Friday, March 25, 2011

--- Midi-Chlorians, Mythology, and Manichaeism --- How George Lucas Lost His Connection to The Force

What?  My morning class is canceled?  Finally, a chance to catch up on some long-overdue work.  I seriously have about twenty emails to write.

Or maybe . . .
DUN dadada duh duh dadada dadada dadada dadada dun duhduh dun . . .

I recently heard an interesting theory about Star Wars put forth by Dr. AmyLaura Hall of Duke Divinity School: George Lucas’s changing explanation of The Force (first as a religious/spiritual phenomenon in the original trilogy and then as a scientific/biological phenomenon in the prequel films) represents a cultural shift in America’s perception of science and religion.  It represents an increased emphasis on science and highlights the diminished credibility of churches, clergy, and all things spiritual.  Or maybe I’m extrapolating a bit beyond what she actually said.  I believe her exact quote was, “You know something’s wrong when even The Force has become science.  Midi-chlorians?  Really?  You can’t measure The Force!”  Yep, George Lucas converted a mystic religion into a measurable science, but what does the changing significance of The Force really say about our culture?  At the very least, what does it say about George Lucas?


The Basics of Star Wars

The original Star Wars trilogy --A New Hope (1977), The Empire Strikes Back (1980), and The Return of the Jedi (1983)-- may very well be the most famous series of science fiction/fantasy films ever released.  Quotes from the film have made their way into virtually every sector of American popular culture, and nerds like yours truly reference the films on a daily basis.  The original trilogy follows the story of Luke Skywalker, a farmhand on the backwater planet of Tatooine who goes on to become the galaxy’s last great Jedi Knight, a champion of good in a universe run by evil.  In a nutshell, Star Wars is a coming-of-age spaghetti western space opera.  Because it is naturally assumed to be a part of every American child’s film diet, I see no reason to explain the plot beyond this.  Star Wars catapulted Harrison Ford into fame.  It created one of cinema’s most iconic villains (if not the iconic villain).  It overshadowed the rest of Alec Guinness’s already-impressive career and made his name synonymous with Obi-Wan Kenobi.  This is a landmark film that has become such a part of popular culture that any schmuck on any barstool anywhere in America (if not the world) knows what you mean by, “May The Force be with you.”  If you have never seen it, stop reading this, go make some nachos, and borrow the original Star Wars from one of your cooler friends.  I’ll wait.

Cover to Timothy Zahn's Heir to the Empire
The original trilogy of films maintained a diehard following for two decades, during which time, George Lucas licensed authors to use his characters in novels and comicbooks that served as official sequels to the original trilogy of films.  In particular, an author named Timothy Zahn published a trilogy of books (Heir to the Empire, Dark Force Rising, and The Last Command) in the mid-1990s that became so popular that Lucas decided to strike while the iron was hot.  To commemorate the 20th anniversary of A New Hope and ride the Zahn books’ popularity, Lucas went back and added in computer-generated special effects to the original films, re-releasing them (along with toys, comicbooks, etc.) as Star Wars: The Special Edition.  What a scam.  If you buy into Lucas’s line about how this was “how the films were originally intended to look,” then answer me this: Why would Lucas throw in a brief scene on the planet Coruscant, which Zahn originally created?  Yep, Lucas was riding another writer’s popularity, and he cashed in big time.  Even though the added CGI was criticized as cheapening the films’ artistic integrity, you can’t argue with sales.  Milking the media attention for all it was worth, Lucas announced that the long-awaited prequel films would soon be released as well!  You see, although the first film had originally been released as “Star Wars,” Lucas had later added “Episode IV: A New Hope” to the title with the intention of someday going back and writing three more films to lead up to the original Star Wars-- a pretty bold move that wound up paying off . . . sort of.

I say it paid off because, financially, that statement does hold true.  Artistically, the Star Wars prequels are considered one of the most notorious train wrecks in American film.  Episode I was awful, but I was young enough when it came out that I bought the toys and video games anyway.  Episode II was even worse, and I was in high school by that point and was starting to notice.  “Hmm, that’s strange,” I thought to myself in the angst-filled theater, “This special effects reel doesn’t seem to have any discernable plot, and I don’t feel invested in any of these characters.  Well, that’s no good.”  Episode III, despite being hailed as “the best of the prequels” (which is sort of like being the tallest munchkin), was a phenomenal disappointment that left me feeling completely and totally apathetic, and it almost forever ruined Star Wars.  Normally, I either hate a movie or love a movie, but by the end of Episode III’s staggering 140-minute runtime, I cared so little about the characters and plot that I couldn’t even form an opinion.  The film did so little to engage me that I was never able to weigh in fully for or against it.  Between the boring characters, boring action scenes, boring dialogue, and boring plot, I just wanted to leave.  Thankfully, Star Wars was saved by a group of animators about two years ago, since --as I keep saying-- animators are allowed to be braver than filmmakers, but I’ll get into that later.


A Little Context: 1977 vs. 1999

When the original Star Wars film was released in 1977, we had put a man on the moon nearly a decade beforehand, but deep space exploration was still just getting underway, so people were still very much excited about reaching beyond our solar system.  By the release of Episode I, space exploration was old news, and I think that people lost interest when they realized how long it would take our unmanned probes to reach even the closest stars beyond our little system of planets.

Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon
In 1977, disco, reggae, punk, and metal were taking off in the U.S.  Dark Side of the Moon had been released four years before and was still on Billboard 200.  Queen released “We Are the Champions” in the same year.  The Sex Pistols added Sid Vicious on bass.  You get the picture.  Music was changing and innovative with a certain rebellious edge to it.  By 1999, boy bands were all the rage, and looping technology was permanently revolutionizing or cheapening music (depending on who you ask).  Frankly, I think that this is when industry finally finished enslaving art, but now my hipsterness is showing.  The internet had taken off, but it would still be a few months before Napster would cause all that hullaballoo about file sharing, and facebook wasn’t even an idea in Mark Zuckerberg’s antisocial little head yet.

In the 1970s, awareness of the environment was starting to become a key issue in science, and the language of punctuated equilibrium had just entered evolutionary biology, helping scientists to further refine our understanding of the development of human life in spite of the perpetual controversy around evolution.  By 1999, we had almost totally mapped the human genome, and “Creation Scientist” Ken Ham had been giving Christianity a bad name for the better half of a decade.  Seriously, guys, we’re still debating this?  All we’re doing is turning Christianity into a laughing stock by our willingness to misconstrue scientific findings and misrepresent years of research, not to mention bastardizing our own sacred text.  It’s okay to reject evolution on the basis of belief, but creationism is in no shape or form a science.  Oh well, that’s a rant for another time (and maybe even a different blog).  I’ll get around to talking about creationism later.  That debate had been around for well over a century when the prequels were released, but the involvement of people like Ham was making it all the more outlandish, and the creationist perspective was devolving into a caricature of itself-- not to mention a caricature of the religion it was representing in the media.

You get what I’m hinting at though.  A lot changed in the twenty-two years between Star Wars: A New Hope and Star Wars: Episode I, and America’s religious landscape was not exempt from this change.  By 1977, Eastern religions had been popularized in America (particularly through our celebrities’ intense interest in them), so an old, mystic monk living in the deserts of Tatooine or the swamps of Dagobah would be a recognizable religious trope.  The language of an “energy field that . . . holds the universe together” (Obi-Wan Kenobi’s description of The Force) would resonate strongly with both Eastern and Western religious audiences.  The concept of The Force and the Jedi had appeal for religious and spiritual audiences regardless of their specific religious affiliations.  By 1999, however, Lucas felt the need to give this spiritual system a grounding in science through the introduction of tiny particles called “midi-chlorians” that exist within the cells of Force-using individuals-- effectively discounting the notion of The Force as a great, mystical energy field.  Yep, Lucas supplanted the spiritual nature of his own fictional universe by pretty much turning the Jedi into the X-Men, but before we delve further into this, let’s take a quick detour to establish a trend unfolding in Lucas’s work.


Why did it have to be aliens?

One of my favorite movies of all time.
Star Wars was not the only Lucas film franchise to take a turn away from the religious/spiritual in recent years.  Think about Indiana Jones.  Raiders of the Lost Ark came out in 1981, and the title object for which everyone was searching was the Ark of the Covenant-- a religious artifact with mysterious, supernatural powers (the source of which were never exactly explained but assumed to be somehow divine or demonic).  1984’s Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom revolved around ritual and dark magic that was very loosely based on cultic practices devoted to the Hindu goddess Kali, and  . . . actually, that’s about all I want to say about that one.  The film doesn’t paint the most positive portrait of Indian religious practices, and the writers openly admitted to stirring in some other cultures’ ancient practices as well (particularly the Aztecs).  Plus, I’m not really a Short Round fan, and Willie Scott is right behind Queen Amidala on my list of worst female characters ever, so let’s move on to happier territory.  1989’s Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (which I treasure just as much as Raiders) continued the trend of religious artifacts.  In fact, this film centered around the religious artifact: the Holy Grail.  Sure, the real focus of the film was on the relationship between Indy and his estranged father, but the Grail looms over the whole thing, and it is seen to possess unexplained, otherworldly powers just as the Ark did.  So yeah, we have a trend in Indiana Jones films: they revolve around religious and cultic artifacts with mystical powers, and the two better films of the trilogy even tie directly to Jewish/Christian mysticism.  This all works because Indy is an archaeologist and historian; his adventures are grounded in his vast knowledge of ancient earthly cultures, and I’ll bet you can guess where I’m headed with this.

