I get that it is kind of corny to discuss in detail a 40 year old science fiction movie, but the fact that Star Wars is still so enjoyable is a testament to the care with which the characters are developed… so bear with me. The charm and imagination of the Star Wars universe made it instantly appealing, but I think the characters are what make a nearly 50 year old space opera so long lasting. Darth Vader is an iconic villain. Even now, over 40 years since his original introduction as an American pop culture icon, he is instantly recognizable as a sign of the evil, corruptive powers of the “Dark Side”. He is an amazing character – his powers are vast and terrible and his humorless presence draws the viewer’s attention in every scene he is in. No doubt inspired by countless literary tales of lost knights and sinister samurai, not to mention modern sci-fi, operatic, and cinematographic villains, Vader is a classical antagonist. It is nearly impossible to create a character as sinister as Darth Vader, so why would anyone try?
I saw The Force Awakens twice when it came out in late 2015, and I thought it was good but not great. I’ll be honest, I understand the monumental difficulty of rebooting the most popular franchise in movie history, and I actually do appreciate the tip of the cap parallels to the original movies. The movie was good, got the franchise back on its feet, and appealed to almost every movie audience demographic.
Still, I found the main villain Kylo Ren to be lacking, and his poorly defined character was the greatest flaw in the movie. The movie-makers chose to make a movie that could appeal to the greatest audience possible and they deserve to be commended for succeeding in that incredibly difficult task. Yet the difference between the reboot and the original series is palpable, and my hypothesis here is that the difference in villain design is the problem. I want to use the differences in Vader and Ren to underscore the subtle distinctions in how the two characters are defined as antagonists to show the difference between an excellent movie and just a good movie.
To understand Vader, we have to understand his contrast – Luke Skywalker. From his humble beginnings as a moisture farmer on Tatooine, it is clear that Luke is no seething, murderous warrior. With pale hair and soft features, he seems less an intergalactic ninja-master and more like a guy who naps at his desk after lunch every day. We are told by Obi-Wan that his father was once the best pilot in the galaxy and a great warrior before he was murdered and betrayed by Darth Vader. Luke may be predisposed to great power through his bloodlines but his rudimentary talents are not embryonic but rather withered and wasted.
Vader’s credentials are established early and often. Like the long, beautiful opening shot of a massive Emperial starship chasing a puny Rebel craft, the reach of Vader’s power is long and terrible. In the first movie, he chokes out one of his own generals from presumably light-years away, his rage undiluted by the distance saying “don’t be too proud of this technological terror you’ve constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force… I find your lack of faith disturbing”. That certainly got my attention. He later cuts Luke’s mentor, Obi-Wan Kenobi, in half in a light saber battle. As a matter of fact, through most of the original trilogy he is completely undefeated in any test of power or strength – he plays with Luke before easily beating him in each lightsaber battle (and cuts off his hand!), effortlessly deflects the shot from Han Solo’s blaster, and he blows up an entire planet just for vengence. We realize that Vader was once a human but has been deformed and is now equal part machine – a little on the nose, but he has “lost his humanity”. The audience is offered fleeting but sobering glimpses in to the depths of Vader’s sinister power.
And what does that say about Luke? Despite his massively gifted but inchoate ability with the force, he is easily defeated by the weaker but very highly trained master of evil several times. Ever the Tatooine hayseed, Luke foolishly believes he can overpower master Vader if he trains hard enough. When he confronts Vader for the first time in the Empire Strikes Back, the battle is quick and decisive. Vader mocks him and states the obvious – Luke can never beat him without first embracing the power of the dark side: “You have controlled your fear. Now, release your anger. Only your hatred can destroy me.” And the struggle between Luke and that knowledge is the whole stinking point of the movie!
