If you’re reading this, you know the rest of the story so far. George Lucas sold Lucasfilm to Disney in late 2012, and Disney immediately announced that it would milk the Star Wars franchise for all its worth, including making the fabled Episodes VII-IX. As of this writing, we still don’t know the whole story, but I hope you’ll allow me a small measure of conjecture.
My guess is that the Star Wars bug had bit George Lucas again, hard. But a few things stood in his way. First was his age. He was getting older, and while some of his contemporaries are still working feverishly, I wouldn’t blame him for worrying about his health. Especially since making these movies are notoriously stressful to him. The fact that a vocal minority of the fanbase completely turned on him and poisoned the public conversation probably didn’t help matters. He’d be understandably fed-up. But it’s still his baby in the end, and he’s fought hard to maintain the ability to make his movies his way. While he’s been determined to say his role in VII-IX is minimal, I would be very surprised if he takes such a big backseat.
That being said, VII-IX have a lot riding against them. As we’ve seen, each of the movies have had mixed reviews, so it potentially faces this. Secondly, it’s got even more unreasonable expectations to meet than even I-III had. If it tries to be a good Star Wars film, it’ll further the hate machine for not erasing the parts of the Saga they dislike. If it tries to cater to the vocal minority, it’ll alienate those of us who identity as true Saga fans. These movies will break the base further than it has been broken already no matter how they turn out, and that is a fact.
Still, as much as every announcement from Disney makes my heart sink more and more, I remain cautiously optimistic about VII-IX. It’s still George Lucas’ story. In my mind, they will be worthy additions to the Saga as long as three things happen:
1. They draw upon everything that came before, I-VI, while still giving us plenty of new worlds, species, and ideas to take in.
2. It keeps a sense of fun and whimsy no matter how dark things get.
3. Somebody, somewhere, says something along the lines of “I have a bad feeling about this…”
Aside from this, I’m ready to be surprised and thrilled.
What we have to do is not fall into the same mistake people fell into with I-III. Those of us who grew up with any parts of the Saga need to remember that the Saga will not grow with us. While adult themes and philosophical depth permeate every second of all six films, the Saga is still primarily aimed at 7-12-year-olds (and the young at heart).
I love Star Wars. I love every second of every film. Even with the flaws I mentioned in my reviews, every episode is perfect in my eyes. More than that, as far as films go, they are each and every one fantastically made. Not perfect, but what is? Especially when most of the techniques and effects were being created just for these films!
Don’t let my 1-6 rating scales fool you. That was just relative to each other. On a true critical scale, on terms of filmmaking, they all get top marks. Five stars, though Jedi might get four and a half. No, that’s too low, four and three quarters. Anyone who tries to tell you any different is focusing way too much on inconsequential details.
Star Wars is high fantasy in sci-fi’s clothing. It’s Beowulf, Tolkien, Homer, but with laser beams. It’s a morality tale, and a very effective one if you really let the full story into your heart. George Lucas has described it as poetry, and I see that. There is a certain rhyme to the two sets of films, even in how they’re structured. Phantom and Hope are fun thrill rides whose depth is more visible when looked through the lens of the following films; Clones and Empire introduce more adult themes while weaving two seemingly different storylines together; Sith and Jedi are the emotional powerhouses, whose first acts could be their own films!
So then the big question remains: how to show these films to someone who has never seen them before? Do you do it in the order they were released, like most of us did? Then you run the risk of not giving the middle episodes of Jedi and Phantom their due on first watch. Do you do Lucas’ intended order of internal chronology? It works a little better, but it robs the wham lines in Empire of their power, and that’s a moment we should deny no one.
