From heroism to cynicism: The deconstruction of Luke Skywalker

The Last Jedi demythologizes Skywalker in order to deconstruct the cultural achievements of the original Star Wars trilogy and clear the way for a new Star Wars more palatable to our growing cynicism.

Mark Hamill stars as Luke Skywalker in "Star Wars: The Last Jedi".

Star Wars: The Last Jedi is a beautiful, thrilling movie with terrific performances—especially from Mark Hamill—and well-written dialogue. That’s the good news. The bad news is that The Last Jedi is also a troubling cultural event, accomplishing the destruction of an iconic, heroic character precisely on the foundations of his erstwhile heroism. The Last Jedi demythologizes Luke Skywalker in order to deconstruct the cultural achievements of the original Star Wars trilogy and clear the way for a new Star Wars more palatable to our growing cynicism.

When Star Wars: A New Hope came out in 1977, it signaled a new era in popular filmmaking. Star Wars replaced the Hollywood cynicism that had helped to mire the 70s in a thick malaise and an enervating anomie. Luke Skywalker’s youthful idealism and stirring heroism were a rebuke to the big-screen anti-heroes that typify films of the decade. Movies could once again become the means for connecting moviegoers with deep, mythic, and religious longings, rather than denying that those longings have any basis or realistic chance of consummation.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi remakes Luke Skywalker into the type of movie hero his younger self had supplanted. In doing so, it flatters our own growing cynicism and feeds our self-indulgent hunger for every hero to be unmasked as a hypocrite and every virtue to be deconstructed in the name of a therapeutic egalitarianism and a “You think you’re better than me?” relativism.

In order to see how The Last Jedi accomplishes the subversion of Luke Skywalker, you need to understand his relationship to his friends and to his mentors. Luke’s call to adventure in A New Hope comes in response to Princess Leia’s plea to Obi-Wan Kenobi: “This is our most desperate hour. Help me, Obi-Wan Kenobi; you’re our only hope,” combined with Obi-Wan’s insistence that he himself is “too old for this kind of thing.” Luke is drawn into the galactic conflict by his desire to save this woman in need and to serve the noble cause of the rebellion against the evil Empire.

In The Empire Strikes Back, as a Jedi pupil, Luke diverges from his mentors Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi in two critically important respects. First, after Luke has a Force premonition in which he sees Han Solo and Leia in peril, he leaves to help them, his Jedi training incomplete, despite the pleas of Yoda and Obi-Wan. Second, Luke insists, especially against Obi-Wan, that there is still good in Darth Vader.

In the first case, Obi-Wan and Yoda put the cause of the Light side of the Force ahead of concrete persons. They seem bent on repeating the very aloofness and complacency of the Jedi which, from the Star Wars prequels, we know were among the causes of the downfall of the Jedi Order and the Old Republic. Luke chooses to put care for particular persons over abstract causes, and thereby rebukes the corruptions of the old Jedi Order—this even though he never completely rejects the Jedi, as shown by his obvious devotion to his aged teachers throughout.

In the second case, Obi-Wan and Yoda are blind to the very way in which the Light will triumph over the Dark in the end—perhaps the way in which the Light must always triumph over the Dark. Luke and the Emperor tell each other outright what they think the root of the other’s downfall will be. Luke says, “Your overconfidence is your weakness,” to which the Emperor replies, “Your faith in your friends is yours.” When Vader turns on the Emperor, it is out of love and care for his son. Luke’s aptitude for personal love and friendship is what saves the day. His confidence that his father is not some inhuman monster, but rather a human person capable of redemption, is the key to his victory over the Emperor, not his ability or willingness to kill Vader.

The Last Jedi cleverly undermines Luke Skywalker. The movie offers Luke another beautiful young woman dressed in white who pleads for his help. Instead of responding heroically, as A New Hope Luke did, this Luke tells Rey that neither she nor the galaxy needs Luke Skywalker.

Why does this older Luke refuse Rey’s plea? Because, it turns out, after the events of Return of the Jedi, Luke had tried to train another generation of Jedi, including the talented son of Han and Leia, Ben Solo. Ben, Luke perceived, had begun to turn to the Dark Side. Going to confront him about it, Luke pauses to peer into a sleeping Ben’s mind, and is horrified at how far gone Ben already is. In what Luke later calls an act of instinct, he ignites his lightsaber with a fleeting thought of killing his nephew right then and there. The moment passes, but not before Ben wakes up and reacts out of self-defense, beginning his transformation into the villainous Kylo Ren. Horrified and traumatized by his failures, Luke goes into exile, cuts himself off from the Force, and determines to live out his days in solitude, where he won’t be able to unleash any more Kylo Rens on the galaxy.

