Countdown to Star Wars Episode VII, pt 5: Which trilogy to watch first, Episodes 4 to 6 or Episodes 1 to 3?

(image courtesy of sodahead.com)

One major debate amongst aficionados of the Star Wars franchise is the one that seeks to clarify which of the two trilogies should be viewed first: Episodes 4 to 6  or Episodes 1 to 3.  Episodes 4 to 6 include A New Hope (1977), The Empire Strikes Back (1980) and The Return of the Jedi  (1983). This trilogy was the one that introduced the Star Wars franchise to the world in a major way.  This trilogy tells the tale of Luke Skywalker and his band of adventurers, which included the charismatic Han Solo, as they joined the rebel alliance to defeat the Galactic Empire. The Galactic Empire was led by the Emperor Palpatine or Darth Sidious and his principal enforcer Darth Vader.  Darth Vader is the father of Luke Skywalker and  Princess Leia and his story became very important as the trilogy progressed  because it was discovered that he was once a Jedi knight who was very strong in the ways of the force until he was seduced by the dark side. Luke eventually rescues Vader’s corrupted soul from its abject subservience to the wily yet physically weak emperor.  Vader’s story,  especially his relationship with Luke,  becomes the emotional backbone for the big picture story in the first trilogy  that was concerned primarily with the warring factions of  the rebel alliance and the Galactic Empire.  Vader’s story also assumes a larger significance as it is a reminder  to many who have watched the films in the Star Wars franchise about the consequences of succumbing to the dark side that includes fear, anger and aggression. This takes us to the next trilogy,  Episodes 1 to 3, which include The Phantom Menace (1999),  The Attack of the Clones  (2002) and The Revenge of the Sith (2005).  This trilogy is set years before the events in Episodes 4 to 6 and chronicles from an emotional point of view how Anakin Skywalker became Darth Vader and his love for Padme from the planet of Naboo. How Anakin becomes Vader takes place when the old republic was transformed into the Galactic Empire as a result of the political maneuverings of the Sith lord Darth Sidious who was senator Palpatine from the planet of naboo who eventually became Chancellor of the Republic and then Emperor of the Galactic Empire. Episodes 1 to 3 also chronicle a golden age for the Jedi Knights and their all powerful council that dominated affairs in the galaxy before they were destroyed with the rise of the Empire. The relationship between Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin, his apprentice,  is also developed. It is also made clear that the force flows strongly through Anakin and he is supposed to be the chosen one that will bring about balance to the force.

So which trilogy to watch first? Well since George Lucas added Episodes 1- 3 later it’s probably clear that episodes 4-6 are the ones to watch first. Even then that still depends on your own perspective. If you read the history of how Star Wars (1977) came into being it becomes clear that Lucas never imagined a episodic element and made it up on a whimsical basis. Sifting through many ideas until he found one that stuck. There was nothing set in stone originally.  He only added Episode 4: A New Hope to the original Star Wars film in the 1981 re release. This is because when The Empire Strikes Back premiered in 1980 the opening crawl said that it was Episode 5. Lucas then felt that in the 1981 re- release of the original Star Wars film it should be branded as Episode 4: A New Hope.  It’s all the same with Episode 6: The Return of the Jedi which was originally titled The Revenge of the Jedi.  To be fair Lucas originally considered episode 6 to be title The Return of the Jedi but the title was considered weak or soft by Lawrence Kasdan. Lucas eventually stuck with the return of the Jedi after the brief switch to The Revenge of the Jedi. The historical record for the first trilogy clearly shows that Lucas was making this up as he went along. For instance it was not clear if Vader was to be Luke’s father. One must bear in mind that Lucas did not have a blueprint like a comic book or a novel and so it makes sense that he had to consider all the possibilities that would make the story work on its own without seeming to be derivative.  One of the great things about Star Wars as a blockbuster  franchise is that it got the full treatment as a series of films that were then adapted to other medium. A lot of the major blockbusters today are based on novels or comic books. This is one reason why the Star Wars franchise and Indiana Jones are so great. The Fast and The Furious franchise also deserves a lot of credit as well. 

When Lucas made Episodes 1 to 3 he had a much clearer idea of how he wanted the story to be told particularly from an episodic point of view.  Well these episodes were not well received critically apart from The Revenge of the Sith. These episodes were visually more advanced in terms of CGI but these images appeared to be very plastic at times. The live models of the first trilogy were not utilized much and so a real live quality was missing from this trilogy. This trilogy is also very heavy with historical exposition regarding the details first revealed in the first trilogy. A lot of gaps are filled out but there are some inconsistencies. For instance Qui-Gon is not mentioned in Episodes 4-6 as Obi-Wan’s former master or chief instructor. In that trilogy Yoda is referred to as  Obi-Wan’s former master. Also in The Empire Strikes Back Obi-Wan seems to have forgotten that Luke had a twin sister and had to be reminded by Yoda. By the time of The Return of the Jedi he has all the details about Luke’s sister. To be fair something must have sparked him in A New Hope to entreat Luke to go on the quest to help the princess after receiving her message. At that moment he should have remembered because he certainly remembered about Luke. The clone wars are given some treatment in Episodes 1 to 3 and must have been considered a major battle based on how it’s referred to in A New Hope. Although Episodes 1 to 3 were not well received critically this does not mean that all was lost. Episodes 1 to 3 are stronger than Episodes 4-6 when it comes to understanding the Star Wars galaxy. The political maneuverings of Palpatine that eventually brought  an end to the republic, that lasted for thousands of years, and the Jedi council. The republic was built on democratic values but eventually became a tyranny in the form of the Galactic Empire. Lucas must have read The Republic by Plato.  Episodes 1 to 3 are also very effective in showing how the Sith were able to infiltrate the republic and destroy it from within. In terms of those political elements Episodes 1 to 3 are very effective and make the Star wars galaxy seem very grounded.  These episodes are pretty weak on the dramatic side but very strong on the side of exposition and in providing a lot of detail about the various types of beings  in the galaxy and how they came together in the Old republic. The exposition had to be done well or one could never understand how the Galactic Empire was formed and how Vader eventually came to the forefront to lead it alongside the Emperor.

From a dramatic point of view Episodes 4 to 6 should be viewed first. In terms of a strict historical basis then clearly Episodes 1 to 3 should be viewed first. Both trilogies are dramatic based on how the events lead to the end of something grand. Episodes 1 to 3 are more sinister and heartbreaking as it leads to the formation of the Galactic Empire whereas Episodes 4 to 6 are more hopeful as it leads to the end of Empire and the return of the Jedi in the form of Luke and Leia and the formation of a new republic. Episodes 4 to 6 however take on a  different form that makes it more relatable. In that trilogy all the great orders have been swept away. The Jedi are seen as mystical legends of the past and war is fought with laser blasts on the ground and in the air. When you watch Episode 4 it seems more adventurous in that regard. The lightsaber is featured and there is one duel between Darth and Obi-Wan but the core of the action is not about that. The core is about the rebel alliance vs. galactic empire.  In Episodes 4 to 6 the light saber duels are isolated from the major action that is taking place. It takes on a very personal or emotional touch especially between Luke and his father, Vader. One thing that becomes clear though is that it does have an impact on the larger battle because to lead the galactic empire with such a firm hand for many years required someone strong in the ways of the force. Being strong with the force would allow that individual to be able to oversee everything in the Galaxy. So the death of the emperor in Episode 6 must have been  considered a major victory especially when one considers the power at his disposal and that he was a Sith lord. The death of Vader and the Emperor brought an abrupt end to the Sith order.

