As I re-watched Episode III with the intention of this article in mind, I had a difficult time stringing together a strong argument that I could make about the film. Subsequently this would become my main criticism for Episode III: Its somewhat of a muddied mess of ups and downs. Lacking previous strength politically, aesthetically and emotionally, Episode III risks coming off too much as a straight effects action flick. It wasn’t until the last 20 minutes that I finally discovered what I could say about this film. After all, everyone knows Episode III is good…its just a matter of figuring out why. Although my thesis isn’t “Episode III is awesome” (I’m saving that for Ryan), I would like to point out an interesting strength that I discovered.
I had my revelation during the final moments of the lava lightsaber duel on Mustafar. Obi-Wan appeals to Anakin yelling “Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!”, Anakin responds “From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!”. This of course is a running motif for the Jedi, first introduced in Return of the Jedi as a ghostly Obi-Wan utters “From a certain point of view”. He uses this phrase to justify lying to Luke about his father’s death. Initially Obi-Wan led Luke to believe that his father, Anakin, was murdered by Darth Vader. In actuality, Darth Vader was Anakin. According to Obi-Wan, Darth Vader did kill Anakin…from a certain point of view.
“Your father was seduced by the dark side of the Force. He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened, the good man who was your father was destroyed. So what I have told you was true... from a certain point of view.”
Obi-Wan continues:
“Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view.”
This is a prime example of the subjectivity of truth that we so often forget about. With this in mind, is Anakin really so wrong in proclaiming that in his point of view, the Jedi are evil? Sure, this could be an example of how the emperor twists the mentality of others. Palpatine spent decades building subtle distrust of the Jedi within Anakin’s heart. However, the possibility that we disagree with Anakin as viewers is because we have five previously made Star Wars movies that tell us that the Sith are evil, and that we must identify with the Jedi. So when we hear Anakin shout this, we are prone to hear these words from a Jedi perspective and reject them. When you watch movies like The Godfather or The Good, The Bad and The Ugly, what is it that connects the viewer to these conventionally immoral characters? We know their actions are wrong yet we still cheer for them. This is of course because we identify with them.
Let me illustrate with an example. Within the first 30 minutes of the film we see General Grievous’ flagship hurtling towards the surface of Coruscant. Inside, Anakin, Obi-Wan and Palpatine cling to their seats as Anakin haphazardly attempts to land the flaming wreckage on a landing strip. As the ship strikes the surface it recklessly slides along the pavement, smashing a nearby flight control tower. Finally the ship comes to a halt. We are relieved to see that our heroes are still in one piece.
This is because we can identify with them. We’ve already endured 30 minutes of adventure with them, not to mention 4 hours of additional adventures in Episode I and II. “Good”, we think, “They landed safely”. Yes, but what do you think the families of those who died in the demolished control tower think? I’m sure they may question the justification of recklessly attempting to salvage a flaming piece of junk for the lives of three, instead of blasting it out of the sky and preserving the lives of many within the tower.
Of course there are endless counter-arguments to the technicalities in this example, but it effectively illustrates how our identification with certain characters lead us to assume their ideologies and values.
So this brings us back to the question: Who are evil, the Jedi or the Sith. Well, both, and neither at the same time. First one must consider if the concepts of right and wrong, or good and evil are fallible. What makes the Sith evil and the Jedi good? Both have potentially redeeming qualities, depending on your point of view. While a Catholic nun may consider the Jedi’s vow of chastity, poverty and obedience to be quite comfy, Friedrich Nietzsche writes of an instinctual, passionate Dionysian state that is similar to that of Sith philosophy.
This may not be convincing enough. After all, Palpatine did orchestrate a full scale war, obliterate the Jedi order, and usurp the Galactic Republic to attain complete control of the galaxy. Even if everyone can agree that these acts were immoral or evil, Palpatine did these things to achieve order. These seemingly audacious acts are all a means to an orderly end. As long as nobody opposes the Empire, the galaxy is peaceful. Couldn’t this, from some stretch of the imagination or a certain point of view, seem good. Look at the French Revolution. While the events of the revolution were violent and bloody, history tells us to appreciate the upheaval of the French monarchy, aristocracy and clergy which preceded it.
