Thanks, Julie, I appreciate that! You can actually watch it (with obvious modifications made to the script once production started) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7J_IZ9agRI. I'm going to write something about it at a later date, because I think there's much to learn from why it was written and why it was cut.
FB memories reminded me of a meme I saw a few years back about how Leia lost her parents, had to fight the Empire, saw a whole planet destroyed, and never went dark. And I think the reason why she didn't was indicated in your article. She had more than the Force. She was a mature person who, in her way, didn't need a journey, hero or otherwise, to be a leader. She didn't need the Force to help define her. In a way, his wounds were such that the Force was all he had. And I think there is a deeper look into that monomyth when it comes to (and I hate winding up being so gendered) how people of different genders come of age.
Or it also might be that very few people have written the hero's journey for women, period. Periods have something to do with it? You'd see Leia's journey being far more collaborative I think, and our culture doesn't relate to those.
This contrast between Luke and Leia is one I also hope to write about later this year. I certainly have enough notes collected to cover it. That's a way of saying, I agree. She can't engage in a hero's journey because she's a hero when things start. She's the moral heart of the whole series, dragging the boys along - all as the boys get all the credit (in our world). I don't know enough yet about the roles of feminine (outside of the negative) in the monomyth, but I'll be reading more about it in prep.
I'd posit that much of (historically traditional and gendered het/cis) the femme hero journey is cyclical on cyclical. Rudely (and I apologize for it being NSFW) put if you follow the arc of sexuality, you'll see a very different path and ride. The expansion of what is possible and wonderful within and without Cis/Het worlds means even more so. Truly though, don't most humans find their way into "heroism" many times over through all the different stages of life? I never really loved Campbell, though.
I'm with you across the board here. Viewing historical narrative through lenses entirely created by cismen (as far as we know) is incredibly limited. It's a subject I know a lot about broadly but very little specifically. I need to dig more into that as a way to look anew at some of these older myths and how we un/consciously recycle them in story today.
I think this is why Rey Skywalker (Palpatine) is richer. I'm 47, grew up with Star Wars and now my 9 year old daughter makes me watch all of them again, just recently watched the last two of the sequel, she loves Rey and I think mostly because she gives her and example of courage and mission, she's determined and cool!... And I think she embraced being a Jedi more gracefully than Luke.
And thank *you* for reading, my friend. I'm always very glad to hear when anyone takes anything from something I write. And I'm glad your daughter has developed a passion for something like STAR WARS that has brought me so much joy in my life!
Thank you! I'm going to write about that in another post in a couple of months, both because I want to research the decision more (I know people who know these answers from a factual POV) and because I want to mull it in greater detail as a filmmaker myself. My assumption has always been that the first act of A NEW HOPE is already long. Slapping another six to seven minutes of talking on to it, when we're already going to spend so much time on the moisture farm setting up Luke's life there, just resulted in a very languid viewing experience.
Totally agree with your reading of the films/Luke's journies. Of course as a big SW fan myself I've read all the comics and books that flesh out the time between films - 3 years actually between ANH and ESB. The various creators packed a lot into those years, some big moments that can forever change film rewatches. I wonder whether you'd an enjoy an essay on the character that a friend if mine did, encompassing all media: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DhxdjKZZLeq82RSXtGwVSnMku9-hD-mRIcjsXY-RADs (hope that link works!)
Hi Harvey, I don't know anything about three years. It was three months until Disney, I presume, which is why the Expanded Universe never did anything within that time period. Not enough time for much to happen. Even Han acts like he's only been around for a bit, because he's still worried about dealing with Jabba. Maybe they retconned it to create more story opportunities? I'm not really sure what's going on with the new books and comics, even though I know many of the writers. I read some 80 SW novels and a couple hundred comic books in the EU. That was the sum total of how much I have left in me to give to the world beyond the films and TV shows I get to watch with my kids. I'll take a look at this essay as soon as I get the chance - thanks for sharing!
