Does Andor break Star Wars? (video essay)
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 5 ก.ค. 2024
- CHAPTERS:
0:00 Do the ends justify the means?
4:11 Are people morally consistent?
6:10 'The Rebellion' as a Trolley Problem
10:10 The frame of the story
Many Bothans died to bring us this video (and they shall remain unnamed).
--
Oh, and- spoilers for Andor.
--
In this video essay I explore the moral ramifications of the questions posed by Andor, and how that relates to the attendant truths and lies of storytelling. - ภาพยนตร์และแอนิเมชัน
Luthen doesn't see himself surviving the Rebellion in any way. He knows he's dead. One way, or another, or even a third way. He does the questionable things because he feels, his own very real and immedtiate end, will justify his means.
He says as much in his soliloquy in “One Way Out.”
@@devonsharkey414 "To make a sunrise I'll never see" He knows full well his actions are not for his own self-interest, there's nobody close to him that he's doing it for. It's plain and simply a sacrifice for others, his own life and morality be damned.
He’s basically trying to do the most thorough possible kamikaze run. He expects his mission to end with his death or capture, but he won’t just throw his life away at the first possible moment.
To be like this his personal philosophy is basically that he is the most ruthless enemy the empire has, and therefore he will sacrifice other enemies of the empire in the belief that ultimately he will continue to be a bigger thorn in their side than anyone else possibly can be.
In fact, he probably sees himself not as a thorn in the Empire’s side, but a snowballing existential threat. He’s happy to allow the empire to squash a few marauding bands of rebel fighters if it buys him another couple of months to continue tunnelling under the foundations of the empire and planting more and more dynamite. When he knows his goose is cooked, he lights the fuse
That’s his purpose
Exactly this. Luthen is damned for what he does, and he sacrifices everything, including his own humanity. He has no desire or expectation of playing a role in whatever comes after the empire. There is another character that fills that role, Mon Mothma. Luthen acts as a middle man, shielding Mon Mothma from having to make the "any means necessary" decisions that are vital to the success of the rebellion as a whole, allowing her to basically not be a hypocrite when she does eventually fall into a leadership role after the empire collapses.
This concept in the show made me so excited because it's happened history.
The allies cracking the enigma code of the Germans in WWII gave them the advantage, but they had to select which battles they should and should not win. British intelligence had to choose the battles in order to cover up the secret that they cracked the code in order to win the war
If I remember correctly, the British then subsequently instituted a somewhat randomised naval patrol pattern that had some benefits on its own, but also had the advantage of making it hard for the Germans to realise when a British ship suddenly veering towards them was just unlucky, or when it had been a specifically given order based off cracked intel.
The Krygr raid was probably compromised too late to be given up but it would be interesting if Season 2 showed Luthen working out new ways to take advantage of his inside sources without making it obvious he had them
Honestly this is why Endor is good, this is just the generic realities of life. Anyone who knows anything about how wars are found knows this is how it works at all levels. The profound thing about Endor isn't that it is so good, it's that most fiction, especially Star Wars is so detached from reality and not in a good way.
If you're willing to die for the rebellion, then you're allowing your comrades in arms to make that moral decision to sacrifice you for the greater goal. Dying for a cause isn't always getting to be a visible and noble sacrifice, sometimes it's horrible.
“No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it be making some other poor dumb bastard die for his country”. - General George S. Patton
@@slicershanks1919 This a great quote and true and yet even the winner takes casualties(sacrifices), you want to win with sacrificing as little as possible. The other side reaches a breaking point where they are unwilling to sacrifice anymore.
"a war has no winner. everyone loses. the question that should be asked however isnt WHY, but What for?" my Great Grandfather - 2007, helping me during my struggles.
*“the Germans are the only decent people left in Europe. It's a choice between them and the Russians. I prefer the Germans.”* -General George S. Patton
Seems the empire were truly a necessary force for good.
@@malbasedvalentine3210 Sounds more like Patton was a piece of shit
I love the angle Andor brought to Star Wars. The tone difference between the mythical look we have seen and the realistic look that Andor had strengthens the story as a whole, in my opinion. Having heroic characters and events in a universe that doesn't allow those things makes them more powerful. Phenomenal video! I was surprised to see how new the channel was, definitely going to stick around for your future work.
Ditto. I love the new narrative terrain Andor maps out: at the highest levels of (political and spiritual) power we have a handful of players locked in a game of cosmic chess - these players represent the primordial forces of good and evil running through the galaxy, and their struggles are usually distant from the ordinary people fighting oppression at ground-level.
Thrilled that Andor is opening new doors in terms of storytelling within this fictional universe, and that we now know it is possible to tell stories about the ground-level players that are every bit as good as the stories focusing on cosmic chess (if not better).
But shooting on location for Coruscant was a mistake
@@officialmonarchmusic wdym?
@@mrcheese5383 I mean that shooting on location for Coruscant was a mistake. It's a city that is deliberately unlike anything in our world, so going to places and shooting there for Coruscant was never going to work. Seeing the gray concrete pillars everywhere took me out of it. It was great from all of the sky shots, but whenever the characters are walking around outside... yeah
@@officialmonarchmusic I didn’t even know it was shot on site I just thought I was looking at coruscant. I actually thought the eyes looked really good
Andor really is what I always wanted from star wars, but I never thought we'd actually get it
What? Nothing in andor hasn’t been done in Star Wars before. What is wrong with you?
@@bowencreer3922he said basically he’s been waiting for Andor, your confused 😅
@@bowencreer3922 I think they meant that andor brought a seriousness and brutality to star wars that has been missing from the movies. Here we saw how the empire oppresses regular people, rather than an overall look.
Before the empire has been like a comic villain, ridiculously evil, but in this show we see a terrifying representation of fascism
@@couqueza4169 u summed it up perfectly
“Intelligent enough to know when to pull the lever and when not to pull the lever.”
Not sure if you read any Dewey, but that just about sums up his ideal moral agent. Great video.
it's too damn naive. 3:20 even Germany in the 30's and 40's was a republic... the guy who made this videos is very ignorant. 3:58 never mind, he's a nazi... he couldn't know the difference.
Over forty years ago, Yoda says in reply to Luke's question, "...And sacrifice Han and Leia?"
"If you honor what they fight for? Yes!"
Back in 1980, I was ten-years-old, I thought that was cold, but in the end, Star Wars can be many things to many people. It doesn't have to be all epic adventure, it doesn't have to be all kiddie action. It's a big galaxy of stories to explore, so there's no "breaking it", there's just adding to it. Sometimes those additions are just awful, so be judicious and ignore what you hate, then enjoy what you like. Make up your OWN canon in your head, don't just follow along with what's fed to you. It's all just make-believe.
