Would Anakin really have killed the Tusken children/younglings?
Disclaimer: I didn’t exactly mean for this to happen, but this turned into a bit of a rant/tirade. If you’re not in the mood for that it might be better to skip this. Also, while I did label this as “NSFW”, it may be a bit more than just that. And maybe a lot more. If you’re a sensitive type of person and don’t like these kinds of discussions, again it might be better to skip this. No, this is not a dare, it is a warning. Take it as you will.
Furthermore, I know that many of you will want to make the standard (and by now oh so tiresome) “it’s for kids” argument. I very specifically address that here, so if you absolutely have to make that argument PLEASE GET TO THAT PART OF THE ARTICLE BEFORE YOU DO (this really isn’t that long), though I hope what I’ve written here dissuades you. If you try to make that argument without reading that part, it’ll be fairly obvious, and I’ll have no reason to pay any attention. Sorry, but I’ve dealt with these people a few too many times. It does get old.
With that, this is not an easy subject to discuss, but it’s been bothering me for a long time. Because as petty as it might appear, it is one of the main reasons that I’m not a Prequel fan (among many others), and I felt that someone had to step up and ask. I believe that the short answer is “Yes, he very well would, or at least could have.” Considering what happened to his mother and how unstable he was even before her abduction, it made sense that he would lash out in the way that he did, to where even innocent children would not be spared. Everything seemed to indicate that he was headed in that direction, and it felt like a natural step in his tragic descent toward the Dark Side. So why do I have such a problem with it?
My problem isn’t so much with the event itself, or even the lead up to it, but really with what happens afterwards. Which is, effectively… nothing. OK, that’s not entirely true, he does sulk and grieve for a bit afterwards, and he does tell Padme about what he did, justifying it to her, but by the end of the movie you would hardly know that anything like that had happened. He was laughing and joking, and you could hardly tell that he had earlier undergone one of the most traumatic events in his life. Likewise in The Clone Wars, which canonically takes place after Attack of the Clones, he was often upbeat and in a good humour, just as he was at the beginning of Revenge of the Sith.
Is this a nitpick? Yes, and yet I feel compelled to speak up about it, because while there are many other things that put me off from the Prequels, this to me speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of human nature, mostly on the part of George Lucas, but also from many other people involved with Star Wars. (And to clarify this is long before Disney took over.)
To further clarify, I myself have never killed anyone, have no plans on doing so, and God willing will never have to. However, and I hope this doesn’t say too much about me, I have seen numerous interviews with people that have, for all sorts of different reasons, and in all sorts of different contexts.
I have seen interviews with soldiers who have admitted to shooting and killing children that were shooting at them. I have also seen interviews with people that have admitted to doing these sorts of things for… other reasons. Some of the people I’ve seen interviewed were children themselves, which was perhaps most disturbing. (Links to these interviews I can DM you on request, I don’t feel comfortable posting them here directly, sorry.)
The attitudes of those interviewed likewise ran the gamut. Some appeared remorseful for what they had done, some were very matter-of-fact and nonchalant, while others were actually boastful about it. In some cases it felt as though you were listening to Satan himself. But one thing was fairly constant with pretty much everyone: as far as I could tell, none of them were unchanged by their experience. All of them as far as I could tell were very different people from what they had been before. As one interviewee put it: “When you feel that energy draining, I don’t care who you are, it changes you forever.”
I suppose you could argue that Anakin “compartmentalized”, and yes, killers do often compartmentalize (I’ve seen some that have actually used that very term), but even with compartmentalization I’m not sure that you could bury something like that inside you to the point where there’s no real trace of it. As I said earlier, by the end of the film he came across as happy and bubbly and seemed to have an almost child-like innocence. There was really nothing in his demeanor that indicated in any way that he was a cold- blooded killer, that is until the end of Episode III.
I know that many blame this on Hayden Christensen and his acting, or lack thereof. Personally, while I do think that he could have been much better, and probably needed far more coaching, I ultimately don’t think that blaming him is fair. It is ultimately the director who makes the crucial decisions about how an actor conducts themselves, and how they are portrayed. And in the case of George Lucas he likewise wrote the script, decided on the dialog, as well as many other things. From what I understand, Christensen actually clashed with Lucas about how Anakin should be portrayed, and wanted to do a more serious take on the character. If this is true I honestly wish Lucas had listened.
