They were fighting against tyranny, of course. Clear lines and imaginative set-ups and pay-offs, the original trilogy of Star Wars was great story telling. Good versus Evil is easy to understand. The how and why made sense for each character, each of whom went through personalised character arcs.
While Good vs Evil is still the vibe of Star Wars, the original three movies make a lot more sense when viewed as an allegory for the Protestants vs the Catholics. GTP tells me that Lucas never mentioned this as part of the narrative (nor, I assume, did his writing team). In terms of narrative, though, the religious wars make a good contextualisation for this story.
.
King Henry VIII and Queen Elisabeth I
Funnelling money back to Rome was not favoured by many but the religious imperatives of the time forbade disobedience. Yet, what Henry began, Elisabeth solidified, thus beginning centuries of brutality and open warfare. Let it be said that faith has a steep price.
Star Wars could have banked on this story for more than only three movies. The intrigue and machinations of the Protestants and the Catholics provide us with literal centuries of storytelling. The second trilogy proved that Lucas did not have a writing team to help him but, at least, he alluded to the lore. The third trilogy proved that Kennedy hasn’t any interest in Star Wars.
Imagine how much more interesting all nine movies would have been if each was contextualised within an ongoing conflict rather than each trilogy trying to achieve a conclusion. There is no conclusion for religious warfare except to alter or, worst case scenario, destroy, everyone who believes something different.
.
Absolute Pussyfooting
I’m unsettled by the final trilogy in its handling of Good vs Evil where the lines are blurred. Not blurred with any intent or insight, just blurred. With no structure either in-universe or allegorically, the final trilogy is the perfect representation of post-modernism: no structure, no morals, no characters, no consequence.
By reformatting all nine movies into an allegory of the religious wars, the concepts of democracy versus fascism, individual will versus group welfare, and the nature of spirituality, could have been explored. As they are, the final trilogy makes firm statements about its rejection of reality for fantasy at the expense of science, and the rejection of human nature for identity politics at the expense of storytelling.
.
Religious War
I reckon this theory is applicable for several reasons. The West was built and still stands upon a Christian foundation just as India on Hinduism and the Middle East on Islam. Most people are not aware of how religion shapes their lives in the West even where they have not been indoctrinated. Most people do not recognise how religious groups continue manipulating western governments, either.
The narrative of Luke and Darth’s redemption showed a spiritual path of reconciliation in the context of religious conflict. The weakness of the second trilogy lies squarely at the feet of turning Anakin into a messiah, diminishing both the religious conflict and established lore which empowered the first trilogy.
The clusterfuck of the third trilogy is the usurpation of narrative structure, characterisation, canon, lore, and common sense. Were this trilogy to be remade with Rey being an allegory to QEI and whats-his-face an allegory to Pope Pius V, there would have been no plot black holes nor any need for myriad contrivances. Mary Queen of Scots would be sitting right there as a constant threat to Rey, as well.
There’d have been no revolting kiss, either. Han and Leia, they are NOT.
.
Rebelling against tyranny is vital: only the strongest to adapt can survive. Evolution of self and society is at the heart of the original trilogy and is part of the story of religious progress, too. For example, until recently, women were forbidden in christian lands to be educated. We’ve come a long way in that instance. Where tyranny is stasis, rebellion is evolution.
What tyranny are the people of the West facing these days? How are the rich and powerful destroying the freedom of billions? Why is this important to the audience? I really do think Kathleen Kennedy and her ilk understand neither the genre of science fiction nor how fantasy both can produce excellent commentaries on reality.
Framing the narrative within the allegory of a religious war would definitely prevent the story from wandering aimlessly. I really do hope the final trilogy is remade with people who respect the genre and understand why the original trilogy was so impactful.
A D R A N 