Slashdot Mirror


A Closer Look at Star Wars on Film and Off

mclove writes "Revenge of the Sith comes out on DVD today, and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is."` Relatedly inkslinger77 writes "ILM model maker, Brian Gernand, speaks about what it is like to work with George Lucas and why he thinks Star Wars attracts such a huge following, particularly among the IT community. He also gives some information about the technology that is used behind the scenes. "

38 of 315 comments (clear)

  1. "The Now Complete Trilogy" by rookworm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't count on it...

    --
    The toad can't burp - and for some reason can't fart either, so it swells up and eventually explodes. --Anonymous Coward
    1. Re:"The Now Complete Trilogy" by Golias · · Score: 5, Funny

      and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy as the avant-garde, intellectual sort of film that Lucas keeps saying it is.

      First Movie: "Yipeeeeeee!"
      Second Movie: "I hate sand."
      Third Movie: "Noooooooooooo!"

      --

      Information wants to be anthropomorphized.

    2. Re:"The Now Complete Trilogy" by trentblase · · Score: 4, Funny
      Third Movie: "Noooooooooooo!"

      Or, as in the brilliant double translation: Meee nooo wantt!!!!

  2. That's no trilogy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...It's a cash machine.

    1. Re:That's no trilogy... by crimperman · · Score: 5, Insightful
      That's true, but people wouldn't go to see these movies unless they liked them in some way. People like to tell themselves they don't like them because they're so kitch, but then they go to see them anyway.

      A little paradoxical don't you think? How can you go and see a film because you like it when you haven't seen it yet?

      I - like many others I suspect - went to see Phantom Menace on the basis that it was the frst new Star Wars film for a couple of decades. I went to see Attack of the Clones in the hope that it would be better than Phantom - it was but not much. I went to see Revenge of the Sith because I had seen all the others at the cinema and wanted to catch this one on the big screen too.

      I think I didn't like them - compared with the original trilogy - because I knew the ending and the whole thing felt like they were shoe horning a story I basically already knew into three long films. The sense of mystery - in not knowing where the story was going - was lost in these films compared with the original one.

      As for the trilogy being a cash machine/cow. It is but then it was always going to be and in the end I think we kidded ourselves if - at this stage - we thought it would be a lot more than that.
    2. Re:That's no trilogy... by Mayhem178 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I agree. It's easy to bash on George Lucas for his efforts to "exploit" us as an audience, but if you stop and think about it, was Lucas "exploiting" the audience back in 1977? No, of course not...there wasn't an audience back then. He had to create that audience. What was the price of creating that audience? Every drop of profit from Episode IV being put into Episode V, then the same from Episode V into Episode VI. Oh yeah, Lucas is a real evil man, taking all the money and funding the risky creation of a never-before-attempting space genre out of his own pocket. Real greedy and evil, that.

      Ever since 1977, people have been demanding to know the story behind Darth Vader. Now he's given it to his established audience as a true storyteller would, and there are people calling him greedy and an "exploiter" because of it.

      At least I can agree on matters like Jar Jar being a flop, hell, even Lucas admitted it. And yes, I do wish he'd stuck with more traditional methods of filmmaking rather than putting so much trust in CGI. Sure, he made some mistakes along the way. God forbid Lucas actually be human like the rest of us. I, for one, wouldn't dare accuse him of "exploiting" the audience. The audience constantly demands more, and he has given up 20 painstaking years of his life to provide it to us.

      --

      "You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles

    3. Re:That's no trilogy... by drsquare · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I saw the Phantom Menace and didn't like it. Not because of what the plot was about, I haven't seen much of the original Star Wars and I'm not a fanboy.

      It was just a really bad film.

      Poor acting, poor script, poor pacing, no interesting characters or situations, no tension, no drama, nothing worth watching at all. It was like a filmed-version of some crappy anime. I'm sure that if the Star Wars name wasn't on the film no-one would have bothered seeing it, it would be another Final Fantasy.