Excellent point. Thank you for saying what everyone needs to hear.
There's no need to have all the lame conflict that so many if us get bogged down in. From wherever we stand, let's remember to enjoy the show.
The important thing is, billions of dollars of toys and other merch were sold after the box-office success of “A New Hope”
I love your response. Couldn’t say it any better myself.❤
EU is canon.
Lucas is canon. Everything else is fanfic.
And Luke answered this question on Dagobah.
You save your friends.
I feel like Andor signifies an important evolution for Star Wars. The original trilogy showed us a child-like, fantastical version of the conflict between good and evil, a morality play for the 12 year old in all of us. And in the decades since, the franchise has continually tried to recreate that experience for each new generation, always looking to be pleasing and understandable for children first.
This is fine, to the extent that we want Star Wars to retain that core of wonder and pulp adventure... but having watched kids grow up on the sequel trilogy, I have to admit the power of SW to capture and hold children's imaginations has steadily waned. Oh, the franchise has young fans, but it doesn't have the power to retain young fans that it once did. (The why of that is probably a bigger discussion.)
Andor is the first SW series that orients its storytelling toward the adult fans, the ones who were children when the OT and the PT began, but are now all grown up. As adults, we know that it's not as simple as "farmboy has a special destiny, and he makes everything right." Revolutions are messy and bloody, and we cannot make perfect moral choices at all times. But we still want to recapture some of that childhood love, as told through a more realistic adult lens. Andor does that brilliantly, and I hope Disney and Lucasfilm learn that lesson, and create similar content in the years to come.
Respectfully, you could not be more wrong. Characterizing the rest of Star Wars as childish and andor as adult is just not realistic. A fascist empire, Luke’s aunt and uncle getting fried, alderan getting destroyed, Han Solo killing greedo and abandoning the rebellion, luke getting his hand cut off, almost killing Vader, etc., are “childish”? The animated “children’s” shows are filled with heavy themes and events. Your mistake is thinking andor does anything that hasn’t been done in Star Wars before. Star Wars has always been messy and bloody. Yes, the original trilogy has a conflict between good and evil. It’s based on classic literature. Is classic literature “childish”? No. Your other mistake is thinking that “adult” means quality. You talk about capturing an audience. Andor was mediocre and BORING. I don’t know what you’re doing if you think andor is how you capture an audience. Ironically andor is the kind of shallow cheap trick that children are impressed by and then go and tell everyone it’s the greatest thing ever. Furthermore, it has the least actual “Star Wars” content of any Star Wars production. “Adults” are miserable, boring, and shallow. Andor is perfect for them.
@@bowencreer3922 I think the idea is that the OT is "child-like" in the sense that the good guys are very clearly defined, and in the style of classic serials, they never have to get their hands dirty (Han being the momentary exception... until Lucas made sure Greedo shot first.)
Also - respectfully - bloody does not equal "adult." Personally I never liked horror and rated R action movies so much as when I was 11 years old.
Very well said. As for "child like" you didn't say it was for kids. You said it had ethics that a 12 year old could understand. I think Andor indeed paints a much more nuanced picture of right and wrong. Lucas himself refers to characters as good guy and bad guy. Andor basically says good and evil are subjective. Its the subjectivity of ethics and morality that makes it different. Of course TCW and Rebels did a good job of blurring that line.
@@bowencreer3922 Tell me you didnt understand the comment without telling me. All your takes here are shallow. Probably a sequels fan lol.
Well said. Andor sort of splits intent and action apart, which I find to be a continuation of Star War's morality theme. Cassian is good guy... except he's not. It's deeper than black and white.
He's looking for his sister, but shoots two cops dead. Good intent, bad action/result... But his choice to kill the cops was not out of murderous desire but self preservation. These are corrupt cops and he knows it. They could send him back to prison. So he fights. But, he also is forced to execute one after the other falls and dies. But he is not happy about it, and even freaks out for a moment before running off.
He lies to his mom about this event. Good intent, she clearly worries and cares about him, and he doesn't want to keep telling her he's getting into trouble. But he did lie to her, even if she wasn't fooled. So it rounds out to a bad action.
The entire show kind of has this varying perspective, and it makes it feel extremely mature. I want to see this kind of dynamic more often, because it is very much realistic.
And the fact that Cassian ultimately acts on his heart in season 1 gratifies the child in me who likes to see heroes be heroic. It's great stuff, and I really hope more Star Wars production continue to explore what the movies set in motion.
We see the conflict between the Luthen/Gerrera philosophy and the Mothma philosophy in Rogue One and Rebels. Essentially, the Rebellion is morally hamstrung when it clings to the end-justifies-means idea because it undermines trust and cohesion.
The single act that makes the Alliance into a functioning fighting force is the theft of the Death Star plans where all these people who disagree, don’t get along and don’t trust eachother finally decide they need to work together. We see Cassian as a cynical Luthen-type Rebel be transformed into the Luke-type Rebel
It’s why Saw ultimately allows himself to be destroyed. He realizes that he’s been wrong and the only way the Rebellion can survive against the threat facing them (the Death Star) is through unity. These small Rebels factions fighting their individual wars can’t survive on their own
Through all Saw’s journey, we see him take a Vaderesque journey. He loses his family, like Anakin, and becomes more ruthless and radical as he becomes essentially part robot. It’s clear the lonely Gerrera path is not the right one.
We also see how ruthlessness of the Luthen/Saw variety backfires. Agent Kallus in Rebels becomes radicalized as an Imperial after he sees Saw’s partisans execute his injured fellow imperials in cold blood. This makes him all the more ruthless in his pursuit of Specter Cell.
Luthen knows on some level that his way isn’t the right way. And Mothma’s way, the way of mercy, is ultimately the one that wins the day.
And Anakin doesn’t become the story’s protagonist at the end of the day. He was always the protagonist. Luke is the hero who shows his father that there’s a different way. Luke plays the role for Anakin that Galen plays for Jyn and that she is turn plays for Cassian.
Anakin was always about the ends justifying the means - turning to the Dark Side to save Padme, torturing Poggle the Lesser to save Ahsoka, helping Palpatine to usher in the new Empire to get rid of the ineffective , corrupt Senate. The “quick, easy” way - and all it brought him was misery.
The thing is when he makes the decision to kill the Emperor, he knows he’s probably going to die doing it. Essentially, he decided to end the endless cycle of suffering for everyone there and then. Yes, it’s a deeply personal decision at the end of the day. But like Kanan Jarrus, he proves that love, community, mercy, kindness and family win out over the cold calculus of Luthen and Saw
In the end the new republic fails.
