Lucas: Honesty could be the best policy

After reading some of the dialogue on the Original Trilogy fan page I was left feeling rather sympathetic for George Lucas. As viewers, fans and now students we need to consider how this all played out for Lucas. Lucas created Star Wars on a very limited budget hardly expecting it would be the success that it has become. I don't believe even a foolish optimist would have thought Star Wars would have earned 1% of the amount of revenue the franchise has if they were in Lucas's shoes. The fact that it has become as successful as it has is truly remarkable. However with that success, it has elevated Lucas to a position that he probably never dreamed of, and I am not referring to his plethora of money in that regard. To many fans, Lucas has risen to somewhat of a God like "all knowing figure." Some of that may be from comments that Lucas has made and others simply because we want to think there is someone who has the answers to ALL of our questions about this universe he has created. I highly doubt that Lucas thought every word he said would be scrutinized about the minor details and nuances of his universe. Therefore I find it to be a bit unfair to be upset that an interview from 1977 contradicts an interview from 1983 and vice versa. NO ONE would have had all of the ins and outs of Star Wars figured out in that manner. So personally I believe it is okay that some of his details are somewhat problematic.

However, I think we can hold Lucas accountable for his desire to play into this role. At times it appears that he enjoys the role of all knowing figure when he claims to have always had a plan, or known this or that would happen. As the creator, of course he wants to show a persona of being in control of his creation and some arrogance is perhaps warranted.  Yet, if he wore to have some humility and admit to not having it all completely known, he might catch less flack from this fan community. Although I doubt it bothers him too much.

Additionally, we should note the idea that Lucas is a revisionist. Revisionism is very prevalent in historical study, partly because I believe it is human nature. We do not want to admit our faults. We do not want to admit our struggles or mistakes. Consequently we alter, change, revise our stories, our histories and so forth. It is clear that Lucas has tried to do that with his original trilogy to attempt to get closer to the perfection model that Star Wars is now held too. I find his attempts to be somewhat reasonable, although I also believe that his fan base would be more considerate of those alternations if he was upfront about his intentions, rather than attempting to hide them or prevent people from seeing them. Admit the changes and move on, rather than hope your fan base is going to be ignorant to your desired changes. All and All I think Lucas is okay and I wouldn't mind if there were more Star Wars movies if he ever gets bored and needs a refresher.

The Hero with a Thousand Faces by Joseph Campbell

“Hence the dependent child and its mother constitute for months after the catastrophe of birth as dual unit, not only physically but also psychologically.  Any prolonged absence of the parent causes tension in the infant and consequent impulses of aggression ; also when the mother is obliged to hamper the child, agressive responses are aroused.  Thus the first object of the child’s hostility is identical with the first object of its love, and its first ideal is that the unity of the Madonna and Bambino.”(6)

As I was reading this passage, I was curious about how this dynamic.  How did Luke not having a connection to his biological parents potentially shape his growth and development and put him on a path to being a “hero”?  Could Princess Leia be seen as this guiding mother-like figure?

Star Wars: Mentor & Hero

When reading/watching/reviewing the different things for tonight class, what stuck out to me was something said during the 2 minute youtube clip from Bill Moyers' The Power of the Myth. When talking about the point in the movie where Ben Kenobi's voice is in Lukes head saying, "Use the force Luke. Let go. Luke", he says that "this thing communicates. It is in our language that is talking to young people today. And that's marvelous". My first thought: what is "it"? I found this to be very confusing, yet also making a lot of sense. I know that sounds odd; it is something I can understand but I am unsure how to explain why I understand it. I am just lost on what "it" is.


When reading on the "cheat sheet" about the mentor and the hero interactions it states, “The Hero meets a Mentor to gain confidence, insight, advice, training, or magical gifts to overcome the initial fears and face the Threshold of the adventure." This is what happens with Luke and Ben, Ben gives him the lightsaber and helps him to train with it and fight with it. In that Youtube clip it is also said that, the mentors of the heroes often give them some type of instrument or tool to use as well as a psychological center. I interpreted this as the mentor giving the hero a weapon or object in order to complete whatever their journey is, and offering them the tools they need to get past their mental blocks in order to be successful in their journey.
 

The Enigmatic Journey Within All of Us

Star Wars! And Freud! And Oedipus, oh my! What I really got from "The Monomyth" reading was not the journey of the hero--but rather, what makes that journey possible. With Star Wars, we get the classic hero with Luke Skywalker. He's orphaned from birth, and he then saw the burned bodies of his only other relatives who raised him. He then has a mission, with nothing to lose, because he's never had much. Heroes tend to be born not from upbringings of privilege or excess, but rather they have struggled, continue to struggle, and are able to overcome it through their determination and resilience they have formed from childhood. A quote that particularly stood out to me from this reading was:

Full circle, from the tomb of the womb to the womb of the tomb, we come: an ambiguous, enigmatical incursion into a world of solid matter that is soon to melt from us, like the substance of a dream. And, looking back at what had promised to be our own unique, unpredictable, and dangerous adventure, all we find in the end is such a series of standard metamorphoses as men and women have undergone in every quarter of the world, in all recorded centuries, and under every odd disguise of civilization. 