There are many different points of view, but the one I kind of like the best places I-III as an extended flashback between Empire and Jedi. The reasons I think this is a favorable first-time order are as follows: First off, with New Hope seeming increasingly dated compared to the others, leading with it gives a viewer a better chance of judging it favorably by comparison (plus, everyone’s first scene of Star Wars should be the Blockade Runner). Secondly, it keeps the reveals in Empire under wraps. Third, it allows one to watch Phantom, Clones, and Sith without knowing for sure if Vader was telling the truth in Empire, so that’s still up in the air and creating tension. Fourth, the revelation of the Twins works much better as a twist in Sith than in Jedi, so it won’t completely seem like an orifice-pull. Finally, seeing Anakin’s tale in I-III and the full nature of the Sith really ramps up Jedi’s tension to unbearable levels and just makes it a ten times better film. Now you KNOW what the stakes are, you KNOW what Palpatine’s plan for Luke is, you BELIEVE he could have co-opted the Rebel Attack on the second Death Star and turned it into a trap. Most of all, knowing that Anakin has returned, and finally learned his lesson really hits home more. And his final act of revolt against his Sith master is much more cathartic. Plus, you HAVE to end with the victory celebration in the Ewok village. There’s no other way.
This is the only reason why I have to agree when someone says that I-III would not have made Star Wars as huge of a hit if they had come out first instead of IV-VI. The ending of Revenge of the Sith is so depressing that average moviegoers would feel cheated. Ironically, however, I feel they would have been far more venerated on their own merits than they are now. More people would see the inherit brilliance in I-III and they would develop a strong cult following and become good obscure reference fodder.
Becoming a Star Wars fan was a seminal moment in my life, as was seeing each film on the big screen (especially Phantom). I can’t wait to have kids so I can share this with them when they are ready (but not a second before). My spirit is firmly planted forever in that galaxy far, far away...
That was May the 4th. I’ll be taking a small Jedi News sabbatical next week to prepare for my next round of articles. In the meantime, check out Jar Jar June already in progress. For those of you hoping I’d cover the spin-offs, I say: Hey, I need something to talk about next year…
Oh, and I almost forgot: May the Force be with you…Always.
[[Postscript: It occurs to me that we're always mixing "May the Force be With You" and "The Force will be with you...Always..."]]
"Anyone who tries to tell you any different is focusing way too much on inconsequential details."
ReplyDeleteCinematography is not inconsequential.
No, but the cinematography is good.
DeleteAt best it's mediocre, with little variance in shot composition, camera position, and lighting, with the dialogue scenes looking mostly like they were shot for efficiency's sake instead of artistic quality. There's not a lot of focus being put on the visual language in each scene, leaving films that are ostensibly character pieces without much care being placed on character scenes.
DeleteYou do realize that you're some kind of a hooligan here?
DeleteThere's plenty of focus put on the visual language. The camera angles aren't the only expression of this, decent as they are.
ReplyDeleteYou don't like the style, fine, but it's an adequate and valid style. Leave off.
I'm not arguing just camera angles. That's certainly a part of it, but it's also the lighting, the composition (where characters are in the frame, what they're doing, how/where they move- basic blocking), the editing, etc. The fact that almost every dialogue scene in the film uses the same techniques for all of those things results in a film that isn't being told in a visually effective manner, even if you have the most spectacular sets and landscapes in the universe.
DeletePlus shot-reverse-shot is generally not a good way of shooting things for film, at least not for entire scenes. It's generally good as a tool to *support* a scene where the back-and-forth rhythm is important, but using it as the only framing tool for an entire scene is not being visually creative.
Wrong. 100% wrong. EVERYTHING is some variation of SRS, and all the Star Wars films use it well. It's notbad. You might not like it, but it's not bad. Not to mention how you ignore the subtleties, but that's beside the point anyway. A movie can be good without it.
DeleteI've been warning you. You've said your peace, it's been addressed, I think you're wrong. Last warning: let it go.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete(also, d'oh, I totally forgot to include lenses with cinematography (50mm vs. 75, 35, 8, etc.)...I have a hard time spotting it, though, which is probably why I forget to bring it up)
DeleteWait, I'm curious- by your claim that "EVERYTHING is some variation of SRS", are you meaning all camera placements in film in general?
