Friday, September 27, 2013

The Tragedy of Representative Binks

(Originally Written for Jedi News)





Did you ever hear “The Tragedy of Representative Binks”?

I thought not. It’s not a story the haters would tell you. It’s a fan legend.


Jar Jar Binks was a Gungan from the swamps of Naboo so bumbling and so annoying, that his own people banished him under pain of death. He had such a penchant for getting into trouble, but could also uncannily get himself out of said trouble relatively unscathed without even thinking about it.



Of course, in reality, Jar Jar was merely a figment. Dreamed up by George Lucas (presumably after a late-night binge of Buster Keaton films), Jar Jar was equal parts ersatz C-3PO and anti-Han Solo. He was a comedic fool, meant to appeal to the young target audience.  Yet by his very nature he was not only a lynchpin to the entire plot of Episode I, as all of the major victories for the heroes owe in some part to his blundering, but also a walking representation of everything the heroic Qui-Gon Jinn stood for: that life finds a way, and all life has value even if we can’t see it.


“Jar Jar is the key to all this,” Lucas said to his team, meaning that the film that would eventually become The Phantom Menace would crash and burn regardless of everything else if Jar Jar wasn’t a believable character.


Industrial Light and Magic pushed themselves to the limit in creating the most realistic Computer Generated Imagery they could. A young stage performer named Ahmed Best was hired to be the physical model and stand-in on set, and came up with a voice and performance that cracked everyone up so much they knew it needed to be the final recording for the character. In fact, for a while the original plan would be just to replace the head with CGI, and keep the rest of Best’s on-set performance in a fairly realistic Jar Jar suit (which was only turned-down last minute due to cost-effectiveness).


ILM, with help from Best, would even experiment with a relatively new form of animation called “motion capture,” which allowed the computer to track an actor’s movement as a basis for a digital character, thus making the performance seem more natural. At that point it had really been only used sparingly for science expos and video games. While Phantom Menace was not the first motion picture to use it, it was the first to try and see just what it was capable of.


By all accounts it worked. Jar Jar Binks was perhaps the most relatable and realistic digital character in film when he made his debut in 1999. But this is a tragedy, after all.

While Jar Jar went over well enough with many viewers, and worked like gangbusters with the target audience, a very vocal section of the fanbase lost their minds. They hated Jar Jar with a venom that should only be reserved for people who commit major crimes against humanity. Some said he served no purpose, not realizing how he allowed most of the plot to happen. Some called him racist, misinterpreting his accent and inspiration for something much fouler than it truly was. Some accused Lucas of selling out to the younger crowd, forgetting that the younger crowd has always been the primary target. To this day the vehemence and spread of the loathing has been given no sensible answer by those who continue to propagate it, though a likely theory may involve them projecting their own dark sides onto the amphibian.

George Lucas, though utterly nonplussed, waved it off at first. After all, hadn’t C-3PO been met by a similar reception by older fans? Weren’t the Ewoks mainly a subject of scorn for the first few years of their existence? People largely came around to them, or at least learned to tolerate them enough to enjoy the rest of the films. It would go the same way with Jar Jar.

All the same, Lucas wanted to make Jar Jar’s contribution to the remainder of the story much more noticeable, far less abstract, so that maybe people would come around a little quicker.


Back in the Galaxy Far, Far Away, Jar Jar Binks becomes the Gungan Representative in the Galactic Senate, working alongside Queen-turned-Senator Padmé Amidala. When Padmé goes into hiding, she puts Jar Jar in charge of her senate seat. While Jar Jar is still the excitable Gungan we knew, he’s matured somewhat. He knows how to hold pomp and circumstance. He’s grown up, if only a little.


However, he has made the same mistake that everyone in the galaxy has made: he trusted Palpatine. So when Palpatine a Mas Amedda strongly hint that only by giving the Chancellor executive powers can their friends be saved, and that a senator would have to be uncommonly brave to propose such an amendment, well poor Representative Binks swallowed it hook, line, and sinker.

