Star Wars'i mütoloogia alternatiivne tõlgendus

Olgem ausad, need kellele Star Wars midagi korda läheb, on juba ammu enda jaoks välja mõelnud täiusliku kolmanda osa - selle, mida nad näha soovivad ja mida mitte - ning Lucasfilmi PR masin annab selleks kõik võimalused.

Mul õnnestus kolmandat osa näha juba esilinastuse ajal ja nagu paljud teiste vaatajate jaoks ei ulatanud kolmas osa selle ideaalini, mille ma väikestest inforaasukestest aastate jooksul enda jaoks kokku oli pannud. Säravaid ja külmajudinaid tekitavaid stseene oli küllaga, kuid samuti oli masendavat labasust, mida lootsin kolmandas osa mitte näha.

Ehk just sellepärast on Star Wars'i mütoloogiale olemas ka alternatiivseid tõlgendusi, mis ei lähe sugugi kokku traditsioonilise impeerium=halb ja vabariik=hea arusaamaga:

If the Rebels are really on the up and up, why do they associate with criminals like Solo? For that matter, why is Ben Kenobi so familiar with the inner workings of Mos Eisley, which even Lucas describes as a "wretched hive of scum and villainy"?

Now we come to Luke and Leia. They may have good intentions, but the bottom line is that they are just convenient figureheads for a Rebel leadership about which never learn all that much in any of the six films. Leia especially strikes me as the classic example of a child of wealth and privilege who runs off to join the guerrillas because her parents never taught her the value of hard work.

Finally, there is Vader. Why must the black man always be the villain? Moreover, is it any way appropriate in this day and age to suggest that someone is evil because of his physical disabilities? My sense is that the real Vader may be something of a cross between Martin Luther King Jr. and Stephen Hawking.

But alas we shall never know the truth, until Fox News opens up a bureau on Coruscant in order to provide us with a fair and balanced look at the universe.
-- David Adesnik, Oxblog, 17. mai

The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.

And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)

In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.

The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.
-- Jonathan Last, Case for the Empire, Weekly Standard

1. The Jedi and Jedi-in-training sell out like crazy. Even the evil Count Dooku was once a Jedi knight.

2. What do the Jedi Council want anyway? The Anakin critique of the Jedi Council rings somewhat true (this is from the new movie, alas I cannot say more, but the argument could be strengthened by citing the relevant detail). Aren't they a kind of out-of-control Supreme Court, not even requiring Senate approval (with or without filibuster), and heavily armed at that? As I understand it, they vote each other into the office, have license to kill, and seek to control galactic affairs. Talk about unaccountable power used toward secret and mysterious ends.
-- Tyler Cowen, Marginal Revolution

Omalt poolt pööraksin tähelepanu senaator Palpatine'i näo moondumisele ja tema hilisematele selgitusele senatis. Kui sama selgitus oleks tulnud Jushchenkolt mõned kuud tagasi Ukrainas (et mingi paramilitaarne üksus üritas teda mõrvata ja selle katse käigus tema nägu moondus) oleks tõenäoliselt vähesed mehe selgituses kahelnud.

Piisava loomingulisusega on võimalik paljudest kohtadest välja lugeda seda, mida seal tegelikult pole. Või äkki ikkagi on? Eelpool mainitud tõlgendusi kutsuvad ju autorid ise Straussilikeks.

Kes oli Leo Strauss?

Poliitfilosoofia professor, kes sai peamiselt tuntuks ühe veendumuse tõttu. Ajakirjast FrontPage artikkel Leo Strauss, Conservative Mastermind:

The key Straussian concept is the Straussian text, which is a piece of philosophical writing that is deliberately written so that the average reader will understand it as saying one ("exoteric") thing but the special few for whom it is intended will grasp its real ("esoteric") meaning. The reason for this is that philosophy is dangerous. Philosophy calls into question the conventional morality upon which civil order in society depends; it also reveals ugly truths that weaken men’s attachment to their societies. Ideally, it then offers an alternative based on reason, but understanding the reasoning is difficult and many people who read it will only understand the "calling into question" part and not the latter part that reconstructs ethics. Worse, it is unclear whether philosophy really can construct a rational basis for ethics. Therefore philosophy has a tendency to promote nihilism in mediocre minds, and they must be prevented from being exposed to it. The civil authorities are frequently aware of this, and therefore they persecute and seek to silence philosophers. Strauss shockingly admits, contrary to generations of liberal professors who have taught him as a martyr to the First Amendment, that the prosecution of Socrates was not entirely without point. This honesty about the dangers of philosophy gives Straussian thought a seriousness lacking in much contemporary philosophy; it is also a sign of the conviction that philosophy, contrary to the mythology of our "practical" (though sodden with ideology and quick to take offense at ideas) age, matters.

Eelnevalt tsiteeritud artiklist saab üldisema ülevaate Straussi vaadetest, kellel sügavam huvi Strauss elu ja tema töö kohta, siis Nicholas Xenos'e artikkel ajakirjas Logos on väga põhjalik ja ulatuslike viidetega.

Kas Georg Lucas on vaikimisi Tähtede Sõja saagas võimaldanud ka straussiliku tõlgenduse, kus filme võib käsitleda impeeriumi vastu sõdijate propagandana, kus pahad on "mustad" ja "head" valged ning enamus tõest märkimisväärselt moonutatud...?

Lõpetuseks viide natuke personaalsemale tõlgendusele Tähtede Sõja sündmustest - Darth Vader'i blog!