Early last year I was arguing with someone on Instagram about last year’s Oscar nominations. I was of the opinion that women and people of color were robbed. This user did not share my same opinion. In fact, he said that films (and the people behind them) like Hustlers, Booksmart, Little Women, The Farewell, Us, and so on were all “too political,” whereas most of the nominations weren’t.
Now, there is obviously a lot to unpack here in terms of the lives of women and people of color being made inherently “political” in their existence because their rights and personhood are continuously being debated. However, what I chose to focus on instead was the concept of films like Joker, 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, JoJo Rabbit, and so on as “apolitical films.” This was an absolutely bizarre take to me, that films that focus of white men are, therefore “apolitical.”
The concept that, somehow, if a film contains the same ideologies of mass culture then it is somehow void of such ideologies genuinely confused me and stuck with me.
(as you can probably tell from me writing this article…)
Everything is political. Every single film is going to take a stance, whether that be intentionally or accidentally.
It is impossible to exist in this society and make a film, especially a narrative one, that does not have some sort of view of how things work.
To me, the words “ideological” and “political” are practically interchangeable. For example, Booksmart has deemed a “political” film because of the beliefs/ideals it presents in terms of women and queer women. 1917, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and so on are deemed “apolitical” because the beliefs/ideals they present in terms of the role of white men in society is widely accepted and nothing new. However, they both, therefore, push ideologies and therefore politics, just in opposite ways. Being political does not mean one is against the current systems. Agreeing with them is political too. Therefore, every single film, no matter how revolutionary or comfortable its stance may be, is inherently political by nature.
What made this bizarre take stand out to me, even more, was that this user was a huge Star Wars fan. He claimed to dislike “political” films with “agendas” but his favorite film was The Last Jedi. I was baffled.
Star Wars was a franchise that I always found to be upfront about its ideological (and therefore political) nature.
The fact that there are some who find these films to be void of political content has made me want to briefly examine the ideological stance of Star Wars over time, especially after the completion of season two of The Mandalorian. Obviously, I cannot fully analyze every aspect of every Star Wars film in a singular article, so instead, I shall take us through a brief history.
The Original Trilogy: A New Hope, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi
The first film in the Star Wars franchise is called A New Hope for a reason. By just examining the development of the three main characters in this first film alone, Star Wars is making its political stance quite clear.
Luke Skywalker is the new hope of the film’s title. He is a poor kid from a poor and largely neglected planet, who, despite his preconceived notions of his own status, becomes the last hope of a rebellion he never imagined he could be a part of. Leia Organa is an established leader of such rebellion who is put in charge of most of its important tasks and takes control of her own rescue mission. Han Solo starts the film off as a morally vacant smuggler who refuses to have a stance on anything who finally decides to stand up and fight at the film’s end.
A New Hope is basically telling audiences that everyone has their place in the rebellion, your ability to change the world does not depend on their current status, rebellions need leaders as well as fighters, women are more than capable of leading and taking care of themselves, and it is never too late to stand up for what you believe in.
There is also a theme of fighting no matter the odds, with Luke making his one-in-a-million shot to destroy the Death Star when it seemed practically impossible. This theme, as well as the strength of the characters, continues throughout the rest of the trilogy.
However, at the trilogy’s end, Star Wars drops another stance, one of redemption. Luke refuses to be consumed by hatred for the Empire and also allows and welcomes his father’s last-minute redemption. Luke, the “New Hope” of the series, isn’t even the one who saves the day, but rather the villain. This yet again proves that it is never too late to fight for what’s right.
The Prequel Trilogy: The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith
However, while I agree that it was not necessarily handled in the most exciting way, the Phantom Menace sets the course of the Prequels deeply political focus.
People often criticize The Phantom Menace for being boring in its focus on trade disputes.
The Prequels are actually more obviously political in nature than the Original Trilogy as they focus on actual politics. The trade disputes may have been boring but watching Palpatine manipulate democracy in order to gain power is still fascinating. Ultimately, the Prequel Trilogy aims to examine how society can turn from a democracy to a fascist dictatorship (The Empire). It shames any divergences from democracy and treats Palpatine’s every power grab with a sense of impending doom. Palpatine spends the entire series attempting to dismantle everyone’s trust in a democracy so he can step in with even more power and “fix” the situation. Therefore, the Prequel Trilogy both exposes the holes in current democracy (of which this is clearly based) while still rooting for it and emphasizing its necessity.
The Sequel Trilogy: The Force Awakens, The Last Jedi, and The Rise of Skywalker
I will start by admitting that I am not the biggest fan of this trilogy’s progression and don’t feel that it, overall, has a clear ideology. However, The Last Jedi most certainly does.
Someday I may do a full analysis of The Last Jedi on here as it is one of my all-time favorite films (behind The Empire Strikes Back of course) and I have way too much to say about it. However, I will attempt to keep it brief.
The Last Jedi is basically a direct response to the aforementioned ideologies of the Original Trilogy. While A New Hope focused on Luke’s one-in-a-million shot that saved the day as the “new hope,” The Last Jedi focuses on how to maintain hope when those shots don’t work. It displays a moment in which it seems all hope is lost but commands us to hold it out. There is no one-in-a-million shot. They did not save the day. And yet the film’s end does not feel drenched in despair. It feels hopeful, and optimistic. Despite everything, despite how doomed the Resistance may seem, they know that they and many others in the future will hold out hope.
Furthermore, The Last Jedi uses Kylo Ren/Ben Solo as a sort of allegory for the current online recruitment of youth in the alt-right movement. His descent to the Dark Side is seen as deeply tragic yet disturbingly understandable. However, while highlighting how he was able to be recruited, The Last Jedi does not promote forgiveness. Rey may have spent the rest of the film harboring a sense of understanding towards Kylo, but, at the end of the film, after knowing what he has become, closes the door right in his face. Ultimately, The Last Jedi echoes and deepens many of the previous themes of hope and rebellion present earlier in the franchise while also adding its own analysis of the current alt-right movement, a deeply political concept.
The Mandalorian
Obviously, The Mandalorian is not yet complete so it’s impossible to say what its overall ideology will be. However, the first two seasons of the show are drenched in politics. The first two or three episodes of the show alone are already painting a picture that echoes that of modern society. We follow Din Djarin on Nevarro, a planet like Tatooine in that it is mostly neglected and a popular destination for bounty hunters.
However, even with mere scenes of Din Djarin walking through the town, it becomes clear that the destruction of a fascist regime is not neat and quick, with remnants of the Empire sprinkled throughout. Similarly, in season two, Mayfeld remarks to Din Djarin, “Empire and New Republic… it’s all the same to these people. Invaders on their land is all we are.” However, by the end of that episode, Mayfeld admits that while the New Republic is not perfect, the Empire is infinitely worse.
This is echoed with the character of Cara Dune. She was a drop soldier for the rebellion but left once she realized she wouldn’t be stopping the Empire anymore. However, all it takes is any mention of the Empire for Cara to jump at the chance of their destruction.
Basically, The Mandalorian is focusing on poor communities. They suffer the most at the hands of the Empire but also suffer the most under the New Republic.
The destruction of the Empire is an undeniably good thing in The Mandalorian, but the people who are in the most desperate of situations remain poor, impoverished, endangered, and so on after their destruction. Ultimately, The Mandalorian serves as a reflection of our actual world, one where fascist regimes are rightfully demolished but the communities in the most need are still left to attempt to fix their broken communities themselves. Demolishing the Empire is only step one.
