The Mandalorian and the Anti-Humanism of Star Wars
Epigraph
‘The modern world is not evil; in some ways, the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered […], it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage’.
– G.K Chesteron (Orthodoxy)
The “inspiration” for this essay is a vocal segment of the Star Wars fanbase known as the ‘The Fandom Menace’: Star Wars fans who valued the creativity and vision of George Lucas. Which changed following the acquisition of Lucas Film by Disney. Exemplified by ‘creative’ decisions, and political narratives that have come to be advanced through the Star Wars I.P, in recent years that has alienated this, as I have come to understand, sizable group of followers. Who still look back nostalgically on the Lucas era.
The problems seems to have started with some of the story/character decisions that were made in The Last Jedi (TLJ): where feminist narratives, combined with the shoddy treatment of fan favorite Luke Skywalker aggravated this vocal segment to take their displeasure with the new direction online. The ‘leadership’ of the Fandom Menace, for what’s its worth, consist of a motley group of predominantly youngish content creators and influencers active on social media; with content sharing platforms like YouTube being a key vehicle for their, what could be described as artistic activism, against the politics which they and many others like them, believe have infected Disney controlled Star Wars. For those who are new to this world of online protest against the growing prevalence of politically correct (woke) narratives in popular cultures, further explanation of this movement will be useful.
The Fandom Menace
The Fandom Menace refers to a group of confrontational souls online who have chosen to take on the apparent ideological uniformity at the hear of Disney Star Wars. The overt strain of ‘woke’ politics that seems to have blanketed the world of this beloved franchise has disgruntled many. Including yours truly. This uniformity within Star Wars has been accompanied by a lack of critical insight among film critics with respect to the rebooted franchise. As many in the media have happily gone along with the politicized narratives that have come to infect the franchise. As the seemingly overwhelming majority in the mainstream entertainment news and movie critiquing have for the most part given the politically correct trajectory that the new Star Wars films have taken, and the underlying lack of ambition and creativity in terms of storytelling (if one could ignore the cheap fan service) a virtual free pass.
The Fandom Menace emerged as an ‘organic’ response to these. A passionate group of netizens who care about what the franchise represented and about good (un-politicized) storytelling has taken upon themselves the task of pointing out the many shortfalls (or “creative decisions”) that have come to characterize the works of Disney Star Wars. Whilst this group of predominantly young men and women are not without fault (Such as breaking the 11th commandment of news and entertainment being politically incorrect). One of which, whether they realize it or not, is to affirm a heteronormative view of art.
In sum, in their many endeavors of critiquing and commenting on what is wrong with Star Wars presently, have also become, for what it’s worth, a creative movement within the wider Star Wars community. As Fandom Menace, in the process forward their own ideas, theories, concepts, on how the grander Star Wars story could be taken forward (1). This is a discussion for another time. Our focus here lies with their critic of Disney Star Wars, which for a number of reasons aligns with my own. Though not entirely.
If one is to describe those who fall into the Fandom Menace, officially or otherwise: these individuals, besides being arch-Lucas loyalists, are also characterized by their fearless defense of the ruthlessly maligned Prequel trilogy of films. Of which I too am a fan. Despite the many shortfalls that characterize the Hayden Christensen-led movies, they were full of innovation and creativity, and an awesome climax in the Revenge of the Sith. Which I think is one of the best movies ever (sue me). The Fandom Menace, more broadly, whether they realize it or not, is part of a number of growing subcultural movements in the West, that are increasingly aware of, and opposed to the growing influence of politically correct narratives and messaging. Notably on subjects related to social justice, gender and race.
The Fandom Menace in its opposition to, what seems to increasingly be the anti-Star Wars character of modern Star Wars, embodied most pronouncedly by the Sequel trilogy. With its hungry embrace of politically correct narratives, one that is believed to undermine the quality and character of the stories. That in time ultimately works to erode the very idea of Star Wars. The dangers of increasing wokeness, exemplified by the adoption of feminist story arcs like Mary Sues, use of Forced Inclusivity, destructively subversive storytelling, and cheap anti-capitalist propaganda (coming from a mega capitalist corporation) go beyond the obvious result of producing bad films (box office performance withstanding). These shifts in the art of filmmaking, and at a deeper level storytelling, I believe reveal profound problems with the West. A reflection of the weakness of culture; one that is, as I would argue, increasingly anti-humanistic.
The Problem with Disney Star Wars
If one wishes to critic the Star Wars franchise under Disney it is important to remember that Star Wars is ultimately a fantasy. Whilst it is easy to think of Stars Wars, given its space ships, lasers, clones, and cyborgs as science fiction. Upon closer viewing, the character of its stories is more akin to traditional fantasy plays: the idea of these stories being set “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away” is arguably the most notable factor that evokes a sense of romance that pervades the Star Wars universe.
For Star Wars by most standards does not even qualify as proper science fiction, with its rather mystical ideas of the Force, with its unscientific or anti-scientific notions of the ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’ sides, which verge closer to a theological framework than a scientific one. Reinforced by the characteristically unscientific ways in which the force manifests itself. Case in point, the apparent immaculate conception of Anakin (2). Though credit must be given to Lucas for tying the idea of the chosen One with Christological parallels. Storytelling decisions are unthinkable in Disney-controlled Lucas Film.
George Lucas himself stated in an interview with Charlie Rose, that Star Wars follows a formula that does not fit within classic science fiction. Calling it “a fantasy film and a space opera” (3). And if one compares Stars Wars in terms of its world-building method, in the context of it being a space opera, its fantastical character is discernable. The sheer number of habitable planets that the heroes and villains of the franchise keep running into is one such red flag.
Whilst it could be argued that the galaxy in which the Star Wars stories took place was unique in terms of the number of habitable planets; however when viewed from the standpoint of classic science fiction; in relation to the works from the likes of Isaac Asimov and Robert Heinlein, and further afield from the works of hard SF writers such as Alastair Reynolds and Arthur C. Clarke, where the idea of world-building takes on a new significance.
The invariably hostile nature of the world and the need for humanity to adapt to these conditions and how these realities contribute to the story and character arcs are nowhere to be found in George Lucas’s soap opera, at least as far as the movies are concerned. However, credit to Lucas, despite the seemingly fantastical character of the world he created was governed by laws, and aliens that populated them followed a certain set of rules. Hence the factors that motivate its characters remain grounded. Aspects of world-building (and storytelling) are notably absent under Disney.
This is an important point that I would like to elaborate on further. From a storytelling standpoint, if the world the author creates is not bound by fixed rules, so that the events outlined in the story take place within those limits; it would have a chaotic effect on character arcs and motivations. The Star Wars envisaged by George Lucas, despite its fantastical character, is underpinned by a certain logic. There is coherence and predictability to the world that Lucas created, one that carries over into the realm of personal belief and motivation. It is not a stage where pretty much anything is possible from a storytelling standpoint, just because it is a fantasy world.
It is a world, that despite being fantastical in character, is still rational within the limits of its reality. For despite the lack of a clear (scientific) framework on how and in what way the Force evolves and manifests, Lucas wrote the stories (and the characters that lived in them) in a way that has worked within set parameters. In the Star Wars movies, the conflict between the ‘Light’ and ‘Dark’ sides is such an example. Meaning the existence of good and evil acts as an impelling force behind the unfolding of the stories. When it comes to Force users, there is a clear hierarchy in terms of power and the capacity to wield it: (e.g. as a rule, the ‘Padawan’ is always weaker than his ‘Master’) And when it comes to the Force itself, there are limits to what it can or cannot do. Such as not being able to pull a space Mary Poppins in the vacuum of space.
