The true meaning, of The Phantom Menace is that it’s a story about the support for hierarchy being the very definition of balance. A hierarchy that gets support is an equality – or balance – that doesn’t get support, and a support which doesn’t exist outside of a balance is a support which has no choice but to be part of the balance.

A balance is a symmetry. A symmetry is a history that’s repeated. Since a support is a force, The Phantom Menace is therefore asking its viewer – consciously or unconsciously – to picture a history that’s repeated which is synonymous with or which is in some way interacting with a force. The force and the history that is being repeated are the same, according to the 1999 blockbuster prequel.

A history that’s repeated, to be technical, is an image and another image that’s the same as the other image. By default, the force which is meant to be interacting with the image and its copy has to be an image and a different image. An image is a contrast, which means that the force is a contrast and a contrast contrast, and then that the absence of the force is a contrast and contrast.

Contrast contrast is the balance – contrast + contrast contrast is the disparity.

Contrast contrast is symmetry. The new design is therefore a symmetry which interacts with a symmetry and a difference – or is simply a symmetry which is a symmetry and a difference.

A symmetry that’s a symmetry and a difference is a symmetry that’s itself and not itself – a symmetry that is self and anti. A symmetry that is self and anti is a difference that is not self and anti – and a difference that is not self and anti is a difference that is self and self (or anti and anti).

An anti that is an anti and anti is a weapon that is a weapon and a weapon. A weapon that is a weapon and a weapon is a weapon that is a co-existence between one weapon and another weapon – The Phantom Menace is a story about the error of weapons co-existing with one another. Conversely, it is a story about the logic that non-weapons don’t co-exist with one another.

A synonym for non-weapon is non-force. And a synonym for non-force is absence. Thus, in the 1999 blockbuster, the very definition of logic is a state in which absence doesn’t permit itself – presence permits absence, or absence permits presence.

Absence that permits presence is an absence that desires chaos – and this is correct behaviour, in The Phantom Menace. For The Phantom Menace, the only correct state, the only correct behaviour is a behaviour in which it’s impossible to desire anarchy. It’s literally impossible to want violence, and impossible to enjoy imbalance.

On the curious side of things: the inability to desire violence is the ability to desire nothing – the ability to desire nothing is the inability to desire.

The inability to desire can be the same as the desire of a desire – in other words, The Phantom Menace is about desire being interested in itself, which would perhaps go a long way to explain why the movie feels so miscalculated and imbalanced