So in Episodes 4 to 6 the story is more relatable. Yes, Luke eventually becomes a Jedi knight but a large part of the action in that trilogy wasn’t about wielding light sabers. In that sense it had to take on a more relatable edge. It becomes an adventure about regular people that get swept up in the war for the galaxy. At the end of that trilogy Luke is the only Jedi because Leia did not receive any training. The Jedi do embody the values that were sacred to the old republic  and so their return probably means that there are people  that will be able to lead the new republic from a good perspective. In Episodes 1 to 3 however the lightsaber duels dominate the action. There are so many jedi knights around that their presence becomes commonplace. The Jedi are revered and respected and their presence is uneasy for any that would seek to do something evil.  Episodes 1 to 3 seem more like a golden age. It’s very bright and glitzy with all these worlds to explore. The CGI becomes overbearing at times.  Harmony seems to be  the norm until the Sith infiltrate and take over. The look of Episodes 4 to 6 suggest that the golden age in Episodes 1 to 3 is gone even if you watched the former first. 

This is always the case based on how we live. From we are born as individuals we always hear of the great past or the legends (good and bad) that paved the way for us. Whenever we hear about these distant personalities or events it takes on an almost mystical air. As a young person when you encounter those people that either witnessed or took part in the great events of the past you are awed and hold them in great esteem but you do acknowledge that times have changed and these people seem more like fossils in statue or street name forms. It’s only when you get older that you try to understand this great past that has shaped you and your community. You hear the stories about people dead and gone and so the credibility of those stories can be clearly questioned until you encounter an aged person that  was there.  This is what will happen in Episode 7. From that perspective I do think watching Episodes 4 to 6 is much easier because it does take on a more relatable outlook. The outlook that most of us can relate to. You’re born into this world hearing about legendary people and events from long ago and only gradually do you come to learn the history of it all. Episodes 4 to 6 have a certain immediacy as there is not time for tales of legends or for things long gone. The immediate aim is for the rebel alliance to defeat the galactic empire. The more you fall in love with the Star Wars universe the more eager are you to know the history of it all and this is when you watch Episodes 1 to 3 that took place before.  After watching Episodes 4 to 6 you come to realize that the Galactic Empire that replaced the Old republic is gone and so a new republic must be constructed from the ashes.  There is a certain element related to how we live; out with the old and in with the new.  The old is based in a historical prism and did have an impact on the present but it does not have the immediacy of building something new.

So for me it’s Episodes 4 to 6 first and then, at your leisure, you watch Episodes 1 to 3 in order to learn the history of it all. In the past the mystical or grand elements seem to be more commonplace than in the present. 

Countdown to Star Wars Episode VII, pt 4: What does the 1st official trailer tell us?

The first official trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens premiered on  October 19, 2015. There were two teaser trailers that came before it. This official trailer created a sensation on the internet with tickets being sold out in a matter of minutes and crashing online ticket sale systems as a result of the very high level demand.  This is due to the great anticipation of a film that has a very strong legacy behind it. Let’s just hope that people are not disappointed. But what does the official trailer tell us to actually expect apart from the fact that this is just another Star Wars film. Will this film be a disappointment like Star Wars , Episode 1: The Phantom Menace? Or will it meet these soaring expectations? As I write the official trailer has been viewed 42 million times on the official Star Wars Youtube channel. This is impressive especially when you consider that the first teaser trailer has been viewed 23 million times on the Star Wars Youtube channel and the second teaser trailer has been viewed 66 million times. Obviously these figures are for the Star Wars Youtube channel and so when you consider other Youtube channels that have shared the same content you’re looking at, easily,   over 100 million views each for the first 2 teaser trailers. The numbers for the official trailer on the Star Wars Youtube channel  are fairly accurate, however, when you consider that this is the channel that most people have been directed to. This is evident with the increase of subscriptions to the Star Wars Youtube channel since the official trailer premiered.  These numbers definitely show the very high level of expectation for the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens. No superhero movie can match this high level of demand; not even Batman vs. Superman.  

Well apart from a basic story outline the most important thing I took from this official trailer is that Star Wars: The Force Awakens  will be the most impressive Star Wars film ever made from a visual point of view.  Before I say why I think that is so I am going to briefly describe the basic story outline that has been presented. I am not going to speculate on details  but just the basic story outline for the film that is pretty obvious. Obviously the details, or how the story is told, will determine if this film has a major impact and that’s why we must wait for the film to premiere.

The basic storyline presented in the trailer is pretty easy to follow. There are some vague statements and images that clearly show that several isolated individuals will form a band of adventurers to challenge the dark side. The trailer first introduces us to the wanderer Rey who introduces herself as ‘No one’ and then it introduces Finn who claims he ‘has nothing to fight for.’ The first two teaser trailers clearly indicate that these two will meet up on a desolate planet (Tatooine perhaps?) or an area of a planet that is mostly a desert. If it is Tatooine then the film will clearly be adhering to tradition. Tatooine is the only planet in Star Wars lore that is largely made up of desert (could be wrong) or the only planet that has been featured which has such a large area of desert. I don’t know the details but I would not be surprised if it is Tatooine. Anyways it becomes clear that there is something to fight for because Kylo Ren, a member of the dark side who seems to be strong in the ways of the force, states that ‘Nothing will stand in our way. I will finish what you started.’ An image of Darth Vader’s damaged mask is then featured. It is clear that Kylo Ren has some big shoes to fill because from his days as Anakin Skywalker to his children, Luke and Leia, Darth Vader is the most dominant figure of the past two Star Wars trilogies. More so than the emperor who comes across as just a conniving politician that managed to create the galactic empire. All of this would mean nothing if he did not have a powerful figure like Vader by his side.  In terms of power Darth Vader is clearly the most prominent figure of Star Wars lore. Ren has big shoes to fill.

Following Ren’s pledge to finish what Vader started it is clear that Finn and Rey will eventually link up with an aged Han Solo and a, supposedly, aged Chewbacca. It is clear that is when the action in the story really begins. Solo reminds his young compatriots that the stories about the Dark side (Sith) and the jedi   are real. It is clear that the force has been dormant up until this point but will emerge or awaken with the likes of Kylo Ren (Knights of Ren) and Finn (Jedi) as they battle for the soul of the galaxy. We also see an aged Princess Leia but the mysterious figure of Luke Skywalker is still not featured although he does add his voice to the second teaser trailer. We do know that he is the figure in a shroud placing his hand on R2-D2. Skywalker will clearly play a pivotal role in training Finn to become a Jedi knight.  It is also clear that the forces that Ren leads are remnants of the former Galactic Empire that was destroyed in Episode 6: The Return of the Jedi. These remnants are known as the First Order. The Rebel forces are now known as the resistance. There are a lot of aerial battles between the First Order and the Resistance featured in this trailer and this is because there is another important character called Poe Dameron, a top pilot for the Resistance. We do know that there will be a major confrontation between Finn and Ren as the age old battle between Jedi and the dark side resumes. The Force Awakens means that there are individuals that have been brought into a conflict because they are strong in the ways of the force. This applies to both the dark side and the Jedi. 

The movie is set 30 years after Episode 6 and so it is clear that the force has remained dormant until it reached out to a couple of individuals who will use it for particular purposes; good or bad. Finn and Rey seem skeptical at first until Solo tells them that the stories about the Jedi and the dark side are  true. It is not surprising that some people still remain forgetful because in Episodes 4 to 6 Luke Skywalker was the only Jedi of note because the ageing Obi Wan and Yoda were on the way out. Leia is strong with the force but she never received any training to become Jedi. Maybe Luke eventually taught her. Darth Vader represented the darkside. The Emperor was an ageing individual desperate to cling to power.  The light saber battles between jedi and Sith were isolated. It seemed that the  defeat of the empire by the rebels was won primarily by the tactical organization and execution of plans by the rebel air force and troops on the ground as opposed to light saber fights between Jedi and Sith. So it’s not surprising that the Jedi and the Sith, who  embody the ways  of the force,  are still considered to be legends. Maybe this film will finally put them at the forefront of the epic battle that will follow.

Well the story outline wasn’t so basic after all; suffice to say that the battle between the Jedi  and the dark side will resume.