DeleteEverything that has been professionally produced on film, be it movies or TV or what have you, has AT LEAST one, if not more, shots that edit between one person talking and another person talking across from them. It's standard. Is it the only way to do it? No. Have there been well-done alternatives? Certainly. But this is not a bad system, no matter how many times it's used.
DeleteYou bring this up time and again, and every time you do you sound more and more pretentious. I've tried to be polite. I've tried the "agree to disagree" route. But it's getting rediculous. If you're going to honestly say to me that your experience of these films is ruined forever simply because Lucas tends to favor a particular method of staging shots (ignoring for now that there is a variable dynamism in those shots, however subtle), then I can honestly say without a shred of irony, sarcasm, condescention, or mean-spiritedness of any kind, that I feel sorry for you. Really.
While Cinematography is a tool, it's not the most important one. Film isn't about what angles you get or what lenses you use, though it can certainly help. What matters more is the story, the characters, immersing yourself in the tale, letting yourself be taken to that other place, that other time. That's why films, like all art, are ultimately subjective. Oh, you can try for something and objectively fail, but it's a finer, greyer line than you'd think. Different people connect with different things. While I am continually unable to fathom how someone who loves and appreciates IV-VI cannot do the same for I-III, it happens. And people have every right to. If you don't like it, you don't like it. And that's fine. I don't mind talking about our differing opinions as just that.
But when you or an yone else tries to tell me or my fellow fans that these things we love are objectively bad and unworthy, when we can see for ourselves just the opposite, it is rude. It is arrogant. And it quickly makes us lose respect for the speaker.
I cannot physically block you from this blog. Blogger does not have the tools unless I want to deny everyone, and I don't want to. But I am telling you now: you will no longer be welcome here unless you start treating your opinions as opinions and not as fact.
This is the fact: The Star Wars films, all six, while not perfect, are very well-made films for their rather unique genre. They succeeded in what they set out to do. Now, we can debate all day long our opinions as to whether or not what they set out to do appeals to either of us. We can say "Oh, I rather liked this part" and say why, or "Well, this part didn't sit as well with me" and say why. But don't claim that they objectively failed when it succeeds with so many.
I am absolutely fine for discussing subjective opinions on films and art...but when you claim they're "well-made" you're making a stab at objective criticism over subjective liking, and that is what I argue with. I'm not trying to project my opinions as "fact", I'm projecting an argument as exactly that- a claim, followed by evidence linked by a warrant. It's critical discussion- which is all I'm trying to have. Subjectively I think we agree on a lot more than you think.
Delete"Everything that has been professionally produced on film, be it movies or TV or what have you, has AT LEAST one, if not more, shots that edit between one person talking and another person talking across from them."
I think you're missing my point here- it's not that Lucas uses the technique that makes it bad- it's that it's used uniformly across the films. Almost every single dialogue scene throughout the trilogy is shot, composed, lit, and edited in the same or extremely similar ways- be it a dramatic, emotional, mysterious, comedic scene- whatever. The visual language of film is not being used to communicate the story.
Long impassioned speech on cinematography coming up...
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAnd cinematography itself as a science might not be the absolute most important part of film...but the visual language of the film unequivocally is. Not claims at immersion or escapism, but telling and communicating a story to an audience through visual tools and techniques. It's guiding our emotions and feelings through all kinds of different choices- like:
Deletethe type of lens being used (believe it or not, the exact same shot on a 75mm lens will look completely different on an 8mm lens, and it will actually communicate different things to the audience),
how the scene is composed (often the placement and movement of actors and objects on frame says a lot about character and story- there’s a scene early in Citizen Kane in which the eyelines of each different character in relation to Kane elaborates on that character’s relationship to him),
how the scene is lit (harsher shadows and greater contrast instantly communicates a more dramatic scene than even lighting, and even things like the distance and angle of the light change the mood and texture of a scene),
how the scene is edited (a film could be done mostly in one-takes or in a super-kinetic style and the feel and the rhythm will be dictated wholly on the edits being used),
the angle/position of the camera (close-ups vs. wide shots, low angles vs. high, even handheld vs. steady all tell the audience different things and give the scenes different variance and texture),
Etc. Etc. Etc. Really, I could go on for ages about this, because filmmaking is a craft- it’s understanding and guiding your audience’s thoughts and emotions to be able to communicate a story through them visually. And so when you tell me it’s all subjective I have to take issue with that because it quite simply isn’t- there *is* such a thing as good & bad cinematography, direction, lighting, etc. These things affect us consciously and subconsciously- and that’s a proven fact. Art in a general sense is as much craft as it is feeling, and while I could never take away the subjective and personal worth any individual piece has to anyone (and believe me, I would never want to- that’s a cruel and vindictive thing to do), if you argue that it’s objectively sound than questions and discussions of craft, technique, and the choices made all have to come into play. Otherwise what’s the point of critical discussion?
