The Host with the Boast

Mark Levin likes to boast that his radio talk show is the most substantive of the genre, and by and large he has a point. However, when it comes to his trite and tedious apologetic for the Electoral College (one which he apparently shares with his comrade at Hillsdale) I must say, I was very disappointed.  It is the same one that has been making the rounds at least sense I was in the fifth grade. Supposedly, according to this theory, the founders came up with the Electoral College as a means of keeping the presidency from becoming the plaything of a few large population centers, and including a larger sampling of the American constituency in the process.  Excuse me, but where are they getting this?

“Oh, well, you see, in Federalist something something Hamilton clearly thought that pig farmers in Iowa should pick the President…” 

 Umm, yah, I don’t think so. Why would the founders be concerned about the presidency being monopolized by major population centers when, at the time of the founding, America’s rural population dwarfed its urban population? Such a concern would have been further mollified by the fact that many states only gave the vote to landowners. But supposing for the sake argument that the founders did want to thwart major population centers, such as we have today, from having plenary influence on presidential elections, the Electoral College was certainly not a consistently effective way of doing that. The current configuration of  “swing states” scattered hither and yon across the American landscape with relatively few of the first order population centers in the mix, is a fairly coincidental and probably transitory set of circumstances. It could just as easily have transpired that; Massachusetts, New York, Illinois, Texas, California and Washington were the swing states with all those in-between being firmly in one camp or the other. Who would bother to campaign outside the major population centers then?  Hint, nobody.  On the other hand if the founders had decided to have the President elected by a “national popular vote”, yet statistics showed that urbanites were recalcitrant in their voting habits but voters in rural areas were easily swayed, it would be the rural areas that receive the lion’s share of the attention. The bottom line is, politicians will go where ever they have to to get the votes they need. In a dynamic situation any attempt to “fix” the system to favor/protect a given group will be transitory at best.  

Now it is true that states with fewer people have a higher per-capita number of electoral votes, but even so it is not always rural states that reap this benefit. In fact, in the east, the smaller states are basically just smaller slices of the vast coastal urbia. If we were drawing the lines today we would probably just make Delaware part of Maryland and perhaps not feel the need for two Dakotas, on the other hand California, Texas and even Florida could probably be made into multiple states each. However, even though it is constitutionally permissible to combine and divide states, the last time we did so over half a million people died, so perhaps we should stick with the map we have. In this map few stats are purely urban or purely rural but rather some mixture of the two.

So dispensing with talk radio’s argument of third grade drivel (that’s right, I said it! or rather typed it) let us look for a moment at the real reason for the Electoral College – it is an elegant reason…from a more civilized age. It is of course Federalism. That’s right Federalism.

                         Fed-er-al-ism

Federalism is the principle that we are a federation of sovereign states rather than districts of a national unity government or provinces of an evil continental empire. Federalism has been under attack from nationalist and imperial forces for over a century but elections; with the over arching backbone of the Electoral College remains one of federalism’s last real strongholds. Although there have been some constitutionally mandated universal expansions to the franchise, states continue to hold fundamental control over their own elections – something that is inherently foundational to any form of self governance. However, if states are truly to have control over their elections they must be insulated from the influence of other states, and to this end the Electoral College is an ingenious interment. If Wyoming wishes to give women the vote, the other states have nothing to complain about as they still have only the electorals they are entitled to under the Constitution to do with as they see fit. This same principle holds true for; felons in Virginia, illegals in California and aliens New Mexico. States are also free to keep the polls open late or not, indulge in early voting or not, as they see fit. A state could even let children vote if in wanted to. Since none of these things has any affect on anyone in any other state.

Some like to talk about the “national popular vote”, but this is simply a media fiction. There can be no national popular vote because there is no national voting standard. But if there were such a thing, we might all be highly suspicious of California taking two weeks to count their votes when the other states took less than two days. Fortunately, thanks to the Electoral College, its nobody else’s business what they were really doing for those two weeks. As far as I am concerned, California can keep counting their votes until next election if they like – federalism, it is a beautiful thing.       

The New Look Disney Princess and the Feminization of Star Wars

As I sat in the theater the trepid anticipation seemed to grow with each passing minute.   The Battlefront commercial (the one with the original R2-D2 action figure - clearly a retro nostalgia commercial for those of us who want to relive our childhood) distracted for a moment, but afterward the reminder only made it worse.

Ever since I heard that Disney had obtained the franchise I had been wondering how the film would open. Would we see the magic kingdom, perhaps with stars twinkling in the background, and a rendition of "when you wish upon a star" spilling over into the Luckasfilm screen. In another universe perhaps that might be cute, but not in this one, Gemini Cricket has no place in this movie. Then after many trailers, silly enough to be annoying but not interesting enough to be distracting came the feature presentation screen. I took a deep breath. But there was no magic kingdom, no Tinkerbelle waving her wand no wistful strands, no sound at all. then in the silence, as if from a dark primordial mist came the Luckasfilm icon. Then the blue words, silent as always but seeming somehow different with no sound coming before them. At last came the stars and the fan fair. I sighed, we're home. 

In time this new opening will seem normal as more episodes come on line. No doubt eventually the original opening will seem quaint, a manifest relic of the twentieth century. Rather like myself, and a movie I liked as a child...a movie called Star Wars. It was an elegant motion picture, for a more civilized age.