One of my most reviled films of all time.
When 2008 rolled around, the world had to sit through Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.  I hate this movie with a passion, and I see it as just another entry in Shia LaBeouf’s one-man war on my childhood.  I find Cate Blanchett’s character uninteresting and clichéd.  I think the Jones family dynamic (which was the highlight of Last Crusade) felt forced and artificial, and it seemed like a not-so-subtle lunge to turn Crystal Skull into a full-on family film.  Still, the worst part was the magical macguffin over which the characters were feuding: an alien skull.  No, seriously.  An alien skull.  Not just an enchanted skull or a skull with mystical powers.  An alien skull.  Aliens.  In an Indiana Jones movie.  Aliens.  George, let me explain this to you since you clearly don’t get it: Indiana Jones’ universe is based around archeological finds and occult artifacts.  The Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail-- they’re all part of earthly history and folklore.  The incorporation of outer space and extraterrestrial life places an unrealistic demand on viewers’ abilities to suspend their disbelief.  It yanks the viewer out of the film and back into his or her seat with the sudden realization of “Oh, right, this is just a movie.”  This moment should never happen until the closing credits of a movie, and you killed the climax of your film by wedging it in there.  You took a barely-passable movie, and in this moment --the big reveal that the skull is of alien origin-- you turned it into a bad movie.  You violated the rules of the film universe that you created and, as a result, you undermined your own movie.  Way to go, George.  You turned religion into science yet again and ticked off just as many of your diehard fans.

In truth, I have no idea why George Lucas did this horrible thing to the Indiana Jones franchise, but I do have a theory.  There are two assumptions at work here.  The first is that movie audiences today are less religious than when the original Indiana Jones films were released.  Somehow, having plots that revolve around Christian artifacts just isn’t PC, so Lucas is providing something that cannot offend: aliens.  No one is excluded if the artifact is alien.  The second assumption is that audiences will believe a scientific explanation (alien remains) over a spiritual one (holy artifact).  The removal of a spiritual aspect from the film indicates Lucas’s belief that an audience will be more likely to believe in aliens than in the Ark of the Covenant possessing mystical powers, and this assumption undercuts the potential for storytelling to an absurd degree.  In Raiders, the Ark’s power really didn’t need an explanation.  Characters knew what it was, and there was no need to question that the Ark of the Covenant’s power came from the ancient Israelites’ relationship with God.  Flash forward to Crystal Skull though, and you’ve suddenly got a lot of explaining to do.  The Ark of the Covenant is thoroughly engrained in Western culture, but aliens?  Suddenly, the audience is in a realm that it does not understand, and a convoluted exposition has to take over, and that’s not how an Indiana Jones film ought to function.

Why, George?  Why?
There are so many more believable, recognizable artifacts for which Indy could have searched.  How about the Spear of Longinus?  Pandora’s Box?  The Labyrinth of Crete?  Atlantis?  Hell, if Lucas and Spielberg were so set on using the Central American jungle as a setting, why not have Indy search for El Dorado or the Fountain of Youth?  Lucas could have done either of these artifacts and still catered to Indy’s archeological roots without appealing to Christian sensibilities, but that wasn’t good enough.  Space trumps folklore, and we got aliens because George Lucas assumes that you, the viewer, are an easily-offended atheist who is uninformed about ancient civilizations and places all your faith in science, and frankly, that should be far more offensive to an atheist viewer than the presence of a religious artifact.  Does Lucas really think that American audiences are that ignorant and uninformed?   Does he think that we are that unfamiliar with our world’s religious and cultural history?  George, even if we really are that stupid, God gave us smartphones and Wikipedia so that we could compensate, and I would not be above googling an unfamiliar artifact right there in the theater.  Put a little faith in your audience.  We’re smarter than you think.  Of course, now that I think of it, Spielberg was involved in this whole debacle too, so maybe the alien angle was just his way of saying, “Hey, remember when I directed Close Encounters of the Third Kind?  Wasn’t that movie fun?  I think there’s a special edition DVD version coming out soon; maybe you should buy it.  Oh, and you know what else?  I’m starting work on this movie called Super 8 that’ll be another science fiction.  I’m good at science fiction.  You want to give me money.”  I mean, I’m focusing on Lucas right now, but just sayin’.

Wow, I really hate that movie.  Maybe I should go watch Last Crusade and cool off a bit.  I’m going to go make some nachos.  Back in 5.


What is The Force?

Okay, that was a fun, little tangent, and I managed to sort out a lot of my pent-up rage over Crystal Skull, but back to the matter at hand: Star Wars.  So, what is this thing called The Force, and how does it function?  What is its purpose in the movie?

Alec Guinness as Obi-Wan Kenobi
The neat thing about The Force is that it is a religion of which we have evidence, and yet, Han Solo still doesn’t believe in it!  He calls it “magic tricks” and tries to persuade Luke away from it in the first movie.  In fact, the tension between Han and Obi-Wan as two people trying to teach Luke drastically different ways of looking at the universe is one of the things that made the original trilogy so amazing.  On board the Millennium Falcon, as Obi-Wan teaches Luke to control his instincts and tap into The Force, Han assures the young Tatooinian that no hokey old religion is as useful as a good blaster at your side.  (Yes, like many males in their 20s, I can quote this entire movie, so virtually all of this dialogue is verbatim.)  When Luke questions Han’s lack of belief, Han and Obi-Wan exchange a few words before Han is summoned back to the ship’s cockpit.  It’s a great scene (as most of the scenes in the first Star Wars film are).  It seems worth stating though that there was not some deep-seated allegory for a modern issue at work in this scene; it wasn’t any sort of commentary on modern religious debate; it was simply a beautiful way to explain two characters’ worldviews through a single conversation without a lot of superfluous backstory.  Han’s rebellious streak and pragmatism are displayed, while Obi-Wan’s sagaciousness is reinforced.  Different characters’ reactions to The Force are a way that Lucas revealed their personalities.  Luke showcases his youth and ignorance.  Han shows his cynicism.  Admiral Motti shows his lack of respect (unless Vader is choking him).  In this first run of films, The Force is not something in which everyone believes anymore, and so even though I don’t see The Force as a direct analogue for any one religious tradition, Lucas is providing an interesting commentary on faith and how people’s displays or rejections of faith can influence an audience’s opinion of a character.  Neat, huh?

Obviously, since Obi-Wan and Vader and Yoda and Luke all use it, The Force clearly does exist.  Obi-Wan explains that, “The Force is what gives a Jedi his power.  It is an energy field that surrounds us and binds us and holds the universe together.”  Yoda explains further that The Force is generated by life itself, so all living things are tied back to it.  By clearing their minds and tapping into The Force, the Jedi can acquire increased speed and strength, limited telekinesis, and even a clairvoyance that lends itself to telepathy and divining the future.  Additionally, the Jedi carry lightsabers (swords crafted from specially-focused light) which are meant to evoke the knights of the medieval period.  The lightsaber is just a symbol of the Jedi’s status, and training with it is one of the Jedi’s least important duties.  At least, in the good trilogy, it was one of the least important duties.  In fact, Yoda never even addresses the fact that Luke has a lightsaber.  When Yoda trains Luke in Empire, Luke’s training revolves more around endurance and calming his mind in difficult situations.  Yoda instructs Luke to feel The Force flowing through him and through all the other objects around the swamps of Dagobah.  A Jedi’s power is not measured by his skill with a lightsaber or his ability to wage war; a Jedi’s power comes from being in tune with the world around him and allowing The Force to flow through him and guide his actions.  While The Force grants power, it also demands a surrendering of the will from those who use it.  Patience, humility, and self-control-- these are the allies of the Jedi.

