I’m so fascinated by Luke’s arc in The Last Jedi and the negative response to it because the latter reveals so much about the former.
Luke’s true failure is not that he tried to kill his nephew. Because he didn’t. Igniting his saber over Ben “and for the briefest of moments” believing that it’s possible for him to save those he loves from destruction is a moment of weakness, and Luke comes breathtakingly close to falling into the darkness of killing a defenseless boy who up to this point has done nothing wrong. But he doesn’t fall. The moment passes and he doesn’t kill him. He conquers the temptation because he understands the horror of that potential action and wants no part of it. Everyone is right. Luke Skywalker would never and could never kill his nephew. And he doesn’t!! do it!!
Now the tragedy of this (and honestly the reason that so many people interpret this moment as Luke Skywalker’s actual Fall) is that the timing of Luke’s moment of weakness, and even more pertinently the timing of the moment he actually overcomes the temptation of the dark side like the good man that he still is, literally could not have been worse. Ben wakes up, sees his uncle looming over him, (completely understandably) assumes the worst, and responds instantly with violence and passion. The tragedy isn’t that Luke tried to kill his nephew; it’s that his nephew thought he did. The results of this moment for Ben- though founded on an incomplete and skewed understanding of the situation- are the same as if that understanding had been the whole truth. The trauma is as real and and as damaging, the chain of events set in motion by this moment as catastrophically heartbreaking as if Luke really did try to kill his student, his nephew, while he was literally defenseless and sleeping.
But the damage done to Ben Solo by this moment doesn’t change the fact that this moment isn’t actually Luke’s true failure. Luke’s actual fall is that he is so horrified by how close he came to killing his nephew, so appalled by how precariously he teetered right on the edge of the darkness he thought he’d conquered that he retreats, shuts down, shuts himself off from the force, and falls into self-doubt so complete it practically is despair. It is despair. That is Luke Skywalker’s fall- not the fact that he was so horrified by a vision of personal destruction and loss that violence and anger gripped him and urged him to fight back but then ultimately had the strength and the virtue to pull himself back from the edge of that darkness, but the fact that he never allowed that falling into darkness is human. His fall is believing that a moment of darkness that he didn’t and ultimately never intended to act on was as bad as actually committing the crime itself, that it was a fall and corresponding chain of events for which he was wholly responsible. Luke tries to take on responsibility and guilt that isn’t his, and because he tries to do that he cannot bear the weight of it. It is not his guilt to carry and so of course he cannot bear it. He gives up and retreats. He believes he is the monster that he never actually was.
And the thing that kills me about this whole thing and that I think is brilliant and heartbreaking and frustrating all at once is that the response from (a fairly loud subsection of) the audience to Luke’s arc demonstrates that it is completely reasonable and in character for Luke to fall into this trap of hating himself and doubting himself on the most fundamental level. It is the very fact that so many readings of this movie took Luke’s lightsaber moment with Ben as his tragic flaw- and loudly proclaimed it was out of character because Luke would never!!- that reveals exactly why Luke actually fell into such despair and self-doubt. Luke and the audience make the same mistake. Luke knows how “out of character” this moment of darkness was, so out of character that he cannot even bring himself to believe that he didn’t actually do it (even though he didn’t actually do it!). A man who kills his nephew in his sleep is so far from the man Luke Skywalker believed himself to be that the horror of coming so close to becoming that man rocked him to his very foundation. The reaction to Luke’s arc for many star wars fans was the impassioned conviction that it had ruined Luke’s character because it ignored and betrayed the very thing that Luke Skywalker would never do. But the arc doesn’t ignore this fact; it is built on it. It rests solidly on the foundation of what Luke would never do and it is that very reality which catapults Luke into his actual and tragic failure in this movie- the failure to forgive and trust himself for experiencing- and briefly but not ultimately giving into true and powerful temptation.