For me the most impressive element about the trailer were the visuals. The visuals will clearly be a highpoint of this film regardless of whether it is good or not.  I was impressed because this will clearly be the most impressive Star Wars film from a visual point of view. The CGI seems very organic meaning that it is integrated into the live sets seamlessly. When I watched the 2^nd teaser trailer there was a distant shot of a small vehicle moving fairly fast across the desert with the remnants of a fallen star destroyer in the background. The visuals were very impressive because one could see the the star destroyer as a hazy image in the distance that had a real live quality to it. These sorts of images seem to be in keeping with Episode 4: A New Hope which was very impressive considering that it was released in 1977. Obviously there is now a significant visual upgrade. In the official trailer the images of millennium falcon flying through relics of imperial ships as it’s being chased by aerial planes of the first order, that want to shoot it down, are very impressive. The shots are close up in order to emphasize that these are real models of the actual planes. Seeing a close up shot of  the resistance planes rippling the water as they fly close by was also impressive.  As for all the other elements such as the light sabers and the laser beams it’s as you were.  I heard the director J.J. Abrahams say at Comic Con that they wanted to use a lot of real live models and it clearly shows in the trailer. One would think that George Lucas would have done a better job with the CGI in Episodes 1 to 3. The images, however,  are very plastic and contrived. There is no live quality to all the abundance of CGI on display. This was one of the major disappointments of those episodes because it deviated from Episodes 4 to 6 when Lucas and the other directors had less to work with but still produced visual spectacle at the time because they had to rely on live models. It seems like Abrahams and Co. are now going back to the look of Episodes 4 to 6. That is a good thing because now the CGI is more advanced.

Well it still remains to be seen if this will be a good or great film but for now I will be content with the impressive visuals on display. It is clear that the visuals will not be a disappointment. That is one certainty and so now I hope that how the story is told will be just as good.  I would also like to see how the new characters make their mark. If they do  we could be looking at the second great Star Wars trilogy that caters to a modern audience from a dramatic point of view.

Countdown to Star Wars Episode VII, pt3: The concept of a New Hope

The concept of a new hope in Episode 4 is a very influential concept and many blockbusters have adopted this concept as a starting point for their own series of films. I will argue in another post that this concept was preceded by the book The Lord of the Rings especially as it relates to the structure of Episodes 4, 5 & 6. In terms of film however Episode 4 was the first to use this concept from the point of view of blockbuster films especially as it explicitly stated that it was about a new hope for the rebel alliance against the galactic empire.  Many blockbuster films have also adopted the approach of a new hope to jumpstart their own grand fictional tales of good vs. evil. It is not just the concept but how it is utilized in terms of setting the stage for another major confrontation between the rebel alliance and the galactic empire which eventually leads to the destruction of the latter (galactic empire).

Well they say that ‘hope springs eternal’ but that does not mean that the spring does not dry up from time to time. In a lot of cases hope is lost amidst the tumult of the establishment. The establishment represents the coming together of various principles that govern the ways of people that are within its sphere of influence. No matter which system of governance that exists (democracy, oligarchy, tyranny etc) it will eventually stagnate under the weight of expectations and demands. People will always call for change or a change in the system or even for the destruction of the system.  This sort of change means that there must be a renewal of something or someone or that those voices or things that remained hidden or buried are given a chance to come forward and stake their claim. When those things or voices come forward to challenge the establishment then they represent a new hope a force for good or change.

In Episode 4 the Galactic Empire is firmly in control. It represents the establishment at its peak. This is reinforced by its  capabilities of building the Death Star, a space station the size of a moon; a space station capable of destroying entire planets with its firepower. It is a weapon designed to smother all pockets of resistance. Without the Jedi knights that have been mostly exterminated  with some  exiled in a few cases (Obi-Wan and Yoda), the rebel alliance hangs on a thread as it seeks to end the chokehold of the galactic empire. The chokehold grows tighter particularly as the Death Star is now operational.  But there is hope because a individual, a young man,  that has the force flowing strongly through his veins  exists on the isolated planet of Tatooine. His name is Luke Skywalker. We eventually learn that he is the son of Anakin Skywalker who later became Darth Vader. Darth Vader is now second in command of the Galactic Empire. He leads the fight against the rebel alliance. On the planet of Tatooine also resides the aged Obi -Wan Kenobi one of the few Jedi Knight that are alive but have been forced into exile. We eventually learn that the princess, who has been captured by the empire,  has asked Obi-Wan to deliver the plans of the Death Star to the rebel alliance. The plans are in the droid R2-D2 who is always accompanied by the other droid C-3PO. These droids were purchased by Luke and his Uncle after they were captured by merchants while on their way to find Obi-Wan. Luke is with Obi-Wan when he receives the message from the princess. Obi Wan realizes that at his age he can no longer be as effective but Luke Skywalker can represent a new hope because he is a young man with the force flowing strongly through his veins. The Jedi Knights can come to the forefront again to challenge the Sith lords Vader and the Emperor. We also learn later on that Leia is Luke’s twin sister and the force flows strongly through her as well.

Eventually Luke is on his way with Obi-wan for the beginning of a new adventure. He also meets Han Solo and Chewbacca who eventually play important roles for the rebel alliance in their fight against the galactic empire. Luke eventually fires the all important blasts, using the ways of the force, which destroys the Death Star thereby giving some breathing space from the choke hold of the galactic empire. It is clear then that Luke Skywalker and his team represent a new hope for the rebel alliance. Once submerged and isolated on tatooine Skywalker now represents the promise for a great future where the Jedi Knights can reclaim their place as the representatives of the force for good.  It will also give hope to the rebel alliance especially because when the republic thrived before the rise of the empire the Jedi were the primary protectors of the peace.  In Episode 4 they are now seen as representative of a long dead religion as the force of the Sith lords have taken charge. Now the Jedi have a chance, through young Skywalker, to put an end to that. In Episode 4 a small step was taken with the destruction of the Death Star. It did not put an end to the Galactic Empire but it was significant nonetheless.

Well I watched Man of Steel  (2013)recently and the concept of a new hope was firmly embedded in that film. It’s the first time that we hear that the “S” on his chest is really a symbol of hope. Hmmm, a new hope perhaps? In that film he literally emerged from the shadows  having been submerged for so long. I think he came to prominence at the same age that Jesus did, 30. In Batman Begins (2005) Batman is also a force of good that comes along out of nowhere to challenge the corrupt establishment in Gotham City. In The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) the hobbits represent a new hope in taking down  Sauron by destroying the one ring of power.  I have no issues with these films applying the concept of a new hope but in terms of blockbuster films Episode 4 was the first to explicitly use that as a basis to launch a series of blockbuster films in the Star Wars series that would forever alter popular culture. Most blockbuster films use the formula of having someone emerging from the shadows to challenge the establishment. Heroes have been doing that for centuries. Along came……. to challenge so and so. Goes to show that Lucas understood how effective this was as a basis for launching a tale of heroism in such a grand, blockbuster kind of way. Lucas deserves a lot of credit by saying in very explicit terms that the events in Episode 4 represent a new hope.

Countdown to Star Wars Episode VII, pt 2: The Famous Score by John Williams in Episodes 4&5

                     (The main title for the soundtrack or the famous overture courtesy of Ninja Doctor 9)

Watching Star Wars Episode 4: A New Hope (1977) for the first time and the first thing that will hit you is the bombastic music of the overture by John Williams. The overture is bold and full of brass and it drives home the point about a grand adventure story that is to come as the written text, describing the situation,  moves or crawls  from the bottom of the screen out into the distance amongst the stars, highlighting the vast extent of the galaxy. The entire musical score is one of the greatest in film history and it has filtered down through the years and assumed an iconic status. A lot of the people know of the music even if they haven’t watched the Star Wars films. It should come as no surprise that score by John Williams was so effective when it first premiered along with Episode 4 in 1977. John Williams is one of the great film music composers having composed and conducted the musical score for  several great films like Jaws (1975), Superman (1978),  E.T: The Extra Terrestrial (1982), Indiana Jones: The Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)  and Schindler’s List (1993). In some of these films such as Star Wars, Jaws, Indiana Jones series and Superman many people have left with a fond memory of the music because it sticks with you and becomes synonymous with the movie because of its various motifs.  Here I am just briefly highlighting how effective the musical score has been in Star Wars: Episodes 4&5: A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back. I am no musical expert but I can certainly understand the effect a musical score has on a film. After falling in love with The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) the first thing I did was to buy the musical score. I like musical scores for film and I am also referring to soundtracks. The soundtrack for Django Unchained (2012) should certainly be considered great for instance.

