Tuesday, February 15, 2011

Analysis 1: Prophecy; An exercise in the sublime, tragedy, and Star Wars

     Aristotle's Poetics was used as the measuring stick to define both a tragedy and the tragic hero.  He defines the Tragedy as taking place not in the story or narrative but in the action of the play.  The action must be able to inspire emotions in the audience like fear, pity, or sorrow, not just recite the events.  It is the line between a preformed tragedy and simple history, the action and emotion must be carried out on the stage, not told in back story.  He also defines that it must be a whole plot, a concise beginning middle and end must be evident for it to be a tragedy.  The plot must also encompass more than a few instances of tragedy, but portray a "great magnitude" (wether complex of simple).  One can see examples in the tragedies of the Greek times, Hercules, and Oedipus Rex, as well as tragedies from the Shakespearian era, Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth.  All four stories containing a clear three act structure the incentive, climax, and resolution.  But the tragedy can not just happen to any one, it must fall on the shoulders of the tragic hero.  The tragic hero must be a person of noble stature and greatness (Hercules was the son of a god, Oedipus a prince/king, Romeo and Juliet Florentine nobles, and Macbeth a scottish lord), but the character can not be perfect he must be relatable.  Commonly they have a vice or tragic flaw(most commonly hubris or pride) a personally trait that leads to their downfall.  This downfall can not be a pure loss, the hero must learn or be able to gain insight or grow from the fall, but the fall must be great, it must exceed what is deserved of the hero.  Like Hercules' bought of insane rage that lead to him slaughtering his family, or Oedipus' incest and exile, the punishment far out weighed the crime, but did not disallow the character to rise or learn.  Finally their fate must not leave the audience depressed or distraught, but allow for the actions and resolution to cleanse the audience of the fear and pity.
     Many perceive the Star Wars series as an epic because of the grand sweeping battles, struggle between light and dark forces, and the perseverance of good over evil.  Yet with the release of the first three episodes, the audience got a look at the whole new side of the series, the tragedy of Darth Vader.  Using Aristotle's rules he defined in the Poetics one can truly appreciate Star Wars as a tragedy.

     Enter the young Anakin Skywalker, soon to be Darth Vader, a young slave on the planet Tatooine.  Though not high born or descendent from a noble family, he is gifted with a record setting "metachlorine count" which gave him the ability to use the force and be trained by the Jedi.  This does not exactly meet the requirements to be a tragic hero, but later the it is learned that the child is the child of prophecy who will end the Sith and bring balance to the force.  So enters the high birth that Aristotle required of the tragic hero.  In the above clip we watch as Anakin grows from being a boy, we watch his pride (or hubris) grow into a lost for power and mastery of the force.  We slowly watch that hubris drag him deeper and deeper into the road of the dark side.  He loses his mother, slaughters the sand people, separates himself from his master, kills a fellow Jedi, slaughters yuenglings, kills his love, and then falls to his own masters sword (light saber).  From his fall he grows into Darth Vader, he tries to seduce his son to join the dark side and nearly kills him in the process, he spreads the imperial rule, and destroys a planet.  Though he falls far into the dark side he is able to pull himself back out by killing the Emperor, saving his son, and becoming a martyr for the rebellion and the light side of the force which provides the catharsis for the tragedy..  All of which takes place over the course of six movies and is pushed by his prophecy.  That is simply reciting the events though, the story truly takes place in the actions.
     The action starts off with Anakin as a boy, and the first movie takes the role of developing as a morally high borne and gifted young man.  He is shown to be gifted in robotics, has a skill for mechanics and space flight, above normal reflexes, and to be completely kind hearted.  He falls in love with Princess Padame, and becomes the deciding factor in the space battle with the separatists, where upon he is made a hero and also must lay to rest his master.  It is the beginning or the rise, and works in conjuncture with the first half of the second film to depict his acts of heroics (like in Oedipus Rex).  That audience is introduced to and shown the ethos of young Anakin, untainted by his tragic flaw.  Yet in the second film we can start to see it grow, his pride comes into place and he is shown to be impatient and hunger to constantly be better, to be stronger, and throw caution aside.  His new master Obi-wan acts as a foil to try and control the powerful young man.
    From around the midpoint of the second movie threw the final minutes of the third, we watch as Anakin slowly falls to the dark side.  His pride feeds into his love for Padame, his rage, and his fear of being caught in his forbidden love, which we see first develop when we learn his mother is enslaved and killed by the sand people.  Here Anakin rushes to the camp and night and slaughters the entire tribe, men women and children, and later breaks down and confesses it to his master.  Slowly he is corrupted by Palpatine (an evil sith), and helps desolve the democratic order in favor of a Galactic Empire, as well as makes the Jedi an enemy to the Empire's existence and helps decimate their ranks.  Here he faces off with his master and his fall is complete, he kills his wife and severs all ties with his former master in a final saber battle. A fight that ends with his hubris leading to Anakin's loss and disfigurement.
    The stories resolution is carried out in the last three films as Luke Skywalker and his father Vader battle over good and evil.  The movies see the death of the last two remaining Jedi, Yoda and Obi-wan, as well as the birth of the new order in Luke and Leia.  Vader's children lead the rebel alliance to take down the Empire, and destroy the ultimate tool of oppression "The Death Star".  In the climax of the three films Luke faces off against Vader and Palpatine, and is saved on the verge of death by Vader (Anakin Skywalker) which leads to the tragic heroes death as a martyr for the republic.  Vader's death serves as his retribution and the moment of clarity that washes away the tragedy of his life.


