Thoughts from my second trip to Star Wars III

My oldest girl discovered she was the only girl in the southeastern United States who had not seen Star Wars so I had to go back and see it again. I was dreading it because I didn't think it was GREAT the first time (enjoyable, but not worthy of twin viewings). I made up my mind to watch it more critically instead of simple escapism like the first time. I saw things I didn't notice before and heard things that struck me funny. Some thoughts:

I counted eight appendages removed from their limbs in this movie:

• Two hands from Count Dooku
• Two hands from General Grievous, although that still left him with two, so I guess the ratio would still be one hand. Did you know Grievous' starship at the beginning of the film is called "The Invisible Hand." It too cracks in two. Oooo, that wily Lucas.
  
• One hand from Mace Windu by Palpatine right before the Emperor throws him out the windu, er, window
• Two legs from Anakin Skywalker along with his lone remaining hand. This didn't deter the hate filled Vader, who goes on to crawl up the hill.
  

To Anakin, I suppose, the loss of all four limbs is "only a flesh wound." I could imagine the following conversation (with apologies to Monty Python):

[Obi Wan chops Vader's lone remaining arm off]

Kenobi: Now stand aside, worthy adversary.
Vader: 'Tis but a scratch.
Kenobi: A scratch? Your arm's off!
Vader: No, it isn't.
Kenobi: Well, what's that then?
Vader: I've had worse.
Kenobi: You liar!
Vader: Come on you pansy!

[Kenobi chops Vader's leg off]
Vader: Right, I'll do you for that!
Kenobi: You'll what?
Vader: Come 'ere!
Kenobi: What are you going to do, bleed on me?
Vader: I'm invincible!
Kenobi: You're a loony.
Vader: The Dark Side always triumphs! Have at you! Come on then.

[whop - Kenobi chops the Vader's other leg off]

Vader: All right; we'll call it a draw.
Kenobi: I loved you. I'll never help you. Here, let me pick up your light saber so I can give it to your son twenty years from now.
Vader: Oh, oh, I see, running away then. You yellow coward! Come back here and take what's coming to you. I'll bite your legs off!

I don't know what happened to George Lucas to caused this unfortunate obsession with limb removal. I don't think I want to know.

In one scene, Palpatine and Anakin are sitting in some kind of galactic opera house watching pink ribbons move through giant bubbles (which all makes OUR art look good by comparison). The following is a short snippet of their conversation:

ANAKIN: The Jedi use their power for good.
PALPATINE: Good is a point of view, Anakin. And the Jedi point of view is not the only valid one.

That sounds positively post-modern, doesn't it? "Good is a point of view" to the relativist of today. The only problem is that NO ONE is strictly relative. Have you ever had someone ever tells you that you can't tell them what is right and what is wrong; that only they decide what is right for themselves? Well, the next time they do that, you do this: punch them in the mouth and take their money from their wallet. I'll bet they get mad. If they do, tell them they have no right to tell you that what you just did was wrong. See how relative they are then.

Good is not a point of view. Good is following God's absolute laws and living in such a way that His goodness if reflected in our lives. Evil is disobeying God and living in such a way that He is dishonored by our lives.

And that brings us to a final thought: Anakin (now Darth Vader sans costume) and Obi-Wan are about to throw down on some volcano planet. They circle around each other like pro wrestlers while having a very calm conversation. At one point, they say this:

OBI-WAN: Anakin, my allegiance is to the Republic ... to democracy.
ANAKIN: If you're not with me, you're my enemy.
OBI-WAN: Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes. I will do what I must.

So, according to Obi-Wan's own statement, HE IS A SITH LORD. The statement he just made "Only a Sith Lord deals in absolutes" is itself an absolute statement. Therefore, he must be a Sith Lord.

Again, this is the same mistake post-moderns make when they say "There is no absolute truth." But, that is a self-refuting statement. They just made an absolute statement. If there is no absolute truth, that statement cannot be true, therefore there is absolute truth. If there is absolute truth, then that statement must be false. Either way - they lose by way of their inconsistent logic.

How can they not see this?