Yes like a lot of things I'm sure they did retcon for more story opportunities and I also understand there is a LOT of Star Wars to consume. I've only dabbled in the EU as by the time I was really reading Star Wars the new canon was already coming out. Thanks in advance for looking at the essay!
Love this! I agree that Luke is immature and mostly unformed (and also admittedly annoying), but when his aunt and uncle are brutally murdered, it opens his eyes and sets him on a path against the Empire. And that incident also forces him to irrationally cling to his new friends who might have answers or help him, now that he no longer has a home or parental figures. Did I shove these explanations into my own reading, to cover for the weakest part of the story/writing? Hmm!
Yes. Yes, you did. Hahahaha! It's one of the convenient aspects of Luke, how blank he is, because it meant all of us could make him whatever *we* needed him to be.
A solid read on the original trilogy. Watching these films for the first time a long time ago, this is certainly how I saw Luke: not wanting to grow up, but having to. Which everyone faces eventually. That's why he was relatable.
And also why I was upset with what happened to him in the Disney flicks, because that version is the antithesis of who he was in the first films- who he REALLY was.
Personally, I'm a big fan of THE LAST JEDI. It's one of my favorite of the series and I love the PTSD Luke who discovers he can still fight through non-violence. It's the Jedi story I've always wanted to see. BUT what I will also say is I can't debate the Sequels here -- or at least TLJ, which is the only one I truly enjoy -- rather than the Original Trilogy. I have no energy in my life for that online debate. But thanks for reading. I love hearing when anyone agrees with me or has any kind of reaction at all to the stuff I write!
I wanted to add: my interest in TLJ does not trump your disinterest, in case I sounded remotely dismissive. Art is subjective. This Substack is dedicated to looking at both what we love and what we hate to see what we may have gotten wrong in those assessments. The act of breaking down any of these stories reveals as much to me as I ultimately hope I can show to others.
Why would Luke be the same as he was in the first part of the story? He’s lived through lots of pain and tragedy and is no longer the dumb naive kid he was when we first met him.
I try to comment on all comments here, but as I mentioned to David above, I don't have the energy to debate TLJ and the Sequels online. I'm going to stay focused on the OT Luke story here. Thanks!
"The hero had to hero, so he hero’d, it’s really that simple."...
So, bear with me here, the root cause of the flaws with the story could be the George Lucas just isn't a very good writer... A fact brilliantly brought to life in the Prequels by the inclusion of Midichlorians to the lore, which negated vast amounts of The Force mythology as fans had understood it from the original Trilogy (and by that time quite a few novels as well).
Even given the template of The Hero's Journey he couldn't manage follow that competently.
I'm not even convinced he was that great a director, either, looked at in the round.
Yes, his embrace of SFX and in some cases outright invention of SFX technology was innovative and ground-breaking and for that alone he probably deserves elevation to the pantheon of greats but in other ways? He's a barely competent hack.
As an ACTOR'S director? I'm not sure there's any evidence he was able to, or even tried to, extract nuanced, multi-layered, richer performances from his actors, even if he cared for their input into the creative process (which he didn't, cos auteurs gotta auteur).
In the Original Trilogy whoever did the casting was the true genius. Harrison Ford had charisma to burn and a rogueish grin, Carrie Fisher likewise had off the charts charisma and unfettered teenage breasts, and Mark Hamill played the naive farm boy innocence to a T. Sir Alec slept walked through most of it but even partly comatose he can do gravitas so deep that black holes get jealous. C3PO (Ray Daniels) delivered a master class in body language and voice acting, as did the James Earl Jones and David Prowse combination.
Cut to the prequel Trilogy with Lucas in total control without Kasdan/Kershner and handed far, far, less naturally charismatic raw material and you get... The Prequel Trilogy. I'm told Natalie Portman can act, and I've not seen Black Swan, but you wouldn't know it from the Prequels. Hayden Christensen IMHO can't act his way out of a paper bag, and the child actor Jake Lloyd hardly set the screen alight. McGregor and Sam Jackson marginally exceeded Sir Alec's torpor and clearly NONE of the cast received any DIRECTION sufficient to elevate their performances because either the Director didn't care, or didn't know how, or both.