Given these constraints, the story of the arc of the main/key characters-who are invariably affected by the Force, are subject to many constraints. Such as a Force novice not being able to beat a trained Force wielder. These limitations in turn set the groundwork for the setting, character, their development, together with the unfolding of the story within a set, but not always predictable, though cognizable within the set parameters of the Force-trajectory.
So why is this important, with respect to our present venture: to understand the anti-humanism of Star Wars. When it comes to writing any serious piece worthy of its intellectual salt (the aim of this endeavor), a bit of background is important. Whilst my aim is not to engage the convoluted, and increasingly nonsensical storylines that have come to characterize the world of Star Wars, rather it is to understand the collective effects of these changes that have come to characterize the Star Wars universe (movies and now TV series) under Disney and their origins.
Why The Mandalorian Sucks
I don’t like this show for many reasons. Though this was not my state of mind when I started viewing it the first time. Whilst the first episode of season 01 was nothing to write home about, it had hope: a new, interesting, and seemingly complex protagonist (if one knows anything about Mandalorians). A world that whilst similar, was also different to that of the movies, particularly the terrible Sequels. And importantly for me, the main character was male.
But these positives were soon squandered by a formulaic plot, non-existent character development, weak to downright obnoxious side characters, in-cognizable character motivations, terrible villains, and a woeful ending (of Season 02), all topped off with the predictable Disney Star Wars fan service littered throughout the show. So what do the storytelling shortfalls of The Mandalorian, which unfortunately are so characteristic of television shows today, tell us about the anti-humanism at its heart.
First, given the popularity of The Mandalorian (based on the plethora of awards and nominations both seasons have raked up at the time of writing); including a Primetime Emmy Award nomination; combined with the wide cultural popularity the show has come to command (e.g the growing popularity of the green little thing known as “baby Yoda”), necessitates a more objective critic of the show. So here are the key reasons why The Mandalorian sucks:
The Cartoonish Character of the Show
TV has come a long way over the past few decades or so. It has certainly come quite a long way since the late ’90s. This is probably the time where a show such as this belongs. The standard was already quite high with hit shows from the mid to late 2000s: with notable action, crime, and spy thrillers like 24, CSI, and Alias hitting new peaks when it comes to quality TV programming.
A trend that continued with bigger budgets, expansive storylines that stretch across seasons, with good to extremely good acting performances that kept audiences hooked over the course of many years, and in time reaching a degree of cultural significance. To a point where today viewers expect cinema-level writing, acting quality, and screenplay when it comes to television (streaming). With shows like Game of Thrones in many respects redefining what television programming is. So in the post-Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Mad Men era, the bar, when it comes to top TV programs (or the streaming of content that are not movies) has been set very high.
So a show like The Mandalorian which seems to set itself up in the same way (or at least that some of its fans like to think), has a lot to live up to. So The Mandalorian being a big-budget I.P (intellectual property), that comes on back of the historical success of Star Wars, with all the fan expectations that go with it; and from the standpoint of critics, with major awards and nomination to boot, one would think the show was a great artistic and commercial success. Whilst it is true in the latter case, however, The Mandalorian falls terribly short in other areas.
Its Short
I don’t know about you, but I sort of expected each episode of The Mandalorian to be at least 40+ minutes long. The fact that some of the episodes failed to reach, what is for me, the bare minimum of what has come to be expected of a decent TV show, was disappointing. Thirty-minute shows are usually reserved for sitcoms and kids shows, not for stories with real people, involving an alien bounty hunter.
This, combined with the gimmicky storylines (which I shall get to), the 30-minute long episodes-especially in season 01-seemed like I was sitting through a Saturday morning cartoon. TV shows these days, that are not comedies if they are to be taken seriously need to hit the 40-minute mark as a bare minimum, supported by strong storylines. Anything less will not do.
Its Episodic
One of the distinguishing characteristics of many TV shows today is that they try to tell a story over the course of a season or more. Whilst most shows do tell self-contained stories, with certain elements of the story being strung together to form each episode, that works into a broader narrative. Someplace greater importance on this than others (e.g. Game of Thrones).
And given the trajectory of modern television, when one looks at the list of award-winning shows, the idea of a self-contained “mini” story within each episode is losing ground to those that spin a larger narrative. Notable here are the acclaimed, award-winning crime dramas: True Detectives, American Crime Story, Fargo. Given this trajectory in storytelling, The Mandalorian seems to have gone in reverse. Especially in Season 01, there was little in terms of flow to the overall story. Which was to be expected, given how short most episodes were, to begin with.
Its Lacks an ‘Adult’ Component
This was expected, but is a weakness nonetheless, given everything else that is going on in the popular culture. Since The Mandalorian is a Disney show, one cannot expect anything that falls explicitly into the category of blood and gore, to say nothing of T&A (Tits and Ass). The sort of things shows such as Game of Thrones excelled in. However, what is woefully lacking in The Mandalorian is any degree of eroticism. Not the ‘adult’ or pornographic kind, but even the very hit of sexiness, passion, and desire. All of which are all utterly, or dare I say purposefully lacking in the show. One that relates to the weakness of the (male) protagonist.
In shows like Game of Thrones, it is interesting to note that its strongest seasons were the first 4: Seasons that were not fearful of brandishing their ‘Mature’ character. Interestingly enough, the worst seasons of Game of Thrones were the last two. By then, not only had the sex appeal died out but these shifts were also accompanied by the growing prominence of the phenomenon of ‘Strong female characters’. This is not to say that having a lot of sex on screen is what determines the quality of a show. However, it is an element of TV, and entertainment more broadly, that if done right, enhances the quality of the show, for reasons that run deeper (as I shall argue) than simply providing the viewers’ titillation.
A Lousy Protagonist
The next major downside of The Mandalorian is the main character. The “Mandalorian” played by Pedro Pascal is a terribly boring, unrelatable, and ultimately predictable character. Who does predictable things, at predictable times, for predictable reasons. All despite carrying the aura of mystery. Here are the key reasons why The Mandalorian is a terrible character, who undermines the quality of the show, and contributes to its anti-humanist character.
The Man in the Iron Mask
We get it. Part of the appeal of The Mandalorian is the fact that the character’s face is left perpetually hidden under a mask. However, the mystery that is meant to be embodied by the character is undermined by the utterly formulaic nature of The Mandalorian. The character who is meant to embody a warlike, ruthless, Machiavellian persona of the assassin class of the Mandalorians is undermined by what is presented on the screen: A passive, caring, humanitarian. Who often exhibits the selflessness of humanity rather than the cold calculation of the Mandalore. Speaking of a more authentic representation of a Mandalorian, one is reminded of Canderous Ordo: the heartless, calculating, morally pragmatic ‘companion’ from the Knights of the Old Republic (2003). The classic game, that contains, arguably the best Star Wars story ever told.
The out-of-character Mandalorian played by Pedro Pascal does no justice to the mysterious and characteristically heartless nature of the Mandalorian archetype. The show with the faceless lead is further hammered by the glaring problem that results from having a faceless protagonist. The lost humanity of the actor. It goes without saying that having the protagonist of the show inside an iron mask, where his facial expressions, and hence the emotions they communicate are hidden, necessarily undermines the quality of the character and the show by extent.