On the other hand, the Jedi are considered to uphold peace and stability in the Empire. From an early age, they meditate the mysteries of the force and defend those who are weak. But don’t the Jedi also kill? What’s the difference between a Jedi taking one’s life and a Sith taking one’s life? The Jedi kill to defend their ideologies and the Sith kill to defend theirs. Mace Windu must kill Palpatine because he is too dangerous to be kept alive. However, Palpatine is only too dangerous to the Jedi ideology to be kept alive. If neither the Sith nor the Jedi are absolutely moral, then how can this mortal defense of the Jedi ideology be justified?
“But just look at them!” you may proclaim. After all, the Sith do look quite menacing. But why do they look menacing? Do their appearances stir primal fears within our psyches related to predatorial instincts from our past? Or is it more likely that the Sith look evil because of conventions from previous movies. In the classic western films, the good guys wore white hats and the bad guys wore black hats. I think this association with appearance and good/evil pertains to this. Besides, couldn’t we agree that Emperor Palpatine bears a striking resemblance to Pope Benedict?
Clearly there is a paradox present. Essentially the Sith are evil because they oppose the ideologies of the Jedi. Similarly, the Jedi are good because they oppose the ideologies of the Sith. But if you’re a Sith, the Jedi are evil because they oppose you. One assumes the ideology that they identify with, and assigns it the quality of “good”. The ambiguity of a set moral system makes a true “good and evil” impossible.
So perhaps Anakin was wrong, only because his conduct and the conduct of his associates (Palpatine, The Empire) conflict with the common ideologies of most audiences. Most agree that cold murder and totalitarian governments are evil. But just because we agree or disagree doesn’t make it right or wrong. Anakin became a Sith to protect the girl he loved, but ends up killing her. This failure to accomplish his set goals through Sith means could demonstrate the error of his choice.
At the end of the day the ambiguity of good and evil is readily present in Revenge of the Sith. Such distinctions are purely based in the eye of the beholder. Oh wait, the bad guys are named: Sidious, Maul, Tyrannus and Grievous. Nevermind…they are evil. Scratch everything I just said.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Monday, April 7, 2008
"All's Fair in Love and War: Justifying an Attack of the Clones" By Adam Slight
While Ryan and I could debate back and forth about the pod-race sequence like an astromech and a protocol droid, instead I will use my analysis of Attack of the Clones to demonstrate the importance of viewing Star Wars from an stand point of “as is” instead of “what should be”.
Attack of the Clones was attacked by popular critics for being wooden and awkward. By implication these critics are referring to what Star Wars “should be”. I would like to debate that Attack of the Clones, while the most anomalous installment of the six, also has some of the most interesting thematic complexities of the Saga. If the film were any different these complexities would not exist and we’d be left with a weak younger brother of Empire Strikes Back.
I compare Attack of the Clones to Empire Strikes Back because they are both “second acts” of their respective trilogies. The most dominant characteristic of the second act is that it is often the darkest and most ambiguous chapter of the story. The characters falter after a successful first act and they become unsure of themselves. This is most obvious with the Jedi Order in Attack of the Clones. Mace Windu sums it up when he says “We’re keepers of the peace, not soldiers”. It is in Attack of the Clones that the role of the Jedi becomes questioned. How far does a Jedi’s mandate go? And the question can extend to the viewer: What justifies violence?
This struggle is mirrored in Obi Wan’s quest throughout the movie which resembles that of a 1930’s gumshoe detective story. Obi Wan’s quest begins in a familiar diner with a familiar friend named Dex and from here-on, Obi-Wan delves deeper into the unknown. This is the first time the series that the Jedi must face the unfamiliar apart from the Sith. Both Kamino and Geonosis are planets outside of Republic jurisdiction. This reflects not only in the actually unfamiliarity of the planets, but also in the architecture, weaponry and creatures that are seen on these worlds. The hive-like structures, and complex factories on Geonosis inhabited by their bug-like denizens are not only foreign to Star Wars audiences but difficult for any person to relate to as familiar creatures. Their weapons are unfamiliar (are they guns? are they canons?...and what about the seismic charges?). This is also the first time we see Jedi casually killed. Obi Wan and the Jedi are up against a chaos of unknown forces. This brings to bare many questions of conduct and reveals the ambiguity of the Jedi Order.