George Lucas came up with this plot point of Attack of the Clones in order to not only cement Jar Jar’s greater role in the galaxy, but to prove how dire things had become when even our plucky comic relief is swindled to such a degree. It was well-written and well-acted all around, and is one of the sadder scenes in the film if only for its significance.


Ironic. It was meant to gain him sympathy, but only gave the haters an excuse to hate more.

Not only that, but many of those who were pro-Binks saw this, at least at first, as appeasement to the hater crowd. Everyone seemed to see it as George Lucas admitting that Jar Jar was a sub-par character, even though neither of those statements is true.


The Tragedy of Representative Binks is not only in the fact that he like the rest of the Republic was manipulated by perhaps the most evil person in galactic history, but that every attempt by the filmmakers to stick by the character created so much scorn and hate that his time in Revenge of the Sith was reduced to a mere cameo just out of focus. And there was a resolution written for him, which would complete the Tragedy as the full weight of what he had done would have hit him. Yet, for reasons still unknown, Jar Jar remains a punchline in the circles that seem to control how history is recorded. Which is a shame, because Jar Jar Binks, as well as everyone who was instrumental in bringing him to life, deserves so much more than that.

54 comments:

  1. Good job, Adam. I'm confident that time will be kind to Jar Jar, just like it's been to the Ewoks. Much like with Jar Jar, a certain segment of Star Wars "fan" decided that the Ewoks ruined ROTJ in 1983, and spent the next decade and a half whining about it---and they didn't even have the benefit of the idiot-amplifier known as 'the internet'. Once 1999 rolled around, they found a juicy new target--our pal JJB--and shifted their hate-beam off of the Ewoks; today, though you'll still find a rabid fanboy here and there who toes the party line and sputters and spits about how terrible the big bad Ewoks are, the majority of fans either tolerate or outright *like* the Ewoks now. Hasbro put out something like *8* brand new Ewok figures last year alone, not to mention LEGO's impressive new $250 Ewok Village...if merchandising is any indicator (and it often is), the Ewoks have clearly outlasted the sour shrieks of their haters.

    That process may take a bit longer with Jar Jar, but I truly believe it will happen/is happening already--the two Jar Jar figures Hasbro put out last year appeared to do well (you'd be hard-pressed to find one at retail still, unlike the 2012 Qui-Gons, Obi-Wans, and Anakins that cover the globe to this day), the Gentle Giant set with Jar Jar released last Christmas goes for $150 on average on the secondary market, and there's even a Funko "POP!" figure of him coming out in a couple of weeks...Not to mention the Jar Jar bird prominently featured in SW Angry Birds II. As successive generations discover all of the SW movies for themselves, young kids with no idea that they're "supposed to" hate JJB will naturally be drawn to his goofy antics...he'll become a part of their childhoods before they can get the memo that he's FORBIDDEN, and once that happens, the haters lose--and in that case, he'll have nostalgia on his side. So don't despair, it's a long game!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To paraphrase Qui-Gon: Nostalgia can be a powerful ally...

      Delete
    2. There's a good theory going around that people who are older than 10 on their first viewing of ROTJ hate the Ewoks, while those younger enjoy them and at the absolute worst are indifferent to them. Like all generalizations it's not 100% true and there are always exceptions, but I think it kinda maps out where that divide tends to be for general fans, and where I think it also lies for Jar-Jar.

      I know for my part, as someone who grew up with the films and watched all of them as a child, I'm rather indifferent to both of them- I enjoy them in some facet (though do find them some of the weaker parts of their respective films) but don't passionately hate them like some people do (though interestingly enough I never warmed to Jar-Jar all that much- he just never interested me as a character).

      Delete
    3. That's understandable. To be honest, I never really warmed up to Han. How weird am I?

      Delete
    4. I never did, either, but then I never warmed to Luke as well. 3PO, Yoda in ESB, and most of the villains tended to be my favorite as a kid.

      Delete
  2. Love how you made a nod to Darth Plagueis at the beginning.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Some called him racist, misinterpreting his accent and inspiration for something much fouler than it truly was."