Whilst Pedro Pascal’s face is shown on those rare occasions, these do nothing to correct the void left by his (face’s) absence for most of the show. Further, it can be argued that having the protagonist’s face perpetually covered is basically a get out of jail card on part of the producers/writers. Since his face cannot be seen, from a screenplay standpoint, it can be used to mask a poor acting performance and other shortfalls in the screenplay.
The Voluntary Celibate
Or maybe it’s an involuntary one (i.e. INCEL). If one has ever followed some of the converse that has taken root in what has come to be infamously known as the “manosphere”: which involves a movement of men who concern themselves with problems facing XYZ, usually in their 20-30’s: From career, dating, masculinity and to a lesser extent, their presentation in popular culture, notably the effects of feminism on society. A point which I shall return to.
In the case of The Mandalorian, the subject matter is a bit more complicated. Since the vocation of The Mandalorian (if that is the right word) is one that demands an isolated lifestyle; which may or may not mean an asexual one. In researching this I encountered a few articles online from non-official Star Wars sources, on the sexual code of conduct of members of this assassin class. From what I can gather the package of women, sex, and developing intimate relationships, notably family are not part of “the way” of The Mandalorian. Though I’m not certain this entails total celibacy (4).
In one of the early episodes, ‘Sanctuary’, where one of the side characters, the heavy but doable strong female character Cara Dune implies that The Mandalorian take it easy and settle down with the widow he had been helping in course of the particular episode. Nothing comes of it, and nor does it for the remainder of the two seasons as far intimacy with women is concerned. So the conclusion one is left with is that The Mandalorian is by all measures a celibate. Worse, an apparently content one at that.
So why is this a problem? Shouldn’t we as viewers, and as a society as a whole be celebrating the lack of sex on screen? And in the process help fight the, what is the expression, ‘the sexualization of society’? Well, for starters as a male viewer it is difficult to associate male characters, especially one in a lead role who doesn’t get busy. Or worse, one who makes it a point, not to pursue females. Not being good with girls is one thing, but the idea of being totally cut from this important facet of life, and for that to be positioned as a noble or celebratory trope is something I find problematic.
Going back to notable TV shows that feature strong male lead characters, such men are invariably portrayed as having an active sex life. Male leads of top shows like Walter White (Breaking Bad), Jon Snow (Targaryen) Game of Thrones, despite not being lady-killers, are, at the very least sexually active. Plus it is not just about being sexually active, it is also what being open to the sexual dimension entails: to be a man with a mission in his life.
Take the womanizing leads of shows like Mad Men and Broadwalk Empire. Characters like Don Draper and Enoch Thomson despite their selfish, materialistic-indulgent lives, nonetheless make it a point to be providers for the women they choose to associate with. When one takes the male leads in shows like Batman, Superman; Justified; and to the less well-known Robin Hood, Sinbad, Hercules, and Conan of yesteryear, all of them at some point or the other were getting busy.
The absence of a romantic/sexual dimension in the story arc of The Mandalorian undermines the quality of the show as it makes the protagonist less relatable at a human level. A problem that could have been rectified if the producers wanted to portray The Mandalorians as an unconventional lead character. However, that too fails given his formulaic character concept. Returning to my Canderous comparison from the Knights of the Old Republic, the storyboard team for The Mandalorian if they were creative and brave enough to do so (a rare commodity in these politically correct times), could have painted Din Djarin as a morally ambiguous character: one with a scheming, insidious personality, and amoral goals. So if The Mandalorian is not to be your conventional hero, then make him a dark character with complex motives. But what am I saying, this after all Disney!
When it comes to the lack of sex appeal in the show, the main problem with Star Wars today is that it is owned by, what is primarily a kids entertainment company. Given its family-oriented character, it will have to take easy when it comes to the subject of sensuality, along with the propensity to explore darker themes, such as the appeal of the Dark Side and the potential for the moral corruption of the good. Elements that had begun to become more prominent in the Revenge of the Sith. However, with The Force Awakens onwards things began to take a much lighter and dumber tone. One that has come at the expense of romance and tragedy.
However, what Disney Star Wars lost in terms of passion, love, and a bit of eroticism (e.g. princesses in metal bikinis), under the vision of Ms. Kennedy, the beloved franchise has gone in a concertedly new direction. One where the “Force is Female”. This brings to a core part of this essay, the insidious effects of the “strong female character” trope. Notably the manufactured centrality of this boring plot device, and how it has begun to rob the franchise of its not only sensual but artistic spirit.
Strong Female Characters
The “strong female character” arc has become an ever-popular story concept within Western entertainment regardless of genre or medium: from cartoons, drama, crime, action, and even comedy. It has become a popular trope in movies, TV shows, and increasingly even in video games. This, what has become something of a cultural phenomenon has gained traction, or should I say greater traction (as these things have been going on for a while), in the past half-a-decade or so. In the world of Star Wars, the adoption of this politically correct narrative structure became pronounced following Disney’s takeover. Whilst female empowerment narratives (on-screen and elsewhere) have been all the rage in recent times, no one could have expected what was in store for the historically ‘male-dominated’ franchise.
Taking a step back, it is important to note that the concept of strong female characters in TV and movies is not a new one. It is a phenomenon that goes back, at least to my mind, to the late ’90s and early 2000s: With shows like Xena, Sheena, Alias, and Dark Angel to name a few, exploring this concept, and in many ways doing reasonably well. However, in recent times the need to have strong female characters on screen has taken on an all-new level of zeal and purpose. And problematically activism.
In addition, to the need for a greater number of female lead characters, with films and entertainment, in general, being viewed as the next frontier in gender equality, the idea pushing for more, not just female lead characters, but a certain type of character, one that fits a certain gender archetype (that I will explain). The growing prominence of this cultural trend has come to the detriment of the shows’ artistic and storytelling qualities. Leaving aside the argument from equity, for having more and/or positive representations of women in film and entertainment, in recent times, this initiative has taken on a life of its own. An ideologically motivated one.
What has come to pass in the last few years for greater female representation (starting from, I don’t know, around 2014) has been the single-minded focus one: more female characters, usually in lead roles as a matter of principle. Two: Make sure that none of these characters are presented in or within romantic scenarios or story arcs, and if such things are to arise, these must be kept to a bare minimum. Of course much could be said about the phenomenon of strong female characters in Western (notably Anglo-American) entertainment, and the factors driving them. One example which is emblematic of this ideological ferocity for “gender equality” in entertainment is the apparent need to combat “sexism” in Hollywood. (Which, as a side note, has taken on a whole new light in light of the Harvey Weinstein revelations).
Pertinent to this point is a popular TED talk given by a woman named Stacey Abrams. A terribly obnoxious one (5). As the argument goes, the fact that there are a greater number of male-led movies in Hollywood is due to sexism. Whatever the rhetoric that is used to justify this activism, the problem with the people (i.e. feminists) who called for such changes is that they are uncomfortable with traditional gender roles: where men are portrayed as heroes and women as damsels in distress who need a man to rescue them. Whilst the world has clearly moved on from such times, the problem lies in the antipathy towards what this represented: the reality of sex differences, and the social roles they gave rise to. So here is a list of problems associated with the “strong female character” arc as presented in The Mandalorian:
There’s Too Many
These days it is difficult for any show featuring a male lead to move forward without the addition of an accompanying (and usually towering) presence of a female support character, or two. Notable examples include Ant-Man and the Wasp; Iron Man 3; and John Wick 3 – Parabellum. If one looks at each of these movies it soon becomes apparent that the producers, having gone ahead with the idea of a male lead character initially, had presumably come under some pressure from somewhere to include ‘strong female characters’ in the course of the production process.