And just when you thought things were ambiguous enough, let’s not forget about the highly criticized Anakin/Padmé love plot. It’s important to investigate what people disliked about the love plot. Primarily it is scrutinized for feeling unnatural. This is a “should be” instance, implying that it “should be” more natural. I’ll be the first to go on record that the awkward dialogue and unnatural love scenes are instrumental contributions to the film’s thematic framework. Considering most reading this essay have a theoretical interest in Star Wars, it safe to assume that they have lived their share of awkward experiences with the opposite sex. How would you act if you were a member of a sexually repressive order, fell in love with someone, dwelt on it for 10 years and finally had your chance to express your feelings? This almost justifies Anakin’s hate for sand, doesn’t it! (Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge). This mutual sexual confusion, and awkward dialogue (and the death of Anakin’s mother not to mention) creates tension in the characters and in audiences that further strengthens the unknown anxiety of the film.
John Williams’ score, while less grand than any other Star Wars score, further propagates the mysterious and anxious tone of the film. The love theme “Across the Stars” is more haunting than romantic as it hints to the unpredictability of their relationship and the psyches of the film’s characters.Ultimately, we can understand that within the context of the film, this anxiety comes to represent the dark side which is slowly veiling the senses of the Jedi and are becoming more and more entrenched in the events of the story. The original pending title of Attack of the Clones was actually Star Wars: Episode II: Rise of the Empire, and to risk sounding hypocritical, I’d say that would be the only “should be” that I will endorse in this essay. Let me explain.
After 90 minutes of “anxiety”, as I’ve been calling it, the viewer begins searching for some kind of catharsis or relief. In the face of such chaos George Lucas demonstrates how tyranny is born. As the viewer becomes more anxious, they are willing to accept any type of salvation. It is at this point that Chancellor Palpatine makes his plea for emergency powers and the adoption of a Republic Army. Just as the audience hopes for some order to repair the chaotic anxiety of the film, the Galactic Senate hopes Palpatine can restore order to the Galaxy – and you have to admit…you know Palpatine is evil, but you wouldn’t mind seeing those clones in action either.
And so, all this time Lucas has been building up tension in the audiences so that they feel the justification of war, autonomy and an army. Lucas demonstrates the effects of charisma on a population by using the very audience as an example. The final battle is the catharsis the audience has yearned for, and yet, we don’t have the Jedi to thank…but instead the army.
In light of the ambiguity that Attack of the Clones displays, the film concludes on a different note. The ambiguous, emotional nature of the Jedi is rectified as we see orderly legions of Clone Troopers departing for battle, off to replace the Jedi. We also see Anakin and Padmé’s chaotic love tamed by the stabilized institution of marriage. And thus The Empire is born. Does this entire scenario sound familiar to anyone?
While I defended Episode I for its “Star Warsness”, I defend Attack of the Clones for its lack thereof. It stands alone as a concise commentary on global politics and global conduct. While I may not be able to defend C-3P0’s conduct, nor the rolling in the grass, I think it is important to consider the films “as is” instead of jumping to “what should be”. You may be surprised what you find from “a certain point of view”.
Attack of the Clones was attacked by popular critics for being wooden and awkward. By implication these critics are referring to what Star Wars “should be”. I would like to debate that Attack of the Clones, while the most anomalous installment of the six, also has some of the most interesting thematic complexities of the Saga. If the film were any different these complexities would not exist and we’d be left with a weak younger brother of Empire Strikes Back.
I compare Attack of the Clones to Empire Strikes Back because they are both “second acts” of their respective trilogies. The most dominant characteristic of the second act is that it is often the darkest and most ambiguous chapter of the story. The characters falter after a successful first act and they become unsure of themselves. This is most obvious with the Jedi Order in Attack of the Clones. Mace Windu sums it up when he says “We’re keepers of the peace, not soldiers”. It is in Attack of the Clones that the role of the Jedi becomes questioned. How far does a Jedi’s mandate go? And the question can extend to the viewer: What justifies violence?
