Revenge of the Anglicans

Two new items for CanadianChristianity.com are up now.

1. My review of Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith, which may or may not be tweaked as the days go by and I see the film again. The strange thing about writing these reviews is that you feel like a geek for wanting to point out all the odd thematic or dramatic ways the new films do or don’t fit with the previous ones — you want to keep things accessible to the casual reader — and yet you know that the new films don’t make any sense at all unless you do look at them in the context of the older ones. The whole Star Wars franchise has become pretty solipsistic by now.

2. My article on the latest developments in our corner of the Anglican communion. I’ve been covering this story for a few years now — I link back to several earlier articles of mine, the oldest of which was written in April 2001, and I could have linked back to even older stories of mine, if there had been reason to do so.

About Peter T. Chattaway

Peter T. Chattaway was the regular film critic for BC Christian News from 1992 to 2011. In addition to his film column, which won multiple awards from the Evangelical Press Association, the Canadian Church Press and the Fellowship of Christian Newspapers, his news and opinion pieces have appeared in such publications as Books & Culture, Christianity Today, Bible Review and the Vancouver Sun. He also contributed essays to the books Re-Viewing The Passion: Mel Gibson’s Film and Its Critics (Palgrave Macmillan, 2004) and Scandalizing Jesus?: Kazantzakis’s The Last Temptation of Christ Fifty Years on (Continuum, 2005).

  • Thom

    Hmmm…looking at your review…in Jedi, does Leia specify her memories are of her BIOLOGICAL mother? Only then do we have a continuity error. Luke would have no memory of any mther as he was raised by his aunt. So, I don’t see an impressively huge gaffe there. The films NEVER said Leia was raised by her and Luke’s biological mother. Besides…Leia did not remember all that much…she remembered her SMILE. That is not “so much”.

    In fact, the film gives logical reasons why it was safe to place Luke on Tatooine. It makes more sense why Vader wasn’t initially hunting Luke his whole life. There were many things that felt more tied up than mucked around with. But then, much of Lucas’ tampering never wrecked the films for me as they did for you.

  • http://www.blogger.com/profile/07395937367596387523 Peter T Chattaway

    in Jedi, does Leia specify her memories are of her BIOLOGICAL mother?

    She does not use the word “biological,” no, but Luke does specify that he is asking about her “real” mother, and the emotional impact of the scene does hinge entirely on her memories being of her biological mother, and what’s more, the official Star Wars databank entry for Princess Leia states plainly: “Leia has few memories of her true mother, Padmé Amidala. All that Leia can recall is that she was beautiful, but sad.” So that settles that.

    Besides…Leia did not remember all that much…she remembered her SMILE.

    Not quite. What she says is: “She was very beautiful. Kind, but…sad.”

    In fact, the film gives logical reasons why it was safe to place Luke on Tatooine.

    It does not, however, give us any logical reason for Luke retaining his biological father’s name, which was definitely not safe, when he could have been raised as Luke Lars (just as Leia was raised with the surname Organa).

  • Thom

    Because who would have watched a movie about Luke Lars? :)

    There have been suggestions that the memories Leia has are “force” related. That her strengths in the force relate to past knowledge, while Luke is stronger in the forknowledge area. But it is all speculation. It’s only a massive contradiction if we had a prior time line establishing WHEN Padme died. As it stands it is vague information in Jedi.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X