It has been thirty-nine years now since that movie first hit theaters. In many ways it is remarkable how little has changed since then, at least in the area of human space travel and general culture...or the lack there of. Thirty-nine years in the other direction and it is quite a different story. If we do that we find ourselves in a time when man had not yet sent a single item into orbit nor flown a craft past the speed of sound, jet propulsion was still highly experimental and the "old" aerial combat footage Lucas used to previsualize the Deathstar assault had yet to be shot. And it was in almost all ways more civilized.

It was a time when the modern motion picture was just beginning to immerge - the sound track was still fairly new, and color more novel still. Into this time came a film with full score and vivid color and featuring a delightful heroin happily doing menial domestic chores in ragged peasant clothes while cheerfully singing of the day her prince would come for her. I am of course referring to Snow White, who, even before captain Rogers took the super soldier serum to become the first Avinger, was the first Disney princess. Disney has thrived on princess stories ever after.

 Snow White was actually a quality movie which pretty much everybody could enjoy, many of her successors unfortunately, not so much. however, Disney's twenty-first century renaissance did embody a serious campaign to expand beyond the juvenile chick flick mill the company had degenerated into. Captain Jack Sparrow and his Pirates of the Caribbean led the charge...the first movie was ok, the rest were just plain bad. Then they acquired Marvel and its impressive MCU - an epic weave of stories and characters, an immensely satisfying journey I have no doubt for anyone nerdy enough to actually know which order to watch the movies in...an achievement I cannot personally clam at the moment. Then came the crown jewel of entertainment, Gorge Lucas' Lucasfim and its coveted Star Wars franchise.

Gorge Lucas was not very good at female characters. This is not really a problem as long as you do not focus on them too much or have too many of them. The OT basically just had Leia (Mon Mothma is in a total of one scene and aunt Brue is pretty much just a generic mom) and after dumping the plans into R2 she was mostly just a football. Kasner, Ford and Fischer cooked up a romance, but mostly it was up to hair, wardrobe and John Williams to express Leia's femininity. In the PT Padme had a bit more company; Shmi took the place of Beru but had more dialog, there was Padme's bodyguard (whatever her name was),  and I guess the librarian, and young Brue (did she actually even say any thing?), young Mon Mothma actually had two scenes in ROTS  - unfortunately they were both cut to make room for footage of Obi Wan and Grievous battling it out on a unicycle and giant iguana,  and then there is Shaak Ti (the only female Jedi who actually got to say something) yes, she got to apologize on her knees just before Grievous killed her with her own lightsaber - I don’t know Rey, bar is pretty high there - mercifully her scene was cut as well.

Naturally when Disney took possession of all things Star Wars it seemed like an obvious win/win, Lucasfilm would help the magic kingdom manup it image wile uncle Walt would help the galaxy far far away with its girl problem. Well, it sort of worked. First I would like to say that an old wise woman was long overdo and though Maz is no Galadriel, she works well enough. A girl droid is also a nice touch, and yes BB-8 is a girl - I mean come on, you cannot get more yonic than a ball. As for Captain Phasma? Well, Disney does like its villainesses, but this one...let us just call her a work in progress. The female first order officers and the spy in Maz's castle, ok what ever. Female stormtroopers? Ya, ya, I know, the first order is so egger to swell their ranks they will stop at nothing...blah blah what ever. Come on, were there really a lot girls out there that were having trouble connecting with Star Wars because of the lack of female stormtroopers? I don’t think so. Need this we did not...unless it is the last episode of Pinky and the Brain...Hello Nurse! 

But of course, what every one spends most of their time talking about is the new heroin. Many in fact, consider her to be the mane protagonist, I personally think Finn beats her on points but then being comatose at the end could be considered a TKO. In any case, I do find Rey to be a rather attractive character despite the fact that she runs around the galaxy in grubby sweats. It is interesting however, that the heroin who may bring some real femininity to Star Wars is the first who has yet to put on a dress. But then Leia and Padme needed their clothes to remind us they were feminine, or lest try to make us think they were. Rey's femininity is a more intragale part of her character. Oh yes, she whacks people with her stick, works on starships and when pressed even wields a lightsaber, it is a rough world and she is a survivor. But what is she like inside? There is certainly no closet of neglected gowns in her boudoir, if she had a spare wrap I did not see it. Instead she has a roughly but carefully crafted doll and a decorative plant, wile eking out a subsistence of quarter portions on desert planet even the huts did not want these are her treasures. By seemingly sheer force of will she has carved a modest girl's room out of the belly of an engine of war. Modesty is not a word you would associate with Leia or Padme, but Rey seems to have a portion - I know, it is the spoon full of surge that makes the omnicompetence go down...but you knew what? It works, and in a rather delightful way. Even in a life and death situation, we get the feeling she was bypassing the compressor not so much to keep peaces of her and the others from ending up in three different systems as she was to get Han Solo's approval. In short, she is a hyper feminine character in a Tomboy's body. But the most fascinating thing about her hast to be her devotion to her family. How she is willing to endure grinding poverty and hardship just for the memory of being able to hope that she would see them again. It is so sad, yet delightful when she confidently tells BB-8 "they'll be back, some day" - she does not start singing, but still, this is a Disney scene, not a Star Wars one.

