Curtis Marez portrays Star Wars as the archetypal tale of the underdog, in this case, a white small farm owner, being bullied by Darth Vader, the unions. Lucas's story of the revolution is common enough, but rarely is it thought of with such a spin. Marez compares the digital culture formation to that of agribusiness in California, both demonstrating the struggle between the free market and race and class developments. Although I see the similarites between the struggle of the farmer against the overbearing and destructive agribusiness, I see Marez's attempt to integrate Star Wars into the development of the struggle as a stretch.
The trouble begins when he posits that the statue of Douglas Fairbanks in Latin garb is in fact a secret connection between Chavez's fast and Star Wars. The timeline portion of the article continues to shove Marez's point in the face of the reader, without managing to contribute any hard evidence. The plot of Star Wars did not originate in the farm workers' struggle for recognition, but exists as the classic story of the underdog, reflected in thousands of stories, spanning centuries. Counter cultural themes run throughout Star Wars, and most likely does have some bearing on his knowledge of the UFW, but this does not indicate that the plots of his films revolve around his notion of the struggle.
Generally, I'm all for a close reading, but Marez takes it to a whole new level. His argument for the portrayal of Luke Skywalker as a white farm worker fallen to the level of a migrant farm worker does not hold up. If Star Wars had held fresh concepts and archetypes, then I would be more inclined to buy into Marez's argument, but the parable of the revolutionary underdog exists throughout literature, especially in the realm of fantasy. He points to the reversal of racial existence in the sense that Luke is a white male, and Darth Vader is the black, literally, villain. While I do acknowledge that Luke is white, and that Darth Vader is dressed in all black, I also maintain that black has traditionally been the color of villains, nor from a racial standpoint, but because it is the opposite of light, the daytime, the sun, it is the unknown aspect.
And everyone should really just try to forget the disaster that was Jar Jar Binks.
The trouble begins when he posits that the statue of Douglas Fairbanks in Latin garb is in fact a secret connection between Chavez's fast and Star Wars. The timeline portion of the article continues to shove Marez's point in the face of the reader, without managing to contribute any hard evidence. The plot of Star Wars did not originate in the farm workers' struggle for recognition, but exists as the classic story of the underdog, reflected in thousands of stories, spanning centuries. Counter cultural themes run throughout Star Wars, and most likely does have some bearing on his knowledge of the UFW, but this does not indicate that the plots of his films revolve around his notion of the struggle.
Generally, I'm all for a close reading, but Marez takes it to a whole new level. His argument for the portrayal of Luke Skywalker as a white farm worker fallen to the level of a migrant farm worker does not hold up. If Star Wars had held fresh concepts and archetypes, then I would be more inclined to buy into Marez's argument, but the parable of the revolutionary underdog exists throughout literature, especially in the realm of fantasy. He points to the reversal of racial existence in the sense that Luke is a white male, and Darth Vader is the black, literally, villain. While I do acknowledge that Luke is white, and that Darth Vader is dressed in all black, I also maintain that black has traditionally been the color of villains, nor from a racial standpoint, but because it is the opposite of light, the daytime, the sun, it is the unknown aspect.
And everyone should really just try to forget the disaster that was Jar Jar Binks.