Problematically, in such instances (which is more often than not), the female addition tends to become an overwhelming presence, often robbing the limelight from the central (male) character. Case in point, Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation. For those who have watched the film, it soon becomes apparent that the actual lead character in the movie is not Tom Cruise, but the British-English accented Scandinavian woman. Owing to her addition and importance attached to her role, the function of Ethan hunt is effectively sidelined as the plot develops; as he is made to look relatively weak in virtually every scene the woman is featured in. The Mandalorian also falls into the same, predictable trap. Where the female side characters often grabbing the attention of the faceless male lead virtually every time they are on screen. Which is all the time. This is one of the most problematic aspects of the show, one that is supposed to be about a male lead character. Here’s a list of them:
Cara Dune
Starting with the now-fired Gina Carano, who played Cara Dune. An understandable addition to the show, as noted, TV shows today that have male leads, are almost by divine law required to include strong female characters, with the potential for romance not always a given. In her defense, Ms. Carano did play this part reasonably well, and given her big, stocky physical presence, she added a sense of believability to her character. Unlike these stick-figure female action heroes of the new Charles Angels movie, who take down well-trained men, twice their size with light punches. However, given the prevalence of so many others like her, her “strong female” credentials become predictable and boring.
Peli Motto
Times are such that strong female characters today come in a variety of shapes and forms. The mechanic woman at the one of the Hangars in Tatooine, who shows up in a few episodes is one such example. What is ‘strong’ about this character is that she’s involved in engineering related work, and clearly meant as an “inspiration” for all the young girls who are looking enter a career in STEM. Other notable feature is that she is on the older side. Which means that in addition to being good with machines, Ms. Motto, as an older character becomes a source of wisdom, whose opinions The Mandalorian would to rely on. I didn’t really mind this addition. Though admittedly I would have preferred a male mechanic. Or better still, a female mechanic, who was a lot younger and doable.
The Armourer
Now, this is a character I simply did not like. Call me old school, but I felt someone playing the role of the ‘Armourer’ ought to have been a person who was older, bigger, stronger, and male. The brutish alpha variety. The main problem I had with this addition was that being the other Mandalorian in the show, it seemed to take something away from Din Djarin. Owing to the fact that she’s female, who holds a superior position to him, undermines the central position of The Mandalorian even further. I mean, the whole idea of being the top dog of the show, is about being the top dog.
Being outdone by another look-alike, which is even more problematic in the context of the faceless Mandalorians, undermines the power of the character. In case the viewer had any confusion about who was in charge between the two; during the first meeting between the Mandalorian and the female Armourer, our protagonist takes the knee in her presence. Lame.
Fennec Shand
This is the mercenary/assassin character, who was supposed to be dead by the end of “Chapter 5: The Gunslinger”, but is brought back (to life) in Season 02. Reintroduced as a backup (or so it seems) for the legendary Boba Fett in ‘Chapter 14: The Tragedy’. A couple of things are problematic here. First, the introduction of Boba Fett alongside some side-kick, and dare I say, a female one, to me, undermined his character big time. The class of assassins to which the likes of Boba Fett belong are known to work alone. So having this female side-kick, just like The Mandalorian; robs him of the power and mystery. Further, the fact that Boba Fett is being played by some ugly m****r f****r makes it even worse. It is one of those occasions where it would have been better for the man in the iron mask to have kept the damn thing on!
Returning to the strong female character Fennec Shand, the real problem with her is the enabling of the ‘God-mode’ cheat whenever she happens to be in combat. In ‘The Tragedy’, there is a prolonged scene where the female assassin holds her own against dozens of Strom Troopers. Considering that Strom Troopers in the Disney universe are portrayed as complete retards, who couldn’t fire straight even if their life depended on it (which it often does), makes this somewhat believable.
However, the sheer ludicrous odds against which this strong female character holds her own, as she guns downs these (apparently well-armored) clowns belies belief. Of course, this critic also applies to other “good” characters in the show. But at least in the case of our protagonist, he wears some kind of special armor. But the point remains. Further, the screen time dedicated to her shooting down waves upon waves of Storm Troopers in this key episode works to (further) undermine the Mandalorian, and for what it’s worth, Boba Fett. In what ought to have been a Mandalorian + Fett showdown against the Empire’s forces, the strong female character, one who was brought back from the dead, to my viewing displeasure, dominated the proceedings. Lame.
Bo-Katan
Is yet another strong female character who makes her arrival in Season 02. Bo-Katan, whose entry during a moment of peril for Din Djarin is worth noting here. As the Mandalorian finds himself apparently fending for his life, Katan, leading a group of jet-pack-wearing Mandalorian look-a-likes, saves the hapless hero’s a**. Who got into this latest peril when trying to save the green little thing (more on this below). Bo-Katan, as the leader of this little group of fake Mandalorians, is clearly the new (for this particular episode) strong female character. Who along with her female companion, Koska Reeves tops off this female-led group. It appears these character types come in packs.
Ahsoka Tano
The entry of this (Star Wars lore-wise) important character, when it happened was uneventful and predictable. I mean it’s increasingly obvious the writers/producers in charge of Star Wars stories, want to spice things up by bringing in these new characters from time to time. Since Ashoka was something of a fan favorite from the Clone Wars, her introduction in the flesh, so to speak, was an appealing one. However… The problem is that it is yet another strong female character on screen. One who weakens the presence central of the male lead.
The Story
The key problem with The Mandalorian, one that, if nailed, could have potentially alleviated its many shortfalls, is its story. Which is terrible. But let’s be real. Star Wars has never been the go-to franchise when it comes to good storytelling. Even the much acclaimed ‘Original’ trilogy of films, from time to time carried a gimmicky feel. The main problem with The Mandalorian however, is that its storytelling from the get-go was staid, predictable, and ultimately boring. Despite the great investments in CGI, special effects (“practical” or otherwise), and the fact that it had the wealth of entire lore of the Star Wars Universe to work with; the end product was disappointing. I can say more on this, but given what I have set out to do, I will limit my story critic of The Mandalorian to one major point. Which is:
The Green Little Thing
Let me be clear, I dislike the little alien that The Mandalorian carries around, or is accompanied by, for like 90 percent of the show. I didn’t at first. The idea of another Yoda-like character seemed interesting, given the popularity of the original character from the movies. However, as the show wore on, it became apparent that “baby Yoda” (the only time I will mention its fan-given name in this essay), was to become the mainstay of the story.
Becoming the central plot device around which other elements of the show, including the main character’s motivations, centered. Which in time, becomes the actual protagonist of The Mandalorian. Whilst many, possibly most, have taken well to the idea of green little thing, presumably the female ones. Its popularity vis a vie its likeability is one that is difficult to justify. Here are reasons why the green little thing is problematic:
It is Not the Mandalorian
This is self-explanatory. The green little thing is not the protagonist of the show. That title falls on the Djarin. As anyone who knows a thing or two about storytelling would tell you that the primary driving force of the tale: the factor, which is invariably a person: one who moves the events of the story forward, is also the protagonist: His beliefs, goals, motivations, ideals. In the case of The Mandalorian, the Djarin, whilst seemingly presented as the main driver of the story, his actions, motivations, and possible beliefs, however, come to be affected, influenced, and ultimately driven by the green little thing. This is problematic.
