He Said, She Said: Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith
WordGirl and I attended a joint screening of George Lucas' latest Star Wars installment today and violently agreed on the movie.
That makes for boring blogging, so we'll devote a "He Said, She Said" to the topic in an effort to better inform the public. There will probably be SPOILERS, so be prepared for that eventuality as the discussion goes on.
I'll take the positive angle and attempt to make a compelling case why Star Wars: ROTS is the best movie of its type ever made.
1. The special effects are simply amazing, and in a completely non-intrusive manner. Whereas previous installments have had laugh-out-loud moments where the CGI looked completely out of place (say Yoda's impersonation of Rocky the Flying Squirrel from Episode II), in this movie Lucas' vision and ILM's wizardry come together seamlessly. It feels like a real world out there.
2. The dozens of plot threads still hanging between the first trilogy and the second are virtually all tied up, often in very elegant and logical fashion. How did the Emperor come to look the way he does? How do Luke and Leia wind up on different worlds cared for by different families? Why does C3PO know nothing of the events of the first trilogy, while R2D2 often seems to know far more than he lets on? How exactly did Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader, and how was the simpering Luke able to subdue him fairly easily in Episode VI? How did the Emperor become a Sith Lord? And, perhaps most importantly, what happened to the Jedi and the Republic? All of these issues are resolved.
3. Anakin Skywalker's arc is that of a classic tragic hero. The redemption scenes so jarring in "Return of the Jedi" now make sense---if Episodes III-V were "Oedipus the King", Episode VI is "Oedipus at Colonnus". Anakin didn't become Darth Vader because he was a bad man, but rather because he was a weak man who wanted to be a strong man and he simply lacked the wisdom to choose the righteous path. He pays an enormous personal price in his quest, and winds up with no seeming alternative but to play the villain. As the ancient Greeks knew, it is the tragedy which makes him a compelling villain in the end, and Episode III should make Darth Vader even more interesting as a result.
4. Some of the performances are quite good. Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan is excellent, and amazing feat for a young actor essentially paying homage to a performance Alec Guinness didn't even take seriously in the first trilogy. Ian McDiarmid's Emperor Palpatine is simply outstanding, an over-the-top villain who doesn't seem that over-the-top much of the time. The performances which seem wooden are more a result of the limitations of the genre---space opera. The leads in space opera are SUPPOSED to be wooden. Blaming actors' performances for this in this genre is rather like accusing the "Seinfeld" troupe of lacking emotional depth---that's the whole point of the thing.
5. Lucas atones for many earlier clunkers. The execrable Jar Jar Binks gets a brief cameo. Yoda's movements are much more natural and aren't unintentionally funny any longer. There are some scenes with powerful emotional impact, such as Obi-Wan's reaction to his apprentice's fall. The glacial pace of Episodes I and II is largely gone in III, which accelerates steadily from the middle of the film onward. The ham-handed Lefty politics and New Age religious riffs of the earlier movies is at a low ebb here, which is a good thing. Moreover, the story actually goes somewhere, unlike the previous two films which seemed to meander endlessly.
In short, it's a space opera, which like the "Flash Gordon" serials of yore is simply supposed to tittilate and excite viewers. There's a ton of action, plenty of explosions, and the fulfillment of the quest at the end. Add in some fairly fulfilling tragedy and you've got what might possibly be the best-executed space opera ever.
Surely George Lucas deserves some praise for that, WordGirl.
Doesn't he?
That makes for boring blogging, so we'll devote a "He Said, She Said" to the topic in an effort to better inform the public. There will probably be SPOILERS, so be prepared for that eventuality as the discussion goes on.
I'll take the positive angle and attempt to make a compelling case why Star Wars: ROTS is the best movie of its type ever made.
1. The special effects are simply amazing, and in a completely non-intrusive manner. Whereas previous installments have had laugh-out-loud moments where the CGI looked completely out of place (say Yoda's impersonation of Rocky the Flying Squirrel from Episode II), in this movie Lucas' vision and ILM's wizardry come together seamlessly. It feels like a real world out there.
2. The dozens of plot threads still hanging between the first trilogy and the second are virtually all tied up, often in very elegant and logical fashion. How did the Emperor come to look the way he does? How do Luke and Leia wind up on different worlds cared for by different families? Why does C3PO know nothing of the events of the first trilogy, while R2D2 often seems to know far more than he lets on? How exactly did Anakin Skywalker become Darth Vader, and how was the simpering Luke able to subdue him fairly easily in Episode VI? How did the Emperor become a Sith Lord? And, perhaps most importantly, what happened to the Jedi and the Republic? All of these issues are resolved.
