingdom in The Lion King. Maybe the darkness represents the transitory period before righteous order, with chaos growing in Episodes 1-3 and a final encounter with chaos in Episode 6? The "light" side being in power and leading to peace would be akin to order under a benevolent king. Either that, or Lucas could very well have been playing upon World War II a little too much and subverted some of the archetypes. I won't touch on Episode 7 and later, as I've a feeling that the Disney canon has lost the point.
Jonathan, from a Kabbalistic perspective, it's as though they got the jedi and sith backwards. the jedi are all about order, asceticism, and self denial. the sith are all about passion, letting go of inhibition, and fully embracing one's personal freedom. Looking at this in from the Kabbalistic tree, the Jedi would actually rule the right hand path, and the Sith the left hand path. What is bizarre is that the right hand path has Saturn as its primary ruler - the dark planet, that imposes order and restriction. Then why are the Jedi always wearing white, supporting a republic, and acting rebelliously? Similarly, The left hand path gets empowered through the sun, Jupiter, and venus. These symbolize light and loving authority, expansion and freedom, love and passion. Then why is the emperor and vader dressed in black, controlling a tyrannical government, and imposing strict order? Some of it works, and some doesn't. So if I was to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe I'd say they were going for some yin yang kind of theme, where elements of the dark ended up in the light, and vice versa. I'm inclined to say that is being generous though.
The first point I would like to make is that we should not confuse the map for the territory. Archetypes and mythological constructs such as lightness and darkness are simply the SYMBOLIC forms that our cultures have utilized to represent the actual territory. The truth and reality that they represent is always more complex than the symbols on the map. Second. Tyranny can originate from an excess of lightness or darkness but it doesn't always manifest in such simplistic dialectical forms. Remember the Yin and the Yang. There is Yin within the Yang and Yang within Yin. So too, order can emerge within chaos and chaos from within order. So with the case of the Empire being symbolized by dark forces even though Empires are often portrayed(SYMBOLIZED) as a surplus of light, it holds true to the actual territory that pathological order is a form of darkness and so could be represented as such.
You know the more I think about it the more that the symbolism of Star Wars begins to make sense to me. The key concept to latch onto, for me, would be the evolution of this myth out of WW2. Jordan Peterson has talked before about Hitler and about how Hitler began to embody the shadow of the mob. He talks about how Hitler seemed to follow the darker passions of the population until he came to embody their shadow entirely. He was undeniably a figure of order that was visually represented with Solar imagery and other traditional symbols of order, but I think it's hard to argue against the notion that he was a shadow at the head of an empire. Palatine and Vader seem to mirror this idea pretty well. Luke's journey seems to be the perfect counter to this imbalance. He defeats the shadow within himself instead of outsourcing the job to the ordered paradigm. The chaos within the Emperor and Vader are attempted to be fixed by altering the world around them instead of within themselves. It's the classic "well there's either something wrong with ME or the rest of the world". Vader and the Emperor see their personal chaos as existing outside themselves and so seek to order the world to "fix" the chaos that they wrongfully attribute to external factors. Luke, on the other hand, finds order within himself. He manages to master his shadow. It's the sorted individual who has earned the right to righteously challenge the existing paradigm. There's lots of confusion for me with Star Wars :p I'd love to hear what you would say about this.
2:02, that’s also a critique of 1984 by George Orwell. That it’s a bad political strategy for the dictator to divorce himself from all human aspects and reduce himself to a face on a screen instead of using a cult of personality
Empire having solar symbols is no diferent im Star Wars, the canon symbol of the Galactic Empire is a Dark Sun. The comparisson to nazism is obvious since the swastka is also a Dark Sun symbol. It is a little weird the idea of a Dark Empire but nazism is more than a little weird, and their mystical symbolic roots are very old.
The way I see it that makes most sense, is to frame the archetypal story structure as the story of the good king versus the evil tyrannical king, and the stories of their sons. Here is the representation: The Emperor is the archetype of the tyrannical king/father, Yoda is the good wise king/father. Their sons are Darth Vader and Luke respectively. It's a bit complex since Luke is the son of Darth Vader, not Yoda. That twist may have fowled up the proper story structure, but it still works. Luke redeems Darth Vader by convincing him to literally throw off the evil king and his influence. As Obi-wan Kenobi says in episode IV, Darth Vader "is more machine than man now," so when Darth Vader accomplishes this he himself must die since he has already lost so much of his soul, though now he can see "with his own eyes". Luke is the good son of Yoda in the story's sense, hence the 'light side' of the force. The empire represents the domination of the soul by the evil king, over rigidification and order, hence the 'dark side' and the black and grey imperial armies.Still formulating this idea.
Anger can drive to power which is achievable through order/discipline. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were born of anger and continued to spew it in violence even as they made themselves the exemplifications of totalitarian order. Anger - controlled and directed - was their drive. Their stated raison d'etre was to smash. I agree on the imperial symbolism being wrong at first glance... but... the totalitarian emperor must hide his (or now her) anger both from self and from the ruled. Some justification is given - 'natural' order (Nazi), social justice (communist). But the will to achieve these ideals comes from... anger.
I thought about this kind of thing a lot. I used the idea of really horrible tyrants who often got assassinated for showing their hand and why it doesn't make sense to use shadowy, evil symbols for peak order. My conclusion was that shadowy, Palpatine-like symbolism doesn't make sense and won't work up to a point where they perceive they can be defeated. The tyrant can maintain the symbol of light, order, and benevolence up to the point where no one can challenge him. I think of it in 3 tiers. Shadowy rebellion is the way to beat structure and order, but if structure and order hits a critical mass of power, then it has no need to ever fear shadowy rebellion because it's too strong. At that point, the mask can be dropped. Uncontested, there's no need to lie anymore and evil beings can drop the mask and show their shadowy nature without fear. I always went back to the ideas of rulers like Caligula who were blatantly evil and why they could possibly think that was a good idea. The insanity there was that they thought they were invincible, so they had no need to pretend to show light or order because they were gods and couldn't be stopped. They could be themselves because they were no longer afraid.
Lucas was heavily influenced by Kurosawa and Kurosawa was heavily influence by spaghetti westerns. Lucas translated an entire Scifi world from samurai movies that Kurosawa had translated from cheap westerns. This could account for the jumbled symbolism in Star Wars.
In the old westerns some black clad guy comes to town with his gang and takes over, or becomes sheriff and tyrannizes everyone. Then some outlaw guy on the fringes of town decides to stop him. Both of them wield their weapons with superhuman proficiency. etc.
I like your idea. It reminds me of how in the hunger games the Capital was portrayed with an excess of beauty and order, and with scenes of president Snow in front of a golden statue. Comparing this to the districts where the clothes are dull and plain. Obviously this was also a way of showing the wealth inequality which is a giant theme in the series
The notion of the Yin and Yang applies to multiple levels of order within the Star Wars universe. There's 3 possible levels of order that form the 'hierachy'. The struggle between good and evil occurs at all 3 levels. There's the level of the individual (specifically members of the Sky Walker family) The level of societal organization through government/religion (ie Empire Vs. Rebels and Sith Vs. Jedi) and there's literally God (The Force). Despite the constant struggle by agents of the light to overthrow the dark, and vice-versa it simple never happens. Neither side is ever able to fully swallow the other, at any level. If it DOES happen at one level, such as the imbalance of power between Jedi and Sith, then there's a moment of Divine Intervention (ie The Virgin Birth). Think of Anakin as the character who is forced to straddle the line between the two sides in order to maintain the balance. Think of Yoda and Sidous as opposite ends of the spectrum (good and evil). Think of the 'human' as the line somewhere inbetween. Solzhenitsyn demonstrates the eternal struggle of light and dark perfectly, “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil. Anakin/Vader is more of a Tragic Hero figure than outright evil. Audience members wouldn't be so emotionally attached if they weren't able to sympathize with his story. Sidious is completely evil, Yoda is completely good, they're opposite ends of a spectrum. Anakin straddles that line, the line that's present in the heart of every viewer. Character's who are outright evil or good are more predictable, boring, harder to sympathize with and further from the actual truth regarding human nature. Anakins' decent into the 'underworld' IE the dark side is reflected in his gradual changing of costume (light clothes as child, brown/black/light as a Jedi, and completely black as a Sith). And the actual lighting in the scenes during the film reflect this transition into the underworld as well. He's is the classic portrayal of Hero's Journey/ Tragic Hero character, in a way it was NECESSARY for him to embrace his shadow so that he could ultimately redeem himself by self sacrificing to kill the emperor and save his Son, without the Heroes Journey he would never have been able to defeat the Emperor. It's no surprise to me that the 3 most highly rated characters in the film Franchise are the most heavily conflicted ones (Anakin, Luke, Han). Why isn't Yoda voted greatest "hero" figure of all time ? It's obvious that he has all the traits we would consider virtuous. Why isn't Sidious voted greatest Villian? Because we know the battle within the human heart is more complicated than that, and Yoda and Sidious serve more as unrealistic ideals than anything rooted in reality.
The one piece you're missing is that the evil Empire is in fact an inversion of the proper order, which is aligns with what you describe. The Old Republic, the hallowed golden age that they're trying to get back to, was a time when the Jedi and the Light Side ruled the galaxy. That's what makes the evil dark side Empire doubly repugnant.
Could it be that a great number of individuals with particular psychological temperaments significantly benefit from such inversions and confusions? Reality and nature are not fair and there are more losers than winners, the losers revel in the inversion of the concept of winning as a loser, could this be the case?
A couple of comments: One is about storm troopers. The storm troopers are dressed in white armor that stands out as a symbol of both fearlessness and disposability. They white armor can be seen from very far away, displaying that they do not fear death. However, the uniformity of the armor, and the fact that their faces are entirely obscured by their helmets shows that they are uniform, and that they are disposable. As a stormtrooper, they are all the same: fearless in the face of death, and entirely disposable. As for the emperor, that actually follows a typical starwars Sith trope. The Sith generally do not expose themselves to the public; they operate through both subtle and obvious tactics, instilling fear and terror as a means of control, and obtaining their ultimate goal: ultimate power, and the distruction of all who would oppose them. I would also add that neither side of the force is inherently good or evil when not practiced in excess. There exists in old cannon starwars lore, Grey Jedi, who do not believe in either the dark or light side, but only the force generically, and that balance is entirely needed in order to be properly ordered. This philosophy of the grey Jedi seems to harken to Carl Young's idea of incorporating the shadow. In my opinion, the fundemental flaw of Starwars is that neither Jedi nor Sith are fully incorperated. The Sith possess passions to excess, allowing their passions to rule them, and the Jedi an almost tyrannical disspassion to point of rejecting even those things which are good. Additionally, before the rise of the Sith, as seen in the prequel trilogy, the Jedi serve the system entirely, have no defences against passions due to entirely rejecting the incorperation of healthy desires such as love and relationship, and are functionally sterile, as they do not have children of their own, but rely on collecting children from around the galaxy to continue their own order. I think the best examples of both Jedi and Sith can be found in the Darth Bane trilogy, where Darth Bane sees passions and individuals all as means to an end, disolaying unvelievable cunning, and horrifying acts of evil, all for an ultimate goal, where as specific Jedi learn to channel their passions in order to better end the Sith dynasty.
The Emperor is reflective of the shady unknown character that really runs everything. Fits into the conspiracy idea of mistrust and that the strings are being pulled on a more mysterious level.
I would suggest reading the books, "Darth plagueis" in particular, this will give you an understanding of who the emperor is and the mythos behind the dark and the light side. It is well worth your time because it gives very interesting parallels to the Bible.
I haven't heard this argument before. Well done. My response is Lucas is the darkness and always hated power above him. It is his propaganda to paint rebellion as light. It's also the western trope; the good cowboy wears white. Light and dark are 2 sides of the same coin. That's why both Imperial & Rebel troops are both in black & white, just to different degrees.
Earlier on in Star Wars canon the Sith were the more chaotic force users that were controlled by their emotions. Palpatine is just a peculiar Sith Lord that somehow was able to channel his dark side into something that resembled order, however his chaotic side is still there deep down. Palpatine knew that in order for the Sith to survive and take over the galaxy he needed to hide his chaos in a Trojan horse of order, and it can be seen that he doesn’t really care about his empires well being, to him it’s just a tool that he can use to amass resources, resources that are necessarily in helping him achieve immortality through expensive experiments and ancient Sith sorcery that needs lots of manpower to be excavated. Once Palpatine achieved this immortality and unlimited power then he probably would care less about his empire, and would just let everything fall into chaos while reigning supreme as a god above the squabbles of man, watching from a comfortable distance as he pull the strings for his own amusement. I feel like a better way to look at the light side and dark side would be to view it through the lens of selflessness and selfishness. A Jedi is supposed to enact the will of the force (nature) whether they like it or not, they shouldn’t try to enforce their own will on the universe and use the force as a way to do that. However, during the prequel era we can see how the Jedi became too involved in politics and were beginning to use the force to promote institutions that went against the force’s will, so the establishment of the empire was needed to stabilize the Republic and allow room for Luke and Anakin to bring balance and wipe the slate clean. The Sith on the other hand, are pro using the force to enact their own will, and they use strong emotions as a way to channel the force to do their bidding instead of the other way around. However, this is against the natural order of things which can be seen in the fact that the faces of Sith Lords often become deformed, they get blood shot eyes, and get withering skin, essentially the force is fighting back against them for misusing its power. To be in balance with the force simply means to follow the natural flow of the universe instead of trying to control it, if the force wants someone to destroy something that’s good, if the force wants someone to preserve something that’s good, if the force wants chaos at a certain time then good, if it wants order at a certain time then it’s also good. Things only get out of wack when the will of the universe is offset by humans trying to be gods
I dont get your issue with this, the whole point of Star Wars is about the balance between light and darkness.. One of the main arguments is exactly what you discuss here, where the light and the dark, if pushed to the extremes, end off being very bad. The idea of the prequels is that there was actually something wrong with the Jedi Order. Even if they aimed to be virtuous, the force was unbalanced, and the universe itself required balance.. And so the darkness rose. The representation of hyper militarized totalitarian dictator rule is meat to represent just that, the genocidal rise to power and domination of all. Not all the movies are amazing, and plenty have flaws, but it is clear that this isn't about good vs. evil, but rather light and darkness itself, which are governed by comic forces beyond our conceptions of good and evil or light and darkness. The force itself is the answer you seek. Explore that, instead of the political ramifications of the balance between light and darkness.
Try reading Matthew Stover's novel, Shatterpoint, set just after Attack of the Clones and with Mace Windu as the protagonist. Stover does a lot in that novel (and the spiritual sequel, Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor) to explore some philosophy of the dark/light side that covers and answers some of your observations. For example, it's not just a matter of order vs chaos, the book illustrates the dark side of civilization as well as the light and dark sides of 'the jungle,' or chaos. Bascially, the Empire has law and order and discipline, but with no heart or moral center. The purpose is power for its own sake, not creating a civilization with the goal of ensuring freedom of the individual (what the Jedi want) and it's at that time, when there's order without morality, that the light side resists and rebels. As for the Emperor's look, up until Revenge of the Sith, I assumed he looked different at first, but gradually withdrew from public life as the power he used rotten and corrupted him and he could no longer put forth a false glamour of light. But then, they wanted to show him in Revenge of the Sith as he was in Return of the Jedi, so the moviemakers had his character get deformed.
The concept of the dark side and the light is adopted from a premodern mythological concept of good and evil. Robert Moore in his book "Facing the Dragon: Confronting Personal and Spiritual Grandiosity" addresses this concept. Premodern mythological concepts of good and evil suggest that evil is a force that has a will of its own. Evil does not appear to people as evil. It appears to us as short-term solutions to problems that in the long-term will damage us. An example of the dark side in everyday life: say you are bored and have nothing to do. You could work on improving yourself by going to the gym, reading, completing your chores, etc. Or you can choose to ease your boredom by embracing short-term thrills that lead to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Yoda even says that the dark side is the quick and easy path. The Sith believe that by embracing the dark side (the mythological evil) they can rise and obtain power and with power they can embrace true freedom and achieve their goals, which is to dominate the galaxy. The Jedi embrace the light because it is the embodiment of good throughout the universe. In the Star Wars prequels, the Sith operated more like the League of Shadows in Batman Begins. They sought to use the dark side to take over the benevolent but imperfect republic to establish an order by which the dark side (or premodern mythological evil) was in control of the universe. The rebels we in hiding because the dark side had obtained control, and they sought to overthrow the government the dark side took over (now the Empire) and restore the light, aka the premodern mythological concept of good. Yes Palpatine looks like an ugly shadow and Vader is very scary looking. In the Star Wars Rebels animated show, the Emperor would doctor images of himself to make him appear as a more regal and benevolent figure but in reality he is a very ugly and scary guy because he is the embodiment of the dark side itself. The Emperor as a symbol in the movies represents the dark side itself, how it is a force with a will of its own. Vader on the other hand does not represent the dark side itself, but Vader is a stand-in for the ordinary audience member, who through Vader sees that this is what we could become if we allow the premodern mythological concept of evil (symbolized by the Emperor himself) to consume us. Luke is the perfect contrast to Vader because Luke is a stand-in for Anakin, the good man Darth Vader was before the dark side consumed him. Through Luke and Vader we see what happens to us when we choose light and when we choose dark.
