<p>The first was his insecurity in his ability to save one he loves (he failed to save his own mother). As such, he would do whatever he could to prevent another terrible loss. </p>
<p>The second was his views on politics. He saw nothing wrong with a dictatorial leadership style. He expressed his views in Attack of the Clones. He truly believes that power should be in the hands of the select few.</p>
<p>The third was his own ambition. In Empire Strikes Back, he tells Luke that they can rule the Empire as father and son. It is the Sith way. Kill the old and replace with the new! </p>
<p>I personally think Anakin is the most interesting character and I agree that he is not evil (Palpatine is), but he certainly has many tragic flaws.</p>
<p>Well obviously Anakin has many faults, as did Oedipus, Romeo, and whoever else, but I feel that the main one...the one that changed him from an overall good and law-abiding Jedi Knight to Palpatine's apprentice was his love for Padme. That passion in his heart fueled everything else. He didn't care about politics and power as much as he cared about her. There was a point where he was willing to give up his life as a Jedi to move to Naboo with her to raise their children. The fact that Palpatine fueled his hate, and he felt that Obi-Wan had turned against him (and cheated with Padme, he thought), was the reason he became power-hungry, ambitious, and ultimately the Darth Vadar we knew in Episodes IV, V, and VI.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I personally think Anakin is the most interesting character
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I personally found all the characters bland.. maybe it had something to do with the acting or the ridiculous screenplay that tried to develop them as characters. The only three dimensional, interesting figure I found in the prequels was Senator Palpatine. No detriment to the movie though- I really enjoyed it. Grand hollywood epics like these don't need to and aren't supposed to be shakespeare.</p>
<p>Ah yes...he has faults....and those were his downfall....as opposed to Oedipus...Oedipus fell due to hamartia...a mistake rather than one of his moral flaws....he thought he knew who is parents were...he didn't know that Jocasta was his mother....it was a mistake on his part....Anakin has many moral flaws that caused his downfall....his overemphasis on anger and revenge....his refusal to believe that death is unpreventable....his fear for losing his wife...unlike a Greek character, his moral character was what caused his downfall....Oedipus's arrogance didnt' contribute to his exile...</p>
<p>and you're wrong Ace...Lucas used Greek Tragedy and Shakespear to model his "hero."...the stories may differ, but the pattern does not.</p>
<p>SPOILERS.
nahrafsfa, I disagree again. First of all Oedipus did have a tragic flaw. That was his anger. The reason he became king of his parents' kingdom was because he killed his real father at that intersection when he cut him off. It was a terrible case of road rage. Then he went to his father's kingdom, and since his father was dead, he solved the Sphinx's riddle and became king.</p>
<p>Secondly, yes, Anakin had anger and hate, but if it hadn't been for his belief that Padme was going to die they would have been irrelevant. Dooku even said, way in the beginning, "You have anger and hate but you refuse to use them." It is only when Anakin is seduced by the idea that he can prevent his wife's death that he really taps into his negative emotions.</p>
<p>Also, I forgot to mention this yesterday, but Anakin wanted to stand up for the republic, despite believing in dictatorship. When Mace wanted to kill Palpatine and forgo a trial, Anakin said "we have to follow the rules of the republic." He stopped Mace because Mace wanted to break the rules of the republic, because he knew that it would be like trying Al Capone in 1930s Chicago.</p>
<p>The growth of Anakin's negative feelings is important, but they are not his tragic flaws. They assist his descent to the Dark Side, and they make him grow powerful once he does, but the decision to become Palpatine's apprentice is solely based on his love for Padme</p>
<p>Anijen, Anakin does not follow the rules. As a Jedi, he was forbidden to love (let alone get married) and yet, he does it. Also, as a Jedi, he was not supposed to kill an unarmed (literaly) Dooku and yet, he does...knowing it went against everything he stood for as a Jedi. Mace gave a very legitimate reason for finishing Palpatine without a trial. Anakin interfered because it suited his purpose. Don't get me wrong, I actually like Anakin, but let us not turn him into a stickler for rules! LOL</p>