Apart from the bombastic intro that was first introduced in Episode 4 there are other elements in that musical score that make the idea about adventure become very vibrant in your mind. When we first meet Luke Skywalker he is living on a planet, Tatooine,  where not much happens in terms of action or development. A very dry and harsh looking place. It also happens to be the home of Luke’s father Anakin Skywalker who would later become known as Darth Vader. Luke is frustrated with the life he’s living because he want to go out and engage with the  vast galaxy as he aspires to train as a pilot. His uncle keeps putting off this engagement and this frustrates Luke who is reduced to being a farm boy. The score emphasizes his frustration as he looks at the sunset with 2 suns or a binary sunset. The themes for the force and that of Leia play and it suggests that there is a bigger world out there. There is also a watered down version of the music in the overture suggesting that the adventure is just on the horizon, just about to begin.

 He eventually meets Obi Wan Kenobi following the purchase of the two sidekick droids, R2-D2 and C-3PO. Obi Wan Kenobi eventually reveals his status as an exiled Jedi Knight and tells him about the power of the force and why he should learn it. Obi Wan also encourages Luke to come with him to help Princess Leia after the message transmitted by R2-D2 is played. Help him to deliver the plans of the Death Star to the rebel alliance. Princess Leia also has a theme that plays early on in the film especially when the message is being transmitted.  Her message sets off the beginning of the adventure and the departure from tatooine to a wider galaxy. Her theme suggests that all is not well and that everything now relies on the faintest of hopes. Leia’s motif is very gentle and conveys  a sense of urgency because with her capture someone must take on the responsibility of delivering the plans of the Death Star. This would explain why her motif is played alongside that of the theme for the force. It is her motif that provides the sense of urgency for Luke to take a step into the wider world and learn the ways of the force. The theme for the force also becomes much more effective after Luke returns home to discover that his foster parents or guardians have been murdered by imperial storm troopers that were on the hunt for the  2 droids. He must therefore assume a new responsibility by becoming a part of the rebel alliance and learning the ways of the force which both promise a whole new world of adventure throughout the galaxy.

 (This is the motif for the force and one can hear the motif for Princess Leia at 2:49. Courtesy of Ninja Doctor 9)

For Obi wan Kenobi the force motif has a touch of sadness because he is one of the few remaining Jedi Knights that have been forced into exile. Obi-Wan exiled himself to the very distant and desolate planet like tatooine particularly with keeping an eye on Luke (perhaps). It’s the same with Yoda whose planet of exile looks even more desolate. When the motif for the force is played for Obi-Wan it does signify that it once a great and powerful element utilized by the Jedi Knights although its power seems to be all but extinguished. ‘Seems to be’ because there is still hope with young Luke Skywalker.

For me the motifs for the force  and princess Leia really drive home the point about the grand adventure that awaits Luke Skywalker. These motifs demonstrate that there is a wider world out there and that one must be resigned to embrace it. The theme for the force also shows that one must be resigned to letting go of the old and embracing the new in terms of where you find yourself in the world. But it acknowledges that letting go is not so simple particularly as it is not so easy to let go of what you’re accustomed to. There is normally  a struggle until one blasts full speed ahead.

In Episode 5 the most significant addition to the music of Star Wars is ‘the imperial March’ that highlights the significant presence of Vader and the Empire. It is also a motif that has been identified with Vader and the dark side of the force.  The presence of the empire is felt through this motif as it makes several inroads in its fight against  the rebel alliance. The Empire really does strike back.

                                (The famous Imperial March courtesy of  Star Wars Fan!)

The score by john Williams in Episodes 4&5 set the tone for the rest of films that were to follow. It is inextricably linked with the Star Wars series and cannot be changed unless another score that is just as effective is adopted. In Episode 4 the various themes are effective in conveying the sense of adventure that awaits particularly a new hope for the rebel alliance and the Jedi knights in the form of Luke Skywalker. It suggests that the rebels will now be much more effective as it takes on the Empire. In Episode 5 the empire does strike back in the fight against the rebel alliance and this is reinforced with the famous ‘imperial march’ motif. The themes developed in these two films also highlight any moment in the series where there is a decisive break for the empire or for the Jedi Knights as was seen in Episode 3. Whenever there is the beginning of a new adventure awaiting the famous overture will always be played  and we expect to hear it when Episode 7 premieres in December. The fanfare will certainly be pleasing to the many followers of Star Wars.

The Martian (2015) ****½/5: Maybe a little too feel good for my taste but still one of the year's best films. It demonstrates the importance of having a high work ethic.

The Martian is clearly one of the year’s best films. It’s one of those films that demonstrate that  a high ‘work ethic eliminates fear’ according to the great Michael Jordan. It’s a very good sci-fi film. Its greatness will be measured in the coming years. For now what I will say is that it’s somewhat of an upgrade on Gravity (2013) because it isn’t as sentimental and it has a more inspiring scope to work with. This film clearly shows that we don’t need to witness travel  to other galaxies to have a meaningful sci-fi film.  There is plenty of material to work with in our own solar system. 

This film is primarily about Mark Watney’s (Matt Damon) tale of survival on Mars after being  left behind when a mission on Mars goes wrong and his team is forced to leave him thinking that he’s dead.  The film also details the rescue effort ‘launched’ by NASA for Mark  which required extensive collaboration and cooperation. It eventually reaches the point where many people all over the world begin rooting for the success of the rescue mission.

Positives

The primary positive for me is that this film demonstrates that a high ‘work ethic eliminates fear’. It’s a quote from M. Jordan that has stuck with me and this film demonstrates the efficacy of taking such a position. In order to survive in the kind of perilous situation that Watney found himself one must have a high work ethic. It is that high work ethic that will lead to other things such as ingenuity as you find a way to beat the odds and this ingenuity will then lead to cooperation. If Watney was lazy and simply gave in to the possibility that he would die alone stranded on Mars then he would not have been able to communicate and then cooperate with NASA in order to get back home.  The decision he took to try and survive was the most important part in the film. It might seem like the obvious thing to do at first until you’re in his shoes. Not everyone is made of that kind of mettle. There really is a difference between ‘knowing the path and walking the path’ according to Morpheus.  The  descriptive elements of his survival such as planting potatoes in his station,  creating water and making an effort to communicate through dated technology was very important in demonstrating the high level of his work ethic and this was also reinforced in Watney’s closing remarks about always being ready to respond to any problem that will arise. It is that kind of message that can transcend the scientific trappings of the film. The film was correct in showing the many onlookers all over the world because no matter where you’re from you can identify with someone that can beat the odds. To beat the odds requires a lot of grit. One could argue that the film is a bit too optimistic but it’s not naïve optimism because he made a decision not to die on Mars or to try and survive as long as possible. Like I said earlier there are many people that would take the decision to wait to die and declare the position as hopeless. There is one point when  you see the toll that making the effort to survive has had on Watney’s body. When I saw that I was genuinely touched. It wasn’t naïve optimism. One must believe that there is more to life than just waiting to die.  Having a high work ethic, that comes with a high level of determination, is key to avoid the trappings that comes with laziness.  The harder you work to get things done the more you will be recognized in the world because your level of production cannot go unnoticed. No nation becomes rich while the labour productivity of the populace is low.

