Comment by trevelyan | Hacker News Reader

Comment by trevelyan | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Hey Lionheart. Just to be clear -- I don't think TLJ is devoid of meaning. The film clearly wants to say that anyone can be a hero and that what matters is not being trapped by the past (protect what you love, learn from your mistakes and move on). There is nothing wrong with this message.

It doesn't bother me if people like TLJ, although I personally don't think the film makes much sense. If Yoda deceives Luke that saves TLJ from having Yoda actually mirror Kylo Ren, but it doesn't explain the fire and lightning (Sith tools associated with hell imagery) nor does it resolve the underlying problem since deception is also Dark Side behaviour....

There are a few other areas where the film contradicts itself, but this is an obvious one: if we take the film seriously we must surely ask ourselves why Yoda is acting like a Sith Lord? I didn't see any attempt to answer that puzzle in the film and while we may get the solution in film #3, as far as I can tell TLJ just accepts that whatever Yoda does is good (because he is Yoda) and whatever Kylo Ren does is bad (because he is the villain). The filmmakers have bought into the loose symbolic framework of the saga, but they don't seem to understand it and/or act consistently within it. To the extent there is a message, it comes out because the good guys tell us exactly what it is and we aren't supposed to think too critically about it.

> If Yoda deceives Luke that saves TLJ from having Yoda actually mirror Kylo Ren, but it doesn't explain the fire and lightning (Sith tools associated with hell imagery) nor does it resolve the underlying problem since deception is also Dark Side behaviour....

It comes down to intent. Fire, lightning, and destruction aren't relegated to the Dark Side of the Force. Jedis have always had their share of destruction and murder. They were a literal army during the time of the Old Republic. Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon's behavior in the first scenes of TPM show this firsthand. They were sent to the Trade Federation to intimidate—not a very noble thing to do on the surface, but it was in the greater good.

There have been innumerable essays and analyses understanding how the two sides differ, but the one that's always stuck with me is that the Jedi are at their core more of a guiding force, whereas the Sith are a controlling force.

Everything the Sith do is for their own greater good, whereas the Jedi will do things (even kill, or destroy) if it leads to the greater good of others.

And, in this case, the destruction of the temple leads Luke to understand that old books aren't what are important. No one died when that tree was destroyed. And it may very well have been what pushed Luke to self-sacrifice and save the remnants of the Resistance. That seems like a very "Jedi" thing to do (IMO).

> It comes down to intent

There is nothing in the film that communicates this. It may be that we are supposed to view the film this way, but the film itself is not sophisticated in communicating this message. Meanwhile, there are many characters who are clearly well-intentioned (Poe and Finn) whose actions seem to be explicitly criticized.

Lucas was a far more sophisticated filmmaker. In his prequels the Jedi are deeply flawed, and the audience is supposed to notice that they abandon their commitment to peace ("I can protect you, but I cannot fight a war for you") to the point that they die (literally and allegorically) marching into war. Likewise, Luke's effort to rescue his friends in Empire is well-intentioned, but nearly destroys him because he chooses violence as his tool (similar to Anakin's efforts to rescue Padme through violence). It is not accidental that the temptation that Vader offers Luke is the same temptation Palpatine offers Anakin: the use of violence for the sake of good ("join me, and bring peace and order to the galaxy") -- a trap in both films.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com