So everyone fails at control of the galaxy.
actually anakin plays the role of galen to lukes jyn. Luke is the main guy, the main hero. 1-3 are backstory meant to support 4-6 which is the main trilogy. Prequels are backstory, not the main event. You cant watch 1-3 without 4-6, but you can watch 4-6 without 1-3 if that makes sense.
This is not even slightly correct... 1-3 the good guy is Anakin the bad guy palatine, palpatine makes Anakin a bad guy so new good guy steps in 4-6 until he can bring back MAIN good guy who is Anakin... The story of star wars is literally The tragedy of Anakin Skywalker, to say anything else is just denial and personal bias of how much you like or dislike 1-3
@@ultimatenoob2412 anakin isnt a good guy, he turns evil and kills people. Luke is the good guy, hes the hero of star wars , he follows the heroes journey, hes who you follow in the story, who you grow with. 1-3 are there to enhance 4-6, 4-6 is the main event. To say anything else just shows how ignorant you are to basic storytelling and motifs that have been passed down in culture for 3000 years.
@@ultimatenoob2412 There's a difference between a protagonist and a hero. Anakin is the protagonist of 1-6. The story is about his journey. Luke is the hero of 4-6, but Anakin is still the protagonist. Luke's journey allows Anakin to complete his
Every original Star Wars movie ends with Luke surrendering to the Force and being saved.
In a New Hope, he shuts off the targeting computer and surrenders to the Force and Han saves him.
In Empire he surrenders to the Force, calls out and Leia saves him.
In Jedi he surrenders to the Force and Anakin saves him.
Luke is a hero by choosing when to surrender, that's why he's so different.
Ridiculous how good Andor is; story, script, sets -- simply sumptuous.
Subbed.
Ridiculous how delusional people can be about something that is mediocre, shallow, and boring.
@@bowencreer3922 no doubt
this is Bowen Creer when there is no laser sword wooosh and no laser gun pew pew ---->
@@bowencreer3922 the modern American consumer is perfectly summarized by this comment. Every word said speaks to a mind hormonally controlled by crippling porn addiction, thier mind has no substance no flavor, a mind completely bleached by writing meant to not make you think causing it to desperately want more to solve an empty brain. Finally when confronted with something that can actually engage the brain, the mind shuts that down because that conflicts what it views as an easily to swallow way gaining substance instead of insurancing longevity of functionality of critical thinking. This the reason the modern entertainment industry is in such a terrible state, the brain has become lazy(which means more dementia) meaning that it will inevitably lose all hope of substance and die young both figuratively and literally.
Years ago I read an account of a Nazi collaborator who when arrested said he wasn't the bad guy, that he did only what he had to do to survive and protect his family. The arresting officer replied that what he said might be true and now he was going to pay the price for that survival. Unlike that man Luthen seems to me to be a man whose done terrible things for a good cause and believes he will and should be punished for it.
This is where religion kicks in, it's better to watch your kids die honestly, than to have them watch you be evil.
"I burned my life to make a sunrise I know I will never see." He not only recognizes that he should not be in the post empire world, but that it is necessary for him to be destroyed to end the legacy of the empire.
If Gilroy can be convinced to do another Star Wars show, I'd love to see a show centered around the conflict between the more and less morally flexible ex-rebels running the New Republic.
It’s really cool to see that sort of being touched on in The Mandalorian S3, and it’d be amazing if they allowed Gilroy to pick up the threads and characters set up in that show in his own story.
@@JaydenVarghesethey are touching on it, but it (understandably) feels like it has the depth of the Filoni animated series. If they went with the deep moral questions of Andor, we’d likely see more about what happens to the Alliance after the Empire ends and how would a functioning post-revolutionary Republic deal with these disparate armed groups not willing to fall in line.
And then you remember: "Who cares? They all get blown up anyway by the superweapon that apparently none of them were smart enough to realize the First Order was building."
But yeah, in a canon without The Force Awakens that does sound cool.
@@setdan Revolutionary governments frequently have to deal with counterrevolutionary groups including remnants of the ancien regime. Delving into how the New Republic fumbled the ball so hard that a worse version of the Empire was able to kick their ass *could* be interesting if they put some thought and work into it. Unfortunately, they didn’t and the whole conceit was “remember that evil space wizard? Yeah, he’s back and at it again”. Like, what would motivate someone to join or a planet to support unabashed space Nazis? Everything with the sequels and the Mandalorian so far has been “oh, there’s still a big bunch of evil assholes who love uniforms running around the galaxy with a huge army”. I know it’s deep in the weeds, but how does the First Order even make money to spend on a huge Navy? It would be a valuable little piece of lore to find out that Palpy was robbing the galaxy blind in his heyday and was just sitting on like billions of credits for when he respawned
@@setdan By that logic, who cares about most of Star Wars? Why care about the Republic or The Clone Wars when we know how it all ends? Why care about Obi-Wan or Yoda throughout the prequels when we know they die? Why care about Anakin when we know he turns to the dark side and dies? Why care about Palpatine when we know he's defeated? At this point, Star Wars is defined by its lack of tension. In that, it can explore its themes in even more interesting ways, impacting the viewers through intense dramatic irony.
Really great take on how Luke throwing away his lightsaber was not encouraging a message of non-violence. Rather, it was encouraging a message of not committing violence for the wrong reasons.
On paper, it's not wrong to kill someone evil who is attacking you. However, Star Wars is making the point that it would be wrong to kill them out of anger, hate, and revenge. And that's those were the emotions fueling Luke in that critical moment. Luke wasn't being fueled by justice or peace, it's why he had to recenter himself and refuse to kill Vader. Killing him for the wrong reasons would have been a Dark Side act. Throwing away the saber was not about rejecting violence, it was about rejecting the Dark Side.
It's also worth pointing out that even while Luke throws away his weapon in that, he was still 100% supporting the Rebellion in blowing up the Darth Star. He knew the Empire had to go at the massive scale, but his choice to throw away his saber was a personal one that impacted only him and his father. Luke said "soon I'll be dead, and you along with me". Luke doing this was not about defeating the Empire, he left that responsibility to the Rebellion he trusted. This was about resisting the Dark Side and saving his father from it, which he emphatically succeeded in.
I dislike how many people come to the false conclusion that Star Wars and the Jedi advocates non-violence from this scene. It is quite clear from the movies that Lucas believes fighting is not only allowed but also morally justified in certain scenarios. He wouldn't have had the happy ending of Star Wars be the killing of Palpatine and the destruction of the second Death Star if he didn't believe violence was a moral solution.
The clear message Lucas has is that you can only fight IF you are fighting for the right reasons and have exhausted all nonviolent options. At that point, you can fight to protect yourself and protect others. You can kill if it's to protect yourself and protect others. Even more than that, a Jedi arguably *must* fight when innocents are in danger. But though it all, you must make sure your intentions are pure and that you do not kill out of anger or revenge because if you do, you risk becoming the very thing you swore to destroy.
