Star Wars: The Force Awakens (movie review)

Ed Hudgins's picture
Submitted by Ed Hudgins on Wed, 2015-12-23 18:19

Star Wars: The Force Awakens (movie review)
by Edward Hudgins

December 22, 2015 -- If you liked the original Star Wars trilogy, as I did, grab your popcorn! You’ll no doubt enjoy the sequel, Star Wars: The Force Awakens. But be prepared to discover political confusion in the Star Wars universe. (No spoilers ahead.)

Star Wars heroes and humor

The Force Awakens recycles plot elements, scenarios, reveals, bar scenes, Death Stars, and surviving characters from the original trilogy created by George Lucas. Thus you’ll have a feeling of familiarity that might have you asking, why couldn’t director J.J. Abrams come up with something original?

Fortunately, he includes most of the spirit and humor from the originals in the sequel, and it’s great to see Han Solo and Chewbacca in action again. The two new good guys, Rey (Daisy Ridley) and Finn (John Boyega), aren’t initially fighting for high ideals. They just want to survive. Rey is a poor scavenger on a desert planet who longs for her lost family. Finn is a storm trooper who, in his first battle, decides he doesn’t want to kill innocent women and children, so he defects. But these two rise to the occasion when faced with the conflicts of a wider world. Abrams’ characters here channel some of Lucas’s use of the insights of Joseph Campbell, who explained the archetypes of heroes in myth. Rey and Finn are doubly archetypical, reflecting the epic heroes of myth and the heroes of the original trilogy at the same time.

Political confusion in a galaxy far, far away

You don’t go to a Star Wars movie for political commentary, but politics has been central to the franchise. Unfortunately, Abrams offers confused politics and misses a chance to offer something really interesting and thought-provoking.

Of course, in the prequels, Lucas wasn’t as exactly clear, either, as he traced the fall of the Galactic Republic and the rise of the repressive Galactic Empire. Secessionists wanted to break away from the Republic. But why? Their ranks included a Trade Federation, Banking Clan, Commerce Guild, and Corporate Alliance. Were they free marketeers trying to avoid Republic regulations—good guys!—or corrupt cronies—boo, hiss—who wanted to use political power to suppress competitors?

What does stand out in the prequels is that the Republic falls due to the abdication of power by the Galactic Senate and concentration of power in the hands of a Chancellor—secretly an evil Sith Lord—in order to fight foreign wars or internal enemies, real or manufactured. Lucas makes parallels both to the fall of the Roman republic and the rise of Hitler in Germany.

Wasn’t the republic restored?

The original trilogy had clear political lines just as it had clear good guys and bad guys. The Empire was evil, ruled over by the Emperor with the aid of Darth Vader. Han Solo was a smuggler, striking a blow for free trade! The Empire is overthrown by plucky rebels who favor a republic.

In Abram’s sequel, it seems like the victory of the Rebellion over the Empire at the end of Return of the Jedi never happened. It is 30 years after Luke Skywalker, Leia, Han, and the gang presumably restored the Republic. In the film’s opening crawl we’re told “Luke Skywalker has vanished. In his absence, the sinister FIRST ORDER has risen from the ashes of the Empire and will not rest until Skywalker, the last Jedi, has been destroyed. With the support of the REPUBLIC, General Leia Organa leads a brave RESISTANCE.” We then see First Order storm troopers, led by a Darth Vader wannabe named Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), attacking the Resistance. We later learn that the First Order wants to destroy the Republic because it supports the Resistance. What’s the relationship between the Republic and the Resistance? What’s the First Order’s real beef with the Republic? Who knows?

Two archetypes of revolution

Overthrowing tyrants can provide good plot fare for movies, but in the real world what comes after the revolution is even more interesting. Here we have two archetypes... (Continue reading here.)

Life Support

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Objectivism is on life support. Where are all the great articles and podcasts and youtube videos? From some of the stuff I have seen from some of the other players (alt-right, Austrians, Tom Wood, Stephan Molyneux, other market anarchist commenters, Ron Paul vloggers who are not all idiots, smart guys like ryan faulk, the best of the internet conspiracy guys Ryan Dawson (treasure trove of information although he needs some philosophical guidance to ensure his tendency towards empiricism doesn't go overboard, etc.). There are good people out there that are in the pro-liberty camp who are putting out better information than OrgOsim. OrgOism is pure PC corrupted crap that motivates no one.

ARI is losing the battle for the young because it has become "Obleftivism". If it had gone down the path Moly or Bill Whittle had, it might have fared better. IMO


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Objectivism is not dead. OrgOism is dead. It has made itself fatally ridiculous with these risible attempts to be PC.