Believe me, I do seriously apologize if at any point I’ve ever come across as pretentious, arrogant, or condescending- that is not my intent at all. My only purpose is to discuss and hopefully offer different perspectives on the nature of the craft of filmmaking- an art form that means so much to me. Film is my life, my education (currently studying at a film school) and hopefully one day I’ll be lucky enough for it to become my occupation. It’s something I’m deeply passionate about, which is why I care so much about these sorts of discussions. And I deeply apologize if that’s come across as arrogance and rudeness and I do truly wish to refrain from that kind of tone and behavior- I do deeply respect you as a person and an “opponent”- I wouldn’t continue these discussions if I didn’t.
But that's the thing. It isn't the only tool to tell a visual story. Star Wars is extremely visual, but its visual language has always come more from the production design, the costumes, the effects, etc. And Star Wars is shot in the best way to really show that off. You don't really need anything else. Not everything does.
DeleteFilm is my passion and life too, but I never went to film school for precisely this reason. Everyone I've ever met from modern film schools, both professors and students, focus so much on technique that they forget how to enjoy things on a visceral level. They're too focused on "High" art vs. "Low" art, when it all has value. A less kind person would describe them was having their heads up their asses, but it's more nuanced than that.
Do you recall the story I told of the film professor I had who refused to believe that "The Sixth Sense" was a ghost story because it was a good movie and ghost stories are "bad"? That's the attitude I see from film school denizens in general.
And these attitudes have never been kind to silly space movies.
Dude, like all my film professors commonly showcase The Dark Knight, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Seven, etc. when talking about technique and craft. Same goes for almost all my peers- Good technique is good technique, whether you're Oscar bait or a B-movie (best example for me is the original Little Shop of Horrors, which is a b-movie to the extreme but one of the best and most well-crafted comedies of all time). I mean, I've no doubt that kind of attitude *does* exist, but ignoring craft and technique for the simple fact that some people are snobs about it is I think a huge disservice to being able to appreciate film.
DeleteAs to Star Wars, the thing about production design, costumes, and effects is that they're actually limited as to how much they can visually communicate a story...I mean, don't get me wrong, color symbolism is a known thing and there are a lot of films where the production design is fantastic and a major part of why the film works visually, but if you don't shoot that well it's all for naught (good example- the recent Les Miserables film, which had an absolutely gorgeous set design but looked cheap as hell because of how Hooper shot the damn thing).
I mean, the prequels aren't shot as terribly as Les Mis was (thank God) but at the same time they're not really shot in a way that enhances them visually (and I guarantee you that the original films weren't shot in the way you're suggesting, either). Unless you can tell me how the visual effects, costumes, and general production design itself- independent of anything to do with the camera- communicates the story to the audience and carries the visual language effectively.
I happened to really like Les Miserables. It was a very well-done movie. My only complaint was that some of the "dialogue" was a little rushed and hard to hear, but that may be a problem with the original score more than this film. It did not look cheap in the slightest. It did a lot of really good interesting things with the camera.