This struggle is mirrored in Obi Wan’s quest throughout the movie which resembles that of a 1930’s gumshoe detective story. Obi Wan’s quest begins in a familiar diner with a familiar friend named Dex and from here-on, Obi-Wan delves deeper into the unknown. This is the first time the series that the Jedi must face the unfamiliar apart from the Sith. Both Kamino and Geonosis are planets outside of Republic jurisdiction. This reflects not only in the actually unfamiliarity of the planets, but also in the architecture, weaponry and creatures that are seen on these worlds. The hive-like structures, and complex factories on Geonosis inhabited by their bug-like denizens are not only foreign to Star Wars audiences but difficult for any person to relate to as familiar creatures. Their weapons are unfamiliar (are they guns? are they canons?...and what about the seismic charges?). This is also the first time we see Jedi casually killed. Obi Wan and the Jedi are up against a chaos of unknown forces. This brings to bare many questions of conduct and reveals the ambiguity of the Jedi Order.
And just when you thought things were ambiguous enough, let’s not forget about the highly criticized Anakin/Padmé love plot. It’s important to investigate what people disliked about the love plot. Primarily it is scrutinized for feeling unnatural. This is a “should be” instance, implying that it “should be” more natural. I’ll be the first to go on record that the awkward dialogue and unnatural love scenes are instrumental contributions to the film’s thematic framework. Considering most reading this essay have a theoretical interest in Star Wars, it safe to assume that they have lived their share of awkward experiences with the opposite sex. How would you act if you were a member of a sexually repressive order, fell in love with someone, dwelt on it for 10 years and finally had your chance to express your feelings? This almost justifies Anakin’s hate for sand, doesn’t it! (Wink, Wink, Nudge, Nudge). This mutual sexual confusion, and awkward dialogue (and the death of Anakin’s mother not to mention) creates tension in the characters and in audiences that further strengthens the unknown anxiety of the film.
John Williams’ score, while less grand than any other Star Wars score, further propagates the mysterious and anxious tone of the film. The love theme “Across the Stars” is more haunting than romantic as it hints to the unpredictability of their relationship and the psyches of the film’s characters.Ultimately, we can understand that within the context of the film, this anxiety comes to represent the dark side which is slowly veiling the senses of the Jedi and are becoming more and more entrenched in the events of the story. The original pending title of Attack of the Clones was actually Star Wars: Episode II: Rise of the Empire, and to risk sounding hypocritical, I’d say that would be the only “should be” that I will endorse in this essay. Let me explain.
After 90 minutes of “anxiety”, as I’ve been calling it, the viewer begins searching for some kind of catharsis or relief. In the face of such chaos George Lucas demonstrates how tyranny is born. As the viewer becomes more anxious, they are willing to accept any type of salvation. It is at this point that Chancellor Palpatine makes his plea for emergency powers and the adoption of a Republic Army. Just as the audience hopes for some order to repair the chaotic anxiety of the film, the Galactic Senate hopes Palpatine can restore order to the Galaxy – and you have to admit…you know Palpatine is evil, but you wouldn’t mind seeing those clones in action either.
And so, all this time Lucas has been building up tension in the audiences so that they feel the justification of war, autonomy and an army. Lucas demonstrates the effects of charisma on a population by using the very audience as an example. The final battle is the catharsis the audience has yearned for, and yet, we don’t have the Jedi to thank…but instead the army.
In light of the ambiguity that Attack of the Clones displays, the film concludes on a different note. The ambiguous, emotional nature of the Jedi is rectified as we see orderly legions of Clone Troopers departing for battle, off to replace the Jedi. We also see Anakin and Padmé’s chaotic love tamed by the stabilized institution of marriage. And thus The Empire is born. Does this entire scenario sound familiar to anyone?
While I defended Episode I for its “Star Warsness”, I defend Attack of the Clones for its lack thereof. It stands alone as a concise commentary on global politics and global conduct. While I may not be able to defend C-3P0’s conduct, nor the rolling in the grass, I think it is important to consider the films “as is” instead of jumping to “what should be”. You may be surprised what you find from “a certain point of view”.
