{"id":47,"date":"2017-11-16T10:57:17","date_gmt":"2017-11-16T15:57:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/postcolonialstarwars\/?page_id=47"},"modified":"2017-12-11T15:10:05","modified_gmt":"2017-12-11T20:10:05","slug":"isabel-urbanski-farrell","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/pages.vassar.edu\/postcolonialstarwars\/anthology\/fall-2017\/isabel-urbanski-farrell\/","title":{"rendered":"Isabel Urbanski-Farrell"},"content":{"rendered":"

Star Wars<\/em>‘ Justification of Rebellious Murder<\/strong><\/p>\n

In popular media, violence is often glorified and excused within the over simplified \u2018good vs. bad\u2019 value system: the \u2018good guys\u2019 are allowed to do bad things to the \u2018bad guys\u2019. The \u2018good guys\u2019 in Star Wars<\/i> are (almost unquestionably) the Rebel Alliance. They are seen as such because of the perspective from which the story is told and because of the uncomplicated nature of the genre.<\/p>\n

The protagonists are aligned with the Rebellion, who say they hate the Empire, and we see the Empire as a destructive force. In actuality, there isn’t such a thing as a completely good side and a completely bad side. Both sides believe that they are pursuing the most effective course of action to bring about justice in the galaxy. The Empire just has a different value system than the Rebellion; both are violent towards one another but neither is completely unjustified.<\/p>\n

Our sympathies depend on which point of view the story is told from. The 1977 movie directed by George Lucas, Star Wars: Episode IV, A New Hope<\/i>, is no exception. <\/i>Its approach to the use of violence is problematic because media does influence the way we think, and something as popular as Star Wars<\/i> can influence the way an entire country perceives empires and rebellions against those empires. The \u2018good vs. evil\u2019 binary perpetuated by much of the franchise is not the most productive way to approach an anti-colonial rebellion in real life, and can be harmful because it ignores the real nuances of using violence in rebellion.<\/p>\n

The purpose of this paper is to determine when the audience of a Star Wars<\/i> movie should excuse or even support the use of violence. To do this is to determine, to an extent, when violence is permissible in a real-world rebellion. So, I will be using texts that draw their claims from real-world events: The Rebel<\/i> by Albert Camus and Frantz Fanon\u2019s The Wretched of the Earth<\/i>. When applying these theories to Star Wars<\/i>, I will analyze \u00a0instances in which the narrative\u2019s portrayal of an event is inconsistent with its actual moral value, and when the rebels\u2019 actions are not portrayed as \u2018authentic\u2019 in terms of Camus\u2019 theory. According to P.G. Neiman, writing on Camus\u2019 theory, “Authenticity is. . . important in breaking the cycle of violence wherein one oppressive government is replaced with another.\u201d To avoid becoming like the Empire after the Empire is defeated and negating their own mission, the Rebel Alliance should be authentic in their rebellion. This means recognizing that their respect for humanity, which is why they rebel in the first place, is not congruent with their violent actions.<\/p>\n

I will therefore investigate the justification for acts of violence carried out by Luke Skywalker in A New Hope<\/i> (1977) and Cassian Andor in Rogue One: A Star Wars Story<\/i> (2016), which is more realistic in its portrayal of violent rebellion than other Star Wars<\/i> movies as characters directly engage with the moral implications of murder for a rebellion. Applying the contrasting views of Fanon and Camus, I will examine the movie\u2019s use and justification of violence and what Rogue One<\/i> teaches viewers about the world that original Star Wars<\/i> movies do not.<\/p>\n

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope<\/i>, introduced the world to Star Wars <\/i>in 1977. The main character, Luke Skywalker, finds himself on a quest to save his galaxy from the Empire\u2019s fearsome weapon, the Death Star, a massive space station capable of destroying entire worlds. He succeeds, not only saving a Rebellion base from destruction but also killing all Imperial officials on board the space station. Though the movie is full of violence, the moral implications of the \u2018good guys\u2019 killing other human beings are never addressed or even mentioned.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/KuKqcfO31is?t=37s<\/p>\n

