Our Postmodern Myth: “Star Wars” is Back

There’s a big old *spoiler alert* hanging over this whole radio show. You’ve been warned!

We’re beginning 2016 by confronting what is already its biggest cultural phenomenon. The Force Awakens, the latest installment of Star Wars, on track to make $3 billion and more around the world.

What does it mean that this particular, high-capital story survives as a global dream? And maybe the most familiar alternate universe ever created outside a world religion: a Greek pantheon for the modern day?

Star Wars is full of paradoxes: it’s profoundly flat; imperial filmmaking in celebration of rebels and saboteurs; a forty-year-old hit that remains forever young. The essayist Chuck Klosterman proposes to nationalize Star Wars, turning the franchise into a lucrative public works project for the nation’s out-of-work actors, set dressers, and engineers. (It’s “the only thing America does that everybody likes.”) And our guest Amanda Palmer tells us it was a geek movie that never seemed that geeky, as well as a violent movie that never seemed that violent. In the end, George Lucas‘s creation must have approval numbers that popes and politicians could only dream of.

Why does Star Wars still mean so much to so many? With a group of our favorite people, we’re counting the ways (with special thanks to Eric Molinsky, host and producer of Imaginary Worlds, who did a five-part series on the cultural significance on the franchise — listen here):   

It’s a postmodern myth.

There’s a moment in the original Star Wars, when Luke Skywalker, played by Mark Hamill, looks out at the horizon as dusty Tatooine’s two suns set.

There are no words, but John Williams’s score is working overtime, sounding the note of potential energy: a young person with gifts and a great destiny who’s still just wishing he were anywhere but here. Almost anyone can imagine himself standing on that bluff and watching the sun(s) go down.

Watch that scene (you have permission to find it corny!) But it’s also got the mystery of Star Wars’s eternal appeal packed into just 36 seconds: another orchestrated, saturated, uncanny image for all time, conjuring not just before — Achilles, Lancelot, and Dante — but after: Spider-Man, the X-Men, Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen and most recently, Rey, the Skywalker stand-in for the latest film.

It’s (almost) a silent film.

Speaking of which, George Lucas always put a lot of stock in the power of Star Wars‘s score and images to get along on their own. So in 1977, he anticipated the globalizing trend that’d hit Hollywood decades later — a move away from repartee and puns and into a world of spectacle and SFX. Watch Star Wars work like a silent film in the famous throne-room finale, in the last scene of the new movie, and in that “I am your father” confrontation:

It’s a theology for the post-religious — and a political shorthand.

Yes, there are thousands of people all over the world to check “Jedi Knight” on census forms just to scramble the religious picture of the 21st century. And “The Dark Side” has become a shorthand in politics to be embraced by Dick Cheney and shunned by Larry Lucchino, the outgoing Red Sox president who once labeled the Yankees “The Evil Empire.”

But there’s something a little deeper and more peculiar in the vague cosmology of “The Force” put forward in the movies: a balance between emotional attachments and inner peace, between individualism and teamwork, between self-interest and philanthropy, that speaks to the unique spiritual drift of the 20th-century consumer.


It’s a product of the depressed ‘70s — but it still works the same way.

Alan Andres reminds us that those first movies opened during American doldrum days, with bad news everywhere in the ether: the Fall of Saigon, Watergate, the fall of Skylab, the Church Committee, Chappaquiddick, and the Iran hostage crisis. The tone of sci-fi was suitably dark: Soylent Green is people! We were a rebel nation that had come to seem like an evil empire (until Reagan came along and declared that the Soviets were the real imperial enemy).

It may be true that, more than anything, George Lucas wanted to offer a generation of young Americans a different, optimistic story with a batch of good role models in tow. But still he had The Emperor — the bad guy of all Star Wars bad guys — sit in an oval-shaped throne room: Nixon, determined to crush the latest guerrilla uprising.

It’s militaristic.

Somehow, underneath the swashbuckling escapes and screwball dialogue, people forget that in Star Wars, the viewer really can’t root for anyone who doesn’t commit mass murder.

The Empire blows up Alderaan with a weapon known as the Death Star in order to quash organized resistance. But then the heroic Rebels blow up the planet-sized Death Star — along with, it is estimated (!), 843,342 souls in the crew and staff — to stick it to the Empire.

And that’s just a start! Tell us what Star Wars means to you (and may the Force be with you all in 2016)!

Related Content

  • “It’s profoundly flat; ….. that remains forever young.”
    heh yeah, that pretty much sums it up.

    What David Bordwell has to say:
    “The “immersive” ancillaries seem on the whole designed less to complete or complicate the film than to cement loyalty to the property, and even recruit fans to participate in marketing. It’s enhanced synergy, upgraded brand loyalty.”

    “Immersion” is one of the mechanisms of consumerism.

    Tell us what Star Wars means to you:
    My lack of interest means I’ve grown up and moved away from the meaninglessness purveyed by Hollywood.

    As Bordwell also said in that 2009 article:
    “For one thing, most Hollywood and indie films aren’t particularly good.”

    If you don’t know why that statement is true, you don’t know cinema.

  • TJTruth2

    I am absolutely dumbfounded by the positive reviews of “Force Awakens,” which I found to be derivative, flat, two dimensional, and absolutely cynical in its cliffhanger sequel-guaranteed ending. The original “Star Wars” was a brilliant piece of creative and original filmmaking. It has been downhill ever since. This latest episode was a retreaded amalgamation of previous films completely lacking in depth and originality but backed by a multi-million dollar marketing machine. That the presumed intellectuals on your panel would see it as anything more is proof positive that the dumbing down of America is moving full-steam ahead.

    • I agree on your SWVII take. The adulation – in the podcast and elsewhere – strikes me as out of whack.

      I found Star Wars VII to be a good, not great film. Most frustratingly, I found the story poor; basically a step-for-step New Hope (SWIV) reboot. Given the writing credits, I’m shocked at the result. Generally, I found much of the film to be a well-intentioned effort in pandering emotionally, demographically, and, alas, commercially. This was a film designed to “taste great to nearly on every palate and go down easy”.

      Overall I did, however, appreciate the restraint afforded to the visuals. The CGI rarely crossed line for me. I also found Driver’s performance genius, and Ridley’s excellent. I just wish the script would have taken more risks, while I simultaneously understand why it did not.

      In regard to the podcast, I was surprised by Debbie Chachra’s unchallenged observations on the handling of robots in the franchise. Respectfully, I wondered if she’d remembered anything about the original. All the complexity she claimed to be finally leveraged in VII was actually a diluted – and commercially calculated – version of how C-3P0 and R2-D2 were handled from the get go. Did she miss Luke’s plot driving compassion and attentiveness for these robot characters entirely? Or Princess Leia’s fully justified appreciation and affection…for a robot? The script pretty much hits all this home; R2-D2 was chosen as the courier Death Star plans. I mean, a robot pretty much held one end of the Empire’s shoelaces.