I’ve always been the kind of guy who has been attracted to really interesting designs. As a child, my favorite Loony Tune was the Roadrunner not because I found him particularly funny, but because he looked so damn cool. As I’ve gotten older, I’ve learned to appreciate character nuance and substance being as important if not more than style, though style does play a role. To bring it back to a Star Wars example, I appreciate Sebulba for the kind of character he is and what he represents, but he wouldn’t be my third favorite Saga character of all time were it not that I feel the Dug is probably the most utterly awesome design to come out of any of the films.
Cool aliens have been one of the staples of the Star Wars universe since 1977, but a cursory glance shows a boom in the critters during the Fall of the Republic. Cynical viewers might see this as simply a marketing strategy. I feel this is bogus, of course. While certainly some of the designs owe a lot to the rule of cool, great care was taken to show that they made some sort of sense in-universe, either evolutionary or thematically. It’s not always evident within the scope of the films themselves, but it’s one area where the Expanded Universe is invaluable.
But let’s take a closer look at how the alien species breakdown really happens in the Saga, going from release date. “A New Hope” introduced a lot of species, but very few were given a lot of screentime. Aside from Chewie, the Jawas, and the Tuskens, most of the aliens in Hope were confined to the Cantina, and even then you rarely get a good glance. There was a diversity, but very small-scaled. Go to “Empire Strikes Back”, you’ve got Hoth’s wildlife, Yoda and Dagobah’s ecosystem, and the Exogorth with its “ecosystem”. Far less diversity. “Return of the Jedi” explodes the diversity with Jabba’s Palace and the Ewoks (and incidentally, it’s there the “marketing” accusations began). “Phantom Menace” increases the species diversity exponentially, introducing a ton of new species to the Star Wars Universe. “Attack of the Clones”, however, begins to scale it back. We get fewer new species, though they’re still more prominent than in Hope and about the same as Jedi. “Revenge of the Sith” we get slightly less diversity than Clones and closer to the level we have at Hope.
This was not an accident. Even taking into account leaps in technology leading to the desire to try out new toys in Jedi and Phantom in particular, one mustn’t forget it was the story that demanded the effects, not the other way around. So, what’s the story?
To show how utterly Nazi-ish Palpatine’s Empire really is.
Back in July, I wrote a blog post criticizing accusations of racism in Star Wars (Found here, but I warn readers of some adult language). When talking about the Nemoidians, I paraphrased the novelization of “Revenge of the Sith” when I mentioned that it was no coincidence that the leaders of the Confederacy of Independent Systems, save Dooku, were all aliens. It’s been hinted at in the films and flat-out stated in several EU sources that the Empire is extremely anti-alien. The Empire is dripping with subtle and not-so-subtle references to the Third Reich. And, like any decent reference to that dark period of humanity, the overall message is that this kind of behavior is not at all good. This fits with the fact that it was the Ewoks, the “primitive aliens,” that bested the Empire at the Battle of Endor. The message here is clear: when you discriminate, you’re going to come to a bad end.
I-III takes an even subtler and more disturbing look at this, since it shows how this came about in the first place. As I mentioned, the Nemoidians and the other alien Separatist leaders were set up by Palpatine as the scapegoats, so that when (or rather if, since Palpatine always had a plan B) the Republic won the Clone Wars, the non-humans could be persecuted and shunted to the side to make way for an Empire consisting entirely of Homo sapiens. Not unlike how the blame for Germany’s bad economy following World War I was shifted to Jewish business owners. Even more devious is that Palpatine gets the alien senators, especially poor old Jar Jar, to vote against their interests; something that is sadly common in the history of politics (indeed, scholars of political history can find a veritable goldmine in I-III, but that’s a little outside of this article’s scope).
In light of this, both the first impression of far more species diversity in I-III and the actual diversity breakdown of the Saga makes far more sense. Aliens are still more accepted up to the Republic’s fall, and during the Empire’s rule they’re mostly confined to backwaters such as Tatooine.