      The special effects were poor as well. Yes they were technically good, but it looked like a cartoon. 2001 A Space Odyssey had more realistic looking space scenes, and that was just models. All the computers in the world can't make up for subtlety and artistic ability.

      But then Kubrick was a genius, and Lucas is a hack.

  3. Is it serious or a joke? by elronxenu · · Score: 5, Funny

    As always, any sufficiently insightful deconstruction is indistinguishable from satire.

    1. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by ThatWeasel · · Score: 3, Insightful
      This is definitely serious. Extreme insight and deconstruction went into that article and you have to at least start to see it the author's way.

      As for me, the newest three episodes have been horrible but this author definitely casts new light on the whole masterpiece.

      --

      TW
      Television is dead. Long live That Weasel Television

    2. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by TheoGB · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think it's a very interesting read and it is serious.

      However it doesn't change the fact that the prequels (and indeed Jedi) aren't particularly good movies, even if they have some good moments in them.

      I'm reminded of the defenders of the 2nd and 3rd Matrix movies who seemed convinced that the whole Danté allegory made the films better. Clearly it didn't. The two Matrix sequels are turds, no matter how hard their authors tried to be clever.

    3. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by tverbeek · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Basically, what the commentator is saying (whether he means to or not) is that Star Wars is a classically Bad movie. Plot developments are based on un-credible coincidence. The plotmaster's hand is an actual plot device. Et cetera. Post-modern deconstruction of an art form or genre is all about defying the conventions that make up a Good movie. The only question is whether Lucas is doing it on purpose (in which case it's avant-garde) or not (in which case these are just shortcomings).

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    4. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by Shaper_pmp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Funny thing, but part of the problem of deconstructionism is that it's almost impossible to distinguish between incidences of it that exhibit "extreme insight" and those that are merely "blithely reading what you want into it regardless of the author's intentions"... or just "furiously intellectually masturbating".

      I can (hell, we used to do it for fun with our English Literature undergrad friends) construct deconstructionist arguments that shows that half the kids shows on TV as anarcho-capitalist propaganda pieces, or tracts of leftie-pinko-liberal-communist ideology... often in the same program, and often using the same quotes and events.

      It's also very, very (really, I can't stress this enough) important to remember that

      Postmodern != Good

      Postmodern != Entertaining

      Postmodern != Coherent

      Just because something's "postmodern", it doesn't mean it's "worthy", interesting or any good at all. However, many lit-crit writers seem to make this mysterious assumption.

      This essay also uses a common postmodern lit-crit trick of setting up flawed axioms[1], frantically hand-waving to make sure nobody notices the basic problem, then (gasp!) proceeding to show how your flawed, biased axioms inevitably lead to your conclusion.

      Finally, when assessing any kind of field as logically flimsy and frequently intellectually self-pollenating as lit-crit, it's important to remember the differences between fields like it and the hard sciences and engineering:

      In science, you get points for being Right - producing theories that stand the test of time, and map 1:1 to reality. In Lit-Crit, you get points for being Clever - your position doesn't have to have any kind of basis in reality at all, as long as it's well-argued and persuasive. In fact, there's some evidence that interpretations that do actually map to reality are looked down on, since arguing in favour of those doesn't require much Cleverness.

      Oh yes, and you should really read "How to Deconstruct Almost anything". I once gave it to a English Lit undergrad girlfriend, and while she didn't like the implications one bit, she really couldn't fault a single argument.

      Footnotes:

      [1] Examples of flawed (or at least questionable) axioms that underpin the entire article:

      The force makes everything in the universe happen - Less some waffle about destiny or "prophesy", there's no evidence that I can remember that the Force makes everything happen according to some predefined plan. This would completely negate free will, which undermines Anakin's entire fall from grace.

      The light side of the force is all about feeling and passivity, the dark side is all about conscious control and order - Right, which is why (for example) Obi-Wan is always telling Anakin to reign in his emotions and be more calm and ordered, and the
      emperor is trying to get him to lose control and give in to his anger. Both individuals argue for both things, just in different contexts.