Throughout the course of his career Lucas has repeatedly stated: “I’m not a writer, I hate writing.” (his actual words). In what is arguably the most popular Star Wars movie, and one of the most popular films ever made, The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas himself stepped back, and let Irvin Kershner do the directing, while Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan handled the screenplay. If I’m not mistaken Kershner specifically told Lucas that he would only direct the film if he were allowed to do it his way, and Lucas acceded. For the Prequels, for whatever reason, Lucas decided to handle nearly everything himself, and while I do believe that things could have certainly been worse, it’s hard for me to understand why Lucas abandoned what had worked so well in the past.
Like I said, I know that many will argue “it’s for kids,” an argument that in and of itself can and already has been discussed ad nauseum, so I’ll do my best to answer it as quickly as I can here. Yes it is meant to be accessible to kids, but it’s not JUST for kids. It’s not Barney, or Cocomelon, or Sesame Street. (No shade on you if you’re an adult who likes these shows, but however much you might like them if you’re honest you’ll admit that you’re not the target demographic, while young children are.)
Even children typically outgrow the above mentioned shows by the age of six, and are often turned off, or even repulsed by them, and a story that’s “just for kids” wouldn’t deal with serious themes and motifs like good and evil, let alone the murder of innocent children. I generally agree with C.S. Lewis that “A children's story that can only be enjoyed by children is not a good children's story in the slightest.” Which is why I’m fairly certain that most Star Wars fans today are in fact NOT children, most Star Wars fans are ADULTS. Does that sound hard to believe? If you’re a child that’s reading this (let’s say 12 and under), and you are a Star Wars fan, I’d honestly be honestly curious to know how many of your peers share in your fandom at this point. At any rate, as I have already said, while it is meant to be accessible to kids, it is not JUST for kids. It is ultimately meant for EVERYONE.
If after reading all this you still want to make the “it’s for kids” argument I suppose you can, but you better bring your A game.
To be completely fair, as I’ve said in previous posts, Lucas, and by extension Star Wars, has always been somewhat schizophrenic about how it should be portrayed, and what exactly it’s going for. Audiences have likewise been divided. On the one hand it is hailed as an epic and sweeping space opera that deals with deep, mature, and sometimes even dark themes, using a metaphorical, fictional universe to probe into the nature of humanity and the human condition. On the other hand critics, and at times even fans, have dismissed it as childish fantasy that has no deeper meaning and should simply be enjoyed for the spectacle that it provides. I might argue that what you see is what you get, and if all you care about is spectacle, then that is certainly your right.
But I hope that I can at least somewhat convince you of where I’m coming from, that Star Wars does in fact deal with very serious issues, and while there’s certainly room for levity, even a need for it from time to time, it is ultimately a serious drama with comedic elements, not the other way around. Neither would I say that both the comedy and drama deserve equal time, for while both are necessary, I believe that when you deal with serious issues those issues should be in the foreground, simply because they are far more important than the comic relief.
This then may be one of the fundamental flaws of the Prequels, based on Lucas forgetting certain fundamental facts. It may be that he himself became afraid of the darkness that he was about to portray, and retreated into something that he found comforting, as would many people in his place. But in shielding himself as he did, I believe that he ultimately did himself, and the audience, a serious misservice, albeit with the best of intentions.
The other possibility is that Lucas simply lacked the understanding to accurately portray something like that. Or maybe it was some combination of factors. But the lesson I believe that was ultimately neglected in all of this is that life is not a game, but very much a serious thing. And when writing about serious things one needs to treat them as such.
Another argument that people might make is that “it’s a movie, it doesn’t have to be perfect.” Fair enough, but here again I would argue that I’m not asking for perfection, and I certainly hope that’s not what you took away from this. What I’m asking for is a deeper understanding and more nuance in the portrayal of something that desperately needs it. Sadly, that seems to be more and more lacking over the years.
In light of that, many might argue that “well, it’s still better than what we have today!” Again, fair enough. Though to be fair some might argue that if Star Wars were more grounded back in the day, it might have been on a firmer footing now. Or perhaps Lucas wouldn’t have received the backlash that he did for the Prequels and wouldn’t have felt the need to sell his franchise, so that again, it might have been on a firmer footing. It’s ultimately a matter of speculation, and we can’t know for certain, but I do believe it is at least worth considering.
But ultimately, my answer would be that however good or bad something might be in the past or present there is nearly always room for improvement, and wherever there appears to be a discrepancy, I don’t believe it’s wrong to point it out. I could be wrong of course, but that is what discussion is for, and that is why I felt the need to post this.
I hope that you would agree with me, but even if you don’t, I am curious to hear what you think. Just remember, keep it civil if you want a civil response. See ya in the comments!