3. Anakin Skywalker's arc is that of a classic tragic hero. The redemption scenes so jarring in "Return of the Jedi" now make sense---if Episodes III-V were "Oedipus the King", Episode VI is "Oedipus at Colonnus". Anakin didn't become Darth Vader because he was a bad man, but rather because he was a weak man who wanted to be a strong man and he simply lacked the wisdom to choose the righteous path. He pays an enormous personal price in his quest, and winds up with no seeming alternative but to play the villain. As the ancient Greeks knew, it is the tragedy which makes him a compelling villain in the end, and Episode III should make Darth Vader even more interesting as a result.
4. Some of the performances are quite good. Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan is excellent, and amazing feat for a young actor essentially paying homage to a performance Alec Guinness didn't even take seriously in the first trilogy. Ian McDiarmid's Emperor Palpatine is simply outstanding, an over-the-top villain who doesn't seem that over-the-top much of the time. The performances which seem wooden are more a result of the limitations of the genre---space opera. The leads in space opera are SUPPOSED to be wooden. Blaming actors' performances for this in this genre is rather like accusing the "Seinfeld" troupe of lacking emotional depth---that's the whole point of the thing.
5. Lucas atones for many earlier clunkers. The execrable Jar Jar Binks gets a brief cameo. Yoda's movements are much more natural and aren't unintentionally funny any longer. There are some scenes with powerful emotional impact, such as Obi-Wan's reaction to his apprentice's fall. The glacial pace of Episodes I and II is largely gone in III, which accelerates steadily from the middle of the film onward. The ham-handed Lefty politics and New Age religious riffs of the earlier movies is at a low ebb here, which is a good thing. Moreover, the story actually goes somewhere, unlike the previous two films which seemed to meander endlessly.
In short, it's a space opera, which like the "Flash Gordon" serials of yore is simply supposed to tittilate and excite viewers. There's a ton of action, plenty of explosions, and the fulfillment of the quest at the end. Add in some fairly fulfilling tragedy and you've got what might possibly be the best-executed space opera ever.
Surely George Lucas deserves some praise for that, WordGirl.
Doesn't he?
2 Comments:
No, he doesn't. And at this point, I must politely advise our readers. Excuse me for just a moment.
*SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!*
*DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE!*
There now. *rolling up sleeves*
To the matter at hand.
Yeah, the CGI was good, I'll grant Lucas that. But if CGI is so worth it, why do the sets from the original "Star Wars" and "Empire" seem so much more authentic?
Because they are organic; based in reality. Lucas had no problem making the desert look like the desert. (I mean, really, has the desert really changed in the past six thousand years? Don't try to modernize it, you'll only fail.) For example, the Sand People were fabulous because they were based on something relatable. They looked like desert nomads from space. C3PO was dusty and sandy. There were junk traders selling what LOOKED LIKE junk. The snow and ice blowing across the plains; beautiful. The "stars" were pinholes poked in black construction paper, for Pete's sake!
Things in SW and TESB were worn and used looking; as if they had been owned by actual people. Very nice. The prequels are all shiny and perfect. Ugh.
Making all the locales digital does nothing for me. Especially when they all look like different versions of the same premise. (And the volcano scenes were lifted right from Pete Jackson and LOTR III as far as I'm concerned.) When it's obvious that everything around exists only in green screen, I have to work harder to suspend my disbelief. Thus, I have a harder time relating to the characters and the story line. I'm not saying "forego otherwordly effects." I'm saying don't make them so obviously fake. If I wanted to go see a cool cartoon, I would have gone to a Japanimation flick.
And the ruffled dino-horse that Obi-Wan rides? Oh, please. Who is he fighting, the Flintstones?
Now back to the volcano: the fight scene between Obi-Wan and Anakin/Vader was too long and soooo unbelievable. C'mon. Jedi powers or no, the human body cannot withstand all that heat without melting into fatty goo. They weren't even SWEATING!
Lucas forgot -- again -- the prime directive in sequential storytelling: continuity. It's sad that the prequels look more advanced and so radically different than the latter episodes (why he chose to desecrate SW and TESB with extra digital footage?). Give me mirrors on the bottom of the sand cruiser and tangible scale models of the Death Star any day.
The plot threads all tying together was contrived. He was clearly feeling his way along. He explained too much. Left too little to the imagination. Whoever edited this thing should have been fired. We knew the children would have to be hidden as soon as we saw Anakin turn Vader. You don't have to have Yoda and Obi-Wan in a board room to figure that out. C3PO's mind erase was too convenient and tacked-on, as was the Emperor's appearance. Couldn't Lucas just leave us with the impression that the passage of time and being evil incarnate had taken their toll on the old guy? And what's with the lightning bolts? He could have played that up so much better. Be subtle. Build Lucas, build. Don't just bust out the lightening bolts all blam-style. Work up to it. Foreshadow -- somethin'! That's what made them so effective in SW and TESB.