    It is evident with out much explantation the tragic qualities of the story of Anakin, but there is an over all sublime quality to the movies.  Longinus defined the sublime as something that both "tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibit’s the orator’s whole power at a single blow” and to have the power to convey deep thoughts inspired by emotion with out being overly grand.  Star Wars carries this out with a simple statement "you can not avoid your destiny".  It is a very Greek thought that pushed many of the ancient tragedies, but still rings true for these movies.  Anakin's destiny was to destroy the Sith and bring balance to the force, a task that he accomplishes through his actions wether perceived good or evil.
   First a little explanation is needed in order to understand the "balance".  In episode one, the counsel tells the audience that at any given time their is only ever two Sith in existence, a master and an apprentice.  Now the Sith embody the dark side of the force (the mythic connection of all life in the universe), while the Jedi embody the good side of the force, a type of yin and yang. While their are only ever two avatars of evil, the Jedi have an academy where they have trained hundreds of Jedi that spread across the Galaxy. So the imbalance in the force is not due to the Sith, but to the Jedi that originally recruit the young Anakin and try to destroy the Sith.  So do to the prophecy, and logic of the Star Wars universe, when Anakin became a Sith and killed all the Jedi (save for Obi Wan and master Yoda) he brings balance to the force fulfilling half of his fate.  This fate drives the actions of the last three films as well, when two new gifted force users ally themselves with the forces of good (Anakin's kids Luke and Leia) the force must again be balanced.  This is accomplished the deaths of Yoda and Obi Wan (Yoda died of natural causes where as Obi-Wan died by Vader's hands).  So even though the young and brash Jedi turned evil, he still accomplished one half of the prophecy.
    The second half he accomplished when he destroyed the Sith by killing his master (Emperor Palpatine) and died in his sons arm.  An act that seems to upset the balance of the force once again, but which was resolved in a planned last three films (which portray Lukes fall to the dark side and Leia's adherence to the light side), but is also seen in the character of Luke himself.  He is a Jedi who is able to use his emotions, who combines the dark and light side into a balanced neutral. Completing his fathers inescapable fate to destroy the Sith and balance the force.  The series is also filled with smaller sublime scenes, like when Obi Wan states that the Sith are evil and Anakin retorts from his perspective the Jedi are evil.  It's a sublime statement confessing that both sides of a war feel justified and right by their actions and beliefs.  Also the Death of Anakin begins the birth of Vader (Obi-Wan tells Luke that Vader killed his father), yet the death of Obi-Wan is the beginning of Vader's redemption.  Also Lord Vader is born in the pits of fire and magma after his defeat to Obi-Wan, but is cleansed and cleaned in the fire of a pyre that sets him free.  The series speaks of a duality of good and evil, that one can not exist with out the other, and that the lines of evil depend on the viewers personal perception.
   The movies are a testament to the sublime tragedy that is Darth Vader, the boy who could not escape his own fate (even though he is promised so and lured by the dark side), and the savior to the Galaxy that he doomed to oppression.



On that note enjoy the final battle of episode III set to the music of disturbed.

Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Response: Rome: A Proud Republic of 'Virtuous Women' and 'Honorable Men'



Think back, if you will, to a simpler time. A time of words shared between men to decide the fate of an empire, a time when oration took precedence when the might of ones tongue stood paramount above all else in matters of politic.  Before DNA tests, before finger printing, before CSI and computer technology.  A time when cases where won and lost by the power of persuasion.  A time were Gorgias would defend the honor and innocence of Helen of Troy through the power of rhetoric.  When Ethos, Pathos, and Logos were the defining factors.  The Ethos, the speakers credibility, Pathos, his connection with the audience, and Logos, his logic, the three tools the speaker would have to implement to win. Notice how their is no truth in the three pillars of speech,  the sophists, like Gorgias, believed that their was no over all truth and that the winning argument was the right argument.