      "we are led to understand in Sith that it was Palpatine himself who set the entire plot in motion by manipulating the Force toward Anakin's virgin birth." - Now, maybe I haven't watched it enough, but I don't recall this implication anywhere, and it's a pretty important one, which changes the whole epic story. Did I miss something here?

      --
      Everything in moderation, including moderation itself
    5. Re:Is it serious or a joke? by CheshireCatCO · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Of course it's always possible that Anakins mother lied and Palpatine made Anakin the old-fashioned way..."

      Then the best explanation for Anakin then is that his father was the post powerful Jedi around. That's right... Yoda nailed Shmi. Although we might imagine that a step-stool might have been required at times.

      Sorry, but I just love watching everyone going looking for mental bleach to remove the mental images. Of course, we can take this joke further, but I'll leave that for everyone to do in the privacy of his or her own mind.

  4. I stopped reading... by flinxmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...when the author commented that R2 and 3P0 landing on tatooine was a coincidence.

    I'm not that big of a SW geek, but even I know that there is a reason they ended up back in the same place.

    The slate article seems more interested in the academic thought than the actual subject matter. They should at least be related.

    1. Re:I stopped reading... by icybee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Is it possible that the Rebel ship at the beginning of Episode IV was at Tatooine because they were going to contact Obi-Wan? Leia seems to know who he is and that he lives there. Why else would it have come out of hyperspace there instead of Alderaan?

      The droids meeting up with Luke isn't neccessarily a coincidence either. R2D2's memory WASN'T WIPED!!! This is the big revelation at the end of Episode III that changes the way Episode IV is viewed. R2D2 knew he needed to get to Obi-Wan, knew he would live near Luke & knew where Luke lived - why else would he be so insistent on going in that direction?

  5. The Force is Lucas by Neo-Rio-101 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So what this guy is saying, is that "The Force" is actually George Lucas, and when they say "The Force be with you", they are basically saying "Pray that Lucas doesn't get you killed in the next scene"

    Now it all makes sense!

    --
    READY.
    PRINT ""+-0
  6. Why IT people like Star Wars... by bypedd · · Score: 4, Funny

    Cubicle light saber duel, anyone?

    1. Re:Why IT people like Star Wars... by UncleFluffy · · Score: 4, Funny

      waa-aa-ay too much access to the big red 'special effects' button.

      As a friend of mine put it after watching EP3 : "Industrial Light and Magic: the greatest turd polishers ever."

      --

      What would Lemmy do?

  7. I'm not buying the Slate article by mrgeometry · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I love Slate and I read it every day, but this article is not convincing for me. His main point is that George Lucas got all meta about plot; the Force represents Plot; the Emperor represents the author's attempt to control the plot, and Jar Jar represents the inventive whimsy of the characters. Sounds to me like "Moby Dick is actually the Republic of Ireland". Sorry.

    1. Re:I'm not buying the Slate article by Spacejock · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Jar Jar represents the inventive whimsy of the characters.

      Heh. Jar Jar represents the desire to sell a shitload of action figures to young kids via fast food outlets. If ever a character was invented purely to suck another age group into the maw of the Merchandise Machine...

      Still, lesson learnt eh? Thy characters may be good or evil, funny, sick, demented or violent, but thou shalt never again employ irritating characters.

  8. postmodern art film? by nmoog · · Score: 5, Funny

    Never attribute to post-modernism that which can adequately be explained by stupidity!

  9. Star Wars? by grumpygrodyguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Revenge of the Sith comes out on DVD today, and there's an interesting article on Slate dissecting the now-complete trilogy

    All I can say is that I'm very grateful to have episodes IV, V, and VI in their original untouched format. IMO they are the only films deserving to be called the 'Star Wars Trilogy'.

    The others films are an embarrassment at best.

    --
    The government has a defect: it's potentially democratic. Corporations have no defect: they're pure tyrannies. -Chomsky
    1. Re:Star Wars? by MoonChildCY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I apologize beforehand for the rant but...

