"I put the Force into the movie in order to try to
awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people...
I think there is a God. No question. What that
God is or what we know about God, I'm not sure."

-- GEORGE LUCAS in Time Magazine

ith the latest episode of the Star Wars saga now into its second week of screening, critics and the public can't seem to agree -- is "The Phantom Menace" a seminal exploration of mythos and spirituality, or a shameless exercise in media hype? Is it a film with deep, significant metaphors that touch upon timeless mythic truths, or simply a "great movie" with plenty of action, special effects and a blizzard of lucrative promotional tie-ins? Or, more to the point, is the seemingly unquenchable public fervor surrounding the latest Star Wars movie indicative of a cultural yearning for religion and spirituality?

   The answers seem to depend on who you ask, and who's writing the movie reviews. Even Lucas, who in 1977 came out with the first of the Star Wars films and introduced us to characters like Princess Leia, Hans Solo, Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, sends contradictory signals. Is he a story teller who has tapped into a fountainhead of mythic and religious motifs, laying out for us a saga of a titanic confrontation between good and evil, light and darkness?

   Lucas told reporter Jeff Strickler of the Minneapolis Star Tribune that, no, his Star War series is not filled with "subliminal religious propaganda." Lucas does admit borrowing many themes from classical mythology, but "There's not enough in 'Star Wars' to constitute a religion... The movies may ask questions, but people need to look to their own religion for answers." The brevity of this contrasts sharply with the "conversation" between Lucas and commentator Bill Moyers, featured in an April issue of Time Magazine. Moyers is noted for his PBS series on mythology and the writings of Joseph Campbell, and perhaps equally for his excruciating tenacity in claiming to divine deep significance in what may simply be prosaic events and facts of every day life. Moyers -- who seems unable to see Star Wars as simply an entertaining movie with interesting characters -- bombards his audience with obtuse claims such as "myths are important because they remind us that our lives are real and our lives are not real. We have these bodies which we can touch, but we also have within us this omnipotent magical world of thought..."

   So when Lucas sat down for a "conversation" with Moyers, it was Moyers who seemed to be doing much of the commenting and posing of leading questions. "Ultimately, isn't Star Wars about transformation?" he asks. Lucas turns to a discussion of how Phantom Menace portrays the changes within young Anakin Skywalker, later to become the evil Darth Vader. From there, Moyers climbs further out on his rhetorical limb: "In authentic religion, doesn't it take Kierkegaard's leap of faith?" Lucas tells us what we already know, sans Kierkegaard and Bill Moyers; the phrase "Use the Force" is also about faith. "There are mysteries and powers larger than we are, and you have to trust your feelings in order to access them." Next, Moyers attempts to plumb the depths of existential truth and find a parallel between Darth Vader tempting Luke to come to the "dark side" with, of all things, "the story of Satan taking Christ to the mountain and offering him the kingdoms of the world."

   Two questions then confront us. Did George Lucas consciously (or perhaps unconsciously) tap into some mythic metastructure in our reality to incorporate these "eternal mythic truths" into the script of his movies? And, whatever that answer may be, are we simply seeing in Moyers' relentless questions and comparisons, the fact that Biblical or "authentic religious" motifs are simply a retelling of earlier, even universal tales about heroes, conflicts between good and evil, transformation and much more?

   To borrow a myth: Mr. Moyers may be a modern journalistic equivalent of Procrustes ("The Stretcher"), who tortured his victims by cutting their legs in order to fit his bed if they were too tall, or hammering and stretching them if they were too short. He is like those deconstructionists, postmodernists and others who insist on taking every manifestation of culture and dissecting it for its alleged deeper textual significance, hidden meanings, great eschatological dimensions, and ultimate truths. He may be right about some things of course, as when he notes the popularity of the first Star Wars movie in the 1970s when "the hunger for spiritual experience was no longer being satisfied sufficiently by the traditional vessels of faith." But wait! Is that all there is to the phenomenal success of Star Wars, or this latest episode, the Phantom Menace? Had Lucas chosen to present his saga as a minimalist, off-Broadway play aimed at a select avant garde, would it have enjoyed anywhere near its present fame and success? Star Wars may tap into certain mythic, even religious metaphors, such as the struggle between good and evil. So might the Monday Night Nitro matches sponsored by the World Wrestling Federation, or the Super Bowl. Academics may debate the cultural significance of "Football As A Postmodern Religion", but it doesn't tell us entirely why the fans show up, or why people buy box-office tickets to a particular movie.

"Did George Lucas consciusly (or perhaps unconsciously) tap into some mythic metastructure in our reality to incorporate these 'eternal mythic truths' into the scriptof his movies?"

   Responding to Moyers' rhetorical salvos, Lucas did have a bit to say on the question of God, religion and spirituality. "I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality ... more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system." He is "telling an old myth in a new way," but "I would hesitate to call the Force God."

