Subject:
|
Re: Padme Naberrie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Mon, 25 Sep 2000 21:03:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
502 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes:
> > and nothing visible is gained by the "revelation" that he knows her identity.
>
> No, but it does make for some interesting discussion, and that's what causes
> an enduring work of literature rather than something you watch once and
> forget.
Sometimes this is true, in that the interpretability of a work is what
makes it endure. Other times, a work's ambiguity is destructive to the
quality of that work, as I feel it to be in this case.
> > In addition, we have no indication of how he's identified her
>
> It's called the Force. You have three other movies full of people doing all
> kinds of wierd crap with the Force, why not this?
That's a total cop-out, unless the true Power of The Force is to gloss-over
weaknesses in plot, characterization, dialogue, and acting.
> Let me put it another way: The first time anyone in the Star Wars trilogy
> used the Force to levitate something was Luke, stuck in the Wampa cave
> without his lightsaber. Yet no one then or now shrieks "Deus ex Machina!
> The Force has never been shown to do that!"
Always in those cases there has been an obvious indicator that the Force was
in use, even if it was a quick comment about a feeling or disturbance. To
excuse feeble plot devices as The Mysteries of the Force is to hold Star Wars
to a lower standard than you seem to think it deserves.
> > Rather than wondering how QG identified her, I think it's much more
> > interesting that Obi-Wan failed to identify the bogus queen. Presumably he
> > spent a good deal of time in her presence, or at least nearby, and we have no
> > suggestion that he knew she was an imposter. I suppose the quickest and
> > least interesting explanation is that he spent all his time on ship
> > maintenance or some kind of esoteric Jedi Meditiation. Another possibility
> > is that, as a fledgling Jedi, his powers of observation are not yet as sharp
> > as they will one day be.
>
> Why is this not an acceptable explaination?
It's a fine explanation, and I wrote it. There's no onscreen, canonical
evidence that this is what happened. One might cite other action that occurs
off-screen, like actual travel time between point A and point B, as examples
of things that *happened* even though they weren't shown, but I submit that
such non-shown details are of lesser importance than character interaction.
If we assume that Obi-Wan was preoccupied with maintenance while not on-
screen, despite a lack of evidence either during or after such maintenance, we
could just as readily assume that Obi-Wan converts wholly to the Dark Side
while off-screen, only to redeem himself completely right before he steps back
into view of the camera. In any case, he is shown to be in the "queen's"
presence while on the ship, so why didn't he notice it then?
> > This, too, fails unless Obi-Wan is more dense than everyone in
> > the theater along with me.
>
> No, there's a big difference between being a character *in* a story and being
> someone *watching* a story. Things are done to make viewers aware of plot
> points characters just aren't.
There's an even bigger difference between consistency of characterization
and the tripe that landed on the screen. You're alluding to suspension of
disbelief, which is naturally engaged full-force when watching Star Wars, but
you're applying it to a shortcoming of the plot rather than (correctly) to a
fanciful element that the viewer accepts as part of the story's universe. I
imagine that when Obi-Wan faces Lord Sidious in the near future he will
likewise conveniently fail to recognize the Senator.
> As a consumer of entertainment, I'm sure you're familiar with that idea.
No need to be patronizing. I'm simply subjecting TPM to critical
interpretation, based upon on-screen information, and finding it to be lacking
in certain areas of plot, dialogue, and character. Is there some reason you
don't want the film to be viewed from a thoughtfully critical perspective?
> > It fails, also, because one of Obi-Wan's first lines in
> > the film implies a sensitivity to "unseen" things sharper than QG's; QG says
> > something like "I don't sense anything" when Obi-Wan expresses his
> > misgivings.
>
> No, Qui-Gonn tells Obi-Wan to be mindful of the present, and not worry so much
> about the future. Obi-Wan was unable to figure out why he had these weird
> feelings, and Qui-Gonn's attitude was basically "don't spend too much time
> worrying about it".
In fact, QG says something like "funny, I don't sense anything," though
later he senses "an unusual amount of fear" on the ship. Unless he's lying
initially, he's undeniably missing something that Obi-Wan is perceiving. I
wonder, then, when exactly QG makes the Padme/Amidala connection.
For that matter, I'd be interested to learn when you believe that
realization takes place. You cite several momentarily forgotten clues on
Tattooine that demonstrate QG's recognition of the queen, but there's no
moment when the realization takes place. The fact that it must be inserted
retroactively into the scene--to justify a shortcoming of plot--makes QG's
perception seem more like spin-doctoring than vaunted Jedi prowess. Again,
there's no indication that any trick of the Force was used, nor even a moment
of dialogue, to explain how or when QG realized it. It's fine to say that The
Force did it, but without a definite moment on screen, like when Luke
meditated to clear his thoughts, or when Vader gestured to choke the guy on
the Death Star, such "realizations" become the very deus ex machina you
suggest.
> > In essence, I'm not sure I believe that QG knew Padme was really the queen,
> > despite his sarcasm.
>
> Neither am I, but I'm not ready to call either interpretation wrong.
I don't know that your interpretation is wrong, but I do find it to be
inconsistent with the information presented onscreen. Readings of scripts and
Terry Brooks are separate from viewings and, in serious critical
interpretation, should remain separate.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) Mmm. To be clear, I was not suggesting that Star Wars is an "enduring work of literature" per se, but the one quality that all great works of literature, from Moby Dick to the Bible, have in common is the ability to be interpreted in different (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) Actually, there are a couple of comments on Tatooine that make it seem as though Qui-Gonn might know. I can't remember the other one offhand, though. (...) No, but it does make for some interesting discussion, and that's what causes an (...) (24 years ago, 25-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
15 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
