*** (out of ****)
Is The Force with the latest "Star Wars" adventure, "The Rise of Skywalker" (2019)?
"The Rise of Skywalker" is a "Star Wars" adventure for today's woke millennial generation. It is a story marred in meaningless, leftist gender identity politics highlighting women in roles of leadership, societal inclusion of African-Americans (displaying their heroism) and teaching us the importance of (I think I am going to puke) feelings.
Yet, despite this bombardment of political signaling, there are times I enjoy "The Rise of Skywalker" even more than the previous two adventures - "The Force Awakens" (2015) and "The Last Jedi" (2017). While one half of the movie is social conditioning, the other half is basking in nostalgia. Being the old sentimental fool I am it was the nostalgia I responded to most.
Basking in nostalgia is something the movie's director, J.J. Abrams has been harshly criticized for by some movie fans. In addition to this movie, Abrams has also directed "The Force Awakens", "Star Trek" (2009) and "Super 8" (2011) his nostalgic tribute to Steven Spielberg (who was one of the movie's producers). Some feel Abrams uses nostalgia to shield poor storytelling and to elicit emotions within us that his stories can't earn on their own. Maybe they have a point.
Now before some readers leap to the conclusion that I am a rabid right-wing Trump-supporting conservative, I assure them I am not. I actually take great offense to a former reality television host in a position of leadership in our government. But I cannot blind myself to the messaging of a movie."The Rise of Skywalker" is one more example of liberal identity politics masquerading as solutions to larger social and economic issues.
For example, women demand equal pay for equal work but what can our poor helpless legislative body do about it? They can only pass the laws which have been written by the lobbyist of giant corporations. So instead of any meaningful change lets put Harriet Tubman on a twenty dollar bill. The media and various female political groups will champion the gesture (which is all it is) as a step forward and will chant "progress"! What a significant moment in the representation of women. Hooray! "They" will feed you just enough crumbs to keep you content and distracted by the illusion of change.
And so because we live in a #MeToo world, nearly had a female president (who was thwarted by sexism - not her weak policy positions or poor campaigning), demand equal pay for equal work and have an over sexualized media objectifying women, lets have a female led "Star Wars" movie and chant "girl power". What a significant moment in the representation of women! Those other issues will take care of themselves in a long but reasonable amount of time. Remember, change is only possible in incremental stages!
This third trilogy (are we supposed to group "Star Wars" movies in installment of trilogies?) revolves around Rey (Daisy Ridley), a young woman whom the force is strong with. In "The Rise of Skywalker", as an attempt to build up her greatness, it is said every Jedi before Rey is inside of her. This results in a nostalgic voice-over of previous characters.
Heavily burrowing elements from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy", Rey will learn uncomfortable truths about her past and her identity. Can she rise to the occasion? Meanwhile, dealing with his own dual identity crisis, Kylo Ren (Adam Driver) must decide which side he will land on in the battle between good versus evil. It too results in nostalgic references to the first trilogy.
In the now famous opening scrolls (isn't like a hit of adrenaline when we see it appear on-screen with the music playing behind it?) we learn Emperor Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) is still alive. He holds sway over Kylo Ren, whom he wants to influence Rey to join the dark side. Kylo Ren and the Emperor are aware of Rey's true identity, practically stealing a moment from "The Empire Strike Back" (1980).
It is suppose to lend itself to a moral game of cat and mouse between Kylo Ren and Rey. Kylo Ren desperately hunts Rey down but is able to "Force bond" (long distance virtual telepathy) with her, luring her to the dark side with promises they will rule together. Is it Rey's destiny? She is tempted to take Kylo Ren's hand. She has even had vision of joining the dark side. Can Rey fight off these temptations and exercise her free will?