Going Rouge

"Not, I devoutly hope, into the kind where we leap forward to a date at wh(ich) space-travel has become as common & dull as tramways and within that framework we get an ordinary spy-story, or wreck-story, or love-story wh(ich) might as well, or better, be located in present-day Hampstead."       - C. S. Lewis

How about a long time ago in a galaxy far far away?

 Judging by this trailer Rouge One is a rather generic espionage thriller. Does the fact that it takes place in that rather quaint galaxy really bring anything significant to the table? I mean, if you want to watch AT-ATs shooting at stuff devoid of content, there is always Battlefront.

The essence of Star Wars is light-sabers, the Force and of course, John William scores. unfortunately this film does not seem to have any of those. oh yes, there will probably be a few classic themes mixed in there and we will probably get a cameo of Darth Vader but is that really worth making a whole movie for?

I am not saying I wont watch it, probably will, just out of curiosity as to how it opens...there is obviously not much suspense as to how it ends. But how much about this galaxy do we really want to know? How many gritty details can we consume before the wonder begins to fade? The mundane and rustic elements in the episodes - cleaning gunk out of droids or fixing diner in a make shift kitchen in a wrecked AT-AT - are there to contrast the mythic themes and fantastical elements that follow them.  However, if we binge ourselves on ordinary and commonplace of that world (even if it involves a lot of shooting and explosions) how can the mythic and fantastical not become as strange and out of place there as it seems to our own daily lives in this galaxy? And then, will there really be any reason to make the trip?

Daisy Ridley as Lara Croft?!?

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/daisy-ridley-tomb-raider-talks-876986

Well, I guess she is Han’s daughter after all.

What ever Rey is, she is.

With Leia Organa having turned to the dark side eliminating or at least mollifying the primary problem with the Soloist position, perhaps we should reconsider the prose of this position more carefully...

Well she got her daddy's ship and she cruised through the S-S.D. now,
She forgot all about the rebel base like she told ol BB now,
And with the belly-gun blasting goes cruising just as fast as she can now
And she'll have fun fun fun till her daddy takes the Falcon away...

Well the girls cant stand her cuz she fights, looks and flies like an ace now,
She flies like an ace now, she flies like an ace
She makes the final Death Star asault look like a tatooien po-d race now,
She flies like an ace now, she flies like an ace
A lot of Ties try to catch but she leads them on a
(I can not believe I am saying this) wild bantha chase now,
And she'll have fun fun fun till her daddy takes the Falcon away...

Ok, next to light-sabers and the Force it self,  the Millenium Falcon is probably the most significant icon of Star Wars, so the fact that Rey is the first and last person to sit in the pilot seat should not be taken lightly.  But does that really connect her to Han Solo? Remember he had not flown the Falcon meaningfully in over a movie. 
In fact a closer look reveals there may be connections to Luke within the Falcon sequence itself.  What is the first thing Rey does once they are on board the Falcon? I believe its sending Finn down to the belly gun. Now why would she do this? If you can only man one gunner position you would want it to be the dorsal gun, that way you can force enemy ships into your dome of fire by flying low. The only way you can do this with the belly gun is if you fly inverted, in which case you cant see where you are going. So why does she send him down there? Perhaps it was in her genes?
 Lets go back to ANH, picking up the action right after Han says "we're not out of this yet." Notice which gun Luke goes to (pop in the DVD if you must), I do believe it is the belly gun.  Ok, so she sent Finn to Luke's gunner position, that's still pretty insignificant compared to actually flying the Falcon, right? I mean Luke never sat in either of the pilot seats; Han did, Chewy did, Leah did, Lando did even gill-face did but Luke never did. 
But wait, what is the rather impertinent question Finn asks her just before they take off? Is it not "have you ever flown this ship before?" and Rey's answer is, no. Just as Luke had never flown that ship before....
What What what, time out, what is going on here? Why are we combing through these piles of minutia looking for clues to Rey's parentage? Do we really think the writers and director put that level of detail and complexity, that 99% of the movie going public would not care about, just so fanboys on their umpteenth viewing can go "Cool, did you see that? Did You See That?!?" Probably not. But even if they did, now is not the time for that. Now is the time for Rey the becoming.*
That's right, we have 18 mouths to think of Rey as whatever we want. If you think the Falcon sequence is cooler if she is Han's daughter, then think of her that way during that sequence. If thinking of her as Obi Won's granddaughter enhances your enjoyment of the vision, then think of her as such while watching it. And if you think it would be utterly stupid for her not to be Luke's daughter after the "sword in the stone" scene, then let us enjoy that possibility until they ruin the franchise by doing something else.
But my point is, now is the time for enjoying Rey's potentiality...we shall have to deal with her actuality soon enough.


* Yes, she is pretty, but that is not what I am getting at here.

And the Oscar for Best Star Wars Villain goes to...

 

Princess Leia?!?

 

Yes, when I heard about this theory I thought it was pretty off the wall, or as Lukas would say "outside the box". But the more I think about it the more sense it makes. There are definitely still several serious problems with it that I do not think we can just discard, but for analysis sake lets set them aside for a moment and look at the pros.

