Star Wars Saga: A Look Back - Page 2

Mecha, you just earned a Skywalker Ranch T-shirt. Please PM me your mailing address.

And that's also its most critical flaw. As well-choreographed as EP1's final lightsaber duel is, it's also absolutely meaningless. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan spot Maul, drop their robes and ignite their lightsabers. No discussion. No attempt to peacefully resolve the situation or uncover the mystery of the Sith. Not even any good ol' fashioned Jedi trash talking. Just straight to the fighting. If anything, Maul is just fighting in self-defense! Now, think about that. The Jedi are supposed to be the guardians of peace and justice, they're supposed to use the Force for knowledge and defense (never for attack)...and then there's a supposedly evil Sith calmly standing before them as they (the supposed good guys!) initiate the duel.

The duel might be fun to watch but like almost everything else in EP1, it's emotionally and narratively hollow. So even at its supposed best, the film fails. And it's not even a noble failure. It's a rather foolish and easily-avoided one.

I don't think that applies to only the "SW aesthetic." I think that applies to good storytelling in any genre. But I agree that Lucas took a very unrewarding path by merely "reverse engineering" the Prequels. I think that his gameplan to make all six films fit together in one nice package has ultimately crippled the Saga. I would have much rather seen him reinvent our notions of the events in the OT by shaking things up, not by tying things together. He's only made his universe smaller, more convenient and less imaginative. The stakes have been fairly low and abstract as a result. The characters have no lives of their own, slavishly following the easiest path to their future selves in the OT. And the few times Lucas has thrown us curveballs ('Hey, kids, hang on...but did you know that Darth Vader built C-3PO? GASP!!!") they've been eye-rollingly-bad clunkers.

I think that's an easy target. Too easy. I think with better casting, dialogue and direction, a child Anakin could have worked. I think of Christian Bale in EMPIRE OF THE SUN or Henry Thomas in E.T. or hell, even that other kid who auditioned for Anakin in the EP1 documentary...it wasn't the audience who was unprepared to handle a child Anakin. It was clearly the writer/director.

I don't think it was '70s cynicism that made Han and Leia more interesting as characters, although that certainly might have influenced the performances. Most of the characters in the OT had more humble beginnings. They had lives we could either relate to, or aspire to. And even more than that. Hero or villain...they were all likeable for what they were...not what they were supposed to be. They all had a charm and investment that is seriously lacking from most of the Prequel characters who seem like narrative ghosts merely going through the motions, plugging plot holes, lifelessly marching towards their destiny. I agree that the lack of a Han surrogate in the Prequels has turned-off a lot of people. I mean, Jesus, we don't even have a Lando surrogate! I hate to resort to using this term but the Prequels all seriously lack the "cool" factor. Darth Maul almost had it, by sheer design and attitude. But of course, he died rather easily in a meaningless lightsaber duel, so nevermind.

I honestly don't believe Lucas is even consciously working on that sophisticated of a level. Again, as you always seem to do, I think you've put FAR more thought into this than George has. I think he's just doing what he wants to do, almost improvisationally. That's why he has his art department come up with design concepts before he starts writing (or re-writing for re-shoots). I almost think his design team should share "story by" credit with Lucas on the Prequels, given the huge amounts of narrative inspiration they've obviously given him.

See, that's the thing. I think Lucas should have taken that pre-awareness and played with it. Re-invented characters and story arcs for the better. Rather than weakening and blinding the Jedi so that they are easily defeated, rather than making Anakin an immature spoiled brat who can easily be turned to the Dark Side, rather than having only two Sith Lords with unlimited credit cards to buy instant empires...rather than taking the "quick and easy path," I wish Lucas had really rolled up his sleeves and gotten under the hood of this baby. I'm not saying that there wasn't a lot of hard work put into the Prequels by the hundreds of talented people who worked on them. I'm just saying that, creatively-speaking, Lucas underperformed his role on this, resulting in critical failures throughout the Prequels, Special Editions, DVD Editions and who-knows-what-else to come.