Darth Vader, scariest dude ever.
Of course, by contrast, The Force also has a dark side.  A few weeks ago, I was writing about Joss Whedon and how his fictional universe seems to have a certain Manichean flavor to it.  (For more on Manichaeism, see that article, and yes, I feel incredible pretentious for citing myself.)  Well, George Lucas seems to have been drinking from the same fountain.  The dark side is only alluded to in the first film, with Obi-Wan commenting about Darth Vader’s being “seduced by the dark side of The Force,” at which point Luke learns about The Force and the Jedi for the very first time.  The concept is developed further in Empire, where Yoda explains the dark side and how a Jedi must remain vigilant against it at all times:  “A Jedi’s strength flows from the Force, but beware the dark side!  Anger, fear, aggression-- the dark side are they.  Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight.  If once you start down the dark path, forever it will dominate your destiny.  Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan’s apprentice.”  When asked if the dark side is stronger, Yoda replies, “No.  Quicker, easier, more seductive,” and Yoda assures Luke that a wise Jedi will know the difference between light and dark.  The dark side’s characteristic trait seems to be aggression, while the light side seems dominated by an enlightened pacifism.  Those on the dark side give way to their emotions, while those on the light side are taught to control themselves and to think of the greater good, even at the expense of loved ones.  This dichotomy between a powerful light side and a seductive dark side is straight-up Manichaeism, and the dark side’s intrinsic connection to violence and extreme emotion is another hallmark of the Manichaean school of thought (which focused heavily on the spirit and eschewed preoccupation with the physical world).  Augustine would hate Star Wars.
"I sure do hate them Manichees." --St. Augustine of Hippo
Now, things do get a little tricky in Empire when Luke enters a cave that Yoda claims is “strong with the dark side of The Force-- a domain of evil it is.”  Both the dark and light sides have substance to them and can manipulate a Jedi in certain ways.  One is not simply a corruption of the other; they are diametrically opposed entities that manifest in different ways.  Hooray for dualism.  While the Jedi are the defenders of the Old Republic who can tap into the light side of The Force, users of the dark side are referred to as “Dark Lords of the Sith,” a title first ascribed to Darth Vader and clarified by two decades of fan fiction.  Seriously, it took dozens of authors years to sort out exactly what a Sith was, but the Sith as we know them today are essentially a dark counterpart to the Jedi, and the two have been feuding for millennia, continually shifting the power balance between light and dark.  I would say that goodness eventually won out when Luke (the last remaining Jedi Knight) defeated Vader (the last remaining Sith Lord).  Sadly, two decades of “expanded universe” fan fiction sought to complicate matters by introducing all these other Force-sensitive people into the universe (usually as projections of the authors), and there have been entire books written just to try and sort out this convoluted continuity.  In particular (as my friends Colby, Eric, and Kate recently pointed out to me), there have been like thirty female Jedi written into existence for the sole purpose of giving Luke a love interest now that we know that he and Princess Leia swam out of the same gene pool.

"Quit nitpicking, Tom."
Speaking of Princess Leia, of what exactly was she the princess?  The Rebel Alliance certainly didn’t have a princess; they were all about overthrowing a brutal dictator-- not establishing a monarch.  She couldn’t have been Princess of the Empire; Palpatine was going to clone himself forever and run the Empire that way-- an heir would be nothing more than a threat to him.  Was she Princess of Alderaan?  I mean, if we’re to believe the prequel films, Bail Organa is a senator (an elected official) and not a king (an inherited position).  If the King of Alderaan is an elected position, then wouldn’t it be something held temporarily and not worth ascribing royal titles to the king’s family?  Wouldn’t the title of “princess” imply that Leia is somehow going to inherit this position to which her father had to be elected?  What planet would be cool with a system like that?  Did Alderaan have a coup or something and decide to replace their representative democracy with a monarchy sometime between episodes III and IV?  Does that stuff seriously happen in the Star Wars universe?  Also, no offense, Leia, but your planet got ‘sploded by the Death Star.  You’re not the princess of anything anymore.  It’s probably time to drop the title so that it can just become Han’s pet name for you.  And this has nothing at all to do with The Force.  It’s just been annoying me for a while.  At least I respect Leia’s title more than Queen Amidala’s, but ragging on the prequel films’ “political subplot” is like shooting fish in a barrel, so let’s just stick to The Force.


“When 900 years old you age, look this good you will not.” --Master Yoda

Jedi Master Yoda in The Empire Strikes Back
What makes The Force so interesting in the Star Wars films is the people who wield it, and this is what really informs viewers about who the Jedi were and what their mission was.  In particular, Yoda is one of the greatest characters ever to grace a movie screen.  There’s just something spectacular about a tiny little green puppet who has somehow been endowed with the greatest Force awareness in the universe.  Also, he sounds like a dyslexic Fozzie Bear, and that’s just awesome.  Luke arrives on the swampy world of Dagobah in search of a great warrior (no doubt expecting someone akin to Obi-Wan Kenobi in terms of stature and demeanor).  Instead, he’s greeted by this little twerp who cryptically tells him, “Great warrior?  Wars not make one great!”  Even before he tips his hand and reveals his identity, Yoda is attempting to teach Luke that a Jedi is first and foremost peaceful; The Force is never to be used for attack, only defense (which is exactly what karate instructors tell their students so that they can avoid accessory-to-murder charges-- maybe Yoda’s just keeping his bases covered).  Luke’s assumption that Yoda would be physically strong reveals his lack of understanding of The Force, and Yoda uses this as a teaching moment.  “Judge me by my size, do you?”  Yoda teaches Luke that physical strength and prowess in battle are not what constitute a great Jedi.  A great Jedi is one who is fully attuned to his surroundings and judges the world based on his awareness of The Force, not by snap judgments based on appearance.  Yoda exemplifies everything he teaches, utilizing his connection to The Force to pick up Luke’s X-wing starfighter, while Luke could barely levitate a rock.  Yoda demonstrates that he can flex his muscles as needed, but that his real strength lies in his brain and heart, not in his brawn.

Poor excuse for Yoda in Attack of the Clones
George Lucas’s inclusion of this character in the Star Wars universe is a brilliant move, but then he completely undercut it with a little travesty known as Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.  Aside from the unconvincing dialogue, cliché-ridden love story, obnoxiously pointless action scenes, and everything else that made this film such a train wreck, the most offensive thing about this movie was its treatment of Yoda.  Yoda is completely reliant on the Old Republic’s military might in this film, and he repeatedly makes foolish decisions regarding . . . well, everything.  The most disappointing scene in the entire film is when Yoda pulls out a child-sized lightsaber in order to fight the completely nondescript villain Count Dooku (played by the horribly underutilized Christopher Lee).  Yoda jumps all over the place with Matrix-style flips in a scene that utterly destroys everything The Force is supposed to embody.  Prowess with a lightsaber, the ability to shoot lightning out of his hands, skill in levitating objects-- these are not what defines a “great” Jedi.  Lucas has taken something mystical and otherworldly and attempted to quantify it with this laughable fight sequence.  When Yoda pulls out the lightsaber and jumps all over the place, Lucas meant it to be impressive, but when I saw the film, the entire audience broke down laughing.  They laughed because these were actions that were not at all congruent with the wise, old sage we have come to know and love.  They laughed because the fight made light of Yoda’s size-- something which the older Yoda explains is inconsequential.  “For my ally is The Force, and a powerful ally it is!”  He doesn’t need a lightsaber!  He’s Yoda for crying out loud!

Here’s how the prequel films should have handled Yoda:

Yoda should have never appeared on screen during any of those films.  Instead, he should have been on Dagobah or some other barely-inhabitable rock communing with The Force throughout the entirety of the Clone Wars.  In fact, and this may raise a few eyebrows, I don’t think the Jedi should have participated in the Clone Wars at all.  Because Yoda is so emphatic about The Force being used only for defense, I think that the Jedi would have maintained a neutral stance in the conflict with one major exception: Obi-Wan Kenobi, a headstrong young Jedi Knight who runs off to battle along with his equally-headstrong apprentice, Anakin Skywalker (whom we only see as an adult).  Maybe Obi-Wan was a Jedi envoy to the Republic or a spiritual advisor to Bail Organa or something, and that’s how he got sucked into the war-- doesn’t really matter to me.  Back to the Jedi, these are supposed to be “guardians of peace and order,” so I don’t think taking a side in a war would be viewed positively by the Jedi, particularly the monastically-minded Yoda.  During the prequels, Obi-Wan could occasionally meditate in order to make contact with Yoda, but the little guy should never appear on screen so that, if you were to watch the films in order, Yoda’s short stature in Empire could remain a surprise.  Also, a few Jedi could make appearances here and there, but revealing as little as possible about their obscure religious practices would allow for all the fan fiction to continue (as people would still be free to speculate about the order’s early history).  Seriously, think about how a conflict between Obi-Wan and Yoda about the ethicality of war would color their dialogue later in Empire.  If Obi-Wan defends war while Yoda criticizes it, that only serves to reinforce the positions they take on Luke’s impending showdown with Darth Vader at the end of Empire.  Neat, huh?  Sadly, Lucas didn’t take this approach at all, and he instead presented the Jedi as a quasi-religious group of superhumans who were little more than a political organization and pawn of the establishment.  Lame.

And don't even get me started on how they should have handled Vader.

Midiwhatchamacallits?

Maybe this doesn’t need all that much explanation.  Just like he did to Indiana Jones, George Lucas decided that a modern audience would not accept religion and spirituality as plausible explanations for how the Jedi do what they do, so all of that stuff that I mentioned above about The Force being a two-sided energy field that guides the direction of the entire universe got tossed out in Episode I when George Lucas unleashed the concept of “midi-chlorians” onto the world.  It was not acceptable to let The Force remain a spiritual phenomenon; it had to have its roots in a biological explanation.  The midi-chlorians in a Jedi’s cells give him or her superpowers.  The end.  That’s all there is to it.  When you’re accessing “The Force,” you’re really just tapping into the energy produced by these little particles.  Midi-chlorians are only mentioned once in the prequel films when Qui-Gon Jinn takes a sample of Anakin’s blood to test for the little buggers, and other than this one scene, they are given virtually no explanation.  I can’t help but think of those studies you keep hearing about where they perform brain scans on people in prayer/meditation to prove that brain functionality has been altered in the process.  “Aha!  It’s all just brain chemistry!  There’s nothing spiritual about it!”  I call BS, and I can’t help but feel like George Lucas is performing this exact same runaround on The Force.