(A New Hope<\/em>)<\/p>\n

On the other hand, it is made abundantly clear that any and every act of violence perpetrated by the Empire is morally wrong. A logical self-defense argument can be made for the destruction of the Death Star and the deaths of everyone on board during the heroic climax of Episode IV: A New Hope<\/i>–in fact for all the violent acts by the Rebellion in Episode IV<\/i>–but Camus\u2019 ideas of contradiction are never addressed:<\/p>\n

\u2026if [the rebels] retreat they must accept death; if they advance they must accept murder… If a single master [of the rebelling slaves] should, in fact, be killed, the rebel, in a certain way, is no longer justified in using the term community of men from which he derived his justification. \u2026 From the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood (22-23).<\/p>\n

Camus\u2019 ideas, when applied to Star Wars, mean that the condition of the violent Rebel against the Empire is rife with contradiction and moral dilemmas. Instead of seeing these nuances in the Star Wars movies, the audience is asked to view the Empire as unequivocally immoral and the Rebellion as morally just. Furthermore, Franz Fanon\u2019s argument concerning violence in rebellions seems to be more applicable to Star Wars<\/i> as he claims that rebels are always fully justified in their violence against their oppressors: \u201c\u2026colonialism is not a machine capable of thinking, a body endowed with reason. It is naked violence and only gives in when confronted with greater violence.\u201d (Fanon, 23)<\/p>\n

In other words, the lives of colonists are acceptable losses in the battle against colonialism. He asserts that the only way to defeat oppressive colonialism is with violence, and because of this any damage caused by violent rebels in not morally wrong. However, evidence that the Empire is truly oppressive is not conclusive. Episode IV does not provide the reason that the Rebels have for rebelling. [1]<\/p>\n

In Episodes IV-VI, what specifically makes the Empire evil is never explicitly stated, but it is to an extent shown. When stormtroopers destroy Luke\u2019s aunt and uncle\u2019s farm and burn them alive, we are left to assume that the Empire is evil because it uses this same unnecessary level of violence whenever it cannot get what it wants. This is supported by the destruction of the inhabited planet Alderaan by the Empire to try to force Leia to reveal the location of the Death Star plans. Though these events prove that the Empire is malevolent now, we never see what the Empire has done to instigate this conflict (the audience is provided no context for this war until the prequel movies are released 20 years later) and neither of these events would have happened if there were no Rebel\/Empire conflict. If we knew specifically why the Rebels fight, it would be easier to judge their violence. Regardless of the initial reason for the conflict, agents of the Empire are sentient beings whose mass murder interferes with the Rebel Alliance\u2019s egalitarian philosophy.<\/p>\n

Episode IV: A New Hope<\/i>, does not talk about the moral implications of killing another person at any point. [2] It is, however, strongly implied that everyone associated with the Empire is expendable, that their lives have no or negligible value to the \u2018good guys,\u2019 the rebels. The most obvious example of this is the destruction of the Death Star. This is a defensive action, and takes fewer lives than the Death Star would have had the capacity to end. The Empire was poised to obliterate the Rebel base on the moon Yavin 4. If the Death Star had not been destroyed, the Rebellion would have been destroyed. So, the violence is necessary for the success of the Rebellion, and the murder of these hundreds of Empire soldiers and officials is unilaterally portrayed as a positively moral action by the movie.<\/p>\n

Yet Albert Camus claims that the necessity of violence or its justification by moral \u2018math\u2019 (killing a smaller amount of people to save a larger amount) are not sufficient to excuse or justify violence in a rebellion: \u201cA rebel cannot be consistent if he or she claims to respect all humanity while at the same time he or she claims the right<\/i> to commit murder\u201d (Neiman). From Camus\u2019 theoretical standpoint, it appears that members of the Rebellion either do not believe in universal humanity (including intelligent sentient non-human beings), which would mean they are not real rebels, or they do not believe that those aboard the Death Star have humanity.<\/p>\n

