About Padmé's Death

[chameleon_irony]

In response to this post by Tricia and Lex at FANgirl Blog:

What's wrong with Padmé Amidala losing the will to live at the end of Revenge of the SithWhat happened to her on that day would have sent many a normal person into an extreme clinical depression, the kind where you - yes - lose the will to live. And it's consistent with her

Comments

[frostbit_sky]

I very much agree with that last paragraph. Before the prequels, when all we had was Leia saying she remembered her real mother was sad, my idea of what happened was that she in Leia's life for a short time (possibly until she was a toddler) and then she died from severe depression.
So yea, I have never been satisfied with her death in RotS. It just doesn't make sense.

[chameleon_irony]

But Leia is Force sensitive, even though we don't really see evidence of this in the movies. I have no trouble believing that she has abilities a normal human doesn't, like being able to remember something that happened the day she was born. Luke can't - so what? The Force is mysterious. Why can't it manifest itself differently in the two twins?

[pronker]

I hadn't any problem with blending all 3 Padme's: the teen in TPM and the young woman in AOTC and the slightly older woman in ROTS. Her personality strung together in all 3 movies was that of a career woman, talented and brave when she needed to be. When she got to the point where bravery and talent wouldn't bring back either the Republic she loved or the man she loved, she cried and looked out windows like any sane person would! Add to the mix her stress over being pregnant and 'living a lie' and her body gave out when her spirit did. I realize it was /fast,/ but that's the way the GFFA is different from our 'verse': the emotions felt true to me.

impelled to identify with her Well, sure. It's like Fisher says, "I am like the only woman in the whole Star Wars galaxy, the only one to fall in love with or who has exciting adventures ... " and Portman is like that for the prequels. A sort of scary impression from Portman and not Fisher is that, if you love and marry and have babies, you die! I am here to say that it is not so.

[chameleon_irony]

There is a flaw in my argument re continuity between Padmé in TPM, AOTC, and ROTS; I only noticed it after posting. When she had lost all she cared about (her planet) to the Trade Federation in TPM, she fought to take it back, and would've fought to the death. In ROTS, she stopped trying. This means it wasn't "just" the end of everything she cared about that destroyed her, but the how and the who. I'm going to address this in a future post.

I shall look forward to your progress with great interest.

[pronker]

Maybe her ideals about relationships came into question and she failed in this more personal issue? Just a thought; anyway, I love to read a good meta, though can't write one for beans.

[irnan]

The real problem with how Padmé dies is lack of medical/biological realism.

THIS, in huge ways, because all the realistic aspects of the PT hinge on Padme: her job, her plans, her ideals. She is the centre around which that part of the story turns (whereas the Jedi as Space Wizards are of course the centre of the fantastical aspects). Abandoning that when she needs to die and die quickly is inconsistent worldbuilding.

But partly also, and for me even mostly, this: the Star Wars prequels don't give female fans many options. Because the fact that she is the only woman in the movies who gets a significant part makes her a statement. Her characterisation is a statement, her story is a statement; not just about Padme as a person, but about the minority/group that she's made to represent by being the only member of it on the screen. So the statement ROTS makes about 'women', via Padme: if your bloke leaves you, you die

[chameleon_irony]

*warning for verbal vomiting and an unintended rant

[irnan]

I never analyse fiction on the meta level, because in my opinion there is something offensive about the idea that sane, grown-up people are so deeply affected by what they see on TV or in books as to mindlessly interiorize it or model themselves after it.

"Thou shalt not might reach the head; but it takes once upon a time to reach the heart". Of course people model themselves after stories. His Dark Materials had a greater effect on the way I think and the kind of person I am than anything I ever learned at school, or uni, or work. And that's one story out of the hundreds I've consumed since childhood. Stories are supposed to affect you, to change you, to teach you, to open your eyes and show you another way of looking at the world, or another way of behaving, another system of values. That's their function. On an individual level as well as on a societal one. If they don't influence people there's no point in telling them.

I operate with the assumption that people can be trusted to know better than to take fiction as gospel.Which

[chameleon_irony]

If they don't influence people there's no point in telling them.

Says who?

To me the point of telling them is that thinking them up and telling them is fun in itself. Same about reading them. When I want to learn, I'll take a class or open a textbook. When I open a novel or watch a movie, I want to have fun. Learning something in the process is nice, but not necessary.

That's their function.

The function of stories is entertainment.

No, I get it: there are different ways of seeing everything. There's nothing wrong with that. Problems happen when we refuse to accept that our view of reality isn't the only one, or as one of my teachers likes to say, "when we mistake our reality for everyone's reality, if there even is such a thing".

His Dark Materials had a greater effect on the way I think and the kind of person I am than anything I ever learned at school, or uni, or workYes. It's true for you. Personal experience is not a valid basis for generalisations about what people in general do, and even less about what is "supposed" to

[sandspirit]

I don't have problems with her losing the will to live, too. Even if it's because she loses Anakin, but as you rightfully say, it can be because she loses *ideals*. I think it's more probable. She seems a sufficiently idealistic person in the previous prequels. In a good way.

As for "medical/biological realism" that's just - ROFL. Star Wars is mythology. I don't think that realism is what a SW viewer sould be concerned about most of all.

[chameleon_irony]

I've always thought one of the best and most remarkable things about Star Wars is the psychological realism of the characters, even more remarkable in a universe full of fantasy/magic and sci-fi elements. The characters of Star Wars think, feel, and behave in ways that are so believable and real, which, to be honest, isn't the case in the majority of fiction (and that's why I don't like the majority of fiction).

[chameleon_irony]

her fate would have been much more satisfying if every viewer had been allowed to keep their own version

I agree. Ambiguity is best. ;) Even though I like the reason we were given.