Obi-Wan and the end of the Empire
Hmmm...this is a tough one. I guess, having read the posts in this thread, I'd have to agree with a lot of people and go with the scene in Return of the Jedi where Obi-Wan explains to Luke that, while Darth Vader didn't really betray and murder Luke's father, "what I have told you was true...from a certain point of view."
There's a couple of reasons why I'd name this as the worst scene ever. First of all, as people have already stated, it's just plain embarassing; it's a cop-out answer; and it's embarassing for Alec Guiness to have to actually deliver a line like that, especially considering how respected the character of Obi-Wan is supposed to be in the Original Trilogy.
More importantly, I'd have to name it as the worst scene ever because that scene created a whole school of thought among Star Wars fans that holds that, "Obi-Wan is a liar." I don't really wish to debate this at length, because, it is true that Obi-Wan lies when he first tells Luke about his father. But, I think a lot of people have unfairly ignored the reasons behind why he might have originally told Luke that Darth Vader killed his father.
If we're going off of what can be inferred from the Original Trilogy and what we find out in Revenge of the Sith, then, we know that Obi-Wan is on Tatooine in order to keep an eye on Luke - and presumably, that would entail protecting Luke from the influences of the Dark Side, including Luke's father, Darth Vader, and the Emperor. Now, knowing that, what would have happened if Obi-Wan had told Luke the truth? If Luke knew that his father was alive, then, he would probably want to meet him. And, if he knew that his father was Darth Vader, then, this presents some problems for Obi-Wan - because it almost inevitably leads to Luke meeting Darth Vader (and the Emperor at some point) and being tempted to join the Dark Side. And, once Darth Vader knew that Luke was his son, then, it would probably only be a matter of time before he found out that Leia was his daughter. So, worst case scenario, either both of the Skywalker twins end up turning to the Dark Side, or, they end up dead - which in either case would pretty much mean abject failure for Obi-Wan and Yoda.
So, giving Obi-Wan the benefit of the doubt - that he's not just a lying and manipulative old man - obviously, he knew that sooner or later Luke would discover who his father was. Obi-Wan's objective in lying to him was most likely to buy some time to teach Luke the ways of The Force, seek training from Yoda on Dagobah, and, at least have a fighting chance at resisting the temptation to join the Dark Side when he finally does confront his father.
So, is Obi-Wan a liar? Yeah. But, what else could have he done that wouldn't jeopardize the future of the Jedi?
But, back to the subject at hand, the scene sukcs; it's not handled very well; and Obi-Wan's character comes off as, well, a liar.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Now, to address some other issues, because I don't feel that my post is long enough as it is, let's talk about plans of succession in the Empire and the apparently non-sensical celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi.
Lines of succession in the Empire could kind of go either way. While there's a lot of evidence that the Empire is basically a well run, well organized meritocracy, it's also a dictatorial regime. And, generally speaking, dictators don't like to plan for what happens should they suddenly become "indisposed."
I would guess, to draw some parallels between other regimes, that Palpatine's empire was structured similarly to Saddam's Iraq. Basically, you've got the dictator as the head of government, flanked by a few close advisors, who probably double as the heads of essential government institutions like a secret police force, and a few highly skilled, highly loyal military leaders. In Saddam's case, there was Saddam, his sons, and a few generals that formed his inner circle. In the case of The Empire, basically, you had Palpatine, Grand Moff Tarkin, and Darth Vader. And that's basically it.
The clearest outline for any plan of succession we really get comes in Episodes IV and V. Palpatine ruled the empire; Grand Moff Tarkin was his second in command and commander of the armed forces (basically); and Darth Vader was essentially Palpatine's body guard/secret police. Vader is sent to the Death Star in Episode IV to assist Grand Moff Tarkin and to track down key figures of the rebel insurgency. Once Tarkin died, Vader assumed military authority. And, had Palpatine died, then Vader would have assumed control of the Empire as well. But that was about as far as the plan of succession seems to go.
