George Lucas has been quoted numerous times over the past few years that the Star Wars saga (all six films) is ultimately the story of the fall and redemption of Darth Vader.
I just don’t see this in the first movie at all. Darth Vader is the villian, evil through and through, and it always seemed lame to me when is so easily redeemed in the third movie just by saving Luke’s life.
So the idea that the saga is about Darth Vader … do you buy this, or is it just something Lucas made up later to stretch this thing into six movies and have them make sense?
Anakin is the focus of the prequels, his children are the focus of the original trilogy. But he is also present in the original trilogy and the saga ends with his redemption and death.
Not to mention that Darth Vader is essentially the epitome of Star Wars. Even people who have never seen the films know who he is. So what’s wrong with Lucas saying that Vader is the focus?
Well, it’s about Vader now, with the prequels and all. But the original trilogy was about Luke, who starts out as an innocent kid, and, through hardship and struggle (that whole hero’s journey that Cambell talks about) becaomes the hero who saves the universe.
I’ve always seen Luke as merely being a mirror of sorts (the situations aren’t similar enough for him to be a foil) for Vader. He gets trained, he is impatient, he gets his hand cut off, but in the end he doesn’t turn. In fact, he’s triply Light Side, because he pwns Palpatine and helps Vader redeem himself.
You can’t watch the first film, in which Vader has little more than a bit part and is completely subservient to Palpatine, and think that Lucas meant the series to be about him. It’s clearly later revisionism.
There IS some truth to it now, since after this next one we’ll have seen basically Vader’s whole life, compared to only a little of Luke’s. But yeah, it’s also more revisionism.
Out of the gate, it’s clear that the series is about Vader’s fall and redemption – even if the main protagonist is clearly Luke.
Luke’s story arc is all about reconciling with his father. Everything he does is an echo of his father’s life. It’s no retcon, and while Vader has little screen time in the first movie, there are plenty of delayed-significance points to that effect. Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen: “There’s too much of his father in him.” “That’s what I’m afraid of.”
Star Wars is Luke’s story, obviously, but his character is defined by his father, and has been from the earliest drafts of the script. The trilogy was pretty clear on that. Foreshadowing in Act I, revelation in Act II, and reconciliation in Act III.
Perhaps it could truthfully be sais that while Star Wars the single, first movie was not “really about Darth Vader”, Star Wars the series/franchise…as far back as when the addition of a second movie made it a series…is “really about Darth Vader.”
Certainly as early as Empire Strikes Back, Vader seems much more than a run-of-the-mill bad guy.
This is why I was hoping Epi.3 would end with a big fight between Dooku and Anakin and leave it ambiguous as to who survived the lava. So new viewers would be unsure who Vader was. And assuming by the size of Vader it would be Dooku (Christopher Lee is very tall as is Vader), it would make the whole “No, I am your father.” still have some power.
Also…
Take note that in Star Wars Ep. 4 which was created as a stand alone, Vader lives. I think that lends credence that Lucas had bigger things in mind for him.
Discounting revisionism by Lucas (Luke and Leia are siblings? WTF???), I think it’s fair to say that as a whole, the six-movie arc is all about the Skywalker family. Anakin gets the first three, Luke gets the last three, and the Force is “balanced,” whatever that means.
Star Wars (The original 1977 film) Had Vader as a flunkie. Sure he was menacing and interesting but so was Odd Job and Jaws in the 007 films. Vader functioned as they did. The big goon who would carry out the orders of the evil masterminds and get his hands dirty.
Yeah he survives… it’s called a set up for a possible sequel. It’s an old convention in films, it was old even in 1977. They need one recognizable bad guy to make it look like there may be another confrontation.
Jaws swims away (hee hee) in the end of one of his outings against Bond… He’ll be back. Did that mean they always wanted the Bond films to be about therise and redemption of Jaws (Moonraker). Obviously not.
The nebulous idea that the Empire was still out there wouldn’t be satisfying enough of a tease for a sequel. Keep the most visible bad guy alive.
Now by Empire things change but it is still about Luke and the rebellion. Darth’s revelation said more about Luke than Vader’s character.
By return of the Jedi Lucas had a lovely mish mash and decided to change the story to being about Vaders redemption… But I could swear it was about the fall of the Empire symbolized by the Return of the Jedi.
Now, knowing what Vader has become through the franchise, people watch A New Hope (see the difference?) with different eyes. They assume the head bad guy was Vader and the story was all about him and his family. Sorry but take the Lucasvision blindersTM off and rewatch carefuly.
Luke was only his son as a nice surprise capper to the second film.
Vader was just a flunkie with weirdo powers and a black Leather/cape fetish. Only later he became the core of teh film.
Everybody knows, it’d be completely pointless. It’s like the people I knew who insisted that Senator Palpatine and The Emperor/Darth Sidious weren’t necessarily the same person after Phantom Menace. Come on. It’s Star Wars, not The Usual Suspects.
New viewers still know who Darth Vader is, with the possible exception of very little kids. Star Wars is too deeply ingrained in pop culture. It’s like people knowing what Rosebud is before they see Citizen Kane, only moreso.