George Lucas reveals his allegiance to the Sith.
Lucas created a powerful spirituality in the original trilogy, and he’s using the prequels to dispel it.  He is consciously undermining his own work, and the motives behind this are such a mystery to me that I don’t really know what to think of them.  The original trilogy was practically a love letter to Joseph Campbell, one of the key figures in the development of comparative religion and mythology.  The original trilogy was intended as a modern mythology, a great American fairy tale that freely used elements of the fantastic in its storytelling and took its inspiration from the closest thing America already had to a mythology: tales of the Wild West.  For what audience are midi-chlorians intended then?  I get trying to deny the existing religious elements of Indiana Jones in order to appeal to nonreligious audiences and maybe sucker in the UFO believers.  I disagree with that strategy, but at least I can make sense of it.  Denying The Force though?  Does Lucas really think that this is what the American public wants now?  Does Lucas think that we shouldn’t even get to have a mythology that we know to be fictitious?  Joseph Campbell is rolling over in his grave, you pudgy sellout.


Star Wars: The Clone Wars-- making lemonade from lemons

I make no secret of it: I hate virtually everything related to the Star Wars prequels.  I hate the films themselves.  I hate that it jettisoned all the expanded universe fiction that Lucas had been licensing for over two decades.  I hate that Lucas probably has a Scrooge McDuck-esque swimming pool full of money from toy sales.  Still, sometimes, my inner fanboy creeps out, emerging from the mental cupboard where I keep him safely locked during the workweek, and sometime around June of last year, he discovered Star Wars: The Clone Wars.  Let me quickly list off some reasons why this show is amazing:

  - Anakin Skywalker is actually an interesting, multi-layered character, and he and Obi-Wan are even somewhat likable.  Unlike in the films, Anakin is a very sympathetic individual whose latent mental instability is almost never apparent, and this is what the character should have been from the start.  Sure, he’s impetuous and a little arrogant, but they make it clear that he is thinking of his friends and loved ones (unlike the ambitious, spiteful twerp from the films).  When this character goes over to the dark side, I might be legitimately sad.  When the film version of Anakin crossed over to the dark side, I was just bored and wanted to leave.

  - On that note, there is just general positive character development going on in Clone Wars.  Rather than bombarding us with exposition, the writers allow the characters’ actions to reveal their personalities.  All of the crazy-looking Jedi who fill the background in the prequel films are fleshed out, and instead of saying, “This is Jedi Master Squid-Person.  He is from Squid-Person Planet and exhibits the typical personality of a Squid-Person with an inexplicable Jamaican accent,” we get to learn about Master Squid-Person by seeing how he responds to the heat of battle without all the needless exposition.  This is what proper character development looks like.  Lengthy exposition = bad.  Learning about a character by how he or she reacts to a situation = good.

  - The Force has been re-mythologized, and the Jedi’s nature as a peace-keeping organization is heavily emphasized.  In fact, the Jedi’s peaceful nature even costs them a few victories throughout the series, drawing attention to the fact that, despite their prowess in battle, the Jedi are a religious sect and not a military unit.  In fact, there is an entire three-episode arc focusing around a debate between Obi-Wan and a Mandalorian politician about whether the Jedi have violated their principles by participating in the war.  Also, even though I’ve missed a good chunk of the third season due to work, I have yet to hear the word “midi-chlorians” spoken in the series.

  - Though the universally-despised Jar Jar Binks is present in the show, he is absent from about 90% of the episodes and typically plays only minor parts in the majority of the episodes where he does appear.

  - Yoda has gone back to being a sage, little puppet-thing and virtually never fights.  In the show’s premiere episode, Yoda teaches a group of soldiers the importance of subtlety, nonviolent tactics, and not judging a book by its cover-- you know, the traditional Yoda lessons.  Sure, they have him whip out the kiddie-sized lightsaber once in a blue moon, but for the most part, this is the legitimate Empire Strikes Back iteration of Yoda.

  - The episodes are surprisingly well-written and often make references to great works of literature.  In fact, this may be one of those “too deep for a kids’ show” scenarios.  For example, the episode “Shadow of Malevolence” features Anakin leading a strike force through a treacherous nebula in a plot straight out of The Odyssey.  After sacrificing half of his squad to try and accomplish his objective, Anakin learns a valuable lesson about humility and starts to take his responsibilities as a leader more seriously.  The original Star Wars films referenced classic westerns and the traditions of Western European knighthood, so it’s nice to see this series making oblique references to existing culture as well, especially in such a subtle and creative way.

Examples of customized clone armor.
  - There is a tremendously scathing commentary on the armed forces present in this series for those who are looking for it.  One of the recurring themes is the clones’ struggle to have individual personalities even though they are all genetically engineered to be the same person.  The clones are part of a war machine that conditions them to see themselves as expendable, and their varying reactions to this (acceptance, betrayal, desertion, etc.) play into virtually every episode in which they appear.  Desperate to distinguish themselves, the clones all make little variations to their armor and sport radically different hairstyles/tattoos/facial hair/etc. in order to stand out from one another.  This is a brilliant concept executed so flawlessly that some of the most interesting episodes feature only the clones.  This is so clever that there is no way it was George Lucas’s idea, and speaking of that . . .

  - George Lucas is the executive producer of the series, but he is in no other way involved in the show, leaving a generation of writers and artists who grew up on Star Wars to take this series in the direction it needs to go.  References to the original trilogy are made constantly, but not in the hackneyed way that Lucas attempted in the prequel films.  Admittedly, I’m nervous about the fact that they’re putting Chewbacca in it pretty soon, but other than that, references are made in a subtle way that never screams “FAN SERVICE!” like the prequel films did.

You know, this show reflects something I’ve been saying for a while now: TV enables writers to take more risks, so, as a result, I usually wind up having much more respect for television writers than filmmakers at this point.  TV is rapidly replacing film as the more respected and more effective storytelling medium (think Mad Men or Lost or any of those other shows we’ve all gotten so into).  A film is expected to make a certain amount of money, meaning that a writer must cater to a wide range of audiences with a film and must market it in a certain way.  Furthermore, as movie audiences are increasingly demanding things that they recognize, good directors are having to resort to making half a dozen sequels, prequels, remakes, and adaptations to try and establish their credibility before they get to make the films that they really want.  Think about how Zack Snyder had to direct Dawn of the Dead, Watchmen, 300, and Legend of the Guardians before he could work on a project like Sucker Punch.  Think about how Chris Nolan had to direct two Batman films before he would become a recognizable enough name to make Inception.  How many people honestly knew who Peter Jackson was before Lord of the Rings?  Because feature films are such a financial gamble, studios are hedging their bets more and more by making things with which people are already familiar, and I actually think this has led to something of a brain-drain among filmmakers that has done nothing but benefit television.

A movie is like an apple: either it’s good or bad.  You either eat it or throw it out.  Television shows, on the other hand, are like grapes.  If one episode is bad, it really wasn’t that big of an investment anyway, and maybe the next one will be better.  You can take more risks on a television show because you have much more screen-time to work with and because your studio isn’t relying on ticket sales to make up the cost of producing the show.  An unpopular show can still go on for a whole season, giving writers, directors, and cast a chance to make up for an early poor performance, and this encourages people to take serious chances (like having a very cerebral kids’ show or a science fiction space western).  Filmmakers never get these chances, so their work must be instantly successful, and the safest way to do this is to try and make a film appeal to every audience possible by having battle scenes, a love story, racially-stereotyped cartoons, double-bladed lightsabers, alien skulls, and no specific references to any single religion (even the Manichean one that you yourself made up twenty years ago).  Lucas has failed to rely on his own credibility and forgotten to take a risk with the Star Wars prequel films.  People would have gone and seen these films no matter what, so Lucas was in a rare position to make a film without worrying about money, and he squandered that chance.  He attempted to cater to every audience possible at the expense of his story and thus watered down the universe he created.  By making a trilogy of films so bland that they appealed to everyone, Lucas actually made a trilogy that appealed to no one.  For more on this, check out the Star Wars prequel reviews by Red Letter Media, a film critic who (last I checked) was actually the most-viewed page on YouTube.  His stuff’s a little graphic, but it’s some outstanding analysis.