This sci-fi film also demonstrates, like Total Recall (1991), that our solar system is rich with material for fictional escapades.  Obviously Mars is the  candidate for such escapades but many films can be made about other planets and moons. Are other planets capable of being colonized? The science says that once the sun starts to expand and life on earth becomes inhospitable there are other planetary bodies like Mars or the moons of Saturn or Jupiter that would respond positively as the heat from the expanding sun melts their frozen insides. Recent discoveries about the flow of water on Mars suggest that it might be successfully colonized in the next couple of centuries.   One day they will have to do a film about evacuating from earth to somewhere within our own solar system. Not like Interstellar that dismissed the possibility of trying to identify any planet or moon in our solar system that could be colonized. Instead, in Interstellar,  NASA astronauts went through a wormhole, miraculously placed by divine beings, that allowed  them to travel to another galaxy.  Films like Gravity and now The Martian demonstrate that there can be fun sci-fi films without some overwhelmingly fantastic element involved. It can be a good old fashioned story about regular human beings in space like Apollo 13 (although that was based on a true story). Films about regular human beings grappling with space which is the vast new frontier.

I liked the level of international cooperation in this film unlike the American Exceptionalism of Interstellar that was released last year. If human beings are going to get anywhere in terms of settling the frontier of space international cooperation is a must. It is no longer America’s burden especially with countries like China and India on the rise.  There was also some interesting info provided regarding the international agreements when it comes to colonizing new planets. It makes you realize that colonization of other planets or moons  won’t be so simple especially as the US is no longer the only country capable of manned space travel. If China doesn’t get involved in a serious way, in the next 50 -100 years, I would be very surprised.

There is not too much sentimentality in this film. In some respects it’s how you would expect such a story to be told. Not enough dramatic effect will probably not make it as effective in some way but that’s a minor issue.

There was a little political intrigue at NASA which was interesting. Heavy is the head that wears the crown sort o’ thing.

The visual presentation of Mars in the film is stunning and one can see why it’s the only planet in our solar system that human beings are likely to settle on. There is clearly something there for us to work with.

Great performance by Matt Damon. The optimism he portrays is infectious. He does have his doubts but the drive to survive overpowers them. The high work ethic.  Teamwork also makes the dream work.

This film sends an important ideological message about why laziness or low labour productivity doesn’t pay.

Negatives

Well the primary negative about this film is that I did not hear or see enough about Mars. Mars seemed more like a backdrop. Yes it’s a desolate planet but what about its atmosphere. What were they doing on Mars in the first place? I was not too clear. Sometimes I was wondering about the sci-fi nature of the film. There was a lot of talk about colonization and so on but not enough about Mars. This is  reasonable criticism because there is more exposition about Botany and NASA’s machinery than the planet itself. I heard about Mars’ atmosphere but that was it basically. Mars is famous for its mountain ranges yet there was no idea about what you are seeing. Couldn’t they have included a shot of Olympus Mons? This is not just for aesthetic reason because it would make the geography more believable. Many people could get the impression that it’s all CGI or an artist’s impression of Mars that we’re seeing.  I am sure the scientists have begun identifying certain areas by names. I get the idea about the sol days passing by being more important and the location of NASA landing sites etc but I would have liked to hear and see more about Mars. The main strength of Interstellar was its discussion about gravity and the black hole.

The other negative  is the  very convenient nature of the film. Not saying I want to see negative things happen but personally I think that it would have been a stronger movie if he was not the only one left on the planet.  He and a woman stranded would have been nice, Jessica Chastain maybe. Someone being left behind would have been nice. Not negative but balancing out the overdose of optimism. People still need to be reminded that bad things do happen. This is a minor criticism but I remember how Gravity had Bullock and Clooney and it showed that in a lot of cases the message you’re trying to send is stronger when things actually go seriously wrong. Your survival becomes even more precious. If not two people then Watney’s fight to survive on Mars; a fight that lasted as long as his supplies could hold out. He would not hold out in this case but Watney would still have been remembered as a pioneer even if he died. It would have been sad but it would have probably elevated the film to true greatness. But naturally they would not go in that direction. This isn’t the 70s. Films in the 70s would have taken that kind of risk. Nolan came close to taking that risk in Interstellar although he gave in to emotionalism.

I would have loved to hear more about what people in the streets cheering Watney on thought about it all.  There’s a lot of cheering and staring at the screen but not enough talk amongst people in the crowd. All we have is a CNN reporter. CNN clearly a major sponsor.

I’m not going to dwell on that by the way. It’s still a good film. Maybe a little too feel good sort of film but it’s well constructed. You never get bored while watching because Matt Damon and Ridley Scott deliver.  

The Idealist vs. The Materialist

(image courtesy of conniewonnie.com)

The idealist and the materialist are somewhat distinct characters yet they are two sides of the same coin. They often appear as contradictory characters and their approaches to certain situations are quite distinct based on the progress of society and particular stages of development.  The idealist character is one that believes that thoughts or ideas are the primary basis for action and these thoughts are very influential in shaping the perception of the objective reality.  This perception of the objective reality through ideas or thoughts then becomes the basis for how we operate in the world and how the objective world operates around us. These ideas or thoughts that we perceive then  becomes a distinct element that is known as an ideal or a set of organizing principles that  determine the actions by particular groups or for society as a whole.  The philosophical approach which says that ideas shape the world we live in is known as idealism. This approach brings it into conflict with the other side of the coin represented by materialists who embody the values of materialism. Materialism is a philosophy which says that the objective reality beyond the realm of our thoughts shapes how we perceive the world. The material elements  represented by the objective world therefore have a significant bearing on how we perceive the world.  The materialistic elements that are represented by the objective reality  therefore shape how people respond. Materialists state, therefore,  that the world  exists  independently of our thoughts.  Materialism then allows for a constant appreciation of the fundamental reasons for  movement or progress in human  society and in the natural world. It is not bound by a rigid set of principles and has a greater appreciation for how various elements interact in the objective world.  The primary differences between idealists and materialists  appear contradictory but they are a  part of the same coin.  The contradictions  between these two groups of individuals  influence how society functions and operates.  In the end it all depends on whether or not you  stick to your principles or if you go with the flow of progress regardless of how your moral, ideated compass is altered.  I am focusing primarily on how these characters interact in the social sphere and how they collide.

The  Idealist

The idealist in society is one that sticks firmly to his or her principles. The idealists share the belief that our world functions based on a set of organizing principles that shape how we interact with the objective reality or the material world beyond our perceptions or thoughts. We function based on how we perceive the world based on our level of consciousness. There has to be an object to perceive and that would explain why as human societies began to develop and mature into settled civilizations religion was very important in allowing individuals to understand the world. Instead of a scientific basis for the examination of certain elements humans were decidedly influenced by our beliefs that were not based on the examination of empirical data. From the beginning nature was not seen as a chaotic force that brought about a certain order to how the world operated. It was seen as a creation of the gods who had enhanced human qualities. Nature appeared as if by design or ordained by the creation of supernatural forces. Most of the concepts learned in the early stages of human societal development were organized by these religious principles. These religious principles were based on ideas about the nature of the earth and the wider universe that was created by the gods of various religions.  These gods laid the basis for the classification of various elements in nature and the objective reality that involved how human beings interacted. Each group believing in their right to rule based on their religion. All the laws of society were laid down by  the gods instead of seeing it as a means of ensuring a certain level of social bonding amongst humans that would guarantee a certain level of cooperation based on various class distinctions. Then there were the philosophers, particularly the Greeks,  that offered a challenge to the religious dogma by offering various fantastic interpretations of the world around us. They might have challenged religious dogma but they did so by fantastic idealistic reasoning. Plato was one of the top idealistic philosophers of Ancient Greece.  Language was created based on our conceptual understanding of our environment and our ability to identify and classify certain elements. Language also reinforced the cultural basis for interaction amongst a particular group of individuals. This is why in order to identify a particular group of individuals one must identify the cultural principles that bind them together. These cultural principles are based on the ideas that shape how a group of people perceive the objective reality. This is why many cultures are similar but they identify the natural world in superficially different ways or based on the various natural elements that they encounter or the shared experiences of particular peoples.  In some cases they give the same thing different names.  It is still important to embrace idealism in such a regard because based on our means of communication through language we are able to identify and classify these elements. If you want to communicate an idea to another human being then language is important. Language is based on the symbolic interaction between humans and the perception of the world we inhabit. It is still an idealistic notion that we live in a world shaped by how we classify certain elements or other human beings. It is effective for those people that believe strongly in the cultural values that shape their perception of the objective world. This world can be classified because of the regularity of certain elements. Once there is not enough occurrence of a particular element then it is difficult to classify. It is the regular occurrence of living beings, natural cycles and the mode of operation of  societies  etc that give rise to the notion that this world was designed in a particular way according to certain thoughts.

