Padmé dying during childbirth and Anakin going dark...a causal cycle?

[Darth Angelus]

I have been considering this plot point in Episode III, Revenge of the Sith, a long time ago a bit lately and I have not been able to come up with a satisfying answer to how this is meant to work or make sense.

Basically, early on in the movie, Anakin sees a vision of Padmé dying during childbirth, which leads him to do several bad things, which propel him towards the dark side. Padmé, knowing he has turned to the dark side, becomes so sad that she dies during childbirth.

Now, my problem with this is not that Anakin causes the very thing he is trying to prevent. That is, of and by itself, perfectly possible. Neither is it that a person should not die of sadness directly, which is something I at least believe is medically impossible (I am no doctor, so I could be wrong here, but I have never heard of a case of sadness causing death without an intermediate effect, for example suicide).

No, my problem is that it seems to be a causal cycle with no beginning. Anakin turns dark, which causes Padmé to die (of sadness) during childbirth, sending a Force vision back through time to Anakin, which causes him to turn dark. You see the issue here? Even if you could have some foreknowledge of the future (which is logically problematic of and by itself if you are to retain the ability to affect the future, making visions only possible futures, really), this apparent cycle seems to defy reason of causality.
Cause and effect is about the former event (which is independant of the latter) resulting in the latter event (which is dependent on the former).
When it comes to this plot, we seem to have a cause cycle like...

<--
A B
-->

Now, I have no logical problem with accepting that there are negative spirals of bad things happening, mutually causing each other in this pattern and causing things to become worse and worse, but they would need to have some other external cause to set them off initially by causing A or B to occur the first time and set this spiral in motion to begin with. They wouldn't just be hanging loose like a self-contained circle in the air like this.

Now, I think people are taking bad things more seriously by default. If an event is dark, we have been trained to accept it with less scrutiny. We often perceive the cynical to be closer to reality than the idealistic, by default. I would say that in general, with our trained psyche, a really dark movie is less likely to be questioned than one which portrays things in an overly positive light.
Well, while it is easy to think that dark is serious, it is really not hard to come up with dark events that are not logical in any way.

Think of an event where three billion people on Earth die in the very same second, without anything to cause it whatsoever. That event would no doubt be very dark. It would also still be ridiculously improbable and unlogical. So no, just because some event is dark does not mean we should accept that it could happen without question.

Here are a couple of possible answers...
1. Palpatine planted the vision in Anakin's mind initially:

Ok, but if so, how did he know Anakin's turning dark would cause Padmé to die during childbirth, or even die at all?. Has he had a vision of the future himself, one he has not yet set in motion by planting said vision?
Does not seeing the (even if only a possible and not definite) future require the chain of events to be in motion already? When Luke saw his friends in danger on Bespin in Episide V, had not the events getting them into that danger already started?
Can Palpatine feed an event that is not already about to happen (Anakin turning dark) into a Force vision, like an argument/parameter to a function, and thereby have the Force reveal answers to purely hypothetical "what would happen if?" questions, essentially having his visions acting like a mystical simulator. That is a far more powerful ability than just seeing the future itself, if you can test outcomes of arbitrary states in the universe without those states existing (yet). It would seem like he would need that ability to plant such an accurate vision in advance, if Anakin turning dark is not already in motion, but nowhere in the saga is he portrayed as having this, nearly godlike, ability to see the future of purely hypothetical situations. It is ridiculously over the top and I see no way the Empire could fall if he could do this.

2. Anakin's turn to the dark side is already in motion before Anakin gets the vision.

This may very well be the case, as it is the only way I see it could work, but should it not have been explained better, and would it not be against the way the movie portrays his motives for turning dark?


The key thing here is that the way the movie portrays things, we have this cycle of Anakin turning dark and Padmé dying during childbirth, each portrayed as causing the other, and with no initial event to set the cycle in motion. And barring that I have made some error in my reasoning (which I very much doubt, here), that would not logically happen. Unlike the literal chicken or egg, which I think has a rather satisfactory answer in evolution and also if you believe God made it all (to cover both sides in that debate), this one has no real explanation.

 

[Lilmizflashythang]

There's a reason when one half of a couple, that's been married at least 30 years, dies the other follows shortly afterwards. It is entirely possible to die of sadness. And yeah the Emperor implanted the vision in the first place.

