The Rise of Skywalker

This post contains spoilers for The Rise of Skywalker and other films in the Skywalker saga.

Having enjoyed The Last Jedi more the second time around, I decided to rewatch The Rise of Skywalker after only seeing it once back when it was in the theaters. I'm glad to say I enjoyed the final episode even more the second time, as well. I am quite impressed with how J. J. Abrams was able to pull it all off. Not only did he create a fast-paced, action-packed adventure story, but he also connected so many plot and character threads with abundant humor and emotional depth. I think it is one of the most satisfying Star Wars films of all and a powerful end to the saga. And yet, it is often rated as one of the worst. I'm trying to understand why.

A lot of people complain that the movie is too focused on a lot of running around trying find things that don't really matter. I don't think that's a fair criticism. It's an adventure story, after all, and every aspect of it is clearly and appropriately motivated. None of it is aimless or random. Yes, I know there is a plot hole regarding the knife that Rey finds and eventually uses to find the Sith wayfinder. There's simply no reason why such a knife would ever exist. It's an illogical plot device that gives an excuse for a lot of fun action, humor and even some drama. Are we going to complain whenever a Star Wars movie depends on an illogical plot device? Because all Star Wars films have them. In The Last Jedi, how does Maz Kanata know exactly where the master codebreaker will be, and what game he will be playing, and what he will be wearing on his lapel at the precise time they will show up at the casino? That plot hole means the whole casino mission makes little to no sense. Here's a list of other plot holes from the same film. I am sure similar lists have been created for all the Star Wars films, some longer than others. If you want to nitpick about plot holes, fine, but don't act like they are unique to this movie.

I've also seen complaints that the film doesn't take consequences seriously: specifically, Chewbacca's death is a fake-out, C3PO regains most of his memory, and Kylo Ren is apparently killed by Emperor Palpatine, only to somehow climb his way back. I have a few responses to this criticism. First, the movie does have a number of significant deaths (most notably, Leia and Ben Solo). I don't think more were necessary. It's not like we're talking about Game of Thrones here. Second, would the story be better if Chewbacca had died at that moment, or if C3PO never got any of his memory back, or if Ben Solo was simply gone at that moment? No, I don't think so. All of these reversals are satisfying to me, and none feel cheap. Finally, the use of reversals has merit. It provides for a more dynamic emotional experience. I would agree with the criticism if every negative turn was reversed, or if the reversals felt cheap and worked against the story. But that is not the case.

Another complaint has to do with who has access to the Force. A lot of people responded well to the populist message in The Last Jedi, and wanted more of the same from Episode IX. However, I don't see Abrams' film as negating or ignoring that message in any way. On the contrary, he expands on it. The Rise of Skywalker focuses a lot on common people, how they can be empowered and united, and how anyone (including disillusioned storm troopers) can be Force sensitive. Finn discusses his own Force sensitivity, linking it directly to feelings. Of course, having feelings can't be enough to become Force sensitive, because then it would be a lot more common, but feelings clearly play a role. There must be some explanation for why everyone in the Star Wars universe hasn't been using the Force. Rian Johnson's film doesn't address that question at all. At least Abrams explores it, and without invoking Midichlorians.

Now, some of the criticisms run deeper, and have to do with ideas about what Star Wars films are or should be. For example, some people say that J. J. Abrams was trying too hard to please fans, that he was playing it too safe by undoing the supposedly risky moves that Rian Johnson had made in the previous episode. This line of argument is hard for me to accept, though. Part of the reason is that I don't appreciate all of Johnson's decisions. As I wrote previously, his attempt to end the question of destiny was premature and resulted in weak character arcs for Rey and Kylo Ren, who are the two most important characters in the third and final trilogy. So, yes, Abrams walked back some of Johnson's maneuvers, but he did it in a way that feels authentic and true to the spirit of the Skywalker saga. Ultimately, the moves (in particular, bringing back Ren's helmet and making Rey a Palpatine) allowed the film to focus on the crucial question of destiny. And I think Abrams handled that question remarkably well.

After being rejected by Rey and after a humiliating encounter with Luke Skywalker, why wouldn't Kylo Ren feel the imposing weight of Darth Vader's legacy? Why wouldn't he try to hide behind his old mask again? Abrams' choices make perfect sense. Kylo Ren is not a confident, stable military leader. He is a frightened man-child who cannot come to terms with who he is. As Luke tells Rey in Episode IX, a Jedi's destiny is to face their fear. The saga has always focused on the relationship between identity and bloodlines, and the fear that can induce. That is why it's called the Skywalker saga, after all, and not simply the Star Wars saga. In the original trilogy, Luke's destiny is to face his father, whom he is afraid of becoming. Rey's destiny is to face her grandfather, whom she is afraid of becoming. And Ben Solo's destiny is to come to terms with his own grandfather's shadow. Destiny, in this sense, is not about fatalism. It's not that everything is predetermined. It's that becoming a Jedi just means that that is what you have to do. Being a Jedi means being balanced and in control, and you cannot do that if you don't face your fear and come to terms with who you are.

Abrams didn't just rehash old plot lines, either. Rey's story is unique in a number of important ways. For one thing, she breaks the tie to her lineage, giving new meaning to the entire saga. When Luke prevails at the end of Return of the Jedi, it is because he has successfully rekindled the love in his father's heart. He wins because his father protects him, and so he proudly keeps his father's name. When Rey prevails at the end of the saga, however, she does not honor her family name. Seeing Luke and Leia's Force ghosts looking over her, she chooses the Skywalker name for herself. This is a much stronger ending than Luke's. Unlike Luke, Rey wins because she is stronger than Emperor Palpatine. Yes, she basically dies in the process of killing him, and she only survives because Ben Solo repays the debt he owes her for saving his life. But that points to another key difference about Rey's story: She also prevails because of the compassion which allows her to love Ben Solo and save his life (effectively killing Kylo Ren). Unlike Luke, or any other Star Wars character, Rey's story has always been about compassion--about letting compassion guide you, even if it means leaving your biological family. That is what starts her journey when she meets BB-8, and it is what carries her through until the end.

Does The Rise of Skywalker feel more like a sequel to The Force Awakens than to The Last Jedi? If so, it is not because Abrams was rejecting Rian Johnson's film. Rather, it's because the main characters--Rey, Finn, Poe, Leia, Kylo Ren--never really changed at all in Rian Johnson's film. The Last Jedi ends with them all basically where they were at the end of The Force Awakens, except Luke and Snoke are dead, Finn is conscious, Kylo Ren broke his helmet and Rey thinks her parents didn't matter. Episode IX picks up those pieces and tells a story that threads together all the previous films in the Skywalker saga. It is a sequel to The Last Jedi and to The Force Awakens and to the six episodes that came before. That is what it should be.

Now, if you simply didn't enjoy the movie, what can I say? Maybe you weren't in the mood for it. Or maybe it just didn't match your expectations. I recommend watching it again. You might enjoy it more the second time. If not, oh well. We all have different tastes. For me, this is a lot better--it's funnier, more exciting and more emotionally impactful--than it has any right to be. I'd rank it up there with the best of the saga.

If you are interested in reading another defense of the film against common criticisms, check out what Erik Kain wrote at Forbes.