Ideals are important in shaping not just how we communicate and see the world but the structure of society along class lines.  The political structure of society  becomes reinforced by idealistic principles. Those that adhere strictly to these principles are clearly idealists. From a political point of view what is reinforced is the right to rule by a particular group and those that are subject to their rule. Every political principle is organized along idealistic lines and this puts it on par with the idealistic influence of religion. When it comes to the history of the two dominant world religions,  Islam and Christianity, politics is closely aligned with religion.  Many rulers have to convince their supporters of their right to rule whether by conquest and subjugation, using the moral high ground (trace their descent to the gods) or by making promises that can’t be kept.  This is an idealistic element because there has to be some means of convincing others that your way is the best.  The destruction  of a particular way is normally as a result of a new nation,  group, association or party that is able to tear down or significantly challenge  the ideals of the incumbent. When the legitimacy of a  particular group, association or party is smashed by a new group their ideas become dated or old fashioned. The people will eventually adopt the principles of the new group based on the influence of their organizing principles which are primarily idealistic although there is a materialistic basis for this; it is called conquest.  A lot of the major shifts throughout human history have occurred strictly along idealistic lines. The challenge posed by some Greek philosophers to religious dogma,  Jesus Christ vs. Mohammed,  the pharaohs, Buddha,  The Roman Catholic Church replacing the so called pagan religions, the challenge Islam made to Christianity, the role played by Christianity in the colonizing and conquering  missions of the European powers, the justification used by the white race to subjugate those of other races and how these subjugated races fought back etc. Obviously there is also Capitalism vs. communism. In a lot of cases the material destruction of an ideal comes in the form of conquest by certain means. With this material destruction also comes the destruction of the organizing principles. The destruction of the organizing principles means that new principles will have to emerge in order to  effectively challenge again. This cannot be done without the material backing however. The ability to challenge effectively comes because the material foundation allows for it. If the new challenge is effective then a new set of organizing principles is required.

The organizing principles bind people in  particular ways. This occurs through various alliances such as marriage, the family code, peer socialization. This is all done along class and racial lines because each race and class exist according to various cultural and natural experiences. In such a situation these factors affect how people interact. The bourgeoisie/capitalist class has to create idealistic principles that justify its rule over the oppressed working classes. It is these organizing principles that ossify the various class and racial distinctions over time.  People then adhere to them in order to maintain the functions of the state/nation, group or association. This is enforced through various laws that are based on primarily idealistic principles that regulate how people should interact in society. Law abiding citizens are hailed as upstanding individuals even though the law may reinforce the oppression of particular groups in society for the benefit of others. It is in the interest of those that benefit from the law to be upstanding citizens. The rule of law therefore does not guarantee prosperity in such an instance hence why new laws are constantly updated or revised to accommodate those oppressed groups that challenge the status/static quo.

The history of science also suggests that it was highly influenced by ideals. One can see this with various pronouncements made about the  earth being at the centre of the universe or that it was flat at one point. These pronouncements seem comical or quixotic now but back then they were taken very seriously until they were actually disproved. This does demonstrate how effective an ideal can be although it is faulty or has no bearing on reality. It can shape how men interact with the objective environment although it does not affect this objective reality. Even some of Einstein’s theories had to be proven and a lot of his work was theoretical in nature. Some of it still yet to be proven by empirical data. Any work that is theoretical in nature is idealistic or informed by a certain idea of the world. Some elements of these theories may be verified by certain empirical data but this means that it was not idealistic but based on an objective assessment of the objective reality. There are some theories that do go beyond the data to make some pronouncements that still await confirmation. Until then they remain utopias in the mind of many.

Most organizations, business, scientific or professional, are reinforced by organizing principles. These principles remain the basis for how they function until the material basis for their ideals are shattered.

As a result of these organizing principles throughout a particular nation, group, or association there emerges a grand ideal that becomes the basis for unity. All these organizing principles are supposed to lead to something grand or major that represents the supposed outcome that is as a result of adhering to these principles.  For instance in religion adhering to certain principles will lead you to the home of the gods and those that do not adhere to said principles are sentenced to eternal damnation or torture. The principles of philosophy lead to absolute knowledge. In business the organizing principles of the company are supposed to lead to profits and in school adhering to the principles lead to a pass or a certificate of completion based on the requirements. Man and woman relationships aspire to the ideal of love.

The idealist character of society is very principled.  These people normally adhere to a rigid mode of operation that is dictated by the demands of the organizing principles of the nation or particular organization. One basis for idealism is its ability to classify various elements based on their regularity or frequent occurrence. The individual eventually realizes that he or she belongs with a particular group or the various groups that form the basis for the nation. This goes back to the original basis for idealism based on how we conceptualize the world through language. This expression comes to make us identifiable as groups or individuals and then we realize that we are not as unique when we stand alone. If we were all so unique then we would not need each other. We are social beings and so there are idealistic principles that bind some people together. A man and woman come together because they want to build a family unit;  on social media outlets like facebook or twitter you must have friends or followers or those that support you in some way no matter how small.  Each individual fits in somewhere and this is determined by shared experiences, perceptions, beliefs, physical makeup etc.  Idealists like to believe that the ‘fundamentals still apply as time goes by’ or ‘the more things change the more they remain the same’. This rigid approach can make them intransigent or intolerant because they have to stick to the organizing principles that decidedly influences how they interact with the objective reality and the grand ideal that they want to achieve.

The Materialist

The materialist is decidedly influenced by the precepts of materialism. As stated before the materialist philosophy means that everything is determined by the activity in the surrounding material world. Therefore they are in direct opposition to the idealists that believe that it is our thoughts that shape the world we live in. Materialism, therefore,  cannot adhere to the absolute principles that is cherished by idealism. Materialism adheres to a more relative conception of the world because nothing is eternal. Adhering to something that is eternal can lead to stagnation and a rotten core because there are movements in objective reality that are taking place and are constantly challenging the organizing principles or concepts of a particular nation, organization, group or association. For materialism change is constant as opposed to things remaining the same.

Materialism assumes a more empirical and scientific basis for the examination of particular elements or spheres of influence.  This makes a strict materialist unwilling to assign a theoretical basis for the examination of a particular subject because the facts constantly erode the basis for ideology.  Materialism dictates that everything must be judged on its own merit. Everything is unique and must be examined on such grounds. It is difficult to extrapolate using a particular element or sphere of influence and apply it on a general basis unless it applies to all the elements that comprise a particular sphere of influence. Therefore if you discuss all the elements of the earth then it does comprise the whole that is the earth. But one cannot apply studies related to the earth and its inhabitants to Mars or Jupiter.  Similarly if you study all the elements that comprise capitalism one cannot apply these elements to another system of economy such as feudalism, the plantation economy, colonial economy, peasant economy, slave economy, petty bourgeois economy etc.  Only when you study all the parts that comprise a particular whole can you then generalize about it. If you only study a ½ then how will you know that it can apply to the other half. There does not necessarily have to be another planet exactly like earth that we can look on but it is clear that for life to form or thrive fresh water must be present. Because water means that there is a hospitable atmosphere for life. The planet does not have to be another earth. The earth is not absolute. If there are other life forms out there in the universe they don’t necessarily have to look like the life forms on earth.  Basically there are many different parts in a particular whole. There is never just one way  or that whole will be or become very small. Meaning there are many diverse elements. There are different life forms and the object is life. A developed capitalist system is characterized by the production and sale of various commodities in the market. A capitalist economy that is not developed sufficiently is characterized by a limited amount of commodities produced for sale in the market.  A developed peasant economy is characterized by a large number of peasant holdings. Basic examples that there can be many parts to a particular whole. Those nations, organizations, groups or associations that do not have much diversity are quite small and insignificant. It is a fact and does not require a theoretical justification.