So what is important here, is not only the journey of the individual, but how every individual journey is affected by each other. This article touched a lot on motherhood and how we as humans are more reliant on our mothers from birth than any other mammal. The compassion we have from a loving mother affects us. The loss we have from an absent mother affects us. What we have, what we have lost, and what we have never known through our relationships and intertwining journeys is paramount. The journey of the hero is only possible, not because of the individual themselves, but because of other journeys that preceded them. Our existences are but fleeting, and is both in our control and out of it.

The predestined hero

Maybe the answer is obvious to some, but nevertheless I'm curious: why is the archetype of a hero detached from their birth parents continually re-written? Examples frequently appear: Simba (The Lion King), Harry Potter (Harry Potter), Peter Parker (Spiderman)...and of course Luke Skywalker (Star Wars). Upon further reading this quote from Campbell slightly clarifies the point: "...for now it appears that the perilous journey was not a labor of attainment but re attainment, not discovery but rediscovery. The godly powers sought and dangerously won are revealed to have been within the heart of the hero all the time" (39). Still I'm curious what others think in regard to why were drawn to this story-line.


Disney's The Lion King (2019). Image sourced from Amazon.com. Originally distributed by Walt Disney World Pictures, visual effects supervised by Robert Legato, Elliot Newman and Adam Valdez.

The Hero's Journey For Normies

The structure and idea of The Hero's Journey, is great for us all to enjoy as we live our normal day to day lives. It gives us an insight on worlds unimaginable, of problems and scenarios only in our dreams that we can experience in a sense. We can't contribute to the story ourselves but it gives us a sense of vacation from the norm. In Star Wars, we are in the distant past in a galaxy not like ours. We follow the story of a young white man and his journey. As a black woman myself I couldn't fully immerse myself but the challenges Luke faces, his mentor and other characters who help and join him along the way we can see through his eyes and ride along with him as we too are experiencing this other world together. Luke's right of passage in a way is also our own that lead into the other movies following. The structure may be reused and done over and over but it has a purpose, and what isn't broken shouldn't need to be fixed, only tweaked.

Homage and Popular Culture

   As we discussed last class, it is impossible to be truly original in media these days. I was already aware of the inspirations George Lucas took from Akira Kurosawa while making Star Wars, but I had not realized how many elements, down to individual shots, recreated ones from the various war films and other projects shown in the Everything is a Remix video. So what makes these references homages rather than plagiarism? I would say it is the way they are linked together, combined with the innovative combination of scale models, puppetry, stop=motion animation, rotoscoping and pyrotechnics that gave Star Wars its distinctive feel.

  Film has an audio-visual language that a good filmmaker uses to elicit a desired reaction. You don't need to have seen the WWII bomber turret scenes to enjoy the Millennium Falcon/ TIE fighter battle in the first Star Wars movie, but you might actually appreciate it more if you had and could get the reference. This works for the same reason that literary allusions work, and this is the very root of popular culture; expressions and meanings that transcend other boundaries. Even people who have never seen a single moment of Star Wars can tell you that "Luke, I am your father" is a line from Darth Vader (even though that's technically incorrect). The misquote itself is a part of the popular culture that relates to Star Wars.

The Victory of Death

Campbell writes, "Only birth can conquer death - the birth, not of the old thing again, but of something new. Within the soul, within the body social, there must be - if we are to experience long survival - a continuous 'recurrence of birth' (palingenesia) to nullify the unremitting recurrences of death" (16).

While I understand and agree with what he is saying, he seems to directly contradict himself a few sentences later when he states, "When our day is come for the victory of death, death closes in; there is nothing we can do, except be crucified - and resurrected; dismembered totally, and then reborn" (17). Perhaps he is not contradicting himself necessarily, rather, he is not being specific enough. When we experience the "victory of death" and then are suddenly dismembered and reborn, are we to come back the same, or does the dismemberment result in something new? Does it really matter, or is the resurrection itself the vital step in our transformation to become something entirely different and therefore "heroic?"

How do we tell our story and what does that say about it?

Why does George Lucas build a Star Wars story backwards? He begins the narrative in the future and works backward into the past. Unlike 99% of the fables religious texts and other important stories that define civilization Lucas is engaged in a new conversation with the viewers.
How much does Lucas depend on the rise of the common man to tell the story of Luke Skywalker?

Two Sides to Every Coin

Something that has fascinated me as of late, and has apparently fascinated many others, is the idea of evil within a story. As "the Monomyth" discussed, there is a a specific pattern followed by most every story that involves a journey. On page 30, it says a key part of the description of the journey is, "a decisive victory is won." This means that while the hero is the main subject of whatever story you're looking at (take your pick), there was also a force actively fighting against the hero.