This backstory is unconvincing. The very thing that distinguished Luke from the old-school Jedi Obi-Wan and Yoda was his ability to see the potential for redemption in even the darkest of figures. That his “instinctual” reaction to Ben Solo’s corruption would be the desire to murder him eviscerates Luke’s character, making him prone to exactly the same failing of the Jedi that he supposedly conquered in Return of the Jedi.

If Luke differs from Yoda and Obi-Wan in two ways in the original trilogy—his belief in the potential for redemption and his putting persons above abstract causes—in The Last Jedi, this difference is subverted. Luke fails to see Ben Solo as redeemable for that one moment, and an embittered Luke refuses to aid Rey (and Leia) in her need. As it is, what the viewer is left with is the overwhelming sense that director Rian Johnson did not understand that Luke had already rejected the failings of the Jedi in important ways—or that he has deliberately ignored that rejection for the sake of Johnson’s desire to critique authority and elitism.

What form does this critique take? For the Luke of The Last Jedi, the Jedi were hypocritical and proud; their blindness led to the rise of Emperor Palpatine and the overthrow of the Republic, and in their vanity they identify the Light side of the Force with their institutionalized Jedi Order. In The Last Jedi, Rey is shown wielding mature Force powers without the benefit of any Jedi instruction or discipline; she apparently needs no master. Watch closely, and she can be seen absconding with the ancient Jedi texts, thereby acknowledging her need for some kind of instruction. But this instruction need not come from any person, and there seems to be no necessity for her to conform to anything greater than herself; as Leia tells Rey at the end of The Last Jedi, the two women have everything they need “right here.”

Whereas the original trilogy was about the hero’s journey—and indeed about the hero’s need for a journey—The Last Jedi shows that Rey needs no journey other than to reach into herself. Luke’s arduous journey toward maturity and excellence depicted in the original trilogy, which entailed renunciation, asceticism, and suffering, is ultimately unmasked as just another instance of Jedi hypocrisy and vanity that needs to be deconstructed. This may flatter several of our contemporary fantasies about egalitarianism and relativism and stroke our skepticism about authority, but any grown-up ought to know that the most difficult tasks of human life require difficult personal efforts, suffering, and even conversion.

In a period of cultural and political decline, the deconstruction of Luke Skywalker’s heroism and the denial of the discipline that real moral excellence and wisdom require are exactly the opposite of what we need.

If you value the news and views Catholic World Report provides, please consider donating to support our efforts. Your contribution will help us continue to make CWR available to all readers worldwide for free, without a subscription. Thank you for your generosity!

Click here for more information on donating to CWR. Click here to sign up for our newsletter.

About Thomas P. Harmon 19 Articles
Thomas P. Harmon is Associate Professor and Scanlan Foundation Chair in Theology at the University of St. Thomas in Houston, TX. He lives in Sugar Land with his wife and five children.


  1. ” which, from the Star Wars prequels, we know were among the causes of the downfall of the Jedi Order and the Old Republic. ”

    Or, if we have any sense, we completely ignore the prequels and indeed anything that came after Return of the Jedi, and are much better off for doing so.

  2. Star Wars is drivel. Quit trying to give it spiritual significance because it has had fat box office profits.

    Earning money does not equal profundity. Sheesh!

    • @PDamian:

      I completely concur. Nothing but eisegesis.

      “When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child. But, when I became a man, I put away the things of a child.”

      I wish the fanboys would grow up.

  3. I disagree. I think Luke goes through a “dark night of the soul”, like a priest who has lost his faith, but then finds himself again. In the end Luke does the right thing; fights and then achieves oneness with the Force. Maybe the cynicism lies with the reviewers and fanboys.
    Besides, in the end, its a movie called “Star Wars” essentially “Fights in Space”. I think people are asking far too much of this film. Its not that deep. It never was. BTW why do people have an issue with women and minorities being in the film? Greater diversity is a good thing (unless you have a problem with women and minorities, in that case the problem is with you). On a personal note, when I served in the military some of my best COs were women so I see nothing wrong with showing that reality in film.

    • Coming from a non religious background I think the reviewer did a great job except for
      praising how Star Wars as a “beautiful, thrilling movie with terrific performances”… it is cheesy and not
      very well acted as h… can I say this word here ? lol

      I also disagree with you when you say it is not deep… it is supposed to be, in a cool
      intergalactic teenage kinda of way.