The Mandalorian is about the freaking Mandalorian. Not some little alien that comes preloaded with a story arc of its own. One which the supposed protagonist of the show willingly takes on, right back at the end of the third episode of Season for 01 no apparent reason other than his concern for it! Following an uncharacteristic change of heart, The Mandalorian fights and kills those who assigned the mission to capture the green little thing. Why does he choose to do so? What makes him care for the creature’s long-term well-being? Don’t know! In case it is missed, the show is titled ‘The Mandalorian’. Not baby f***ing Yoda.
It is Not Human
Alright. So now we’re getting close to the purpose of this essay. Look, the whole thing about a cute little alien thing grabbing the attention of credulous moviegoers has been a part of the theatrical experience for some time. Especially in Star Wars. Like superheroes, various cute things (which could also be heroes in their own right), are a big selling point from the standpoint of merchandising, but also from the standpoint of the movie itself.
Given the growing popularity of the movie trailer industry, the film industry realizes that throwing in a few of these cute little things is bound to gain some traction, via trailers. Where people, dare I say, mostly females and kids, are likely to be taken in by their cuteness. The Porgs and Vulpteices (ice foxes) from The Last Jedi being notable examples. But this does absolutely nothing to strengthen the character and believability of the male protagonist. The main point of the show.
The Unwelcome Protagonist
I guess it is not surprising that Disney decided to nail two birds with one stone: One: by introducing a cuddly little creature they will be able to connect with and draw in certain demographics who might otherwise be interested: women, children, and man-babies. Two: And this is the major problem, the incorporation of the green little thing into the show, shifts the attention towards a creature that is not the actual protagonist. One that is not human. Which further detracts from, and downplays the central role of the protagonist: Djarin.
Notice that throughout the show, virtually every episode begins and ends with some event or discussion that revolves around the fate of the green little thing. To which the Djarin is reduced to a mere conduit, whose existence is to merely facilitate the all-important journey of the non-human thing. A point which is constantly reinforced by the endless gallery of ‘side characters’ who help him in this particular task, and almost all who develop some sort of attachment with it.
Who in this particular show tends to take the form of… You guessed it, strong female characters. Who almost to a fault, become equally concerned, and committed to the cause of advancing the ends of the green little thing. Why? Caz they can’t have kids of their own?! The problem with The Mandalorian is a reflection of some of the deeper problems that bedevil Disney Star Wars. Which may not be considered as problematic in themselves. Given the fact that much of these realities have been the result of wilful, if one may use the word, ‘creative’ decisions on part of the Disney hierarchy.
Why Star Wars is Anti-Humanistic
Right, so now we are getting into the meat of this essay. So what exactly is anti-humanistic about Star Wars? As a long-time fan of the franchise, even for a fantasy show with aliens, robots, and clones, things have not always been this way. For no matter what else was going on screen, the central driving force of all Star Wars stories is its human characters. Who, despite living in a galaxy far, far away, was human like you and me. Facing the challenges of life as men and women, albeit in an extraordinary universe.
Under Disney, things have changed. They have changed for the worst in relation to the human element. To make this point, I will draw from the films that have been released since Disney took control of Lucasfilm, by elucidating the inherently anti-man character of its storytelling character. Where there is a blatant opposition to presenting men positively in relation to realities like power, status, and sexuality. A reality that exemplifies its anti-humanistic character.
The Force Awakens: The Story of Weak Men and a Strong Woman
The problem with story, motivations, plot, and character development in TFA have been well documented. With a number of content creators/critics, especially on YouTube having dug into these at length. Here I shall only provide a quick overview of some of its problems. Most notable being the trouble with having an overpowered female protagonist: a girl who is simply able to do whatever she wants, whenever she wants; with little in terms of opposition, either internally or externally to deal with. From being a highly resourceful, able, competent, knowledgeable, ever-ready female, who is blessed with great (but unearned) Force powers. Aspects that rob the character (and the story) of any seriousness, rendering it an air of fantasy, in the most childish (fan-fiction) sense possible.
A problem which is compounded by the abysmal portrayal of all male characters who accompany here. With Fin being presented as this bumbling idiot, tripping all over himself, and doesn’t know what he is doing most of the time; to the main villain, Kylo Ren getting beaten by a girl who only managed to hold a lightsabre two minutes ago.
To say nothing of the idiocy of the now, old man Han, who for some reason decided to go back to his smuggling days. These points have been discussed at length by fans/critics of the movies. What I would l like to draw attention to here are the broader effects these additions have had on the direction of the franchise, in terms of the kind of message that such (ideologically motivated) story changes send to the wider audience. But before we get there, onto the next item on the list.
Rogue One: An Evil Empire of ‘Order’ vs A Righteous Rebellion of ‘Diversity’
One of the standout features of Rogue One was one of the main cover arts for the movie: The picture of the ‘rogues’ led by Jin Erso, standing in some Rebel hangar, was telling for a number of reasons. The most obvious feature was that it had a female lead (Not surprising). However what was notable was the character of the supporting cast: one that was made up of persons from various ‘walks of life’: Differing in terms of their ‘nationality’, or ethnic origin, but united in the fact that they are not European. If one chooses to throw in the good robot (a black one for some reason); this lot stand out from the outward uniformity of the imperial forces.
The thing about the racial composition of this motley group of rebels, what ought to be apparent for the viewer is that the common character of the bad guys of the Empire, one that contrasts with the good lot. The leadership of the Empire consisting of Director Krennic, Wilhuff Tarkin, and closed off with the Emperor and Darth Vader. Notice anything familiar? Well, besides the fact that all of these persons are human (more or less anyway), they also all happen to be European. European men, who in their natural/uncorrupted states, also happened to have brown or blonde hair. Wonder why?
To answer this question, let’s go back to TFA. What is the most obvious characteristic of the Storm Trooper who decides to break ranks from First Order (AKA The Empire 2.0)? The one who chooses to side with the Resistance? Well, the character, (and obviously the actor who plays him) is African American. Now go back to The Rise of Palpatine (I mean Skywalker). What is the ethnicity of the other notable First Order deserter and former Storm Trooper, Jannah, once known by designation TZ-1719 (i.e. like Finn)? Mm… Something to think about. Wonder what happens if all of the Storm Troopers at some point decided to take their masks off!? Well if you think I’m being conspiratorial, consider the ethnicity of the Indian-origin rebel, Bodhi Rook (Riz Ahmed). Another breakaway that joins the rebel’s cause.
The standout feature of Rogue One is that of all rebels who risked their lives to get the codes for the sake of the rebellion, none of them, barring Jyn (Felicity Jones) is European. Or at least Northern European in character. Why is that?? Enlighten me. Heck even Jyn, the strong female character of the movie (a native of England), seems like had been through a chimney, with a dark tone of suit masking her pale skin. Then we have the bad guys, who, as noted are all Europeans, combined with white-suited Strom Troopers.
Taking a step back, a pattern seems to be emerging, does it not? The Empire which stands for order, control, uniformity, and discipline is White, European, and Male. Whereas the Rebellion, which ostensibly stands for freedom, diversity, and inclusivity is multi-ethnic, predominantly non-European; apparently female-led (the woman in white during Rebel Council meetings); and interestingly, multi-species. Notice the presence of the Mon Calamari during the Rebel councils and later during the Battle of Scarif. The same clearly cannot be said about the Empire, which is portrayed (in the movies) as entirely human and robotic. Food for thought.
In light of Rogue One, what is on show is its overtly anti-imperialistic character. Which is justified in the context of Star Wars, as the Empire is represented by the Dark Side of the Force. But the real-world implication today, vis a vie its anti-imperial character, points logically towards its anti-European character. I guess it’s a small coincidence that the great empires of old, those that conquered the known world, were all European in character. So the anti-humanism of Star Wars with respect to Rogue One is its opposition to the works of men: one of which is Empire.