The trick to understanding Star Wars is to come to the understanding that The Balance itself is the Light Side. Once you understand that, you come to realize that the Jedi and the Sith are both messing everything up, and the Saviour becomes the saviour by rejecting both the Jedi and the Sith. The sith are causing disbalance by embracing the Force as a predator embraces it's prey, while the jedi upset the balance by losing sight of the fringe and expecting everyone to confom to their ideals. However the jedi are better than the sith because at least they aim for what is good and miss, while the sith do away with any notion of good and evil.
Hi Jonathan, I understand your confusion, but I believe your take on the Star Wars premise to be wrong. You hypothesize that the light and dark side of the force relate to order (light) and disorder (dark), and thus, that the so-called Rebel Alliance should be affiliated to the "dark side" (chaos), whereas the Empire to the "light side" (order). I believe this to be fundamentally wrong. I'd rather argue that the "light side" of the force derives it's power from the "higher consciousness", or the whole, and that the "dark side" derives its power from the "self", or the individual. I will only address the original trilogy, plus the prequels. The Disney "sequels" are a fucking mess, so I won't even bother. Remember the prophecy : Anakin was to be the one to bring balance to the force. This is important. Now, what was the Republic? It was a highly bureaucratic theocracy, regimented by a sect of selfless warrior monks (light side) who kept the peace. It kept going for a looong time, in a galaxy far, far away. Individual whims and needs (dark side) were suppressed, to better "benefit" the whole, a.k.a. the light side. "Uncompromising harmony" would be its motto. As a post WW2 propaganda analogy, this could be construed as idealistic communism. But what is the whole without the individual? Now, who was Anakin? A very strong-willed individual, who felt oppressed and suppressed at every turn by that power structure. What did he do? He took over the whole system, along with Palpatine and his sympathizers, equally dissatisfied with the state of it all. He's the true revolutionary in the story. In other words, Anakin was the original Rebel. He's the one who usurped power from a stagnant entity. Only now, the selfless warrior monks (Jedi) were replaced by equally selfless warriors, the Stormtroopers. And instead of serving a "higher consciousness", they served the "self", an individual : Emperor Palpatine. The Republic, in structure and form, actually changed very little. But it now derived it's power from a different source : the self (dark side), rather that the whole (light side). Selfish Palpatine was now the Emperor, rather than a conflicting mess of a senate (both equally flawed). And the Empire? A continuation of the Republic. In a twist of fatalistic irony, Anakin merely revealed the true nature of the Republic's power structure for the galaxy to see. He's always felt oppressed and tyrannized by that power structure, and turned it on its head : "This is your precious Republic", he must've thought. "This is what you've built. Reap the fruits thereof" And he then crashed the whole fucking thing with no survivors. Why? Because he finally came to realize, at the final confrontation with his own son, that there was no contradiction between the self and the whole, the dark and the light. Luke begged HIM, Anakin, the individual. Not his ideals, not his higher self, just HIM. Luke needed HIM. "Father, please!" A sincere, heartfelt appeal to BOTH his individuality and his selflessness. In that instant, Anakin understood. "Light" and "Dark" were one. And he gave his own life to save his son, killing selfish Palpatine (dark side) and destroying the Republic (light side), laying the ground for a new beginning (or one could say : a New Hope). And he brought back balance to the force, uniting the higher consciousness (the light side) with the self (the dark side), fulfilling prophecy. I hope this makes sense. Food for thought. (I still gave you a like, lol. And subscribed)
it is clear to me that the concept of order and chaos in the star wars movies is well developed in the sense of thermodynamic properties of matter. The misunderstanding comes from assiging order directly to light, when the opposite is true. Ordered systems are cold and do not give out much light whereas the disordered systems are hot and give out light but indiscriminately. the thing about the dark side it's that one can use order to develop a system by which one can control and make use of the light (the force) with higher efficiency but with less interaction with it, on the other hand, in the light side one can become the very light itself but can easily become overwhelmed with too much of it or having it but unable to handle it. This is why only the highest of minds can become Jedi, and the reason why people that can handle the force but are dominated by fear turn to the dark side, they put barriers to the force to control it, become colder ordered systems. This analogy can be further developed too.
This is a very interesting and inspiring approach. Thank you :) Just one thing about the political aspect of order versus subversion. Here, I tend to think about the difference between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Theories of totalitarianism did major disservice by presenting those two as essentially the same kind of political entity. I think the Star Wars Empire reflects the way libidinal energies are harnassed and "ordered" by the Nazi movement. In contrast with the Soviet Union, which is based on an Enlightenment view of reason, history and progress, the Nazis capitalized on blood, the inbriddled libido of the pagan "blond beast", and the notions of vitalism, will and decision.
In total darkness people would be pale and sensitive to light. In the brightest light, our retinas would burn out and leave us in darkness. I agreed with you but then you challenged someone to prove you wrong, and the more I thought about it, it can't be a coincidence that star wars is perfectly wrong. If that were true, perfectly wrong is very helpfully wrong, because we can just look at the opposite and find truth, like C.S Lewis's Screwtape letters. I don't know how I feel about it, but I stumbled onto something about Jacobs ladder, and the person said that the Kabbhalistic process has to be repeated four times, one at the animal stage, the human, the spiritual and the divine. It would make sense that steering someone one way would eventually lead to an over compensation, and maybe starwars begins later in this process, after things have completely reversed. We see that in the Last Jedi, Luke says that the Jedi order has completely changed. I'm curious what you think. Thanks by the way for all your videos, you're one of my favorites.
I see the Star Wars stuff as more of Chokmah vs Binah, where Chokmah shines uncontrollable brilliant light and Binah accepts and constricts to give form to that light. This sort of flips the Dark to be the stabilizing force, like the Empire, and the Light to be a vitalizing force, like the Rebellion.
I think Star Wars makes more sense through the filter of Jayne's book on the bicameral mind. The light side of the force is passive, as one is passively accepting the dictates of the gods and doing their will. The dark side of the force represents consciousness, and the tyrannical ego that seeks to submerge or still the gods. There was a time when the governments in biblical times cracked down on the "crazies" who lived out in the desert. These were men who still listened to the gods instead of obeying the official dictates of the government, so they were systematically slaughtered. Thus, the old ways were destroyed, and in was ushered the more orderly realm of conscious government, even as people languished for the time before the gods abandoned us. As for the particular symbolism of the Emperor, I think it might show how a shadow government works, but it is not clear symbolically. You would normally have a overt emperor who shows solar symbolism, but then you would have the dark wizard who actually controls things, hiding behind the curtain. The Emperor is more of a manipulator, and the window behind him suggests that he is at the center of a vast spiderweb, pulling the strings. Also, I'm reminded of Hitler's fascination with the occult. There was the overt ruler, but there was also an occult side. The occult messages permeated the propaganda, but they originated in a dark circles of muttering sorcerers. Star Wars should have had Palpatine as a shadow figure, hiding behind the actual Emperor, like Rasputin creeping around the royal palace, sowing the seeds of destruction. Darth Vader could have been Michelletto to Palpatine's Caesar Borgia.
All empires use appearances to convince their subjects they represent a righteous cause. Even In this day, the military showcases their soldiers in elaborate uniforms. Of course, the Empire followed in this tradition by using white armor, in order to project a positive image. However, hidden from the public were the higher echelon generals, who were dressed in nazi - like uniforms, while the Emperor was portrayed in a black hooded Cape and hood , similar to the Grimm Reaper or Greek god Cronus. Which I think is an image that is symbolically truthful.
I wouldn't conflate Empire with the Dark Side and Rebellion with Light Side. Lord Vader is seen as a member of an outdated religion by other Admirals on the Deathstar, he had to choke a bitch (unlawful conduct) to prove his worth. The Jedis were hated for their war mongering, but as a victim of the Empire they became myth among the rebels. The Sith have ousted the Jedi as the Rulers of the Galactic Government - but the Empire remains primarily a disciplined military organization. Sith vs Jedi and Rebels vs Empire are two different stories in the same saga. That's what you are missing in the symbolism.
This is why I've always wanted the films to delve into the grey jedi's, who move freely between the light and dark sides. They are not consumed by their anger or fear, they can wield it without being wielded. Like the burning bush. Yes, Star Wars is fundamentally a little too presentational and theatrical, grossly caricaturizing both Christian themes and the historical reality of the World Wars. Perhaps could you do a follow up video on the light/dark, sin/righteousness dualisms, and elaborate on the notion of the false light?
The Empire is what you get when the Dark Ninjas win. But there is definite confusion between the Light and Dark sides. Its Vader's love that allows him to be redeemed. Its Luke's compassion that fuels him to destroy the Death Star, and to go after his friends when they are in danger, against instructions. Luke is bad at the light side, and Vader is bad at the dark side, and these failures are the windows through which they succeed. The Sith Order and the Jedi Order both collapse over the course of Lucas six films, leaving a void, presumably to be filled by a new philosophy based on Luke's experiences. Instead we got Neo-Sith temper tantrums and NeoJedi nihilism
Oh, and the empire itself is wrapped in the symbolism of light, much like the Nazi's were. It's the Emperor and Vader specifically who are the "dark" ones. So they are the Dark, corrupted Rebels, currently ruling the (formerly) brilliant order, but pushing that order into the "too much light" category as the yang to their yin.
Interesting. I kind of think Star Wars is a story of imbalance and humanity, more so when you take into account the prequels. The Senate and the Jedi Counsel were not without their own flaws. Taken as a whole I think it's a story of human nature, never good enough or strong enough to have control or to resist change. Change that can be either good or bad, depending on the current system of values in place. (Edit 1)After watching your guardians of the galaxy symbolism video, I think the star wars story is basically the side of excess purity and the side of excess imperialism, but without the moderate hero. Anakin Skywalker was a failed messiah, he walked both paths, but couldn't find the balance. (Edit 2) I also think if you look at how Anakin, or Darth Vader, is portrayed physically as its representative as to when power is shifting, in the form of the failed prophet. As a slave child, he is an outsider of the Jedi, and wouldn't normally be allowed to join their order. As a flawed person, he is never adequately rewarded by the holier than thou Jedi. But, as his corruption from the Emperor cements itself, he loses all of his limbs and becomes a machine. He remains a machine until he overthrows his dark emperor, and then becomes human again by demasking, but becoming human also kills him in the end, because he needed to remain a machine to exist. sorry for rambling as just a fan of stories, not a master of symbology.
I won't say you're wrong. But I will say that in the Star Wars universe books, the concerns of the Force are fleshed out. With the Disney movies being new cannon, the Star Wars universe is done away. Now called legends which I see as relegating the creation of a universe, a world to a place of ghosts.
It is interesting how our contemporary society seems obsessed with adapting traditional mythology to contemporary tastes. We not only see it in things like Star Wars, but also in the obsession with fairy tale revisionism. You've talked about Shrek, but there is also Gregory Maguire's Wicked, Angela Carter's heavily sexualized versions of Grimm and Perrault, Carol Ann Duffy's poems, various Margaret Atwood fictions, movies like Maleficent and Frozen. Perhaps even Game of Thrones, which attempts to revise Tolkien.
Star Wars is not a completed myth. Its symbolism is still in making. Just like any story rich in symbolism, especially original one, it has to be done trough variation, iteration, re-assembly. In greater franchise of Star Wars many creative people were wrestling with similar questions although perhaps they didn't know it; they approached it from different angles. Writers and creators of books, games, comics etc. For instance, writers of Old Republic games-they contributed huge amount to overall Star Wars philosophy/lore- were trying to explain philosophies of dark and light by invoking Nietzsche's ideas. Dark Siders are in this interpretation those beings that struggle to become their own gods. Their own hierarchy, builders of civilization, civilization shaped so that they -gods of it-can perpetually develop. And yes, the irony is that it's not about being orderly but giving into a passion, chaotic side of you because Jedi's-light side-seem to be excess of orderliness and they fight against change, human nature, since they fight against passion. Games suggest that both sides are WRONG and that truth lies in mixing both philosophies so that light and dark remain in balance and you are in between. Books and other sources as well were struggling often with various philosophies of force, good and evil. As universe/myth of SW stands today jedi and sith are heirs to split between force users of millennia ago that apparently were using both dark and light side in some fashion, but because it was so easy to give in to chaos without becoming orderly first (so that chaos may bebe directed towards positive endavours) many force users became corrupted by their own natures (the idea is that once you wield unnatural power its easy to follow your darkest desires) so it was decided that emotions need to be purged from teachings about the force. Unfortunately, nobody knows in SW universe how to achieve the right balance now. As result Jedi's are always stifling everything and become distant, aloof, cold, inhuman. Siths are following the path of self-destruction. You can see that in their credos (also form the game): There is no emotion, there is peace. There is no ignorance, there is knowledge. There is no passion, there is serenity. There is no chaos, there is harmony. There is no death, there is the Force. Sith credo: Peace is a lie. There is only Passion. Through Passion I gain Strength. Through Strength I gain Power. Through Power I gain Victory. Through Victory my chains are Broken. The Force shall free me. The lore of Star Wars insists that Galaxy (metaphore of universe, world, creation) is in perpetual war between jedis and siths over nature of truth and meaning of life, but both sides are afraid of doing right steps to achieve enlightenment because it means giving in to teachings of the other; it means venturing forth into unknown. As result they are entrenched in their incomplete understanding of reality, fighting enternally and dooming galaxy to repeat circle fo conflict, death and destruction. Star Wars greater myth is about error in understanding meaning. All of this was derived from the very thing that you talk about-this dissonance in symbolism that perhaps was done by George Lucas accidentally. But other creators were stuck with it so they tried to explain it in a logical fashion.
Lawrence of Arabia might be a film to contrast this with. There you have a sexually ambiguous guerrilla leader, at the service of a larger empire, but also in ambiguous relationship to it, trying to use irregular troops to overthrow a different empire. In the end, he has no place in the post-war era.
You are overlooking the _point of view_ of the hero(es) of the films (original trilogy): from Luke's perspective, of course the Empire is evil, and the Light Side is associated with an ideal civilization that was overthrown by Palpatine in order to erect his Galactic Empire. The Jedi used to be the knights in shining armor guarding the peace of that gone-by democracy. All this is given as exposition by Obi Wan in the very first film. And as for the Emperor's fashion choice: him being able to neglect his appearance shows how powerful his grip on his subjects is. He can _afford_ to look like a necromancer, because everyone is scared shitless at the mere mention of his name. Again, this is introduced in the first movie when imperial officers talk about _fear_ keeping the local systems in line (and this is also what the Emperor needs the force for: manipulation and threatening, and in some more resilient cases, straight out murder). No real emperor was ever able to indulge in this kind of hybris and _live_ (no offense, Nero, but you had it coming). This exaggeration is a classic element of fantasy as a genre - the same in the Lord of the Rings: the dark ruler is simply a projection of all our fears, and Sauron is no different in that way from Palpatine.
Interesting. My take is that simply this is about the Force being out of balance. That is why the tropes involved were disorganized. As Vader was the one to have brought balance and did not, the chaos of the system invaded and sublimated the order.