 

[Darth Angelus]

There's a reason when one half of a couple, that's been married at least 30 years, dies the other follows shortly afterwards. It is entirely possible to die of sadness.

Indirectly, sure. By some intermediate effect. But the movie says there is nothing medically wrong with her.
I am willing to buy this part, anyway, because it is a movie.

And yeah the Emperor implanted the vision in the first place.

That really only moves the problem. I already did cover that scenario. How does he know of a future that is not in motion yet?

 

[hopewrites]

We don't see her buried, and Leah as vague memories of her mother as sad and beautiful. For the sake of plausibility, I assumed the emperor lied about her death to claim Darth for himself knowing his bond with padme was no longer a useful tool and rightly guessing that he would bond as strongly with his children as he had with his wife and mother before them.
It would not be beyond Ben to hid the mother as long as possible, if not as a friend then as a possible chance to bring Darth back and set things right.

There are lots of reasons a woman may die in child birth. If the emperor needs her to suffer or die for any reason he could make it so.

I felt Darth's progress to the dark side was well mapped out from episode one. It is his possivness and in felt with abandonment issues that drive him to form the bonds that drive him to make choices that ultimately hurt those he feels most passionately about.

The cycle is not what it seems. Its a cycle of self sabotage where the choices one makes to protect the people one loves ultimately are the choices that lead to their distruction.

 

[Darth Angelus]

We don't see her buried, and Leah as vague memories of her mother as sad and beautiful. For the sake of plausibility, I assumed the emperor lied about her death to claim Darth for himself knowing his bond with padme was no longer a useful tool and rightly guessing that he would bond as strongly with his children as he had with his wife and mother before them.
It would not be beyond Ben to hid the mother as long as possible, if not as a friend then as a possible chance to bring Darth back and set things right.

It is possible, but highly unlikely. We see the funeral scene, and for no one to discover she was really alive there she'd have to use some strong drug or something to seem dead (I am not a doctor and not sure whether it is realistic, but I have seen it in fiction) in a way that is never explained. Indeed she'd have to live for a few more years to not create problems with Leia's description of her in Episode VI, which is another possible continuity problem. You have to invent some weird Force stuff to explain that, too. But really, most people will have interpreted it like she died.

There are lots of reasons a woman may die in child birth. If the emperor needs her to suffer or die for any reason he could make it so.

While that is true (that the emperor could easily have caused her death) it does not affect this problem in any way whatsoever, except possibly to move it elsewhere. There is nothing to indicate he was involved in her death as it happened, and if he were the one planting the vision, he has all too accurate information in advance about a chain of events not yet in motion.

I felt Darth's progress to the dark side was well mapped out from episode one. It is his possivness and in felt with abandonment issues that drive him to form the bonds that drive him to make choices that ultimately hurt those he feels most passionately about.

That is true, but his fear of losing Padme is still what was shown to drive him over the edge. For this vision to appear in the first place, her death at childbirth needed to occur without him having this fear to drive him dark in the first place, and that chain of events is never explained. So we need to concoct answers not in the movie to break this cycle.

The cycle is not what it seems. Its a cycle of self sabotage where the choices one makes to protect the people one loves ultimately are the choices that lead to their distruction.

The way the of the chain of choices and events as shown in the movie is exactly as I described it in my initial post. Inventing stuff that is not onscreen changes nothing. While it is true what you say that Anakin's choices to protect Padme is what led to her death, he had no reason to make that choice to protect her because he did not have that fear until he saw the vision of her death, which was caused by that very choice.

 

[hopewrites]

Perhaps they were intended as a warning against his present path of possiveness, and missinturpereted as a certain future by him. By his past experience with visions of his mother's suffering, which Ben warned him against seeing as set in stone.


Really I don't understand what your asking because it seems your looking for a way to make the dream - choice - action cycle paradoxical by finding the break in it.
It could be broken and begun at many places, for multiple reasons.

 

[Darth Angelus]

Perhaps they were intended as a warning against his present path of possiveness, and missinturpereted as a certain future by him. By his past experience with visions of his mother's suffering, which Ben warned him against seeing as set in stone.