This diversity means that it is difficult for a materialist to assign a set of principles to a particular whole without coming to terms with its diversity. In another case it is also difficult to create a set of organizing principles on the basis of one whole while not accounting for other wholes. Who is to tell which one is absolute in its conception? Particularly as a absolute conception reveals a very limited or finite base in the long run. The absolute normally paves the way for a more relative conception.

The materialist character is a character that tries to be all encompassing or someone that moves with the tide. They are against idealists because they frown on making arbitrary judgments. They detest a absolute conception of the world or the belief that things are eternal. This is because they subscribe to the position that everything is relative up to a certain point because most things are finite in nature. There are fundamentals for every element but not every element is the same because from the base each element becomes something distinct. The resources of the earth and the labour of humans are the original basis of economy for humankind but these fundamental elements become the basis for different modes of social organization along class lines with capitalism being the most advanced. The earth’s resources and the labour of humans is utilized in all forms of economy but on top of these fundamentals are built various structures that add to the diversity of economy. Therefore while the resources of the earth and the labour of humans are fundamental they do not remain in the same shape when utilized by different economic structures.  The capitalist mode of development is the most advanced form of economy because humans become divorced from the land which is the original source of wealth in the other forms of economy. No longer do humans live off the land as if bound by mother earth. The wealth of nations which was previously tied to having a agricultural surplus is now replaced by industry with all its technical requirements. Even agriculture is taken over by the industry and its precepts. The development of a wage labour force (those that only sell their labour) that exists only to provide surplus value/profit for the capitalist or the owners of the means of production. Money is now more important than owning a piece of land because money is the equivalent of all commodities produced in the market or the universal equivalent.

Materialists acknowledge the influence of the objective reality on their actions. They do not see thoughts as being the basis for their action but rather how they respond to the demands of an external objective reality. Materialists can be prone to very selfish behavior because their refutation of idealism can preclude a sense of general unity particularly as everything is relative. The materialists therefore cannot prescribe a general set of principles that will preserve the integrity of a particular system because everything is constantly moving and changing. Empires rise and fall. This approach can make them appear to be negative and their approach can also seem to be demeaning because they are motivated by naked self interest and the betterment of self. They are also more likely to believe in heaven or hell on earth because they acknowledge the drive to accumulate wealth which can determine who falls into a particular class. The haves and the have nots.

They are very empirical in how they structure their research. They do not make any claims unless they have the evidence.  They are very weak when it comes to providing a theoretical justification for their research and they act more like data collectors. This makes them incapable of influencing general trends in society because they are incapable of mobilizing groups under a general heading. This is ever more pertinent because they subscribe to a  more relative conception of the world. An ever changing world. Nothing set in stone. They are more willing to adapt to change than the idealists and are more tolerant as a result of their position. 

The Idealist vs. the Materialist

How do these two groups of individuals interact in the social sphere? It makes for some interesting drama and a comedy of errors.  This is because the distinction between the two can get blurred no matter how distinct their approaches might seem. Which one came first, the chicken or the egg?  The history of the world has shown that the great organizers of states/nations, various organizations, groups or associations have very idealistic qualities. In order to do this they made an impact in the social sphere by some material means. This means that the objective reality influenced them in a certain way in order for them to bring about their ideal. You cannot be distinct if you don’t measure yourself against what is already there or you would not have much diversity. The material form of conquest has been used by most idealistic groups to improve their position. Where would the glory of Rome be without its military conquests? How would colonization take place if there was not land to be claimed for the glory of the European countries? Even the likes of Jesus, Buddha and Mahatma Ghandi had to reject the material world in order to live like holy figures.  In order to have an ideal an external object must be present in order to influence your thoughts on a particular issue. You cannot have thoughts in a vacuum.

The idealists like to look at their ideals as eternal and this position is always challenged by the materialists who like to demonstrate the reality of a situation. In order for a grand ideal to be achieved then there had to be trial and error. This is a historical fact. No matter the state, organization or group most of these entities are there by trial and error. What they stood for has always been subject to change. History teaches us this with the many tales of unification. For most entities there was a process of unification that required some form of violence, struggle or antagonism in order to unite the individuals under a particular umbrella. The main way to convince people to follow you is by making them believe that by following you they will reap some reward either on earth or in heaven.  Unification does not come ready made. Someone has to be convinced by some means be it violent or more peaceful logical argumentation.  This antagonism is reflective of a materialist process whereby everything is relative. America today is not the same America before the passage of the Civil rights law or before the civil war. Jamaica is not the same as the one before independence from colonial rule.  The idealists, however, will have none of it and this is why a lot of them fall in the conservative ranks. They always try to go back to the fundamentals of a particular entity as justification for their actions. They are normally resistant to change and it can make them look ridiculous, backward or out of touch with the movements taking place in the objective reality that is external to them.  Although in society they are mocked for their ironic embrace of modernity. They don’t like to throw away the junk VCR but will buy the latest DVD or Blu Ray player. They embrace diversity only if they will not be affected by it. This means that they withdraw from the world to live in fantasies of a time long dead. They are more likely to embrace the classics yet frown on the present material as inadequate. Nothing can measure up to the great past works which represent a particular ideal because of how influential they are. The fundamentals still apply and in some cases they are right because particular elements may become diverse over time but the core principles remain the same. A standard procedure is still adhered to although the form may change or become diverse.  At the end of the day all the diverse elements are just a branch of the same tree but there is only one tree rooted in the ground. If you cut off all the branches and leave the root then it’s possible that the tree can grow again.

The idealists are not always conservative because they embrace creative impetus. Even if we are influenced by the objective reality, according to the materialists, a significant thought process must occur in order to create a particular object. In this sense the creative impetus shapes our reality because things have to be created in order to function. The original qualitative element required a significant thought process. This is why idealists will embrace material progress on the basis of human ingenuity and, for the more religious, is done for the glory of god or some sort of ideal. For instance made in Jamaica, made in America, made in China enhances the glory of a particular state.

In a lot of cases the materialists also become idealists because by challenging the basis for idealism they do so with another idea about how the world should work or how it is.  A lot of progress in humanity is due to the clash of ideas. Ideas that were established years ago still have an enormous influence on the present generation and how they think. The idea about white supremacy, for instance, is still effective as evidenced by the deranged white man that killed 9 black people in a Charleston church or the numerous fatal killings of young black males. The idea of white supremacy has been so effective that white people are still given the edge when it comes to certain areas. The other racial groups, particularly blacks, are still labeled as inferior in certain circles because of the history of denigration that took place as a result of the dominant ideology related to white supremacy. This denigration took the material form of enslavement or physical brutalization and colonialism. Even the Haitian Revolution was seen as a challenge to the ideology of white supremacy. The ideas of white supremacy have been challenged in various societies but it is ironic that the poor countries that have a lot of ideas about challenging this ideology still run to the nations of predominantly white people for material assistance. They can challenge the idea with another idea but not from a strictly materialist basis. A lot of the leaders of the poor world with populations that are largely made up of non-white racial groups have also adopted the culture of the white nations in terms of their approach to economic development. The only difference is that a black man or an Indian is in power. The racial groups in Asia have been the most successful at challenging the concept of white supremacy from a strictly materialist basis, particularly Japan, China, South Korea and Singapore.   The majority of countries with mostly black populations remain in a state of gross poverty. In academia certain people from these countries did assume the materialist approach by opening up the field and exposing the arguments related to white supremacy but it still only remained another idea particularly as the leaders adopted white culture while relegating their own indigenous culture to stage show entertainment or the tourism product in order to attract money from the investors and spenders primarily from the white nations. Hmmm. These ideas, however, were very important in motivating people to think about the issues and perhaps make a change by promoting their culture. In a lot of cases the culture is seen as exotic or part of a tourism product but not the dominant cultural position in the world because the countries or groups that promote them are materially poor.  In America and other countries blacks have found ways to disprove white supremacy from a strictly materialist point of view. We see that with the great sport and entertainment personalities that have had a considerable influence in their respective fields. Still need more black billionaires like the man from Nigeria.  As Oprah found out in Switzerland, however, it is still a difficult thing to dislodge white supremacy from a strictly materialist basis if they don’t know who you are.  The election of  the first black president of the United States is ironic considering his white heritage. Makes you wonder sometimes.

