If this is a hackneyed political jab, it's done in the tradition of the great mythologies of all time -- it tells a story that attempts to explain overarching moral and political themes.

Plenty of Star Wars themes could be taken as a critique of the current administration. Take Yoda's "fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering" and apply it to the current climate of fear regarding distant terrorists, for example.

Let viewers judge Lucas' ideas on their merits, now that they've been expressed in his art. I suggest they begin by considering (as many have already observed) that the proposition "only a Sith speaks in absolutes" is itself an absolute.

Also, if the position "you're either with us or against us" is so identifiable with our president that his supporters agree such a statement is probably referring to him, well ... I suggest he distance himself from such a position.

Otherwise, we must all just accept that Bush is truly Darth Vader, Cheney is the Emperor, America is the Empire, and Saddam Hussein is obviously Princess Leia.

And surely we are all aware of the origin of the phrase we are discussing... in the words of Jesus Christ.

What I liked the best about Episode III was how the film made the case that it's very easy to slip from one extreme to another--along the bridge of extremism itself. Yet it made this point without indulging in trite moral relativism, which is what I was dreading most before seeing the film. A real goodness, it seemed to say, is cautious and compassionate, yet firm when it needs to be. Those who don't understand, or who reject this solution, end up with the Sith.

I really find this to be a case of attempting to see a pattern where one isn't neccessary. Anakin had reached his breaking point, especially when he believe that his wife had betrayed him to Obi-Wan. The comments were directed towards a life a betrayal by the Jedi, the loss of his mother, his childhood, his wife, etc. I think that the line from the film is better served in the context of the film rather than in our political climate.

That line is from Jesus, by the way. Bush didn't make it up, and Lucas was probably well aware of it long before Bush was even on his radar. Given that he wrote the first draft this script in the 70s, and the major themes were all there, I believe him when he says that Bush had nothing to do with this film and that if any American president was the inspiration for the emperor it was the Nixon in the era of power-hungry politics. (Nixon's precessor was at best no better than Nixon; it's just that Nixon got caught.)

The absolutes line is pretty cheesy, though a proper understanding of what it means philosophically (which I'm not sure if Lucas has) might make you rethink what someone saying that might mean. There's a difference between absolutes and objective moral truth. Denying absolutes doesn't mean you deny objective morality. It just means you think that circumstances will affect whether a given principle applies. No principle applies absolutely in every situation. Killing, for instance, might be ok if done by a proper authority for the right reasons or if done in self-defense. So killing isn't absolutely immoral. Denying absolutes is simply saying that morality is like that. It's not as radical as it sounds. Lucas may or may not be aware of this, so I don't know if it has any bearing on his own use of it, but it's a point I can't resist making because so many people get this wrong.

Plenty of Star Wars themes could be taken as a critique of the current administration. Take Yoda's "fear leads to anger; anger leads to hate; hate leads to suffering" and apply it to the current climate of fear regarding distant terrorists, for example.

True, but it's not a general theme that I'm highlighting here. As I said, there were other things in this film (as with all the Star Wars episodes) that could be taken as political statements which I don't necessarily consider as such. But the "you're either with us or against us" type of phrase--though it has been used in countless times and places throughout history--is best known right now as representing the Bush Administration's approach to the war against al-Qaeda.

Even if Lucas actually wrote that line 30 years ago (though I doubt he had the exact dialogue set so long ago), he surely must have realized some time in the last couple years how that phrase would be taken by a current audience. There are plenty of other things Anakin could have said at that point to express the same sort of attitude (e.g. "If you stand against the Emperor, you stand against me"). So the fact that he left it in at least indicates that he endorses the political point.

Let me get this straight...if -- *if* -- George Lucas took a superficial political stance in his latest movie, that is "unforgivable."

Your sense of proportion would be comical if it were not so common.

I can see how it would be irritatingly distracting if you buy that this is an explicit jab at Bush. I don't buy it, but I can see how you might.

What's bizarre about the whole thing is that Lucas' myths are generally right up Bush's alley -- they're very absolutist, with inexplicably evil characters and angelic good ones, and very little in-between. The evil people are evil because they're evil -- all that motivates them is a desire to make the good people miserable. Bush would love it.

That's what made Han Solo and Lando Callerisian such great characters, and why the new movies are so lame in their absence -- real people have conflicts, and are torn between good and evil. The only character in the new trilogy who's at all conflicted, really, is Anakin himself -- and look what happens to him.

