Subject:
|
Re: Padme Naberrie
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Tue, 26 Sep 2000 16:40:28 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
679 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Dave Schuler writes:
> In lugnet.starwars, Eric Joslin writes:
> > 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.
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 ways.
> > 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.
So, you're suggesting that the Force itself is nothing but a cheap plot device?
I mean, it is used in a very Deus ex Machina way many times throughout the
series. I'm *not* suggesting that to say that the Force is wholly a way for
Lucas to advance plot points is an incorrect interpretation, either, by the
way.
> > 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.
Always? I don't know how accurate that is. How obvious is it that Vader uses
the Force to determine anything about Luke? In the trench, however, he
comments that "The Force is strong in this one". How does he mean that,
exactly? I know people who assume that Vader reached out with the Force and
judged Luke's potential, but there's no direct evidence of that. The same
phrase could just as easily mean that Vader thinks fate favors Luke in some
way, or that he's a skilled pilot.
> 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.
How are Qui-Gonn's comments a feeble plot device? They're just there. Whether
he actually knew that Padme was Amidala in disguise has no real bearing on the
plot, although knowing for sure would tell us something about Qui-Gonn's
personality. Was he really just chastising a handmaiden for questioning his
wisdom? Or was he having fun at the expense of the disguised Queen? Hardly a
major plot point.
>
> It's a fine explanation, and I wrote it. There's no onscreen, canonical
> evidence that this is what happened.
That Obi-Wan is a weaker Jedi? There's plenty of evidence of that. Let's
start with the fact that Qui-Gonn was a Jedi Master who could have been on the
council if he wasn't such a loose cannon, whereas Obi-Wan was a Padawan.
> 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,
I didn't say that. My response was wholly that Obi-Wan didn't catch it for a
number of reasons, and one of them could easily have been that he was a weaker
Jedi. Another could be that it didn't occur to him to be suspicious and
inquisitive of an ally.
> > 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.
I'm at a loss. I still have no idea why these actions are inconsistant.
Obi-Wan is young and naive, Qui-Gonn is older and more experienced, as well as
more powerful. To beleive that Qui-Gonn had the motive and the ability to work
out that Padme was Amidala while Obi-Wan missed it just isn't inconsistant in
my eyes.
> I
> imagine that when Obi-Wan faces Lord Sidious in the near future he will
> likewise conveniently fail to recognize the Senator.
Assuming that Senator Palpatine is, in fact, Lord Sidious. If you don't want
to assume things not on screen, I wouldn't jump to this conclusion, either.
> > As a consumer of entertainment, I'm sure you're familiar with that idea.
>
> No need to be patronizing.
You're right, I apologise.
> 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?
No, you can criticise it all you want. I am tired of people whinging about how
awful Jar-Jar was, and how Episode I doesn't live up to the other movies,
though. It is a natural extension of the last three movies. I think, if
anything, that the people who claim to be great fans of the original trilogy
are oblivious to some of *it's* shortcomings (see the Wampa cave example).
> > 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 have to admit I don't have the script in front of me, and although I do own a
copy of the (shudder) videotape, I haven't watched it in a while. However, in
the scene as I remember it it's pretty clear that Obi-Wan is focusing on things
*outside* the ship- as he puts it, "elsewhere, elusive", whereas Qui-Gonn is
more focused on what is going on around them- the fact that the Nemoidians are
fearful for some reason. Qui-Gonn wasn't concerned about the external motives
of the Trade Federation, whereas Obi-Wan was sensing there was a bigger
picture.
> I
> wonder, then, when exactly QG makes the Padme/Amidala connection.
Once again, the fact that Qui-Gonn is concerned about things happening around
him, whereas Obi-Wan misses the smaller details in favor of a larger picture.
Seems consistant to me.
> 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.
True. To be honest, I wouldn't want to see a scene in which it's clear
Qui-Gonn recognises her, because I like the ambiguity and room to interpret,
though.
> 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.
Why? Why do you perceive Qui-Gonn's realisation that Padme is Amidala as an
important plot point? It makes no difference in the end. He doesn't out her,
she outs herself. He makes no major decisions based on whether it's true or
not.
> > 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.
I still don't.
> Readings of scripts and
> Terry Brooks are separate from viewings and, in serious critical
> interpretation, should remain separate.
I haven't read either one, so they aren't influencing my decision.
I guess the reason I lean toward Qui-Gonn knowing is simply that I would prefer
to think that Qui-Gonn was having fun at the Queen's expense, rather than being
heavy-handed with a handmaiden. I an see that neither interpretation can
really be said to be 100% correct based on the information on-screen. But I
also don't see the ambiguity as a failure of the plot or scripting, which you
seem to.
eric
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) Actually, the Force is fundamental to the plot of the original trilogy and also (likely) to the prequels. However, it wasn't used simply to explain away shortcomings in the plot, characterization, or dialogue (which have, by the way, been my (...) (24 years ago, 26-Sep-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Padme Naberrie
|
| (...) 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. (...) That's a total cop-out, unless the true (...) (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
|
|
|
|