I don’t think you get the idea of changing what we believe or is common and flipping it in it’s head to create a new way to tell a story... Watch the prequels and you get why the Empire is clean sleek and uniform, it was the good sides army then taken over by the emperor... why would he change what he has , he is trying to disguise himself. It’s not common knowledge that the emperor is a force user and that he use the dark side I think your using your own bies and what you expect to guide to symbolism in your way there fore don’t understand Is another video you don’t seem to understand why females are being more prominent and not taking over masculinity but rather feminine strength and showing diversity I still how ever enjoy watching your video and seeing a difference perspective Keep up the work
Black is the color of materialism. as seen by motorcycle gangs, black leather jackets and the earth element. It would make perfect symbolic sense to portray Darth Vader as black and Skywalker as a light bearer savior type In any case, I think that Stars Wars is the perfect myth for our age in that it portrays the duplicity of the public which is too easily fooled by the lies and propaganda of the elite rulers. Much of the chaos and turmoil caused in.our present world is thought to be conspiracy of the "one world goverment*. Such phrases as " false flags"and "fake news" are in the air - which are motifs the Emperor used to attain power in the first Star Wars . Now following a spirtual line of thought , the psyche / soul must integrate its shadow to become whole and powerful. This would explain why Luke must face all the evil his father represents, and understand how it fits in with the whole. Darth Vader and the Empire personifies the stagnant past that has to pass away or die for a better type of person to be born. This evoultionary concept is behind the many myths in which the father tries to kill a divine child. [ Cronos @ Zeus, Christ @ Herod, Krishna@ Kamsa] .As this motif alludes to the resistance of powerful material forces and beings to spiritual growth.
I'm a little late :) don't you think that in this case it is appropriate to think of "Apollonial' order which in it's excessive form turns to it's opposite - dark kingdom i.e. absolute order of death. While Spirit of Lite bringing freedom is in it's excessive form turning into Lord of Chaos - just as you described it in latest video on The Last Jedi?
The imagery of the Force in Star Wars can be summed up in the yin yang symbol... the dark center in the light side and the center of light in the dark side... an eternal dance of revolving inversion... the non-canon stories build on this inversion by having the Sith masters show themselves to be true light only veiled by darkness of their old selves and mores while they cultivate disdain for the Jedi who bind their adherents with powerless rituals designed to deny the Self and cloud their perception to the idea that the Force is One and the dark side is the only way to discover this supposed truth... "Not from a Jedi" is the taunt of the Sith to goad their adherents to "enlightenment"...
Dark side represents destructive emotions, greed, hate, addiction. It's the dark side that uses the empire, not the empire that uses the dark side. The Rebellion was once the empire, except they didn't use their darker emotions, they ruled through harmony. Rey and Luke abandon the Jedi order later on because they find out the emperor was secretly manipulating the order, turning it into a chaos. The empire is a state of chaos. Where the galaxy was once in order, eg the republic, it fell into chaos when the empire took over as a tyrant. He's a sorcerer, he manipulates others using their dark side emotions. He gets to them through their pride, and greed and passions. It's because of him that the empire is so depraved, he is the root of all the evil. The light side was order, the dark chaos. The emperor essentially killed off the light side, leaving him the sole source of order. But it is a chaotic order. The empire is what happens when power is left unchecked. Order 66 ensured there would be no one left to challenge them, to regulate. Rey is the Forces balancing agent. Luke shares with her his and the Jedi orders failures, and she is left all the wiser, she also ensured she grabbed the sacred texts before Yoda zapped the temple. He did it because he know the texts were already where they should be, with Rey. He burned the temple to free Luke of his guilt. After he left all that behind, his connection to the force was restored and he did what he could to save the day. This is a lesson to us all to learn from our mistakes and move on, not to be trapped by our pain, to let go.
I was really wowed by Star Wars. I had a friend who'd memorized the entire script. He could go through the entire movie at school. He has since slipped off to be with Obi-Wan on the other side.
Did it only really go wrong after The Empire Strikes Back? (I mean, symbolically--for a lot of other reasons it started to go wrong after The Empire Strikes Back).
I think, you are right, it is confusing, but thinking about it...Star Wars is a kids story. It's very popular amongst adults and since Episode 2 has turned more towards an adult audience by using more and more action. But it remains a fairytale with a very clear good vs. evil outline, good = light, evil = dark. The villain wears black clothes and looks inhuman and ugly so that you really dislike and fear him. There is a certain shalloweness to it all, especially the original trilogy. I guess hero's journey, princess, scoundrel, funny sidekicks. Just a bunch of archetypes. The emperor might lack the charisma that villains usually have, but then again he can use mind tricks. He can use the force to manipulate people. He is supposed to be very powerful, even though Lucas failed to make it really clear. He was trying to convey something really important in Ep. 3 with the way a scene was cut...that he took Padme's life force to keep Anakin alive - but the dialogue messes it up and makes it unclear.
I think part of what Lucas was representing with the Empire and Emperor was his own life with his father, which he has alluded to being contentious for most of their life. Throw in the crap from the 60s and I think it amounts to most of the oddities. He has also said the line about Vadar asking Luke to join him, was his Dad wanting him to take over the family stationary business. Drama much Lucas?
I believe Lucas thought of the analogy as him, the light side, and independent film maker, and the dark side, the film industry. If you want to understand the Star Wars saga, this is the key. On a more fundamental level though, it seems to me the force is the same as emotional empathy. It is biological, yet has mystical powers, actions at a distance. Good an evil dichotomy is a bad analogy to understand the light and dark side of the force, they are not equal. I would put it this way. The light is loving, and the dark side is a corruption of love. By love I mean caring for the well-being of others as others. The corruption of love, is caring about others as things you possess. The dark side is envy. So the force is a love/envy dichotomy. How it is shown is pretty interesting, and yes, there can be too much love. Like in the Empire Strikes Back, Luke ends his training prematurely, because of that. And he almost falls to his envy of the Father, but let's go just in time, and falls towards his friends instead. In the Return of the Jedi, it is shown how the dark side works, through jealousy and envy, fueled by anger and hatred, and fear. Luke is supposed to topple his father and join the Emperor, which is the embodiment of the dark side, envy. When Luke meets the Emperor, he wants to bring down envy through anger, which is what the Emperor wants. Let's say your employer is greedy, you get angry, you hate, and then you want to take away from him what he stole. Then you fall into the dark side yourself. You became greedy yourself. It is the social justice of the dark side. It uses the force to strengthen envy, or justify it. Notice how the Siths use the dark side as a justification to overtake the Empire. This is what Luke almost did at the end. He justified that Vader was using the dark side to justify taking his place by killing him. But instead he chose to love him for what he is. In the prequels, there is a few interesting things in it. The Jedis are in power now, so it could represent the film industry before big corporations took over. They are together and work as a community, not a perfect one, and their insights of the future are clouded by envy. Yoda represents love, and their structure is religious in nature, so it can represent Christianity. The Jedis are still the independent filmmakers, and they only come together in big events. While they are doing their own thing and fighting the Trade Federation (capitalism), the industry is slowly taken over by envy, in the disguise of socialism. The Jedis fight a few Siths, and win, but eventually, the Emperor is revealed, and the Jedis fall, and the best of them turns to the dark side (Lucas himself probably). Anakin falls to the dark side for the love of his wife (Star Wars movie), and he sells himself to the Emperor, to save her life. I suppose in this case, Disney is the Emperor, or it could be LucasFilm. I like the idea of Disney better though, they were always more or less out there, with hidden envy, but with a friendly face to children. Also, the young Jedis might represent the fans. The structure of the Jedis and Siths are interesting though. Jedis are collectivists, and Siths are traders (and there is only two of them at the same time, one buyer, one seller). That is how empathy works. It can be used for altruism, or selfishness. Through giving freely, or by seduction and a give and take approach. There are many ways of the Force. You can't really say which is good and which is bad, it depends on the circumstances and the intention, and they often intermingle and can be hard to tell apart, thus the chance of turning one side or the other.
The answers to so many of your questions are in the Prequels. Additionally, in “The Clone Wars”. The Prequels deepened the original trilogy’s story a LOT. The newest (and last) trilogy is an abomination, 100%.
What about the one world state that the dark forces want to build? That's control and order and assimilation, isn't it? Yet it's evil. I don't get your point tbh.
A point that you didn’t speak of is the idea of “bringing balance to the force”. Clearly this is to be taken from Taoism and other eastern id as. The issue I have with all of that is that far from the dark being unknown or chaos, it is purely evil. There is a place for structure to be abandoned but is there a place for evil? Is there to be a balance? In the end of the bible the light never goes away and the sea, the waters of chaos, are no more. This biblical view isn’t about balance the way Star Wars formulates. By that thinking there should be a dude in black massacring children to balance out Yoda helping them.
Some people must enjoy the cyclicality of inversion, adding to the confusion, as the movie draws numerous devoted fans. Great points in the video and I would love to hear your thoughts. Why do you think desires to revel in differing inversions come into being? Would you say, giving the symbology, there is malevolence intended by the writer, aside from the entertainment value?
Jonathan - thanks for these two very insightful comments. I especially like the phrase "the tyranny of the exception". I'd love to hear you talk more about the "excess of equality", and where it's come from. In its benign form, 'equality' seems to be about trying to avoid harmful prejudices - which is good. Perhaps it could also be seen as the secular version of the Christian view that we are all children of God i.e. we're all 'equal' in God's eyes, we're all equally sinners, and I'm not better than you (or you, me) spiritually. But in its aggressive form, the equality doctrine seems to be about ignoring, or even eliminating, all differences between people, and dispensing with competence as a way of evaluating anyone. No-one can be deemed better than anyone else, in any way at all. Any hierarchy is an evil thing. Which is clearly ridiculous, and disastrous. Emotionally, this could simply arise from resentment against people who are more able, skilled, intelligent, talented, interesting etc. Or, as I think Jordan Peterson has said (in the charitable interpretation) it's like an excess of compassion without the countervailing virtue of discrimination. It would be great to hear what you have to say about the emergence of this equality doctrine in our world. And why this excess of this weird kind of 'compassion' at the moment, and how does it relate to father/mother figures etc.?
The next movie (Ep. 8) might correct this to some extent. Supreme Leader Snoke's costume is reported to very regal, with gold robes and jewelry and fancy shoes; not your typical Star Wars bad guy.
What about to analyze University Monsters ? I have spotted big immorality in both main characters: The little green ball monster break through into a plantm he's a invader, and the security runs after him (and his group of criminals) and it's shown as if we sgould think he's right. But no, he's not ! He's an invasor !!! The other situation is that big blue fur monster hacks up the scary meter (in a competition of scaries) to make it responds everytime with maximum points for his friends' attempt. At the end of the competition, after this hack is discovered by his friend, the following chat is about why the blue monster doesn't trust of the skills of the green monster, and not about the wrongness of to hacking of the measuring machine ! And ofcourse there are some other points...
I really like a lot of your basic criticisms of the metaphorical aspects of Star Wars, it is without a doubt a flawed conceptual universe, but one issue stood out to me. You perceive an intentional link between the idea of Empire with the Dark Side. While I can definitely see how that might appear to be a logical correlation in the films, it isn’t quite accurate to the story. Please forgive my upcoming nerd moment. It’s made much clearer in the storytelling outside of the films that Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sideous considered Galactic Empire a means to an end of (a) permanently destroying the Jedi order, (b) recovering Sith holocrons (ancient dark side temples and powerful Sith artifacts) hidden by the Jedi, and finally (c) expanding his power over the Dark Side of the force to manipulate reality itself and make himself omnipotent and immortal. He cared little for the traditional publicity, fanfare, or actual governing of the Empire, which is why the Galactic Empire gradually transitions from a still quasi-representative totalitarian state in its early form to a massive hierarchical bureaucracy, with the Emperor practically irrelevant to daily operations (as seen with the dissolution of the Galactic Senate in Episode IV and its replacement with direct regional governors over individual planetary systems.) Palpatine is not tempting Luke with rule over the Empire, he’s tempting him to give into his natural frustration with the cruddy, bickering, diverse little rebel alliance, and his impatience to properly grow into his largely unrealized force powers- that’s what’s meant by giving into one’s emotions to turn toward the Dark Side. Palpatine well knows that these are the exact same things that successfully tempted Anakin: frustration with the ponderous pace of leadership decision-process and limited ethical code of the Jedi, coupled with an impatience to prove himself of, and be given due respect for, his staggering force abilities. Embracing the Dark Side offered him a simple way around all of these things, albeit at a horrible price. Unlike Anakin, Luke was able to clearly see in his father the fullness of the monster he himself risked becoming.
I notice you're focusing on the original trilogy and the new movies (probably because of their similar mythological structures, and the relevance of the most recent movies). You are of course pointing to an interesting aspect of the story with this talk of inversion and symbolic confusion, particularly when it comes to the way the rebels and the empire are presented. Now, for some reason, I can't see the end of (and as such have no idea how long they are or how much I'm missing) many of the comments here, so excuse me if I bring up something already brought to your attention. When considered in the context of the first three movies, (the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, the rise of the sith and the fall of the republic) it really does seem like the reason the empire is depicted as it is is because they represent pathological order built on lies and manipulation (the black dot in the white paisle as previously brought up in the comments), and because it's underlying philosophy (about personal power being the ultimate goal, in a sentence) permeates every line of command, making it essentially a giant lie (because it encourages stabbing your cooperators in the back if it gains your standing). Not just a pathological order, but a false order intent on spreading itself to every corner of the universe. I don't know much about the expanded universe, but from what I've gathered, an imperial commander named Thrawn (embodiment of pure successful reason and devotion to the system) ultimately dies as a result of people desiring his place without showing his skill. He's an example of how honesty dies in this false order, and as such has to flee (rebel) to survive. In this context a twisted form of the spear/light of judgement, as well as an emperor who is not upheld as a symbol of the sun (apparently the facade to the outside world was mostly his representatives speaking for him, though that is not shown in the movies), but who rather hides in the shadows. In light of this it might also be easier to understand how positively the majority of the shown rebels are viewed (and also that those who were less devoted to trust and truth fall out of the main movement (a character named Saw Gerrera from Rogue One is likely intended to showcase this, though the way he's depicted seems halfhearted)), I will agree that it's not entirely right (or incomplete, if you prefer -particularly in more recent additions to the canon), but at the heart of the conflict, there's the battle between those who would only further their own power through a reign of terror (as seen in a number of fantasy-stories, both new and old) and those who praise the willingness to let go of what must go (as the Jedi-order of the prequels urged Anakin to do when he voiced concerns for his visions of his wife's and his mother's deaths) as well as bravery and self-sacrifice. In more recent times I've seen many make claims such as "the jedi were as bad as the sith, if not worse", because they grew arrogant (and a number of examples that usually turn out to be misinformation). This falls in line with the inversion you speak of, and I expect we'll see the canon story be pushed in this direction by Disney over the coming years, as viewpoints along this line are fairly common. I think there's some confusion going on, especially in the recent movies (where the republic and its fall is no longer important context (as no players in the fall remain alive)), and where the First Order so far is much more genuinely confused than the Empire in the way you describe in the video. On another subject: Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way we as a civilization have grown fascinated by Zombie-apocalypses (or apocalyptic stories in general) and post-apocalyptic zombie-stories over the last 50-60 years. I suspect that especially the latter is part of a subconscious desire to figure out what makes something human. If you haven't looked into it already, that might be something to consider for the future. If I'm on to something here, I think we're close to an answer (though I don't think it's very easily expressed yet). No one I've asked has bothered to even follow up on this subject up to this point, but I thought it might interest you.
I really love your videos and your insight on this topic is quite interesting. Im inclined to agree but johnathon remember in your Last Jedi video you said episodes 4-6 represent a fallen world..a world where things are inverted or atleast distored (you gave the example of the priests hiding in the cave while the king weds a whore) this could be the explanation for why the empire in episodes 4-6 is represented by the dark side in that the empire is itself a dark inversion of what it normally would be in a world devoid of rampant chaos...
I think it's because the Empire (as we found in the prequels) IS the rebellion. It's the ABNORMAL situation. It's a mockery of order; it's not actually orderly, but corrupt to the core.
Simple answer- the dark side of the force is leaning too much on the lower impulses of humanity (greed, lust and power) whilst the light side is too pious, to spiritual. They are afraid of their animal- like desires, even the higher ones like love (which can corrupt people) so they try and shun all desire, which in itself is a desire to transcend the impulses, an oxymoron. Which is why the heroes always rebel against the jedi council, yet usually end up with the force on their side, signifying that the force is a balance of both light and dark
Only in the sense of "to[o] much order" being the vice of arrogance, id est, of imperfect and non-omniscient men trying to order the world while themselves being imperfect, id est, lacking the fullness of order in their souls. "Nemo dat quod non habet." ("One can not give that which he does not have.") Lacking the fullness of order in his soul, imperfect man can not give it to the whole universe or world. Therefore it is a vice to attempt to impose his imperfect conception of order on the whole world. In contrast, authentic order can and did exist for all creation, visible and invisible. God is perfect, and created all without defect, id est, the absence of some good. Originally wholly good, because God is all good and the fount of goodness Himself, and, again "nemo dat quod non habet", God could not create evil (a contradictory phrase indeed!) in any wise in His creation. In His original creation, wholly good, without deprivation and lacking nothing necessary for its goodness and perfect functionality, and therefore ordered perfectly, there was not "to[o] much order", and evil and "chaos" were not, and still are not, necessary for order, because the definition of evil is the absence or deprivation of good, and "chaos" is the result of evil, a metaphysical malfunctioning of what is now deprived of being qua being and deprived of its wholeness. Therefore, the hasty judgment that "to[o] much order brings you to chaos" requires qualification to be valid. As an aside, this is why Saint Thomas of Aquinas is so insightful, because he clarifies our initial thoughts and shows how to resolve the chaos in our own thinking to arrive at the Truth. My argument herein is something akin to how he would resolve the matter. Study him and he will bring you great light!