Yes, that is probably how it was intended. These visions in general seem to have a rather high probability of happening, though. Both Anakin's visions about his mother and Luke's about his friends in Bespin were well-founded. Padme dying at childbirth was not really a well-founded danger until the dream vision took place. Not only did Anakin need another reason to take the last step over to the dark side that was not dependent on the dream (because that is the loop), he needed a reason to still turn just as soon as he did and not some vague time in the future. Yes, Padme learned the news of Anakin's turn to the dark side in more or less the last moment. She gave birth to the children only shortly after the Mustafar duel. If Anakin had turned a few days later and Padme had died of a broken heart, it would still be enough to invalidate the vision (her babies would have been born, hence no death during childbirth, as shown in vision).
The movie fails to provide a reason for Anakin to cross over to the dark side within this very limited timespan (to give dream even reasonable possibility of coming true) that is independent of the dream. It is possible to make vague assertions of the possibility of the Anakin turning to the dark side, but without reason (that is not inside the loop) it lacks substance and smells like sloppy writing.

Really I don't understand what your asking because it seems your looking for a way to make the dream - choice - action cycle paradoxical by finding the break in it.
It could be broken and begun at many places, for multiple reasons.

Yes, other events could occur to make Anakin cross over to the dark side, thereby breaking Padme's heart and killing her, I guess. The question is how likely any one particular scenario must be to merit a vision. Surely Force users can't dream of every danger with a slim chance of occuring? They would have nightmares 24/7 if that were the case. Speeder crash here, exploding malfunctioning spaceship there. Surely a lot could go wrong by mere accident. The possibilities of bad things occuring in that enormous galaxy are nearly endless, so there would be bad visions without end.
No, the only sensible way of interpreting the movies (since the Jedi aren't shown to have dreams about random speeder crashes and similar "Force noise" constantly) is that there must be a reasonably substantiated prospect, rather than a vague "possibility", of the bad event happening for a Force vision to take place. Anakin's turn without the vision first taking place is not substantiated because in that case he lacks enough motivation to go over within the limited timeframe allowed (again, it must happen before childbirth or the vision is invalid), and we must concoct other such motivations for him out of thin air that are not shown onscreen.

I admit I can't prove that it is a contradiction or a plot hole, but it certainly feels like Lucas made it easy for himself when coming up with an event to push Anakin over.

 

[Brian G Turner]

I admit I can't prove that it is a contradiction or a plot hole, but it certainly feels like Lucas made it easy for himself when coming up with an event to push Anakin over.

I personally find it hard not to be cynical and presume that plot integrity was least of Lucas's interests in the prologue trilogy.

 

[Huttman]

Her seemingly giving up so easily and leaving two newborn children behind because she lost the will to live is one of the things I also find a bit unsettling. I like to justify everything, so, in my mind Anakin was not the only thing she had on her plate. The entire Republic was crumbling, The Jedi order was being destroyed, evil was taking over including her beloved husband's soul, and she just couldn't fight anymore. Well, that's how I see it. Psychological defeat can best the strongest of us.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I personally find it hard not to be cynical and presume that plot integrity was least of Lucas's interests in the prologue trilogy.

Lol, yes, very much agreed. This is just one of plenty of plot issues I have with the prequels.

Her seemingly giving up so easily and leaving two newborn children behind because she lost the will to live is one of the things I also find a bit unsettling. I like to justify everything, so, in my mind Anakin was not the only thing she had on her plate. The entire Republic was crumbling, The Jedi order was being destroyed, evil was taking over including her beloved husband's soul, and she just couldn't fight anymore. Well, that's how I see it. Psychological defeat can best the strongest of us.

You are making a sort of valid point, but the way it is presented, and also various quotes and such if I recall correctly, indicate it was indeed Anakin's turn to the dark side that was the cause. Plus, all the other stuff you mention was due to Anakin's turn anyway, so it makes little difference.

 

[Huttman]

Well, I found this and the reasoning behind it is quite sound, IMO:

http://www.retrozap.com/padme-didnt-die-of-a-broken-heart/

I has really satisfied my mind about one of the few things that bugged me about the prequels that I did not have a good answer for.

 

[Brian G Turner]

It's interesting, and does make sense. But it shouldn't need an essay in a magazine article to satisfactorily explain a major plot point of a film.