Andor does a great thing for not only Star Wars, but also for movies in general in the current era: It paints the story arc as a series of choices, none of which are obviously good or evil (all paths are flawed). It adds the nuance of "which of these options is less bad" and shows the harsh after effects of each tough decision. Sometimes, the right option leads to horrific consequences, and then the characters are left to stew on the "what if" quandary of possible ramifications if they chose differently. You know, kind of like how real life works.
TL/DR: Andor writes characters as real humans with flaws and depth instead of ciphers of pure good and evil.
Its a show about a normal, avrage person. Not a superhuman luke who can do everything you cant. I think thats why a lot of people like it. Its not about a hero with powers its about a random guy and life under the empire.
I know what you're saying and I agree with it. To add to that, I would say that Luthen is formidable, though. He has money and connections and is in a unique position to affect change against the empire and for the rebels. He just doesn't have any magic (that we can see.)
Luke wasn't a hero with powers. He was a hero with heart.
@@DarthQueefious so he couldnt use magic powers to move stuff and choke that one person.
We as an audience know Nemik and Luthan will not survive the rebellion. The difference between the two is that Nemik never grew old enough to comprehend his own non-survival as being essential to thd cause. The youthful idealism one gets turns into old cynicism. We can hold onto hope all we want, but the reality is a much stronger force
I think in the first half of this video you're kind of missing the forest for the trees. Luthen's whole speech is about how in a revolution people must fight for a future they themselves won't experience (it's almost on the level of Marx tbh.) This concept includes Luke, who is only able to receive the awards for bringing the empire down because of the domino effect started by Luthen and all the people who sacrificed themselves alongside him (think of the prison, Andy Serkis' character makes an active sacrifice for a future he himself will not experience.) It's not a trolly problem, it's sacrifice. It's the sacrifice of purity, love, inner peace, and everything that makes you human. I think the second half of this video would honestly be even stronger and make a lot more sense if you talked more about this instead of the whole "do the ends justify the means" thing. Sorry if this came across as negative, I actually really enjoyed your analysis of Darth Vadar and Luke switching roles at the end of the vid.
Part of the problem is that the idea of sacrificing yourself out of love for others is no longer a concept in the West.
@@smonkedweed7414The show is mostly written and directed by people from the West. In many ways, it serves as a critique of the West’s (and specifically America’s) apathetic bureaucracy and imperialistic legacy. It also shows the way such a government can be completely divorced from the will of the people. It’s a nuanced take that only someone who’s lived inside the Imperial machine can really deliver.
@@taylororion7604 too right, this show definitely leans into anti-fascist themes and shows us a little about what our world will be like if we continue to let corporate interests have an influence on our central government. Felt myself already becoming radicalized from watching this, empathizing with the Aldanhi crew (I especially identified with Ferrick) and his manifesto. This is my favorite Star Wars to date.
@@taylororion7604 please explain to me the imperialistic legacy of America.
@@breakingboundaries3950 leans into anti fascist themes?….. like Star Wars has always done literally from the very beginning? Your favorite Star Wars to date is the most boring star wars show made that barely has any fundamental Star Wars things in it?
Are we even questioning Andor’s willingness to do what “needs to be done” after he shot his informant in the beginning of Rogue One? My hot take at the time was “Damn, Solo would never do that.” But had he been involved in the rebellion for longer? Maybe. The rebellion was fighting an insurmountable foe I am an almost unwinnable war, and war is messy on both sides. It breaks nothing. Heroes are often heroes because they win without anyone really knowing what it took to win, and when your faced with a larger question of the end of your existence and the continued oppression of many others if you fail, you find a way to win, and let history be your judge. Your conscience may haunt you, but the shatter point concept with Windu and others puts an interesting spin on that - that your conscience will haunt you more if you fail. Either way you spend the rest of your life to make it morally right, and if the greater good is served by your lifelong discomfort? Congratulations, your a rebel. A terrorist, but a rebel in a morally superior cause. This may be a stoning offense, but I’d ask you to take a look at “In the Pale Moonlight” from S6 of STDS9. Billions of people are already dead, and countless more may die if you can’t make the hard choice. In the end, the greater good is served, and one man can make himself live with the means for the necessary ends. He’s obviously disturbed by the blood on his hands that will never wash away, but he can learn to unsee it to give his Alliance the win.
The problem with the lever dilemma is it's always presented as you are the person with the lever.
When i was a young private, I was always a "don't touch the lever" guy. I even thought the notion of getting our dudes' bodies out of hostile territory was foolish. But as i got older and began to study military history, normal history, and started writing my own books, I realized there is a surprising amount of wisdom in pulling the lever and saving your buddies. Basically, it looks like this:
What is an army?-->At its core (or *corps* hehe) an army is a collective of armed men (sometimes women, too) who are bound to a given purpose and led by charismatic leaders. Now, the general or military authority need not be charismatic, but *someone* needs to have the "juice" to convince men and women to fight and die, no matter the odds. Wars can (and historically have been) decided by that. Yes, logistics is the king of military operations, but the trains only run on time if you terrify people who fail by punishment or inspire them to believe in what you're doing to the point where you *want* to offer the best you can to the army.
Why pull the lever?-->Because of the nature of an army and its inherent need for binding purpose (and in case there's any sharpshooters out there, yes, even the Soviets and Germans in WW2 believed in what they were doing--it wasn't all commissars and secret police) you need to foster morale and fidelity from the leadership. So, yes, the notion of not pulling the lever is tempting, as in the case of Andor, it preserves a viable source. However, a practical concern for any insurgency trying to get its feet off the ground or standing army is the damage such decisions can do if the army itself realizes the state/authority has little value for them.
All said, it may appear to be a desirable outcome to save an operational-level asset, but on the strategic plane, (that's "big picture" for non-military nerds) the damage and scandal of a military/intelligence force that leaves their people to die is far greater than any short term gains you might achieve by doing so. Because any fighting force that is full of average people that knows they might be left hanging in the wind because it puts the army itself in jeopardy will invariably be less effective than the army that doesn't, as soldiers who *know* someone will come for them are much more willing to take the major risks and die (if necessary) for a cause they believe to be righteous and caring for them on an individual basis.
TL;DR:
1. Shame on you. Read it or don't.
2. If you *must* simplify what I'm getting at, here: Basically, the lever dilemma only works in military operations and grand scale warfare (as a thought experiment) when the person being asked is placed in the position as the arbitrator of other people's fate. Because a broader view indicates that military forces who believe their army values them will fight harder and take more personal risks than one that does not. This is proven throughout military history in situations like Thermopylae (in the positive) and the Russian business in Ukraine (in the negative.) Thus, the question should be "if you were destined to die or not via the lever, which outcome would you support?"