DeleteBut you can't see that. Just like you can't see the good in I-III, just like you can't see how IV-VI matches it. Something is blocking you, whether it's personal taste or something in your classes, I don't know. All I know is that nothing I say will make you see it.
I could spend ten years tracking down everyone involved with the films, and write a 100-page report on every single thing the films do right, and you would still not see it. If you're as passionate and in-tune with film as you say you are, and can't see the good here, then you'll never see it.
And on that note, I will never see these films as anything other than the masterpieces they are.
So I'm done. If you want to keep reading, go ahead. If you want to just shoot the shit over stuff we both think is cool, happy to have you. But no more of this.
The thing is, for me as well as other Saga fans, not only do we think the criticisms you constantly fight for are wrong, but we also wouldn't care if they were right. We want to be told a good story, and damn if we weren't told a fantastic story across these six films.
So I say, for the last time. It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter how many scenes are shot at this angle or that angle. It really doesn't. All that matters is that we were told a good story in an exciting way.
The problem with film schools is they teach art as a ideology. That there only is one correct and proper way all films should be made. That true art, serious art, must meet strict standards and guidelines. That you can prove objectivly that a film is good or bad as a fact. This is complete and utter BS and groupthink. Film is like an other form of art and is completely subjective and is entirely dependent on the eye of the beholder. Art is not facts like 2+2=4, there really is no right or wrong way to make it. While there is some skill involved, it is not something that can be measured objectively. If you are a bad welder for example, your welds break, a objective measure. However if alot of people don't like your films doesn't mean you are a bad film maker, that is just subjective tastes which can change over time. Just look how many flops are now popular films like A Christmas Story and Blade Runner. Film school is just about teaching about applying arbitrary standards to a subjective subject that is art. Very deeply flawed ideology. The truth is YOU just like a film or not.
DeleteFor example I like the cinematography in the SW films, one can say this or that why I should not like it but I still do anyway.
On the other hand with Citizen Kane, I found it boring and very overhyped, despite the unlimited praise it gets. However I am no more right or wrong than someone who has the opposite opinion of mine.
Now, see, that is exactly what I've been trying to say. Why the hell couldn't I get that out so eloquently? Thank you, Anonymous.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
DeleteNice pretentious and condecending sigh there.
DeleteObviously you never saw the Les Mis film, since the reason I put "dialogue" in quotes was due to the fact that it is indeed completely sung. This tells me you went completely by secondhand sources with this.
Well, I did warn you. Not here. Not anymore.
Whoah, no, I totally did not intend that to sound condescending at all- it was just me being exacerbated by my inability to write, I swear. Totally did not intend that, I'm sorry.
DeleteAnd yes, I have seen Les Mis, and know that there are a number of pieces of dialogue strewn throughout the film (I've also studied the screenplay extensively and being a massive fan of the show am intently aware of the changes made from the show to the script and from the script to the film)- I actually saw it the week after it came out, I think, with my sister and one of her friends. I had somehow missed the quotes and assumed that you were actually referring to the dialogue- just a silly mistake on my part. I'm not a person that will slag off a film without seeing it.
Fair enough. But you're proving our point. I've heard much praise of Les Mis' shots using the same type of analysis you're using against it. I can't say there's no objectivity in art whatsoever, but it's like the Pirate's Code: more guidelines than actual rules. And each genre, each style has its own. And the line between success and failure is so blurry that it is up to subjective tastes in the end.
DeleteReally? That's interesting, I've never heard any praise for the cinematography, actually- it's one of the most derided parts of the film I've seen (along with Crowe, which is I think unfair).
DeleteAnd did you at least save the link to the Hulk Critic article? 'Cause he outlines this stuff far better than I could and explains why we have this sort of objectivity to the craft of filmmaking. He's also a tremendously good writer in general and has a load of other articles that are immensely insightful and valuable.
I'll take it under consideration. I can restore the comment, but whether I will or not will depend on how a number of factors play out in the near future.
DeleteEverything I've heard about Crowe was positive, except from the internet. I personally thought he was decent. Not my favorite, but enjoyable.