With no chance of beating him by virtue or skill in a lightsaber battle, Luke can choose to thrive with the intoxicating but corrosive powers of the dark side of his humanity, or to choose to be killed. An age old dilemma! – to quote Shakespeare “some rise by sin, and some by virtue fall” – and we don’t know as the viewer what Luke will choose. In the final episode of the original movies, after momentarily losing his discipline and embracing his anger, Luke is able to brutally beat down Vader, his father. Now realizing the parallel paths the two have followed and truly awful power he possesses when enraged, Luke is guilt-ridden and remorseful. He recovers from his bout of anger and refuses to follow the dark path. The Emperor begins to torture Luke to death. At this point Vader, finally, after nearly 3 full length epic movies, realizes the mistakes he has made and is “defeated” by Luke, not in battle but by regaining his compassion. This is the most important character arc and plot progression in the series. The unstoppable force of evil was defeated finally by Luke, and not by some mastery of violence like we have come to expect in these types of good vs evil movies, but by empathy. Isn’t that what the message of Star Wars is supposed to be? The stakes feel real throughout the whole trilogy, and it feels like a monumental accomplishment to have defeated the Empire and Darth Vader (and make Vader reconcile his evil ways, to boot). Obviously when navigating the grand scope of philosophical craft this is not some sui generis sublime dissection of the human condition, but the consistency of the characters in the development of the protagonist/antagonist relationship is what gives the original Star Wars movies longevity and greatness.
That brings us to the Force Awakens, the 2015 Star Wars reboot. Kylo Ren is an evil, Vader-worshipping goth clown who has some sweet dark side Force powers of his own. The protagonist in this case is Rey, who like Luke is talented but mostly untrained Force noob. I won’t be too critical of the plot similarities here – one man’s reheated leftovers are another man’s cold pizza – my main problem boils down to a fundamental problem with the relationship between the characters Ren and Rey. The movie goes to great lengths to establish that Ren is just as terrible and evil as Vader was before him by showing him halt a laser blast mid-air and blow up some planet with a neo-Death Star (he even collects Vader artifacts!). Then they screw up all that development when he becomes… conflicted with his evil. Don’t jerk around your audience here – this isn’t building nuance in to a well-layered character, this is exposing the flaw that will allow our heroes to defeat this “tyranny of evil men”. Where is the suspense in that? Part of the charm of the Empire Strikes Back was dealing with the suspense of every saber duel – would Luke be strong enough now to finally beat Vader? When he failed, it was truly devastating. When the original movies came out, people believed that the series could end with Vader winning… the stakes were real for Luke. The Force Awakens shows Rey overpowering Ren with her force powers and nearly killing him in a lightsaber duel right off the bat! So what does the audience get from this? Rey is stronger than Ren already, she just needs to practice a little and then she can win the day in one of those old-school high-
noon at the O.K. Corral gun battles where the hero always drew just a bit faster because they were the hero after all. Personally, I don’t feel invested in the story or the characters, likely because the stakes don’t seem real to our protagonist, Rey, because our antagonist Ren seems easily beatable. Let’s hope that isn’t where this is headed. I don’t really care if the following movies correct the course, a good movie should stand on its own even if it is destined to be a trilogy, and this movie needed some work.
Who knows what the rest of the reboot has to offer. I certainly don’t mean to jump the gun on the upcoming movies or declare the series a flop yet – The Force Awakens was fine. Too often you see these blockbusters made with more attention to detail in the special effects than in the character development (like all these derived comic book movies). The great masters of cinema (Kurosawa, Kubrick, Hitchcock, good ole Spielie) would never let special effects get in the way of a well-told story. With such a massive budget you would expect a little more care would be given to establishing a consistent theme and better character development arc. Don’t skimp on the storytelling and don’t neglect the antagonist – it’s the difference between legendary and merely acceptable!
Walthblog 
But isn’t this where the new trilogy has to differentiate from the original trilogy? There are an insane amount of parallels between A New Hope and the Force Awakens. If Ren was a badass like Vader it would be the exact same movie. This I think is where the nuance is; Ren is NOT a baller, he is conflicted and requires physical pain (smacking his injury) to draw power from the darkside because he isn’t the embodiment of evil. There is also a difference between “evil” and “power.”