      What do you people have against Star Wars? Most people here think Star Wars (IV, V, VI) is cool because all the older geeks they live up to thought it was cool. Now everyone that watched the newer episodes (or even heard about them) and their grandmothers think they suck. Well you know what? If they did truly suck, people wouldn't go like crazy to watch them (don't forget, Episode I is 5th on the All Time Box Office for the USA) all.

      Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies? Was it Jar Jar? If yes, how would you do it to make it suck less, stick to the original story and ensure IV, V and VI don't have to change? Remember, you still need a gullible character that can be trusted by the Jedis, loyal, possible elected to be a representative in the Senate at a future time and easily manipulated in the future. Any character you make like that (even making Harrison Ford play the character, since so many love him) would still make you hate him. It is the exact purpose of the character. And it is also the ingredient the movie needs to evolve.

      The movie as a whole is truly amazing, and if people cannot tolerate a movie that provides them with the foundation of their "greatest movie of all time", then maybe they should reconsider their opinions. It is indeed a work of art. People should watch "The power of myth" with Joseph Campbell and George Lucas (filmed in '88) to understand what George Lucas was actually trying to do with Star Wars. If you got it wrong the first time, don't blame the director/author. Blame someone else.

      And to save you some trouble... Slate's analysis is close to what George Lucas was trying to do in the first place.

    2. Re:Star Wars? by superiority · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm no movie aficionado, but I think it has just a leeeetle to do with the wooden acting, bad directing, contrived (Forced?) plot and the non-stop (to paraphrase a cousin post) grabbing of one's balls and screaming of, "Look! Special Effects!"

    3. Re:Star Wars? by ForumTroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I couldn't agree more with all of your points. I just watched III (for the first and last time) with some friends and by about half way through the movie we just couldn't wait for it to end. The plot has so many holes in it and the dialogue is atrocious at best. The scenes with Anakin and Padme are quite possibly the worst written scenes in motion picture history. I'm amazed that they had a concept with so much potential and ended up making a movie with such an utterly horrific dialogue. Some of the acting throughout the file was also just horrible. This is honestly one of the worst movies I've seen in a long time.

      Perhaps the most laughable part of the movie was how utterly easy it was to pull Anakin to the dark side. They really should have spread this out more effectively through episode I and II to make it at least slightly more believable.

      Palpatine: Learn to embrace the dark side of the force.
      Anakin: No.
      Palpatine: Do it.
      Anakin: Ok.

      It doesn't get much worse than this.....

      --
      "A Lisp programmer knows the value of everything, but the cost of nothing." - Alan Perlis
    4. Re:Star Wars? by cabazorro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Here's why:
      Like all artistic endeavours, whenever you do something great eventually the artist faces the excruitiating disjuntive: I created something great, should I keep producing more versions of it or try something different?

      By following the latter you risk to turn your creation into something trivial, trite, obfuscated, mundane and unimaginative; killing the unique quality of the original. Examples are a-plenty:
      The Simpsons.
      Rocky.
      Jaws.
      Alien.
      Mad Max.
      and of course: Star Wars.

      Star Wars could have been a mystic sci-fi like Blade Runner or Brazil but instead became
      a regurgitated product that pops out of nowhere every holiday season..Like the Chia Pet!
      That's why I know hate Star Wars.

      --
      - these are not the droids you are looking for -
  10. Summary of the article by dirtsurfer · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Force is the ultimate plot device, and it's such an obvious plot device that even the characters themselves realize that their actions are being controlled by this plot device, so it becomes a post-modern plot device.

    Cue fanfare and applause.

  11. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  12. It "needed" to happen by soul_hk · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Jar-Jar and the prequels "needed" to happen so that Toys'R'Us could squeeze that bit more Star Wars junk on the shelves.

    This article is a load of rubbish, unless of course if it is satire, in which case it is great.
    That's a big "if" ladies and gentlemen.

  13. A friend of mine had a good insight... by Dirtside · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was talking to a friend about Episode III. He pointed out, his words, "It was the best of Star Wars, it was the worst of Star Wars." You'd have an incredibly great moment followed immediately by something soul-crushingly stupid. The POV shot of Vader's mask coming down over his face; Vader's first breaths. Chilling.