ARI and TOS apparently think they're adversaries. They're not. Each is as pathetic as the other. And they're both as pathetic as TAS. OrgOism needs Judge Jeanines.


Mr_Lineberry's picture

they didn't get the memo about the ban on inter-racial marriage haha!

Personally I think the more Negroes who are married, the better, especially if the 70% figure is accurate; I also think the more people attending those sorts of events, the better.

The Target

Mark Hunter's picture

The TOS photo’s producer – the photo appears to be staged – tried to make it look, at first glance, like a black-white marriage.

TOS aimed the photo at whites. Probably they (TOS) knew it would offend everyone, but they weren’t trying to appeal to blacks. They were trying to rub their idea of New America into Objectivists.

About the single mother problem blacks have, it’s enabled by welfare. The problem has spread to poor whites, if not as much.

The ARI and TOS webpages result from the same “Cultural Marxist” effort as the Star Wars movie does (judging from the reviews) – to more or less repeat what Doug said.


Doug Bandler The Second's picture

Holy shit Mark. I rarely visit those sites anymore because they offer little. But f*ck me and f*ck this gay earth. The ARI is doing exactly what the Left is doing, showcasing every other demographic EXCEPT white males. White males which are the OVERWHELMING BULK of the libertarian movements (Objectivism included). They don't call libertarianism "pale and male" for nothing.

And The Objective Standard link you gave shows just how culturally blind Craig Biddel is. He probably has no clue that the single mother rate for blacks is over 70%. One of the prime reasons for the state of black America is precisely because they have no father dominated intact families as portrayed in that Christmas image.

Those two images Marked linked to are enough evidence to accuse OrgOism of being a left-libertarian movement. After those two images I feel disgusted. If someone had tried to market Objectivism to me that way when I was 20 I would not have been attracted to it. Today, I would despise it.

Those two Objectivism sanctioned images are part of the exact same phenomenon that is responsible for the new Star Wars movie.

Objectivism is dead.

OrgOism in pictures

Mark Hunter's picture

For what it’s worth, the introductory webpage for “ARI Campus” shows photos, one each, of:

... adult white woman.
... young black.
... oriental woman.
... adult middle eastern man (doubtless a Palestinian, LOL).

... and, not to be completely left out, one white guy hidden except for the upper half of his forehead. I doubt his own wife could give a positive ID.

It’s like an employment ad for a large corporation.

They forgot the hispanic though. Memo from Brook to website department: You moron, you forgot the hispanic.

That last was a joke.

Then take a look at The Objective Standard’s last Christmas illustration.

The Filming Of The Original

Mr_Lineberry's picture

Star Wars movie was not exactly an essay in objectivism.

George Lucas, Harrison Ford and other Americans were shocked, and mystified, at how the British crew arrived at work at a set time, took tea breaks at set times, lunch breaks at set times, and finished work at 5pm on the dot.

The heinous crime (as far as one trade union shop steward was concerned) of Mr Lucas moving a chair caused production to shut down; a member of the relevant union, and only a member of that union, was allowed to move chairs.

However the weirdest aspect of filming was none of the British actors such as Sir Alec Guiness had the faintest idea of what the movie was about.

The dialogue they were speaking didn't make any sense to them whatsoever.

Guiness would turn up, say his lines, not understand a single word of it, and when he got home and his wife would ask him about his day, have to admit that facing the camera and speaking gibberish for 30 seconds or so, until George Lucas said "cut", was a rather strange experience hahahahahaha!

If that wasn't bad enough, Sir Alec Guiness famously said the fees he was paid for Star Wars only covered his petrol expenses from his house to the studio and back; the rest of the money went to pay the 98% tax rates in Britain at the time!

Insult to Heroism

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

"good entertainment with a selfish heroine"?

Objectivists have been writing crap like this about outrageously Leftist movies for years. Everything is about "heroism" or "independent judgement", etc.. But when you actually analyze the movie what you see is pure leftist hatred against their primary enemy: white heterosexual males with any Conservative cultural connection.

I can't think of one Objectivist that ever produced a good movie review and that includes Scott Holleran who does it for a living.

One wonders

Tore's picture

what so-called Objectivists would make of new Netflix shows like Jessica Jones and orange is the new black. Would they see the shows for what they really are, or call them "good entertainment with a selfish heroine"?