I can only roll my eyes at the notion of finding it "unforgivable" that someone who makes their living expressing ideas would dare to say something that one can interpret as disagreeing with their political views. Even if Lucas did what you seem to be unjustifiably presuming he did - tried to use a movie he wrote that quite clearly speaks to questions of political power to make a political point about something going on today - why on earth is that "unforgivable"? Because he happens to disagree with someone you support politically? I can't for the life of me understand this idea of judging the merit of every performer or performance based upon some political standard. I couldn't possibly care any less what George Lucas believes about anything politically. Whether he is a Democrat or Republican, a supporter or opposer of the Iraq war (or any other), whether he's buddhist or Christian or Satanist, or whether he secretly enjoys sex with canteloupes - none of those things have anything whatsoever to do with whether he made a good movie. And you are paying to see his movie, not to approve of his politics or his religion. To me, it's every bit as silly as considering it unforgivable if you find out he doesn't like shellfish and you do. It has no relevance to the only question that should matter to someone who goes to see his movies, which is whether the movie was good or not.

Whether it should have been indirectly referenced in the film or not, Bush's statement should be mocked because it was stupid. There are things such as absolute good and absolute evil. However, America is not God, and Bush is not Christ. Bush's statement implied that if you disagreed with any "holy" words uttered by him as the "Master" that you were guilty of blasphemy. I found Bush's way of handling matters totally offensive, but not unforgivable.

Even if Lucas did what you seem to be unjustifiably presuming he did - tried to use a movie he wrote that quite clearly speaks to questions of political power to make a political point about something going on today - why on earth is that "unforgivable"?

Because the way in which he seems to have done it is so hackneyed, and because it is out of place in "Star Wars." If there were political meanings behind the general themes throughout the other films, they were diffuse and unspoken. This is stark and obvious. People from all over the political spectrum are commenting on it; the New York Times reviewer thought it was pretty obvious, and praised Lucas for it. You expect to see this sort of thing in "The Simpsons" or "South Park," but not injected into a cultural touchstone like "Star Wars."

That said, when I say "unforgiveable," I mean in terms of moviemaking. I'm not saying George Lucas is a terrible person; I'm saying this decision was a mistake. For me, it tarnishes the series in the same way that uber-fans thought the Special Edition versions of Episodes IV-VI did.

And, in fact, if Lucas were to come forward and apologize to fans for the jab, I suppose I'd forgive him. So perhaps "unacceptable" is a better world than "unforgiveable."

Well I'm sure he feels comforted by the sheer magnanimousness of your offer to forgive him for expressing an opinion you don't like. That you think you deserve an apology for having to endure the trauma of finding out that someone you don't know and have nothing to do with at all happens to disagree with you (if indeed he does, since this is all based upon your projection of an opinion on to him rather than his statement of it) is a notion at which I can only shake my head in amusement.

Ed, your sarcasm is completely unwarranted here and unbecoming of you. I'm just critiquing a movie here, why are you reacting as though I've insulted a close personal friend of yours?

Well sorry, but sarcasm is really the only possible response to someone offering to forgive someone they don't know for the heinous sin of (possibly) taking a political position they disagree with. If I asked you to forgive me, would you interpret that as sarcasm? :)

Put away the light sabres, boys. If you destroy the other one, he will become more powerful than you could ever imagine.
Just warning ya...

Well sorry, but sarcasm is really the only possible response to someone offering to forgive someone they don't know for the heinous sin of (possibly) taking a political position they disagree with.

I wasn't "offering to forgive" Lucas so much as softening my original "unforgiveable" remark. I thought you would have appreciated that.

Secondly, yet again you're making a straw man out of my point. Lucas has the right to repeat well-worn Hollywood anti-Bush rhetoric in interviews, at celebrity dinners, etc. What I strongly object to is injecting that sort of tripe into a beloved set of movies that previously has had no overt political message.

Eric wrote:

Secondly, yet again you're making a straw man out of my point. Lucas has the right to repeat well-worn Hollywood anti-Bush rhetoric in interviews, at celebrity dinners, etc. What I strongly object to is injecting that sort of tripe into a beloved set of movies that previously has had no overt political message.

I've got news for you - he has the right to do it in his movies too. He is, after all, the writer, director and producer of them. And you have a right to object. And I have a right to find the whole thing quite amusing. And that's my last word on the subject. I just hope you'll be as forgiving toward me as you are toward him. Cheers!