Darth Vader's last words were "If you will not turn to the dark side, then perhaps she will." Anakin's last words also referenced the same character. This is actually quite a bit of emphasis on a character that, after she dumped the plans into R2, was really of marginal significant for the rest of the story. And how exactly did Leia handle the revelation that Darth Vader was her father?  Well, first she wanted to be held, then there was business, then there was a party, then there was her wedding, and dad could not be there because he had decided that being evil and getting zapped with blue lightning was more important, and mom could not be there because in his anger dad killed her...or maybe it was the concentration of medaclorians in her body...well pretty much either way dad killed her. So, perhaps not very well.

Girls tend to be more emotionally attached to their fathers than boys are, and Leia never knew the unmasked Anakin dying in the shuttle bay like Luke did. Her only memory of the man she now knows to be her father would be the sinister agent probing her mind on the death star and torturing her lover at cloud city. How does she connect with this father? She may have been told that he turned to the light side before he died, but that is not who she knew.

Moving on to The Force Awakens, it certainly seemed curious how Johnny on the spot Ren was for what had been billed as "a secret mission". And he did not just happen to be in the right place at the right time with a few squads of storm troopers to investigate some suspicious activity. Ren tells Tekka "We know you found the map." So, there has to be a mole pretty high up in the resistance. Who all do we know for sure knew about the mission? Tekka? He died rather then give up any information. Poe? He was tortured. That leaves only Leia.

Princess Leia the spunky hothead, who liked to slide down garbage shoots and dress up as bounty hunters and exotic dancers, is not in this movie. Neither is Han Solo for that matter, instead we get Indiana Jones wearing a blaster (I mean couldn’t he have at least shaved?), but people at least call him Han Solo, or Han, or Solo, or Mr. Solo. Leia prefers to be called General Organa. Now, Bail Organa was a nice guy and all, but why does she not want to be associated with her heroic husband or her heroic brother? She does not seem to care much for the princess title either.

When they meet after being estranged for some number of years Han comments that she changed her hair. This may just be a way to reference one of the real princess Leia's most iconic attributes but could it have plot significance as well?  What if she is wearing a wig? Possibly to hide a deep gash in her forehead? Some have noted how the scars on Snoke line up well with Vader/Anakin’s, could they be self inflicted?

Then when discussing their son Han laments "There is too much Vader in him". Now this is a rather nasty thing to say, it basically amounts to "it is all your fault, you should have known better than to have kids." The real Princess Leia (and most of Indy's girl friends for that matter) would have treated his face to a serving of her hand. But General Organa just says "Oh no its Snoke who's the bad boy, Bin's a good boy really he is" or something like that. But why would there be any Vader in Bin if there was none in Luke or Leia...or was there? Also, how did Snoke get access to Bin in the first place? One would think that creepy old guys in bath robes, hanging around offering the padawans treats and tie fighter rides would be frowned upon at Jedi School. Seems like that mole close to general Orgona has been there a while (I wonder if it is that cute blond that kind of looks like Beru from Ep.II). Organa also says of Ren, "there is still light in him". This is certainly reminiscent of statements Padme and Luke made about Vader but the difference is, both those statements were based on recent encounters. As far as we know Organa has not been on the same planet as Ren in over a decade.

Both Organa and Snoke are trying to find Luke Skywalker. At first glance this is not particularly remarkable. Dialectical sides are often looking for the same thing, some times just to keep the other from getting it. But in this case it is not clear why either side should be that interested in finding Luke. They both act like Luke just needs to step out of his hovel, brandish his fathers light saber, and he will have an army of Jedi ready for battle...some how I don’t think that’s going to happen. For Snoke it still makes sense to want to tie up the loose end, if you are into galactic domination that is typically a good thing to do. But why is Leia poring precious resistance resources into finding Luke? It’s not like they have much to spare (as far as I can tell the resistance consists of a few squadrons of aging X-wings and a lot people who like being called admiral and general). Leia acts like Luke is some neerdowell who just needs a good talking to and he will come home and eat his soup. But Luke is a big boy, if he has found what he was looking for, wouldn't he contact her? If not what good does she think sending him a young girl, an old wookie and a cantankerous droid is going to do?

And how about that outfit at the end? Despite an extremely egalitarian resistance Organa is, I believe, the only one wearing a dress. And its about the most unprincess like dress I can think of, and what's up with her hair? Is she trying to look like an evil queen from some Disney fil...ah, moving right along.

We sometimes talk about the OT and the PT but what we really have now is an OS, an original sextilagy. It tells the story of Anakin Sky walker and the story of the rise and fall of emperor Palpatine. In the first part of this OS Palpatine/Sidious played both sides and appeared to the “bad guys” only as a hologram. Could a similar Organa/Snoke plot line be meant as a “rime” with the OS? This would actually seem more like a repeated line and a long one, but they have already gone for the big bad guy being only a hologram phrase so why not go for the whole thing?

Now, before we get carried away lets look at some of the problems.

Andy Serkis has said that Snoke is an original character...and Smeagol would not lie to us would he precious? Ok, I am not saying Serkis is being intentionally dishonest, but Jones originally thought the “I am your father” line was a lie. Actors do not always know every thing about their characters.