These moral questions aren't very captivating here but not out of place in a "Star Wars" movie, which has always had a religious undertone to it. It is somewhat fitting however that one of the screenwriters is Chris Terrio, who I was impressed with back when he directed "Heights" (2005). He also wrote "Batman v Superman" (2016) and "Justice League" (2017). Both of those movies tried inserting morality to the legend of superheroes.
The flip side of Rey's predicament is Kylo Ren. Can Kylo come back from the dark side? Once on the side of good he fell to the temptation of evil. Can he be redeemed? Bare in mind the title of the movie is "The Rise of Skywalker". Kylo Ren is the only character, between the two, with Skywalker blood. He is the son of Princess Leia (Luke's sister) and Han Solo (Harrison Ford). Is the title a reference to him as well?
The political woke signaling and nostalgia create a deliberate clash at the center of "The Rise of Skywalker" symbolizing "old" vs "new". For the "Star Wars" franchise it means creating a path for new characters to emerge as heroes while fading the original characters from the "Luke Skywalker Trilogy" into the dustbin of history.
The nostalgia comes in various forms, from the return of Lando Calrissen (Billy Dee Williams), to the presence of Carrie Fisher as Princess Leia Organa (Fisher died in 2016. The entire performance consist of archival footage.), shots of the Death Star, shots of Luke Skywalker's home from "A New Hope" (1977), the appearance of the Ewoks, Darth Vader's destroyed mask and cameos by Harrison Ford and Mark Hamill.
However the politics the movie tries to enforce becomes overwhelming. Some of the social criticism of George Lucas' "A New Hope" was its lack of ethnic and racial diversity in the cast and the fact it seemed like females are not capable of acquiring the "Force". And so adjustments had to be made to quell these complaints. In "The Empire Strikes Back" we get the first African-American character, Lando Calrissen. In the Anakin Skywalker prequel trilogy the cast of characters were more diverse. And now, finally, a woman is a strong Jedi warrior.
"The Force Awakens" also created an additional African-American character for the franchise, Finn (John Boyega), a stormtrooper turned good. His appearance also brought us the first sight of blood in a "Star Wars" movie, something many people made a very big deal about.
"The Rise of Skywalker" creates a matriarchal society (to liberals delight!) as Princess Leia reigns supreme. Women may only make up five percent of Fortune 500 CEOs (a real statistic) but by gum we have Princess Leia! After Leia's guidance and wisdom, Rey is the resistance's best hope to stop the First Order (congruently this last Democratic Primary season saw a record number of women vying for the party's nomination to lead the resistance).
A new African-American character is added to the "Star Wars" universe, Jannah (Naomi Ackie), another stormtrooper turned good. She leads an army of ex-stormtroopers that have rebelled (from what I could tell, all women). Why? Because of the power of feelings. They felt what they were doing was wrong and changed their ways. By the end of the movie it is even suggested a new series may be built around her. Can you imagine a black, female Jedi! Would that not be token liberal heaven? Meanwhile the college graduation rate for black females is behind that of white and Asian women.
At the end of the day women save us and restore order. There is nothing wrong with creating movies that have strong female characters. Nor is there anything wrong with creating strong African-American characters. That is not my complaint. I am the guy that says movies are a reflection of our world. What I am complaining about is the pandering, the shallow guise of social awareness. It is overwhelming political correctness that creates a kind of liberal utopia. Not to leave anyone out, there is even a moment when two female characters kiss. It is all a far cry from the homage to 1930s & 40s movie serials ("Buck Rogers" and "Flash Gordon") that "Star Wars" originally intended to be.
I understand it is difficult to create social change. There are forces at work fighting against it. But do we honestly feel the best way to enact these changes is through the movies? Are we saying art dictates society? If that is true, are we not than using movies as social propaganda? Why can't our elected leaders actually take leadership positions and demand change? Is it because voters fall for the political pandering of token gestures? Voters seem to accept and defend the "incremental change" argument.
If "The Rise of Skywalker" wouldn't hammer us with liberal social conditioning it could have been a very fun movie.
Posts