Fear is a path to the Dark Side. Xenophobia, the fear of others, is therefore a perfect representation of evil. While we certainly have examples of evil or unsavory aliens in the galaxy far far away, all beings are capable of light and dark and should be judged as individuals regardless of their race. I think that’s a wonderful lesson.
Your reading is interesting (and well-put), but it'd be better served if it weren't for the fact that all the villains in the OT remain aliens, or at the very least foreigners (yes, there's British people on the good side, but there's no American enemies, and all of the truly horrifying enemies are aliens of some sort). So any of the racism (be it actual racism or an attack on racism) comes off as incidental, or not really thought through.
ReplyDeleteWhat IV-VI villain other than Jabba and his cronies are aliens (not counting the Tuskens)? I guess Garindian (sp?), but it wouldn't be the first time an oppressive regime hired a spy from the group they're oppressing. Then there's Eavazan and Ponda, but they're bar trash (even if they're wanted men).
ReplyDeleteStill, Jabba is the only main alien villain in IV-VI. The rest are human (regardless of what planet colony they're from).
That's actually what I meant- all of the 'monstrous' enemies (i.e. the ones that act on instinct and are generally seen as pretty horrible) are pretty much all aliens, the Tuskens being the best example.
DeleteAgain, though, it's interesting to note that there are no American bad guys in the films, and the amount of foreign good guys remains pretty low by comparison until Return of the Jedi (where, to its credit, we get a satisfactorily multiracial rebellion).
Unless you count the annoying American accents the officers in New Hope have been dubbed (one of my few real beefs with the saga). However, I'm not talking about Earth nationalities here. This is strictly in-universe.
DeleteIn-universe, a human is a human. Sure, Han Solo may be Corellian, but all that means is that he's from Cornelia's human colony. Jango Fett may be Mandalorian, but all that means is that he's part of the Mandalorian bloodline and culture of (admittedly extraordinary) humans.
It's not uncommon in the Star Wars universe for colonists to displace natives and claim a planet as their own (not unlike what happens on Earth). Look at the Naboo, who are simply human colonists who have a tenuous relationship with the native Gunman, at least until peace is made in Phantom. Another interesting case, going by background material, is Malastare. There, the Gran colonists have shunted aside the native Digs simply for feeling they're uncouth and destructive by nature (which they kind of are, but it's still no excuse and it only exacerbates is).
All the villainous aliens we see in IV-VI are lowlifes trying to make their way in the universe. By contrast, the all-human Empire commits horrific atrocities which, to me, makes them far more monstrous than the literal monsters.
Stupid autocorrect, you know I meant Naboo's native Gungans.
DeleteI'm not fond of in-universe explanations, though, because it absolves a film of real-world concerns and consequences that it needs to deal with. In-universe, yes, they're all one human race, but in the real world there's a very clear distinction between the good guys and bad guys in their nationalities, and that's not something the films ever consciously deal with.
DeleteHow do you figure there's a distinction in nationalities? Just because the Empire seems to have more British-accented officers? The distinction is in the behavior. Selflessness and compassion = good, selfishness and cruelty = bad. Anything else is either aesthetic (the 30's serial one to be exact) or having limited options for extras.
DeleteBy the simple fact that all the enemies are foreigners of some kind (which is an entrenched part of most American fiction that we still haven't quite gotten past today). Yes, they're defined by their emotions more than nationalities, but there's an implicit connection being made (whether or not Lucas is aware of it) between the person's race or nationality and their role in a trope-based story.
DeleteHowso?
DeleteWell, basically just by what I said- when you present a universe in which all of the bad guys are people of other nationalities or simply aliens, and all of your Americans are good guys (and most of the good guys are Americans), you are making an implicit connection between nationality and propensity towards good or evil. I should stress it isn't a huge problem (it's not like it cripples the moral essence of the films or anything), and there are things that lessen how bad it is in the films (after all, there are British people and aliens on the good side, too) but it is a problem, and one that I do think throws a spanner in the idea of there being a concurrent thought about racism through the six films.