3. The comment about Vader realizing he's not safe via Luke and his similarity as people also reinforces this point, as Vader has no reason to trust/support the emperor now that he knows he's no longer worth palpatine's time, effort, or sacrifice.
What books have you written? I’m interested :)
Interesting thoughts. Thanks for taking the time to share them.
i do think theres an inherent difference between the hegemonic force and an asymmetric foe. I enlisted myself and in my experience no one outside a couple people in my basic training unit (and you dont get to know them well enough to know where their heart really was) no one in my unit was doing it because they held some kind of committed allegiance to the objectives of US empire. Most of us wanted health care and a good wage and education and other benefits. We took our jobs seriously and executed to the best our ability out of pride and perhaps loyalty to each other. But we didnt look to any charismatic leader.
In a rebellion/insurgency/resistance movement, I think it matters a lot more to have a set of immovable principles and a commitment to fight against or fight for something. Hegemonic propaganda can only be so effective.
1:00
you've never seen this problem before? It's the Enigma Game all over again, do we save a British vessel we know will be sunk, or do we divert a single vessel, possibly showing the Germans that we've cracked their codes? A good question, sure, but nothing new.
it's similar to the trolley problem but it's really not. You're not diverting towards 1 in order to save 5, you're letting the trolley run wherever it will, because you don't want the trolley driver to know you have a man at the switch.
It's the same thing do you wish to expend your agency to save a few lives or do you so Nothing and save Even more?
Andor is just perfect
tthis is true
Now THIS is what I'm looking for in Fan Videos.
A breakdown, a thoughtful consideration.
It's so easy to rip on everything these days, say how it's terrible. It's SO refreshing to see someone who put some thought into it, not about quality but about content, and then share that thought in an accessible, concise, and thought-provoking way that can help deepen one's appreciation of the story or series being discussed. I still enjoy Star Wars, and talking about it and exploring ideas in it. Today that appreciation deepend a little, and I think I learned something too. Win. Thanks Jay.
I think you put it well about Luke and this is something I've had on my mind for many years about why the Hero's journey exists. It's not just a product of individualism, (although that can definitely play into it and make it into something bad) but more I think we tend to prefer stories that detail the lives of small groups and/or a main character at their head because that is subjectively how human beings experience their real lives. We all feel like the main character in our own story too because we literally live within our own heads and cannot escape our own skin, and we have evolved for millennia to live in small groups with just a few people, so while we can and do collaborate with millions, our base focus is still on just a few people like our families and/or anyone at the 'top' of society. We know that society is made up of all of us but when it comes to story we still tend to focus on individuals and how they affect and/or affected by the larger society around them because there is only so much our small brains can focus on so we naturally hone into a connection with just a few first. Even with longer more complicated stories that are about society at large we see the best of them written about a complex network of characters we can get to know and follow deeply over the course of their lives. It is just how our minds understand story and that is okay. Bringing light to larger social events and telling individual stories within that aren't mutually exclusive, and when done right can strengthen one another like we have seen in the Andor story.
The climax of ROTJ isn't about what Luke sacrifices, it's about what he refuses to sacrifice. Luke sacrifices his body to keep his soul. Luthen sacrifices his soul to keep his body in the fight.
In fact, Anakin's turn in ROTS reminds me of some of Screwtape's advice to Wormwood: the best result for a devil is to get the man to give up his soul and not get the thing he was trying to buy in the first place. Palpatine certainly did that to him - he started off wanting to save Padme, went off killing kids with at least an eye towards saving her, and in the end he more or less killed her too, and went on being a monster trapped in despair. Palpatine pulled off the ideal temptation.
In my view, taking the moral high ground is a luxury. You should enjoy it while you can, but not be afraid to abandon it when necessary. Where issues start to arise is that people generally can´t agree on the definition of "necessary". To some people, that might only include an imminent threat to their (or someone else´s) life, while to others, the opportunity to make more money or advance their career is more than enough to abandon any moral guidelines to speak of.
it's not even necessarily a luxury that most people realize they have. Most people now seem to not even realize they're moral simpletons for a lack of a better term; they just genuinely have never had to concieve of actual moral nuance. I'm not trying to use simpleton as an insult there mind you, I literally mean they can only operate on a simplified moral perspective. They take a grab bag full of ideals, and just define those ideals as "good", maybe even grab a few arbitrary linkages between them for good measure, and then live their lives, never actually questioning or thinking about anything they blindly grabbed onto. A good place to see this is in a lot of political messaging. You'll see terms like "weapon of war", "assault weapon" etc. prop up in gun debates; "hate speech", "free speech is not absolute", "free speech is not freedom of consequences", etc. in free speech debates; etc. Sometimes the people saying these things do actually understand them beyond surface level (that doesn't mean they understand it very deeply, just beyond the literal most surface level) but most, and I mean the VAST majority, do not.
They just repeat it because they have simple moral values like Life-is-good, simple linkages like Guns-stop-life, and simple conclusions of Guns-are-bad. One simple grouping that lets them enjoy moral simplicity and frees them from actually having to think about the topic. Like how it's far easier to repress an unarmed population, or how the first thing that bad mustache man did when he got power was disarm his people, or how Fredrick fucking Douglas who literally grew up a slave and taught himself to read and write, said "A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box and the cartridge box. Let no man be kept from the ballot box because of his color. Let no woman be kept from the ballot box because of her sex". When you've never been oppressed, you've never considered how much easier life would be if you had the ability to fight back. Another good example is the abortion debate, where a lot of people will say things like "it's not your right to decide what a woman does with her body", completely missing the actual argument of whether or not it's her body to begin with; if the fetus is a child at this point then it's not her body, it's theirs. (similar moral simplifications also exist in the other direction but they're far rarer and often just religiously motivated so there isn't much meat to that discussion; it basically just boils down to "you're god isn't real and doesn't get to decide our laws, tough shit" which isn't very insightful however true it may be)
Life is a lot easier when you are privilaged enough to not have to consider the deeper long-term consequences of your beleifs. (which is a part of the issue with democracy as a concept since it specifically enables this sort of decision making where each individual isn't actually mulling the issue over fully and so as a group the collective decision making is akin to that of a child, but there isn't really a better option so ain't that a bitch)
@@robonator2945 I definitely agree that most people on either side are not used to making actual moral calculations on their own, and simply repeat the talking points of their side. The ironic part is that in some cases, you seem to be doing the same. I know better than to start arguments in comment sections, so I am going to cut it off here. Have a nice day.
@@jirkazalabak1514 mate I literally explained how each of my examples failed in detail. If you think explaining in detail how something is wrong is an over simplification because it reaches a conclusion you don't like, I feel like your misidentifying where the irony lies here.