Following in this same line of reasoning, the reason why the destruction of the Death Star in Return of the Jedi is the end of the Empire is because it kills the only two people who had the authority, power, and resources to hold the Empire together: Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader. To cite Iraq once again (and I have no political agenda in doing so, just to avoid any confusion on that point) once Saddam was deposed, the state of Iraq disintegrated into several pre-existing factions (basically Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds) and, the resulting situation was that various warlords - like Muqtada al-Sadr - were left vying for power. And, given the size of the Empire and the breadth of its military bureaucracy, there most certainly would have been pre-existing factions, and surely warlords (high ranking military officers) would have emerged to compete for power, resources, and jurisdictions. Nobody with the stature of Palpatine or Darth Vader would have existed to have a legitimate claim to authority over the entire Empire, so, the result would have been the collapse of the Empire.
~~~~~~~~
And finally, the celebration at the end of Return of the Jedi. I can understand why people are a bit confused by this; especially with the Special Edition footage of celebrations on Coruscant, it seems as if everyone in the Empire is misinterpreting the significance of what just happened. If you disregard the added scenes, then, the celebration on Endor is nothing more than a reasonable response to a single, very significant victory. Add Coruscant into the equation and it gets a little tricky. But, I tend to assume that mass communications and some type of news media exists in the Star Wars universe - at least people have some way of keeping up with current events. And, the destruction of the second Death Star is basically the climax of a "shock and awe" campaign being carried out by the Rebels. And, as rebel supporters are likely to be monitoring this series of events, the destruction of the Death Star becomes a sort of symbolic, "mission accomplished" signifying the end of major operations.
But, I do think this raises another, more important question: how many citizens of the Empire are actually Rebel sympathizers? Oddly enough, I don't think we're presented with a lot of evidence in the 6 films to conclude that the majority of people are dissatisfied with the Empire.
Think about it. In Revenge of the Sith, when Palpatine proclaims the beginning of the Empire, all of the political elites of the Republic seemed thrilled to death about it; the announcement is greeted with thunderous applause. Padme says that it's the death of Democracy, but, she never explains why - as far as I remember, Palpatine was basically assuming emergency powers through legitimate, democratic means - we're simply told the the Empire is bad just because it is. But, if we're following what happened in the movie, it seems as if the Empire came into existence through pretty legimiate means.
Similarly, when do we ever hear an average citizen say anything bad about the Empire? We hear Luke's aunt and uncle say the equivalent of "we don't agree with all of their policies," but, Owen is still very opposed to any typed of armed insurgency against the Empire. Lando Calrissian doesn't seem to like the Empire very much, but then again, Lando is actively breaking their laws, so he shouldn't have any expectation of protection under the Empire.
As far as what the Empire actually does, well, what does it do? We do seem the Empire commit acts of genocide and utter brutality, but then, many of the actions of the Rebels are not much better. The Empire does destroy Alderaan, killing billions of innocent people. But, from the Empire's point of view, that military action was taken in response to Alderaan's cooperation with a terrorist organization. And when the Rebels blow up the Death Star, is that any better? I'm not sure what the maximum occupancy of the Death Star is, but, it's planet sized, so, let's say a couple million. And who are the majority of people killed on the Death Star? Stormtroopers. They're not war criminals; they're not soul-less killing machines; they're just soldiers trying to make a living. Basically, they were stationed overseas, waiting for deployment, and then they got blown up. What makes their lives worth any less than the lives of the people on Alderaan?
So, the question at the end of Return of the Jedi really should be: are the Rebels heroes or terrorists? What evidence do we have to assume that ANY celebrations would be taking place outside of Endor? From what it looks like, the Emperor was the head of a legitimate government and the Rebels never really make a good case for why the Empire needs to be overthrown. So, given that background, why would anybody be celebrating on Coruscant?
Well, this last bit is more speculative than anything else. Sorry for making this such a really long post.
johnnycancer
This post has been edited by johnnycancer: 20 August 2006 - 02:29 AM