    Followed by Vader whining about where Padme is, and then, of course... "NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!"

    Lucas is great at molding basic story material, but he can't write dialogue or characters to save his life. He should have stuck to producing, which is what he's really good at.

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  14. What is this? by Bo'Bob'O · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He's not impressing people with no interest in the arts. He's sure not fooling anyone who even casually takes this seriously. I guess is supposed to be a joke on both Star Wars fans and students of literature, but where is the Monty python foot next to the submission?

  15. That is the understandable part. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The real questions are ...

    Why was Ben there?

    If the answer is to look after Luke, then why was Luke there?

    If the answer is because that's where his family is, then why put him with his family ... when his family is also related to Darth Vader?

    That just sounds stupid.

    But not as stupid as having those 'droids drop in on Ben ... with the son of the guy who built them ... and Ben not recognize them or say anything to the kid.

    Okay, so maybe putting the kid with Vader's kin wasn't a bad idea. I mean, Kid Vader didn't even bother to save his mommy from a life of slavery. So why expect Adult Vader to drop in and visit the family ... ever. I mean, just one twinge of middle age and the entire scheme is ruined.

    Rather ... look at it as Lucas trying to tie the new 3 with the original 3 to give the old fans something to "Hey! I recognize that from when I was a kid!" about and it all makes sense.

    Shame Lucas couldn't put together a better plot to tie his marketing gimickry together.

  16. I think the discussion is missing it. by earthbound+kid · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It looks like the slashdot audience is getting really hung up on the whole, "Is the Slate piece a satire or not?" thing. The thing is, as I commented before, "'satire' and 'non-satire' is a binary distinction that post-modernism transgresses proactively."

    What I mean, is that the author both is and isn't kidding. Also, I'm both kidding and not kidding when I say "transgresses binary distinctions." Here's a helpful analogy: Let's imagine you're writing a horror story. You write, "Start breathing harder. OK. Let your pupils dilate. Shake a little. Cower. Think about other scary stuff. Be worried that something might kill you soon!" How effective would this be as a horror story? The answer is not at damn all. The best way to make someone frightened isn't to say, "be frightened," it's to say a bunch of other stuff that inspires fear in them.

    Similarly, the content of the Slate piece isn't the point. The author almost certainly doesn't care whether Star War is "post-modern" or "avant garde." Instead, the author likes challenging his brain, and wants you to enjoy challenging your brain. So, he's given himself a task: come up with a post-modern meta-framing of Star Wars. Now, we the audience are supposed to allow our brains to quiver with joy as we connect the dots and think about whether and how the Force as a meta-explanation for plot coincidences in Star Wars can be called post-modern. The author is almost certainly serious in that this explanation is a valid one for Star Wars. The author is almost certainly joking in suggesting that Star Wars is High Art. The author is both serious and not, and that's the point.

    If the author had written, "let your brain light up with activity. Think about connections. Enjoy the tingling of neurons firing," it wouldn't be effective. Instead, we're supposed to accept what the piece gives us without trying to shoe horn it into the category of "joke" or "not a joke." We're supposed to be enjoying how the piece is and isn't a joke, not trying to make it fit what we think about the quality of the Star Wars movies.

  17. Re:All I want to know... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anyone care to enlighten me?

    You are too enraptured by the Star Wars mythos. To the Dark Side of the Fandom headed you are!

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  18. It's FLASH GORDON with modern effects by nagora · · Score: 3, Interesting
    The title sequence is a big clue, folks.

    Lucas wanted to make a set of films which reminded him of the old-time matinee serials. Lots of adventure, light on plot, big on fun. Within that framework I think he succeeded pretty well 100%.

    Now, it may well be the case that some of us don't want that, and it pretty well explains such nonsense as Jar-Jar and "going through the core" etc, but it seems obvious to me that it was what George wanted and I suspect he's a happy man when he looks at what he did. And, on the way, he did manage to produce six films about the bad guy, which I think is a great idea.