I know much has already been said about how the Anakin Skywalker story now seems to reflect the George Lucas story. If that's true, I wonder how and when Lucas will similarly redeem himself and make up for all of the damage he has done. And continuing on that angle, I guess that makes "apologists" part of the Empire and "haters" part of the Rebellion. Wow...it's nice to be on the winning side!

He does ignite his lightsaber first and hold it in front of himself as if to say 'Come on then.' Despite the fact that he's already been identified as a Sith Assassin that attacked Qui-Gon on Tatooine. What are they supposed to say? 'Come quietly, will you?'? We've already been told both visually and through exposition throughout the story that Maul is out to get the Queen, he's an evil Sith and he's willing to attack at any instant.

I also pretty much disagree it's emotionally hollow, for me anyway. The scene where Obi-Wan watches Qui-Gon die is one of the most successful emotional parts of the film for me. The laser gates are a bit silly, I'll grant you, and seem to do nothing but block people's way, but as a scene, I have no problem with it aside from maybe it's sometimes slightly over-choreographed.

Not really. I don't think Kael ever saw herself as "hip." She was already in her fifties before she became well-known. It's her imitators who have taken it upon themselves to be painfully self-conscious of their own hipness, like Denby or Gleiberman, whose negative LotR reviews always boiled down to "I am too cool to like these movies."

[QUOTE=mecha superior]Guys, stop taking things so literally.[QUOTE]

Nah, I just hate seeing PK lumped in with Vincent Canby. That's like comparing, oh, I dunno... Anthony Lane with Richard Roeper!

[QUOTE]Her SPECIFIC perspective regarding ANH could easily be interchanged with the prequel detractor sentiments of '99-'05....[QUOTE]

Yeah, but they could also have been used to describe pretty much any dumb action movie made between 1977 and now, especially the bit about only wanting to connect with a mass audience. The idea of a blockbuster was something that hadn't quite sunk in with Kael, who was more interested in filmmakers that aimed for an intimate, personal connection, however subjective that might be...

I see your points, so I'm not gonna argue over them. It is interesting, though, that Kael dug Empire for the same reasons that most hardcore SW fans do-- it's "dark," it's mysterious, it's sexy, there's a sense of risk and danger that wasn't fully articulated in the first movie. (So did legendary SW hater Harlan Ellison, who loathed the original but thought Empire was groovy.)

Yep, you're absolutely right. I was thinking about the opening of the film when Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan instantly ignite their lightsabers because of an explosion somewhere else on the Trade Federation ship. My bad.

However, I still believe that Qui-Qon and Obi-Wan failed to use this opportunity to investigate Maul's motives. I mean, they haven't faced a foe like this in a thousand years (aside from that brief skirmish on Tatooine) and all they want to do is kill him? They could have used the downtime in those "silly" laser gates to at least question Maul. The OT used its lightsaber duels for both physical and narrative purposes. The Prequel duels (so far, I must stress) have only been flashy (or in the case of Yoda, absurd) eye candy.

Qui-Gon's death would have meant more to me if he or Obi-Wan had learned something of value from Maul before they killed him. To me, Qui-Gon and Maul's deaths both felt unearned.

The SITH LORD, followed by QUI-GON, enters a long hallway filled with a series of deadly rays that go on and off in a pulsing pattern that shoots down the corridor every minute or so. DARTH MAUL makes it down several walls of deadly rays before they close. QUI-GON is one wall away from the DARK LORD. OBI-WAN is just starting into it and is five walls way from DARTH MAUL.

The JEDI must wait until the next pulse to advance down the corridor.

QUI-GON (To Maul): What are you Sith doing here?
DARTH MAUL: (pauses, thoughtfully) Actually, it's interesting that you should ask. We have, in fact, been in hiding, plotting for over 1,000 years for a way to exterminate you Jedi. And through a series of shrewd political maneuverings by my master, over the course of the next 10-13 years, we will be in a position to not only take control of the very Republic you serve, but also secretly create a Grand Army to both rule the Republic and destroy the Jedi . . . but perhaps I've said too much.