 That was just an example of how the  significant influence of white supremacy as an ideology has permeated several societies and is still difficult to dislodge. The same could be said of capitalism but I won’t be going down that road.

The idealists are very effective in terms of developing principles that can unify people in a particular sphere whereas the materialists look very ineffective.  The materialists come across as very disinterested, ineffective and aloof and their only purpose, at times, seem to be the act of criticism. The idealists seem more willing to engage materially with the world in order to put forth their ideas  about something while the materialist  ironically casts judgment by saying things like ‘if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all’ or ‘don’t buy into the propaganda’.  Some materialists cannot seem to engage effectively in the creative sphere because the evidence is not available or they risk becoming idealists themselves.  Some are very good at criticizing the ideas of others but are unwilling or unable to put forward their own without sounding fantastic or pedantic.   If they do put forward their own it’s based on a refutation of some deluded idealist. But this is done by putting forward another relative idea. On the flip side even in creative endeavours the materialists are seen as not being very creative and only seeking to attract money. They produce things distinctly for the demands of the market. A lot of the criticism aimed at some films are that they are derivative cash cows. They make a lot of money but do not seem to have much originality in terms of creativity. Just spin offs looking to milk the cow of the original. The spin off and sequel element is strictly a materialist position although some efforts are very creative and are a success both critically and at the box office The Dark Knight, Star Wars Episode 4 etc. In the creative sphere the materialist approach can be very effective and this is seen in the approach taken by Marvel comics. In the end however the blockbuster era is here to stay and the more dramatic works recede in the background in terms of box office numbers although they still dominate in the awards season. In terms of strictly materialist goals for making money a majority of films will be released that are very successful in terms of money but not so in terms of creativity. This is because they are extremely targeted but not so concerned with the abstract idealism with its grand message or very dramatic performances.

The idealists have been very effective at branding some materialists as cowards and criminals. The cowards are those unwilling to come forward in the public sphere and challenge the idealists because they won’t have much supporters. The idealists are good at galvanizing support around an idea through their organizing principles even if they don’t correspond to reality. You can’t become a politician without some idealist position because you won’t be alone in your endeavour. You will need support because we’re social beings. Humans are motivated a lot about ideas of themselves and the world around them.  The materialists cannot win much support unless they use their thoughts to influence social perception about a particular issue. Some people can only relate to what you’re saying unless it’s ideated. They won’t be able to relate to the objective reality unless it can be shown to them in some ideated form.   This goes against the materialist position that is based on empiricism. A lot of materialists seem to defeat themselves by becoming idealists. The materialists that are branded as criminals are portrayed as individuals that do not want to unite around the unifying banner and so they bypass all that it stands for by creating mayhem from a material point of view. It’s ironic that crime is seen as a social disease when in some instances it only reflects a group of people that do not subscribe to the idealistic principles of a nation such as the respect for private property. If they don’t subscribe to such organizing principles, are they to be considered a social disease? What if they have their own way of doing things that corresponds to a particular objective reality? Who is right, the ganja farmers or the state police that confiscate their produce?  It depends because one can see the effectiveness of having a organizing principle or a idea of how things should operate because it does lead to a more orderly  way of doing things. If the materialists have their way it can be seen as chaotic because they don’t abide by ideals laid down by the organizers and are motivated strictly by naked self- interest ‘To hell with you’.  In some cases they don’t seem to have control of what they’re doing because they have no ideal that can check them. They just go with the flow and who are you to judge because it’s their life. This can only be prevented and enforced through rules or laws or just outright conquest.  Check the recent global economic recession and the aftermath.

‘Isn’t it ironic’ that the rules that protect the sanctity of private property try to control the drive of others to accumulate at all costs especially at the expense of others? Isn’t it ironic that the drive to attain an ideal can be considered chaotic because one has to engage materially with the world? In the case of profit one has to go all out by using the material means and the idealistic principles at your disposal in order to attain it. If you don’t have the money then you can’t invest but if you don’t have a set of principles to guide you you won’t know where to put it.  There is a certain established method to gain profit. When this becomes established it is referred to as idealistic, because it influences how people operate, but it is still an ongoing materialistic process. The ideal feeds the material drive and the material drive feeds the ideal. In the end you’re just ‘running on empty’. In order to attain knowledge you have to clash with a lot of people who have opposing views, different ideas. You have to engage in the sphere of profanity.

Once crucial element in all this is competition and crisis and this gives the materialists the edge. There are always several competing interests. In the sphere of competition everyone has their own way of doing things and this leads to conflict. Competition is a materialistic element because it reflects the diversity in a particular sphere or whole. This diversity means that there is no real absolute or monopoly, only winners and losers particularly as each entity has its own idea of how something should be produced or how something operate. Each entity, therefore, has its own ideas about a particular thing. In some cases monopoly is entertained and the monopoly exerts considerable influence on how the people in the society operate. Crisis is another element that gives the materialists the edge. In terms of crisis there is a major disruption of a particular system. This system normally operated in a particular way but its principles ignored the happenings in the objective reality and then that ideal is shattered. Capitalists tend to overproduce because the market is unable to absorb all the goods for sale. This leads to some form of destruction of what a particular company stood for originally especially if there emerges from the crisis new ways to do things. After a major crisis most people have to alter how they do things because a crisis leads to destruction in some form. They cannot take the same approach as they did before the crisis. With a crisis people tend to come to terms with the objective reality and how it shaped their response to a particular issue. In some cases they did not acknowledge the reality and the crisis forced them to come to terms with it even if they lived in a great fantasy about how they thought the world should operate. If there was no such thing as crisis or competition then the idealists would be right to believe that their ideals are eternal. The crisis lets them realize that they can be absolute up until a certain point.

Idealists tend to predominate in very poor countries and those countries that embrace the materialist ways tend to be the rich ones. The rich nations understand how to get the most out of their objective reality and this is why conquest or investment in profitable areas reaps rewards in a lot of cases. In order to be rich materially you have to know how to engage with the external elements. One cannot simply just imagine or think that this is how it should be. One must be able to engage with the objective world in order to see what it can do for you materially. The idealists in the poor countries do a lot of thinking and discussion about the world but do not necessarily have the means to engage with the material world. So a lot of policy formulating takes place, a lot of discussions on the verandah or in parliament etc but little in terms of action or engagement with the material world.

Idealists can normally be caricatured as crazy individuals that are out of touch. Insane people represent idealism gone wild.

In the end the materialists and the idealists are both sides of the same coin. They do have somewhat distinct approaches but there is a coming together. Your thoughts can shape the world you live in but that can only be done by coming to terms with the material world. Similarly for the materialists they have to understand that for the world to be understood it has to be transformed into an idea or theory that explains the world as opposed to mere data collection. One must have an idea that connects all the dots. At their most extremes however these types are normally considered very different but they do reside in the same sphere.

  Just a general discussion. welcome any feedback