    The issue of racism and prejudice in art is a deep and long rabbit-hole that I'm not really wanting to go down into, so I'll just say this: A work can be racist without *intending* to be. The issue that people have with Jar-Jar is *not* that they somehow think Lucas, Best & co. all schemed to create a racist character, it's that, they argue, the character *as presented* happens to bear unfortunate similarities to a particular stereotype of the black community. That is what's being argued here, and though you may disagree with it (I'm pretty sure we've hashed out this argument way to many times to try and do it again), that is the point to counter.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's a fine line to be sure sometimes, but since Jar Jar is a duck-billed alien and the only individual of his species to act the way he does (to the point that his fellows want to MURDER him), this is clearly a case of people reading way too much into it.

      Delete
    2. The pidgin is ubiquitous among the others, not to mention that Boss Nass fits the stereotype as well.

      And Jar-Jar being "a duck-billed alien" is absolutely irrelevant to whether he's racist or not, but I think you know that.

      Delete
    3. What I know is that your assertion that "pidgin = racism" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. It's just a stupid accent (to quote Mel once again). People who don't speak English as a first language are going to have accents. If they have limited encounters with English-speakers, their accent will be thicker and peppered with syntax from their original language. It's how these things work.

      As for Nass, as boisterous and susceptible to mind tricks as he is, he's a completely different character with a completely different set of character strengths and weaknesses. Yeah, he's the cheif of a relatively primitive society, but he's portrayed very positively and on equal ground. It's just a different culture.

      Delete
  4. Pidgin might not be inherently racist, but it's so predominately used as a tool of oppression and mockery for minority races that it almost may as well be. The thing is that language is so often used as a sign of civilization and intelligence, with pidgin being used as a shorthand to show how "simple" and "uncultured" these races are. It's why the reversals used in Pacific Overtures and especially in East of Eden are so brilliant- because the characters use language to defy common expectations of them.

    I mean, that's the thing- racial signifiers typically are not, in themselves, racist. A penchant for watermelon and a craving for chicken, for example, are not inherently racist things. But systematic stereotyping and oppression that links those traits to, in this case, the black community, makes those prejudiced traits when used in that fashion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, but context is key there. Again, the most important thing to remember here is that Jar Jar is not human. He's an alien called a Gungan. To be a racist caricature, he would need to explicitly show most of the exact traits. As it is, at worst he's an inoffensive funny foreigner.

      Delete
    2. I was rushed and should clarify. A funny foreigner can be offensive if portrayed as a negative stereotype of a specific culture. Otherwise, it's a harmless (if a bit done-to-death), sympathetic fish-out-of-water.

      Delete
    3. "Again, the most important thing to remember here is that Jar Jar is not human"

      That is *irrelevant* to whether or not he can be a racist character or not. I mean, sci-fi started out as being allegories for our own real-world problems, so there's no reason to suggest that just because a layer of fictionality is placed over the piece that it somehow becomes impervious to real-world issues. He's an alien called a Gungan, yes, but that alien was created by a real human being living in a real human world. And that character is thus susceptible to the issues of the real world.

      Delete
    4. But because he's an alien, it takes so much more specific traits to call him racist. If he was an alien specifically based on a negative stereotype, and embodied those very specific traits, then you could argue. However, what we're dealing with is a character archetype, and any vague resemblances to racist stereotypes is due to the latter occasionally being cast as the former. A bumbling comic relief with a weird way of speaking is not racist, or else 90% of children's programming is.

      Delete
    5. Except that there's a difference between "a bumbling comic relief with a weird way of speaking" and "a clumsy pidgin-speaking comic relief who's part of a primitive culture and within the film placed in a 'life debt' to a white man". Which doesn't even get into the fact that he is, point of fact, played by a black man.

      And it doesn't take specific traits to highlight something as being a real-world parallel...the pod-people from Invasion of the Body Snatchers manage to be blindingly obvious metaphors for Communist Russia despite the fact that I've never heard of Soviets erupting from pods and growing from goo.

      Delete
    6. But that's purposeful allegory. There's a huge difference between author/director intent and audience applicability.

      Lest we forget, Chewbacca owed Han a Life-Debt. Is Chewie then racist? No, because in both cases it's a cultural thing, done purely by choice of the debter. If not for their Owen senses of honor and/or safety, they could leave at any time.