DeleteBut now you're nitpicking and not allowing the message through. It's the same thing with Lord of the Rings, which is supposed to have an undercurrent of racial unity but all the main characters happen to be played by Caucasians. It's just an unfortunate coincidence, and the message comes through loud and clear in-universe. Same with Star Wars. For me, and hopefully a lot of fan as well as the kids these movies are for, we're not thinking about the real world. We're immersing ourselves in the world of the movie, and in the world of the movie the main good guys have a bunch of different creatures on their team and the main bad guys seem to be mostly human. Again, focus determines reality (isn't Qui-Gon awesome?)
DeleteBut okay, we'll play it your way for a second. As much as The Twins and Solo are human (and their actors American), Chewie and the Droids are certainly not (and they're all played by Brits, though only one uses his real voice). They're treated more-or less equally by the good guys, but get devalued by the Empire as either merely machines (in the case of the Droids) or something repulsive (Chewie elicits far more disgust from the officers even for a supposed prisoner).
That's escapism, though, which is in itself a terrible thing. Art is always in some part a reflection or commentary on the real world, and escapism (which outright ignores that) is almost sociopathic in that regard.
DeleteAgain, though, I'd like to point out that the problem I mention is not a huge one in the context of the original trilogy- it exists, but not nearly to a crippling degree (I pretty much said this in the previous comment).
Quick comment, though- the droids are devalued by near everyone, not just the Empire. Only R2 tends to get any real respect because of how resourceful it is- think about how Han treats 3PO, for example, or the cantina bartender refusing service to droids. It's presented as a cultural injustice, not one caused by the Empire (it exists in the prequels as well, so it can't really be attributed to them).
DeleteBut Han doesn't treat 3PO like a malfunctioning machine, he treats him like an annoying person. I'll give you the bartender, but he's not meant to be a heroic character.
DeleteThen again, there's no point in discussing any of this with you anyway. After all, in your mind I'm a sociopath. Escapism is the best thing about the best fiction. It's actually how I stay sane and relatively upbeat.
If you get a chance, watch the film Cabaret to get an idea of where I'm coming from with escapism. Saying it leads to outright sociopathy is a slippery slope statement and is quite unfair, I'll admit- but it's not a morally defensible position to have. One can't simply escape from reality and its consequences, and all art has a moral responsibility to make people aware and thinking of the world around them. If it can't do that, then what's the point of it?
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteTo quote from a favorite blog of mine:
Delete"I think there's a difference between the presentation of immediate pleasure and escapism, though. Immediate pleasure is still essentially a positive judgment - one enjoys the presence of something. I'll readily agree that something does not need to be challenging to be worthwhile, although I think a blanket objection to the challenging is also deeply troubling. But I do think it needs to have something that is valuable for what it is as opposed to what it isn't.
Which is the problem with escapism - it's a negative judgment. Its sole professed value is its unreality - the fact that it does not connect to any material events but instead provides an exit from them. Escapism is defined entirely by its anesthetizing effect.
In practice I think most so-called escapism does something else, largely because I'm also skeptical of escapism as a readerly phenomenon. (Simply put, I don't think audiences are prone to forgetting they're real in the way that escapism ultimately posits they do) So most supposedly escapist works simply don't behave as advertised. Typically they are simply immediate pleasures - what's fun isn't their unreality but the fact that what they depict is satisfying. But the pursuit of escapism, doomed as it may be, remains, to my mind, sociopathic in a fairly literal sense - it's based expressly on the complete devaluation of the real. And so even if the results of attempts at escapism do not work as they are theorized to they tend to be deeply problematic simply because of how unfortunate their underlying motives are."
Whole discussion is here (it's quite interesting if you get a chance to read it):
http://tardiseruditorum.blogspot.com/2012/05/time-can-be-rewritten-21-song-of.html?showComment=1337778420257#c5982679784999401717
But both have merit, as long as there's balance. There's good art that makes you think, but not everything has to teach you something to have value. Sometimes outlets help.
DeleteThe beauty of Star Wars is that you can escape into the world on the surface, then go back and see the underlying philosophy of it. I could fill a poster with the things all six films taught me (and I daresay someone probably has). At the same time, I can also recognize when a lightsaber is just a lightsaber and a movie is just a movie.
I'm curious, though- where is the merit in outright escapism?