What about the gender bender? Well, Snoke's voice is the only thing that is positively masculine, the face is pretty messed up and the body is frail and enveloped in a robe. If you are trying to hide your identity switching genders (if it can be done convincingly) is always a plus. It is also rumored that Snoke was at one point going to be female. At what “point” was this? The point that existed from the beginning up to when they realized that that would make it to obvious perhaps?

So what about the fact that Snoke orders the First Order to destroy the planet Organa is on, would that not be suicide if they are the same person? Humm, alright that’s a toughie. But consider this, when they destroyed the Republic they gave them no warning (which is kind of the whole point behind a hyperspace, system busting weapon, is it not?) but when it was the Resistance base’s turn they seem to have tweeted out their plans. It is almost as if they wanted to give some of the Resistance personnel time to escape, hum…

Ok, what bearing does all this have on the real question...Rey's parentage?

Leia having turned to the dark side does not really affect all of the things pointing to Luke, but does it make the Soloist position less untenable? Yes, it actually does. First, it does make it more likely that Han would not even have known of her existence, but that was never really a problem anyway. The real issue is Leia. Would turning to the dark side have kept Leia from recognizing that Rey was her own child? No, of course not. But it certainly could have changed what she did about it. On the dark side Leia's only motivation for telling Rey would be if it served the purpose of turning her to the dark side. In that situation it would be rather tricky, if she tells her and continues to pretend to be on the light side she may do the opposite of what she intends, if she tries to tern her quickly to the dark side and fails then her cover is blown. But would not the last she would want be for Rey to train with Luke on the light side? (Assuming Luke is still on the light side, we have not seen his light saber yet.) Of course, daughter or not she would just be using Rey as bait to lure Luke out into the open.

In any case Chewy and R2 better keep an eye on the scanner. That mole that knew about Poe's mission and where Bin was training, almost certainly knew where they were going.

Beware the Dark Side

I was setting a theater a few days ago, waiting to see The Force Awakens for I believe the sixth time, watching the same old litany of trailers. Civil War looks good but I am afraid that seeing those scenes so many times will make them some less impressive when it comes time for the actual movie, Zootopia looks profoundly boring (but oddly, I think that is the idea) then came the last one before the feature...Star Trek. A gentleman wearing a red alliance tee-shirt setting several rows in front me seemed indignant at this. "How dear they show a Star Trek trailer before Star Wars?" he wondered.
The night before the premier a show on CBS called The Big Bang Theory, featured the show's characters going to see the movie. One of them dressed up as Star Trek's Mr. Spock. He said he was representing "the home team" (meaning, I presume, that Star Trek takes place in our own Milky Way Galaxy as opposed to Star Wars witch takes place in the Far Far Away Galaxy)  but the Star Wars fans did not appreciate this and acted rather rude.
Why such disdain for another franchise? If its a competition, then its not a competition, at least not at the boxoffice. When adjusted for inflation the highest grossing Star Trek movie is about two thirds the lowest grossing Star Wars movie (witch incidentally is a Attack of the Clones).
Star Trek started out as a television sires in the 1960s, its themes were often philosophical and frequently used mythological imagery and a theatrical style. The focus was on writing and acting, not Fx. It had its weak episodes but some, like The Cage, were true masterpieces. Twenty years later came the next generation. It started out somewhat like the original series but its focus drifted to interstellar politics and technobabble. The spin-offs were just plane bad. The movies were basically just long versions of TV episodes with the best one (Wrath of Khan) being a sequel to one of the original TV episodes. These latest movies, like the one for witch the trailer precedes Star Wars, are basically retro nostalgia movies for those who wish to relive their childhood (sorry I just could not resist). They appear to be attempts to go back to original TV series but recast with less compelling characters and plots, the void being filled with cheesy special affects and cheep gags. I personally have no desire to see such movies but if some people like them then whats the problem? And if theater managers want to show trailers for such movies before Star Wars, they are certainly no worse than many of the others.
Time is not on Star Trek's side. One hundred, two hundred, even five hundred years from now it will be equally ease to imagine what happened "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away". But Star Trek is based on a fifty year old, cold war science and space exploration trajectory (and a rather optimistic one at that). But since the decay of western civilization in the nineteen seventies and onward we have not even been back to the Moon, much less colonized any other planets. And are not likely to any time in the foreseeable future. With each passing day the idea of Star Trek becomes less viable as an active franchise, still all things considered it has lived long and prospered. However, it getting to the point where it should probably start thinking of a way to die well. In the mean time though, there is certainly no reason why we should not be courteous to the, I believe the they prefer to be called "trekies".

Blog Wars

Rey: Where do you come from?

BB-8: Beeb o be bep

Rey: Classified? Me too, big secret.

- Star Wars: The Force Awakens

 
I wonder if future generations will be able to really appreciate that line?



After much waiting and anticipation our old friend, Andrew Rilstone, has at last published his Star Wars articles, and as usual they are worth the wait. However, there is one of his articles that I do feel compelled to critique. I do realize that much of the time Rilstone was, as we say, joking, but none the less I still think it is fun to critique it at face value...so that is what I shall do. But first you should read his entire article here...

http://www.andrewrilstone.com/2016/02/what-is-luke-skywalkers-relationship-to.html



"Luke Skywalker can't be married. No: I don't know how the Force manages to run in families if the Jedi aren't in the habit of producing little Jedi; but the canon makes it very clear that Jedi neither marry nor are given in marriage. The whole tragedy was set in motion by Anakin breaking the laws of the Jedi order and marrying Padme Amidala". - Andrew Rilstone

Well, that still leaves the "too much Corellian ale one night" theory, But I doubt either Disney or Sir Alec would appreciate that so lets not go there.