      Also remember, the Gungans are clearly meant to be positive characters, and the fact that the Naboo have discounted them is a BAD thing. Equality between the cultures = good.

      Delete
    7. *Their OWN senses, not Luke's Step-Uncle.

      Delete
    8. Chewie being indebted to Han isn't mentioned in the film, though, whereas Jar-Jar's life debt comes as an actual plot point. And as I said, intent doesn't necessarily matter in these cases- textual evidence is often *much* stronger than any authorial intent can be.

      Also, being portrayed in a positive light doesn't exclude it from being racist...There's a reason Song of the South is banned despite Uncle Remus being the protagonist.

      Delete
    9. But we ALL know it. It's part of SW canon since the '70s.

      For the last time, JAR JAR BINKS IS NOT RACIST AT ALL. Point of fact, and nothing short of George Lucas spouting epithets on the Today Show will prove otherwise. Regardless of any vague similarities that may or may not be there.

      I've heard your arguments, you've heard mine. I'm done arguing.

      Delete
    10. "But we ALL know it. It's part of SW canon since the '70s."

      But it's not in the films, which is what matters for most audience members and is what I'm arguing here (to be perfectly honest I had no idea about the life debt thing with Han & Chewie until you brought it up).

      Delete
  5. I never really understood why so many people hate Jar Jar so much.

    If I had to guess its probably the fact that he is one of those carefree, bumbling, happy-go-lucky type of characters. And in this modern adult world anything that is innocent or goofy is absolutely hated.

    Why? Because so many adults are miserable, bitter people who've forgotten how to be goofy and lighthearted.

    And Jar Jar is just a reminder of that.

    A lot of adults (not all) have forgotten how to 'be kids' and laugh at stupidity rather then get angry at it. They've forgotten how NOT to take everything so seriously and as a result they want and expect Star Wars to be SERIOUS man!

    They want Star Wars to be a serious drama, so anything funny, or slapstick, or tongue-in-cheek is met with absolute hatred. They've forgotten that Star Wars was never a serious drama, it was always a FUN, and lighthearted adventure series at it's core.

    How do I know this for a fact?

    I've never met a child who didn't like Jar Jar, or the Prequels, kids don't waste time on nitpicking everything to death, they just sit back and enjoy the films for what they are suppose to be...entertainment.

    And if they don't like a movie they put it aside and move onto the next movie. They don't waste there time on bashing everyone who liked the movie, why would they do that when they could play and have fun with something else?

    It's a shame some adults can't be as wise.


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Truly wonderful, the mind of a child is."

      Of course they'll tear you to pieces over other stuff if they aren't taught better...

      Delete
    2. This is a bit of a strawman, though...most people I talk to don't have a problem with Jar-Jar being silly or expect the SW films to be completely serious (I mean, if they did how would they tolerate C-3PO or Yoda's early scenes in ESB?), and it's a bit of a fallacy to suggest that if you dislike Jar-Jar you're a miserable and bitter person.

      Delete
    3. Maybe not, but that's the image detractors tend to cultivate.

      Delete
    4. Well, remember that a "vocal minority" is exactly that. It's a sad fact of culture that the people with the most obnoxious and hateful views in life also tend to be the ones that are most outspoken about said beliefs.

      Delete
  6. It's funny that the more people "hated" on Jar Jar, the more I found him to be sympathetic and eventually grew to really love him as a character. He fills multiple roles for storytelling, and he's a lot of fun to play with. It really is a shame he didn't get more screen time in ROTS - you mentioned something about a resolution being written for him? Do you know any more about that? I'm just curious what Lucas & Co. had in mind for him.

    Otherwise, I figure as soon as Episode VII comes out in 2015, they'll pick a new character to rag on, and then maybe Jar Jar will get a little peace.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ahmed Best mentioned in an interview that a scene was shot that would take place after Palpatine declares himself Emperor, where Palps personally thanks Jar Jar for the "Emergency Powers" thing like it was just another day in Politics, and Jar Jar has nothing to say (either because he's horrified or because he's been so broken down by the system that it barely registers).