Do NOT see this movie.
Getting back to The Clone Wars, this show had a rocky start since George Lucas wrote and directed the film that led into the series, and if you think Episode I was a kids’ movie, then you should see that horrible CG schlock.  Seriously, one of the characters is an effeminate Hutt who talks like Blanche DuBois.  Where does Lucas get this stuff?  Thankfully, because Cartoon Network had already agreed to air the series, this gave the show’s writers the freedom to explore the Star Wars universe and really push its boundaries while delving deeper into the characters in a way that the prequels were never able (as their preoccupation with making money prevented them from doing so).  The team behind Star Wars: The Clone Wars knows that it has a captive audience.  They know that kids and fanboys will watch this show no matter what.  They know that they will sell toys no matter what.  They know that George Lucas’s credibility will save them from cancellation no matter what, and they have taken this security and run with it.  Because the makers of this show grew up watching Star Wars, they have created a tone and setting much more akin to the original trilogy than the prequel film baggage should allow, but they have also pushed the envelope in some crazy ways.  I once saw an episode in which Obi-Wan and Anakin visited a planet so strong with The Force that it had actually materialized itself as a sort of neoplatonic Trinity (a neutral father and two offspring representing the light and dark sides).  During the course of the episode, the dark offspring showed Anakin a vision of the future in which he becomes Darth Vader, and Anakin snapped and just about killed everyone else on the planet to try and protect the rest of the universe by preventing that future.  Now isn’t that a far more plausible explanation for his turning to the dark side than just trying to save Natalie Portman?  Sure, it’s a little farfetched, but at least it’s not all that lame prophecy tripe from the prequel films, and I feel like the writers of that episode were even subtly acknowledging how unconvincing Anakin’s corruption in Episode III really was-- now that’s a gutsy move.  Even though the prequels pretty much ruined Star Wars forever, this show is taking some serious strides to try and redeem it, and it might actually give me a little hope for this franchise continuing on somehow.  Wait?  What’s that?  No.  Please, no.  This can’t be happening!


NOOOOOO!


The Sith aren’t killing Jedi.  The census-takers are.

Even though George Lucas is doing everything in his power to kill off Star Wars, at least fans remain true to the spirit of the original trilogy.  Currently, my favorite testament to the lasting influence of Star Wars lies in Britain and New Zealand’s census data.  In 2001, nearly 400,000 British citizens declared “Jedi” as their official religious preference.  I first found out about this through an Escapist article about UK atheists’ negative response to the swelling number of Jedi in their midst.  The article is viewable here:


How hilarious is that?  I love the fact that Star Wars fans have such a great sense of humor that they’re willing to skew national census data.  You can’t help but love a franchise that generates such great practical jokes among its fan base.  Of course, only the most deluded fans would believe that they are actually Jedi (and there have been rare instances of it), but there are also certain lessons that we can all take from the Jedi.  Sure, The Force isn’t really a valid metaphor for any existing religion --barring some of the increasingly-Manichean sects of “fundamentalist” Christianity out there--, but the lessons taught in Star Wars are still applicable in our daily lives.  Greatness doesn’t lie in physical mightiness.  An awareness and concern for the world around you will benefit everyone in the end.  Um . . . don’t cut off people’s hands?  You get what I’m saying.  The teachings of Obi-Wan Kenobi and Yoda are insightful perspectives into humanity’s role in the universe, and the idea of The Force is one to which people can relate whether they are religious or not.  At least we all agree that something binds this whole crazy world together, whether it’s God or the Tao or just the prevailing sense of humanity.  Lucas took a chance by exploring that in his original trilogy, but somewhere between 1977 and 1999, he lost his way and bought into the delusion that the American public has no regard for anything spiritual (even if it’s presented in a way that is consciously fictitious).

The Star Wars films were originally created to be a mythology, a not-necessarily-fictitious collection of stories that reveal something about the human condition and hold significance for our culture.  For two decades, they remained exactly that, perfectly preserved in the hearts of fans and the pages of officially-licensed expanded universe fiction.  Then George Lucas made three films that in no way exemplified what the original Star Wars trilogy was about-- three films that undercut the notion of a mythology completely and attempted to supplant it with a shoehorned science into which no one bought.  Just as he would later do with Indiana Jones, Lucas stripped his fictional universe of its key spiritual component: The Force.  Still, The Force lives on through its fans.  Through every parent who insists that their children watch the original trilogy first, The Force lives on.  Through the writers of The Clone Wars who seek to return Star Wars to its mythological roots, The Force lives on.  Through every person who has cited Yoda as a credible philosopher or listed their religious preference as “Jedi” on a census, The Force lives on.

Lucas with a Boba Fett poser
In Star Wars, Lucas created a mythology that was bigger than him and his wallet combined, and this mythology’s undermining through the prequel films isn’t just an assault on nostalgic manchildren; it is an attempt to derail a key component of American pop culture.  Lucas’s actual motives for this completely escape me, but my assumption is that he perceives America as an increasingly-secular environment in which The Force just won’t sell toys anymore.  I know that we have become increasingly pluralistic (much to our cultural benefit), but whether the country has grown more secular or not, I have no idea.  Sure, we can refer to census data and church attendance studies, but the truth is that we lack the data-collecting tools to measure people’s spiritual lives.  Lucas is working under the assumption that the American public will not buy into a spiritual idea like The Force or the Ark of the Covenant or the Holy Grail, and I think that all the criticism that has flown his way over these films is ample indication that he could not be more wrong.  No matter what the religious landscape may look like right now, everyone appreciates a good story, and everyone can understand the value of a potent myth, whether it is based in past earthly civilizations or in a galaxy far, far away.

Lucas had a chance to use his stockpiled Hollywood clout to make yet another such myth, but instead, we got stuck with midi-chlorians.  Stand up to this garbage.  Don’t pay to see the 3D Star Wars movies next year.  If you really want to explore the Star Wars universe further, sit at home and watch a few episodes of Clone Wars or read a Timothy Zahn book or just watch the original trilogy and think about what a great story it told.  Think about what ramifications the wise words of Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi have in your own life.  Or, better yet, look at the places from which George Lucas once drew inspiration.
Read some Joseph Campbell.
Do a little research on the Old West.
Read The Odyssey.
Or maybe you could even write your own.


May The Force be with you.




Saturday, March 12, 2011

Gotta Catch 'Em All: Pokemon, Globalization, and the Market Value of the Imaginary Friend

Alright, it’s the last day of my Spring Break and probably the last chance I’ll have to do this for at least three weeks.  All of that work I’ve been putting off for the past week now has to be addressed, and there are also at least five pretty important basketball games on today, so I’m going to make this quick so that I can get dressed and get to work . . .


I grew up with an older brother.  I realize that I said that no details of my personal life would ever make it into this blog, but, in order to understand the argument I am making here, it is important to know that I have an older brother.  Having an older sibling drastically alters what you are allowed to like and dislike as a kid.  If your older sibling makes fun of something, you’re not allowed to like it.  If your older sibling liked something but outgrew it, you’re not allowed to like it.  If your older sibling watches late night television and then parrots all of David Letterman and/or South Park’s criticisms of something, you’re not allowed to like it.  This is not necessarily a bad thing or the fault of the older sibling; it’s just how these things work.

It is with this in mind that we come to Pokémon . . .

Ash Ketchum, Pokemon trainer
I never realized how much of a closet Pokémon nerd I was until about two days ago.  I was still at the beach when this exchange took place, but a friend casually asked why Pikachu (the electric Pokémon who was owned by Ash Ketchum, the show’s protagonist) never evolved like the other Pokémon in the TV show.  I responded, “Well, actually, Ash had access to a thunderstone at one point, but he realized that Pikachu wasn’t yet ready to evolve since he hadn’t mastered the fundamentals of his first stage of evolution.  Ash came to this realization during a battle with another trainer who had an evolved Pikachu (called a Richu), and Ash was able to best him using the basic attacks that the Richu had never been taught before evolving-- particularly the ‘quickstrike’ move.”  My friend’s jaw dropped.  As a kid, I was secretly into the Pokémon TV show for about a month but never actually bought any cards or games.  Even at that tender age, I knew a waste of money when I saw it (unlike my Star Wars toys-- those were an investment).  Regardless, the show was surprisingly engrossing to my developing brain, and because of my strange ability to remember cartoons, that month’s worth of episodes is permanently seared into my mind.  Of course, I had to watch those episodes in secret, getting up around six in the morning to catch the early showings of the syndicated episodes on UPN (yes, really, UPN).  More on that later.


The Plot of Pokémon

Okay, let me see how quickly I can summarize this: money.

Wow, that didn’t take long.  Maybe I should unpack that a bit.  Created by Nintendo, Pokémon started out as a video game (Pokémon: Red and Green) released for the Gameboy in Japan in 1996.  The video games soon evolved into a TV show and card game and took America by storm.  The game was all about collecting and training “pocket monsters” (poke-mon, get it?), and then battling them against other Pokémon.  The show followed roughly the same concept.  There are 150 Pokémon to collect and train, and Ash wants to catch them all (in pocket-sized storage devices called pokéballs) in order to become a master Pokémon trainer.  That’s pretty much all there is to it.  Ash travels around the countryside with the stereotypical tough guy and girly girl that feature into every TV show ever.  While Ash is trying to catch and train anything that moves, Brock (the tough guy) specializes in rock-based Pokémon, and Misty (the girly girl) specializes in . . . um . . . not being a guy.  Also, functioning more as comic relief than as villains were “Team Rocket,” two overly-theatrical rival trainers who . . . well, frankly, every second these two were on screen was agonizingly annoying, so I’ve kind of blocked them from my memory, but I do remember that their Pokémon, Meowth, was one of the few interesting characters.  Meowth was the only Pokémon who seemed able to talk normally, and talk he did.  The wisecracking little twerp never shut up for a second, so he was the most relatable character for me even if he still got on my nerves.

