Here with a special commentary on Salon’s review of Revenge of the Sith, please welcome Comic Book Guy!
Thank you, Colter. Today I want to explain how so very wrong the normally delightful Ms. Stephanie Zacharek at Salon is about the 3rd Chapter in the Star Wars trilogy. Her primary complaint seems to be that the film rails against an absolutist black/white worldview while presenting only the simplest of dualistic characters and arguments. If Ms. Zacharek would pay closer attention, she would see that what George Lucas is trying to do is show how evil becomes evil. Evil does not simply arrive and say “hello, I’m Evil, I will be your enemy today.” No, it starts somewhere: a little boy corrupted by his own inadequacies, mother issues, and slimy surrogate father. If she wants to complain about a sci-fi/fantasy film being too reliant on good vs. evil dualities, then she should look at the overly applauded Lord of the Rings films. Why is Sauron so evil? It doesn’t matter – he just is. Now THAT’s simplistic [1].
Another problem she has, and that many reviewers have, is her insistence that this film takes swipes at the Bush administration. This film has been in the works since the 1970’s – how prescient can George Lucas be? If there are similarities between Palpatine and Bush II, then they are simply coincidental. Keep your leftist interpretations to yourself, young missy. You, like Castro, probably saw Jaws as a pro-Marxist statement.
Ordinarily I quite like Ms. Zacharek’s works, but here I find her off base and out of touch with the true audience for this film: children and Jedis such as myself. She would do well to stick to reviewing arty pretentious girlie films like Amelie and The Hours.
1) Of course, true Tolkien fans know that Sauron was corrupted by Melkor and became his most trusted lieutenant in the Wars of Beleriand, but that’s beside the point.