The wall of the deadly rays turns away and the fight continues.

Cool.

mecha, I thought you were lumping all the critics of Star Wars together... putting the serious critics in the same category as the "Lucas Raped My Childhood" clowns over at AICN. Sorry if I misunderstood you.

On the topic of Pauline Kael's original review- I actually agree with a lot of Kael's criticism of A New Hope. The film does blast by at a frenetic pace. It does have over-the-top dialogue and cheesey situations. I wouldn't say it has bad acting, but it certainly has actors playing to type, portraying characters lacking psychological complexity. Like all Star Wars films it's a series of set pieces strung together by minimal exposition. But...

I think she missed two things. First, Star Wars initiated pop-reference filmmaking. She noticed this fact ("Maybe the only real inspiration involved in "Star Wars" was to set its sci-fi galaxy in the pop-culture past, and to turn old-movie ineptness into conscious Pop Art.") What she couldn't see was that this method can reap great benefits... it's the development of a self-referential short-hand that has made cinema a much more powerful storytelling tool, similar to Renaissance poets constantly referencing the old Greek legends. Second, she completely missed, or ignored, the development of a new mythology from spare pieces of pop culture... and a lot of the emotional punch of the film comes from buying into that mythology. Star Wars is the descendent of Tolkien and the ancestor of Pulp Fiction, setting it apart from typical mass entertainment. Kael failed to grasp that.

What I'm saying is, while I disagree with her on Star Wars, I can still respect her opinion. And I think a lot of the problem with the prequels is that the old weaknesses (bad dialogue, edited together as a collection of set pieces, two-dimensional characters) are no longer offset with the great strengths of that first film. The myth-making of Star Wars has given way to political allegory, and the only films that the prequels want to remind you of are the OT.

I watched the OT in 1998 or so, for the first time, to see what all the hype was about. I knew all about it, but just had not watched it yet. I thought it was fun trilogy of fantasy films that didnt take anything (except Luke and Vader's relationship) seriously. If I attempted to take the story seriously, it would just fall apart from plot holes and ridiculousness, so I didnt, and as a result enjoyed it as a spectacle.

I've watched episode 1 and 2 of the prequels and have been not so much disappointed than been bored and kind of befuddled. Bored of the story and direction (cant ever be bored of the visuals), and befuddled at how such a great opportunity was squandered for such a mediocre and pedantic story. Its kind of like American animation V Japanese animation, one for the most part continually talks down to the viewer and sticks to a narrow template of family friendly fluff, and the other is full of variety and not afraid to try different things and break boundaries.

But more importantly, a point I keep repeating on these threads, is that Star Wars, to me at least and to a few others I'm sure, was always a fantasy film, and not afraid to be so. There was no allusion to reality whatsoever, it had such fantastic creations (Death Star, monsters in space, the force) that it was a joy to watch and somewhere to escape to for a few hours. The prequels in contrast keep reminding me of reality (the political aspect mostly, but other small quirks such as the annoying parallels to the OT, random dialogue and that weird diner), they're very po-faced and not fun at all, it feels like a couple of films that are doing nothing but laborously piling through exposition after exposition after exposition, there's no sense of discovery and exploration, there's nothing fresh at all.

I've never felt myself getting sucked into fanatical behaviour like alot of SW fans, I dont know the names of all the planets (that werent even in the films), I'm not obsessed with wookies and I dont own any friggin toys, this makes me wonder if the whole legendary merchandise aspect of SW has made people turn into junkies, some form of addiction, fuelled by products related to the film, rather than the film itself. If there was no dominating merchandise in SW, do you think there would be as much a big fan following? I know it seems out of order to suggest such a thing, I'm sure all the fans love the story first and foremost, but I cant help feel that the merchandise is the key factor in seeing such crazy behaviour from people lining up for a film months before its released or naming their kids Anakin and shit, its strange and behaviour I'd expect from obsessive compulsives or addicts.

Anyway, thats all for today. SW changed the face of filmmaking for sure, but I think thats because of its technical acheivements, not because of its story which to be honest isnt that amazing, its just visually attractive, the concepts in the films are more exciting to me than anything else, I respect the designers and artists more than I do Lucas, thats for sure.