Yoda indicates that the tragedy was set in motion by Vader choosing the "quick and easy path" not necessarily that his destination was forbidden. And this "neither marry nor are given in marriage" line sounds familiar, but I do not recall it being in any episode. I imagine Rilstone got it from a book, and as we all know the books are not canon. So lets keep our analysis Sola Cinimatra.

Lets start with Ep. I, there certainly does not seem to be anything here to indicate that the Jedi are a celibate order. When Qui Gon tells Anakin that being a Jedi is a "hard life" he certainly deos not mention celibacy. And when Qui Gon asks who Anakin's father was it seems he is at least half expecting it to be Jedi. And what is the point of Yaddle if not to be a potential love interest fro Yoda? (sory, ya I know - Sola Cinamatra) I mean that feminine looking yoda-like creature on the Jedi counsel, interesting how she disappears after Ep.I.

So what happened?

To undertand that my frinds, you must travel with me back in time...dudiludalu, dudiludalu, dudiludalu - the year is 1997 - dudiludalu, dudiludalu...

See those ques of school girls round the block? they are all waiting to see a movie every body knew the end of before it came out - so much for Rilstone's theory of suspense. Oh, I know you are going to say "just because we knew the ship sank does not mean we know which characters survive", and you are right! We have to actually wait until the first scene of the movie to find out that the girl makes it...and the guy doesn't. Congratulations! You have just won three hours of zero suspense filled with bla bla bla and a dollop of Kat Winslet's backside on top...what a deal!

So what does all this have to do with Star Wars? Well, in a ideal universe, absolutely nothing. Unfortunately we do not live in an ideal universe. The boat movie (though it defies all reason) actually became the highest grossing movie in American history - not when you figure inflation of course (Star Wars still skunks it there) but people rarely do that. No doubt Gorge thought that Ep.I would restore Star Wars to its proper place and bring order to the galaxy. But when that failed, it broke poor Gorge's mind. (I know some of you will say his mind was already broken but really, Jar Jar, medeclorians and all, Phantom Menace was not that bad).

But as Gorge sat pondering, how could he make Ep.II succeed wear Ep.I had failed? Ah, perhaps by letting Star Wars be Star Wars and having another go at it? "No" said Gorge, "in order for Star Wars to beat Titanic, Star Wars must become Titanic! Complete with grindingly boring, hideously awkward love scenes piled one on top of the freaking other. But that is not enough, there must be a taboo. Some kind of forbidden love. They must be doing something that is at least a little bit naughty. Bowahaha!"

Hay, if he had put in a scene wear Anakin draws a nude of Padme it just might have worked...ya probably not. Ok, back to episodal analysis.

The first thing in Ep. II is Obi Won saying "you have made a commitment to the Jedi order, a commitment not easily broken." He then makes reference to Padme being a politician - perhaps a conflict of interests angle. So what is this "commitment"? No sexual relationships? or just no sexual relationships with politicians? or just no sexual relationships as a padawan? its rather vague. The next thing is Padme's comment on-board the refugee ship "I thought Jedi were not allowed to love?" This statement would be a lot less silly if she did not say it in such a coquettish fashion, but the issue is, Padme is not an authority on the bylaws of the Jedi order. Let us remember that there is a nine year old Han Solo running around the galaxy at this time who thinks "its all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense". The average layman seems to know very little about the Jedi, and the Jedi probably like it that way. Once they are on Naboo Padme rebuffs Anakin with the statement "you are studying to be a Jedi, I am a Senator, it wouldn't work" or something like that. Again its the conflict of interests angle and again its from Padme. after that every thing seemed to be ok until they thought they were going to die any way and decided to have a smooch fest. because of that Anakin apperintly decided he had to make an honest woman of the Senator and merry her.

Ok, moving on to Ep.III. Anakin blows off Senator Orgona so he can go play kissie face with pregnant Padme, Orgona walks away with a cheesy smile like the whole galaxy know but thinks its cute they are still trying to keep it a secret. Anakin tells Padme that he does not care if people know they are married (note that Anakin is no longer a padawan), Padme apparently still does. Padme then says that the baby will change both their lives. Yes, well, babies have a way of doing that, but Padme seems to be particularly worried that she might lose her job - its the old carer vs family dilemma. She apparently thinks that the Nabooans would not want to be represented by a girl in trouble. But they are married, right? There was an old man there and every thing. She then laments that if the council finds out that Anakin is the father he will be expelled and I guess they would have to get by his winnings from pod racing as opposed to the no doubt vast sums of money he makes as a Jedi. Which brings up the question, where does the Jedi order get its funds anyway? Grants perhaps...from the Senate? Hum. The deleted scenes that chronicle the birth or rather conception of the Alliance (and would have made Orgona's "and so it is" line mean something) indicate that there was a conflict of interests in Anakin and Padme's relationship. Unfortunately these scenes had to be cut to make room for footage of Grievous and Obi Won battling it out on a unicycle and a giant Iguana, so I guess we could call them Deuterocanonical.