@@robonator2945 You tried to criticize the talking points of one side using the talking points from the other side, many of which were outright crazy, like the "resisting the government" bullshit. Firstly, there is no guarantee that the opposition to the government would be unified, or that people would even resist at all. Hell, many people who subscribe to these beliefs are currently hoping that someone like Trump would come in and take over by force. But let´s ignore that and just assume that everything happens perfectly. How exactly is a group of armed rednecks going to stop a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with a flight deck full of F-35s? How are they going to intercept long-range precision munitions? How are they going to prevent the government from tracking them using satellite imagery and then blowing them up with drones? Also, Hitler didn´t actually disarm the German people, but merely his opposition, especially the Jews. However, even if the Jews were allowed to keep their guns, it would not have changed anything in the long run. The German Jews were murdered because Hitler wished it so, and because the rest of the German people either didn´t care enough to do anything about it, or they actively supported it. That is the cold, hard truth.
If someone likes guns, that´s fine, but they have to accept that other people like other things. I imagine there are quite a few people who like to send their kids to school without worrying about them being shot by someone who bought his murder weapon(s) at Walmart without as much as a license. Maybe I would take these people more seriously if they could agree on some basic compromises at least, like universal background checks. As it stands, they keep fantasizing about imaginary scenarios while real victims are dying every day, which is something I have a very hard time taking seriously. Is that detailed enough for you?
@@jirkazalabak1514 Ah yes, oppressing your people so you have complete control is the exact same as nuking the fuckers. Because I know if I was a tyrannical leader who wanted to maintain power, the FIRST thing I would want to to is kill millions of my own people, poison massive swaths of land, and make my liberal usage of nuclear devices known to the world.
No jackass, what happens is soldiers are deployed to keep people in-line. Name the last time China dropped a nuke on itself because I can't seem to remember it for the life of me. What about North Korea, 'm for some reason drawing a blank when they nuked themselves to.
Oppression of a populus isn't war, it's an entirely different set of criteria, and nukes don't factor into the equation at all. Do you genuniely think Star Wars is a political documentary and governments just casually blow up entire sections of their rule because fuck you in particular? As a governing body you could not do anything dumber than fire nuclear warheads, at yourself.
What your describing here is just something that has literally never been a concern. Oppression doesn't warrant full military might, it warrants small deployments of soldiers and liberal usage of local authority.
You're further showing your complete lack of self awareness by complaining about school shootings which are absurdly rare. You realize that including ALL mass shootings from wikipedia (the VAST majority of which actually killed no-one so I sure as hell don't know why they're in the list at all) around 7-800 people died right? Do you know how many people died from fucking diahrea? two, *_thousand_* . You are literally more likely to shit yourself to death in America than die from a mass shooting. And, keep in mind here, this is just mass shooting in general, school shootings are a tiny fucking subset of mass shootings. In other words, you're blindly parroting talking points without thinking about or understanding them beyond the surface level of "the news is covering people shooting schools a lot, shooting schools is bad, guns allow people to shoot schools, guns is bad". You quite literally ought to be more worried about shitting yourself to death than dying from a mass shooting, two-to-three times over in fact.
Oh also, out of curiosity, do you remember how many peopled were executed in the second great war? lowball estimates put it at 6 million. And again, do ya know what the first thing bad mustache man did when he took power was? Disarm, the fucking, populus. So if we assume people being completely unable to defend themselves even when they knew they were being led to their death played even a 1% part in those people dying (keeping in mind millions more did also die, 6 million is just the number of jewish people specifically which is most commoonly talked about) that would equate to over 75 fucking YEARS of mass shooting deaths of last year. Again, this is assuming that people being completely defenseless and incapable of fighting back even when they knew damn well they were being led to slaughter played a single, fucking, percent, part in it.
Thank's for completely proving my point, because you've clearly done fucking zero actual research and are just parroting points you think sound good even if they are mathematically bollocks. Every single number I listed here I went and grabbed myself individually from online sources that are easily avaliable, hell the mass shootings death in America is just a list on wikipedia with a sum total at the bottom.
Great video. An insightful perspective on the show and its context within the series. Looking forward to the perspectives you present in the future! 👍
Always remember with the trolley problem:
there is someone in the trolley and they refuse to hit the brakes
Maybe the brakes are broken ?
In many of the original writings on the Trolley Problem it is clearly stated that it's a runaway Trolley that will eventually stop, but you have a more immediate split-second choice to make NOW.
I get what ur trying to say, but you are missing the point brought to attention by this problem
@Bjorn -Kriek the trolley problem only ever exists to pin the weight of death on bystanders
these people are not dying by accident, they are being murdered and the people doing it have names and addresses
"I'm 14 and this is deep"
There is not in fact "always" someone in the trolley, sometimes it's completely empty. And even when there are people inside, it's usually outright said that the brakes don't work. Because that's completely not the point of the problem.
Omg bro the quality of this video essay is at top.
You digged deeper into something truly worthy, and let us contemplate a message as a whole. I've never seen that take on Luke's fate and the decision of Anakin at the pinnacle of the whole problem.
It really hits me. I congratulate you!
I'll be waiting for more videos!
Damn what a gem of an essay, leagues above most of youtube when it comes to examining storytelling. It's hard to point out individual parts I liked most because the whole damn thing is such a good analysis.
Thank you. Here's a comment and like for the algo. Hope your sub count rises to where it deserves.
I think the anarchist take on means and ends is also a very interesting one. Essentially they propose that means and ends are interconnected, meaning that there is an equilibrium but also a conflict between both. In Star Wars, we see characters like Saw Guerrera decide that the ends justify the means. However, the means themselves change and corrupt Saw in a way that ultimately make the realisation of his ends impossible. If you flip this around, you get people like, excuse me for not staying on topic, billionaire philanthropists who, while having helped thousands or even millions of people, do this out of a motivation to keep their power by giving small concessions. Ultimately, the anarchists propose, there is a need for unity between means and ends.
Anyways this is probably not that clear so sorry for my english and if this piqued your interest in any way be sure to take a look at anarchist philosophy, it's pretty interesting.
The ends may very well justify the means, but the means change the ends, so be careful what means you choose.
No it doesn't that's stupid
Isn’t the final scene of episode 12 of Andor similar to the Luke-Vader-Emperor scene, in that Andor “throws away his light saber,” you might say, so that Luthen can redeem himself?
Great observation!
Oh! Damn you're right, Andor give up his gun, leaving him defenseless and force Luthen to make the right choice
Seems like the opposite to me Luthen is the emperor, not Vader. Andor gives up his weapon to become the apprentice, not to defeat Luthens world view.