"RE: Defending Episode I" By Ryan Bradley
Review of “Defending Episode 1”
I do not think that one can state that the releases of the prequels are simply of cash-cowing. In this regard I agree with the claims made be Mr. Slight. These days we are seeing more and more of our beloved movie icons, Rocky Balboa, Rambo, Indiana Jones and the Star Wars prequels, attempting to make one last stand in world of Hollywood; Are these all acts towards money grabs? or is it a simple case of bringing back our childhood heroes and giving them a new aged feel? I believe that if an honest effort has been put in to revitalizing the original then it is not simply a case of mooing for money.
So, did George Lucas try to avoid this and is Adam Slight’s support of Episode 1 justified. George clearly did attempt to add a modern twist to the classic films that have been the root of nerd wet dreams for over 30 years. This attempt grants these prequels the right to a in a galaxy far far away. The question of whether the methodology of the new films was successful utilized has raised much debate in the realm of critics, nerds, movie lovers and scholars. I must say that the defense laid out by Adam is relatively legit with a few degrees of error.
The cinematic experience that Episode 1 provided is nearly up to par with it predecessors as almost every shot in the movie counts. Lucas’ success in this matter has lead me to often catch myself smiling with glee at different points in the movie such as the Darth Maul battle. Criticism for the over use of special effects is completely unjustified. Advancements in the movie industry have made the techniques of the classic trilogy completely obsolete. Had Lucas not tried to spice up this new movie with some new special effects, I’m almost positive that he would have be scrutinized for his lack of film integrity and inability to adapt with the times. The cinematography is combined beautifully with special effects and he does not completely rely on the CGI.
The worlds and characters of the star wars universe are explored and presented with ALMOST no error. The set design the new worlds such as Naboo and old worlds like Tatooine stayed true to the beauty of the old movies as one gets a perfect feel for the atmosphere of the setting of interest. For example, Mos Eisley is still the place where “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy ones” as seen in every shot in the city like the conversation with Sebula or the inclusion of the Hutts. The characters are also presented in such a manner where it is easy to understand how each is related to one another, the mysteries linking them all and all of their motivating forces behind their actions. Many of the character interactions exemplified in this movie are evident throughout the distinct social history of our real world. This cinematic connection used by Lucas allows the viewer to fall in love with every aspect of the worlds and immediately understand the complex relationships linking them all.
This being said, I cannot fully support Adam’s claim “To condemn Jar Jar for his silliness would be to put one’s self at risk of ethnocentricity”. This is not a matter of ethnicity by any means of the definition. Had Jar Jar been a goofy human, he would have still taken away from the overall cinematic experience. I could write a whole essay on reasons why Jar Jar Binks is the worst thing in any of the six films. “I Spack” “Ooh mooey mooey I love you!” “whatta meesa sayin'?”; four of the 100 lines that Jar Jar Spacks in the movie that makes me want to tear up every time I hear him say something. Least we forgot “How wude!” x 20. Big Boss Nass and Captain Tarpals were strong characters and the gungans clearly are a mighty race. What really bothers me about Jar Jar is that Lucas seemed to forgot that “cute and loveable” characters that supply comic relief yet still have a crucial role in the plot have no place in the star wars universe. Ewoks USED to be the most hated things outside the old republic until this Binks character came along. I can assure you, the fact that I wish Jar Jar’s face got burnt of in a power coupling is in no way for ethnocentric reasons. (My distaste for the ewok race may in fact be, but that’s a whole different story).
A final problem with the movie as well as Adam’s critique is in the podrace scene. I realize that this is a crucial scene in terms of the plot, but its easily 15 minutes too long. I have also watched the Ben Hur clip and do think that the similarities between the two is a clever and I also recognize that the chariot race in Ben Hur is long. However, Ben Hur was an extra 100 minutes long in total, thus it had time to pull something like that off as the viewer clearly was sitting down for an epically long movie. I love star wars and everything that it stands for but the length of this podrace and its lack of connection with the rest of the series makes me almost struggle to keep interest.
Adam accurately defended this movie for all the right reasons despite my two above objections. There are other things that I agree with that I do not need to touch because of the excellent arguments deployed (ie. The dialoged of the movie—“Sand storms are very…. Very…. Dangerous” is not exactly A material but its stays true to the classics). If you did hate the first episode, I also encourage you to fire up your vcr, sit back, mute the Jar Jar scenes and give it at least one more shot. Don’t look for reasons why it’s not as good as the original three. If you must compare, look for similarities between the two and, I promise you, it will not disappoint. I look forward to the next two analyses and the coming discussion revolving around my future claim that Episode 3 is the most star warsy out of the three. We shall cross that Great Pit of Carkoon when we get there.