Ok, so here is another rewrite to the Star Wars movies in my head. At the start of Ep.1 the Republic is already becoming overly-ordered and Imperial. Palpatine has a vision of destroying the Jedi by rising to a position of supreme command, just as he does in Ep.1-3. But, once he gets there, he begins allowing the Empire to crumble. He neglects or begins tearing down the systems of the empire because a) he is an agent of chaos and really has no skill or interest in actually ruling and b) he is focused on using the power at his disposal to root out and destroy the last remaining Jedi--Obi Wan and Yoda. So Ep. 4-6 are set against a backdrop of chaos. Star systems are starving because supply chains are breaking down. Those big triangle ships are failing to capture rebels because they are poorly-maintained. The rebels are fighting this catastrophe in battle but also by filling in the gaps---providing for he people. The symbols of the Empire are light and power, but at the top is this chaos agent and his dark knight who really just wants to see the world burn. I think I would do away with the necromancer look. I'm thinking Nero here. So the central tension between the Rebels and the Empire is not "can the rebels defeat the most powerful government ever" it becomes, "can the rebels destroy and replace this failing system before it destroys everyone and everything as is slowly crumbles?"
Not all empires are good, most of them are corrupt at the core from Roman empire till now and even before the Roman empire. Christ was a rebel in that sense. He was depicted in a different way with jewels and halo much later. The facade can be represented through colors and symbols associated with good such as light, sun , jewels etc. On the other hand not all rebels are bad. It depends on the observer as well and how he or she is socially integrated and embedded. Propaganda and social engineering are huge aspects and your analysis actually confirms the contradiction and hypocrisy of how groups can be presented and misrepresented manipulating the general masses. Citizens of the galactic empire in Star Wars probably think that the rebels are the bad guys.
The dark side has to be the opposite of the light side, and the light side is inspired both by Christian and perhaps also Buddhist themes of putting ones self aside to being able to access to power of the force without being corrupted by the power it brings. It actually makes sense to me.
I never thought Star Wars was a very well written story. Very interesting points about the symbolism, I'm sure it has contributed to my confusion as well. Wrongly I think that the story tries to portray balance as the outcome of two opposing groups in constant tension with the multicultural diverse "rebels" destroying the cookie cutter "empire" of order. It is written from a left perspective that doesn't seem to have an understanding of the function/necessity of structure. An example - Politically here in the US, I remember hearing references from the left that Bush/Cheney and their legion of mindless zombies were just like the Sith empire. That kind of ties in with what you mentioned about the the emperor not talking to the troops. I think the writers were trying to convey that the followers on the right don't need addressed because they don't think anyway. I obviously don't agree with with the writers it's just what I noticed. Evil is only portrayed on one side of the story so it seems it is more like propaganda and the symbolism of war propaganda against the Nazis kind of lines up with how the emperor is symbolized.
The agenda of the movie is to push rebellion as good, and obedience as evil. Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Romans 13 1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Great video! , my only question is, how come the nazis dresed in black and had skulls on their uniforms? I always thought they represented too much order , in that case they should have dressed in white? But I feel the same about Star Wars, there is something not right about it, I belive the emperor represent the Male Authority as something negative, something like the "patriarchy is evil". I would love to hear your toughts on Final Fantasy 7 (if you know what that is)
The Sith Lords and the Empire are linked because they both rule with fear, anger, hatred, and aggression. They are both authoritarian. The Sith wear black because they represent the hidden evil in the id or subconscious. The Jedi have a hard time detecting them. Sidious basically transforms into the evil aspects of the id in Revenge of the Sith. (He does wear a fancy red robe at one point in the movie and is concealed as Palpatine during the prequels.) Also the Sith mostly lack compassion and love and are violent punishers and oppressors. The question is whether Sidious and Vader have moral motivations. Vader seems to, but it's unclear whether Sidious does. In Revenge of the Sith, Sidious only seems to care about power, but it's easy to imagine that the Emperor in Return of the Jedi (and the Phantom Menace) is a law and order type, going by his personality and the fact he rules the Empire. I think Sidious's temptations of Luke and Anakin are basically like gang initiations. He's trying to make Luke become a punisher and oppressor by forcing him to feel fear and anger. (And he's punishing Luke for being a good person and rebelling against him.) With Anakin he's tempting him with power and manipulating him with fear and to a lesser degree anger. This temptation is more like how it would happen in the real world. Anakin had already moved part of the way into the darkside before the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, likely to fight the war and because he is more fearful than Kenobi. Luke is a harder nut to crack, and I suspect he wants Vader to kill Luke because of the parallel with the Mace Windu death scene in Revenge of the Sith. This would free Vader from his compassion for his son and snuff out what remains of his humanity and individual initiative. (This is similar to Kylo Ren having to kill his father.) If Luke kills Vader, then he knows Vader has become to weak (and untrustworthy) anyway. He also likely wants to punish Vader for wanting to use Luke to overthrow him. It's definitely true that the darkside can be associated with rebellion (this is actually more realistic) and it kind of is in the prequels, though the leaders of the "rebels" in the prequels are also opressors. In the prequels, the Republic becomes a proto Empire and the Jedi become corrupt defenders of it. (In Rogue One, the rebels are a little shady.) The light side is associated with the Rebellion, because they are Democratic.
I'm pretty convinced that Lucas would have made the rebellion more gray if he could do it again. Star Wars does have an odd relationship with Christianity. You can see Anakin as a false Jesus who ends up serving the Roman Empire. He's basically the antichrist who maybe could have been Jesus. In the original trilogy, Vader and the Emperor represent Satan and evil versions of God. Yoda and Obi-Wan are good versions of God. Obi-Wan has touches of John the Baptist and Jesus and Luke has touches of Jesus and the apostles. (Qui-Gon has touches of both John and Jesus.) Luke's friends (and the Jedi) are like apostles and persecuted Christians, and the Empire is like the Roman Empire and Israeli government. The Tatooine (and Cloud City) aliens are demons and sinners, Cloud City is Jerusalem, Lando is Judas, Jabba's palace is Hell, the asteroid creature is Jonah's whale, and Mos Eisley (and Jabba's mob) is Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess the rebels are like the Israeli people. There's a reason these movies were and are hugely popular. The original trilogy embraces Christianity but also criticizes it. With the prequels, it's unclear. I guess the Jedi (they have a temple) are like the old testament Israelites who are punished by God for failing in order to make them better.
In regards to the Emperor, I think you are too dismissive of the Force itself. The Force (in that Galaxy) is all powerful, but not omniscient. The Emperor is driven insane by the Dark side (or letting your emotions run wild, a psychopath), and REVELS in the fear he inspires. He WANTS to be scary and intimidating. God has an opinion about what His creation does, the "Force" does not. It's up to the user to decide. It's why the Jedi stress emotional detachment. It's the only safe way, the only balanced way, to wield the power of the Force.
I think this is largely due to Star Wars being a mixture of ancient mythic values and post WW2 modern liberal values. The mythology of Star Wars is an odd mix of values demonstrating the Nietzscheian idea of the revaluation of values. It uses the symbology of ancient myth but overlays it with modern valuations or what can be called slave morality. The good guys must be the underdog, oppressed class, the rebels and that which brings light, gives order and enlightenment to the world is actually dark or evil. Perhaps this is the great contribution of Star Wars, that it seems to have unconsciously demonstrated the corruption of modernity, where everything grand and life affirming (i.e. gives order or brings light) is actually evil and that which sulks in darkness and is unable to achieve power is actually the just or moral according to modern or perhaps more do post-modetn valuations.
The reason that shadow imagery is used for the Emperor is because, at least in the first part of his life, before coming to power, that's literally his thing. Working in darkness to subvert the galactic gouvernment to the point where he gained enough power.
Thanks for this! I guess I would counter:
Isn't the fact that this is the most popular of all modern entertainments a sign that it has something profoundly right in its mythology - huge numbers of people are responding to something very deeply right.
The storm troopers are white as they are the agents of order, and dearth Vader is also in military uniform as the head of the order - he's not a shadowy figure though the black suggests he's touched by darkness and the bug eyes suggest a loss of humanity.
I see the emperor as the corrupt soul of the endeavour, obviously his physical deformity is a big clue to this, but the shadowy hood is both that he is the hidden corrupted soul behind the shiny exterior of the empires troops and technology and also there's a more literal religious aspect - he is a monk gone wrong, i.e. The oppressive parts of religious organisation.
Jonathan Pageau I like it!
Exactly! It's important to remember that Palpatine and Darth Vader rose up from within the old galactic republic as a sort of revolutionary force, not only rebelling against the democratic norms of the republic but even more importantly against the Jedi Order (note the word "order" there... which Palpatine continually characterized as an excess to Anakin, like an excess of light). And even as leaders within the new empire, Palpatine and Darth Vader still continued to be shadowy, dangerous figures that weren't entirely trusted by officers throughout the empire and they were feared for their stunning displays of disordered, passionate killing of subordinates. Remember the choking scene with Darth Vader? The officer who was mouthing off to Vader mocked him for his "sorcerer's ways" which he characterized as useless compared to the disciplined technological effort that had produced the Death Star. In other words, the vast majority of officers and leaders within the empire, truly were part of the "light" in the mythological sense of order, mastery of one's self and one's surroundings, and military might. But Palpatine and Vader were different figures within the empire, always continuing to be part of a shadowy and ultimately destructive group (the sith) that used the empire for their own ends without ever leaving behind the shadowy realm from which they arose.
This sounds perfect. It makes the symbolism problem an outgrowth of the original trilogy not doing a good job identifying "the people".
If "the people" are the Empire, then Order is the hierarchical principle. It should be nauseating that Chaotic Dragon Vader gets away with anomalous casual murder of other officers just because he's frustrated. The Hero should rise through the ranks because of his Heroic Orderliness, and conquer Vader, re-affirming the efficacy of Order, improving its ability to ward against future Vaders.
BUT, if "the people" are the Old Republic, then Anakin, the presumptive Heir, was willfully blind to the Emperor's Corruptive Influence, turned to Tyrannical destruction of Order instead of protecting it! The story requires a Hero Incorruptible to rescue Anakin, teach him to pierce the Emperor's illusions, and cast him down!
There are also empires of chaos and irrationality, like Mao’s China, Stalin’s USSR, etc. The order is superficial but the heart is anti-existence.
@@jzgs423 It like the symbol of yin and yang where darkness hides within the light and vice versa.
I just watched your video and I really liked it. As someone who is very much into Star Wars and both the Expanded Universe and new Canon, I can say that a lot of this has been fleshed out in why the emperor acts the way he does, and why the Dark Side isn't utilized in the sense you ask for. The simple answer stems from the philisophy of Palpatine and his perception of Bane's rule of 2. In the EU (Legends), there was a great Sith / Jedi War. The reason the Sith lost was their perception of seeking power. The idea behind Dark Side and Light Side is understanding how to control and seek power in which they can then utilize to control and seek after this kind of eternal life. Only problem is that the Light Side is the one that can actually accomplish this because their concept of power is that they do not want to rule but be closer to the Living Force (which has been explored further in SW: Rebels and Clone Wars). In many ways, it is similar to our understanding of Theosis, seeking after divinity because God in His perfect Communion wants us to join with Him in His Glory. The seeking of power of the Light is the ascetic approach to the Force. But the Dark Side looks to immortality in that all power must be willed and that the one who seeks true immortality is the one who controls. Even when they die, their legacy is what lives on and corrupts the Force, breaking the balance. This said, the ancient Sith believed in this philosophy but due to their being too many seeking it, it caused too much competition and therefore Darth Bane created this idea of the Rule of 2, where there can be many who follow the Sith way but only 2 can be Sith Lords, a Master and an Apprentice. The role of the Apprentice is to kill the Master. The role of the Master is to become as powerful as he can, corrupt the Force, but ultimately he is killed by the Apprentice. Palpatine, not wanting this to continue in this same manner sought after an approach where if you remove the competition and only allow those to seek to be his apprentice, you can prolong your life and power. Palpatine sought the same immortality that the Light did, but wanted it to be utilized in the Dark. And what I'm trying to say is, he saw Bane's system and said in a way, "this is our code, but I must make sure there is no more Apprentices that I cannot personally kill myself." He only had apprentices he could control and Vader becoming Vader in the manner he did is proof of his ultimate goal. Even though Luke is his father's son, he doesn't have the training to combat this ideas. Palpatine thought he could manipulate him like his father, but he had no intention of allowing him to really take over as Master. To somewhat summarize, Palpatine's legacy was to corrupt the Force by destroying as much life as possible but also sort of destroying Bane's rule of 2 in that he would make competition impossible. This is why the Force and sensitives were considered illegal in the Empire. If they knew you could wield the Force, you were killed. It should be noted that Palpatine's plan was this from the beginning, but as a follower of the rule of 2 himself, he was open to allowing his apprentice to kill him, as is his dialogue with Yoda before the Mustafa fight and Vader's loss. In the novelization of both Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi, Palpatine was pleased to have a controllable Vader and Chosen One. It meant that he could elimate competition but also have the ultimate way to corrupt the Force and let his legacy live on for eternity.
So that was a nerdy and long statement, but this is the big reason he hides in the dark and lets others do his bidding. He wants fear and destruction because it hurts the Force and prevents real balance. Anyway, that is just my 2 cents, hope my tired response makes some sense.
Excellent summation...
Sidious uses the guise of order as propaganda.
Palpatine's reclusive behavior and clothing choices is a pretty fleshed out issue both in the books, Shows, and movies. It gets into why the Empire utilizes such hyper ordered symbols as seen on-screen. Think of it this way:
Palpatine/Sidious was not just a Sith Lord (an agent of chaos and imbalance), but he was also a shrewd politician and strategist. Order, for Sidious, was a way to harness power while maintaining eternal control, and in doing so saddled the unbroken mare of the upheaved galactic expanse. His path to "order" is through chaos (albeit controlled chaos), and is why he is seen through the prequels in his classic black hooded robes, to hide both his identity and his nonverbal thoughts from those under his command.
He was a force user who hid his powers from the Jedi during the republic, along with his true intentions, while creating a false projected image of self. This also happens when looking at the Empire he created. The white, uniformed storm troopers, the pyramid looking ships of the galactic armada, and the structures of the imperial Palace (formerly the Jedi Temple, a symbol of order) and Senate building, are all facades of order for Darth Sidious to hide behind. Under the Empire, Palpatine is often projected in hollow vids as a kindly old man, though one with a face disfigured from previous assassination attempts, but not even his closest guards saw hardly any of his true nature. When he does display his powers in public, he kills any witnesses. Why? Because the galaxy can't know that their Font of Order is actually an Agent of Chaos, using the borrowed symbols of order to mask his true intentions.
I haven't even got into the fact that under the empire, the criminal syndicates were essentially not bothered by the authorities as long as they provided services from time to time, let alone mention Darth Vader (that's another can of worms). TL;DR there is a ton more material thematically and narrative wise to digest through the books, comics, and TV shows where this is fleshed out in the canon.
You see light side and dark side as order and chaos, in the Star Wars universe they do not represent that, but rather good and evil. The Empire is an evil order, hence essentially dark, while the Rebel Alliance is a good order, hence light side. The problem comes when the most recent two movies want to pretend that the dark side of the force (evil) is somehow essential to the universe.
That last part of your comment was a brilliant insight! Thank you.
I would almost disagree with the Rebels being orderly! They're almost always portray as scattered and chaotic.
I don't see that the latest movies are trying to say evil is essential
@@bibliusz777 if anything, the prequels did that by introducing the prophesy of bringing balance to the force, something that was never stated in the OT.
Except the problem is that they muddle that with the light side being austere ascetic self-flagellation, and the dark side being passion, strength, power, etc.
The positives of the dark side and negatives of the light exist, and must be accounted for
This is exactly what´s bothered me for all this time and you just nail it!