My singular memory of the Prequel films is being sat in the cinema listening to Hayden emote with the intensity of Edison's original filament bulb and saying to Padme something along the lines of "you don't understand the pain I feel" and hearing some comic in the audience shout out "yeah, but we do!" and the entire audience burst out laughing because we were bored sh*tless by the boring performances in a boring re-hashed plot. If the Director couldn't see these flaws in the film either on-set or in the edit then that's on them... It's because they are just not that good (and because they are surrounded by a sycophantic studio system that exists to perpetuate the auteur myth).
The other geniuses of The Original Trilogy were the Producers WHO SIDELINED GEORGE by bringing in more competent writers and directors (Kasdan, Kershner, Marquand) who were able to elevate George's story to something more nuanced and emotionally satisfying.
Conversely, the Prequels and the Afterbirth trilogy all suffered from woeful Producers that either meddled too much ("let's have more characters for kids toys") or not enough by letting George, JJ, Rian etc do whatever they wanted without adult supervision. Kathleen "the IP Destroyer" Kennedy has now taken this to its logical conclusion and thereby killed the franchise except for Andor (and Rogue One. I loved Rogue One, just ignore the gaping plot holes but who cares!).
Love it! Had no idea about that deleted scene and yes it would change SO much. Really enjoying reading your work!
Thanks, Julie, I appreciate that! You can actually watch it (with obvious modifications made to the script once production started) here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7J_IZ9agRI. I'm going to write something about it at a later date, because I think there's much to learn from why it was written and why it was cut.
FB memories reminded me of a meme I saw a few years back about how Leia lost her parents, had to fight the Empire, saw a whole planet destroyed, and never went dark. And I think the reason why she didn't was indicated in your article. She had more than the Force. She was a mature person who, in her way, didn't need a journey, hero or otherwise, to be a leader. She didn't need the Force to help define her. In a way, his wounds were such that the Force was all he had. And I think there is a deeper look into that monomyth when it comes to (and I hate winding up being so gendered) how people of different genders come of age.
Or it also might be that very few people have written the hero's journey for women, period. Periods have something to do with it? You'd see Leia's journey being far more collaborative I think, and our culture doesn't relate to those.
This contrast between Luke and Leia is one I also hope to write about later this year. I certainly have enough notes collected to cover it. That's a way of saying, I agree. She can't engage in a hero's journey because she's a hero when things start. She's the moral heart of the whole series, dragging the boys along - all as the boys get all the credit (in our world). I don't know enough yet about the roles of feminine (outside of the negative) in the monomyth, but I'll be reading more about it in prep.
I'd posit that much of (historically traditional and gendered het/cis) the femme hero journey is cyclical on cyclical. Rudely (and I apologize for it being NSFW) put if you follow the arc of sexuality, you'll see a very different path and ride. The expansion of what is possible and wonderful within and without Cis/Het worlds means even more so. Truly though, don't most humans find their way into "heroism" many times over through all the different stages of life? I never really loved Campbell, though.
I'm with you across the board here. Viewing historical narrative through lenses entirely created by cismen (as far as we know) is incredibly limited. It's a subject I know a lot about broadly but very little specifically. I need to dig more into that as a way to look anew at some of these older myths and how we un/consciously recycle them in story today.
(I'm probably also missing something about gender and the Force as pertains to canon, but I dunno, FB just reminded me of that meme)
Star Wars has never been the "hero's journey" that Lucas claimed it to be. (And that's OK.)
I think this is why Rey Skywalker (Palpatine) is richer. I'm 47, grew up with Star Wars and now my 9 year old daughter makes me watch all of them again, just recently watched the last two of the sequel, she loves Rey and I think mostly because she gives her and example of courage and mission, she's determined and cool!... And I think she embraced being a Jedi more gracefully than Luke.