Friday, April 4, 2008
"Defending Episode I" By Adam Slight
As the Star Wars franchise continues to grow well into its 31st year I seem to sense more and more cynicism towards my beloved saga. While the original trilogy unquestionably introduced dramatic technical innovations to cinema, it’s the new prequels that get the brunt of public criticism for its apparent cash-cow qualities. With a new TV series on the way and a CGI remake of the Emmy-award winning series Star Wars: Clone Wars to hit theaters this summer it is difficult for many to take the Star Wars Universe seriously anymore (if it’s really meant to be all that serious to begin with).
At the forefront of the Star Wars cynic’s arsenal (aside from the mind-numbing 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special) is undoubtedly Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. While I’ve always proclaimed my unconditional love for the six installments I must admit that even I have kind of shoved Episode I aside. After watching it recently though, I would like to attempt the impossible. It is my hope this evening to defend Star Wars: Episode I.
While George Lucas’ ability to direct has always been questioned (remember, he only directed A New Hope before he did the prequels, and Indiana Jones was co-directed with Spielberg) I would like to express my support for his direction of Episode I. As I watched the film I couldn’t help but distinguish that beautiful 70’s cinematography that made Lucas and his pals (Coppola, Spielberg, Scorcese etc.) so big. I even feel that Spielberg has dropped a lot of these qualities. This punctuated style I find is strong in Phantom Menace, especially in the scenes on Tatooine (and the classic scene transitions). At points I even felt like I was watching a kind of interstellar The Godfather. The podrace, which I also often hear complaints about, is almost a perfect shot-for-shot tribute to the famous chariot race in Ben Hur. So while Lucas is often labeled as a money-grubbing hack, I’d say the cinematography in Episode I harkens more to an auteurist style of the past than that of a special-effects vehicle such as 300 or the later Matrix installments.
Another credit I give Lucas is his ability to flesh out refreshing anthropological worlds and cultures. While I do believe that he gets a lot of help from development teams as far as design goes, I do know that Lucas’ input is heavy and he always has the final say. The cultures in Episode I are the strongest of any in the six films, in my opinion. The five most prominent in the film are the Nubians (Queen Amidala and her crew), The Gungans (Jar Jar and his folk), the “scum and villainy” of Tatooine, the delegates and Jedi of Coruscant, and the Trade Federation baddies. I found that while these were all fantastic and alien, they were all rooted in a mixture of real human cultures. Through this Lucas is able to mesh “the other” and “the familiar” creating other-worldly groups that we are still able to identify with. While the Nubian culture I find resemble a mix between the ancient Greek and that of Venice, the Gungans seem to be a mix of aboriginal Australian and Jamaican. The crime lords of Tatooine are a sort of American-Italian lot and those of Coruscant are a kind of privileged, Evian-drinking, Upper-class. While seemingly semi-stereotypical, the importance is not the resemblance to specific existing cultures but that they are distinct. It is this diversity that helped me to reconcile my differences with Jar Jar Binks. If you’ll notice, the Gungans all have their silly tendancies, not just Jar Jar (The Gungan captain says “It’s ouch time” before the final battle, and their Boss has that wacky loose face-skin). To condemn Jar Jar for his silliness would be to put one’s self at risk of ethnocentricity. I’m not saying you’re a racist if you hate Jar Jar Binks. I’m just saying that one must understand the difference of his culture to understand him. It is also this philosophy that allows me to actually enjoy the Coruscant politics.
I would also like to make the claim that Star Wars: Episode I is the most “Star Warsy” of the prequels. The film was made at a time before the true CGI explosion of the 21st Century. Much of the film is still set, prop and model based. The explosions and destruction were still fundamentally born from reality as were the vehicles and sets. Yoda and a lot of the aliens are still muppets. And while some of the CGI is primitive, this flaw almost makes the film more aesthetically pleasing as too often do we see distracting CGI these days. Speaking of distracting CGI, the big space battles in Episode I still remain conceivable, unlike the opening of Episode III, which is just mind-boggling. Here is a battle from Return of the Jedi, compared to Episode I (not bad) and then Episode III (still cool, just not as "Star Warsy"). As the prequels progressed into Episode II and III Lucas became more dependent on CGI and CGI Artists in directing the action of the film. The end battle in Attack of the Clones follows a completely different style than any installment before it.
