Bringing Back the Force was an article written by psycho essayist WyldKard. The original article is posted on his site.

Forcing the Issue

The article mentioned above is probably only the tip of the iceberg of really interesting and possibly controversial views of the SW universe. In his article, WyldKard proposes something every bit as cool and WTF? as finding out that Darth Vader was Luke's Dad in Empire.

Not that I give Lucas credit for being ballsy enough to bring off something so comparatively twisted. This would involve actual creative vision.

Below the line are spoilers relating to WyldKard's article. If you would like to read his, now would be the time. Please note that clicking the above links will open the article in a new browser window.

Bringing Back the Force is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about on the front page of this site - taking back the Force. WyldKard's theory blows the entire universe back open, re-imbuing it with a quality of mystery and wonder. Does that sound grandiose? Then so be it. If we can't trust a fictional universe, it gets a lot more interesting. As long as it plays by the rules, that is - which is at least more true of WyldKard's theory than it is of SW: Episode 1.

In the Theory (which is how I'll refer to BBTF from here on in,) WyldKard expresses an interesting idea about Luke Skywalker's paternity, and questions the identities of two major SW characters. He presents, with some very compelling evidence, the idea that the character Alec Guiness played in the original trilogy of movies is in fact the same character played by... Jake Lloyd and Hayden Christensen. "WHAT?" you ask. "Old Ben SAID Vader was Luke's Father."

Well, maybe he lied. I know, it doesn't sound like a Jedi thing to do, but there it is. Jedi, while being highly mystical in philosophy, were also highly pragmatic - which dichotomy makes them pretty damn interesting. The one indisputably good Jedi (now that Episode 2 has pretty much nuked the possibility of WyldKard being right about Ben being a really "pure" Jedi) is Yoda, and he says some of the most new-agey, philosophical lines in the series ("Luminous beings are we...") and the single most pragmatic line uttered in the series ("Do. Or do not. There is no try.")

So it's perfectly possible, plausible, even, that Ben flat-out lied to Luke in order to steer him the direction that was needed. It's undeniable that he lied to Luke at some point - either about the identity of Luke's father, or about Vader's knowledge of his children's existence. As his statements that Vader didn't know he had any children are borne out by Vader's own statements and actions, it seems unlikely that he lied about that. So the only rational explanation for some of the things that Kenobi said is that he lied about Luke's father.

To wit - the scene in Ben's home where he gives Luke a lightsaber, saying that his father wanted him to have it. If Vader was unaware of the existence of his children - why would he give anyone something to pass on to the kid? But if Ben is his father, it makes sense.

However, there is one vital point that the Theory doesn't cover. I largely have no problem with Ben being Luke's father, and having once been called "Anakin Skywalker." But if Ben was Luke's father, why is it that Yoda is the only one that knows that Leia is his sister? Ben was unaware of this fact, it seems, until Yoda tells him in the scene in Empire where Yoda says "There is another." How could that be, if Ben is also Leia's father? In any case, I certainly had the impression that Ben had been instrumental in hiding the children. Was it just misogyny that led him to assume that Leia could not possibly be a Jedi?

The Theory isn't perfect, but it certainly is cool... and pretty much completely rational. The Leia angle is one of the few left unaddressed by the Theory.

In any case, the Theory put the SW Universe into a strange place - and that's great. It's the only thing I've seen that addresses basic premises about the SW Universe. The novels don't ask these sorts of questions - they can't, of course, if they're to be published under the Lucas Books imprint - and neither do the comics. Darth Lucas's Empire controls all these things, and that's fine - it's his right to do so. But the control is simultaneously too constricting and too loose. Too constricting because certain topics can't be addressed - things about the basic setup of the Universe seem to be disallowed - and too loose because there is no real central storyline (with the exception of the New Jedi Order setting.)

The indisputably good thing about the novels, though, is this - they are aimed at an audience not composed largely of bright five year olds the way that the Prequels have been. The droids are around, of course, and there are cute scenes in most of the books. But there are also well-developed plots and mostly well-done characterizations. The novels are aimed at the people that have grown up with the SWU, not the little ones that are just being introduced to it. Obviously, the novels are NOT great literature, they don't pose probing questions about the nature of good and evil or the philosophy of technology - both of which could be easily addressed and examined in the SWU, but are usually written off with simplistic answers - but they are great popcorn novels. Kind of like the original movies, really...

The first trilogy of SW films were kid's movies, it's been said. And I obviously can't disagree - I remember the first time I saw A New Hope - back before it was called that, of course - and I was a little kid at the time. It hooked me hard - also pretty obvious, I suppose. But I can still sit back and watch them today and enjoy them. They were for kids of all ages, and there is still an energy and a wonder to the whole trilogy that can captivate an intelligent adult. Sure, the acting isn't the best; ironically, I find Harrison Ford's acting the worst of the leads, and he's the one that's actually had a successful career on screen. The plots are pretty straightforward, mostly in the vein of "One Damn Thing After Another," but they still manage to be compelling.

The new set, though, substitutes wondrous toys for simple wonder. They lack a certain energy. I can't quite find it in me to blame the actors (well, most of them, anyway) as I think Natalie Portman, Ewan MacGregor, Liam Neeson, Ian McDiarmid, and Christopher Lee are all terrific. Each of them is a skilled performer, but with the exception of McDiarmid, they were all pretty terrible in the prequels. Portman seems to me obviously held back by the script and the director - even in scenes where she should be passionate - or at least interested - she seems reserved and somewhat stiff. MacGregor in the first movie was earnest but somewhat distant; in the second he was a generic action hero with occasional flashes of dry humor. Neeson did not take well to blue-screen effects and didn't seem too worried about trying. And Christopher Lee was too much gun for too little part. He was fine, but dozens of actors could have played that sort of cardboard creepiness.

The attitude of the new movies seems to be - "Look at the cool STUFF!" and not so much "I have a story to tell you." They're 120+ minute commercials for the merchandise, and I don't have a good feeling about the conclusion of this trilogy - Darth Lucas has stolen the wonder and given us gimmickry. Which is why I say, "Take Back the Force."