I am also not convinced that Ren stays a baddie for two more movies only to be redeemed at the end (that said, who knows). He way turn sooner, and honestly, Rey may turn to the dark side – she seemed to have a lot of anger. That is all probably wrong though, I just see a lot more grey area with these characters as opposed to the Luke = Good, Vader = Bad from the original series.
Final point, you had three movies (references from all above) to learn about Vader and follow his story, plus you could argue the “other three” movies that were his story as well, plus 20+ years of video games, pop culture references, etc. We’ve seen a fraction of Ren so far comparably, they may still screw him up, but I’m hopeful that he becomes more interesting as we move forward.
Well written and some good points though, I might just be a fanboy.
LikeLike
The Force Awakens is not (and should not) be the same movie as the original trilogy. I hope they do not adhere too much to the original storylines (that would be lazy) and I can understand the novelty of a parallel story. But the point of an antagonist is to be the mirror that reflects qualities of the protagonist. Sometimes antagonists can themselves be the protagonist, and can go through significant amounts of change, and maybe that’s what the directors have in mind. My problem with Ren is that it is unclear what he is. He blew up a planet, he kills his father, but he has to try to find ways to draw the evil power of the force? What am I supposed to think about this character? How can you be kind of evil and blow up a planet? It comes across as angsty rather than evil, and I don’t think grumpy people blow up planets. Maybe Rey stays good, or goes bad, I don’t know. It should be clear though what her challenges were in this movie, as each movie should stand alone, but she seems immediately strong which comes across a little hollow. Again, the difference between a good and great story is usually clarity, and the new movies fell short in this regard.
An even better example is the Dark Knight, where the Joker at first is motivated by traditional things, like money, and uses traditional powers, like violence. Eventually he becomes infatuated by Batman, this person who represents ultimate good and unwavering adherence to principle, and Joker foregoes money (even burning a pile of it). He uses Batman’s own principles – a refusal to kill anyone – to really test how resolute Batman’s commitment to “good morals” is. He forces Batman to make immoral choices – like eavesdropping on innocent people – showing that even this “white knight” will do a little bad in the name of a greater good. That is a great antagonist! And that is a great lesson to learn about Batman! Joker forces him to become the Dark Knight – a villain in the eyes of Gotham – the hero Gotham deserves, as they say in the movie. The world they live in cannot sustain a truly “good” hero, and ironically Batman sacrifices way more by being somewhat evil (even if only a facade). As a single movie in a trilogy, it stands alone as a great movie and improves on the overall trilogy arc. It is not fair to compare The Force Awakens because it is only a good story.
LikeLike
The one constant, through all these movies is balancing The Force. Anakin was going to bring balance to The Force, then Luke was. FWIW, Yoda never seemed to believe either one of them can, but always recognized how important it was, and most bad ass dude in the history of the franchise he was.
In Episode I, the Jedi’s had the galaxy on lockdown, and then one of the strongest Sith Lords ever emerges from years of operating right under their noses (although no one sensed it – guess Mace didn’t get back his “Sith Sensing Mother Fucker” wallet when he got robbed at the diner) shifting the balance of power in the force back.
The Empire grows, and suddenly Luke emerges, and swings Vader back from the Dark side (over the course of the next three movies) when it looks like the Empire is going to squash the rebels. Now the New Order has emerged, and here comes Rey, going wild with the force without any formal training. Remember anyone else like that? Midi-Chlorian count of the charts? So much ability but easily swayed by fear – the fear that festered in them from being alone?
The fanboy chatter before VII was that Luke was in exile because he was so afraid of the how strong the force had become with him. The other question is where did Rey come from? They can’t go back to the Immaculate Conception they claimed with Vader, right? Another constant with the Star Wars story line has been Palpatine vs Skywalker. Think they could have been building to that in VII?
I think you’re selling the parallel stories short. I’m more interested in them than watching people mess with the original trilogy. No need reboot the characters created, you’re just essentially creating a “Band of Brothers” for all the battles during the rebellion. I’d be all about that. Seeing how all those guys who got blasted trying to blow up the Death Star in IV sounds like a plan to me!
LikeLike