@@franciscopozole It's because Luthen went there to kill Andor for fear he would sabotage the rebellion for his own self interest. Luthen choosing to not kill him symbolizes him not being driven by fear and anger but by hope and trust.
Fantastic analysis and framing of the storylines, moralities, and plot-points across this universe. I enjoyed this a lot!
It's too late for me to wrap my head around this video. I'll watch it again tomorrow.
About the best conversation. The dialogues are geniously made
Andor acknowledges the little guy in a way that we as an audience and especially as fans tend to fail at. Case in point: it was the recurring side characters of Wedge and Lando that blew up Death Star II; Luke was dealing with family drama in the meantime. The operation was a success for reasons unrelated to the protagonist, and I've always absolutely loved that! I'm so sick if media where the world stands still unless a protagonist is there to move things along.
After Hoth Luke's story had little to do with the Rebellion or the Empire. It revolved around his personal feelings and ambitions, which served as a wonderful coming-of-age story and an exploration into the Force. But it wasn't about the Rebellion, or about why people would sacrifice so much in its name. I've always wanted to know why those bush pilots attacking Death Star I in A New Hope would put themselves in that position, with fear clear on their faces as they engaged in a near-suicidal mission. Andor finally gives answers to such questions in a time when fighting the violence of tyrannical systems is topical in our own lives.
Damn that was some high quality content, keep up the good work!
You have taken making book reports to the next level. Really enjoyable.
Wow thanks for your deep thoughts and analysis this is such a great angle on the show! Also loved how you avoided repeating the (also brilliantly executed) banality of evil perspective that others put in main focus. I'm off checking out the rest of you channel! Keep it up :)
awesome video, great characterizations!
This content is phenomenal and I'm very excited to see where this channel goes!
Got to respect people who can take a step back on things and thoroughly and compeltely think something through and lay out to wich conclusions they came along the way.
Awesome video man, and very well put together ! :)
Dang that was really good. I'm so glad you framed this question around the decision Darth Vader makes at the end of ROTJ. The whole idea that Luke shed his position as "main character" to give the ultimate most important decision back to his father? Masterful. Really good way of putting it. You deserve more subs.
What an exquisite video. was absolutely delighted to watch this!
the explanation of the emperor's chamber scene just blew me away.. Awesome video man. Keep doing the good work
This is one of the best video essays I've seen on Star Wars. It's kinda impressive what happens when creators & fans alike take a fictional reality seriously on its own grounds & rules. Bravo.
Oh, hey, look. A good Star Wars essay. They still make those.
Andor breaks the atmosphere of Star Wars. It is not light vs darkness anymore, but it is all something gray and depressive.
It was never “light vs darkness”. That was just Jedi propaganda.
The light is all based on one’s point of view. Obi Wan flat out lied to Luke to keep him out of trouble to begin with, until he was mature enough to make the “right” choice on the Vader question. Lies are evil, right? That’s where all heroic epics get a little morally gray when f they are human stories in any way. Prior to Order 66, the Jedi were, as stated, in fear of a plot to destroy the Jedi. Not the Republic, but the Jedi. Yes the Republic would suffer if the Jedi were to fall, but the immediate concern was to not let the Order fall. Everyone has priorities..
@@jwelliott74 I am not sure if you folks are serious, but I will reply anyway. Referring to the original trilogy, that is clearly a classic journey of the hero/evil vs good story. Is it morally complex? Well, as much as it needs to be. For example, Solo has to decide if repaying his debt or helping his friends and Lando if protecting his people or betraying his friends. It turns out it is not a binary choice. Regarding the "lies are evil" thing, my answer is simple: they are not. It is the intent that is evil or good. Yoda and Obi-Wan lie to Luke to protect him and to prevent him from rushing into a battle he can't win. There is nothing gray about it. There is no harm coming from that lie, except that Luke is a bit upset when he finds out.
On a broader level, I think this whole thing of moral complexity and grayness presented as being somewhat more realistic is highly overrated. I don't find it complex, but banal, because interesting characters find ways of doing the good thing, which turns out to be none of the options initially presented. They are capable of taking control of the situation instead of being passively subject to it.
Lastly and more importantly, my comment was referring to the writing style and overall artistic tone of Star Wars, not the content or arbitrary interpretation of events.
Clone Wars already did that
@@criert135 the original trilogy was basically your standard good vs evil story
Thank you for this video! Andor is absolutely amazing! The writing the sets the clothing the acting all amazing!!!
8:14 - "I am me and my circumstance, and if I don't save her, I don't save myself."" - Ortega y Gasset, Meditations on Don Quixote
Andor reframes everything that happens in the "main" Star Wars stories from optimistic JRR Tolkien-esque magical epic high fantasy into foreboding GRR Martin-esque dark and gritty "realism". Yes, it changed everything: for the better. I finished Andor Ssn 1 and said to myself "oh my god, the entire Star Wars story is better now". Now, don't let Ssn 2 ruin that
Want to know how I know you've never read Tolkien
Good video. I subscribed. I really like your format and I hope you will keep uploading. Cheers!
I really enjoy listening to people smarter than me. Thank you for this insightful essay.
I really enjoyed this video - thank you for your reflections. Andor is a magnificent story and such a fantastic production and more importantly it opens certain depth to the SW universe so many of us were longing for …
Brilliant video man, i hope you continue to make content. You have a great voice.
cool video, I will watch this with great hope.
Nice analysis I was shocked when I saw you only have 25 subs. Now you have 26 :) I liked your editing as well :)
Great essay, ese! We need more Andor!!
The words you put to Luke’s sacrifice were so beautiful. Thank you so much for that.
amazing analysis. eye-opening to the morality of powerful storytelling
Very well done! Love your Essay ❤
If we got this attention to detail/ dialogue/ and cinematography for an Old Republic series…… I can’t even imagine how good it would be.
tbf i dont think Luthen wants power at all, hes utterly convinced he'll die before we see the empire die.
This video needs more views. This channel needs more views. This guy has something to say and I want everyone to hear it.
Great video. I had all these similar random thoughts when watching Andor. It really engaged my brain lol
great video! And the previous one about the AI as well! I would love to hear more of your thoughts, keep em coming!
💪👌
What would Krieger say if you asked him what he wanted you to do if it were him or the rebellion? I think he'd say he's ready to die for the rebellion. But what about if he calls for help in the moment? Should you go off of what he said earlier, or should you save him?
I think the post-Empire politics of the Galaxy would be more like the repetitive civil wars of post-Republic Roman Empire than anything contemporary. It would inevitably be a series of Grand Admirals, Moffs, powerful politicians, and Generals acquiring the role of First Senator/Chancellor until the whole thing falls apart into feudal sector-sized nation states
Amazing narration ❤ i really enjoyed the video.