A real review of Star Wars

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

If Ed Hudgins was clued into the reality of the left and the reality of the world in which we live his review of the new Star Wars would have resembled something like this:

Social justice banishes all these things from the story. They are "triggering" and "otherizing." They "silence the voices of marginalized people groups." When sexual dimorphism can't express itself in film the way it does in reality, when we have to pretend that success has nothing to do with hard work, then we end up with Rey, who is

an ace pilot who can outfly trained fighter pilots.
And she knows more about the engineering details of the Millennium Falcon than Han Solo.
And she is a crack shot even though she seems not to know where the safety on a handgun is.
And she saves Exhench one more time, using her knowledge of the mechanisms of an unfamiliar ship.
...unlike Luke, she needs no training: she can do advanced mind-control techniques without a single lesson or even being told that such things are possible.
Hence, she can escape from the innermost dungeon of a Sith Lord fortress unaided.
And she can lightsaber fight without training against a man taller and stronger and trained in the art.

To drive the antireality of this home, try to imagine how a romance with Rey could possibly work. The butt-kicking, omnicompetent pixie doesn't work as a romantic interest because she's an autogynephilic PC nerd fantasy, not anything relatable to human experience. What kind of man would such a girl fall for, anyway? Not like there can be a man who impresses her in any way.

SJWs don't have to ruin stories through overt propaganda. They can leave out gay couples, sex changes, and long-winded speeches on income inequality and still ruin things. Simply by making virtually the entire run of human experience off limits to the story teller, they make it impossible to tell stories the audience can buy into or characters they can empathize with.

That's the real fundamental problem with Star Wars and everything else about modern culture; its part of the Leftist attack on the essential things necessary for civilization. In this case, masculine strength and leadership.

Objectivists should wake up to the war against men and specifically white men and stop being clueless.

Jesus Fu**ing Christ Ed

Doug Bandler The Second's picture

How can you ignore the Leftist indoctrination of this movie? The film was written to push feminism and multiculturalism; ie diversity. Read about Abrams and his intentions. He is an explicit pro-diversity multiculturalist. Casting "people of color" was his obsession. Is that laudable now for Objectivists?

The original movie was based on European mythos about young men going through rights of initiation in order to become men and warriors. Purity of heart in fighting evil, male heroism in saving noble republics, learning the wisdom of wise men to become a more honorable knight and leader of men, etc. How can that ever make sense with a woman as the heroic lead? Women do not go through rights of initiation to prove valor or strength. That makes no sense, at the biological level or the cultural one. This movie has a woman that has to undergo NO training to achieve absolute mastery in *everything*. She can light saber duel with masters, she can pilot war craft, she can repair the Millennium Falcon where even Han Solo can't (!) and its his ship for decades (!!). She is a massive assault on the concept of effort. And all because of our egalitarian society's desire to elevate women and degrade men (call it Peikoff's "D2 Nihilism" if you like). This movie is an insult to the Objectivist concept of achievement or it should be.

And of course, did you not notice that the "good guys" represent racial diversity and the "bad guys" are all white men acting like Nazis? This is the essence of today's god damn left: all white men are potential Nazis. And oh, the light saber shaped like a cross. Yeah, real subtle JJ. This casting of all villains in the role of Nazis for nearly every action movie is malevolent. Its a leftist tactic of subversion. Its a psy-ops campaign; ie Alinsky tactics. Communism is never challenged. The Cultural Marxists are never challenged. Its just Nazis, Nazis, Nazis, ad infinitum. Which is a way of demoralizing whites in general and white men in particular. With them goes liberty.

I'm continuously amazed at how culturally clueless Objectivists are. Its as if you have abdicated any original thinking and just use the few themes that Rand gave in her writing. And your willingness to apply the term "heroism" to Leftist films when clearly their intentions are malevolent just shows how Objectivism is NOT in touch with the cultural Zeitgeist. You're worse than mainstream Conservatives. That's bad. The lack of depth in Ed's review is so great that high school newspapers can produce more meaningful thought. Even today's high schools Ed. That should scare you. (At least Lindsay would call the movie "generation airhead" crap and dismiss the entire thing. He wouldn't ascribe to it any virtues.)

Personally, I feel that any man that does not experience disgust for the female action hero trope to be psychologically corrupt. Women as elite warriors is the kind of bullshit that any man with a functional dick should reject and detest. Here is Stefan Molyneux. He spends the later part of this review discussing what is low hanging fruit. The warped, corrupt feminist message in the movie. This is what Objectivists should be capable of, at least. Spotting and defying Cultural Marxism:

There is a big backlash coming. White non-liberal males are disgusted with the cesspool of crap coming from the Cultural Marxists that dominate the popular culture and Hollywood (many of them Jews ala "J.J. Abrams"). Incidentally, this is why Trump is polling so high. He has tapped into a growing white awareness (as well as his strong male psychology). Objectivism will have NO future if it continues to ignore the central struggle of our time.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.