DeleteFun, my friend. The merit is fun.
DeleteAnd fun is great, but we can't live life solely on 'fun'. Even fun has to have a point to it after a while.
DeleteI agree, but not everything needs a point either. Sometimes you just need pointlessness. Lots of things have no apparent point anyway.
DeleteDamn, now I need to listen to Nilsson's "The Point" again...
Either way, you need a balance of both. That's why I love Star Wars.
You've got a point (hah), but of course it's worth noting that pointlessness in itself can be a worthwhile endeavor- I mean, a classic like Waiting for Godot is all the seeming pointlessness of life
DeleteWhat I'm arguing against is something that avails itself to be entirely separated from reality or its concerns- which goes against the very foundation of science-fiction as a genre and in general the importance of art in our own daily lives. True art is more than entertainment because it in some way impacts us and has some sort of relevance to our own concerns, conflicts, and issues. Escapist art goes against that in favor of hiding away from those issues rather than confronting them, and in doing so causes more harm to society than good (that's the central thesis of Cabaret, by the way).
Of course, I should note that Star Wars is in no way escapist- even if we choose to be as unfavorable as possible, it's ludicrous to not read the original Star Wars as a sort of commentary on the state of America within the 1970's. It's a nostalgia-fest, but also one with a very cynical edge that has a lot of interesting things to say about the world it was made in. Even though the cynicism is dropped by Return of the Jedi (which is in itself an interesting thing if you're looking at the transition that happens in Hollywood and Sci-fi between 1977 and 1983), it still does have things to say, and Lucas very clearly isn't pushing for escapist means. For all the slack you could give the films, they have that going for them.
So pure fun is absolutely fine. But when it comes to art, it needs to be more than that. Anything can be entertainment (seriously, one's person's boredom is another's fascination), but true art takes a step further to try and change the world around it.
True art doesn't have to change the world. I've always hated that sort of thinking.
DeleteYou'll find I-III is also very much a reflection of the time they were made as well, in exactly the same way (which is interesting as it counts as proof that the two halves of the saga are both the same and different). IV-VI told a story for Cold War audiences about overthrowing oppression. I-III was warning us that said oppression can com from our own complacency. Yet as a whole it works on a visceral level since history repeats this story over and over.
There's another mistake most people make. Star Wars is not Science Fiction, though it wears the trappings well. It's a Fantasy epic in Sci-Fi clothing. It's Lord of the Rings in space (with some buddhist philosophy thrown in for good measure). You have to treat it like that.
You're absolutely right on the last paragraph- slip of the tongue on my part (though in context I wasn't specifically talking about Star Wars- I don't view any of the films as being escapist).
DeleteAnd as for 'change the world', I do honestly believe that, but I don't mean it in a revolutionary, "change EVERYTHING" kind of way or anything like that. If it makes even one tiny little difference in how even just one person thinks or acts about the world around them, then it's done its job- it's changed the world in some sense. As long as the artist has a real purpose or message they wish to convey to their audience through their art, then they've tried in some sense to change the world.
What if there's no real purpose other than "I think this will be funny and I want people to have a laugh and enjoy themselves for a moment?" Not that there isn't great comedy that makes you think, but sometimes it's there to just be silly and that's just as valid. That's just one example.
DeleteThen again, I suppose you could make the argument that trying to elicit a specific reaction or emotion is in an of itself a purpose, but I feel it's less of a concious message.
We're kind of having the classic Qui-Gon/Obi-Wan debate here, which is neat. I'm all "Feel, don't think" and you're very much "THINK". Not that I don't love to analyze the hell out of things once in a while too, this entire website is proof of that. But I like to enjoy things on a visceral level first and then go back later to see how it works.
Well, I don't think I'm arguing against feeling at all (I mean, art is born out of passion and emotion), but rather a combination of the two- passion and intensity mixed with thought and care.
DeleteAs to your example, it's good to try and make people have a laugh, but an artist's purpose should be greater than that- all great art is born out of a desire to say something, either about the world around them or themselves as a human being. I doubt you can find a truly purposeless piece of art- even something absurdist has an intent behind it (Waiting for Godot being a good example). The message doesn't have to be something big or world-changing, but as long as it means something to the artist then it's valid. Most artists do it without thinking at all.