   If Moyers is on his own personal quest and altar calling to unearth arcane textual truths in the frames of the Star Wars movies, some fundamentalist Christians are equally convinced that hidden messages and underlying subliminal influence lurk amidst the sword fights, imperial battle cruisers and ornate costuming of the Phantom Menace and other Star Wars episodes. Reviews from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network inform us that "in trying to evoke 'spirituality,' George Lucas turns to myth instead of the Bible." Ironically, Moyers figures as a character in the CBN critique, as do the quotes pulled from Mr. Lucas like so many recalcitrant molars in a dentist's office. Lucas's own lines from the Moyers "conversation" are peppered with accusations, such as the claim that he (Lucas) "borrowed freely from ancient Gnosticism, Buddhism and certain elements of Christianity" in constructing his Star Wars plot.

   CBN reviewer R. Albert Mohler is correct in some of his observations about the contemporary scene, especially in noting that "Americans have become primary consumers of Eastern philosophies and ancient mythologies dumbed down for popular consumption and dressed up for a media age."

"Star Wars may tap into certain mythic, even religious metaphors such as the sturggle between good and evil. So might the Monday Night Nitro matches sponsored by the World Wrestling Federation..."

And yes, "pagan mythologies received a boost in the 1980s with the late Joseph Campbell's television series" hosted by Bill Moyers. But how comprehensible is all of this to the typical American media consumer? Or even to Bill Moyers? It remains unclear whether Campbell and his popularizer were tearing back the veils of obfuscation to provide us with rich truths about our lives, or whether -- like the "conversation" with George Lucas -- all of this talk about mythic heroes and archetypes is just so much word-salad that some think they really understand. And if these "Eastern philosophies" and mythological tales have been "dumbed-down for popular consumption" -- one thinks of Kevin Sorbo as Hercules, or the equally problematic performances of Lucy Lawless in Xena, Warrior Princess, both of whom take substantial liberties with the standard canons of mythology -- doesn't this simply render any of the mythic or spiritual overtones in Star Wars just so much media-hyped pabulum, overwhelmed by a torrent of computer generated special effects?

   Reviewers remain equally divided on what, if any, deeper significance Star Wars: The Phantom Menace may have beyond what George Lucas originally intended -- an exciting, entertaining movie which tells a story. Associated Press was spreading the word on May 16 as the new Stars Wars thundered into the nation's movie theaters, reminding us, "For all its techno-wizardry, 'Star Wars' always about myth." This dissection went only as far as to reveal, "Good and bad. Light and dark. A hero embarks on a journey of self-discovery..." That take was more optimist than Jami Bernard's review in the New York Daily News: "It's all sound and fury and special effects, signifying nothing." Variety's Todd McCarthy was even less generous, arguing "It is neither captivating nor transporting, for it lacks any emotional pull." Jon Katz at the First Amendment Center observed that the latest Lucas production was "more 'Yoda soda' than saga," noting that while the first Star Wars was "a weird movie, half fairy tale and half comic book," the latest Episode is an over-hyped commercial monstrosity, "collapsing under the weight of Toys R Us royalties and intergalactic pizza." Katz, too, mentions Moyers, Campbell and his book "The Power of Myth," but finds the sorts of mythic themes supposedly resonating in the original Star Wars trilogy are now absent. "Lucas has shamelessly sold his soul, thus that of his movie, to magazine editors, TV producers, toy-makers, pizza and fried-chicken purveyors, and the massive corporations cranking out toys, books, calendars and videos."

   So which is it? Is Phantom Menace a commercial sellout, or a subtle cultural delivery system targeting the popular consciousness with a sinister brand of Eastern philosophy 'dumbed down' for nerdish consumption?

   Just as Moyers hunts for subterranean nuggets of existential truth, finding perhaps Satan's temptation of Jesus in the life of Darth Vader, CBN critic Christopher Stamper finds equally questionable overtones in the characters of Stars Wars, including The Phantom menace. Anakin Skywalker is told that "he arrived without a father," something which Stamper finds reminiscent of an immaculate conception. The Force is "Zen Lite" compared to the earlier Star Wars, but even a CBN critic seems to notice what Moyers cannot, that the computerized special effects are "the real power" in the movie.

   The critics and self-anointed cultural gurus who turn to either the Old Testament or other ancient mythologies in search of a "deeper meaning" to Star Wars may be missing the point. Lucas is far more competent as a director and film creator than he is as a philosopher and, guess what America, his goal is to craft a worthwhile product that his fans will buy. Most of those who stream into the theaters this Memorial Day weekend to see Phantom Menace -- be it for the first or fifth time -- likely have little understanding of the ancient mythologies of Hercules and the Trojan War, or appreciate whatever "mythic truths" Joseph Campbell chose to share with his readers. They don't comprehend The Great Hunt, or the Hero, or the Art and Philosophies of Ancient India. Nor are they empty receptacles into which Lucas pours some sinister (or benevolent) subliminal message "dumbed down" for popular consumption. Searching, or yearning for a "deeper meaning" behind Star Wars may be the equivalent of looking for subliminal messages in rock and roll music, or comic books, or in the frames of a Walt Disney movie.

   As George Lucas himself cautioned, "It's only a movie. People should get a life."

[text only]