Quite honestly, I think that all the hub-ub over the suggeste political jab is really counter productive to Eric's post. He doesn't want this beloved movie series tarnished with Lucas' political statement, BUT by posting and making a comment about it, he is perpetuating the politicization of a movie. I consider myself pretty conservative, and I attended with conservative friends, but we simply chuckled a little at the line and moved on. We spent the rest of the evening discussing other things in the movie, like, themes, symbols, characters, etc., you know, the things you go to see in a sci-fi movie.

We do a disservice to the movie to draw more attention to this aspect.

Regarding Mr. Pierce's comment:
"No principle applies absolutely in every situation."

Now I am not trying to start a big rabbit trail here, but is there a situation in which the principle that molesting a 5 year old child is wrong can become morally acceptable? I just can't buy your justification. Lucas, as many of his Hollywood cohorts, merely has a case of moral reletivitis.

is there a situation in which the principle that molesting a 5 year old child is wrong can become morally acceptable?

There are many - this is something off the top of my head:

An obviously armed man walks into the kindergarten classroom where you teach. He tells you to molest one of the children in front of him, or he'll kill them all - and if you argue with him or try to fight him, then he'll just kill you and then kill the children. You argue with him about it anyway, and he shoots several children to prove his point. There's nothing else you can do.

It may be wrong to molest the five year old - but it's at least arguably less wrong than letting them all be killed. It may even be the morally acceptable choice to greatly harm one child in order to save many more.

And of course, the real moral wrong in such a situation does not lie on your shoulders as the teacher. The real moral wrong can be found by pointing out that it is the armed man who put you in a situation where you can only commit (what would otherwise be) moral wrongs - no matter if you let the children be killed or molest one, you can't make a "good" choice.

As such, one could argue that neither molesting the child nor letting them be killed is morally wrong (if not the morally acceptable choice). It is impossible for you to make any other choice, and any standards or principles that fault people for things they have absolutely no control over seem quite unfair. It is the armed man who has committed the moral wrong by limiting your choices as such.

You can always tell a story to show how difficult it is to come up with absolute moral principles, even if there are such things as absolute good and evil. And by the way, don't even bother arguing that such a story is implausible (is it?), because if you want absolute principles, then you should make principles that I can't even tell a story to contradict.

Hey, this is cool. The House of Jedi is divided. Usually its the ITA writers or commenters taking each other to task. Now we have an in-house "war."

The prequal films were always going to offend an American post-September 11 audience. The films are about the willful surrender of liberty by a majority to a man of action promising absolute security. It is an old tale repeated many times in the cycles of history. Americans have always fashioned themselves as immune to such decay, but they are not. Those advocating the expansion of coercive governmental power in contemporary America may be offended by Lucas' tale, but they need not worry. History is on their side.

Eric is right that if Lucas had injected a bit of contemporary politics into Episode III, then he has thereby done something unforgiveable -- but it would be an aesthetic transgression, not a political one. If he let his politics influence an artistic decision in a deleterious way, and indeed in a way that became a large bad-making feature of the resulting work, then it would be a gross mistake on his part, and one for which we could correctly castigate him. This is doubly true in the case of the SW series, precisely because of its overall timeless/epic quality; making 'topical' commentary inside a work that is otherwise profoundly 'atopical' will almost always be a significant artistic misstep. (I take it, btw, that I'm just restating, maybe slightly clearer, Eric's initial point.)

It's not clear to me, however, that Lucas really made the mistake that some have accused him of. The "with me or against me" line is (as has been noted) itself a fairly timeless rhetorical move, even if recently it has been closely associated with W. Moreover, it closely fits what is going on, and needs to be going on, in Anakin's mind at the time he says it. He must save Padme; so he must join with Palpatine; so he must put psychological distance between himself and Obi-Wan. The line does not seem forced, but indeed is quite natural to the situation. (And I promise you, I am very willing to chastise Lucas for all sorts of script mishaps -- one of the worst being, "Nooooooooooooo!!!")

Mr. Blesch,
I would argue it is not the teacher doing the molesting, but the armed man who is using the teacher, under force, as the object to commit the act. Saying the teacher is doing the molesting would be like saying the car was responsible for the accident not the driver controlling it. Therefore the act of molestation remains just as morally reprehensible in the situation you posed.
Forgive my digression...we now return to Revenge of the Sith.

There were extremely excellent and the best scenes in the movie "Revenge of the Sith".
Good originality and great imagination, great story in this movie!
Here's Photo gallery for Hayden Christensen(Anakin) of this movie. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0159789/photogallery-ss-0
I love Star Wars series the most!