Escapism, and the kind of 'pure entertainment and nothing more' that I'm arguing against, demands an active resistance to any kind of meaning or intent- actually, when I think about it, it requires an absolute lack of feeling and a completely mechanical view of story telling- this should elicit a laugh, this should make the audience tear up, this should make them feel good, this should 'soothe, not distract', etc. It's not letting any actual feeling or soul get through, because it's only purpose is to distance itself entirely from any grounded concerns in life. And I can't see how that could be morally defensible at all.
We're talking about two very different things here. There's a HUGE difference between escapism and the kind of cynical pandering you're talking about. Escapism means simply being able to escape into another world for a while, whether it makes sense or not. At least, that's what I always took it to mean. What you're talking about is when someone creates something based on what they think will sell.
DeleteWell, I'm talking about both, to be fair (though I do think there's a line to be drawn between disconnecting a piece of work from all real life and the work subsequently becoming very pandering).
DeleteBut I am curious about something- in the broad scheme of life, what would you term as the moral defense for escapism? And furthermore (since it hasn't come up), what specific films or stories do you view as being purely escapist (because honestly only one clear example pops into my mind, so I'm curious what all you entail).
I'd say, for a perfect example of the kind of escapism I'm talking about, the first thing that pops into my head is Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill. The movies are nothing more than an excuse for Tarantino to make a '70s kung-fu/western movie like the kind he grew up with. Sure, you can find subtexts in anything if you look hard enough, but it was pretty much just an excuse to have Uma Thurman run around for three-four hours hacking people with swords to a killer soundtrack and subtle visual references. And you know what? I thought it was awesome. And I usually only like hacking and slashing in my video games.
DeleteSee, to me, escapism is an artist going "You know, this is what I would like to see and I don't care if it makes sense or not." And while the outcome isn't always very good, I can usually get into the spirit because it's usually made with love. I'll take that any day of the week over a movie that's very polished but purposefully emotionally manipulative.
The best artists start off with this escapist "rule of cool" mentality and then actually come up with a WAY to make it make sense in the universe, and then also infuse it with a decent message after the fact. This is what George Lucas does so well.
As for the morality, it's thus: society is very restricting, and with good reason. For relatively well-adjusted people, being able to vent into a little unreality keeps them well-adjusted. It can be anything from giving our inner-animal the violence it craves without actually hurting anyone, to seeing fantastical beasts and technology made real, to even seeing a nice guy get an even break once in a while. I realize now that I pretty much described all of fiction, but you don't ALWAYS need a lesson. You don't ALWAYS need to sneak the vegetables into the chocolate pudding. If love and fun went into it, fluff can be just as satisfying as heartier fare. Balance.
I wouldn't term any of Tarantino's films escapist- even at their most simple they're still made as homages to earlier forms of cinema and are very much Tarantino expressing his love for those films (in some cases providing a commentary on them). That's not really an escapist venture (in case you were wondering, my example was Cats, which was consciously designed to be about absolutely nothing).
ReplyDeleteNor is really what you're defining it as, as any artist can go and do that and come up with something very material and very real, or something escapist. Escapism is the act of separating oneself from any concept of the real world- from real-world concerns, real-world lessons and morals, and anything consequential as a result. "Rule of Cool" isn't necessarily a part of that.
And for your defense- I still don't think it's morally defensible to try and escape from the problems of real life. In every situation imaginable it is healthier and more responsible to face those issues and conflicts up-front rather than attempt to avoid them via escapist ventures. What art is is a venue to deal with those conflicts through easier means- as another commenter on the blog discussion I linked to put it-
"We remember art as great and influential because it challenges you with complex ideas, makes you question moral and ethical presumptions, leads you to sympathize with people you would have otherwise dismissed, and engage with the problems of your society without direct risk. In order to do all that, art has to make you think. Great art also entertains you at the same time, but it isn't a zero-sum game between entertainment and thought.