Is like in the SW the story is not been told from a impartial point of view. Is told from the a narrator on the margin so the powerfull are depicted always as deformed and dark while the resistance is aways good and pure even when the later destroys and kilsl just as much as the first.
This is something that I found a posetive surprised me on TLJ, when Yoda guides Luke throught the burden of acceptance of his ows failures at the same time that Kylo Ren is portrayed more as a person suffering from the inbalance of its emotions, what looks to me as potencial chaos, not just evil.
Thnaks for the excellent content, I am subscribing and waiting for more videos! :D
You’re missing the obvious Yin/Yang parallel man. There’s a black dot in the white paisley (a greedy, sneaky, spider-like Emperor, who rules his “Solar” Empire like the man behind the curtain in the Wizard of Oz), and a white dot in the black paisley: the true Solar hero, light incarnate, leading a band of rebels. In the first movie, when the Rebels are victorious, they hold an extremely visually orderly medal ceremony (the shot composition was lifted from Triumph of the Will), which is presided over by the Princess (solar royalty) symbolically rewarding her heroes: on the visual level, positive and aesthetically beautiful/spiritual order is restored (ceremony is held in a Mayan Pyramid), at least momentarily in the narrative, against the stifling, eunuchoid, bureaucratic, oppressive Solar order of the Empire.
Thinking about this and watching the video again, I hope I can share some random points:
1. Via the prequels we learn the Jedi order was flawed. They had a kind of absolutist justice system-in which love didn't figure prominently. Children were removed from parents so no attachments could be made. Luke succeeds *almost* for the same reason Anakin fails. His love for the people he cares about. Note, Luke saves Leia against Yoda's protests, whereas Anakin, held back by the Jedi, fails to save his mother.
2. The Jedi were easily duped into a war to serve as tools for evil. Though it's true the Emperor via Count Dooku manipulated both sides into war, the Separatists movement is that which evolved into the rebelion, more or less. The Separatists were in a sense at least closer to the side of good.
3. As opposed to Roman iconography, what about Nazism and Fascism? Wouldn't we find the use of black more prominent under these movements. Note, these evil movements were a reaction to the movement *away* from traditional liberal ideas and toward communism (scientific utopianism). All of Europe was dealing with anarchists, communists, and socialists-and they were creating a problem. There was a strong desire for someone to just step in and end the nonsense.
4. The emperor throughout the prequels hides that he is a Sith. I think the clear implication is that this would undermine his authority. When Star Wars (episode IV) begins, has he let it be publicly known that he is a Sith? Probably not. I guess he is maintaining a kind of dual identity. Not sure.
5. It might be worth keeping in mind that a traditional liberal order is one in which individual actions create a spontaneous order. Law is important-not rulership. Maintenance of the law, maintains the order. But law is allowed to evolve-especially where you have common law as opposed to centralized authority.
6. Nazism and socialist utopianism tend toward unitary thinking-and thus centralized governance. We all have to get into a lockstep. We all must accept the doctrine. I mean, there's a complete lack of contrast and evolution becomes stunted. The reality could aptly be described as dark. White and black become the same.
Not sure about any of this. I'm deeply fascinated by iconography but have almost no knowledge of it.
I don't think you can interpret the original trilogy with the prequels in mind, a lot of the things added and expanded upon by the prequels and legends stuff muddle the good ideas represented in the original trilogy.
Well, the prequels can be taken for Lucas' further explanations on what is going on with his symbolisms, but even in the OT the Emperor is a shadowy figure most of the time. He doesn't really want order, but he uses it for his own ends. The order of the Empire is corrupt and the Rebels who want to restore the just order are forced to use chaotic tactics. It's all upside down like it's the end times.
Yes! It was indeed an eschatological set of films, from the outset. There is a reason that fiction, film and TV today is more and more occupied with the theme of the end of all things. Star Wars (OT) was the most significant precursor to this trend, a demarcation of the start of the end for our species. Fiction authors frequently intuit the future (often not knowing they are doing so), as is well known.
Very good comments... both the light and dark sides, the Republic and Senate, the Jedi and the Sith, the core and the outer rim, and the trade union and warmongers are all juxtaposed...
Also consider the symbolism of light/dark between the two sides from an Eastern symbolic perspective. The original trilogy is full of Eastern philosophy and symbolism, most specifically Taoist.
Consider the structure of the symbol for Yin/Yang. Within the greater half that is light and orderly there is a circle in the core of darkness and chaos. And within the chaotic half is a center of order. By this symbolism, it would make sense that the inner circle at the heart of the ultra-regimented empire would be one of darkness and chaos.
This aligns with the idea of bringing *balance* to the force. The light side of the force can not and should not try to overcome and destroy the dark side, but rather the two halves must be kept in balance. We see this at the end of Return of the Jedi, what makes Luke the ultimate Jedi master who surpasses the generations that trained him is that he spends time walking the path of both the Light side and the Dark side. He does not deny his emotions like an old Jedi nor rule by his passions like a Sith. He is compassionate.
I could be wrong in this but in a Lucas quote he said that we all see a different part of the cow, referring to traditions in Hinduism. That kinda reminds me of the quote from the Bhagavad Gita " I am become death", perhaps representing the emperor & Vader.
After discovering you and Dr. Peterson I started to draw parallels between Star Wars and other Hero's Journey tales and concluded to myself that the Death Star is like a combination of both a dragon (massive, destructive, breathes "fire") and a castle (grey, fortified, holds troops and prisoners), from which the hero must save the princess and ultimately defeat. Tarkin, in the case of Episode 4, would be the "malevolent king" figure, while Vader would be a black knight in contrast to Luke wearing white for most of the film. Luke even starts off as a farmer.
Although the film does harken back to the "dark colored order" of Nazi Germany, I find it interesting that the further away from the command structure one would be, the lighter in color their uniforms become. It's as though the lightness of order is difficult to contain. The introduction of the Emperor starting in episode five also makes some sense that he is a shadowy figure because until that point no one knew who he was or who was pulling the strings (and the fact a trilogy wasn't on the books until after the first film's success). In a sense, he's like the popular depiction of George Soros, a sunless philanthropist who feigns aiding others and instead funds disruptive elements of society for personal gain. Another example would be Scar's kingdom in The Lion King.
Maybe the darkness represents the transitory period before righteous order, with chaos growing in Episodes 1-3 and a final encounter with chaos in Episode 6? The "light" side being in power and leading to peace would be akin to order under a benevolent king. Either that, or Lucas could very well have been playing upon World War II a little too much and subverted some of the archetypes.
I won't touch on Episode 7 and later, as I've a feeling that the Disney canon has lost the point.
Jonathan, from a Kabbalistic perspective, it's as though they got the jedi and sith backwards. the jedi are all about order, asceticism, and self denial. the sith are all about passion, letting go of inhibition, and fully embracing one's personal freedom. Looking at this in from the Kabbalistic tree, the Jedi would actually rule the right hand path, and the Sith the left hand path.
What is bizarre is that the right hand path has Saturn as its primary ruler - the dark planet, that imposes order and restriction. Then why are the Jedi always wearing white, supporting a republic, and acting rebelliously? Similarly, The left hand path gets empowered through the sun, Jupiter, and venus. These symbolize light and loving authority, expansion and freedom, love and passion. Then why is the emperor and vader dressed in black, controlling a tyrannical government, and imposing strict order?
Some of it works, and some doesn't. So if I was to give them the benefit of the doubt, maybe I'd say they were going for some yin yang kind of theme, where elements of the dark ended up in the light, and vice versa. I'm inclined to say that is being generous though.
The first point I would like to make is that we should not confuse the map for the territory. Archetypes and mythological constructs such as lightness and darkness are simply the SYMBOLIC forms that our cultures have utilized to represent the actual territory. The truth and reality that they represent is always more complex than the symbols on the map.
Second. Tyranny can originate from an excess of lightness or darkness but it doesn't always manifest in such simplistic dialectical forms. Remember the Yin and the Yang. There is Yin within the Yang and Yang within Yin. So too, order can emerge within chaos and chaos from within order. So with the case of the Empire being symbolized by dark forces even though Empires are often portrayed(SYMBOLIZED) as a surplus of light, it holds true to the actual territory that pathological order is a form of darkness and so could be represented as such.
You know the more I think about it the more that the symbolism of Star Wars begins to make sense to me. The key concept to latch onto, for me, would be the evolution of this myth out of WW2. Jordan Peterson has talked before about Hitler and about how Hitler began to embody the shadow of the mob. He talks about how Hitler seemed to follow the darker passions of the population until he came to embody their shadow entirely. He was undeniably a figure of order that was visually represented with Solar imagery and other traditional symbols of order, but I think it's hard to argue against the notion that he was a shadow at the head of an empire. Palatine and Vader seem to mirror this idea pretty well. Luke's journey seems to be the perfect counter to this imbalance. He defeats the shadow within himself instead of outsourcing the job to the ordered paradigm. The chaos within the Emperor and Vader are attempted to be fixed by altering the world around them instead of within themselves. It's the classic "well there's either something wrong with ME or the rest of the world". Vader and the Emperor see their personal chaos as existing outside themselves and so seek to order the world to "fix" the chaos that they wrongfully attribute to external factors. Luke, on the other hand, finds order within himself. He manages to master his shadow. It's the sorted individual who has earned the right to righteously challenge the existing paradigm. There's lots of confusion for me with Star Wars :p I'd love to hear what you would say about this.
2:02, that’s also a critique of 1984 by George Orwell. That it’s a bad political strategy for the dictator to divorce himself from all human aspects and reduce himself to a face on a screen instead of using a cult of personality
Empire having solar symbols is no diferent im Star Wars, the canon symbol of the Galactic Empire is a Dark Sun. The comparisson to nazism is obvious since the swastka is also a Dark Sun symbol. It is a little weird the idea of a Dark Empire but nazism is more than a little weird, and their mystical symbolic roots are very old.
Yin and yang each are light and dark. Within the light is the seed of darkness and within the darkness is the seed of light.
The way I see it that makes most sense, is to frame the archetypal story structure as the story of the good king versus the evil tyrannical king, and the stories of their sons. Here is the representation: The Emperor is the archetype of the tyrannical king/father, Yoda is the good wise king/father. Their sons are Darth Vader and Luke respectively. It's a bit complex since Luke is the son of Darth Vader, not Yoda. That twist may have fowled up the proper story structure, but it still works. Luke redeems Darth Vader by convincing him to literally throw off the evil king and his influence. As Obi-wan Kenobi says in episode IV, Darth Vader "is more machine than man now," so when Darth Vader accomplishes this he himself must die since he has already lost so much of his soul, though now he can see "with his own eyes". Luke is the good son of Yoda in the story's sense, hence the 'light side' of the force. The empire represents the domination of the soul by the evil king, over rigidification and order, hence the 'dark side' and the black and grey imperial armies.Still formulating this idea.
Anger can drive to power which is achievable through order/discipline. Both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were born of anger and continued to spew it in violence even as they made themselves the exemplifications of totalitarian order. Anger - controlled and directed - was their drive. Their stated raison d'etre was to smash.
I agree on the imperial symbolism being wrong at first glance... but... the totalitarian emperor must hide his (or now her) anger both from self and from the ruled. Some justification is given - 'natural' order (Nazi), social justice (communist). But the will to achieve these ideals comes from... anger.
I thought about this kind of thing a lot. I used the idea of really horrible tyrants who often got assassinated for showing their hand and why it doesn't make sense to use shadowy, evil symbols for peak order.
My conclusion was that shadowy, Palpatine-like symbolism doesn't make sense and won't work up to a point where they perceive they can be defeated. The tyrant can maintain the symbol of light, order, and benevolence up to the point where no one can challenge him.
I think of it in 3 tiers. Shadowy rebellion is the way to beat structure and order, but if structure and order hits a critical mass of power, then it has no need to ever fear shadowy rebellion because it's too strong. At that point, the mask can be dropped. Uncontested, there's no need to lie anymore and evil beings can drop the mask and show their shadowy nature without fear.
I always went back to the ideas of rulers like Caligula who were blatantly evil and why they could possibly think that was a good idea. The insanity there was that they thought they were invincible, so they had no need to pretend to show light or order because they were gods and couldn't be stopped. They could be themselves because they were no longer afraid.
Yep. This brings about the inversion and the impulse to return to balance as the pendulum swings the other way...
Lucas was heavily influenced by Kurosawa and Kurosawa was heavily influence by spaghetti westerns. Lucas translated an entire Scifi world from samurai movies that Kurosawa had translated from cheap westerns. This could account for the jumbled symbolism in Star Wars.
In the old westerns some black clad guy comes to town with his gang and takes over, or becomes sheriff and tyrannizes everyone. Then some outlaw guy on the fringes of town decides to stop him. Both of them wield their weapons with superhuman proficiency. etc.
ruclips.net/video/QD1mb1UB-OM/видео.html
Actually lucas was influenced mostly from dune
I like your idea. It reminds me of how in the hunger games the Capital was portrayed with an excess of beauty and order, and with scenes of president Snow in front of a golden statue. Comparing this to the districts where the clothes are dull and plain. Obviously this was also a way of showing the wealth inequality which is a giant theme in the series
The notion of the Yin and Yang applies to multiple levels of order within the Star Wars universe. There's 3 possible levels of order that form the 'hierachy'. The struggle between good and evil occurs at all 3 levels. There's the level of the individual (specifically members of the Sky Walker family) The level of societal organization through government/religion (ie Empire Vs. Rebels and Sith Vs. Jedi) and there's literally God (The Force). Despite the constant struggle by agents of the light to overthrow the dark, and vice-versa it simple never happens. Neither side is ever able to fully swallow the other, at any level. If it DOES happen at one level, such as the imbalance of power between Jedi and Sith, then there's a moment of Divine Intervention (ie The Virgin Birth). Think of Anakin as the character who is forced to straddle the line between the two sides in order to maintain the balance. Think of Yoda and Sidous as opposite ends of the spectrum (good and evil). Think of the 'human' as the line somewhere inbetween.
Solzhenitsyn demonstrates the eternal struggle of light and dark perfectly, “Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains ... an unuprooted small corner of evil.
Anakin/Vader is more of a Tragic Hero figure than outright evil. Audience members wouldn't be so emotionally attached if they weren't able to sympathize with his story. Sidious is completely evil, Yoda is completely good, they're opposite ends of a spectrum. Anakin straddles that line, the line that's present in the heart of every viewer. Character's who are outright evil or good are more predictable, boring, harder to sympathize with and further from the actual truth regarding human nature. Anakins' decent into the 'underworld' IE the dark side is reflected in his gradual changing of costume (light clothes as child, brown/black/light as a Jedi, and completely black as a Sith). And the actual lighting in the scenes during the film reflect this transition into the underworld as well. He's is the classic portrayal of Hero's Journey/ Tragic Hero character, in a way it was NECESSARY for him to embrace his shadow so that he could ultimately redeem himself by self sacrificing to kill the emperor and save his Son, without the Heroes Journey he would never have been able to defeat the Emperor.
It's no surprise to me that the 3 most highly rated characters in the film Franchise are the most heavily conflicted ones (Anakin, Luke, Han). Why isn't Yoda voted greatest "hero" figure of all time ? It's obvious that he has all the traits we would consider virtuous. Why isn't Sidious voted greatest Villian? Because we know the battle within the human heart is more complicated than that, and Yoda and Sidious serve more as unrealistic ideals than anything rooted in reality.
The one piece you're missing is that the evil Empire is in fact an inversion of the proper order, which is aligns with what you describe. The Old Republic, the hallowed golden age that they're trying to get back to, was a time when the Jedi and the Light Side ruled the galaxy. That's what makes the evil dark side Empire doubly repugnant.
Could it be that a great number of individuals with particular psychological temperaments significantly benefit from such inversions and confusions? Reality and nature are not fair and there are more losers than winners, the losers revel in the inversion of the concept of winning as a loser, could this be the case?
A couple of comments:
One is about storm troopers. The storm troopers are dressed in white armor that stands out as a symbol of both fearlessness and disposability. They white armor can be seen from very far away, displaying that they do not fear death. However, the uniformity of the armor, and the fact that their faces are entirely obscured by their helmets shows that they are uniform, and that they are disposable. As a stormtrooper, they are all the same: fearless in the face of death, and entirely disposable.
As for the emperor, that actually follows a typical starwars Sith trope. The Sith generally do not expose themselves to the public; they operate through both subtle and obvious tactics, instilling fear and terror as a means of control, and obtaining their ultimate goal: ultimate power, and the distruction of all who would oppose them.
