Revenge of the NeoCons
Listening to The Radio Factor this afternoon, Bill O'Reilly mentioned that conservative commentator and movie critic, Michael Medved, is convinced that Revenge of the Sith has a liberal slant to it. I guess Medved thinks that Palpatine is a symbol for George W. Bush.
Well, I just watched the thing, and I can see one or two things that a knee-jerk conservative might interpret as an attack on the president. There are a couple one-liners that sound like something Michael Moore might use in a movie, but there is no obvious reason to think that this is directed at the Bush administration. Anakin says if Obiwan isn't with him, he is the enemy, which echoes what Bush said about being with us or with the terrorists. If Anakin is a metaphor for Dubya, this is the most straightforward example. However, there's over two hours of other stuff that isn't pointing to any liberal agenda that I think Medved ignored.
I don't want to give too much away, but you could actually come away with an opposite interpretation as well. It's all about your own perception. Emperor Palpatine talks about the lies of the Jedi, and justifies his studies of the Dark Side with the notion that you have to study both sides to fully understand the truth. The Michael Moore wing of the DFL talk a lot about the lies of the U.S. Government, and suggest people should look at things from the terrorists' (or in their words, the "Minutemen's") point of view. In my opinion, it's just as much of a stretch to interpret the movie as pro-Bush or anti-Bush. If you can't accept Star Wars as simple escapism, according to a caller on The Radio Factor, Lucas has said himself that every line in the series could be something said by any politician in history.
Ok, let's say it's not a stretch. Let's forget about the fact that this particular installment was in production over the last 3-4 years (while the Iraq war was going on), or that the script was written prior to any filming (they usually try to finish a script before they shoot it.. usually), or that the idea for the plotline was already conceived before the original was released in 1977. If it is a political statement, that means George Lucas is clairvoyant, and he predicted the war in Iraq... or it could mean Michael Medved is just a kook.
(Also take note that Medved is the guy who stirred up the euthenasia controversy when Million Dollar Baby was in theaters.)
P.S. First post in a long while. I'd like to say Congratulations to Sean Hannity for completing his humanities doctorate, even though he pissed me off royally with the Terri Schiavo debacle. In case you didn't know, this blog's namesake is from something Bill Moyer said referring to Hannity. "Barnstorming freakshow of political pornography." Anyway, I hope to start posting again at least once a week.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, here. He didn't perceive any liberal undertones either.
Well, I just watched the thing, and I can see one or two things that a knee-jerk conservative might interpret as an attack on the president. There are a couple one-liners that sound like something Michael Moore might use in a movie, but there is no obvious reason to think that this is directed at the Bush administration. Anakin says if Obiwan isn't with him, he is the enemy, which echoes what Bush said about being with us or with the terrorists. If Anakin is a metaphor for Dubya, this is the most straightforward example. However, there's over two hours of other stuff that isn't pointing to any liberal agenda that I think Medved ignored.
I don't want to give too much away, but you could actually come away with an opposite interpretation as well. It's all about your own perception. Emperor Palpatine talks about the lies of the Jedi, and justifies his studies of the Dark Side with the notion that you have to study both sides to fully understand the truth. The Michael Moore wing of the DFL talk a lot about the lies of the U.S. Government, and suggest people should look at things from the terrorists' (or in their words, the "Minutemen's") point of view. In my opinion, it's just as much of a stretch to interpret the movie as pro-Bush or anti-Bush. If you can't accept Star Wars as simple escapism, according to a caller on The Radio Factor, Lucas has said himself that every line in the series could be something said by any politician in history.
Ok, let's say it's not a stretch. Let's forget about the fact that this particular installment was in production over the last 3-4 years (while the Iraq war was going on), or that the script was written prior to any filming (they usually try to finish a script before they shoot it.. usually), or that the idea for the plotline was already conceived before the original was released in 1977. If it is a political statement, that means George Lucas is clairvoyant, and he predicted the war in Iraq... or it could mean Michael Medved is just a kook.
(Also take note that Medved is the guy who stirred up the euthenasia controversy when Million Dollar Baby was in theaters.)
P.S. First post in a long while. I'd like to say Congratulations to Sean Hannity for completing his humanities doctorate, even though he pissed me off royally with the Terri Schiavo debacle. In case you didn't know, this blog's namesake is from something Bill Moyer said referring to Hannity. "Barnstorming freakshow of political pornography." Anyway, I hope to start posting again at least once a week.
Edit: I forgot to mention that I'm agreeing with Bill O'Reilly, here. He didn't perceive any liberal undertones either.
posted by square at 3:10 AM
0 comments