There is a reason that Luke’s reintegration with the Force and with his family, the restoration of his self-confidence and his hope takes the entire movie. Every cry that Rian Johnson committed character assassination and ruined countless childhoods brilliantly illuminates why. If large sections of the audience cannot watch Luke Skywalker contemplate a wicked act for “the briefest of moments” without being overcome with a horror so strong it doesn’t even let them see the moment where the darkness passes and the light and goodness triumph, why would the man himself be able to? Why would his confrontation with the darkness and the knowledge that he was a flicker away from falling into the abyss- coupled with the fact that he had to watch the consequences of a crime he did not commit play out anyway- not shake him to his core and destroy him so completely that he can’t help but convince himself that he did in fact do the thing he would never do? For every cry of “Luke Skywalker would never!” Luke himself had to face that same reality and when he realized that he almost did the thing he would never do, of course he broke down and wondered “If Luke Skywalker would never, then who am I now? Because I almost did.”
I don’t ship canon Stalia or Scalia in general. I can work with Stalia fcs and in an au with good chemistry I can do it, but otherwise no. Scalia is just an all out no because I personally believe Scott would never date an ex of Stiles, especially after Stiles was obviously so uncomfortable during one scene talking about his sort of exclusive but also toxic relationship. I prefer to think of Scott as someone who wants to do what’s right and know all sides, and as the kid who was so close to Stiles that of the pack, only he knew the fear Stiles went through during the dementia scare. So scalia is a very hard no, but I can work with some Stalia.
Oh boy nonny do I ever have more thoughts on that topic. I have so many.
First off, I should say that I think you’re not as alone as it seems. Most of the posts on tumblr have been positive because of a lot of us staying silent due to not wanting to harsh anyone’s squee. (If anyone reading this is still flying high on your TR buzz, stop reading now.) And most of the relatively smaller proportion of critical posts have, for whatever reason, come from people who are mainly Loki fans who don’t like how the movie treated him as a character. But among people I have talked to privately and from discussions I’ve seen in places that aren’t tumblr, there are plenty of Thor fans who don’t like what Ragnarok did to his character either. (Personally I really don’t understand how anyone could have been a Thor fan and thought he was boring and unfunny before Ragnarok, but different strokes I guess.)
And, like, I think there are two different conversations about this, and I want to keep them separate because I think that’s important to avoid having stupid arguments about it. One conversation is whether this was an enjoyable version of Thor. Obviously, this question is entirely subjective, and those who enjoyed it are likely to be willing to overlook much of the other question, and that’s completely reasonable. If you enjoy a thing, you don’t often feel a need to poke at it much, and I don’t think there’s any reason to try to argue with people’s aesthetics, so none of this is meant to say that people should not enjoy it. Y’all do you.
But for the conversation about the character’s arc across the movies and Ragnarok’s consistency with it (or, rather, lack thereof), the assertion that Ragnarok “fixed” Thor is one I really take issue with. Because the way I see it, it “fixed” strawman Thor and thereby ignored or destroyed the aspects of his character that were the really significant and meaningful things about him, IMO.
Like, OK, if you believe the main problem was that Thor was underpowered in the previous movies and Ragnarok showed a more physically powerful Thor who no longer even needs Mjolnir to make lightning? Well, sure, I guess. Those were indeed some visually stunning scenes. But seeing Mjolnir as a silly tool that Thor needed to grow beyond? Nah, that is a complete misunderstanding of the point of the hammer and of, well, the entirety of Thor’s character arc. “The power was in him all along, he just needed to believe in himself!” is the tired and simplistic YA character arc Ragnarok gave us for him, and it is completely out of place for a character who had spent the last four movies growing from an arrogant prince who didn’t think things through and assumed himself to be in the right, into someone who is very aware of his own power and careful of the ways it can be misused because he has come to understand how badly he can fuck up without intending it. Someone who has grown up from blindly idolizing his king and father to understanding the wrongs Asgard has committed (Bor’s slaughter of the Dark Elves, Odin’s war against the Frost Giants) and how those wrongs are still having consequences in the present day, and having to grapple with whether he wants any part of that and how he can fulfill his duties without perpetuating those wrongs. Someone who has dealt with his values coming into conflict with each other, and has had to navigate those dilemmas without a rulebook (that is why “worthy” is not ever defined: the point of the hammer is that it is a symbol of facing difficult ethical questions—like whether to turn your back on your kinsman who has done terrible things, pitting your love and loyalty against your duty as a leader—and having to find your own answers, knowing that you could get it wrong). Someone who is careful in how he relates to others because he found out that his beloved brother had gone around the bend without him even being aware there was a problem, and who cares deeply about his relationships with others and is committed to doing right in them.