 

[Anne Spackman]

I didn't like the inconsistencies between the first Star Wars trilogy and the prequels, either. Especially in that Leia recalled her mother in Return of the Jedi, and yet in the prequels, Padme dies at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I hope the next film is free from any inconsistencies.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I didn't like the inconsistencies between the first Star Wars trilogy and the prequels, either. Especially in that Leia recalled her mother in Return of the Jedi, and yet in the prequels, Padme dies at the end of Revenge of the Sith. I hope the next film is free from any inconsistencies.

Yes, agreed. Leia had no more reason to remember Padmé than Luke did. If someone tries to argue that Leia's memory of Padmé is somehow aided by the Force, it makes little sense that Luke has no such Force aided memory, as he is clearly more trained than Leia in the use of the Force, at that point.

Besides, it makes little sense to hide Luke by handing him over the Lars family, putting him in one place on Tatooine out of all places in the vast galaxy which Anakin knows of...other than it had to tie up with how the OT started. They should never have had Anakin introduced to that place in Episode II, if it was to make sense to hide Luke there in Episode III. Oh, and Yoda says on Dagobah that Luke was too old to be trained. Yes, Yoda, because you Jedi slacked...as you had all Luke's life to train him.
Oh, Uncle Owen didn't accept it. Why hand the hope for the future over to Owen, in the first place? Yes, because he was family, but to what extent, exactly. Was Cliegg Lars a father to Anakin? Not genetically, and having met Anakin only once, it is hard to claim he had the father role, socially, either. Obi-Wan was infinitely more father figure to Anakin than anyone in the Lars family, despite Cliegg having married Anakin's mother (after Anakin moved out).
The Lars family had no claim on Luke. If one successfully manages to argue for the hopelessly weak position that they did, they would have an equal claim on Leia, too, in which case the Jedi could be accused of stealing her. Yes, why would they have any less claim on Leia than they did on Luke?

As for another point, when did Obi-Wan Kenobi help Bail Organa in the Clone Wars (which happened according to Leia's transmission in R2-D2)? Other than some animated TV series?

So I agree. The Prequels do not tie up with the Original Trilogy very well.

 

[Huttman]

Bail Organa's relationship with the Jedi may have not been flushed out with long scenes of exposition but their familiarity with each other in the scenes they had are enough for me. They were fighting on the same side to protect the Republic both during the Clone Wars against the Separatists and then, during the Jedi purge, they still relied on each others trust and friendship as shown at the end of RotS.
It is never mentioned if Anakin knew or if he believed his child survived. He only realizes his son is alive after he blew up the first Death Star. Obi-Wan did know, however, Anakin would never return to the one place in the galaxy he hated more than Tatooine. He was a slave there, he hated sand, his mother was killed there and he slaughtered Tuskin's families there, too. Tatooine was a remote dustball that Anakin hated and his 'family' was a bunch of cowardly in-laws that he probably did not think twice about after his mom's passing. The Lars also had no knowledge of a twin because there would have been no reason for Obi-Wan to burden any of them with that information. I think these are reasonable explanations. I have to think a bit more about Luke and Leia remembrances about their mother...

OK. So I found this and I'm happy with the answer. It's not too much of a stretch...

How is it possible for Leia to remember Padmé after meeting her as a newborn, for only a few seconds? Patricia C. Wrede's novelization of Episode III describes the newborn Leia as looking around her, intent to memorize every detail. Perhaps Leia's Force-sensitivity allowed her to form memories even at such a young age. Leia's Force-sensitivity is more personal and emotional than Luke's; her first hint of Force ability, in Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, is sensing Luke on Bespin. Even as a newborn, her instinctual connection to the Force could have helped her form a bond with Padmé.

It's also possible that Leia gleaned images and impressions of her mother through the Force even after Padmé's death. As Yoda tells Luke in The Empire Strikes Back: "Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future...the past...old friends long gone." Even though Leia has no formal Jedi training until after Return of the Jedi, she could have learned about her mother through visions in the Force, which she then mistook for memories.

The exerpt is from here: http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/SWAR_leia-remembers-mother.htm

 

[Darth Angelus]

Bail Organa's relationship with the Jedi may have not been flushed out with long scenes of exposition but their familiarity with each other in the scenes they had are enough for me. They were fighting on the same side to protect the Republic both during the Clone Wars against the Separatists and then, during the Jedi purge, they still relied on each others trust and friendship as shown at the end of RotS.

