Politics and the Prequels: Episode I

It’s hard to believe that Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace was released a decade ago and that the Prequel Trilogy concluded back in 2005. I have found a lot to enjoy in these movies despite their problems and often find myself defending them from “Star Wars Fundamentalists” who grew up on the original trilogy and who look at the more recent movies and see nothing but their flaws. George Lucas is a master storyteller-but only in the macro sense. When it comes to the broad strokes, the story told in the Prequel Trilogy is amazingly good and satisfying and far better than that of the Original Trilogy. If you were to tell someone the story of Anakin Skywalker and his tragic fall, and the way Palpatine slowly maneuvers and takes control of the Republic, it sounds like they would be much better movies than they actually are. It is when it comes to the specifics of story telling on film, such as writing dialogue and directing actors, Lucas often falls spectacularly flat.

Let's face it: the prequels are well-bashed. You can go anywhere and find out what doesn't work in these movies. Let's look at take a look at the thematic strengths of this trilogy and their achievements in storytelling and as political commentary.

When The Phantom Menace came out back in 1999 audiences were struck by how different this film was from the Original Trilogy from the 70's and 80's. Instead of military bases and hidden fortresses, these films are set in the heart of galactic society, in the halls of power. Much of the trilogy takes place on the capital world, Coruscant. Buried in the Prequel Trilogy is a more complex story with mature overtones that weren't found in the original movies. Story wise, the new movies are striking because of their political content. Whereas the original movies featured a simplistic tale of rebellion against an evil empire, these new films tell the story of how a democracy falls. There is an implicit political allegory here and Lucas has said many times that they story told in the prequels is one which he came up with during the Nixon years.

The Phantom Menace opens with a crawl that describes how the small planet of Naboo is being embargoed by a group called the Trade Federation, which we learn is some sort of commercial entity that is opposed to the stringent regulations imposed upon it by the Senate. Apparently, recent legislation in the Galactic Senate has caused the taxation of trade routes to come under dispute. So the first antagonists that we meet are a big corporation. The Trade Federation is headed by an alien called Nute Gunray, which is a play on the names of former conservative congressman Nute Gingrich and Ronald Reagan (who adopted "Star Wars" as the name for his space-based missile defense plan in the '80s, so fair is fair). We later learn that this organization has its own representation in the Galactic Senate. Think about that for a moment. Imagine Exxon or Microsoft sending senators to Washington.

It is important to note that these Trade Federation characters are not "evil" in the comic book sense of the word. They are a type easily recognizable to most people who follow the news: They are greedy CEOs. They are working with a shadowy figure called Darth Siddious, whom they only see via hologram. This is the titular Phantom Menace. Siddious is actually "evil." Here we have an evil man manipulating the greedy to achieve his own ends. He is a Sith, part of an ancient order opposed to the Jedi and thought to be extinct for a thousand years. He is also Palpatine, a Senator in the Galactic Senate. He has likely engineered the dispute that brought the blockade to his home planet, Naboo. Therefore the most evil man in the universe is also...a politician.

Constantly the government of the Galaxy is referred to as "corrupt," "squabbling," and "bureaucrats." These are phrases many would use to describe our own political representatives. The way the political system works in the Star Wars universe, one almost wants it to be wiped away and replaced with something else. This sets up very well some of the actions the characters take in later movies.


The Jedi themselves also have their internal politics which intersect with those of the Galaxy at large. The order is governed by a stuffy Council of Masters, who run the Jedi from a giant temple that looms over the capital. The Jedi seem to have assignments that are political in nature. At the movie's opening Qui-Gon Jinn and his apprentice Obi-Wan Kenobi are sent to Naboo on the Chancellor's orders to secretly negotiate the trade blockade.


When he is confronted with slavery on the underdeveloped desert world Tatooine, Qui-Gon states simply "we didn't come here to free slaves." This, from the most compassionate Jedi in the film. As we get to know them more, the Jedi seem strangely callous, even mean. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan practically bully poor Jar Jar into helping them on Naboo. Obi-Wan refers to other characters as "pathetic life-forms." These are not the kind-hearted zen warriors we were expecting. It seems that arrogance is a big part of the Jedi character, even for these more sympathetic Jedi.



With the exception of Qui Gon Jinn and Obi-Wan Kenobi, the Jedi are all cool and inert. When Qui-Gon warns them that the Sith have returned, they all but roll their eyes at him. When he tells them that he has located young Anakin Skywalker, the prophesied "Chosen One" who "will bring balance to the force," they do not believe him and stubbornly refuse to have the boy trained. Qui-Gon, it seems, is a maverick and frequently at odds with the Jedi Council. He even threatens to train Anakin without the council's permission. Obi-Wan laments that Qui-Gon would be on the council himself if he would obey them but Jinn seems uninterested in this political wing of the Order.

The Jedi are presented as a complacent group that is resistant to change. One has to wonder if they had been more engaged with the world around them, they could have avoided the events that would occur in the following two movies. This is the mark of good tragedy, that you can pinpoint exact moments where choices made change the outcome of the story. As heroes the Jedi are ambivalent characters. They are not really likable. The Jedi Council in The Phantom Menace comes across as bureaucrats with light sabers. Are they even really "good?” Does bringing balance to the force mean that they as an entity must be eliminated?

In the Senate, the Naboo blockade has created a sympathy vote for Palpatine and he becomes the new Chancellor of the Republic. The first step of his plan to assume total power over the Republic and destroy the Jedi has been taken. By the end of the film, the wisest and most human of the Jedi, Qui-Gon Jinn, has been killed and Anakin is grudgingly turned over to Obi-Wan for training by a crusty Yoda, one of the de facto rulers of the Jedi Order.

One has to wonder how events would have worked out if Qui-Gon had survived his encounter with Darth Maul. With his more flexible attitude and his wisdom, would he have trained Anakin better than the uptight Obi-Wan and avoided the tragic events of the next two movies? Perhaps the greatest victory of the Sith is that they were able to eliminate the only Jedi who was not arrogant and complacent.