Everyone wanted a Charizard.
As I think I’ve just made clear, the show’s appeal certainly wasn’t in its characters (who were all phenomenally one-dimensional and uninteresting).  Hell, I would argue that the show’s appeal wasn’t even in its storyline.  Virtually every episode had an utterly inane plot that consisted solely of finding whatever magic macguffin Ash needed to beat the newest challenger or capture the newest Pokémon.  No, the appeal of Pokémon rested solely in its subject matter: pocket-sized monsters with crazy superpowers!  I mean, what preteen boy doesn’t want a pet dragon?  Catching and training a Charizard was a way to live out that fantasy.  Of those 150 Pokémon, there were all types.  A turtle that could shoot water, a flaming horse, a fox that could fire lightning out of its head, a giant snake made out of boulders, a kickboxing monkey-- whatever sort of crazy imaginary friend you had as a kid, Pokémon probably had some variation of it, and you just had to catch it and train it and pit it against your friends’ imaginary friends.  How brilliant is that?  This entertainment franchise found a way to play on the nostalgia of children.  By making kids think back a few years to the sorts of crazy animals they had dreamed up when they were even younger, Pokémon roped them in.  So kids bought the games, bought the cards, watched the TV show, paid to see the movies, all in an attempt to live out a desire that had been implanted in us from the earliest age imaginable: to have the coolest pet on the block.  You brought a goldfish to show-and-tell?  Dude, I’ve got a giant, genetically-modified, psychic were-cat who I keep in a little ball in my fanny pack.  Top that.


People for the Ethical Treatment of Pokémon

A "pokeball"-- a prison for Pokemon.
I had never thought about it before --honestly, I had never even noticed until about a month ago during a conversation with some other div students--, but there’s kind of a weird undertone in Pokémon.  What exactly are the Pokémon?  I mean, I know that they’re pocket monsters and basically the living embodiments of imaginary friends, but how come some of them are treated like pets and others get treated like slaves?  I mean, even Ash, the kindly sympathetic trainer, makes most of his Pokémon live in tiny little balls all day.  Sure, Pikachu got to hang out and walk around with the gang all the time like a Japanese Scooby Doo, but Charmander and Squirtle and all the others that Ash caught had to stay cramped up in those tiny little pokéballs all day.  I mean, I know that the pokéballs could heal them after fights and stuff, but it’s not like there was a day spa in there.  The Pokémon trainers were keeping their Pokémon locked up the vast majority of the time and only bringing them out to train and fight.  That’s more than a little twisted.  In fact, I’m not sure how you can really differentiate between the “bad guys” and “good guys” in the show since every single character was looking to imprison and control all the Pokémon.  In fact, if anything, Ash is kind of a jerk.  His goal throughout the series is to catch every Pokémon so that he can become a Pokémon Master.  What about your Pokémon themselves, Ash?  What will happen to them once you’ve attained that status?  Are you going to train all of those things for the rest of your life, Ash?  Can you get paid to do that, or will you have to take a lame day job since you dropped out of school to hunt Pokémon all the time?  I’m betting that Ash’s Pokémon will probably wind up in his attic somewhere, and twenty years from now, when Ash is living in a rundown apartment in the slums of Saffron City across the street from a methadone clinic, his mom will find a cardboard box with a bunch of tiny balls full of animal skeletons.  I’m sure she’ll uncover some of Ash’s other hobbies during her cleaning as well, but I think that the animal skeletons will be the slightly more unsettling find.

The original 150 Pokemon
So, basically, even though Ash and Pikachu are BFF, and the theme song even says, “You’re my best friend,” Ash is imprisoning animals and training them to fight one another so that he can achieve fame and accolades.  Call me cynical, but didn’t we rightfully jail Michael Vick for doing exactly the same thing?  Also, as I mentioned earlier, the bad guys in the show were looking to do the exact same thing.  The only thing that differentiated them was that they were clearly in it for the money, whereas Ash’s ambition was motivated more by the drive to be at the top of the Pokémon food chain.  (Incidentally, the concept of a literal Pokémon food chain kind of weirds me out, but how awesome would that have been in a kids’ show?  I wonder what eats what in the world of Pokémon, and why does my gut tell me that Snorlax was actually at the top of that food chain?)  Anyway, the motivation of the villains always kind of amused me.  I always imagined them having a meeting one day and going over their plan with a three-step diagram borrowed from South Park’s phenomenal “underpants gnomes” episode.  I picture Meowth even holding a little pointer and explaining their diabolical plan:

Phase 1: Collect Pokémon.
Phase 2: ?
Phase 3: Profit!

Just FYI, the real “phase two” was to rope children into buying the cards/games/DVDs/etc. and then charge obscene amounts for them, but I think that’s been made abundantly clear already.  My question still stands: How is capturing animals and training them to fight one another and keeping them in pokéballs for days on end even remotely acceptable behavior?  I mean, if you’re a sociopath like Michael Vick, I kind of get it, but for a kid’s show made in Japan, I just don’t understand.  Why didn’t every Pokémon get the same cushy treatment as Pikachu?  Hell, even Pikachu had to fight from time to time.  Why couldn’t Ash just let the Pokémon run free in their natural environments and maybe photograph them like in Pokémon Snap (which was a surprisingly fun game as long as we’re on that subject)?  Also, wasn’t Ash’s mentor a professor?  Why couldn’t this guy keep the little animal rights abuser in line and make him release all his imprisoned Pokémon?  Was there seriously no one around to tell these people that training magical animals to fight each other is a little messed up?  I just don’t get it!  PETA, how did you possibly miss the boat on this one?!

Okay, so I don’t actually expect the popularity of Pokémon to lead to a rise in dogfighting, but still, it’s an interesting argument, no?

Addendum: I just did a little research, and apparently, the newest game actually has a bad guy who wants to liberate the Pokémon, but apparently he still abuses them just to establish his status as a bad guy in case the player couldn’t guess.  You know, I kind of wonder if Nintendo’s really thought about this.  Then again, they’ve had me convinced that plumbers rescue princesses from fire-breathing turtles since the 1980s, so clearly, Nintendo and logic do not necessarily have to go together.


Don’t Knock Japan

You know, one of my biggest problems with Pokémon is that I feel like it poisoned many people against anime --and Japanese culture in general-- for a long time.  It seems like, around the time this show came out, I started hearing the word “Japanimation” tossed around as a pejorative for anime (even though Wikipedia informs me that the pejorative connotation is not the word’s intention).  There’s something more than a little xenophobic about this, and it worked its way into our culture so insidiously that many people didn’t even see the bias develop.  I first became aware of it with the release of Super Smash Brothers on Nintendo 64 (still the best party system ever).  The SSB franchise features Nintendo mascot characters beating the tar out of each other, and I was stunned to see that one of the characters included was Pikachu.  “Ugh,” I thought in my sixth grade brain, “What is that anime twerp doing in there?”  This was before I realized that Nintendo were the primary developers of all things Pokémon-related, and I was frustrated by the inclusion of a character among the ranks of those who I considered to be great American video game characters.  Hey, just for kicks, let’s look at some of those characters’ countries of origin:

Mario and Luigi (Super Mario Bros.)- Italy
Link (The Legend of Zelda)- Hyrule (an analogue of Medieval/Renaissance Europe)
Yoshi (Super Mario Bros.)- Mushroom Kingdom
Kirby (Kirby’s Dream Land)- Dream Land
Samus (Metroid)- Outer Space
Captain Falcon (F-Zero)- Outer Space
Star Fox (Star Fox)- Outer Space
Donkey Kong (Donkey Kong)- Donkey Kong Island
Ness (Earthbound)- Eagleland

Yeah, out of all of those characters, only the last one could be interpreted as hailing from America (as “Eagleland” implies a stand-in for the United States).  Furthermore, all of them were developed in Japan by Nintendo, so it’s unfair to single out Pikachu against the others.  I think Pikachu has just as much a right to be in there as any of them, but cultural biases engrained in my head by mass media and an older sibling had turned me against the little, lightning-shooting fuzzball.

