Rian Johnson, the director and co-writer of Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, explained and defended why Luke Skywalker went into hiding in the sequel Star Wars movies.
Johnson’s comments on the return of Luke in The Last Jedi aimed to clarify why this character became isolated and jaded. Did those remarks achieve that goal?
Johnson did explain Luke’s exile, but it may have prompted more questions and criticism than clarity.
Here we break down what he said and what it means for Star Wars.
Table of Contents
Johnson’s Explanation of Luke’s Exile
In an interview from the fall of 2022, Rian Johnson explained the reasoning behind Luke’s exile.
Johnson rooted the film in the long-standing “myth” of Star Wars, and how that ongoing narrative has “baked itself into us and affected us.” He thus aimed to enhance the “power of the myth,” not strip it away.
Johnson’s main ideas were:
1. Luke became closed off from the Force because he thought the Jedi “have done nothing but add to the problems of the universe.”
2. Luke feels the most “selfless act he can do” is to “lock himself off”, the very thing he did not do in The Empire Strikes Back, which may have caused more problems for his friends and allies than helped (until the next movie).
3. Luke feels that if he brings the Jedi back into the galaxy, it will only help the Sith rise again, leading to more and “more misery.”
4. And, finally, Johnson indicates that Luke was thinking that the Jedi have to die so that light can rise from a new source.
This explanation could be helpful since it points out why Luke became disengaged with the Jedi and the galaxy and cloistered himself away on the water planet of Anch-To, the birthplace of the Jedi.
Yet, even his location of seclusion raises questions. If Luke wanted to distance himself from the Jedi, why did he go to their origins?
Likewise, how could the Jedi just add to the problems? Perhaps in his depressed state, after the fallout with Ben/Kylo Ren, Luke could not see clearly.
Yet, the Jedi have stood for thousands of years as “guardians of peace and justice.” For Luke to forget that foundation is confusing.
Fan Reactions to Johnson’s Explanation
Instead of clarifying Luke’s exile, Johnson’s explanation prompted fan criticism.
As a discussion on Reddit indicates, Johnson had to step in and explain why director and co-writer of The Force Awakens, J.J. Abrams, set Luke up as the disenchanted Jedi exile.
In doing so, Johnson decided not to “repeat the Obi-Wan and Yoda trope” but instead “imagined a broken Luke rather than one hiding.”
In the end, as this post states, this character and storyline just “doesn’t work” and make Luke seem “shockingly narrow minded.”
That is an insightful critique of Johnson’s explanation because it zeros in the idea that Luke would forget everything that occurred before his failed training with Ben/Kylo Ren.
Another fan commented on how because of “what happened with Ben,” Luke loses “his connection to the Force” to interpret what Johnson had in mind.
Luke losing his connection to the Force is equivalent to losing the “core” of his identity. So, that may help explain the detached Luke we encounter.
Yet, this still leaves gaps in the explanation, such as how could it possibly help to seal himself away and not try to regain his connection to the Force?
In addition, another fan post calls out how Johnson “seems to think that the sith are a reaction to the Jedi,” especially with point 3 from above. That is, “if the Jedi don’t exist, then the Sith have no reason to exist.”
Of course, as this fan correctly points out, this “just isn’t the case.” The Sith would have all the more reason to live without the Jedi.
As fans know, the origins of the Sith go back at least 1,000 years before Clone Wars based on the belief that the dark side of the Force was the correct path to power. The Sith evolved, fought the Jedi, and almost went extinct.
Darth Bane survived to carry the Sith forward, form the Rule of Two, and try to take over the galaxy. If the Sith had succeeded, they would not have needed the Jedi at all. They would freely rule in terror and bring more misery.
Criticism of The Last Jedi
The reaction to Johnson’s explanation of Luke’s exile is reminiscent of the criticism directed at The Last Jedi.
While official critics tended to like the film, Star Wars fans were not universally supportive.
Along with Johnson’s commentary about Luke, many fans did not like Luke’s “throwing away” of the past, as one article explains. The reclusive, giving-up-on-it-all Luke made fans recoil.
Yet, as this piece also recognizes, Luke did come around by the end, battled with the dark side, and sacrificed himself for the galaxy, in good Jedi fashion.
So, is criticism of the movie and Johnson’s explanation of Luke’s exile misplaced? No, some fans raise valid reasons for why both may have gone in the wrong direction.
Although The Last Jedi was a commercial success, fans pointed out several deficiencies, such as being “too jokey,” “espousing progressive values,” and turning Luke into “a bitter old man.”
These fans did not like the direction of the second trilogy film.
Still, other “hardcore” fans did not like the movie, and it would be a mistake to assume that all Star Wars devotees fall into the same lot.
As this Reddit post clarifies, it is better not to make “sweeping generalizations” about fans not liking the movie. This post is by someone who thinks they are “a pretty hardcore Star Wars fan” and liked The Last Jedi.
The same goes for Johnson’s explanation.
At the beginning of The Last Jedi, Johnson picked up where The Force Awakens left off and wanted to do the unexpected in the encounter between Rey and Luke.
Johnson said he wished to provide an “honest” reaction from Luke and “where his head is at.” He sought to be innovative in that scene, with the exile, and with the film.
Johnson’s Explanation
Other fans defend Johnson’s reasons for Luke’s exile but still take issue with Luke tossing his lightsaber over the cliff at the beginning of the movie. So, Johnson’s explanation does satisfy some fans and not others.
That means Johnson took a creative step that he and others found satisfying, and other fans found it confusing.
The explanation has its merits and pitfalls, and we can expect more of these back-and-forth discussions as Star Wars shows and movies continue to premiere.
Todd Wahlstrom is a creative and analytical freelance writer and life-long Star Wars fan. He has covered such topics as Darth Vader, the Jedi, Boba Fett, and AT-AT Walkers. Todd has published a non-fiction book, holds a Ph.D. in history, and enjoys hiking, running, and reading about science.
Me
Monday 4th of November 2024
This is not a reason why, but an attempt to justify terrible writing. They wanted to remove everything original trilogy related, particularly the Skywalker legacy. What disney, Kennedy, and Johnson never understood was that the main line movies were ALWAYS about the Skywalker legacy, and their impact on the galaxy. This is why, years later, its still the most disliked trilogy. I don't have a problem with them telling other stories, by all means expand the universe. A continuation of the prior two trilogies, which revolved around the Skywalkers, was not the time or place though.