The Last Jedi: The Men Suck, the Wamen are Great, & F**k you Heritage!
For those who want to know what I really thought about The Last Jedi (TLJ), and what it means for Star Wars going forward, you can check out my essay on this here. Since the problems with TLJ is something that I have covered at length, here I will be quick and concise.
TLJ is a reprehensible movie. There’s virtually nothing about the film that I found likable in any way. Since I’m not one of these die-hard fans of Star Wars (the sort who tear up during trailers, amongst other idiosyncrasies). And that my interest in Star Wars is primarily an artistic one, combined with the appreciation for its great cultural impact on movies and pop culture in general. And as a fan of George Lucas’s work, whose legacy, I believe is something worth defending. So when TLJ turned out to be one big s**t show, it became more problematic for its wantonly subversive character.
One that seemed to purposefully deprecate what Star Wars had come to represent until them. A lot has been said on the subject of TLJ, with the single biggest failure of the movie being its treatment of Luke Skywalker. This point has been made before: but to reduce the most optimistic, hopeful character in the galaxy (to paraphrase Mark Hamill) into this filthy hermit who spends his life milking alien tits is reprehensible.
What matters in the context of this essay on the anti-humanism of Star Wars is the shambolic treatment of a respected, hopeful, masculine (in his own right), male protagonist, and what this tells us about Star Wars in light of The Mandalorian. Notable here is the portrayal of side characters Finn, Po and Each of these characters get slapped around by the women they are working with. Which ought to tell us something about governing philosophy of the franchise. Even the clownish villain General Hux is not spared the humiliation.
The anti-humanism of Star Wars in the TLJ is evident in the treatment of its male characters: Who are routinely portrayed in a negative or disempowering light. In contrast to the ‘wamen’ who are consistently portrayed as paragons of goodness and strength.
The Rise of Palpatine (Skywalker): F**k… The Force really is Female!
If The Last Jedi is a reprehensible s**t show, it is nonetheless one that does manage to tell a coherent, though abysmal tale. The Rise of Palpatine (TROS) however is an incoherent mess that fails at every level of storytelling. The filmmakers, it seems, from the very outset did not intend this to be a serious filmmaking endeavor. Leaving aside the desperate attempts to undo the “mistakes” of TLJ by unmaking some of the choices made in the previous installment, as a way to “uniting” the fanbase, who were turned off by what had transpired. However, in this final round of Disney’s Sequel trilogy, it only succeeds in jerking out a semi-retarded mess of a movie that only the wokest segments of the fan base, along with the hoards of politically correct pundits, journalists, and film critics could “enjoy”. Though truthfully, I doubt even they would have really.
So what really is the problem with The Rise of Palpatine? Well in a way, the movie embodies everything that is wrong with Stars Wars these days, and at a deeper level, it embodies most things that are wrong with popular culture in the West. One that is moving in an anti-humanistic direction.
It is important to consider here the tendency amongst certain movie critics (especially in the Fandom Menace) to think what had transpired in TROS was the result of bad planning, poor management, and lack of leadership; combined with ill-effects of political correctness that have become an inescapable part of storytelling in modern Western film. Whilst such criticisms contain some truth, the real problem with Disney Star Wars is that the mindless chaos that characterized the finale of the Skywalker saga was partly intended. Before we get to that, here’s are a list of things The Rise of Palpatine gets wrong, seemingly on purpose!
Incoherent Story
This should not come as a surprise. Storytelling was never a strength of Disney Star Wars. From TFA, through to TLJ and now TROS, the plots, the trajectory, and conclusion were never convincing. The problem with the TROS given what it had set out to do: retcon parts of the TLJ, give Rey some character development; with the attempt to tell a unique story of its own and to somehow bring to a close the Skywalker saga (hence its ridiculous title). Whoo. That’s quite a lot to accomplish. Especially for a film franchise lead by a woman who doesn’t know the first thing about Star Wars (more on this later). One notable example of the movie’s incoherence is its f**king title: The Rise of Skywalker! Really. Give that the entire sequel trilogy consisted of one plot point, sequence, and scene after another that purposefully sought to undermine everything Skywalker.
Point is, given everything that had already go on, Disney tried to do too much in a single movie and then predictably failed… At everything. But, and this is the weird part. That’s OK. Kathleen Kennedy, the president of Lucas Flim in an interview in 2019 following the release of the film, where she was asked: ‘If Ms Kennedy from 2015 would have seen the last 10 minutes of Episode IX The Rise of Palpatine coming’, to which her response was that this is what she “hoped” the ending would be like. Really? Kylo smashing his helmet in TLJ, to then rebuilding it; Rey being a nobody to then being the granddaughter of Sidious…
Male Characters Suck… Again
This is a long-dead horse that I don’t wish to beat. Simply put, TROS is another one of those woke movies that is riddled with lousy male characters, who are there to simply make the female characters look fit and capable. With the usual suspects, from the knuckle-dragging nitwit Finn, the game-less (dating) Po, to the powerless mediocrity that is Kylo. Finn is back to his antics, spending much of the movie as a creature devoid of agency, hanging on the coattails of Miss. Perfect Rey. I’m not the first to observe this, as I encountered this point in a well-written YouTube commentary on the movie; which basically argued that Finn is the epitome of being friend-zoned.
With Po, things are a bit different. And better. The fact that he isn’t getting bossed around by a purple-haired freak, or be literally slapped by General Leia seems like a step in the right direction. However, like other male characters in the story (or maybe all characters), he just lacks agency. There is no inner conflict emanating from this conflictual character. At least in TLJ, he was willing to break ranks and stage a coup. Here we have a run-in with a masked lady and potential lover, but nothing happens. Another sad addition to the ranks of the friend-zoned. As for Kylo Ren, the less that is said about this poorly written character the better. The supposed bad guy of the show, who lands his first (possibly ever) kiss with Mary Sue, fittingly ends up dead soon after.
This attempt to make men look stupid, weak, and incapable in order to portray women as strong, capable and independent is a narrative plot that’s getting f**king old. I mean the whole argument that women in the past were portrayed as damsels in distress, whilst men were portrayed as tough baddies, and this is something that was undermining or demeaning to women, and hence needs to be corrected… Pop culturally. This story arc, an infuriatingly recurring one, is something that needs to be taken out back and shot!
No One Gets Laid
In case anyone hadn’t noticed, Disney Star Wars is utterly devoid of sex and sensuality. For in the course of 3 movies, plus the 2 ‘stories’ movies, no one gets laid. This was to be expected since Disney Star Wars is primarily meant for kids. You know with its theme parks, toys, and other family-oriented stuff. Maybe that’s true. But if that is the case, then I think it is high time that movies and rating companies start placing a content advisory sticker for films and other media that come riddled with woke, second-wave feminist crap. For as a filmgoer, I rather not put up with this s**t.
The problem with no one gets laid in the course of the three movies is that it leaves no room for romantic relationships. None. From Finn’s wasted potential with Rose (ugh) to the dead Force connection between Kylo Ren and Rey. The latter one is especially problematic. For in the context of the final installment, the Rise of F***ing ‘Skywalker’, where Rey, the sexless stuck-up cum hero, takes on the iconic family name; but she does so without a man, and hence without any hope of continuing the noble bloodline.
Leaving aside the absence of a serious on-screen relationship, the sequel trilogy is conspicuously absent in any sensuality. While having a female captive clad in a metal bikini is probably too much to ask in a Disney Stars Wars movie. However, these films, which speak a lot about portraying strong female characters (SFCs); also do a commendable job at neutering their sexuality. The relationship between the two seems quite logical.