One may also note the dialogue of the film. Many complain that it is too clunky. Any such critic obviously has blindly fond memories of the original trilogy. For example, which Star Wars do you think this line from: “But I was going into Tashi station to pick up some power converters!”. That’s right, A New Hope. So as you can see, Episode I follows a prominent Star Wars tradition of barely-speakable dialogue. While we don’t have Harrison Fords talking about bouncing into supernovas, Episode I has a much similar Star Wars flare in its writing. The film’s dialogue (and actor-blocking) seems to take the approach of the epic films of the 50’s. And while John William’s composing has seen better days, Star Wars: Episode I is the only prequel with 100% original music (That’s right, II and III steal complete tracks from Episode I).
There are many more points that I could elaborate on: how Anakin is actually cool and not annoying (from a certain point of view), how Episode I has DARTH MAUL and how the Jedi seem to be in their most perfect Jedi state in this film alone. I just don’t want the point of this testimony to be lost in a sea of fandom. So while you people can continue to bash Episode I, I’d strongly suggest re-watching it with a new outlook and the above things in mind. It could be possible that Episode I is only enjoyable after immersing one’s self into endless pondering over what Star Wars really is, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. You may begin to feel as I do: that The Phantom Menace has aged like a fine wine…or blue milk. Whatever.
At the forefront of the Star Wars cynic’s arsenal (aside from the mind-numbing 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special) is undoubtedly Star Wars: Episode I: The Phantom Menace. While I’ve always proclaimed my unconditional love for the six installments I must admit that even I have kind of shoved Episode I aside. After watching it recently though, I would like to attempt the impossible. It is my hope this evening to defend Star Wars: Episode I.
While George Lucas’ ability to direct has always been questioned (remember, he only directed A New Hope before he did the prequels, and Indiana Jones was co-directed with Spielberg) I would like to express my support for his direction of Episode I. As I watched the film I couldn’t help but distinguish that beautiful 70’s cinematography that made Lucas and his pals (Coppola, Spielberg, Scorcese etc.) so big. I even feel that Spielberg has dropped a lot of these qualities. This punctuated style I find is strong in Phantom Menace, especially in the scenes on Tatooine (and the classic scene transitions). At points I even felt like I was watching a kind of interstellar The Godfather. The podrace, which I also often hear complaints about, is almost a perfect shot-for-shot tribute to the famous chariot race in Ben Hur. So while Lucas is often labeled as a money-grubbing hack, I’d say the cinematography in Episode I harkens more to an auteurist style of the past than that of a special-effects vehicle such as 300 or the later Matrix installments.
Another credit I give Lucas is his ability to flesh out refreshing anthropological worlds and cultures. While I do believe that he gets a lot of help from development teams as far as design goes, I do know that Lucas’ input is heavy and he always has the final say. The cultures in Episode I are the strongest of any in the six films, in my opinion. The five most prominent in the film are the Nubians (Queen Amidala and her crew), The Gungans (Jar Jar and his folk), the “scum and villainy” of Tatooine, the delegates and Jedi of Coruscant, and the Trade Federation baddies. I found that while these were all fantastic and alien, they were all rooted in a mixture of real human cultures. Through this Lucas is able to mesh “the other” and “the familiar” creating other-worldly groups that we are still able to identify with. While the Nubian culture I find resemble a mix between the ancient Greek and that of Venice, the Gungans seem to be a mix of aboriginal Australian and Jamaican. The crime lords of Tatooine are a sort of American-Italian lot and those of Coruscant are a kind of privileged, Evian-drinking, Upper-class. While seemingly semi-stereotypical, the importance is not the resemblance to specific existing cultures but that they are distinct. It is this diversity that helped me to reconcile my differences with Jar Jar Binks. If you’ll notice, the Gungans all have their silly tendancies, not just Jar Jar (The Gungan captain says “It’s ouch time” before the final battle, and their Boss has that wacky loose face-skin). To condemn Jar Jar for his silliness would be to put one’s self at risk of ethnocentricity. I’m not saying you’re a racist if you hate Jar Jar Binks. I’m just saying that one must understand the difference of his culture to understand him. It is also this philosophy that allows me to actually enjoy the Coruscant politics.
