NFBisms said:
It isn’t so different from realizing that his failure doesn’t define him. And that you can always come back from it.Whether or not another director challenges that, of course they can. But TLJ’s reading fits with the OT pretty well.
You can always come back from it, and you can always fall. The whole point of the movie is that nothing defines you ever, because it stips off Life (or the force) from any teleologic significance. It works both on screen and as a meta-commentary on the fans.
Point is that from that point of view, call it somewhat nihillistic, you can always claim pertinance to a certain structure if it fits right. Precisely because it is a nihillistic point of view.
But even if the message applies to the OT it counterdicts its explicit teleology.
Which on the other hand is the only thing it could do conceeding that given how VI ends, otherwise there would be no room for VII as it was designed.
It’s a very complex movie whose analysis goes far beyond the realm of the like/don’t like simplification. I personally enjoyed it despite its implicances (which I clearly don’t share) and it’s easily and by far the most intellectualizing movie of the saga, an author film hiding beneath the visual clichès of a pop culture trademark.
I think I agree with you, but my understanding of the language of philosophy is about as good as my Spanish. The nihilistic point seems a bit to unpack but I think we see the other points made by critics of the movie more commonly - not that they have any more impact when phrased differently!