I tell you what, though, finally hearing these songs made me lament that we couldn't do the musical version in my old youth theatre troupe when I was a teen. Especially since I was Thenardier.
Fun role (though the movie castrates his character somewhat...in the show he gets a really sinister number after the barricades fall that is basically the shows' villain song ('cause Thenardier is pretty much the villain of the piece). In the book he's even more sinister, of course). I've always wanted to be Javert, personally- mostly because it's the only major role in my range along with Thenardier.
DeleteAnd huh, all my experience (internet and life) was people deriding his performance- personally I thought the performance itself was really excellent and nuanced, but the actual interpretation totally wrong for the character. I think this is more the fault of Hooper than Crowe, but Javert is supposed to be absolutely fervent and sure of his beliefs and absolutely unwavering from them until the end- when faced with a contradiction, he literally can't handle it and it breaks him. Crowe's performance was again, subtle, nuanced, and all-around excellent, but he was working with an unfortunately weak portrayal. Really wish he could've been Valjean- the role is perfect for him.
If you ever get a chance check out the Tenth Anniversary Concert of the show...really excellent concert of the show that has most of the music and a lot of the original performers reprising their roles (including the original Valjean, Colm Wilkinson, who had a cameo in the film as the Bishop of Digne). It has the benefit of also showing clips of the stage production, so it gives you an indication of how it originally looked. Though as far as recordings go, my soft spot lies with the original French concept album...absolutely gorgeous orchestrations.
And for what it's worth, just because this is a show I adore (as I'm sure this overlong rant of a post goes to show) and I enjoy spreading it around as much as possible, I happen to have a large number of live recordings of the show I would be more than happy to pass along to you should you be interested- OBC, OLC, OFC, Quebec, Broadway revival, etc.
Even though Sacha Baron Cohen took him in a wildly different direction than I did, I still thought he was excellent and the character done justice.
DeleteAs for Javert, of course that's his character, and I don't understand how anyone can read differently. Crowe has that sort of puppydog expression that undermines Javert's turmoil somewhat, but not enough to make me think it was going for a completely different interpretation. This also shows how skewed your environment is; Crowe got rave reviews as something of a pleasant surprise during the film's run. Nostalgia Critic was the first negative opinion I heard of him, and that was more backlash against the rave reviews than anything else. It's the internet culture, it really is.
I think we've gone off topic here long enough. I wouldn't mind gushing more about Les Mis in general another time, another place, once I've seen the musical film a few more times.
But I would appreciate if you left your opinions on Star Wars' cinematography at home from now on. Seriously, agree to disagree and be done with it. Please.
Well, do remember that the internet culture is not some magical entity that is separate from human experience...for all that it unfortunately fosters exaggerated negativity, it's still average ordinary people posting their opinions and discussions.
DeleteAs a Star Wars fan whose introduction to the saga was through the prequels during their theatrcial run, I have decided tyo remain hopeful about the future of Star Wars. The idea of an Episode VII is nothing to be angry about. (MGM's upcoming BEN-HUR remake...yes)
ReplyDeleteThough I have to confess I am NOT beleieving in the exsistence of an Episode VII until I am sitting in the theater watching it myself.
It's more the way it came about. Lucas retires, sells the company to Disney, and they immediately start churning stuff out. If Lucas had done this himself, I'd be more excited. That being said, I do want it to succeed.
DeleteThey just announced that the head designers of I-III are staying on, so that's a good sign.
The only difference between the OT and the PT in terms of character work is the nature of the films.
ReplyDeleteThe OT (and especially TESB) are run-and-hide films. There are hardly any calm scenes where characters are just talking with each other. One of the few I can remember is the Luke telling Leia the truth about their father and I don't think that turned out good....
The PT on the other hand, due to the political aspect and the more formal environment, has a lot of calm scenes where people just talk. That's why shot reverse shot is more common in the PT. It takes you out of the moment if there is hectic camera movement in such a scene.