Even members of the Rebellion die en masse without other rebels sparing a second thought to consider the lives lost. In A New Hope<\/em>, thirty fighters and the freighter the Millennium Falcon set out towards the Death Star at the Battle of Yavin, and only four ships return, one of which being Han Solo\u2019s Millennium Falcon and another piloted by Luke Skywalker. If you aren\u2019t a main character, Star Wars<\/i> confers much less value on your life. Other rebels who die on screen in A New Hope\u2019s<\/i> opening scene of Vader striding through an airlock are set dressing to show us his power, and the fighter pilots are killed to communicate that Luke is in danger. There were also probably anti-Imperial prisoners on board the Death Star when it exploded, given the presence of multiple cell blocks is confirmed when Han, Chewbacca, and Luke break Leia out of a cell in \u201cDetention Block AA-23\u201d and Han and Luke pretend to be transferring Chewbacca from block 1138 (A New Hope<\/i>). These deaths are never mentioned. \u00a0It is war, there have to be casualties, but the rebels don\u2019t seem to believe in the humanity of their own losses. The survivors of these scenes don\u2019t mourn the dead. Instead of a funeral after the deadly Battle of Yavin, we see only an award ceremony in honor of Luke and Han. Though the movie has undeniable entertainment value, it promotes a view of violence that is unproductive when applied to the real world: rebels who treat their oppressors and their own as though they have no humanity in action and\/or thought cannot create a just world in which we are all equal. [3]<\/p>\n

In the case of the more recent, morally nuanced \u00a0Rogue One: A Star Wars Story<\/i>, Camus\u2019 philosophies are exemplified in the character Cassian Andor and his decision to be part of an extremely dangerous, possibly suicidal mission to obtain the Death Star plans. Differing from both trilogies, this stand-alone story has characters presented as good people who do bad things and feel guilt. The audience is meant to relate to or at least feel sympathy and empathy for them. [4] In Rogue One<\/i>, Cassian and the rest of the rebels who come with him on the mission are the very model of Camus\u2019 rebel. They commit violent acts because they know it is necessary, yet they also know it is wrong and hope to redeem themselves by dying to prevent the deaths of many more by the Death Star. The \u2018greater good\u2019 justification does not totally satisfy them, and matters are further complicated because many of the violent acts in this movie are not strictly in self defense.<\/p>\n

Rogue One<\/i> is unusual in the Star Wars franchise because of its tendency to focus on the moral implications of murderous rebellion. This may be because George Lucas geared the first six Star Wars<\/i> movies towards children, so the narratives were simpler, and now that the fan base is older it can understand occasional forays from different directors into more nuanced material. Additionally, the field of postcolonial studies was largely nonexistent until the eighties, after Lucas had outlined his six-episode story, and has gained momentum since. Now that postcolonial theory is more widely studied, referred to, and understood, it can be accepted and understood in popular culture, especially in a stand-alone installment that does not affect the major plot points of the beloved series.<\/p>\n

Instead of portraying everyone in the Empire\u2019s administration and military as evil and everyone in the Rebellion as morally right, like in A New Hope<\/i>, [5] Rogue One<\/i> asserts that one person can do \u2018evil\u2019 things in service of a decidedly good cause. Much of the movie\u2019s tension comes from the audience being able to relate to the moral struggles of Cassian Andor and understanding the difficulty of choosing when to use violence in service of a rebellion. In the original trilogy, this tension came from the battle between the good Rebellion and evil Empire. [6] Cassian, and the rest of the Rogue One team, engage directly with the morality of murder. Within the first ten minutes of the movie, Cassian kills a \u201cbad guy\u201d \u2013 a clone trooper \u2013 and a \u201cgood guy\u201d \u2013 the informant Tivik. We see he doesn\u2019t want to kill Tivik, but he knows it is necessary to make sure he cannot betray any information about him or the rebelling Alliance to the Empire.<\/p>\n

https:\/\/youtu.be\/YLF-RI_QiLg<\/p>\n

(Rogue One)<\/em><\/p>\n

Regret and internal conflict are visible in his face after the act, along with a reluctant resignation. Also, while under orders to kill Galen Erso on sight, Cassian chooses not to. His commanding officer in the Rebellion wants him to kill Galen because they believe he is essential to the completion of the Death Star, but after seeing how much he means to Jyn Erso, his daughter, he decides not to take the shot. He sees Galen\u2019s humanity and decides that his life has value and should not be ended. This gets him in trouble with his commander and leads to an airstrike of the Empire facility where Galen is, ultimately killing more people than Cassian would have and causing Galen\u2019s death anyway.<\/p>\n