Well, you did a better job than Lucas would have. Kudos!

I guess I'm more curious as to how the scene would play out with the same kind of taunts and exchanges we heard between Vader, Obi-Wan and Luke during their duels in the OT. I'm not saying Maul should spill all the beans. But since he obviously had an axe to grind, ("At last we will reveal ourselves to the Jedi. At last we shall have revenge."), I think Maul could have gotten a few mean-spirited yet revealing digs in, talking about how the Jedi have no idea what they're in for, that their days are numbered, that attacks will come from where they least expect it. A Sith version of the same kind of terror-prop we heard Al Qaeda spew after 9/11.

Instead, we got three guys duelling their hearts out and I'm not even sure they know why they're doing it.

This has become an absolutely fantastic discussion I must say, thank you everyone! Usually by now the accusations of childishness and fanboyism are coming thick and fast, but I can see this is different, just the thing to cheer me up while I'm on study break!

One area there hasn't been much discussion (or has there?) is on the morals of Star Wars. The original trilogy, I think, was about friendship, empathy, and family. What are the morals of the prequels? What are kids going to take from these movies?

I ask because I was thinking the other day about the scene in AOTC where Anakin and Padme disobey orders (to a degree) and set of to rescue Obi-wan on Geonosis. It occured to me that Lucas is perhaps using this as a parallel to Luke's decision to leave his Jedi training on Dagobah to rescue his friends on Dagobah. I thought "thats clever". Except its not.

Luke leaves Dagobah despite protestations from his teachers, who tell him the risk is too great. He ends up with no hand, having to be rescued by his friends who got on fine without him. The lesson - listen to your elders!

Now the AOTC version. Anakin goes to Geonosis, ends up captured himself, then the Jedi turn up for the big rescue, except they walk into an obvious trap, leading to the deaths of many Jedi and the others having to be rescued by the army. Anakin, Obi-wan and Padme, who were foolish enough to get captured, survive. Well thank God for that! Anakin at no time thinks he may have been wrong, in fact he seems more in control of the situation than his mentor. The lesson - its okay to disobey orders, your elders are just dumb, and anyway, you can't die, you're in the next movie! Besides, you just massacred a tribe of Sandpeople in revenge, and your senator girlfriend was okay with that, so you can get way with anything!

Okay so I may be being a bit harsh, but my pont is, what is Lucas trying to say in these new films? That democracy always fails? That some people are just born evil? That to be good is to suffer unending hardship and restriction, celibacy and emotional retardation, and to be bad is the ultimate coolness, with double-ended lightsabers, face paint and guiltless slaughter thrown in as a bonus?

Wrong parallel, imo DP. A closer comparison to Luke leaving his training early on Dagobah to rescue his friends would be Anakin being drawn to Tatooine to rescue his mother.
Each instance has a Skywalker impelled by a vision to act prematurely and against prescribed wisdom, also each instance presents the character with a quite pivotal moral test.


That complacency within democracy can lead to an imposed system.
In the context of the story, firstly there's a political body weakened by corruption and secondly there's a protective body that's spent so long censoring the mark of the enemy that it can't even recognise when the enemy is in their midst.

It's not democracy as a concept Lucas has a problem with, but lack of vigilance to maintain democracy.

Yes I agree with you, that is the more likely parallel. But my question still stands: what does Anakin learn from the experience? More importantly, what does he learn that is relevant to the audience? Anakin tries to rescue his mother from Sandpeople, who have captured and abused her for no apparent reason . Mum dies, Anakin gets mad, kills all the Sandpeople, Padme doesn't mind. Onto the next action scene. At no time is Anakin told not to go to Tattooine, or that its wrong to kill out of revenge, or feel he should answer for his crime. Does he have any regrets? Only that he should have acted better, that he failed as a Jedi. No sorrow for those he murdered, or desire to help put right the wrongs he did. He gets off with a warning.