      Delete
    2. No idea. I assume it was cut early enough that they didn't even animate Jar Jar.

      Delete
  7. ["Also, being portrayed in a positive light doesn't exclude it from being racist...There's a reason Song of the South is banned despite Uncle Remus being the protagonist."]


    Don't you find that stupid and hypocritical? Movies like "THE BIRTH OF A NATION" and "GONE WITH THE WIND" are being sold in stores, yet "SONG OF THE SOUTH" isn't? I find it hypocritical. And "BIRTH OF A NATION" is especially a lot more offensive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can't speak to what I haven't seen. There are things that are easier to forgive based on when they were made.

      Of course, I still think calling any Star Wars character allegory to any specific race is bunk.

      Delete
    2. I find all three pretty damned racist, but think Disney is completely in the wrong to ban Song of the South entirely (and to have never released the original theatrical version of Fantasia, Sunflower and all). It's one thing to (quite rightly) admonish the past for its shortcomings, and another to try and erase it entirely and pretend it doesn't exist. What Disney is doing falls firmly in the latter, and I find it a crime to our culture and a perversion of history, to say the very least.

      Delete
    3. I don't mind minor edits so that future generations can enjoy it with a clear conscience, so long as it's acknowledged that it used to be there.

      Delete
    4. Oh, I don't mind them *editing* the film- If I'm gonna show Fantasia to my kids I'd certainly like it to not have racial stereotypes. My issue is that they are refusing to release the original film *at all*, and the edited one is the only one available for commercial release. That's when it starts to become an erasure of history.

      Delete
    5. Except that it's well-documented that something was cut. Not as much as, say, Star Wars, but the info is readily available and hardly a secret.

      Delete
    6. Yes, but it being documented is not the same as the film actually being *available*. 'Erasure of history' is not really a phrase to take absolutely 100% literally.

      I mean, by a similar token you could say that the fact a good 80% of early television from the 50s-60s is lost isn't really a huge deal, because after all, those shows are documented and the info is readily available on them. Because, I mean, that's true. But talk to any Doctor Who fan and I doubt you'll find one that doesn't think there's something awful in the fact that the first regeneration was wiped from the archives.

      Delete
    7. That's a little bit different. We're not talking about an entire season of a TV show (though even then it's not "outrageous" as much as it is "sad"), we're talking about small parts of a film that is otherwise commercially available. (Incidentally, why was that season erased?)

      There really is no point for Disney to release the unedited version. Few people would knowingly buy it, and they have enough trouble justifying Dumbo's Crows and Peter Pan's "Indians" (which, while both clearly stereotypes, weren't as bad as they could be).

      Delete
    8. Well, the reason would be film preservation, plain and simple. Because the Fantasia of 1940 is not the Fantasia of 1969 (or whenever they first made those cuts, I'm not exactly positive on the date), and is worth preserving as a part of our cultural history.


      And the BBC used to have a policy that all shows would be wiped from the archives after a certain number of years, since at that time no one thought people would want to rewatch television shows, so I believe most all Doctor Who episodes from 1963-1971 were wiped. It was only about a decade later that the practice was halted and people started hunting for the missing episodes.

      At this point, I believe there are 106 episodes of Doctor Who currently missing from the archives, though if rumours are believed that number may be getting a bit smaller soon (fingers crossed). Luckily, though, audio exists for all the episodes, as do "reconstructions" which combine the audio with telesnaps and extant clips to try and provide as close a realization to the original episode as possible. But, of course, it's nothing like the real thing.

      Delete
    9. I think you're going a little overboard with Fantasia (and by association SW), but I totally agree that the Who thing is an absolute travesty. BBC should have known better, and I'm flabbergasted.

      Delete
    10. Well, the thing is, is something like Fantasia or the original SW films *as* important as preserving, say, a film that hasn't even been released on DVD and may be rotting in a vault somewhere? Of course not. But it is still important to preserve those films in their original form as a part of our cultural history. To do otherwise would be to erase that history, even if it is only a tiny fragment.


