"A Broken Heart in the 'STAR WARS' Saga"
"A BROKEN HEART IN THE 'STAR WARS' SAGA"
In the past twelve years, there have been many complaints of Padme Amidala’s role in the 2005 installment of the STAR WARS saga - "STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH". These complaints have not only originated from those fans who have never liked the Prequel Trilogy, but also from fans of the 1999-2005 movies.
The main contention for many of fans seemed to center around Padme's death in the 2005 movie. Many fans, especially a good number of feminists, have accused producer-director George Lucas of weakening Padme's character by allowing her to die of a broken heart. Others have accused Lucas of allowing Padme to abandon her newly born children through the ex deus machina of death. And others have excused the circumstances of her death, claiming that she had literally "sacrificed herself" so that her twins could be separated and hidden from Emperor Palpatine.
I am not going to try to explain the "sacrifice" theory. Not only do I find it hard to swallow, I find it rather ludicrous and grasping. I do not believe that Padme had sacrificed herself in death, for the sake of her children’s safety. Nor do I believe that she had "abandoned" her newborn twins by giving up and dying. I believe that Padme had given into despair and simply died of a broken heart. More importantly, I find this quite plausible.
My question is . . . why is it that Padme’s descent into despair was not tolerated by many STAR WARS fans? Why? Because this descent made her seem weak? Because she was supposed to be a strong woman? Since when are strong personalities incapable of giving in to weakness, despair or even depression? Does anyone understand that nearly everyone possesses both strengths and weaknesses within their natures? What is this lack of tolerance over the possibility that Padme Amidala had possessed both strengths and weaknesses? I get the feeling that many feel she should have been this one-dimensional portrayal of a strong character with no weaknesses. What did these fans expect her to do? After giving birth to her twins, Luke and Leia, sit up and start singing, "I Am Woman"?
Padme had just witnessed the death of the Galactic Republic that she had served with great devotion. She also witnessed the ascension of the Galactic Empire under the rule of Sheev Palpatine. Even worse, her dreams of a private life with her husband, Jedi Knight Anakin Skywalker, were dashed by Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi's revelation that he had participated in the deaths of hundreds of Jedi - adults and children, alike. Padme tried to confront Anakin about the situation and was brutally attacked by him (strangulation), when Obi-Wan had interrupted them. Anakin's jealous suspicions that Padme might be emotionally attached to Obi-Wan led to his attack upon her. And his attack eventually perpetrated the difficult birth of their twins - Luke and Leia.
By the time Padme had even considered that Anakin might still have some good in him, it was TOO LATE for her. At least physically. Between giving birth to twins and wallowing in despair, Padme was finished. Contrary to what many believe, an individual's emotional state can affect his or her physcial state. Both Anakin (who had finally given in to despair and anger after learning of Padme’s death from Emperor Palpatine) and Obi-Wan (who spent the next 19 years wallowing in regret and guilt over his abilities as a Jedi teacher) were lucky that they were never in their third trimester of a pregnancy and on the verge of giving birth, when they gave in to despair. Or ever likely to be.
Years ago, women fictional characters had been in danger of being stuck in nurturing roles or simply the hero's love interest. Now, it seems that female characters in movies and television have to be some kind of Xena the Warrior Princess or a female "ACTION JACKSON" - you know, a "badass" - in order to avoid being labeled as WEAK. Or they have to be some epitome of both goodness and strength. Apparently, female characters are still not allowed to be all of the above. Even worse, they have to behave like men to be considered strong.
Is it any wonder that certain female leads from the STAR WARS movie franchise are so popular with fans and critics? These same groups literally praised the character of Rey from the newly created Sequel Trilogy to the sky for being an ideal "badass" archetype with hardly any signs of personal flaws. They had done the same to Padme’s daughter, Princess Leia Organa, from both the Original and Sequel Trilogies. At the same time, they turned a blind eye to Leia's flaws . . . which were obviously on display in "STAR WARS: EPISODE V - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK". At the same time, about a month following the release of "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY", these same fans and critics had criticized the Jyn Erso character for her moral ambiguity and character flaws. I get the feeling that the STAR WARS fandom do not tolerate ambiguity or weaknesses - at least in the franchise's major female characters. They seem not to want well-rounded and complex female characters with both strengths and weaknesses. Apparently, they only seemed to want archetypes.
Someone on a STAR WARS forum had complained that females roles from the past twenty or thirty years were either of the "XENA: WARRIOR PRINCESS" (or "badass" female) archetype or the "Dora Spenlow" (or weak female) archetype. This person criticized Lucas for transforming Padme Amidala from a female warrior into a weakling. Was that how he or she viewed Padme before "REVENGE OF THE SITH" - solely as a warrior? Also, why not allow a woman fictional character - or anyone, for that matter - to be both strong and weak? It would seem like a very human thing to be.