Since the new Star Wars movies have made it a point to portray women as strong, independent, capable. Essentially to make them take up traditionally masculine roles. But in doing so have also gone about disempowering their sexuality. From their attire (Rey’s monk-like outfit); their presentation (Rose’s obnoxiousness in TLJ); their social function (Leia’s going from a sexy princess to commanding ‘general’). This is problematic not only from the standpoint of the hot-blooded heterosexual viewer (who are the overwhelming majority); but also from a storytelling standpoint. Without the stakes of passion, romance, family, and underlying it all sexuality, the films in their entirety lack that emotional appeal. Hence from a movie-goer’s perspective don’t demand the kind of investment.
Frankly speaking, the new roster of actors who took on these roles, is in no way memorable as Star Wars characters are meant to be. Unlike the iconic Luke, Hann, and Leia, these people, if anything, are ill-conceived character concepts that have been inserted into a prebuilt world, one that is alien to them. For rather than being real humans with genuine motives, these ‘characters’ are agenda-driven programs that have been designed to play out an ideological narrative that finds its home on the political left. One that abysmally plays out in a universe that is meant to be far, far away. Speaking of the ‘left’, in its cultural and economic dimension, there are a few things it can teach us when it comes to understanding the cluster f**k that is the sequel trilogy.
Disney Star Wars: Planned Chaos
In his short but insightful book of the same name, the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises engages the destructive effects brought forth by State intervention in the working of the economy. In doing so he does the commendable job of differentiating this method of State interventionism from outright socialism. In the latter case, the State effectively takes over various segments of the economy; and usually begins managing them on behalf of (it is so argued) the populace as a whole.
However, in doing so it effectively destroys the incentive for private individuals (i.e. those who are not on the payroll of the State-usually the overwhelming majority) to take risks, invest, innovate and contribute productively to society. The history of socialism, as any serious historian would attest, is the history of failure. Moral, economic and political. A point that needs little reinforcement at this point (hopefully).
However, the adverse effects of government intervention, which are invariably heavy-handed and perpetual in their role and effects, is a more complex and insidious problem. One that continues to bedevil the failed to failing economies, predominantly in the third world. Since this is an essay on the anti-humanism of Star Wars, I will not delve too much into it here. However, one passage early on in Mises book is worth noting:
‘The system of the hampered market economy, or interventionism, differs from socialism by the very fact that it is still market economy. The authority seeks to influence the market by the intervention of its coercive power, but it does not want to eliminate the market altogether. It desires that production and consumption should develop along lines different from those prescribed by the unhindered market, and it wants to achieve its aim by injecting into the working of the market orders, commands, and prohibitions for whose enforcement the police power and its apparatus of coercion and compulsion stand ready’.
What Mises is saying is that State actors who adopt the interventionist approach (which is virtually everyone these days-the differences lie in degree), their aim is to exploit the working of the market system for their own gain. Combined with lofty ideological aims, which are narrow in perspective, and ultimately self-serving (e.g. income equality, gender equality, the abolition of class differences, etc.); their modus operandi is to use the productive powers of the market system (innovation, wealth creation, technological advancement, etc.) to advance goals and agendas that are selective, particularistic, and partisan.
The disruption caused by these unhealthy interventions in practice to the orderly and logical workings of the market system is that they end up undermining the effectiveness of the market, and in time, upending the very system they sought to exploit. The ultimately self-defeating character of State intervention historically, with the consequence of such interventions being plain to see (Argentinian crisis 2001). But this has not stopped successive governments around the world from doing so.
The exploitation of the fecund Star Wars universe by Disney, I would argue, follows a similar logic. When Disney acquired the acclaimed franchise from George Lucas, what its leadership saw in this lucrative IP is not only a film-making cash cow, but also a vehicle: An ideological mechanism with global reach, and recognition through which to advance its agenda. Headed by the feminist ideologue in chief Kathleen Kennedy and her ideological stooges, Star Wars under Disney soon mutated into some kind of an artistic politburo, one that was tasked with forwarding goals which were ideological first; with the artistic and creative being a distant second and third.
Going back to that painful interview where George Lucas discusses the sale of his beloved franchise to the soon-to-be “White Slavers”, from the outset, the creator of this beloved franchise seemed like a beaten man. As he discussed his creation’s fate with woman, and some female side-kick next to her, on where they would go. Of course, that hope never came to pass.
At this stage, some criticism needs to be reserved for George Lucas, first for selling Lucas Film. And second, for picking the uncreative, ideological hack, Kathleen Kennedy (K.K) to lead it. On the first point, if George Lucas believed he was too old or unable to make these films, then why not bring someone in, and have them do it on his behalf. Whilst he remains in charge, making executive decisions as per the demands of the situation? If the answer is money, then it seems like George Lucas probably didn’t love Star Wars as much he claimed to. As for picking K.K, well this was a simple case of bad judgment. Clearly, this is a woman who does not know the first thing about Star Wars, and possibly filmmaking! In an interview with Rolling Stones (2019). the president of Lucas Film had this to say:
“There’s no source material. We don’t have comic books. We don’t have 800-page novels. We don’t have anything other than passionate storytellers who get together and talk about what the next iteration might be” ().
This statement is not worth perusing given its utter vacuousness, which is frankly no different from anything else K.K had to say on the subject of Star Wars. Once again criticism needs to be directed towards Mr. Lucas for picking such a person. When his decision was announced in 2012, the famed filmmaker described his choice for leading his creations with the following words: “someone with great creative passion and proven leadership abilities, but also someone who loves movies” (). What is clearly missing in that description is the knowledge and love of Star Wars and its money-making potential, and to be used to advance virulent ideological agenda.
Staying with K.K, upon deeper inspection of her career, indicates that she wasn’t one with much creativity. This is a separate but related point. For much has been made of Ms. Kennedy’s film-making feats. However, in reality, much of her theatrical success (i.e. as a producer) has come on the back of the efforts of great filmmakers (writers, producers, directors) with who she has had the opportunity to work with over the decades.
In fact, an argument can be made that much of her filmmaking success (as a producer) came as a result of being able to ride on the coattails of more talented, capable, visionary, and dare I say, hard-working persons. Men specifically. With filmmakers of the caliber of Stephen Spielberg, George Lucas, and if it must be mentioned, her relationship, and the connections born by her marriage to the producer/film-maker Frank Marshall.
As a fun experiment, go check out the Wikipedia pages in which Ms. Kennedy is accredited as being a ‘Producer”. Specifically, in highly acclaimed movies like War Horse, Lincoln, Munich, and Jurassic Park films. And do a Control+F search for the number of times, and in what capacity/context her name appears in those pages. It soon becomes apparent that Ms. Kennedy was someone who was, for the most part, playing second fiddle to more accomplished and talented persons. Men specifically. With her contributions, possibly beside the financial one, being minimal, and at the creative level, arguably non-existent. Why is this important?
Kathleen Kennedy, the president of Lucas Film, is the person who is most responsible for what has transpired in the years since Disney acquired the famed franchise. And considering her blant self-delegitimizing admissions on the subject of Star Wars above, exemplifying her essentially zero understanding of the Star Wars universe, it is a waste of time for Star Wars fans to be going after clowns like Rian Johnson and Jeffrey Jacob Abrams for the (story and character) failures in the three movies. As the buck ultimately stops with her.