Now allow the clips to sink in, both clips are examples of rhetoric in the Roman consul (thanks to the HBO series Rome).  While the first clip contains many ad hominem ("to the man" or attacks against the opponent/target of the speech) attacks, it uses these fallacies to paint a picture of what Mark Antony has let rome become under his rule.  It even compares Mark Antony to Helen of Troy, (defended by Gorgias in Encomium) saying that he was always more suited to the work of a woman.  Notice how the speech incites Mark Antony to violence, he is being compared to the roman equivalent of Eve and painted with the crimes of bringing war to Rome.  Cicero's speech attacks Antony's Ethos and Pathos by declaring him a horrible leader and a pestilence on Rome, it was a speech that was able to clear the senate building and leave Antony fuming.


The second clip shows the power of Octavian's rhetoric in establishing is rule over the senate and accusing men of his father's murder.  He entires the senate and reminds the audience of his Ethos, the son of the assassinated Caesar, his Pathos, seeking to unify and strengthen Rome as a republic, and finally his Logos in the declaration of his father's murderers.  His argument is only strengthened when he announces "his legions" who "love my father as i do" and challenges the senate to oppose him.  It is a fine example of rhetoric because it presents who he is, and his argument, in a way that is hard to oppose. He is not necessarily right, but his argument holds valid and is "true" because it was not refuted by the senate.  He is the rightful heir, and his father's killers will be apprehended. Why, because his father was betrayed and stabbed to death twenty seven times by his "friends" and died on the senate floor.  It is murder, and there will be a punishment.  It is a final and concise point driven home with force (both figuratively and the threat of literal force).

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Introduction: Off the shoulder of Orion.

To start this off, I should get one thing out there; I am not a "theories person".  That isn't to say that I do not give credit to people's theories, or that i am close minded to learning about theories, it just means that I do not read a story, poem, script, or any other work and look for theories.  I personally believe that the authors intentions are lost on the audience, and what ever theory the audience puts into practice to try to understand or deconstruct a story is objective through the reader, and does not reflect what the author truly means.  They are tools to try and add to or dismantle a story.  It is like Freudian psychology and dream analysis, outsiders trying to decipher the inner workings of a strangers mind through unfounded theory.

A good example would be Ray Bradbury and his classic work Fahrenheit 451, it is the story of a dystopian society that takes place in mass book burnings and is meant as a stand against government censorship  of the arts, right?  Well if you were to ask a high school teacher or a professor most likely they would say yes, but if you would ask Bradbury he would answer with a resounding no.  He wrote his story warning about how T.V. and radio were killing books, that it was making the populace dumb and taking people away from literature.  It was his view on a world where books were destroyed because every one was to ignorant and simple, they were to obsessed with watching television or listening to the radio to read, and this grew into a world where books were openly destroyed.  A UCLA audience openly rejected this theory and told Bradbury he was wrong and told the author what his book was about.

Other classics are interpreted wrong as well, but i don't have the time or space to get into them now.  The point i was trying to illustrate is the fact that an objective read based on theory does not mean that you understand the book more, or that you get it's true meaning, instead it is reading to far into what is written.  Like the example clip shown in class on tuesday, an entire class had an entire set of different theories and ideas about what was "actually going on" in the scene.  While i do not condemn theory, and am not saying that i do not think it has its place, i implore you to take theories with a grain of salt.  The exercise  we did in class allowed us to break down a scene and look into deeper possible implications of each action or symbol, but this does not mean that what we read is true any more than it is not true.  It's all in perception, in the eye of the beholder.  Where one person can argue that Dorian Gray was homosexual using theories about sexuality and on homosexual protagonists, others can get an entirely different read using freudian theories, or economic theories.

What i want the class to see, for the people to grasp, is critical theory is a lens used to see the writings in a new hue.  A way to analyze stories, to find hidden meanings, to open your mind to a new perspective on old stories.  It is not a replacement for simply reading the story, and it does not always express the authors true intent or lead to a deeper or penultimate truth, but instead it is used as a way for you to derive meaning from the story.  Use it as a tool to connect with the text, to personalize it and understand it through your theories. Do not try to force the story to fit your theory.

If you have never seen Blade Runner, what do you think this scene is about. What do you draw from his monologue.