      They´ve completely ruined the series after the first three…s

  4. And there are those among us who haven’t gone to one of the prequels/sequels or whatever since about 35 years ago and we don’t feel any sense of loss. The “suckers are still buying it” principle is alive and well.

  5. I don’t think that this critique holds water. Yes, the Luke Skywalker we meet is crippled by cynicism and guilt, but the message of the film (as driven home by Yoda’s conversation with Luke) is that Luke was WRONG in giving in to cynicism and guilt. What Luke needs to do, and what Rey and Yoda help him to see, is to get over himself, recover his sense of optimism and hope, and step up to the challenges of the day. Which is exactly what he proceeds to do (albeit in rather unexpected fashion). Rather than being a deconstruction and a paean to cynicism, The Last Jedi is a story about holding onto our optimism and idealism in the face of mistakes and failures that threaten to overwhelm us.

    • The message of the film is that all men are either incompetent, fearful idiots, or downright evil, whereas all women are strong, courageous, brilliant and heroic. The film oozes with the popular gender-bender propaganda of Hollywood. It is pure drivel, and will be the last American film I ever see.

  6. Nobody asked but:

    My favorite movies from last year were Wind River, Born in China, The Zookeeper’s Wife and Dunkirk was ok but not as good as I had hoped. There’s one more but I forget the name now, which is one of the prerogatives of being an old coot.

    I must admit that I go to the movies primarily for a few hours of escapist entertainment and some buttered popcorn. Living in a community Maine means that I can go to the flick, get a (senior) ticket, some buttered popcorn and a small pepsi for about $8.50.

    Please forgive my interruption – return to your high-level discussion.

  7. Thomas P. Harmon writes concerning the 1977 “Star Wars” movie:

    “Movies could once again become the means for connecting moviegoers with deep, mythic, and religious longings…”

    Yes, but “Star Wars” led many people into Gnosticism, Taoism, and even a new, real-world Jedi Religion.

    The “Star Wars” universe is utterly Godless. Is that really a trivial detail?

    • Star Wars was a blast of fresh air when it first came out. All movies in the 1970s were cynical, and Star Wars brought a kind of innocence idealism back into film making. The movie was fun. The characters, especially the droids, were original and charming.

      In the prequels, I thought it was particularly blasphemous when Anakin Skywalker was portrayed as having been born from a virgin. The reviewer who mentioned Gnosticism as a dangerous example of the early movies is right. And it is sad that some people dedicate their lives to fandom instead of God.

      I had been staying away from movies and kept my kids away for years, and when we saw Star Wars, I didn’t like the Leia characters’ bossiness.

      I agree with the reviewer. The romantic idealism is gone from the latest Star Wars movies. My son and I both loathe them.

      I can’t figure out why the director thought that two such attractive people would have a son who looks like Kylo Ren.

      Another aspect of the current era of the franchise that made me heartsick is the casual acceptance of the breakup of Leia and Hans. There is no indication that they ever married. That’s a new trend I noticed in La La Land for the first time. And in Frozen. Love doesn’t result in marriage and commitment. It is transitory. And if it means so little, what’s the point?

      And what’s the point of a cynical Star Wars movie either?

  8. The people who got control of Star Wars don’t care about what the characters have meant to millions of people over the last 40 years. They don’t seem to have a clue about what made these movies so endearing. If they did, they wouldn’t have gone in the direction they did, or mishandled Luke as irresponsibly as they did.

  9. Here is the thing. The Timothy Zahn novels and expanded universe/Legends novels are the only true Sequels. These are bad Disney Fan films. Nothing more. The Real Luke Skywalker re-built the Jedi. Married Mara Jade the former Emperor’s hand after she turned to the Light Side and they had a son Ben Skywalker. Han and his wife Leia Organa Solo had three children Jaina, Jason and Anakin. Anakin was killed in a war with Alien invaders. Jason turns to the Darkside and becomes Darth Caedeus. Jaina kills him in a battle and she goes on to Marry Roun Fel the New Galactic Emperor of a reformed light side Empire.

    It is epic and would have made a better story on film

    • BTW bringing back the Emperor in Ep 9 was already done in the Expanded Universe/Lengend graphic novel Star Wars Dark Empire and they did it way better.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

  1. The Rise of Skywalker: Reduced expectations and damage control – Catholic World Report
  2. The Rise of Skywalker: Reduced expectations and damage control - Catholic Daily

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative or inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.