If there ever were a theory of colors in the human History, the dark color would certainly have been considered as something negative given its connotation. Dark, night, black, in terms of binaries, have always been considered as opposed to something more promising, delivering. The movie, Star Wars, has taken the maxim of dark side to the level of cliché. It’s a movie that claims to be sci-fi because human beings are clearly outnumbered by droids and robots in the movie. It has a storyline that can be considered a potboiler. “In a faraway galaxy”, a group of Resistants’ fight against the “dark forces” operated and managed by Darth Vader/ Dark Vader. So it’s an evil vs. good fight. There are fighters on both sides; they sometime resemble each other because at least two of them have parental relations scattered on the other side of the frontier. Darth Vader is a demagogue who wants to have control over the galaxy, and so does republicans fighting against him.
In the latest movie in the series, we come across another ‘hero’ splitting up from its roots in order to join the dark forces. The inspiration behind that change of heart is a promotion that this over talented guy might never have had in an overtly austere Resistant forces. Darth Vader too had similar aspirations. The message is clear from the director; aspirations pull you towards the dark side, if not why would a person be penalized for doing something (killing the opponents) which he would do anyway anywhere?
Does dark side in this over virtual realm have any meaning? Has it got something to do with evil or is it some kind of oversimplification of a real problem: politics of power? To begin with, the Darth Vader side is an analogy of an imperial system. Rightly termed as Empire, it resonates with all that is wrong with an imperial system: greed, dehumanization of subjects (literally sometimes) and brutal repression of voices. It certainly provides an impetus to the idea of goodness to anything that opposes it, Luke Skywalker for instance. And yet, it remains a center of attraction for many ambitious people: Luke’s father, his nephew etc. These people are incapable of appreciating the sacrifices that their folks have made in order to defeat the empire. George Lucas, and later J.J. Abrams, the two directors of the saga, have carefully ignored to cater to this question. They have curiously left the question hanging in the gray zone of ‘they must be power hungry, who knows?’. But then, who isn’t? It’s quite simpler to say that Luke’s folk are out to restore “republican values” than to admit that they live in a chimeric world; want to recreate some lost Utopia. Their idea of Utopia doesn’t match with that of Vader’s, but that doesn’t mean that the latter doesn’t think in terms of creating a Utopia for himself.
At a certain point in the movies, Vader appears to be more like a human resource manager in a mission to recruit talents for his organization. He incarnates lord Valdemort of Harry Potter, the unknown demagogue of the Terminator series. In comparison to these movies, Vader is more visible through his eccentrics and anger in the Star war series; he is almost human. Human he is, is he not?
Why such euphoria around a movie that never proposes anything new, not even the gadgets, USP, for any sci-fi movie? The latest movie in the saga had similar plots to that of its predecessors: attack, counter-attack, defeat, with some moments of laser guns blazing. The actions scenes are dated, at its best, for a sci-fi movie released in 2015, stale, at its worst. They are either meant for people still carrying the nostalgia of the “Belle Époque”, or those taking their kids along to make them watch what the parents used to watch “in a faraway temporal galaxy”.
Comparison is a bad thing; it’s highly subjective, derogative, belittling. Le Monde gave 2 out of 5 to Spectre and 4 out of 5 to Star Wars 7. The movie critics were clearly in the 50’s (I might be underestimating the age). They probably found Bond’s flamboyance a bit too much to digest, his villain too ‘gentle’, his muse too French. The plot was complicated, psychological- how often do you come across fratricide?, thrilling (a helicopter taken to its maximum height at an angle of 90° comes naturally to a standstill before going for a free fall. Those who have read the report of Rio-Paris flight crash know that it’s possible), metaphorical (Big Brother and George Orwell get their overdue mention in this surveillance crazy world) and entertaining.
This natural tendency to compare has given rise to another hypothesis for Star War’s success over Spectre: the gray areas are perhaps more grayer than ever. Bond is a part of Queen’s secret service, the imperial tag can never be removed. His fighting for justice is seen in terms of pure self-service, or of serving the British Empire. It’s difficult for the people to connect with such an imperial agent. However, Star Wars epitomizes the struggle of Damned of the Earth (Sorry, Fanon). It’s easier for everyone to side with the Bright side and criticize the dark side thereby criticizing the wrongdoings of the empire and redefining the idea of liberty and humanity as something called Modernity.
Frederick Cooper tells us that “Modernity” was considered as a European concept by some non-European post-colonial critics. The idea stems from the fact that non-Europeans are considered to be incapable of creating “Modernity”, which thereby would remain the prerogative of Europeans. So, a movie questioning the intentions of an Empire has to come from a Euro-American stable. Kylo Ren and Darth Vader are the antithesis of this Modernity, they make that Empire look evil to those same people who have no qualms living and flourishing within that imperial system. They hit the european conscience not because they are evil but because they try to be like their imperial bosses. They appear to be inspired by lucre and ashamed of the misery that their parents had to face. Airtel, Shell, Total, De Beers, Vodafone, Orange, Apple, Mango etc. are the extension of the same imperial system that Ren and Vader make look evil to the people. At the same time, whom do they incarnate if not the people joining the Dark forces by getting a job in these above mentioned conglomerates, by often choosing to reside in a new geographical location far away from their ancestors? Ren and Vader are us.
Coming back to Bond, the agent wears a Rolex, still a matter of fine taste and lots of moolah. A fine advertisement for the Queen and her imperial system: they are capable of taking good care of their foot-soldiers, and for the same reason Vader and Ren changed sides. Is it not? There is no glory in pauperism. The fascination with the dark side is not new, the only question is why Bond won’t get into it whereas Vader and Ren would unscrupulously join it. Is it something to do with their upbringing? The former was an orphan and the latter had parents outliving their kids. Only simpler questions can have simple answers.
Is dark side evil? Is killing animal for human consumption inhuman? Is murdering a person by hanging him because he murdered another person mockery of the idea of justice?
All these questions have one single answer. The moment you start having doubts, you enter the gray area. 