I would also add that neither side of the force is inherently good or evil when not practiced in excess. There exists in old cannon starwars lore, Grey Jedi, who do not believe in either the dark or light side, but only the force generically, and that balance is entirely needed in order to be properly ordered. This philosophy of the grey Jedi seems to harken to Carl Young's idea of incorporating the shadow.
In my opinion, the fundemental flaw of Starwars is that neither Jedi nor Sith are fully incorperated. The Sith possess passions to excess, allowing their passions to rule them, and the Jedi an almost tyrannical disspassion to point of rejecting even those things which are good. Additionally, before the rise of the Sith, as seen in the prequel trilogy, the Jedi serve the system entirely, have no defences against passions due to entirely rejecting the incorperation of healthy desires such as love and relationship, and are functionally sterile, as they do not have children of their own, but rely on collecting children from around the galaxy to continue their own order.
I think the best examples of both Jedi and Sith can be found in the Darth Bane trilogy, where Darth Bane sees passions and individuals all as means to an end, disolaying unvelievable cunning, and horrifying acts of evil, all for an ultimate goal, where as specific Jedi learn to channel their passions in order to better end the Sith dynasty.
The Emperor is reflective of the shady unknown character that really runs everything. Fits into the conspiracy idea of mistrust and that the strings are being pulled on a more mysterious level.
I would suggest reading the books, "Darth plagueis" in particular, this will give you an understanding of who the emperor is and the mythos behind the dark and the light side. It is well worth your time because it gives very interesting parallels to the Bible.
I haven't heard this argument before. Well done. My response is Lucas is the darkness and always hated power above him. It is his propaganda to paint rebellion as light. It's also the western trope; the good cowboy wears white. Light and dark are 2 sides of the same coin. That's why both Imperial & Rebel troops are both in black & white, just to different degrees.
Please subscribe to my channel. I hope you watch, like, and share SNARK WARTZ: A Star Wars Parody ruclips.net/video/Brqy2VWJ7EM/видео.html
Earlier on in Star Wars canon the Sith were the more chaotic force users that were controlled by their emotions. Palpatine is just a peculiar Sith Lord that somehow was able to channel his dark side into something that resembled order, however his chaotic side is still there deep down. Palpatine knew that in order for the Sith to survive and take over the galaxy he needed to hide his chaos in a Trojan horse of order, and it can be seen that he doesn’t really care about his empires well being, to him it’s just a tool that he can use to amass resources, resources that are necessarily in helping him achieve immortality through expensive experiments and ancient Sith sorcery that needs lots of manpower to be excavated. Once Palpatine achieved this immortality and unlimited power then he probably would care less about his empire, and would just let everything fall into chaos while reigning supreme as a god above the squabbles of man, watching from a comfortable distance as he pull the strings for his own amusement.
I feel like a better way to look at the light side and dark side would be to view it through the lens of selflessness and selfishness. A Jedi is supposed to enact the will of the force (nature) whether they like it or not, they shouldn’t try to enforce their own will on the universe and use the force as a way to do that. However, during the prequel era we can see how the Jedi became too involved in politics and were beginning to use the force to promote institutions that went against the force’s will, so the establishment of the empire was needed to stabilize the Republic and allow room for Luke and Anakin to bring balance and wipe the slate clean. The Sith on the other hand, are pro using the force to enact their own will, and they use strong emotions as a way to channel the force to do their bidding instead of the other way around. However, this is against the natural order of things which can be seen in the fact that the faces of Sith Lords often become deformed, they get blood shot eyes, and get withering skin, essentially the force is fighting back against them for misusing its power. To be in balance with the force simply means to follow the natural flow of the universe instead of trying to control it, if the force wants someone to destroy something that’s good, if the force wants someone to preserve something that’s good, if the force wants chaos at a certain time then good, if it wants order at a certain time then it’s also good. Things only get out of wack when the will of the universe is offset by humans trying to be gods
I dont get your issue with this, the whole point of Star Wars is about the balance between light and darkness.. One of the main arguments is exactly what you discuss here, where the light and the dark, if pushed to the extremes, end off being very bad. The idea of the prequels is that there was actually something wrong with the Jedi Order. Even if they aimed to be virtuous, the force was unbalanced, and the universe itself required balance.. And so the darkness rose.
The representation of hyper militarized totalitarian dictator rule is meat to represent just that, the genocidal rise to power and domination of all. Not all the movies are amazing, and plenty have flaws, but it is clear that this isn't about good vs. evil, but rather light and darkness itself, which are governed by comic forces beyond our conceptions of good and evil or light and darkness.
The force itself is the answer you seek. Explore that, instead of the political ramifications of the balance between light and darkness.
Try reading Matthew Stover's novel, Shatterpoint, set just after Attack of the Clones and with Mace Windu as the protagonist. Stover does a lot in that novel (and the spiritual sequel, Luke Skywalker and the Shadows of Mindor) to explore some philosophy of the dark/light side that covers and answers some of your observations. For example, it's not just a matter of order vs chaos, the book illustrates the dark side of civilization as well as the light and dark sides of 'the jungle,' or chaos. Bascially, the Empire has law and order and discipline, but with no heart or moral center. The purpose is power for its own sake, not creating a civilization with the goal of ensuring freedom of the individual (what the Jedi want) and it's at that time, when there's order without morality, that the light side resists and rebels. As for the Emperor's look, up until Revenge of the Sith, I assumed he looked different at first, but gradually withdrew from public life as the power he used rotten and corrupted him and he could no longer put forth a false glamour of light. But then, they wanted to show him in Revenge of the Sith as he was in Return of the Jedi, so the moviemakers had his character get deformed.
The concept of the dark side and the light is adopted from a premodern mythological concept of good and evil. Robert Moore in his book "Facing the Dragon: Confronting Personal and Spiritual Grandiosity" addresses this concept. Premodern mythological concepts of good and evil suggest that evil is a force that has a will of its own. Evil does not appear to people as evil. It appears to us as short-term solutions to problems that in the long-term will damage us. An example of the dark side in everyday life: say you are bored and have nothing to do. You could work on improving yourself by going to the gym, reading, completing your chores, etc. Or you can choose to ease your boredom by embracing short-term thrills that lead to drug addiction, alcoholism, etc. Yoda even says that the dark side is the quick and easy path. The Sith believe that by embracing the dark side (the mythological evil) they can rise and obtain power and with power they can embrace true freedom and achieve their goals, which is to dominate the galaxy. The Jedi embrace the light because it is the embodiment of good throughout the universe. In the Star Wars prequels, the Sith operated more like the League of Shadows in Batman Begins. They sought to use the dark side to take over the benevolent but imperfect republic to establish an order by which the dark side (or premodern mythological evil) was in control of the universe. The rebels we in hiding because the dark side had obtained control, and they sought to overthrow the government the dark side took over (now the Empire) and restore the light, aka the premodern mythological concept of good. Yes Palpatine looks like an ugly shadow and Vader is very scary looking. In the Star Wars Rebels animated show, the Emperor would doctor images of himself to make him appear as a more regal and benevolent figure but in reality he is a very ugly and scary guy because he is the embodiment of the dark side itself. The Emperor as a symbol in the movies represents the dark side itself, how it is a force with a will of its own. Vader on the other hand does not represent the dark side itself, but Vader is a stand-in for the ordinary audience member, who through Vader sees that this is what we could become if we allow the premodern mythological concept of evil (symbolized by the Emperor himself) to consume us. Luke is the perfect contrast to Vader because Luke is a stand-in for Anakin, the good man Darth Vader was before the dark side consumed him. Through Luke and Vader we see what happens to us when we choose light and when we choose dark.
The trick to understanding Star Wars is to come to the understanding that The Balance itself is the Light Side. Once you understand that, you come to realize that the Jedi and the Sith are both messing everything up, and the Saviour becomes the saviour by rejecting both the Jedi and the Sith.
The sith are causing disbalance by embracing the Force as a predator embraces it's prey, while the jedi upset the balance by losing sight of the fringe and expecting everyone to confom to their ideals. However the jedi are better than the sith because at least they aim for what is good and miss, while the sith do away with any notion of good and evil.
Well, technically, Darth Vader could be considered a school shooter...
Edit: or would it be a school stabber? Slasher...light saberer?
Hi Jonathan, I understand your confusion, but I believe your take on the Star Wars premise to be wrong.
You hypothesize that the light and dark side of the force relate to order (light) and disorder (dark),
and thus, that the so-called Rebel Alliance should be affiliated to the "dark side" (chaos), whereas the Empire to the "light side" (order).
I believe this to be fundamentally wrong.
I'd rather argue that the "light side" of the force derives it's power from the "higher consciousness", or the whole, and that the "dark side" derives its power from the "self", or the individual.
I will only address the original trilogy, plus the prequels. The Disney "sequels" are a fucking mess, so I won't even bother.
Remember the prophecy :
Anakin was to be the one to bring balance to the force. This is important.
Now, what was the Republic?
It was a highly bureaucratic theocracy, regimented by a sect of selfless warrior monks (light side) who kept the peace.
It kept going for a looong time, in a galaxy far, far away.
Individual whims and needs (dark side) were suppressed, to better "benefit" the whole, a.k.a. the light side.
"Uncompromising harmony" would be its motto. As a post WW2 propaganda analogy, this could be construed as idealistic communism.
But what is the whole without the individual?
Now, who was Anakin?
A very strong-willed individual, who felt oppressed and suppressed at every turn by that power structure.
What did he do? He took over the whole system, along with Palpatine and his sympathizers, equally dissatisfied with the state of it all.
He's the true revolutionary in the story.
In other words, Anakin was the original Rebel. He's the one who usurped power from a stagnant entity.
Only now, the selfless warrior monks (Jedi) were replaced by equally selfless warriors, the Stormtroopers.
And instead of serving a "higher consciousness", they served the "self", an individual : Emperor Palpatine.
The Republic, in structure and form, actually changed very little.
But it now derived it's power from a different source : the self (dark side), rather that the whole (light side).
Selfish Palpatine was now the Emperor, rather than a conflicting mess of a senate (both equally flawed).
And the Empire? A continuation of the Republic.
In a twist of fatalistic irony, Anakin merely revealed the true nature of the Republic's power structure for the galaxy to see.
He's always felt oppressed and tyrannized by that power structure, and turned it on its head :
"This is your precious Republic", he must've thought.
"This is what you've built. Reap the fruits thereof"
And he then crashed the whole fucking thing with no survivors.
Why? Because he finally came to realize, at the final confrontation with his own son,
that there was no contradiction between the self and the whole, the dark and the light.
Luke begged HIM, Anakin, the individual. Not his ideals, not his higher self, just HIM.
Luke needed HIM.
"Father, please!"
A sincere, heartfelt appeal to BOTH his individuality and his selflessness.
In that instant, Anakin understood. "Light" and "Dark" were one.
And he gave his own life to save his son, killing selfish Palpatine (dark side) and destroying the Republic (light side), laying the ground for a new beginning (or one could say : a New Hope).
And he brought back balance to the force, uniting the higher consciousness (the light side) with the self (the dark side), fulfilling prophecy.
I hope this makes sense. Food for thought.
(I still gave you a like, lol. And subscribed)
it is clear to me that the concept of order and chaos in the star wars movies is well developed in the sense of thermodynamic properties of matter. The misunderstanding comes from assiging order directly to light, when the opposite is true. Ordered systems are cold and do not give out much light whereas the disordered systems are hot and give out light but indiscriminately. the thing about the dark side it's that one can use order to develop a system by which one can control and make use of the light (the force) with higher efficiency but with less interaction with it, on the other hand, in the light side one can become the very light itself but can easily become overwhelmed with too much of it or having it but unable to handle it. This is why only the highest of minds can become Jedi, and the reason why people that can handle the force but are dominated by fear turn to the dark side, they put barriers to the force to control it, become colder ordered systems. This analogy can be further developed too.
This is a very interesting and inspiring approach. Thank you :) Just one thing about the political aspect of order versus subversion. Here, I tend to think about the difference between the Third Reich and the Soviet Union. Theories of totalitarianism did major disservice by presenting those two as essentially the same kind of political entity. I think the Star Wars Empire reflects the way libidinal energies are harnassed and "ordered" by the Nazi movement. In contrast with the Soviet Union, which is based on an Enlightenment view of reason, history and progress, the Nazis capitalized on blood, the inbriddled libido of the pagan "blond beast", and the notions of vitalism, will and decision.
In total darkness people would be pale and sensitive to light. In the brightest light, our retinas would burn out and leave us in darkness. I agreed with you but then you challenged someone to prove you wrong, and the more I thought about it, it can't be a coincidence that star wars is perfectly wrong. If that were true, perfectly wrong is very helpfully wrong, because we can just look at the opposite and find truth, like C.S Lewis's Screwtape letters. I don't know how I feel about it, but I stumbled onto something about Jacobs ladder, and the person said that the Kabbhalistic process has to be repeated four times, one at the animal stage, the human, the spiritual and the divine. It would make sense that steering someone one way would eventually lead to an over compensation, and maybe starwars begins later in this process, after things have completely reversed. We see that in the Last Jedi, Luke says that the Jedi order has completely changed. I'm curious what you think. Thanks by the way for all your videos, you're one of my favorites.
I see the Star Wars stuff as more of Chokmah vs Binah, where Chokmah shines uncontrollable brilliant light and Binah accepts and constricts to give form to that light. This sort of flips the Dark to be the stabilizing force, like the Empire, and the Light to be a vitalizing force, like the Rebellion.
I think Star Wars makes more sense through the filter of Jayne's book on the bicameral mind. The light side of the force is passive, as one is passively accepting the dictates of the gods and doing their will. The dark side of the force represents consciousness, and the tyrannical ego that seeks to submerge or still the gods. There was a time when the governments in biblical times cracked down on the "crazies" who lived out in the desert. These were men who still listened to the gods instead of obeying the official dictates of the government, so they were systematically slaughtered. Thus, the old ways were destroyed, and in was ushered the more orderly realm of conscious government, even as people languished for the time before the gods abandoned us. As for the particular symbolism of the Emperor, I think it might show how a shadow government works, but it is not clear symbolically. You would normally have a overt emperor who shows solar symbolism, but then you would have the dark wizard who actually controls things, hiding behind the curtain. The Emperor is more of a manipulator, and the window behind him suggests that he is at the center of a vast spiderweb, pulling the strings. Also, I'm reminded of Hitler's fascination with the occult. There was the overt ruler, but there was also an occult side. The occult messages permeated the propaganda, but they originated in a dark circles of muttering sorcerers. Star Wars should have had Palpatine as a shadow figure, hiding behind the actual Emperor, like Rasputin creeping around the royal palace, sowing the seeds of destruction. Darth Vader could have been Michelletto to Palpatine's Caesar Borgia.
All empires use appearances to convince their subjects they represent a righteous cause. Even In this day, the military showcases their soldiers in elaborate uniforms. Of course, the Empire followed in this tradition by using white armor, in order to project a positive image. However, hidden from the public were the higher echelon generals, who were dressed in nazi - like uniforms, while the Emperor was portrayed in a black hooded Cape and hood , similar to the Grimm Reaper or Greek god Cronus. Which I think is an image that is symbolically truthful.
I wouldn't conflate Empire with the Dark Side and Rebellion with Light Side. Lord Vader is seen as a member of an outdated religion by other Admirals on the Deathstar, he had to choke a bitch (unlawful conduct) to prove his worth. The Jedis were hated for their war mongering, but as a victim of the Empire they became myth among the rebels. The Sith have ousted the Jedi as the Rulers of the Galactic Government - but the Empire remains primarily a disciplined military organization.
Sith vs Jedi and Rebels vs Empire are two different stories in the same saga. That's what you are missing in the symbolism.
This is why I've always wanted the films to delve into the grey jedi's, who move freely between the light and dark sides. They are not consumed by their anger or fear, they can wield it without being wielded. Like the burning bush. Yes, Star Wars is fundamentally a little too presentational and theatrical, grossly caricaturizing both Christian themes and the historical reality of the World Wars. Perhaps could you do a follow up video on the light/dark, sin/righteousness dualisms, and elaborate on the notion of the false light?
Sorry one more blade runner :) i wont bugg you anymore lol
The Empire is what you get when the Dark Ninjas win. But there is definite confusion between the Light and Dark sides. Its Vader's love that allows him to be redeemed. Its Luke's compassion that fuels him to destroy the Death Star, and to go after his friends when they are in danger, against instructions. Luke is bad at the light side, and Vader is bad at the dark side, and these failures are the windows through which they succeed.