Batman: Gotham Knight with its gorgeous animation.
Yep, there is an engrained cultural bias against anime in this country.  Our cartoons have to be American, as if we can’t stand to let all the good animation jobs go overseas.  I’m sorry, but compare the animation styles of a traditional American cartoon to a legit Japanese-animated cartoon sometime.  Heck, compare a Korean-animated cartoon (which a surprising number of “American” cartoons actually are) to a Japanese-animated cartoon.  There is a certain style that emanates from Japan that is just flat-out beautiful, and you’ve probably experienced it a lot more than you think you have.  Remember Batman: The Animated Series with its gorgeous film noir visuals, timeless art deco-influenced style, and emotive character designs that were always just staid and subtle enough to fit into that dark and foreboding atmosphere?  Yeah, I just found out that the show was animated by a team from Sunrise, a company based out of Tokyo.  That used to be my go-to example of good American animation, and it turns out that it was Japanese.  Oops.  The show later switched to Korean animators, and I think the quality suffered.  The far more defined edges and boxier character designs still worked well, but they lost some of the intimacy that the Japanese animators had brought to the show.  So yeah, “American cartoons” were being animated in Japan even pre-Pokémon, and anime had been around long before.  Now that we’re finally acknowledging how gifted some of these Japanese animators are, we’re seeing a more global approach to cartoons these days, with my favorite examples being projects like Batman: Gotham Knight (pictured above) and the Marvel Hulk Vs. films, which combined traditional American superhero story arcs with Japanese design sensibilities.  Seriously, while I realize that outsourcing and globalization are not necessarily positive economic forces, cartoons are one arena where blended is better.


Animayhem

I have a confession to make.  Even though I can tell you a lot about where various superhero cartoons were animated, I really don’t know jack about legit anime.  Sure, I watched a lot of Dragon Ball Z (pictured) growing up, but when it comes to some of the really intense anime that is geared toward teens and adults, I am really out of my league.  I catch Full-Metal Alchemist on Cartoon Network once in a blue moon, I’ve seen at least three Hayao Miyazaki films, and I have the Cowboy Bebop soundtrack, but that’s really about it.  If you asked me to recommend a really good anime, I wouldn’t have an answer for you because I don’t really know anime.  That being said, I still appreciate the genre, and sadly, my appreciation for it reflects --and I can’t believe I’m saying this-- a few serious problems that exist in American cartooning.  American cartoons are in a tricky situation because, for some reason, we as a culture decided long ago that cartoons are for kids.  As a result, if a cartoon is designed to appeal to adults, the writers typically have to go overboard with the inclusion of sex/cussing/whatever in order to make it clear that their cartoon is intended for mature audiences.  Otherwise, you get what I like to call the “Joe Camel Effect,” in which something intended for adults starts to get perceived as a really perverse kids’ show.  Think about all the fire that The Simpsons or Family Guy came under for years before being accepted into the mainstream, or think about how far South Park had to push the envelope in order to be accepted as programming for adults only.  By contrast, some incredibly intelligent kids’ shows go underappreciated and fall to the wayside because they’re targeted at the wrong audiences.  Go back and watch Tiny Toons or Animaniacs sometime and then try to tell me that it’s not some of the most intelligent pop culture satire out there.  As kids, all of this stuff went completely over our heads.  And then we have cartoons based on comicbooks.  The Justice League: Unlimited Cadmus story arc lasted eight episodes and includes some of the most complicated political intrigue ever to make it onto television, and yet this show still had a line of action figures released along with it.  Okay, this is getting a little tangential, but what I’m getting at here is that there is a serious problem in our country when an entire storytelling medium is written off as being for children.

Okay, I can’t help myself.  One more example.  I recently saw a cartoon in which a father with a wife and two children discovered that he had a terminal illness.  He grew paranoid about how to take care of his family but soon found a way to do so (though, admittedly, not a very ethical one).  Learning that his company was working on a special suit designed to make the wearer indestructible, he signed up to become a human test dummy and sent his family away on an extended vacation so that they could be protected from the media storm that would follow his inevitable death.  Donning the suit, the man subjected himself to test after test, hoping that he would die and that his new company-provided insurance policy would sustain his family following his demise.  At the last minute, the man’s doctor rushed into the arena where the final battery of tests was taking place to tell him that there had been a mix-up and that he was perfectly healthy.  This news arrived just in time for the man to escape certain doom by the skin of his teeth.  What was this show that pushed the boundaries of ethics and raised questions about human mortality and what we will do to protect our loved ones?  This was an episode of The Jetsons.  Seriously.  Watch The Jetsons again sometime.  It is not a children’s show.  I may have to write a post sometime about what a terrifying critique of the human condition that show offered.

Princess Mononoke promotional image
Wow, where was I going with all this?  Oh right, cartoons and their intended audiences.  I’m not sure why this is, but for some reason, the appeal of Japanese cartoons doesn’t seem to share this dilemma, or if it does, it addresses it in a very different way than American cartoons (which, with a few notable exceptions, seem to cater to the opposite extremes of the mature content spectrum).  Most of the anime that I have seen appeared to be aimed at multiple audiences, and I can’t think of a better example than the film Princess Mononoke.  (Also, please note that this isn’t hyperbole.  I really can’t think of a better example.  I’m pretty sure I covered this already: I don’t know nearly as much about anime as someone of my nerdy ilk should.)  Princess Mononoke did the eco-fairytale thing long before Wall-E and the Na’vi were even doodles in someone’s sketchpad.  The storyline follows Prince Ashitaka, a young man who is cursed while fighting a demon and now has evil tattoos slowly spreading all over his body and gradually turning him into a monster.  With only a sword, a bow and arrow, and his trusty pet elk Yakul, Ashitaka must journey to a distant country in order to seek the Forest Spirit --still one of the coolest looking characters ever created-- in the hopes that this mystical creature will cure him.  In the process, Ashitaka encounters San (the title character, a princess raised by wolves), but he also becomes closely acquainted with the mostly-peaceful inhabitants of Iron Town, a community that has (for the most part unwittingly) encroached on the local environment through their production of weapons.  With the exception of a greedy samurai who doesn’t really show his cards until the movie’s third act, Mononoke lacks a clear villain, and much of the film’s dramatic tension rests in Ashitaka’s decision to support the citizens of Iron Town or protect the mystical ways of the forest and its inhabitants.  As far as legitimate character development and a very real moral dilemma, this movie completely blows James Cameron’s Avatar out of the water.  Every character is sympathetic, and though there are certainly elements of the film designed to appeal to children (particularly the kodama, which are the cutest thing since . . . ever), there are also some great moral/ethical issues for adults to crunch over.  Films like Mononoke blur the line between kids’ and adults’ cartoons, and maybe I’m idealizing the genre a little, but I like to think that this is a staple of anime.

Kodama tree spirits.  I want one.
Sure, Pokémon may have been designed to sell video games and cards and all that, but with art like Mononoke out there, we can’t take Pokémon as representative of the entire anime genre, and I think that the Japanese cartoons are doing a far better job of appealing to multiple audiences than the unnatural kid/adult dichotomy into which America tries to pigeonhole our cartoons.  The respect given to the anime genre is something which the intelligent and hardworking American cartoon creators deserve as well, and perhaps going ahead and acknowledging that Saturday morning cartoons are a perfectly valid art form might lead to even more innovative cartoons being produced here in America (you know, besides the Bruce Timm comicbook adaptations that I already praise day-in and day-out).


Where Did People Get Their Opinions Before South Park?

"Best Friends Forever"
I’m going to delve deeper into this when I finally get around to bashing Avatar (trust me, that’s coming), but this is becoming more and more of a pet peeve of mine, and it started with Pokémon.  Of course, don’t get me wrong.  I love South Park, but I’m getting progressively more annoyed with people coopting the show’s ideas.  Now in their fifteenth season, South Park is a phenomenal force for social criticism.  The intentionally-unpolished animation style enables show creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker to write, record, and animate an entire episode within a few days’ time, meaning that South Park can respond immediately to events that have hit the newsstand within the last week.  That sort of production speed is unheard-of for a cartoon and ensures that every episode can reference events that have occurred within the past few days’ news cycle and are still fresh in people’s minds.  This was done with particular effectiveness during the Terri Schiavo case, when South Park aired an Emmy-winning episode entitled “Best Friends Forever” in which the boys debated whether to pull the plug on their friend Kenny.  With the show’s typical dark humor, this episode addressed the subjects of living wills, appropriate surrogates, and virtually every other end-of-life issue in a way that was funny and irreverent but also thought-provoking.  This is the power of South Park, but it can be abused.