However, if someone wants to tell me that the characters positioning and moves aren't telling I can't believe it.
Have you ever observed the distance between Padmè and Obi-Wan when Obi-Wan tells her about Anakin on her veranda? It's very interesting to see in which moments Obi-Wan tries to get closer and in which moments he needs distances.
Another nice example is the scene when Qui-Gon tells Anakin that he has been freed. There a plenty of different camera angles, a lot of times Anakin is placed between his mother and Qui-Gon.
However, Lucas biggest strength is his focus on the whole image and his ability to combine images and music. Architecture, costumes, daytime, color, positioning etc.
First sentence: camera work
DeleteI think there's actually quite a few simple talking scenes in the original films- Ben talking to Luke about himself, Vader, and his aunt and uncle (three separate scenes), Ben and Luke striking a deal with Han, Han and Leia talking throughout ESB (I can think of at least three separate scenes there), the famous force monologue from Yoda, etc. And if you open it up to more than just a couple characters talking there's the scene on the Falcon in ANH, the group talking together after Luke gets out of the Bacta tank in ESB, etc.
DeleteI see the point, though. There is a paradigm shift. In I-III, the heroes are more or less in power, or at least free to come and go in areas controlled by the resident superpower. In IV-VI, the heroes are fighting against said power, and always have to watch over their shoulders.
DeleteTherefore, even during scenes of relative quietness, there's that tension hanging over everything that the Empire might strike at any moment. That's naturally absent in I-III. That's not to say there's no tension in the quiet moments of I-III, but it's a different kind. It's as Obi-Wan described in the opening of Phantom: "Elsewhere...elusive..." It's a more general feeling that something is amiss, but you're not quite sure exactly where it's coming from (unless of course you're familiar with the story).
Well, just pulling the conversation away from cinematography choices (with which I have an issue in the OP's argument, but will for obvious reasons refrain from discussing), I honestly can't say I've really gotten that impression from the original trilogy. I think the general mood is less tension and fear that the Empire could strike at any time, and more...hm, depression isn't the right word, but that sort of resilient melancholy when the bad guy's already won. I mean, the Empire *is* the system at that point, so it's not so much "they could attack at any moment" and more "look at the terrible and awful things this government is enacting on its people". Which connects to the resistance that takes over by the end of the first film and through the next two.
DeleteI mean, yes, you're right that when you're in a rebellion like this there is that tension always, but what I think is crucial is that it's not what the films choose to focus on.
So you're agreeing with me and just calling it something different.
DeletePerhaps- I just think your last point about "that tension hanging over everything that the Empire might strike at any moment" isn't really present in the films.
DeleteIt hangs over everything.
DeleteSee, I'm not really sure about that- I mean, you watch a scene like the lightsaber training on the Falcon or the Space Slug sequences in ESB, or any of the training scenes with Yoda and your mind isn't fearful that the Empire is gonna pop out of the nearest shrubbery or something.
DeleteFor a good parallel, just watch something like the last third of The Great Escape, in which you as the viewer are constantly fearful of the Germans appearing. There's a palpable tension present in the scenes that just isn't in the Star Wars films- which is of course not a bad thing, it just means the two films are presented to us in different ways.
It's not a strong or as palpable (heh), but it's there. You may not even be entirely conscious of it.
DeleteUs being conscious of it is exactly what I'm talking about, though. We don't sense it because it's not what the film presents to us.
DeleteHow isn't it? The Rebels are on the run and the Empire is massive. Of COURSE there's the fear.
DeleteWell, if we think about this realistically in terms of characters, yes, you're right. But there's a difference in how the characters realistically feel and what the film chooses to present to us.
DeletePoint being, if we were meant to get a sense of fear and tension from the quiet scenes, we would. But we don't, because they're just not written and presented in that way.
If you think logically it's implied. The quiet scenes are quiet because they're a breather, but the danger is always looming.