Purely soothing, escapist art leads a viewer to become passive, and traps him in an attitude of quietism. If there's no place free of danger to explore alternatives to problematic living conditions, as challenging art can do, then two options are open to you. 1) You glumly accept that the world stinks and it's impossible to change; 2) You become so used to the terrible aspects of life that you come to think of them as good.
That's the sociopathy of escapism: using art and entertainment to run away from your problems instead of making art a place to experiment with possible solutions."
No, you shouldn't run away from your problems, but that doesn't mean you can't walk away for an hour or two to clear your head before coming back to it. Sometimes removing yourself from a situation to regroup is a very wise course of action, so that the emotional sting is dulled and you can think logically. Even then, some problems are just unsolvable, at least at the moment, and best not to dwell on all the time.
DeleteCats I would hardly describe as escapist. I don't know what I'd describe Cats as. I personally didn't like the show. I had no idea what was going on and when I found out via a satire, it was kind of creepy (so these cats are essentially singing happy little songs about how one of them has to die before the night it out and it might as well be [insert other character here]). That being said, I would never think less of anyone for liking it or finding some form of merit in it.
I would never presume to tell anyone they're right or wrong in finding meaning in a work of art (being drawings, film, music, or even a game) regardless of whether or not I personally like it. All I ask is that things be judged fairly. That's what this whole Star Wars kick is about. Whether or not the Star Wars films are technically good or bad, all six have the same strengths and weaknesses (with one or two minor exceptions) and should be judged equally. I love them. If someone doesn't, that's cool too. Just don't tell me I'm wrong.
I find enjoyment in many pieces of art that are considered "mediocre" at best (though I can usually see where they're coming from). Conversely, there are plenty of "good" films that I really don't care for (though, again, I can usually see where they're coming from). All I can do is debate why I like it and what I find is its merit. It's okay to disagree because nobody is really "right" or "wrong."
Cats is by all definitions of the term escapist- going into it, Webber and Nunn's only purpose was to transport their audience into another world. There's no meaning, no satire, the barest element of plot- the whole attraction of the show is it's world-building and nothing more. It is possibly the most escapist work out there.
DeleteAnd the thing about escapism is that it doesn't draw a line between 'just a little' and 'too much'- that's entirely the danger. Escapism is just what is says- an escape. It's not a momentary pause so that we can better deal with our problems (and even if it were, by all accounts an actual challenging piece of art would be more helpful). There's no means by which escapism is the best, or even the better option of choices, be it in art or just in general life. It's fun, but it's not a healthy fun.
It's healthy enough in moderation, as are most things. Not everything has to be a challenge to be good. SOME challenge and SOME stress is good, but do it all the time and you go too far in the other direction and eat yourself out from the inside. Life, the universe, and everything is about balance. I take umbridge with the idea that you either have to be cynical or in denial. Frivolity is just as important.
DeleteIf Cats was trying to be escapist it certainly didn't work for me. Well, let me rephrase that. I was transported to another world, but it wasn't one I liked or even understood. Having never read the original book by T.S. Eliot I can't deduce who was to blame for this. But then again that's my personal taste. A lot of people love the show, and I say let 'em.
He isn't saying that people who enjoy escapism are either cynical or in denial, he's saying that a world without challenging art will lead to those viewpoints.
DeleteAlso, you're also implying that the other option is entirely stress and challenge, when it's not. There's frivolity and fun in the other options, just not disconnected from all reason and consequence (which escapism necessitates). Again, there's plenty of times where I can see escapism being the preferred option (IE what feels best at the time), but there's never a time where I feel it's the *better* option- the one that'll really help more in the long run.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that what I'm hearing from your argument seems to be "if you're not cynical like me you're in denial." I could be interpreting it wrong, but that's how it sounds.
DeleteI'm definitely not advocating cynicism, which I'm in general not a fan of. What I'm arguing for is ways of having fun and dealing with problems that don't involve running away from them to escape for a while.
DeleteThat's fair. Generally I agree, but there's nothing wrong with escaping for a while sometimes, as long as you come back and deal with it sooner rather than later. It keeps some of us relatively sane and happy, and to me that has plenty of merit.
Delete