"Years ago you served my father in the Clone Wars."
I would say that strongly implies more than the loose relationship between Kenobi and Organa. And the end of Episode III was after the Clone Wars, not during. Is Kenobi even seen in the same scene as Organa at any point in time that is during the Clone Wars. Not sure, but if so, certainly very little. He met with the leaders of the Jedi Council in Episode II, not Kenobi.

It is never mentioned if Anakin knew or if he believed his child survived. He only realizes his son is alive after he blew up the first Death Star. Obi-Wan did know, however, Anakin would never return to the one place in the galaxy he hated more than Tatooine. He was a slave there, he hated sand, his mother was killed there and he slaughtered Tuskin's families there, too. Tatooine was a remote dustball that Anakin hated and his 'family' was a bunch of cowardly in-laws that he probably did not think twice about after his mom's passing.

It is a bit odd for a parent not to even wonder if his child survived. Granted, he may have just assumed the child died with Padmé. However, the child might one day be a threat to the Empire, so it is a major loose end hanging.
I can accept that Anakin probably hated Tatooine, though, but with a strong position of authority in the Empire, he hardly needed to set foot there himself. Just send an agent or minion of some sort.

The Lars also had no knowledge of a twin because there would have been no reason for Obi-Wan to burden any of them with that information.

They would have no knowledge of any child of Anakin's, so no reason to give Luke to them, either, by that line of reasoning.

I think these are reasonable explanations. I have to think a bit more about Luke and Leia remembrances about their mother...

OK. So I found this and I'm happy with the answer. It's not too much of a stretch...

How is it possible for Leia to remember Padmé after meeting her as a newborn, for only a few seconds? Patricia C. Wrede's novelization of Episode III describes the newborn Leia as looking around her, intent to memorize every detail. Perhaps Leia's Force-sensitivity allowed her to form memories even at such a young age. Leia's Force-sensitivity is more personal and emotional than Luke's; her first hint of Force ability, in Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, is sensing Luke on Bespin. Even as a newborn, her instinctual connection to the Force could have helped her form a bond with Padmé.

It's also possible that Leia gleaned images and impressions of her mother through the Force even after Padmé's death. As Yoda tells Luke in The Empire Strikes Back: "Through the Force, things you will see. Other places. The future...the past...old friends long gone." Even though Leia has no formal Jedi training until after Return of the Jedi, she could have learned about her mother through visions in the Force, which she then mistook for memories.

The exerpt is from here: http://scifi.about.com/od/starwarsglossaryandfaq/a/SWAR_leia-remembers-mother.htm

In which case one has to ask why Luke remembers nothing of Padmé. Is he less Force-sensitive than her? Damn, the Jedi must be even dumber not to train her along with him than I thought.

 

[Anne Spackman]

I think you have a point. How could Leia and not Luke also form that connection with Padmé if they only knew her so briefly before she died? I don't think she mistook the later visions for memories... I suspect Lucas merely re-wrote the plot years later after the first three films while he was writing the prequels. I like the Star Wars films very much, but this was one inconsistency that I couldn't swallow. I couldn't help but wonder why he didn't have Padmé survive childbirth for a little while, and raise Leia a little while perhaps before she was adopted. This scenario would have made the recollections Leia has in Return of the Jedi more plausible. But perhaps I am wrong.

 

[Darth Angelus]

I think you have a point. How could Leia and not Luke also form that connection with Padmé if they only knew her so briefly before she died? I don't think she mistook the later visions for memories... I suspect Lucas merely re-wrote the plot years later after the first three films while he was writing the prequels. I like the Star Wars films very much, but this was one inconsistency that I couldn't swallow. I couldn't help but wonder why he didn't have Padmé survive childbirth for a little while, and raise Leia a little while perhaps before she was adopted. This scenario would have made the recollections Leia has in Return of the Jedi more plausible. But perhaps I am wrong.

I would say give the movies this much credit...it is a truly great franchise in terms of imaginativity. In spite of my objections against the plot coherence of the Prequels (mostly), and in spite of certain childish elements, there is no denying it has a special feeling to it. Millions of fans around the world has been immersed into the galaxy of Lucas's creation.

 

[BAYLOR]

I think in this case we have confluence of two things, very bad writing and even worse acting.