      Yes, though, the BBC practice was deeply unfortunate- even worse considering Who wasn't the only program affected. A good chunk of all BBC television from the 50s and 60s is now lost, and the only reason Doctor Who got off lucky with 106 episodes is because it's had such a massive following and has endured so long.

      Delete
    11. Update, that number is apparently now 95. Ain't life grand?

      Delete
    12. Indeed- especially that both serials recovered are two of the more revered and wanted of the lot. Veeeery exciting news.

      Delete
  8. Why is Jar-Jar solely held responsible for Palpatine's rise, when the Jedi Order, the Senate, Padme and Anakin are also partly responsible?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Totally. Palps played everyone, that's what makes him so scary.

      Delete
  9. This was a great, if bittersweet read!

    I'm one of the only honest fans of Jar Jar [that' I'm aware of] out there. I tirelessly defend him in any and every way I possibly can; and your article gave me more hope for the future of the lovable, clumsy Gungan.

    His time will come soon I'm sure! He's most recently, in addition to above examples: been immortalized in Star Tours 2, and was prominently shown in the recent phone game Star Wars: Tiny Death Star.

    Here's to hoping he'll make a appearance in both the Rebels TV show and Episode VII! (He deserves a cameo in VII, if anything. He's practically the only major Prequel character who is still technically alive through the OT period.)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As much as I'd love JJ to appear in VII-IX, he'd be way too old if it takes place decades after Jedi (and that's assuming my theory that he's in his late teens in Phantom is true).

      However, JJ in Rebels is an idea sweet enough to make me watch that show.

      Delete
    2. Its never been fully set in stone, but after scouring the likes of Wookiepedia, it states he was born 52 years before ANH; and TPM happens 32 before ANH. So at the most he was around 20 at the time, then 30s during AotC/TCW since its exactly 10 years later, and early 30s by the time RotS happens. Since the entirety of the OT lasts only 4 years, and we've yet to know the exact period of time VII will take place, I'd say he could at the very least be in his 50s. Gungans in general have been listed to living around 65 years; so he'd be pushing it, but its still possible.

      (Never thought I'd get so geeky over a character's age! *laughs*)

      But as far as Rebels go, he could be one of the many senators who's supporting the Rebellion, offering supplies and armies for the newly formed Alliance. It'd be very cool seeing him standing up against Palpatine during a senate meeting; after the grave mistake he made all those years ago. It could be chilling and powerful in the sense that he's lived with all this turmoil ever since the Empire was born, and is tired of living in fear of the Emperor; as the rest of the senate does.

      Delete
    3. I kind of hoped one day I'd get to write an EU story about an old JJ coming out of retirement at Leia's request to help train Wicket to be Endor's senator in the New Republic. Hilarity and Feels ensue.

      Delete
    4. Heh, that'd be an interesting process; teach an Ewok to do public speaking. It'd be cute seeing an aged Jar Jar interacting with Leia; I wonder if he'd know Padme was her true mother? Especially if he and Bail Organa were colleagues throughout TCW, and likely beyond.

      I forgot to mention that one official Lego site listed Jar Jar being 13 during TPM. While this may seem random, its certainly the only official age he's ever been given; also I'm sure Gungans age radically different than humans would anyway. So if that's the case... 23 during TCW, 26 by RotS, 45 by ANH, and finally 49 after RotJ.

      So definitely a bit different in that case; Mr. Binks would indeed have a good portion of time left after the Empire falls. :)

      Delete
    5. I don't know if I'd peg him as that young, but he definitely acts like a teenager. I'd put him between 16-19.

      Wookieepedia once said that Gungans age similar to humans. Of course George could overturn that if he wants.

      Delete
    6. Yeah I'd agree with him being more towards 16-19. He was very innocent and kid-like, but also mature enough to converse with Amidala about the bleak future of their world on Coruscant prior to returning.

      Last time I checked Wookiepedia, it only said Gungans live for 65 Standard Galactic Years; while humans typically live up to 100 or 120! 200 if Force-sensitive! Wow, I honestly never knew that! And a SGY is 368 days long, with 12 months of at least 30 days. I'm too tired to do any more math. *laughs*

      Delete