Well, there it is, one rather vague statement by a Jedi and a lot of fussing from Padme. So what was the prequel Jedi's teaching on marriage? Based on the very small amount of information that we have it seems there are three main possibilities: 1 - padawans are not allowed to merry, knights perhaps could (though their opportunities would be rather limited) but not to politicians, 2 - active Jedi could not marry but retired Jedi could (it is not clear how long one would have to serve as an active Jedi in order to retire honorably), 3 - all Jedi took vows of celibacy. And of course, we do not know if it was a discipline issue (which could be unilaterally changed by the Pope) or doctrinal issue (requiring an ecumenical counsel, which after the clone war would have consisted of Yoda and Obi Won). But the question is not by what procedure would it have been changed, but was it changed? This might be gleaned though proper exegesis of the OT.

In both Ep.IV and Ep.V Luke makes it clear that his motivation for becoming a Jedi is his father, "I want to learn the was of the Force and become a Jedi like my father" and "mostly because of my father I guess". Both Obi Won and Yoda agree his father was a Jedi, "I was once a Jedi knight, the same as your father" and "Father, powerful Jedi was he, powerful Jedi." (Note, Luke did need to be told this information, he originally thought his father was a navigator on a spice freighter). It is clear there was a consensus not to tell Luke that Vader was his father until he was "ready for the burden". So is it plausible that Luke could have been given a hard core level 3 kind of celibacy teaching in the interim? Short answer, No. That kind of teaching would have to wait until Luke was ready for the whole story about his father. And Luke had clearly not been told that story as of his premature departure from Dagobah.

Is it plausible that Luke made contact with Yoda or Blue Ghost Obi Won some time between Ep.V and Ep.VI? Well, when Luke returns to Dagobah he still has a burning question on his mind (no doubt for the benefit of audience members like me who were not prepared to take Darth Vader's word for it. After all he had turned to the dark side so; lies, deceit, spreading mistrust were his ways now...although come to think of it Dukoo was telling the truth as well so maybe its a bum rap), he asks Yoda "is Darth Vader my father?" So it would seem he has not been in contact with anyone who could clear that matter up. Yoda then replies, "Your father he is." so now that that is thoroughly settled Luke is ready for the teaching on celibacy, right? Except Yoda has already stated "already know you that which you need." There is simply no daylight there to fit a celibacy teaching in.

Solution? Option one works reasonably well in all episodes. Anakin and Padme's marriage is still certainly taboo in Ep.II and at least very frowned upon in Ep.III, Luke could certainly be told that he is not allowed to have sexual relationships while training (weaken legs women do) without it conflicting with the fact that his father was a Jedi. As for the Senate, it was already dissolved by that time. This is a good clean option that works reasonably well with all episodes and requires no inter episodal meddling with the Jedi code. Now, for those of you who insist upon smuggling in comic books like Empire: Betrayal and such, you will have to go with a more hard core option three, and then assume something happened between Ep.III and IV to change it (I guess one off screen thing deserves another). And for those of you still clinging to the idea that there is an active Jedi celibacy doctrine as of Ep.VII you have another problem, if Bin is irrevocably lost to the dark side and Rey becomes a Jedi, who is going to carry on the Anakin blood line? If Rey does not become a Jedi, who is going to carry on the Jedi? I doubt Disney payed four billion dollars for this franchise for just three episodes...and no I do not think the anthologies are going to do much.



Luke Skywalker can't be married. And even if he were, don't you think his wife would be hinted at somewhere in the story? Why is it Rey, rather than Mrs Luke, who is sent to take the lightsaber to Craggy Island? - Andrew Rilstone

You don't suppose Luke would do one of those secret marriage things do you? Nah, were would he get that from. In any case Rey's mother has no doubt been dead for about a decade and a half. Any body who knew about Rey's existence (which may or may not have included Luke) would have thought she perished with her mother, probably at the hands of one of Snoke's henchmen, maybe Ren (he would have been about 15).




When Rey returns to the Resistance base after the Bad Thing has happened, Leia embraces her. Not Chewie; not Poe; Rey. Rey the scavenger who Leia only met a few hours ago. On one side of the airfield are Leia and Rey, comforting each other. On the other side is everyone else. The Bad Thing primarily affects Leia and Rey. - Andrew Rilstone

Actually Rey was already in Ren's cluches by the time Leia showed up, so that was their first meeting. Presumably they recognized each other through their Force signatures, Leia's would have been similar to Ren's and Rey's would have been similar to Luke's. Whether daughter or niece they are still by far the closest blood relatives in the vicinity.




"there are several amusing scenes where Rey and Han say the exact same thing at the exact same moment." - Andrew Rilstone

I only counted two. They are both sentences that Rey begins and Han finishes. As such they primarily serve to show an alpha male slapping down an omega female -"You don't know anything about this ship I don't know twenty times over little girl, now go make me a sandwich". Could there be a perinatal angle to this relationship? Sure, but there is not necessarily.