Really, isn't Lucas taking things a bit seriously here? Kids don't care about democracy! Is this some moral for adults that we should protect our democracy? Thats a bit condescending - democracy is protected by the people who live in it, not some police force. And have the Jedi really been "censoring the mark of the enemy"? They say themselves the Sith were extinct for 1000 years.

Sometimes democracies fall, it happens, and remember that the Empire only existed for a couple of decades. Its perfectly natural, and FAR too banal to be in a Star Wars film that Lucas has admitted is for kids. Go back to the simple stuff, George, the pseudo-political preaching doesn't become you.

Yes he is. Obi-Wan instructed him not to do anything without consulting him or the council first. He ignored a direct order from his master.

It's reasonable to assume he's already learned that between TPM and AOTC.

That's the point I think. He's self centered and has his own view of right and wrong.

I'm not defending the movies as I don't really like them, but you're wrong.

Whew! So many great points in this discussion, I'm not sure where to start.

Litmus and Mecha, you're certainly spot-on in questioning the mis-match between concept and execution that has made the prequels, to put it charitably, "divisive" to say the least. Lucas is trying to weave a story out of many, many complex threads. A conspiratorial mystery, the downfall of a political system, a tale of forbidden love, the corruption of a religious order, and he has to end it with the nominal hero betraying his mentor, killing many of those closest to him, and becoming the villain of the subsequent films. That's a tall dramatic order, on a far different and more complex scale than the "Two Guys, a Girl and a Galaxy" formula of the OT. It required more work, more writing expertise, more commitment to things such as coherence of motive, plot, and most importantly extreme attention given to the central relationships between the characters, in order to give the inter-galactic events meaning and weight.

What is the Republic, and why do we care that it is corrupted and destroyed? Well, because we know the Empire is bad from the OT. Why do we care for the Jedi and their severe, didactic ways? Well, because we loved the characters of Ben Kenobi, Luke, and Yoda, and they made the Jedi seem like noble, selfless heroes. Why do we care about Anakin and Padme? Well, because they're Luke and Leia's parents, and we love THEM, so what happened to their parents is important, right? Lucas has mentioned that he intends to have the films work in chronological order I-VI, but it seems to me that he's used the OT as a dramatic crutch every step of the way with these new films, allowing the audience's previous knowledge to fill in the blanks of meaning, to give the characters relevance where he couldn't be bothered as a writer or director to do so.

I also disagree with the idea that yesterday's fans have simply BECOME the Canbys and Kaels of today. I agree with LightningLouie, that Canby, at the very least, and even the progressive Kael represented an entirely different animal of criticism than the Mustos, Rosenbaums, Roepers, Wilmingtons, Schwarzbaums and Mitchells of today. Critics today have a much more forgiving attitude towards blockbusters, genre films and special effects, granting accolades to the LOTR films, James Cameron's output, Spider-man, the X-men films, the first Matrix film, and the list goes on and on. Additionally, as Mecha himself pointed out, a large number of critics were entirely swept up by and engaged in TPM, showing a clear pre-disposition to be taken along for another SW ride, ignoring the bumps along the way as was done by so many with the OT, as it were. I think it's only with AOTC, when we all realized, "Hey, this thing is basically 2/3rds done, and what has actually happened?" that many of us realized that the story-telling is simply not working.

Anakin is not a compelling, heroic or likeable character, neither as a child or as a young man. His relationship with Padme is at best under-developed and poorly motivated, at worst creepy and baffling, not tragic or romantic in the least. Obi-Wan, Yoda and Mace combined portray the Jedi as taskmasters and disciplinarians who are frequently wrong, are always more than fifty paces behind the audience in their understanding of the plot, and have no inherent nobility of either word or deed to bind them to the audience. The Republic is a series of beautifully painted cardboard cutouts floating behind the actors; we hear about the "corruption" of the Senate, but see no evidence of it in the film.

I truly, as everyone else has said, WANT to love these new films, perhaps simply out of devotion to the films I loved as a young girl, but I can't put aside ALL of my critical and aesthetic faculties in order to do it.