Lucas' political bent comes shining through when he decries the Emperor as a war-monger who manufactured the whole war in his quest for absolute power. "So that's how liberty dies, with appluase," or some such nonsense. Clearly a Democrat who hates Bush.
And was I the only one who caught the Buddhist "let go" references?
Anakin becoming Vader was so stupid. For someone so "bright and promising", he sure did fall for some dumb tricks. What are they teaching in Jedi school, anyway? He's supposed to be the "promised one" of some prophecy, and yet he falls for kindergarten scheming as well as showing the Emperor his cards without any resemblance of a fight. Pa-leeze. I personally had a hard time feeling badly for someone so gullible. Anakin's turn to Vader should have been one of an absolute power-hungry proud villain, not this spineless weenie (who CAN'T act) that just latches on to the Emperor because he wants to save his wife from death.
Lucas should have also put her death sooner in the plot so that Anakin would HAVE to rely on the Emperor, instead of grasping for some vague possibility. The thing that made Vader so damned scary in SW and TESB was that he WAS evil. He loved being evil. He wanted absolute control. Pitch perfect, domineering, deliciously bad stuff. The Vader music doesn't mean a thing if you feel sorry for the poor sap.
As for the acting? Flat, schmaltzy, ham-handed, amateurish stuff. These actors have been fabuous in other films. ("Say WHAT again! Say WHAT AGAIN!!!") The flat 30's episodic treatment wasn't good in the 30's. When it did succeed, it was because the flat-foot who utilized it was a flat character, used to great effect as the strong, silent, tortured type, who moved the story along. None of these characters can claim that.
The story was sooooo slow until the acutal coup ocurred and the Jedi got killed off. Then things started hoppin'. They could have cut out so much crap and made a first rate 1 & 1/2-hour film. But noooo...
Lucas clearly wanted to wrap up his final cash cow, and finally pronounce Star Wars "fin".
A disappointment. The best of the prequels, but still a disappointment.
Release your anger, young one, for that is the path to The Dark Side.
Your points, in turn:
1. Might not things in the earlier movies not have been shabby and dirty because a) they took place in shabby and dirty places, like the deserts of Tattoine and the swamps of Dagobah and b) they focused largely upon the Rebellion, which was an ad hoc affair using and recycling old equipment and uniforms? Also, the climax of ROTS clearly showed lots of dirt and grime, some of which was CGI. The fact is, ILM's work contributed hugely to complexity---the opening space battle and crash landing on Coruscant would have looked awful if it had been possible to do it largely with scale models at all, which would likely have been prohibitively expensive if possible. CGI enabled Lucas to work from a more ambitious canvas, and whereas PM looked quite artificial, I doubt you'd argue ROTS suffered from such defects. Moreover, isn't it a nice thematic touch that the world gets darker, more gritty, and more broken as we move through the first 5 episodes?
2. The problem with Palpatine was that it's hard to believe that even in a Galactic Republic someone who looked like the epitome of evil would wield so much power given him by the free peoples. If Bill Clinton looked like Alistaire Crowley, he'd never have been elected. Thus Palpatine's disfigurement had to happen suddenly, since the time between ROTS and NH is only around 20 years and he'd been a Sith Lord for some significant time before that. Also, is it not a satisfying tragic trope that he would be disfigured at the moment of his greatest victory, rather like Nelson at Trafalgar?
3. Couldn't one hold that the fall of the Republic and birth of the Empire had more to do with ancient Rome than with America today? After all, Bush has only been president through the last two films. Jimmy Carter was president when this all started---did Lucas hate him too? The notion that free nations eventually become tyrannies is a very old one, going back at least to the death of the polis in ancient Greece. Could the contemporary political interpretation of ROTS be our own political biases and not Lucas'? Would a shameless self-promoter like him risk alienating the majority of the American electorate to score cheap political points?
4. Why shouldn't Anakin be blinded to the Emperor's machinations? He was being told what he wanted to hear, and what the Jedi Council wouldn't tell him---that he was important, he was powerful, and that he would have a bright future with his beloved wife and children. Lots of people have fallen for that one.
5. How was the acting here any different than that in "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" or "The Rocketeer", two films inspired by the same serials Lucas was inspired by? Is that not an indication that this is a genre convention, and if so, aren't you in essence pounding this movie simply for being a space opera?
6. Given that the first part of the film was setup for the finale, shouldn't it be slower, a bit like the slow acceleration to the top of the roller coaster before the ride begins in earnest? Wasn't the opening scene fast-paced?
In short, aren't you criticizing George Lucas for not making "Citizen Kane in Space"?
Post a Comment
<< Home