The Sith Order and the Jedi Order both collapse over the course of Lucas six films, leaving a void, presumably to be filled by a new philosophy based on Luke's experiences.
Instead we got Neo-Sith temper tantrums and NeoJedi nihilism
Oh, and the empire itself is wrapped in the symbolism of light, much like the Nazi's were. It's the Emperor and Vader specifically who are the "dark" ones. So they are the Dark, corrupted Rebels, currently ruling the (formerly) brilliant order, but pushing that order into the "too much light" category as the yang to their yin.
Interesting. I kind of think Star Wars is a story of imbalance and humanity, more so when you take into account the prequels. The Senate and the Jedi Counsel were not without their own flaws. Taken as a whole I think it's a story of human nature, never good enough or strong enough to have control or to resist change. Change that can be either good or bad, depending on the current system of values in place.
(Edit 1)After watching your guardians of the galaxy symbolism video, I think the star wars story is basically the side of excess purity and the side of excess imperialism, but without the moderate hero. Anakin Skywalker was a failed messiah, he walked both paths, but couldn't find the balance.
(Edit 2) I also think if you look at how Anakin, or Darth Vader, is portrayed physically as its representative as to when power is shifting, in the form of the failed prophet. As a slave child, he is an outsider of the Jedi, and wouldn't normally be allowed to join their order. As a flawed person, he is never adequately rewarded by the holier than thou Jedi. But, as his corruption from the Emperor cements itself, he loses all of his limbs and becomes a machine. He remains a machine until he overthrows his dark emperor, and then becomes human again by demasking, but becoming human also kills him in the end, because he needed to remain a machine to exist.
sorry for rambling as just a fan of stories, not a master of symbology.
I won't say you're wrong. But I will say that in the Star Wars universe books, the concerns of the Force are fleshed out. With the Disney movies being new cannon, the Star Wars universe is done away. Now called legends which I see as relegating the creation of a universe, a world to a place of ghosts.
It is interesting how our contemporary society seems obsessed with adapting traditional mythology to contemporary tastes. We not only see it in things like Star Wars, but also in the obsession with fairy tale revisionism. You've talked about Shrek, but there is also Gregory Maguire's Wicked, Angela Carter's heavily sexualized versions of Grimm and Perrault, Carol Ann Duffy's poems, various Margaret Atwood fictions, movies like Maleficent and Frozen. Perhaps even Game of Thrones, which attempts to revise Tolkien.
Star Wars is not a completed myth. Its symbolism is still in making. Just like any story rich in symbolism, especially original one, it has to be done trough variation, iteration, re-assembly. In greater franchise of Star Wars many creative people were wrestling with similar questions although perhaps they didn't know it; they approached it from different angles. Writers and creators of books, games, comics etc. For instance, writers of Old Republic games-they contributed huge amount to overall Star Wars philosophy/lore- were trying to explain philosophies of dark and light by invoking Nietzsche's ideas. Dark Siders are in this interpretation those beings that struggle to become their own gods. Their own hierarchy, builders of civilization, civilization shaped so that they -gods of it-can perpetually develop. And yes, the irony is that it's not about being orderly but giving into a passion, chaotic side of you because Jedi's-light side-seem to be excess of orderliness and they fight against change, human nature, since they fight against passion. Games suggest that both sides are WRONG and that truth lies in mixing both philosophies so that light and dark remain in balance and you are in between. Books and other sources as well were struggling often with various philosophies of force, good and evil. As universe/myth of SW stands today jedi and sith are heirs to split between force users of millennia ago that apparently were using both dark and light side in some fashion, but because it was so easy to give in to chaos without becoming orderly first (so that chaos may bebe directed towards positive endavours) many force users became corrupted by their own natures (the idea is that once you wield unnatural power its easy to follow your darkest desires) so it was decided that emotions need to be purged from teachings about the force. Unfortunately, nobody knows in SW universe how to achieve the right balance now. As result Jedi's are always stifling everything and become distant, aloof, cold, inhuman. Siths are following the path of self-destruction. You can see that in their credos (also form the game):
There is no emotion, there is peace.
There is no ignorance, there is knowledge.
There is no passion, there is serenity.
There is no chaos, there is harmony.
There is no death, there is the Force.
Sith credo:
Peace is a lie. There is only Passion.
Through Passion I gain Strength.
Through Strength I gain Power.
Through Power I gain Victory.
Through Victory my chains are Broken.
The Force shall free me.
The lore of Star Wars insists that Galaxy (metaphore of universe, world, creation) is in perpetual war between jedis and siths over nature of truth and meaning of life, but both sides are afraid of doing right steps to achieve enlightenment because it means giving in to teachings of the other; it means venturing forth into unknown. As result they are entrenched in their incomplete understanding of reality, fighting enternally and dooming galaxy to repeat circle fo conflict, death and destruction. Star Wars greater myth is about error in understanding meaning. All of this was derived from the very thing that you talk about-this dissonance in symbolism that perhaps was done by George Lucas accidentally. But other creators were stuck with it so they tried to explain it in a logical fashion.
Lucifer is the morning star and means “light bringing”.
Lawrence of Arabia might be a film to contrast this with. There you have a sexually ambiguous guerrilla leader, at the service of a larger empire, but also in ambiguous relationship to it, trying to use irregular troops to overthrow a different empire. In the end, he has no place in the post-war era.
You are overlooking the _point of view_ of the hero(es) of the films (original trilogy): from Luke's perspective, of course the Empire is evil, and the Light Side is associated with an ideal civilization that was overthrown by Palpatine in order to erect his Galactic Empire. The Jedi used to be the knights in shining armor guarding the peace of that gone-by democracy. All this is given as exposition by Obi Wan in the very first film. And as for the Emperor's fashion choice: him being able to neglect his appearance shows how powerful his grip on his subjects is. He can _afford_ to look like a necromancer, because everyone is scared shitless at the mere mention of his name. Again, this is introduced in the first movie when imperial officers talk about _fear_ keeping the local systems in line (and this is also what the Emperor needs the force for: manipulation and threatening, and in some more resilient cases, straight out murder). No real emperor was ever able to indulge in this kind of hybris and _live_ (no offense, Nero, but you had it coming). This exaggeration is a classic element of fantasy as a genre - the same in the Lord of the Rings: the dark ruler is simply a projection of all our fears, and Sauron is no different in that way from Palpatine.
Interesting.
My take is that simply this is about the Force being out of balance. That is why the tropes involved were disorganized. As Vader was the one to have brought balance and did not, the chaos of the system invaded and sublimated the order.
I don’t think you get the idea of changing what we believe or is common and flipping it in it’s head to create a new way to tell a story...
Watch the prequels and you get why the Empire is clean sleek and uniform, it was the good sides army then taken over by the emperor... why would he change what he has , he is trying to disguise himself. It’s not common knowledge that the emperor is a force user and that he use the dark side
I think your using your own bies and what you expect to guide to symbolism in your way there fore don’t understand
Is another video you don’t seem to understand why females are being more prominent and not taking over masculinity but rather feminine strength and showing diversity
I still how ever enjoy watching your video and seeing a difference perspective
Keep up the work
So, then.....what are your thoughts on Joseph Campbell?
Black is the color of materialism. as seen by motorcycle gangs, black leather jackets and the earth element. It would make perfect symbolic sense to portray Darth Vader as black and Skywalker as a light bearer savior type
In any case, I think that Stars Wars is the perfect myth for our age in that it portrays the duplicity of the public which is too easily fooled by the lies and propaganda of the elite rulers. Much of the chaos and turmoil caused in.our present world is thought to be conspiracy of the "one world goverment*. Such phrases as " false flags"and "fake news" are in the air - which are motifs the Emperor used to attain power in the first Star Wars .
Now following a spirtual line of thought , the psyche / soul must integrate its shadow to become whole and powerful. This would explain why Luke must face all the evil his father represents, and understand how it fits in with the whole. Darth Vader and the Empire personifies the stagnant past that has to pass away or die for a better type of person to be born. This evoultionary concept is behind the many myths in which the father tries to kill a divine child. [ Cronos @ Zeus, Christ @ Herod, Krishna@ Kamsa] .As this motif alludes to the resistance of powerful material forces and beings to spiritual growth.
The fact that nobody here can agree on what the light and dark side mean is just more evidence of symbolic muddling
I'm a little late :)
don't you think that in this case it is appropriate to think of "Apollonial' order which in it's excessive form turns to it's opposite - dark kingdom i.e. absolute order of death. While Spirit of Lite bringing freedom is in it's excessive form turning into Lord of Chaos - just as you described it in latest video on The Last Jedi?
The Trump image (in gold knight like armor) is a reference to the God Emperor of Mankind, in the Warhammer 40k universe (a tabletop gaming system).
The imagery of the Force in Star Wars can be summed up in the yin yang symbol... the dark center in the light side and the center of light in the dark side... an eternal dance of revolving inversion... the non-canon stories build on this inversion by having the Sith masters show themselves to be true light only veiled by darkness of their old selves and mores while they cultivate disdain for the Jedi who bind their adherents with powerless rituals designed to deny the Self and cloud their perception to the idea that the Force is One and the dark side is the only way to discover this supposed truth... "Not from a Jedi" is the taunt of the Sith to goad their adherents to "enlightenment"...
Dark side represents destructive emotions, greed, hate, addiction. It's the dark side that uses the empire, not the empire that uses the dark side. The Rebellion was once the empire, except they didn't use their darker emotions, they ruled through harmony. Rey and Luke abandon the Jedi order later on because they find out the emperor was secretly manipulating the order, turning it into a chaos. The empire is a state of chaos. Where the galaxy was once in order, eg the republic, it fell into chaos when the empire took over as a tyrant. He's a sorcerer, he manipulates others using their dark side emotions. He gets to them through their pride, and greed and passions. It's because of him that the empire is so depraved, he is the root of all the evil. The light side was order, the dark chaos. The emperor essentially killed off the light side, leaving him the sole source of order. But it is a chaotic order. The empire is what happens when power is left unchecked. Order 66 ensured there would be no one left to challenge them, to regulate. Rey is the Forces balancing agent. Luke shares with her his and the Jedi orders failures, and she is left all the wiser, she also ensured she grabbed the sacred texts before Yoda zapped the temple. He did it because he know the texts were already where they should be, with Rey. He burned the temple to free Luke of his guilt. After he left all that behind, his connection to the force was restored and he did what he could to save the day. This is a lesson to us all to learn from our mistakes and move on, not to be trapped by our pain, to let go.
I was really wowed by Star Wars. I had a friend who'd memorized the entire script. He could go through the entire movie at school. He has since slipped off to be with Obi-Wan on the other side.
Did it only really go wrong after The Empire Strikes Back? (I mean, symbolically--for a lot of other reasons it started to go wrong after The Empire Strikes Back).
I think, you are right, it is confusing, but thinking about it...Star Wars is a kids story. It's very popular amongst adults and since Episode 2 has turned more towards an adult audience by using more and more action. But it remains a fairytale with a very clear good vs. evil outline, good = light, evil = dark. The villain wears black clothes and looks inhuman and ugly so that you really dislike and fear him. There is a certain shalloweness to it all, especially the original trilogy. I guess hero's journey, princess, scoundrel, funny sidekicks. Just a bunch of archetypes. The emperor might lack the charisma that villains usually have, but then again he can use mind tricks. He can use the force to manipulate people. He is supposed to be very powerful, even though Lucas failed to make it really clear. He was trying to convey something really important in Ep. 3 with the way a scene was cut...that he took Padme's life force to keep Anakin alive - but the dialogue messes it up and makes it unclear.
I think part of what Lucas was representing with the Empire and Emperor was his own life with his father, which he has alluded to being contentious for most of their life. Throw in the crap from the 60s and I think it amounts to most of the oddities. He has also said the line about Vadar asking Luke to join him, was his Dad wanting him to take over the family stationary business. Drama much Lucas?
I believe Lucas thought of the analogy as him, the light side, and independent film maker, and the dark side, the film industry. If you want to understand the Star Wars saga, this is the key.
On a more fundamental level though, it seems to me the force is the same as emotional empathy. It is biological, yet has mystical powers, actions at a distance. Good an evil dichotomy is a bad analogy to understand the light and dark side of the force, they are not equal.
I would put it this way. The light is loving, and the dark side is a corruption of love. By love I mean caring for the well-being of others as others. The corruption of love, is caring about others as things you possess. The dark side is envy. So the force is a love/envy dichotomy.
How it is shown is pretty interesting, and yes, there can be too much love. Like in the Empire Strikes Back, Luke ends his training prematurely, because of that. And he almost falls to his envy of the Father, but let's go just in time, and falls towards his friends instead.
In the Return of the Jedi, it is shown how the dark side works, through jealousy and envy, fueled by anger and hatred, and fear. Luke is supposed to topple his father and join the Emperor, which is the embodiment of the dark side, envy. When Luke meets the Emperor, he wants to bring down envy through anger, which is what the Emperor wants. Let's say your employer is greedy, you get angry, you hate, and then you want to take away from him what he stole. Then you fall into the dark side yourself. You became greedy yourself. It is the social justice of the dark side. It uses the force to strengthen envy, or justify it. Notice how the Siths use the dark side as a justification to overtake the Empire. This is what Luke almost did at the end. He justified that Vader was using the dark side to justify taking his place by killing him. But instead he chose to love him for what he is.
In the prequels, there is a few interesting things in it. The Jedis are in power now, so it could represent the film industry before big corporations took over. They are together and work as a community, not a perfect one, and their insights of the future are clouded by envy. Yoda represents love, and their structure is religious in nature, so it can represent Christianity. The Jedis are still the independent filmmakers, and they only come together in big events. While they are doing their own thing and fighting the Trade Federation (capitalism), the industry is slowly taken over by envy, in the disguise of socialism. The Jedis fight a few Siths, and win, but eventually, the Emperor is revealed, and the Jedis fall, and the best of them turns to the dark side (Lucas himself probably). Anakin falls to the dark side for the love of his wife (Star Wars movie), and he sells himself to the Emperor, to save her life. I suppose in this case, Disney is the Emperor, or it could be LucasFilm. I like the idea of Disney better though, they were always more or less out there, with hidden envy, but with a friendly face to children. Also, the young Jedis might represent the fans.
The structure of the Jedis and Siths are interesting though. Jedis are collectivists, and Siths are traders (and there is only two of them at the same time, one buyer, one seller). That is how empathy works. It can be used for altruism, or selfishness. Through giving freely, or by seduction and a give and take approach. There are many ways of the Force. You can't really say which is good and which is bad, it depends on the circumstances and the intention, and they often intermingle and can be hard to tell apart, thus the chance of turning one side or the other.
The answers to so many of your questions are in the Prequels. Additionally, in “The Clone Wars”. The Prequels deepened the original trilogy’s story a LOT.
The newest (and last) trilogy is an abomination, 100%.
What about the one world state that the dark forces want to build?
That's control and order and assimilation, isn't it? Yet it's evil.
I don't get your point tbh.
A point that you didn’t speak of is the idea of “bringing balance to the force”. Clearly this is to be taken from Taoism and other eastern id as. The issue I have with all of that is that far from the dark being unknown or chaos, it is purely evil. There is a place for structure to be abandoned but is there a place for evil? Is there to be a balance? In the end of the bible the light never goes away and the sea, the waters of chaos, are no more. This biblical view isn’t about balance the way Star Wars formulates. By that thinking there should be a dude in black massacring children to balance out Yoda helping them.
It's the materialistic dualism that you see in modern people.
What is that confusion we live in today? And what is the link with the confusion in Star Wars movies?
Some people must enjoy the cyclicality of inversion, adding to the confusion, as the movie draws numerous devoted fans. Great points in the video and I would love to hear your thoughts. Why do you think desires to revel in differing inversions come into being? Would you say, giving the symbology, there is malevolence intended by the writer, aside from the entertainment value?
Jonathan - thanks for these two very insightful comments. I especially like the phrase "the tyranny of the exception".
I'd love to hear you talk more about the "excess of equality", and where it's come from. In its benign form, 'equality' seems to be about trying to avoid harmful prejudices - which is good. Perhaps it could also be seen as the secular version of the Christian view that we are all children of God i.e. we're all 'equal' in God's eyes, we're all equally sinners, and I'm not better than you (or you, me) spiritually.
But in its aggressive form, the equality doctrine seems to be about ignoring, or even eliminating, all differences between people, and dispensing with competence as a way of evaluating anyone. No-one can be deemed better than anyone else, in any way at all. Any hierarchy is an evil thing. Which is clearly ridiculous, and disastrous.