My take on the current president of Lucas Film is this: Ms. Kennedy is there to advance an agenda. A political one. Her role as the head of Lucas Film is equitable to that of a statist who has gotten the reins of power over a dynamic economy. One that has been driven by market forces (great public demand), underpinned on the creativity and ingenuity of those who helped establish it.
As the statist autocrat in chief of the Star Wars economy, K.K’s mission, it seems is to exploit its reach, appeal, and money-making potential by infusing a certain ideology (post-structural feminism) into its mix, and to use the film making enterprise (with huge budgets, marketing, social media, etc.) to promulgate its vision. A vision, which in the context of its broader mission is to spread the idea of a world that is better off if it was run by strong female (sexless) characters. And one in which the role of men-particularly heterosexual men of a European heritage-is reduced in its significance. With their (our) social function at best limited to aiding the advance of the all-conquering ‘wamen’.
If one looks at all the Star Wars movies under Disney until now (September 2021) one would notice that the role of men (White heterosexual men predominantly) has steadily declined. Whilst the prominence of female characters, at all levels has been deliberately elevated. This includes Solo, which features a male protagonist, but who is in practice an inept clown whose success is predominantly built on dumb luck. Further, the prominence of women on screen has not only come at the expense of meaningful screen time for men, but also the deliberate undermining of men as people. The concept of the Mary Sue only reaches its potential when it is paired with a bumbling retard of a male character: the very antithesis of a strong female one. I am of course talking about Finn here. But given Finn’s ethnicity, one must be careful in expressing opposition, for the danger of being called a…
Truth be told, I’m not a huge Star Wars fan. Whilst I’ve always enjoyed films, and related media (books, video games, etc.). What I have valued more is its cultural and artistic significance. Star Wars, from a Western, and certainly from an Anglo-American perspective is more than a set of movies that people go to the theaters to enjoy. Stars Wars is a culturally significant force, that represents many great things about Western art and entertainment. One that has been effectively hijacked and turned into a vehicle for forwarding an agenda. A woke agenda. One which is logically anti-humanistic.
Conclusion: The Artistic Abolition of Man
The main problem with The Mandalorian is that it is run by Disney. Disney, given its current leadership, and the ideology that it has come to espouse, has taken Star Wars in a direction that is inherently anti-heritage and anti-man. Hence I would argue anti-humanistic. The real problem with Star Wars today is not that it openly berates and downplays the role of men; but by doing so in a variety of different (and often creative) ways, works to undermine the status of humanity on the big screen.
My view is that the embrace of political correctness: where the role of women is artificially elevated, and that of men actively downplayed; necessarily weakens the creative enterprise. And if done consistently, on a large scale, it gets to a point where it begins to adversely affect, necessarily I would argue, other facets of filmmaking. With the artistic and storytelling dimensions, suffering the most.
Looking at Star Wars today, it is obvious that this once universally loved franchise has become a highly polarising force today. Leaving aside the ‘pop culture wars’ surrounding the Fandom Menace (with whom I disagree on a number of things-their high opinion of The Mandalorian is one of them). Star Wars at present is not what it used to be from the heydays of the Original trilogy to the mixed success of the Prequel Trilogy-whose many shortfalls were offset by great cinematic creativity, combined with the high point in Star Wars game (KOTOR I & KOTOR II most notably).
As they all succeed in presenting a world that was fantastical, but yet relatable. A world that is complex and with the capacity to provoke strong feelings of interest, curiosity, and even attachment. Stories that engage events that play out in a galaxy far far away, in a way that resonates at a personal level. Where else would you find grown men tearing up over the fate of a fictional character who wields swords made of plasmas!
Given its vast, global presence (Games, books, movies, comics, theme parks), Star Wars is a cultural force that has come to affect, not just Anglo-American cinema, but to Western culture at large. And given its significance, it is kinda sad what has become of it. From the low point of The Last Jedi to the brainless chaos of The Rise of Palpatine, to politically correct, second-rate TV mash-up known as The Mandalorian. Things are looking a bit better in the gaming arena though, with Fallen Order, and a heavily updated Battlefront II managing to hold the fort.
However, the signs for what is to come for the franchise going forward-if The High Republic trailer is anything to go buy-don’t look promising. And unsurprisingly so. Star Wars is not the franchise it used to be. In the same way that, dare I say, America is not the country that it once was (during the ’90s). Culturally, economically, geopolitically, and these days even militarily. In terms of the national culture, particularly when it comes to the subject of social cohesion. With race, being a key factor of division and chaos in this what appears to be a steadily weakening superpower.
Taking a step back, it is funny when topics like race relations and women’s rights get trumpeted in popular culture, as these soon become the very subjects that start to make forays into the world of art and entertainment. And often not for the right reasons, based on the end product. And given their political character, the priorities of filmmakers who become subservient to these views, are no longer the quality of the art, the strength of the characters, the relatability of protagonists, or the humanity of the heroes. Nay.
What matters now is the elevation and celebration of politically correct narratives: Strong female characters, ethnically diverse actors; the deplorable presentation of men, and the disregard of heritage and tradition. With men of European heritage being made to pay for their past on-screen crimes (i.e. by chivalry, masculinity, colonialism, and possibly heterosexuality). By being routinely steam-rolled by boring, sexless, menopausal (if not in the flesh, certainly in spirit) women.
From a creative standpoint, this is a recipe for failure. One that in practice not only eats away at the creative enterprise, but also, I would speculate, negatively affects the psychology of the viewers: The male, heterosexual, and dare I say, particularly the Caucasian ones. Persons who fit this demographic, these days have little to look forward to when it comes to quality Hollywood movies and TV shows that can resonate with their being.
A problem that has even begun to infect the world of video games (The Last of Us II is a case in point). And given the oppressive times, we’re in, this is especially problematic, since the few notable mediums for escape in terms of digital entertainment, besides music, are movies/television (i.e. Netflix and HBO) and video games. Arenas of storytelling, creativity, and personal expression which are increasingly and systematically being blanked by an ideology that seeks to present men as not only bad, stupid and incapable, but seems to posit the notion of world as somehow being better if its men attained a state of perpetual weakness, stupidity and loss. As if robbing men of their masculinity and power is somehow a desirable condition for the future humanity.
Returning to fantasy world set in a galaxy far far away (though one could be not blamed, if it does not feel that way), its greatest strength is also its biggest weakness: The Star Wars brand name and the cultural significance that it holds have today become synonymous with the woke, politically correct, feminists, and increasingly post-colonial narratives that film goers wish to get away from when they pay for a ticket for a movie, or subscription fee for a streaming service, or buy game that is set in a galaxy far, far away.
Given its centrality to film entertainment and popular culture at large, when the decision makers at Star Wars decided to take a woke, and hence necessarily anti-humanistic direction for their franchise, to me it indicates a deeper move within the West to shift its focus away from its humanistic foundations. This move is characteristic not only of the state of entertainment in which it is set, but of the cultural matrix at large in which it operates. Today, Western culture is sadly becoming, from the stand point of good a story telling anti-artistic, predictably lacking in ingenuity. Given its surrender to the dictates of wokism, which operates under fashionable terms like “diversity”, “inclusivity” and “the empowerment of women and girls”.
Which in practice are becoming a religious dogma that many in industry are choosing to confess. With the consequence for the perpetuation of this woke agenda, being the systemic, on-screen destruction of modern, Western men. Realities which upon deeper inspection reflects a shift. A shift in a franchise like Star Wars, but also of Western culture as a whole to move away from its historically Western, Christian and European heritage.