The time has long since passed when the STAR WARS films became less interesting as movies than as a phenomenon. I mean, think about it: in the weeks building up to the release of REVENGE OF THE SITH, most of the speculation was not about whether it would be any good but about the fact that the series was finally being wrapped up 28 years after its inception and that fans were lining up weeks ahead of time (at the wrong theatre), etc. Speculation about the quality of the film was mostly limited to the question of whether it would be better than its disappointing predecessors.

So it seemed as if most of the reporting that would follow in the wake of this guaranteed blockbuster would be about ticket sales and successful merchandising tie-ins. Instead, it's interesting to see that the film is actually generating political controversy. Many see Emperor Palpatine as a stand-in for Bill Frist in his efforts to gain control over the senate, and several have noted that Anakin's line "If you're not with me, you're my enemy" sounds similar to George W. Bush's famous remark, "You're either with us, or you're with the terrorists."

(Strangely, few if any have noted that the similarity is probably based on the fact that the "you're either with us, or you're against us" formulation has been around for centuries. You can even find similar statements in the New Testament -- although, if memory serves, what Jesus actually says is "All those who are not against us are for us." This is in response to complaints from his disciples that other people are doing good works in Jesus' name without his official sanction.)

The New York Times has an article up that takes a look at the way the film was politicized by webloggers who chimed in with their interpretations even before the release. Apparently, one conservative website even added George Lucas to its list of boycotted Hollywood artists (which also includes bete noirs like Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon, Sean Penn, and the Dixie Chicks).

The article is interesting, but reporter David M. Halbfinger goes off the rails a bit midway through, as pointed out in this post on the Daily Kos website. Halbfinger writes that Hollywood movies usually go out of their way to avoid political interpretations that might offend large numbers of ticket buyers, then claims that this calls into questions Lucas's decision to premier the film at the Cannes Festival because "France is sometimes called the biggest blue state of all..."

Apparently, Mr. Halbfinder is unaware that Cannes is the world's most prestigious film festival and that it has treated Lucas well in the past. There is absolutely no reason to divine some political motivation in showing REVENGE OF THE SITH there.

Halbfinger goes on to question Lucas' seriousness when he asserts that the actual parallel he had in mind when conceiving the STAR WARS saga was Vietnam ("The parallels betweenw hat we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable," Lucas told the audience at Cannes).

Again, Halbfinger seems clueless on an essential point: the first STAR WARS came out in 1977 when Vietnam was still fresh in the memory, and Lucas is a filmmaker who came of age during the Vietname era. His colleagues went on to make movies like THE DEER HUNTER, CASUALTIES OF WAR, and APOCALYPSE NOW. In fact, Lucas was originally scheduled to direct APOCALYPSE NOW, with Francis Ford Coppola production.

Anyway, it seems unlikely that the political controversy will affect ticket sales much one way or another. Nevertheless, it does provide something more interesting to write about, instead of more stories about faithful fans wistfully recalling the first time they fell in love with the Force.