Emotionally, this could simply arise from resentment against people who are more able, skilled, intelligent, talented, interesting etc. Or, as I think Jordan Peterson has said (in the charitable interpretation) it's like an excess of compassion without the countervailing virtue of discrimination.
It would be great to hear what you have to say about the emergence of this equality doctrine in our world. And why this excess of this weird kind of 'compassion' at the moment, and how does it relate to father/mother figures etc.?
The next movie (Ep. 8) might correct this to some extent. Supreme Leader Snoke's costume is reported to very regal, with gold robes and jewelry and fancy shoes; not your typical Star Wars bad guy.
Mac F Heh.
What about to analyze University Monsters ? I have spotted big immorality in both main characters: The little green ball monster break through into a plantm he's a invader, and the security runs after him (and his group of criminals) and it's shown as if we sgould think he's right. But no, he's not ! He's an invasor !!! The other situation is that big blue fur monster hacks up the scary meter (in a competition of scaries) to make it responds everytime with maximum points for his friends' attempt. At the end of the competition, after this hack is discovered by his friend, the following chat is about why the blue monster doesn't trust of the skills of the green monster, and not about the wrongness of to hacking of the measuring machine !
And ofcourse there are some other points...
I really like a lot of your basic criticisms of the metaphorical aspects of Star Wars, it is without a doubt a flawed conceptual universe, but one issue stood out to me. You perceive an intentional link between the idea of Empire with the Dark Side. While I can definitely see how that might appear to be a logical correlation in the films, it isn’t quite accurate to the story. Please forgive my upcoming nerd moment.
It’s made much clearer in the storytelling outside of the films that Emperor Palpatine/Darth Sideous considered Galactic Empire a means to an end of (a) permanently destroying the Jedi order, (b) recovering Sith holocrons (ancient dark side temples and powerful Sith artifacts) hidden by the Jedi, and finally (c) expanding his power over the Dark Side of the force to manipulate reality itself and make himself omnipotent and immortal. He cared little for the traditional publicity, fanfare, or actual governing of the Empire, which is why the Galactic Empire gradually transitions from a still quasi-representative totalitarian state in its early form to a massive hierarchical bureaucracy, with the Emperor practically irrelevant to daily operations (as seen with the dissolution of the Galactic Senate in Episode IV and its replacement with direct regional governors over individual planetary systems.)
Palpatine is not tempting Luke with rule over the Empire, he’s tempting him to give into his natural frustration with the cruddy, bickering, diverse little rebel alliance, and his impatience to properly grow into his largely unrealized force powers- that’s what’s meant by giving into one’s emotions to turn toward the Dark Side. Palpatine well knows that these are the exact same things that successfully tempted Anakin: frustration with the ponderous pace of leadership decision-process and limited ethical code of the Jedi, coupled with an impatience to prove himself of, and be given due respect for, his staggering force abilities. Embracing the Dark Side offered him a simple way around all of these things, albeit at a horrible price. Unlike Anakin, Luke was able to clearly see in his father the fullness of the monster he himself risked becoming.
In the DC comics Injustice, Superman, a literal sun god imposes a world wide empire and is fought from the shadows by Batman
I notice you're focusing on the original trilogy and the new movies (probably because of their similar mythological structures, and the relevance of the most recent movies). You are of course pointing to an interesting aspect of the story with this talk of inversion and symbolic confusion, particularly when it comes to the way the rebels and the empire are presented. Now, for some reason, I can't see the end of (and as such have no idea how long they are or how much I'm missing) many of the comments here, so excuse me if I bring up something already brought to your attention.
When considered in the context of the first three movies, (the tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, the rise of the sith and the fall of the republic) it really does seem like the reason the empire is depicted as it is is because they represent pathological order built on lies and manipulation (the black dot in the white paisle as previously brought up in the comments), and because it's underlying philosophy (about personal power being the ultimate goal, in a sentence) permeates every line of command, making it essentially a giant lie (because it encourages stabbing your cooperators in the back if it gains your standing). Not just a pathological order, but a false order intent on spreading itself to every corner of the universe. I don't know much about the expanded universe, but from what I've gathered, an imperial commander named Thrawn (embodiment of pure successful reason and devotion to the system) ultimately dies as a result of people desiring his place without showing his skill. He's an example of how honesty dies in this false order, and as such has to flee (rebel) to survive. In this context a twisted form of the spear/light of judgement, as well as an emperor who is not upheld as a symbol of the sun (apparently the facade to the outside world was mostly his representatives speaking for him, though that is not shown in the movies), but who rather hides in the shadows.
In light of this it might also be easier to understand how positively the majority of the shown rebels are viewed (and also that those who were less devoted to trust and truth fall out of the main movement (a character named Saw Gerrera from Rogue One is likely intended to showcase this, though the way he's depicted seems halfhearted)), I will agree that it's not entirely right (or incomplete, if you prefer -particularly in more recent additions to the canon), but at the heart of the conflict, there's the battle between those who would only further their own power through a reign of terror (as seen in a number of fantasy-stories, both new and old) and those who praise the willingness to let go of what must go (as the Jedi-order of the prequels urged Anakin to do when he voiced concerns for his visions of his wife's and his mother's deaths) as well as bravery and self-sacrifice.
In more recent times I've seen many make claims such as "the jedi were as bad as the sith, if not worse", because they grew arrogant (and a number of examples that usually turn out to be misinformation). This falls in line with the inversion you speak of, and I expect we'll see the canon story be pushed in this direction by Disney over the coming years, as viewpoints along this line are fairly common. I think there's some confusion going on, especially in the recent movies (where the republic and its fall is no longer important context (as no players in the fall remain alive)), and where the First Order so far is much more genuinely confused than the Empire in the way you describe in the video.
On another subject: Lately, I've been thinking a lot about the way we as a civilization have grown fascinated by Zombie-apocalypses (or apocalyptic stories in general) and post-apocalyptic zombie-stories over the last 50-60 years. I suspect that especially the latter is part of a subconscious desire to figure out what makes something human. If you haven't looked into it already, that might be something to consider for the future. If I'm on to something here, I think we're close to an answer (though I don't think it's very easily expressed yet). No one I've asked has bothered to even follow up on this subject up to this point, but I thought it might interest you.
The rebuilding of Darth Vader muddies the waters further of what it means to be human
The force is the power of consciousness. Therefore Skywalker's path to greatest involves learning to weld the powers of his mind.
I really love your videos and your insight on this topic is quite interesting. Im inclined to agree but johnathon remember in your Last Jedi video you said episodes 4-6 represent a fallen world..a world where things are inverted or atleast distored (you gave the example of the priests hiding in the cave while the king weds a whore) this could be the explanation for why the empire in episodes 4-6 is represented by the dark side in that the empire is itself a dark inversion of what it normally would be in a world devoid of rampant chaos...
I think it's because the Empire (as we found in the prequels) IS the rebellion. It's the ABNORMAL situation. It's a mockery of order; it's not actually orderly, but corrupt to the core.
Simple answer- the dark side of the force is leaning too much on the lower impulses of humanity (greed, lust and power) whilst the light side is too pious, to spiritual.
They are afraid of their animal- like desires, even the higher ones like love (which can corrupt people) so they try and shun all desire, which in itself is a desire to transcend the impulses, an oxymoron.
Which is why the heroes always rebel against the jedi council, yet usually end up with the force on their side, signifying that the force is a balance of both light and dark
Very interesting.
To much order brings you to chaos
Only in the sense of "to[o] much order" being the vice of arrogance, id est, of imperfect and non-omniscient men trying to order the world while themselves being imperfect, id est, lacking the fullness of order in their souls. "Nemo dat quod non habet." ("One can not give that which he does not have.") Lacking the fullness of order in his soul, imperfect man can not give it to the whole universe or world. Therefore it is a vice to attempt to impose his imperfect conception of order on the whole world. In contrast, authentic order can and did exist for all creation, visible and invisible. God is perfect, and created all without defect, id est, the absence of some good. Originally wholly good, because God is all good and the fount of goodness Himself, and, again "nemo dat quod non habet", God could not create evil (a contradictory phrase indeed!) in any wise in His creation. In His original creation, wholly good, without deprivation and lacking nothing necessary for its goodness and perfect functionality, and therefore ordered perfectly, there was not "to[o] much order", and evil and "chaos" were not, and still are not, necessary for order, because the definition of evil is the absence or deprivation of good, and "chaos" is the result of evil, a metaphysical malfunctioning of what is now deprived of being qua being and deprived of its wholeness. Therefore, the hasty judgment that "to[o] much order brings you to chaos" requires qualification to be valid.
As an aside, this is why Saint Thomas of Aquinas is so insightful, because he clarifies our initial thoughts and shows how to resolve the chaos in our own thinking to arrive at the Truth. My argument herein is something akin to how he would resolve the matter. Study him and he will bring you great light!
Ok, so here is another rewrite to the Star Wars movies in my head. At the start of Ep.1 the Republic is already becoming overly-ordered and Imperial. Palpatine has a vision of destroying the Jedi by rising to a position of supreme command, just as he does in Ep.1-3. But, once he gets there, he begins allowing the Empire to crumble. He neglects or begins tearing down the systems of the empire because a) he is an agent of chaos and really has no skill or interest in actually ruling and b) he is focused on using the power at his disposal to root out and destroy the last remaining Jedi--Obi Wan and Yoda.
So Ep. 4-6 are set against a backdrop of chaos. Star systems are starving because supply chains are breaking down. Those big triangle ships are failing to capture rebels because they are poorly-maintained. The rebels are fighting this catastrophe in battle but also by filling in the gaps---providing for he people. The symbols of the Empire are light and power, but at the top is this chaos agent and his dark knight who really just wants to see the world burn. I think I would do away with the necromancer look. I'm thinking Nero here. So the central tension between the Rebels and the Empire is not "can the rebels defeat the most powerful government ever" it becomes, "can the rebels destroy and replace this failing system before it destroys everyone and everything as is slowly crumbles?"
Not all empires are good, most of them are corrupt at the core from Roman empire till now and even before the Roman empire. Christ was a rebel in that sense. He was depicted in a different way with jewels and halo much later. The facade can be represented through colors and symbols associated with good such as light, sun , jewels etc. On the other hand not all rebels are bad. It depends on the observer as well and how he or she is socially integrated and embedded. Propaganda and social engineering are huge aspects and your analysis actually confirms the contradiction and hypocrisy of how groups can be presented and misrepresented manipulating the general masses. Citizens of the galactic empire in Star Wars probably think that the rebels are the bad guys.
Light grants things their individuality, darkness creates uniformity.
The dark side has to be the opposite of the light side, and the light side is inspired both by Christian and perhaps also Buddhist themes of putting ones self aside to being able to access to power of the force without being corrupted by the power it brings. It actually makes sense to me.
What about Morgoth, and Sauron?
As always- thought provoking
I never thought Star Wars was a very well written story. Very interesting points about the symbolism, I'm sure it has contributed to my confusion as well. Wrongly I think that the story tries to portray balance as the outcome of two opposing groups in constant tension with the multicultural diverse "rebels" destroying the cookie cutter "empire" of order. It is written from a left perspective that doesn't seem to have an understanding of the function/necessity of structure. An example - Politically here in the US, I remember hearing references from the left that Bush/Cheney and their legion of mindless zombies were just like the Sith empire. That kind of ties in with what you mentioned about the the emperor not talking to the troops. I think the writers were trying to convey that the followers on the right don't need addressed because they don't think anyway. I obviously don't agree with with the writers it's just what I noticed. Evil is only portrayed on one side of the story so it seems it is more like propaganda and the symbolism of war propaganda against the Nazis kind of lines up with how the emperor is symbolized.
Also, read about Grey Jedi. They use both sides.
The agenda of the movie is to push rebellion as good, and obedience as evil.
Isaiah 5:20
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Romans 13
1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Great video! , my only question is, how come the nazis dresed in black and had skulls on their uniforms? I always thought they represented too much order , in that case they should have dressed in white?
But I feel the same about Star Wars, there is something not right about it, I belive the emperor represent the Male Authority as something negative, something like the "patriarchy is evil".
I would love to hear your toughts on Final Fantasy 7 (if you know what that is)
The Sith Lords and the Empire are linked because they both rule with fear, anger, hatred, and aggression. They are both authoritarian. The Sith wear black because they represent the hidden evil in the id or subconscious. The Jedi have a hard time detecting them. Sidious basically transforms into the evil aspects of the id in Revenge of the Sith. (He does wear a fancy red robe at one point in the movie and is concealed as Palpatine during the prequels.) Also the Sith mostly lack compassion and love and are violent punishers and oppressors. The question is whether Sidious and Vader have moral motivations. Vader seems to, but it's unclear whether Sidious does. In Revenge of the Sith, Sidious only seems to care about power, but it's easy to imagine that the Emperor in Return of the Jedi (and the Phantom Menace) is a law and order type, going by his personality and the fact he rules the Empire. I think Sidious's temptations of Luke and Anakin are basically like gang initiations. He's trying to make Luke become a punisher and oppressor by forcing him to feel fear and anger. (And he's punishing Luke for being a good person and rebelling against him.) With Anakin he's tempting him with power and manipulating him with fear and to a lesser degree anger. This temptation is more like how it would happen in the real world. Anakin had already moved part of the way into the darkside before the beginning of Revenge of the Sith, likely to fight the war and because he is more fearful than Kenobi. Luke is a harder nut to crack, and I suspect he wants Vader to kill Luke because of the parallel with the Mace Windu death scene in Revenge of the Sith. This would free Vader from his compassion for his son and snuff out what remains of his humanity and individual initiative. (This is similar to Kylo Ren having to kill his father.) If Luke kills Vader, then he knows Vader has become to weak (and untrustworthy) anyway. He also likely wants to punish Vader for wanting to use Luke to overthrow him. It's definitely true that the darkside can be associated with rebellion (this is actually more realistic) and it kind of is in the prequels, though the leaders of the "rebels" in the prequels are also opressors. In the prequels, the Republic becomes a proto Empire and the Jedi become corrupt defenders of it. (In Rogue One, the rebels are a little shady.) The light side is associated with the Rebellion, because they are Democratic.
I'm pretty convinced that Lucas would have made the rebellion more gray if he could do it again. Star Wars does have an odd relationship with Christianity. You can see Anakin as a false Jesus who ends up serving the Roman Empire. He's basically the antichrist who maybe could have been Jesus. In the original trilogy, Vader and the Emperor represent Satan and evil versions of God. Yoda and Obi-Wan are good versions of God. Obi-Wan has touches of John the Baptist and Jesus and Luke has touches of Jesus and the apostles. (Qui-Gon has touches of both John and Jesus.) Luke's friends (and the Jedi) are like apostles and persecuted Christians, and the Empire is like the Roman Empire and Israeli government. The Tatooine (and Cloud City) aliens are demons and sinners, Cloud City is Jerusalem, Lando is Judas, Jabba's palace is Hell, the asteroid creature is Jonah's whale, and Mos Eisley (and Jabba's mob) is Sodom and Gomorrah. I guess the rebels are like the Israeli people. There's a reason these movies were and are hugely popular. The original trilogy embraces Christianity but also criticizes it. With the prequels, it's unclear. I guess the Jedi (they have a temple) are like the old testament Israelites who are punished by God for failing in order to make them better.
In regards to the Emperor, I think you are too dismissive of the Force itself. The Force (in that Galaxy) is all powerful, but not omniscient. The Emperor is driven insane by the Dark side (or letting your emotions run wild, a psychopath), and REVELS in the fear he inspires. He WANTS to be scary and intimidating. God has an opinion about what His creation does, the "Force" does not. It's up to the user to decide. It's why the Jedi stress emotional detachment. It's the only safe way, the only balanced way, to wield the power of the Force.
Left hand path vs right hand path magick
Agreed. Star Wars mythology can be quite fucky. But it's interesting.
I think this is largely due to Star Wars being a mixture of ancient mythic values and post WW2 modern liberal values. The mythology of Star Wars is an odd mix of values demonstrating the Nietzscheian idea of the revaluation of values. It uses the symbology of ancient myth but overlays it with modern valuations or what can be called slave morality. The good guys must be the underdog, oppressed class, the rebels and that which brings light, gives order and enlightenment to the world is actually dark or evil. Perhaps this is the great contribution of Star Wars, that it seems to have unconsciously demonstrated the corruption of modernity, where everything grand and life affirming (i.e. gives order or brings light) is actually evil and that which sulks in darkness and is unable to achieve power is actually the just or moral according to modern or perhaps more do post-modetn valuations.
Beautiful!