I find that often times, no matter how glorified the hero is made out to be, the villain becomes the true character of interest. For example, as recognizable as the name "Luke Skywalker" may be, the name "Darth Vader" will always be just a step ahead of it. Why is that? Why do we fixate so much on the villain, if everything in the story is telling us to focus on the hero? Is it perhaps because the villains are closer to us as characters than the untouchable hero? I wouldn't think so; I'd say we are closer to the character who wants to do the right thing than the character who throws a hissy fit every time someone disagrees with them.

The line between good and evil becomes much more blurred in the most recent installments to the Star Wars franchise, with both main characters often teetering just on the edge that divides good and evil. And I would argue that Rey and Kylo Ren are talked about and recognized equally. What that says about the Hero's Journey, I'm not exactly sure, but I do find it very interesting.

Secondhand Hero's Journey

Darth Vader's influence on the real world
https://giphy.com/gifs/pepsi-darth-vader-1997-ylyUQnqAdMNs4QITOE 

Myths follow a rite of passage structure because it’s something with which every human can connect. It’s not just a common human experience, it is needed. Since we can’t all be heroes summoned by a mentor to adventure around the galaxy, myths act as supplementary experiences to “supply the symbols that carry the human spirit forward” (11). In the case of Star Wars, the fictional power of the force can become a real source of strength to people who connect with that symbol of divinity. Would Star Wars have had the same impact if it didn’t follow the pattern of the monomyth? Possibly. But part of its success must be attributed to the way it tapped into this innate human need to have secondhand life-changing experiences. Which is how modern texts that tap into that “transcendent anonymity” (46) of mythology like Star Wars can legitimately change the way people see the world. We withdraw from the ordinary when we enter the movie theater, we experience the film, and then we return to the world with our lives enhanced.  

Heroism Played Out

Campbell, in arguing against the "happily ever after" conclusion, outlines several outcomes for the hero on pages 36-37:

"The return and reintegration with society, which is indispensable to the continuous circulation of spiritual energy into the world, and which, from the standpoint of the community, is the justification of the long retreat, the hero himself may find the most difficult requirement of all.  For if he has won through, like the Buddha, to the profound repose of complete enlightenment, there is danger that the bliss of this experience may annihilate all recollection of, interest in, or hope for, the sorrows of the world; or else the problem of making known the way of illumination to people wrapped in economic problems may seem too great to solve.  and on the other hand, if the hero, instead of submitting to all of the initiatory tests, has, like Prometheus, simply darted to his goal (by violence, quick device, or luck) and plucked the boon for the world that he intended, then the powers that he has unbalanced may react so sharply that he will be blasted from within and without - crucified, like Prometheus, on the rock of his own violated unconscious. or if the hero, in the third place, makes his safe and willing return, he may meed with such a blank misunderstanding and disregard from those whom he has come to help that his career will collapse."

Is there no satisfying ending for the hero?  Is the longevity of memory all that he can hope for?

What's the big "secret"?

Question:  Thinking about this quote: ". . . myth the secret opening through which the inexhaustible energies of the cosmos pour into human cultural manifestations."  What's so secret about it?  Who's withholding information from whom?

Thank God for Princess Leia

How do we navigate the historical and ongoing problem of the representation of women in mythology? Where are the women heroes? How does Campbell's framework (and Freudian psychoanalysis) depend on ideas about gender and sex that are (at best) problematic and at worst, deeply damaging and archaic?

The Hero's Journey

After reading the text two Quotes stuck out to me in terms of understanding a hero's development.

Page 16- "The hero is the man of self-achieved submission. But submission to what? That precisely is the riddle that today we have to ask ourselves and that it is everywhere the primary virtue and historic deed of the hero have to be solved."

Page 21- "In thinking of this dream I have a distinct feeling that I did not have to go where I was at all but could have chosen a comfortable walk along paved streets. I had gone to the squalid and muddy district because I preferred adventure, and , having begun, I had to go on. . . . When I think of how persistently I kept going straight ahead in the dream, it seems as thought I must have known there was something fine ahead, like that lovely, grassy river and the secure, high, paved road beyond. Thinking of it in those terms, it is like a determination to be born-or rather to be born again- in a sort of spiritual sense. Perhaps some of us have to go through dark and devious ways before we can find the river of peace or the highroad to the soul's destination."

Wait, it's that simple?

              After reading "The Monomyth", it is clear that there are certain things that just work. Certain roles, like the hero, mentor, and shapeshifter, can be identified in most movies, but it doesn't stop with movies; these figures and foundations exist in ancient folklore, mythology, sacred rituals, legends, and as Campbell puts it, "even nightmares". It is undeniable to say that there are certain things that humans innately respond to. When we look at old stories like "Beowulf" and "Sir Gaiwan and the Green knight", we see the "separation- initiation- return" pattern Campbell illustrates on page thirty. There is a reason these tales are timeless. 

             But what does this say about us as humans, if anything at all? How come these certain concept work time and time again? I want to attribute it to some evolutionary development, like the reason we admire the hero who has proven his worth by journeying out and returning to improve society is because a person like this would prove useful in a village or a tribe. Of course, I don't know the answer to this question, but I often tend to attribute out characteristics as some sort of process of evolution.