"She understands Chewbacca. Neither Han or Chewie are remotely surprise by this."- Andrew Rilstone

She also seems to understand astro droid a la Luke and R2. But the real question is, where did she get that British accent? Not from Han, Liea or Luke, perhaps from her mum.




Of course we are building towards a mighty battle between Rey and Kylo Ren. Of course this is going to be a battle between a brother and sister. A famous mythological battle between cousins is barely worth thinking about. - Andrew Rilstone

Hum..do you have a crawly feeling in your gut that when Rey and Ren finally rejoin their adjourned confrontation they will have switched sides? Probably just indigestion...I hope it is. Now if they were twins Rilstone might have had something there...but they are not. She would be his baby sis, from the same parents she would have nothing on him. But her tenderness in years and lack of gender primacy would be more than made up for by being from the more primal bloodline. Yes, in this situation cousins works better than siblings.




"Since Rey is skilled with the Force and lightsaber fighting, she must logically have had some training." - Andrew Rilstone

But Rey has about as much skill with a lightsaber as Finn does, in fact I think it takes her even longer to find the "on" button. Her main advantage is that Ren just wants to kill Finn but he wants to take Rey alive. She has obviously heard stories about what the Force can do (such as the mind trick) but Ren specifically stated that she was "untrained".

Rilstone then gives us a paragraph or so of exposition illustrating how a Soloist position could still be viable. It is similar to other such proposals floating around the internet, better than most but still has the same problems common to the genre. Its busy, leaves many unanswered questions and shoves even more of the story off screen into Ep.6.5 than a reasonable Rey Skywalker line would at this point. And how would you bring that retro exposition into a movie? A counsel of Skywalker scene where a bunch of chaps set around a table filling Rey in on her backstory? What about the first rule of cinema - show it, don't say it? Perhaps a Skywalkerists type scene for illustration...

Rey and the others are exploring that ancient Jedi temple when she happens upon an artifact that sends her into another vision (you know there might one or two of those kinda things laying around there), she is in a sinister room where a woman is being tortured.

Henchman 1: Where is Luke Skywalker?

Woman: (with crisp British accent) I will never tell you!

Henchman 2: perhaps an alternative form of persuasion. (snaps fingers)

A small girl is lead in with stormtroopers on each side

Girl: Mummy!

Woman: Rey!

Henchman 2: I grow tired of asking this so this will be the last time, where is Luke Skywalker?


...Intentionally cliche of course, but you get the idea, dramatic, to the point and leaves relatively few dots to be connected by dialog scenes with Luke and/or blue ghost Rey's mum. But just for fairness lets have a Soloist scene as well...

Luke: Yes Rey, I am your uncle.

Rey: But that would mean...Leia is my mum?

Luke: Yes Rey, so now...

Rey: But then why did she not tell me when I was right there with her? And we could have had general portions interstellar coffee and talked about our feelings and everything!

Luke: Well you see Rey, I Force wiped all memory of you from her mind. That is why she did not recognize your Force signature, she has no memory of ever bearing you. This was necessary so that...

Rey: but wait, what about the stretch marks?

Luke: I Force removed the stretch marks as well. Now hark unto me Rey...

Rey: You mean you can Force remove stretch marks? does it work on crow's feet?

Luke: I suppose...look Rey you are missing the point.



...good for a late night comedy routine maybe, but I would rather not see it done by Mark Hamill and Daisy Ridley.



The film is full of hints that Rey has a connection with Han and Leia; but nothing points to her having a special relationship with Luke. - Andrew Rilstone

Perhaps you were at the concession stand during the scene where the old wise woman tells Rey "the belonging (family) you seek is not behind you but before you", and what does Rey whisper? "Han, Leia"? No. She whispers "Luke". Granted, that does not sound very respectful but then both Luke and Leia referred to their father as "Vader" in Ep.V. However, just using "Skywalker" here might be to ambiguous given Leia's situation, someone wants to make it clear its LUKE! And then there is the bit where Rey and Ren are Dream-fasting and Ren pulls out that dream about an island in the middle of an ocean...sounds an awful lot like that place she found old uncle Luke, wonder why she was not dreaming about mom or dad?



Some Skywalkerists think that this is deliberate misdirection: the hints that Rey is Han's daughter proves that she is not. - Andrew Rilstone


None of these "hints" at this point "proves" anything. The question is what works best for the story. It is not like we have been told that Luke or Han "betrayed and murderer her father" but then Luke did not pal around with Anakin and Padme for half a film only to be told later, "oh, by the way those guys were your parents." At the end of the day what Obi Won said made since...what would you have said in that situation? Han and Leia not telling Rey she is their daughter, if she is, does not. That Han might not have known is perhaps somewhat plausible, that Leia would not have is just not.

Before seeing the movie I was definitely of a Soloist persuasion, primarily because of the Ep.6.5 problem. Han and Leia are both well known characters and we have even scene the budding stages of their courtship. For them to have kids running around the galaxy thirty years later requires no explanation. For Luke to have children requires a lot of story to have taken place off screen, it is typically best to do that as little as possible.

Yes, as soon as Rey started flying the Falcon I started eagerly anticipating her being Han's daughter, but that time came and went, and that was not the story we were being told, which is ok. What would not be ok is to rip up this story now to try to make it into that other story...we would lose both stories then. The other story needs to die so this story can live.