"Chinpokomon"
During season 3, South Park released an episode parodying Pokémon entitled “Chinpokomon” in which the kids become obsessed with a cartoon/toy franchise from Japan that clearly possesses an anti-American agenda.  As the episode progresses, it becomes clear that the kids are being brainwashed to re-bomb Pearl Harbor and reinstate the largely-depowered Japanese monarchy.  Funnier still, Pokémon’s famous “gotta catch ‘em all” tagline was altered to “I’ve got to buy it,” and as the kids become more fixated on Chinpokomon, their eyes, mouths, and voices start to resemble the standard anime style.  Best of all, the episode finally resolves itself when the parents do the only thing they can to make their children lose interest in Chinpokomon: taking interest in it themselves.  While this ending played on the cultural cliché of children hating anything their parents love, it also sent the message that the only way to control the media that children consume is to be fully engrossed in it ourselves and to bring those adult powers of discernment and self-control over to the kids’ table.  Now, this is all hilarious and brilliant commentary, and I love this episode.  In fact, I’m going to go ahead and make the blanket statement: even though I don’t always agree with them, I will fight to the death to defend Matt Stone and Trey Parker’s right to offend every human being on earth since their offenses also involve such intelligent satire just beneath the surface.  My problem with this episode was that the “I’ve got to buy it” tagline started getting referenced every time anyone anywhere mentioned Pokémon.  Just as their “dances with smurfs” meme started to accompany any commentary on Avatar, South Park’s “I’ve got to buy it” catchphrase started popping up so often that it stopped being funny.  I really struggle when reruns of that episode air just because I can’t stop my eyes from rolling whenever those words are uttered.  I’m going to go ahead and nutshell this in its own paragraph:

Citing a South Park joke every time someone brings up a subject does not make you intelligent.  No matter how insightful Matt Stone and Trey Parker might be, you are not them.  You can reference them from time to time, but eventually, I expect you to come up with your own jokes and opinions.

Though a bit twisted, Matt and Trey are remarkably intelligent guys, but because of them, when I went through my one-month Pokémon phase, I had to wake up at the butt crack of dawn and watch the show in secret so that I wouldn’t have to hear the “I’ve got to buy it” cliché repeated ad infinitum by my then-teenaged brother who would watch South Park at our pastor’s house and repeat all the jokes later as if they were original material.  (Incidentally, I don’t blame him at all for that since this is how the vast majority of teenagers function, and I did the exact same thing once I hit high school.  Also, picking at me for my tastes in TV is the natural function of an older brother.  It’s still annoying, but it’s not his fault-- just part of the natural order of things.  I digress.)  This incident is a testament to the amazing dialogue-influencing powers that South Park wields, and in this particular case, I think that the guys unwittingly set the stereotypes about Japanese cartoons (to which the American public was still getting accustomed at the time) back a few decades.  While “I’ve got to buy it” might have applied to Pokémon and Digimon and Bakugon and Beyblades, it wasn’t really applicable to all of anime, so when South Park viewers tried to apply it to the larger scope of Japanese animation and use it to justify a larger xenophobic mentality, a grave injustice occurred.


Hasbro Has Dough

Oh, before pressing on ahead, a quick sidebar:

Oh, the things I've done for money.
Speaking of Beyblades (which are spinning, jagged-looking, plastic tops that you can battle in a big bowl), one of the strangest jobs I’ve ever had actually involved working in a Beyblade/Yu-Gi-Oh store during high school, and I frequently entertained myself by making up fake rules for the Beyblade tournaments that we held every Saturday morning.  Amazingly, the parents were usually far more intense about it than their kids, so I would frequently have to cite nonexistent authorities in order to avoid physical confrontations with these people.  “Listen, sir, we play by East Tokyo rules only here, and that means that a draw is settled by a sudden-death, no-ripcord spin-off.  I don’t care what you think the rules are, but we want to keep these matches nice and clean.  If you want to come in here with that Kyoto Street Rules garbage, we can bar your son from our tournament, and you can take your business elsewhere.  Now stay behind the damn cones!”  Hey, I had to pay for my bass amp somehow, and at least I got to mess with people.  Amazingly, even though I made a few parents furious during my brief tenure as a Beyblade referee, my bluffs were never called.  Back to the matter at hand though . . .

Yes, many cartoons are designed to get kids to buy toys, but this is not a problem endemic to Japan (as the “I’ve got to buy it” crowd would have us believe).  In fact, off the top of my head, here’s a list of American cartoon/film franchises that featured significant toy line tie-ins:

Transformers
G.I. Joe
Care Bears
Mighty Max/Polly Pocket
Masters of the Universe
Iron Man
Batman
Star Wars (the very first franchise for which toys were released prior to the film)
Dungeons & Dragons
Gargoyles
Small Soldiers
Hell, even The Tick had a line of action figures!

Optimus Prime, leader of the Autobots
Using kids’ shows to push merchandise is not something new.  It is not a concept imported from Japan.  If anything, we thought of it first!  American cartoonists and filmmakers have been doing it for years, so just because Pokémon was less apologetic about it than most series doesn’t mean that they deserve any special spite.  Also, at least Pokémon was respectful of their subject matter.  For the sake of comparison, look at Transformers.  As much as later cartoons and comics have tried to redeem the Transformers, that doesn’t change the fact that, during the show’s original run, new Transformers were introduced on a weekly basis in order to sell more toys.  Sure, there were some pretty great storylines (especially after the 1986 Transformers: The Movie when the youthful and inexperienced Hot Rod was leading the Autobots), but that doesn’t change the fact that the writers were constantly coming up with new gimmicks and underdeveloped characters in order to sell toys.  When Transformers movie director Michael Bay infuriated franchise loyalists by calling the original cartoons “glorified toy commercials,” he may have been being insensitive and intentionally incendiary toward his film’s desired fan base, but --my utter hatred of Michael Bay aside-- his comment stung the most because it had an uncomfortable ring of truth to it.  Incidentally, the Transformers toy line is owned by Hasbro, a good all-American company based in Rhode Island.  Hasbro also owns the toy-manufacturing rights to good old-fashioned American toys and games like G.I. Joe, Batman, Lincoln Logs, Lie-Brite, Mr. Potato Head, NERF, Dungeons & Dragons, and even Star Wars.

Having made toys since the 1940s, Hasbro also-- wait a minute.  What’s this?  Hasbro owns the rights to Pokémon and Beyblades!?  This stuff is being manufactured by American companies!?  For real!?  You mean an American company is profiting from the sale of Japanese products!?  You mean the stereotype of the Japanese cartoon selling kids all that garbage is actually a clever cultural meme designed to distract us from the same old American marketing scams!?  You mean that South Park’s portrayal of Pokémon as a solely-Japanese endeavor was misinformed!?  You mean that spellcheck now acknowledges the interrobang (!?) as a legitimate form of punctuation!?

Sorry, got a little carried away there.  In short, by purchasing Pokémon products, you’re not just profiting Nintendo (a Japanese company), you’re profiting Hasbro (an American company), so all that stuff about a shadowy Japanese cartoon industry that’s out to get the money of stupid American children is completely and totally misinformed.  If there’s one thing we Americans know how to do well, it’s market things to children.  Toys, fast food, cigarettes-- we know how to make kids want it, and now we’ve accomplished the most impressive feat of all: passing the buck to Japan.  Nice try, South Park, but you fell for Hasbro’s ploy hook, line, and sinker.  Chalk this up as a win for American business.


Please, Catch ‘Em All

As much as we want to prolong the myth that there are good wholesome American cartoons and toys for our white, blond-haired, blue-eyed children to play with, the truth is that children’s entertainment has been a multi-national collaborative effort for decades now.  Hell, even the classic “fairy tales” and “nursery rhymes” that have pervaded our culture for centuries were originally imported from Germany and Scandinavia.  Sure, we’ve started to introduce kids to genuine, Japan-produced anime at an early age, but American companies are still profiting from the toy sales, and this is a trick we’ve been pulling since Voltron.  Pokémon may not have been that great of a show, and the games may have been kind of overrated, but it still represents the start of a more global outlook on cartoons.  Perhaps this collaboration on cartoons will lead to collaboration in other cultural arenas.  For example, look at the soundtrack to the anime Cowboy Bebop, for which French and Japanese musicians worked together to provide a new spin on traditional African-influenced American jazz for an anime about the American Wild West in space.  That’s four continents (and space) coming together for an anime soundtrack!  Think of what an epic achievement that is, and it all came about because of a cartoon!  Yes, I love the South Park Chinpokomon episode for its witty insights about the relationships between parents and children, but it missed the mark with the marketing side of things.  To make fun of Pokémon is to make fun of Transformers or Batman or Masters of the Universe or any of the other toy-minded cartoon franchises that preceded it, and it’s just downright hypocritical of us to criticize Japan for this style of marketing when we practically invented it.

In spite of its strange plot and the possible subtext of animal abuse, Pokémon had a really clever idea in playing on kids’ memories of their imaginary friends in order to sell trading cards and video games.  Sure, I don’t really endorse Pokémon because of the lousy storytelling, but at the same time, I don’t deny its incredible cultural significance.  It started the influx of overtly Japanese kids’ cartoons (rather than cartoons that were just being written in America and animated in Japan) and got many children legitimately interested in other cultures.  The more of that we have, the better, so you know what?  Catch ‘em all.  Try out a Pokémon game.  Take a break from work to watch an anime.  Read a manga.  Try to incorporate a non-European philosopher into your next paper for school.  Do something multicultural because Pokémon stood up to the idea of American cartoons being the sole children’s entertainment force in the impending global monoculture, and Pokémon won that battle.  Instead of clinging to the myth of wholesome American cartoons and toys, embrace the new.  Embrace the different.  Learn about a new culture, because globalization is happening whether we like it or not, and cartoons are one of the media where it’s occurring both the fastest and the most peacefully.
This is an exciting time.
The world is changing.
Run with it.