Star Wars Episode III's moralizing shallow, thoughtless

Folks, first the good news: I watched Star Wars Episode III: The Revenge of the Sith twice. I also read the excellent novelization of the script by Matthew Woodring Stover. Of course, this is a great saga, good story-telling almost 30 years in the making. I was there, 12 years old when the first Star Wars came out, standing on line on a stormy day in Ponce, Puerto Rico, and like many other fans, have watched the franchise grow and read uncounted novels involving the characters we all love.

Star Wars is a morality tale. One may see countless influences of the myths and stories that make up the fabric of Western Civilization, and many borrowings from other civilizations too. We can hear echoes of King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table; of Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, of Robin Hood, of the biblical David and Jonathan, of Rasputin, of Nietzsche, Camus, Buddha, Zen Buddhism, so many mythical, literary, and spiritual currents so intertwined that the dual Trilogy's meaning and message becomes universal, intelligible in all languages and cultures.

That doesn't mean that Lucas always gets it right. Particularly on this line that many pundits have interpreted to be a dig at President Bush:

ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.

OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

I hope you see the inherent contradiction, the disparity between Obi Wan's words and his subsequent actions. Ethical relativists in the Internet and the media have regarded Obi Wan's comeback with delight, but none of them reflect on the fact that Obi Wan "did what he must."

The only logical path open to Obi Wan's after stating that Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes was for himself to replace his light saber in its holster, bow gently to Anakin, wish him luck on all his new endeavors and chosen path, get into the spacecraft, leave and—hell, why not?— marry Padmé.

In denying the existence of absolutes, Obi Wan had to accept implicitly Anakin's and Darth Sidious' earlier thesis that good and evil are morally equivalent "points of view," of equal validity and exempt from ethical condemnation of any kind. Obi Wan's actions, the "doing what he must" belied the fact that the Jedi also dealt in moral absolutes, and that when opposing absolutes clash, battle ensues. After careful analysis, I find the moral dissonance between Obi Wan's stated beliefs and subsequent actions grating.

But this is more than sloppy dialogue. It reflects Lucas'—and broader Hollywood's—penchant to moralize without careful reflection. In Star War's parlance, Lucas let himself "unleash his anger," the result being this sophomoric exchange between master and pupil, or brother and brother, where neither rose over the other, really.

Watch this movie, of course. Read the book. Wait for the DVD. But don't be seduced by facile philosophies and sloppy logic as you seek to use this movie as a key to interpret present realities. I am afraid that it is not good enough for that kind of task.

Enjoy your Fourth of July holiday!