<p>no no no no no......Oedipus's downfall was not due to his anger! yes he did have anger and impatience, but they were by no means his downfall...he was brought down because a mistake....he thought he knew how his life/world was, but he had no idea...he didn't know that was his own father, he didn't know Jocasta was his mother...analyze Greek texts...this is common in ALL of them, especially Sophocles....Greek heros don't fall from moral flaw, they fall from HAMARTIA..mistakes.....Oedipus was in sheer oblivion...he had no idea who he was...he thought he was the child of those nice folks down the road, and he thought that, by fleeing to Thebes, he could evade fulfilling the prophecy, not knowing that he was returning home...if he had known that those were his real parents, he would have never returned to Thebes...yes he was angry, but it was not his downfall..it's funny...my professor made this EXACT distinction in my Greek/Roman Myth class.......that Oedipus didnt' fall from greatness to ruin through his anger or impatienc</p>
<p>yes, it's true that Anakin does follow the rules only when it suits him, but let's be fair. So did Mace, so did Luke. Yoda explicitly told him not to leave and to finish his training on Dagobah, but Luke left. And hey, neither of them turned to the Dark Side. But the fact that Anakin stood up for the rules of the republic even though he did have dictatoral ideals proved that his first concern was keeping Palpatine alive SO HE COULD SAVE PADME. Anakin's first concern, and the concern that eventually turned him into Darth Vadar was his fear THAT PADME WAS GOING TO DIE. That is the main tragic flaw. That is what changed him.</p>
<p>and nahrafsfa, I learned that Oedipus' flaw was his anger, if he hadn't killed his real father at the intersection then there would have been no reason to get a new king and marry Jocaste, would there? He also exhibits this anger in much of Oedipus Rex, but if you believe that it is the Harmartia, fine. That's what's great about literature, more than one person can be right.</p>
<p>nahrafsfa, I was taught roughly the same thing as per Aristotle's Poetics analysis- that all tragedies are based upon the emotions of pity and fear. Pity being thinking he suffered unjustly or because of some intrinsic flaw, fear at realizing it was all his choice and he did suffer justly. But as anijen said, there are definately many interpretations of tragedy, especially Oedipus Rex, that just the analysis Aristotle provided, but there are others. </p>
<p>Now about Star Wars
SPOILERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think Hayden Christianson is an awful actor, and his scenes with Padme were almost painful to watch. Also as Darth Vader, he does not carry the same gravitas that one experiences from the first three films. Was anyone else disappointed that the "Vader" name was just something Palpatine pulled out of his bum? Palpatine's performance was excellent, and I thought the Godfather-esque "Plan 66" (not sure on number) sequence was one of finest/saddest/brilliant moments in Star Wars history. My theater was fantastic for a matinee showing, and the crowd was really into it. Any scene with Yoda immediately generated applause, especially the one in Palpatines chambers and his escape of the assasination attempt. A fine film sans Christianson's acting. </p>
<p>Best of the prequels, but not better than any of the originals in my opinion.</p>
<p>did anyone notice in the DVDs of Return that at the end where they show the original actor that plays Vader standing with Yoda and Obi Wan as specters was changed to Hayden Christiansen?...and that they showed Naboo with the Gungans yelling "we're free!"...i thoguth that was kinda cool...they also took out that one scene where looks fighting the rancor and they show those ghetto lines that make the scene obviously look fake</p>
<p>yea i noticed that on the dvd of Return also. i think it's supposed to symbolize that anakin skywalker was last known as anakin when he was in episode 3. From there on out he was Darth Vadar and not anakin. Therefore when anakin dies and becomes "one with the force" his image is of himself before he turned into vadar. </p>
<p>isn't it ironic that anakin turned to the dark side to save padme yet he still isn't able to save her. Life's a b1tch isn't it?</p>
<p>Notice...after he turned Sith, he became infatuated with power and control, rather than working towards saving Padme...he actually asked Padme to go with him so he and she could rule the galaxy together and overthrow the emperor...and became angry when she refused</p>