Jyn is angry that Cassian ever considered following the order. She tells Cassian: \u201cOrders? When you know they\u2019re wrong? You might as well be a stormtrooper\u201d (Rogue One<\/i>). She equates the Rebel Alliance\u2019s soldiers with the Empire\u2019s military, further deriving from the traditional \u2018good vs. bad\u2019 Star Wars<\/i> story. The audience isn\u2019t handed any easy answers to the question of whether or not Cassian should have killed Galen. Later on when Jyn is planning to retrieve the Death Star plans, Cassian brings several Rebellion soldiers with him as he accompanies her. Referring to this group, he says \u201cWe\u2019ve all done terrible things on behalf of the Rebellion.\u201d This is a statement that has never been admitted before in any of the Star Wars movies, although it is certain that murder is a terrible thing, and that the Rebellion commits murder.<\/p>\n

Cassian Andor\u2019s actions correlate strongly with Camus\u2019 theory. He is a rebel, working and fighting for the Rebel Alliance, who kills for the rebellion and feels guilty for having murdered. Camus states: \u201cWhen he rebels, a man identifies himself with other men and so surpasses himself, and from this point of view human solidarity is metaphysical\u201d (The <\/i>Rebel, p 11). Regarding the necessary use of violence in rebellion, he states: \u201cFrom the moment that he strikes, the rebel cuts the world in two. He rebelled in the name of the identity of man with man and he sacrifices this identity by consecrating the difference in blood\u201d (The Rebel, <\/i>p23). This awareness of a moral transgression is refuted by Fanon: \u201cThis line of reasoning which envisages the surgical elimination of the colonized does not morally upset the colonized subject. He has always known that his dealings with the colonist would take place in a field of combat\u201d(p43). Fanon\u2019s rebel rebels in the name of the oppressed colonized, so there is no reason for the rebel to care about the lives of the colonizers.<\/p>\n

Therefore, Cassian Andor\u2019s actions in Rogue One<\/i> are more consistent with Camus\u2019 theory of the rebel than, say, those of Luke Skywalker in A New Hope.<\/i> Cassian is a true rebel who fights against the Empire and<\/i> a chain of command that seeks not to limit violence but to codify it and justify it whenever deemed necessary to its success. Cassian retains the belief that fuels the efforts of the Rebellion in the first place: the belief in respect for all humanity. He commits murder on several occasions, but does not support it and so remains authentic in his actions. In other words, I believe that because Cassian considers the consequences of his violence as it affects other people, his rebellious violence is excusable, while Luke\u2019s is not because he never considers the consequences of his violence and thus is not shown to have a belief in respect for all humanity. \u00a0Violence is necessary in a rebellion. How we react to and frame that violence, whether or not we are authentic in our use of violence, determines whether or not our victory will lessen the amount of violence and oppression in our postcolonial world.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Endnotes:<\/p>\n

[1] Episodes I-III tell of the Empire’s founding by a Sith Lord, a supposedly evil opposite of the Knights of the Jedi Order. Even that distinction is based on arbitrary absolutes, as Episodes I-III explore themes of moral ambiguity in telling the story of a sympathetic character, a Jedi Knight, turning into a Sith Lord.<\/p>\n

[2] The prequel movies, Episodes I, II, and III, follow the character arc of Anakin Skywalker, a Jedi knight trainee who turns from a student of the peaceful Jedi ideology of the Light Side of the Force into Darth Vader, a member of the Jedi\u2019s \u201cevil\u201d counterparts, the Dark Force-wielding Sith. He rebels against the Jedi Council and ideas that he deems unfair, fitting Camus\u2019 model of a rebel fighting back against his oppressors because of conditions he finds untenable. However, the audience is not supposed to think that Anakin is morally correct when he acts in service of the Sith, especially in the third episode when he murders not only many Jedi but also all of the Younglings, children training to become Jedi. They look barely ten years old. Despite the real failings of the Jedi council and Anakin\u2019s right to want to change things, this obviously crosses a line. It is an act so despicable that it is not shown on screen.<\/p>\n