Thanks for writing this, amazing point of view.
And thank *you* for reading, my friend. I'm always very glad to hear when anyone takes anything from something I write. And I'm glad your daughter has developed a passion for something like STAR WARS that has brought me so much joy in my life!
Super entertaining read, loved it!
Thanks, Jared!
Very insightful post, thank you. Why do you think Lucas removed the Biggs scene?
Thank you! I'm going to write about that in another post in a couple of months, both because I want to research the decision more (I know people who know these answers from a factual POV) and because I want to mull it in greater detail as a filmmaker myself. My assumption has always been that the first act of A NEW HOPE is already long. Slapping another six to seven minutes of talking on to it, when we're already going to spend so much time on the moisture farm setting up Luke's life there, just resulted in a very languid viewing experience.
Totally agree with your reading of the films/Luke's journies. Of course as a big SW fan myself I've read all the comics and books that flesh out the time between films - 3 years actually between ANH and ESB. The various creators packed a lot into those years, some big moments that can forever change film rewatches. I wonder whether you'd an enjoy an essay on the character that a friend if mine did, encompassing all media: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DhxdjKZZLeq82RSXtGwVSnMku9-hD-mRIcjsXY-RADs (hope that link works!)
Hi Harvey, I don't know anything about three years. It was three months until Disney, I presume, which is why the Expanded Universe never did anything within that time period. Not enough time for much to happen. Even Han acts like he's only been around for a bit, because he's still worried about dealing with Jabba. Maybe they retconned it to create more story opportunities? I'm not really sure what's going on with the new books and comics, even though I know many of the writers. I read some 80 SW novels and a couple hundred comic books in the EU. That was the sum total of how much I have left in me to give to the world beyond the films and TV shows I get to watch with my kids. I'll take a look at this essay as soon as I get the chance - thanks for sharing!
Yes like a lot of things I'm sure they did retcon for more story opportunities and I also understand there is a LOT of Star Wars to consume. I've only dabbled in the EU as by the time I was really reading Star Wars the new canon was already coming out. Thanks in advance for looking at the essay!
Fabulous analysis! Thanks for pulling it together.
Thank you - and, as always, thank you for reading!
Love this! I agree that Luke is immature and mostly unformed (and also admittedly annoying), but when his aunt and uncle are brutally murdered, it opens his eyes and sets him on a path against the Empire. And that incident also forces him to irrationally cling to his new friends who might have answers or help him, now that he no longer has a home or parental figures. Did I shove these explanations into my own reading, to cover for the weakest part of the story/writing? Hmm!
Yes. Yes, you did. Hahahaha! It's one of the convenient aspects of Luke, how blank he is, because it meant all of us could make him whatever *we* needed him to be.
A solid read on the original trilogy. Watching these films for the first time a long time ago, this is certainly how I saw Luke: not wanting to grow up, but having to. Which everyone faces eventually. That's why he was relatable.
And also why I was upset with what happened to him in the Disney flicks, because that version is the antithesis of who he was in the first films- who he REALLY was.
Personally, I'm a big fan of THE LAST JEDI. It's one of my favorite of the series and I love the PTSD Luke who discovers he can still fight through non-violence. It's the Jedi story I've always wanted to see. BUT what I will also say is I can't debate the Sequels here -- or at least TLJ, which is the only one I truly enjoy -- rather than the Original Trilogy. I have no energy in my life for that online debate. But thanks for reading. I love hearing when anyone agrees with me or has any kind of reaction at all to the stuff I write!
So with you on this! I absolutely loved Luke’s resolution in TLJ. Also, great article! Really astute, and I enjoyed reading it.
Thanks for reading, Mary!