My theory is Season 2 of Andor is going to be the struggle between Mon Mothma and Luthen for not just the leadership and heart of the Rebellion, but for the soul of Cassian Andor. Watching Rogue One and the OG trilogy again showed me that the Rebellion was repeatedly pretty fractured at the executive level and it took people willing to buck authority like Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor (the protégés of Saw Guerra and Luthen Rael) to get shit rolling because many of the Mothma-types were pretty much ready to throw in the towel when news of the Death Star showed up
Awesome essay!
“You’re so nice. You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just NICE. I’m not good, I’m not nice, I’m just right.”
"I'm the Witch You're The WORLD"
This video is excellent, you deserve more subs, i subbed
Andor is my new favorite Star Wars series
what a great video, wonderul analysis
You sir, are on your way. This is a VERY GOOD VIDEO. U have talent and I wanna see what comes next. Subscribed
Let’s not forget that, in Empire, Kenobi and Yoda advised Luke to allow his friends to die on Bespin, if he valued what his friends were fighting for. Better that his friends should die and Luke survive and complete his training. Luke was too valuable to risk. This demonstrates that the “good guys” of the rebellion were not above making hard moral choices.
But Luke ignored them. And he ignored them again in Jedi. His mission then was to kill Vader. But, instead, Luke decided to do the very thing Kenobi and Yoda feared most: He sacrificed himself in a last-ditch effort to save his father.
Incidentally; Luke realized he could make this choice ONLY because he knew there was another Jedi: His sister. Moreover; the only reason his sister was alive to function as a back-up (who’s task then would have been to kill Vader) was because Luke disobeyed Kenobi and Yoda in Empire and saved his sister on Bespin.
I'd say the most important decision was Jar Jar granting Palpatine emergency powers. Poodoo.
600 subs? Nah man! Keep making conetnt, you deserve more attention. This is good
The trolley problem is, to me, a sign of the incessant laziness of... us. We build and create so much. An unfathomable achievement can be slowly made fathomable. The technology, science, funding and interest can be found, and a transcontinental network of railroads can be built. But that's it. The achievement stagnates, though any system *must* be iterated over and over to improve. The solution to the trolley problem is to put the whole damn system in the ground, have electronic diagnostics built in system-wide, and afford human maintenance endeavors redundant levels of systemic control over the railways.
Accidents will always be possible. But they can be reduced to purely manufactured ones. Accidents and catastrophes that happen not because the system was imperfect; but due to changes created in the system for any reason/motivation. There's no reason the electrical grid or any infrastructure has changed so little since first successful development besides entitlement. There's reality and there's what can be done and there's what can, but won't be done. Morality's place is as lens through which knowledge of the first informs; what is learned about the second; and through which those two decide the third.
Regarding Vader killing the Emperor, it's important to note that the conflict with Luke, Vader and the Emperor doesn't decide the end of the conflict. It's the rebels blowing up the second death star that do.
Luke's conflict has no galaxy wide stakes, it's all about personal stakes.
Incredible analysis
Amazing video, never realized how the protagonist shifts in the last part of Star Wars
Pretty good video. I will look forward to your career with great interest.
Great analysis, earned my sub
I accept the argument that the story of Star Wars is how the Force restores harmony to the galaxy by means of sacrifice. Luke becomes the "hero" (not the protagonist, which is the Force) because he has an innocent soul, and by his sacrifice and love for his friends he restores harmony. The shady dealings of the rebellion leading up could set the table for Luke, but there would be no harmony by that means. The Rebellion is set on a new path with Luke when they decide to stop being "all means necessary" and instead follow the way of the Force.
great video mate
Choice is the key, isn't it? Giving people choices vs. taking away choices. A lot of Rebel pilots died in the attack on the Death Star. They sacrificed themselves so that the Rebel base could be saved. But we don't see that as being morally questionable. Why? Because the Rebel pilots knew what their mission was and they chose to do it.
Luthen sacrifices Kreegyr in a way that took the choice away from Kreegyr. Imagine if Luthen had told Kreegyr that the Empire was expecting an attack and if Kreegyr didn't sacrifice himself then the rebellion would fall apart. And Kreegyr chose to sacrifice himself to preserve the Rebellion's secret. Then morally, it would have been like the Rebel pilots who sacrificed themselves in the attack on the Death Star. But Luthen decided not to warn Kreegyr and took that choice out of Kreegyr's hand. It'd be like if at the end of Wrath of Khan, instead of Spock sacrificing himself to save the Enterprise, he pushed Scotty into the reactor chamber and forced him to repair the reactor.
I love the notion of Luke throwing his lightsaber aside to allow Vader to become the protagonist (which is where the story began). Never thought of it like that!
I think Andor breaks Star Wars insofar as it dramatically changes the tone and genre. The original saga is a space opera painted with a broad, metaphorical brush-- a myth, really. To me, Anakin Skywalker's arc is all about learning to let go, which he was never able to achieve until his son went through the same struggle and fulfilled that dream for him. A very Buddhist concept wrapped up in Joseph Campbell, I guess! It sounds silly to say about a rip-roaring Hollywood adventure, but I don't think it's meant to be taken "literally" and can be interpreted a dozen different ways.
Meanwhile, Andor goes out of its way to tell a very human drama that empathizes with impossible choices-- no right answers, no heroes. It's a thriller, not a space opera, and so it takes a much more literal approach to explore all of those messy, filthy cracks in the pavement the movies were too high level to see. I think it offers a ton of fascinating context, but it's a different approach. To get all Buddhist again, it's the mud that the myth grows from.
Sorry for writing an essay about your essay. I just love thinking about this stuff! Great work on your part and very well-said.
What I find fascinating about it is he had so many other choices. The first one that came to me was throwing it out the window! But if he stalls for another half hour he dies and the emperor dies with him.
Great video man 👍❤
Star Wars is at its best when it has depth and complexity.
Simplicity for the young, depth for the adults. Thx for the video.
enjoyed your video :D subscribed! will be watching your career with great interest :)
Thank you for articulating why, although I really appreciated Andor, it left me feeling uneasy.
No one asked for Star Wars either. The public doesn't know what to ask for except more of things they already know. I prefer to let creators create and enjoy their product. Or not. Always a crapshoot when making something new.
Excellent video.
What an incredible video. Chapau 👏👏👏
awsome video, we shall watch your carrier with great interest
Excellent keep making vids - subed
I've never liked Vader's turn to the light. It always felt gratuitous to me in the context of the original trilogy. But you convinced me that the idea works in a greater context. Maybe someday I'll see it on the screen.
Great analysis
The line in here 11:23 reminds me of Leonard Nimoy in the Simpsons when he says “but they’re entertaining lies, and in the end isn’t that the real truth” granted he goes on to say “the answer is no”