DeleteAgain, I don't think so. Just compare how the scenes are done in comparison to a movie like, for instance, the original Alien- in which there *is* a lurking menace that could legitimately strike at any moment. You watch a breather scene like Ripley at the computer or even the dinner scene and you can feel the tension as an audience member because of the way the film is presented to us- which you don't in the scenes on the Falcon or on Dagobah.
DeleteI mean, it's a subtlety and something that's more to do with narrative conventions and not specific scripting or directorial choices (though those often point to it). But to put it simply, you don't feel a sudden tension that Vader is gonna come out of a Falcon corridor in ANH...but you do constantly fear where the alien is onboard the Nostromo in Alien.
Well, Alien has it more because it's a legit horror film. But I feel a level of tension in Empire especially. Dagobah is too remote to think the Empire might show up, but we still know what Luke is training to do. And the Falcon, the Empire is literally on their tale the whole time so yes that tension is there in nearly every scene. There's a brief hope spot when they pull the garbage trick, until Boba Fett is shown following them.
DeleteExcept that the Falcon scenes diffuse the tension considerably with a lot of comedy- the exception being the Space Slug scene, in which the romance and the mystery of the slug itself take precedence over actual tension.
DeleteI mean, most of the stuff you're talking about is that basic tension that's in almost every action scene in film- the prequels as well. I don't think there's a moment where a true and lurking fear that the Empire could suddenly attack at any moment throughout the original films.
But I'm not talking about action scenes. I'm talking about everything.
DeleteTake Bespin for example. First, you know Boba Fett is following them. Then, the not so warm welcome coupled with Lando being an unknown entity. He seems friendly enough, but there's something not quite right. Then 3PO gets separated and blown to bits. This is all in the initial landing.
You're right, there is that kind of tension in the Cloud City scenes (I was wrong on that point)- but that's different from the tension hanging over "everything", which was your initial argument. Cloud City is in this case the exception and not the rule.
DeleteWhat about Hoth?
DeleteHoth is overtaken by the Wampa scenes, after which it operates under the standard tension of a general action scene.
DeleteThe wampa is barely five minutes total.
DeleteBad terming on my part- I was meaning the sequences with Luke in general.
DeleteI don't think there really is such a thing as Objective Criticism....
ReplyDeleteAs a life-long fan, the Star Wars movies took over my first love, Star Trek, and changed my life forever. Though an adult when I saw Eps I-III, I didn't bring the baggage of my youth with me. I saw the prequels as a (once again) 9-year-old, and took from the movies what they wanted to give me, pure entertainment and a background to the OT. I don't view the movies as separate, but ONE saga, as intended by it's creator. VII-IX will be also part of the One Saga. Haters gonna hate. I don't care. I do not apologize for something that I think is awesome. I don't see flaws - I see great movies to share with my friends and family.
Since the Disney buyout, I'm hopeful for the future and the permanent fixture of Star Wars as an enduring example of awesome fantasy storytelling. The company restructuring is normal during a buyout, and though some of the things we hoped for may not be coming, there are some great things on the way. I plan to be a fan till I die.
My hats off to you for doing what so many can't do. I know it'll be difficult for me, but I'll still try my damndest.
DeleteI honestly prefer to watch the films in chronological order. Leaving special effects aside, the fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader is given much more emotional strength after watching Episode III. Besides, the ''I Am Your Father'' moment I would argue is no longer a surprise to anyone, even folks who haven't seen the film. A much better spoiler I would say for a first time watcher, is knowing that Palpatine and Sidious are the same persona.
ReplyDeleteAs far as your thoughts on Eppy VII, they are pretty much the same as mine.
DeleteMy children will not know Anakin Skywalker is Darth Vader until they see Empire for the first time. I will go to whatever lengths I can to make sure of that.
DeleteThat's different. But for people who are older and have even the vaguest knowledge of Star Wars, they already now the relationship even if you start with A New Hope.
DeleteWhile most do due to popcultural osmosis, I still like to assume that they haven't. It's so much fun for me to watch people's reactions when they don't know what's coming. But that's just me.
Deletetrue.
Delete