    Chill out and repeat: "It's just Flash Gordon". You'll enjoy the films much more that way.

    TWW

    --
    "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
  19. Want a precise reason? Have a precise reason. by dzfoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    >> Can anyone give me a precise reason why they think Star Wars I, II or III were horrible movies?

    Because they sucked. How much more precise can I be? You want me to list scene/chapter/verse? Why isn't the perception of overall suckiness enough for me to say that it was a horrible experience to watch the new "trilogy"?

    When The Matrix sequels came out, I had a hard time arguing with at least one fan-boy at the office who kept telling me that if I didn't like them it was most likely because I just "didn't get them". As if there was some secret deeper meaning behind them of which only an enlighted selected few were aware. As if I am not smart enough or rational enough to be able to form a valid opinion on something by sheer perception and experience.

    I liked the LotR movies a lot, but I accept the fact that there are people who found them slow, boring, and too distant from the original work to qualify as Tolkienesque. I can certainly see why, but more importantly, I respect their opinion.

    Now respect mine (and all those others who have a negative view of SW movies): I believe that Episodes I, II, and III were horrible. I believe that Episode II was (slightly) better than the first, and that Episode III was still even better than the previous two, but in my eyes that still means that Lucas finally reached mere mediocrity from the depth of incompetency and horridness. On the other side of the token, I believe that the original Star Wars (what you would call Episode IV) was the best of the series, with a very good follow up in The Empire Strikes Back (that's Episode V for you kiddies). I don't really care much for Return Of The Jedi (Episode VI if you're not following).

                -dZ.

    --
    Carol vs. Ghost
    ...Can you save Christmas?
  20. About the droids... by interactive_civilian · · Score: 3, Informative
    khasim said:
    But not as stupid as having those 'droids drop in on Ben ... with the son of the guy who built them ... and Ben not recognize them or say anything to the kid.
    Perhaps he was just being cautious. I think we can assume that Ben was on Tattooine looking over Luke, and probably not paying close attention to the rebellion (from the glimpses of his shack, he doesn't seem to have anything that indicated that he was well in touch with the rest of the galaxy). He has no reason to expect droids to show up nor know their purpose when they do.

    He did not lie when he said "I don't recall ever owning a droid" as far as we know. Also, he may not have much reason to recognize R2D2 as he never really did anything with R2...That was all Anakin, if you recall. Obi-Wan was using other droids in his ships. As for C3P0, well, as we saw in Cloud City (among other places), there are other droids with identical designs, so there is no reason to recognize 3P0 either...

    However, it seems (to me) quite clear that the droids were sent to Tattooine with Leia by her "father" (Senator Organa, right?). It was only after Leia's ship was attacked that their mission (well, R2's anyway) became to find Obi-Wan.

    To me, it seems to fit the plot rather well, with the only thing that seemed to happen by chance (or the will of the Force if you buy the article author's premise) was the droids coming to Luke first.

    IMHO. :-)

    --
    "Empathise with stupidity, and you're halfway to thinking like an idiot." - Iain M. Banks
    1. Re:About the droids... by sg3000 · · Score: 3, Informative

      > He did not lie when he said "I don't recall ever owning a droid" as far as we know.

      Agreed. As we can tell, Obi-Wan often speaks in a way that his words can be interpreted to mean two different things. He said he didn't recall owning any droids, not, "I have no idea who these droids are." His statement was true, but it also mislead Luke to think that Obi Wan didn't know the droids at all. Obi-Wan also does this when he describes what happened to Luke's father.

      Obi Wan's response is natural. He's been a hermit for 20 years after Darth Vader hunted down all the Jedi, and he's used to being coy about his identity. Advertising who he was was not in his best interest.

      Personally, I thought this Slate article was a little silly. It seems almost to be a parody of film criticism. I believe that Episodes I-VI are good movies (with the exception of about half of VI), but not because they're "post modern". David Begor's article does a much better job of describing Lucas' three major themes: the circular nature of violence, duality of good/evil, and the nature of redemption.

      --
      Insert simplistic political, ideological, or personal proselytization here.