I wanted to add: my interest in TLJ does not trump your disinterest, in case I sounded remotely dismissive. Art is subjective. This Substack is dedicated to looking at both what we love and what we hate to see what we may have gotten wrong in those assessments. The act of breaking down any of these stories reveals as much to me as I ultimately hope I can show to others.
Why would Luke be the same as he was in the first part of the story? He’s lived through lots of pain and tragedy and is no longer the dumb naive kid he was when we first met him.
I try to comment on all comments here, but as I mentioned to David above, I don't have the energy to debate TLJ and the Sequels online. I'm going to stay focused on the OT Luke story here. Thanks!
Are you Make Hamil’s agent??? Are you the reason he struggled after Star Wars???
Great post. Thanks for writing. I agreed with nothing you just said (kidding. I loved it)
These are not the heroes you’re looking for …
"The hero had to hero, so he hero’d, it’s really that simple."...
So, bear with me here, the root cause of the flaws with the story could be the George Lucas just isn't a very good writer... A fact brilliantly brought to life in the Prequels by the inclusion of Midichlorians to the lore, which negated vast amounts of The Force mythology as fans had understood it from the original Trilogy (and by that time quite a few novels as well).
Even given the template of The Hero's Journey he couldn't manage follow that competently.
I'm not even convinced he was that great a director, either, looked at in the round.
Yes, his embrace of SFX and in some cases outright invention of SFX technology was innovative and ground-breaking and for that alone he probably deserves elevation to the pantheon of greats but in other ways? He's a barely competent hack.
As an ACTOR'S director? I'm not sure there's any evidence he was able to, or even tried to, extract nuanced, multi-layered, richer performances from his actors, even if he cared for their input into the creative process (which he didn't, cos auteurs gotta auteur).
In the Original Trilogy whoever did the casting was the true genius. Harrison Ford had charisma to burn and a rogueish grin, Carrie Fisher likewise had off the charts charisma and unfettered teenage breasts, and Mark Hamill played the naive farm boy innocence to a T. Sir Alec slept walked through most of it but even partly comatose he can do gravitas so deep that black holes get jealous. C3PO (Ray Daniels) delivered a master class in body language and voice acting, as did the James Earl Jones and David Prowse combination.
Cut to the prequel Trilogy with Lucas in total control without Kasdan/Kershner and handed far, far, less naturally charismatic raw material and you get... The Prequel Trilogy. I'm told Natalie Portman can act, and I've not seen Black Swan, but you wouldn't know it from the Prequels. Hayden Christensen IMHO can't act his way out of a paper bag, and the child actor Jake Lloyd hardly set the screen alight. McGregor and Sam Jackson marginally exceeded Sir Alec's torpor and clearly NONE of the cast received any DIRECTION sufficient to elevate their performances because either the Director didn't care, or didn't know how, or both.
My singular memory of the Prequel films is being sat in the cinema listening to Hayden emote with the intensity of Edison's original filament bulb and saying to Padme something along the lines of "you don't understand the pain I feel" and hearing some comic in the audience shout out "yeah, but we do!" and the entire audience burst out laughing because we were bored sh*tless by the boring performances in a boring re-hashed plot. If the Director couldn't see these flaws in the film either on-set or in the edit then that's on them... It's because they are just not that good (and because they are surrounded by a sycophantic studio system that exists to perpetuate the auteur myth).
The other geniuses of The Original Trilogy were the Producers WHO SIDELINED GEORGE by bringing in more competent writers and directors (Kasdan, Kershner, Marquand) who were able to elevate George's story to something more nuanced and emotionally satisfying.
Conversely, the Prequels and the Afterbirth trilogy all suffered from woeful Producers that either meddled too much ("let's have more characters for kids toys") or not enough by letting George, JJ, Rian etc do whatever they wanted without adult supervision. Kathleen "the IP Destroyer" Kennedy has now taken this to its logical conclusion and thereby killed the franchise except for Andor (and Rogue One. I loved Rogue One, just ignore the gaping plot holes but who cares!).