The Thor of Ragnarok seems little aware of his own values of honesty, forthrightness, fairness, and compassion that marked him in all prior iterations of canon; he is instead insincere and manipulates his potential friends and allies rather than trying to honestly convince them to help him, and he makes virtually no attempt to talk Hela down, choosing to insult her instead, despite knowing that she has real grievances. Where Thor 1 and TDW showed us a Thor who could explain advanced astrophysics with a few sketches, with the emotional and interpersonal intelligence to make friends when set down on Earth with nothing and to get people to follow him into danger because they like him and want to help, Ragnarok Thor shows no such skill.
And the greatest show of Thor’s “cleverness” in Ragnarok… OK, we all recall the scene in Avengers 1 where Loki uses the illusion appearing to break out of the glass cage to get Thor to dive headlong into it, right? And how Loki taunts him with “Are you ever not going to fall for that?” The point of that scene was not that Loki was correct and Thor was dumb to believe it. The point of it was that Loki was being a schmuck and Thor should be able to trust him. Ragnarok, however, seems to be saying the height of cleverness is for Thor to see through Loki’s tricks and get him back for them. Folks, we’re not supposed to buy Loki’s bullshit, OK? Loki is not correct that the most deceptive = the smartest. And Thor appearing to believe it… does not constitute positive character growth for someone who was already well beyond that in a much better direction.
So yeah, the way I see it is that Ragnarok was completely out of place for Thor’s character arc, and it ignored all of the things I found interesting and important about the character, instead replacing him with someone I don’t much like.
I hope this maybe articulates some of the same issues you have with it, and I really hope it helps you to feel less alone, nonny. There are Thor fans who feel Ragnarok did not do right by him. We’re here. And if you want to talk about it more, please don’t hesitate to message me!
“‘The power was in him all along, he just needed to believe in himself!’ is the tired and simplistic YA character arc Ragnarok gave us for him…”
I’d argue that we don’t even have this character arc, or that it’s not well executed. The film doesn’t do much to establish Thor doubting himself, or having a reason to. He oscillates between confidence and insecurity (and not, imo, in a way that suggests the confidence is fake). Apart from in moments of conflict with strong characters (Hulk and Hela), Thor succeeds and shows strength and cleverness (even if that’s a brand of cleverness that doesn’t suit Thor’s character growth). He is only impeded by self-doubt in the sense that he fears he’s not strong enough when he has reason to be worried he’ll lose, which makes it a weak example of the simplistic “He just needed to believe in himself!” character arc. Characters who undergo this arc typically doubt themselves in every situation, not only when they’re losing against very strong enemies. Indeed, not believing in themselves is often the reason they nearly lose against their enemies, regardless of that enemy’s strength.
“Folks, we’re not supposed to buy Loki’s bullshit, OK? Loki is not correct that the most deceptive = the smartest. And Thor appearing to believe it… does not constitute positive character growth for someone who was already well beyond that in a much better direction.”
I just needed that highlighted…
Huh. I can’t disagree with the evaluation of Thor’s arc in Ragnarok, but I do wonder why the same arguments can’t be said for the way Loki’s character arc was rodgered as well. Loki’s bullshit? It was Loki’s clever, deceptive plan that allowed the brothers to triumph over the dark elves and save Jane in TDW, right? Loki has demonstrated his cleverness in every film. Right from the start, Thor was the impulsive one, bulling into situations without a clear plan. Thor demonstrates his maturing self awareness when he recogises that Loki is the better strategist, (releasing Loki from his cell to help him get Jane back) and that simply swinging his hammer at a problem, without a plan is likely to create more problems. The brothers were just beginning to build the relationship they needed to work best together when Watiti waltzed in an screwed them both. Ragnarok was a gag reel, nothing more, and EVERYBODY got fucked. I don’t even know what the hell that was with Banner and the Hulk.