I would also like to make the claim that Star Wars: Episode I is the most “Star Warsy” of the prequels. The film was made at a time before the true CGI explosion of the 21st Century. Much of the film is still set, prop and model based. The explosions and destruction were still fundamentally born from reality as were the vehicles and sets. Yoda and a lot of the aliens are still muppets. And while some of the CGI is primitive, this flaw almost makes the film more aesthetically pleasing as too often do we see distracting CGI these days. Speaking of distracting CGI, the big space battles in Episode I still remain conceivable, unlike the opening of Episode III, which is just mind-boggling. Here is a battle from Return of the Jedi, compared to Episode I (not bad) and then Episode III (still cool, just not as "Star Warsy"). As the prequels progressed into Episode II and III Lucas became more dependent on CGI and CGI Artists in directing the action of the film. The end battle in Attack of the Clones follows a completely different style than any installment before it.
One may also note the dialogue of the film. Many complain that it is too clunky. Any such critic obviously has blindly fond memories of the original trilogy. For example, which Star Wars do you think this line from: “But I was going into Tashi station to pick up some power converters!”. That’s right, A New Hope. So as you can see, Episode I follows a prominent Star Wars tradition of barely-speakable dialogue. While we don’t have Harrison Fords talking about bouncing into supernovas, Episode I has a much similar Star Wars flare in its writing. The film’s dialogue (and actor-blocking) seems to take the approach of the epic films of the 50’s. And while John William’s composing has seen better days, Star Wars: Episode I is the only prequel with 100% original music (That’s right, II and III steal complete tracks from Episode I).
There are many more points that I could elaborate on: how Anakin is actually cool and not annoying (from a certain point of view), how Episode I has DARTH MAUL and how the Jedi seem to be in their most perfect Jedi state in this film alone. I just don’t want the point of this testimony to be lost in a sea of fandom. So while you people can continue to bash Episode I, I’d strongly suggest re-watching it with a new outlook and the above things in mind. It could be possible that Episode I is only enjoyable after immersing one’s self into endless pondering over what Star Wars really is, but maybe that’s not a bad thing. You may begin to feel as I do: that The Phantom Menace has aged like a fine wine…or blue milk. Whatever.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Doc Halen/Aspect Ratio
Its been awhile since I've updated but its been hard to find time. Between school and working on inConsequence (as well as newly released Smash Bros. Brawl) its been difficult to sit down and write an entry.
First of all, it hasn't really been officially announced until now, but its an interesting development. I was able to nab some of Doc Halen's time and he agreed to do a little voice over at the beginning of inConsequence. If you're not familiar with Doc, he's one of the esteemed DJ's for Ottawa's classic rock radio station Chez 106. I emailed and asked if anyone would be interested, and 3 days later I had the recording on my computer ready to go. It sounds pretty awesome too!
Also, I figured since there's nothing really new Shmah-related at the moment that I'd just promote a blog by another dude I know. Aspect Ratio is a cinema blog by a TA (Ben Wright) I had last semester. If you're interested in some kind of contemporary theory for cool stuff like Lost, Jurassic Park etc. you might want to check it out.
First of all, it hasn't really been officially announced until now, but its an interesting development. I was able to nab some of Doc Halen's time and he agreed to do a little voice over at the beginning of inConsequence. If you're not familiar with Doc, he's one of the esteemed DJ's for Ottawa's classic rock radio station Chez 106. I emailed and asked if anyone would be interested, and 3 days later I had the recording on my computer ready to go. It sounds pretty awesome too!
Also, I figured since there's nothing really new Shmah-related at the moment that I'd just promote a blog by another dude I know. Aspect Ratio is a cinema blog by a TA (Ben Wright) I had last semester. If you're interested in some kind of contemporary theory for cool stuff like Lost, Jurassic Park etc. you might want to check it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)