Well, I wasn’t addressing Loki’s character arc because that wasn’t what I was asked about. If I were to make a post covering everything I think Ragnarok did wrong, that would be a much longer post. I don’t think Ragnarok did well by Loki at all either, though where the movie messed up with Loki is rather different from what it got wrong with Thor, IMO.
That said, I don’t think there is much support for your take on what happened in TDW. As in, that is pretty explicitly contradicted by the text. It is in fact Thor’s plan that they’re following, from the start. Loki even says so: “You know this plan of yours is going to get us killed.” Thor did not simply realize that he should get Loki out of the dungeons to do his thinking for him, and in fact there is very little reason to believe that Loki is the better strategist. From what we’ve seen of Loki’s plans in the movies, they are… not great. They have pretty much all failed, some spectacularly, and none of them were really brilliant to begin with. The only reason they’ve come as close to succeeding as they have? Loki is fucking brilliant at improvising. At being thrown into a shit situation and figuring out how to make it come out to his advantage. (One could certainly argue that this is a more useful skill, given the old adage about how no plan survives contact with the enemy. But still. Planning is not Loki’s forte.) And Loki is also brilliant at trickery, and Thor’s plan required the very best. So Thor planned it, and he knew he needed Loki’s help to make it work. And Thor also had the emotional intelligence to realize that he could trust Loki if Thor gave him a chance to rise to the occasion. And Loki did. So, I mean, what I’m saying is that we don’t need to reduce Thor to appreciate Loki. Definitely not in TDW, where they both shine and work together amazingly and it’s glorious.
And I also want to be clear about what I mean by “Loki’s bullshit.” For one, it’s no aspersion to say that a tricksterfigure is a bullshitter. I ain’t slandering him when I assert that he sometimes says some shit that even he doesn’t believe, to puff himself up or get someone’s goat or get someone to do what he wants or just because he’s a goddamn mess. And in that particular instance of the scene in Avengers 1, feeling superior over successfully deceiving his brother is absolutely Loki’s bullshit, because that’s the most superficial thing going on in that scene. Loki isn’t tricking and taunting Thor to show off how clever he is and how dumb Thor is for falling for it. Not really. He’s trying to piss Thor off, trying to push Thor away, trying to avoid his own icky uncomfortable sentiments, trying to see if Thor will still keep reaching for him.
So it’s disappointing that Ragnarok took that rich, layered context and flattened it into no more than a “prove who’s smarter and thus better” contest: it took Loki’s bullshit at face value and treated it like the truth. And the result was… making them both weaker, less interesting characters with a less interesting relationship. So we all lost.
As a real time film, I didn’t like Ragnarok, but I do have a theory as to why it was so much more comical. It’s not the actual events that took place in Ragnarok; it’s a film based on Thor telling the story [similar just a touch to Deadpool, but more child friendly].
In the beginning of the film, we have what was believed to be a fourth wall break – but what if it actually WAS a fourth wall break disguised as a monolgue? It sets up the film to be its own film when it’s ‘revealed’ to be a monolgue, but given Thor’s love of telling stories to make people smile, I hold to the belief that TR wasn’t the actual events, merely it was Thor’s telling of what happened in a film, an anecdote he summarized and highlighted but didn’t get into the nitty gritty of what happened – such as the whole situation with Banner/Hulk or even with Loki or Brunhilde [Valkyrie]. We get the parts that Thor found most amusing with a splash of what Hela was up to leading up to the main battle.
That’s how I take Thor Ragnarok because otherwise I will be forever pissed at the fuckery that occured with everyone involved.
themusechronicles 