Star Wars
I'm a little late on this subject, but I was just in the post office and I was reminded, by the sheet of commemorative stamps on display, that a little film called Star Wars had its thirtieth-anniversary a few weeks back. In what is undoubtedly a minority opinion, I think the whole Star Wars fol-de-rol is a big ho-hum.I don't say this out of pique, for those who do worship at the shrine of Lucas are entitled to their opinions. I was friendly with a fellow who was one of those who was neck-deep in Star Wars mania, so I tried to get it, but I just couldn't drink the Kool-Aid. I have seen the first film (or, in the re-numbering, the fourth) three times, and each time I am less and less enchanted.
It might be due to age. I was probably 17 the first time I saw it. The film had been out a year or so, and in the age before movies jumped to video and then cable so quickly, it was still playing in theaters when I saw it at the Abbey in West Milford. I remember thinking it was a pleasant diversion, but certainly not a classic. I also dutifully saw each of the next two films in the trilogy in their first release, enjoying them not so much for their cinematic achievements but more for the goofy kitschiness of it all. When I saw Return of the Jedi I was in college, and saw it with my friend Joe Masset. We were both in a comedy improv group and, if it weren't completely inappropriate, would have provided a running commentary, like the robots on Mystery Science Theater 3000.
When the films were rereleased (was it in 1996?) I went to see it again with my Star Wars aficionado friends. I was somewhat stunned to realize how bored I was with it. This is what had inspired an entire generation of fan-boys? The acting was bad, the dialogue worse, and the special effects, which were state of the art at the time, seemed dated. I didn't say anything, though. It would have been like attending mass with devoted Catholics and then critiquing it.
Last year I rented the DVDs of the first trilogy (aside from the presence of Natalie Portman, I have no interest in seeing the second trilogy ever again), and again I was unconvinced. Lucas is certainly to be commended for creating a complex world, but the regurgitation of Joseph Campbell, old serial films, and Kurosawa rings hollow to me.
Over the years I've run into other people who have loved Star Wars, and most of them are about ten years younger than I am or more, which makes me wonder whether it serves better to have been a child when discovering the film. Maybe by 17 I was already too jaded. I will say that Raiders of the Lost Ark, another Lucas product (albeit directed by Steven Spielberg) that came four years later was to my mind a far superior film, and that I enjoyed the Lord of the Rings trilogy far more, and consider them much better films than anything in the Star Wars series. I guess I just think the Jedis have no clothes.
Maybe you're right, Jackrabbit. I know people who like Return of the Jedi far more than I did who were, like, 12 or 13 when they saw it. I was 12 when I first saw Star Wars, and I still love it, though I wouldn't call myself too much of a fan boy because what I admire about that one above all others is the look of it (the opening shot which can only truly be appreciated on a giant screen, the way Leia's hologram seems to be an homage to stuff seen in Flash Gordon serials), the sound design (I swear I think Lucas would do a whole film using only voices over intercoms, oh, wait, that was his student film, wasn't it?--and I dig that for some strange reason), and the editing.
ReplyDeleteI could care less about the Lord of the Rings trilogy.
Let me ask, Jackrabbit--had you read Joseph Campbell before seeing Star Wars? Had you seen a Kurosawa film? How many old serial films had you seen? My answers are: no, no, probably none. And for me it works the way What's Up, Doc? did--I loved it initially without any references, and I love it even more now that I get most of them. They're both movie-movies to me.
What I meant by the Campbell/Kurosawa crack was that Lucas wasn't doing anything stunningly original. You're quite right: no, no, and probably no.
ReplyDeleteThe look and sound, okay, that was groundbreakings stuff, but I can't get behind a film just because of it's special effects. If the story doesn't win me over, I don't give a crap about the F/X.
I want to love these films, but I just don't. And I'll say it again: LOTR is heads and shoulders a more impressive achievement and better filmmaking all around.
Also putting you in the minority: use of the phrase "fol-de-rol".
ReplyDeleteI agree with you in broad terms: I was never into Star Wars as much as a lot of people my age (or slightly older), and in general I feel like they've been extraordinarily overpraised.
I think they've held up reasonably well, however, and I'll watch the original trilogy every few years just for the hell of it. They're not classics to me, but they don't suck, and they're not a bad way to burn a few hours.
I'll likely never watch the new trilogy again, though.
Brian, you've crystallized it: "They're not classics to me, but they don't suck, and they're not a bad way to burn a few hours." Complete agreement.
ReplyDeleteI am reminded of a very strange man with whom I once worked. A coworker described his decline: "he used to be normal, but a little odd. Then he saw Star Wars, and it totally blew him out of the water."
ReplyDeleteI saw Star Wars in a crappy 99 cent theater with horrible sound and lousy picture quality, but I still loved it. I am not a total Star Wars geek, but I'm not willing to let its flaws stand in the way of the fact that the early films never failed to entertain me. The last three, not so much. I felt George Lucas's passion in the first films; in the last, it seemed to be missing.
Jackrabbit--are you dismissing production design, sound design, and editing as "special effects"? For me a film with a great story that is shot in an uninteresting way and poorly edited is a crappy film. A film that looks great, sounds great, and has a story that doesn't trip over itself could go either way with me depending on how well it's edited. Maybe this all comes from seeing 2001 when I was 8--the story there isn't what matters, but the emotions elicited in the viewer are. Hitchcock films can work on the same level. You can dismiss this effect as being akin to an amusement park ride, or you can admire it as art. :-)
ReplyDeleteFor me all of the Star Wars films have moments of cinematic magic (well, except for Attack of the Clones--no, wait, the opening scene of that one was actually pretty good), and the original was the best distillation for me, helped by probably the most linear plot and best editing of the series.
Another thing--I may be more attuned to the use of sound in films than I am visuals (I've always had great hearing, but not so great color-blind eyes), and sound in Lucas's films has been a hallmark going back to his student films. Coppola, Hitchcock, and Kubrick have also been brilliant in the sound department. Hmmm.....
Jaydro--
ReplyDeleteTo answer your question, yes. If I don't care about the characters, or the story, then production design is like an empty box with pretty wrapping paper on it. I don't mean to pick on Star Wars here, because I don't think the films are bad, just overrated. But I'll take a cheaply made film that might have bad sound and look like it was shot through cheesecloth over a film that has brilliant effects, sets, sound design or cinematography, but a stupid story. I think this is what is at the heart of the problem with much of Hollywood today. The industry has been taken over by technicians at the expense of art.
2001 is an interesting case. I'm kind of on the fence about that one. I do think it is interesting and has some poetic imagery (I especially liked the early man sequences, and the business with HAL 9000) but it's lack of a strong narrative makes it drag, in my opinion.
I should specify that I'll take a cheaply made film...that has good characters and story...over one with a good production design and no story.
ReplyDeleteOkay, Jackrabbit, then I can see where we're coming down on different sides of the fence, but I think we are in agreement about some things. I realize that some of what I said could be taken as sounding like a defender of Michael Bay, which I am not. I usually can't stand empty eye-candy THX-certified action films like that, and there's a certain emptiness to them (at least for me) that goes beyond, say, a decent James Bond film. In a good Bond film I get the feeling that I'm being winked at, while at a Michael Bay film I get the feeling that they are tremendously proud of the technical accomplishment that they are presenting for my entertainment, and they're beaming with pride all the way to the bank.
ReplyDeleteYou complain about the technicians versus the artists, and I'm with you there, but I guess I value the art of "pure cinema" over the more literary kind.
When I said a film that's shot and edited poorly with a great story is a crappy film, I never said it was cheaply made. A film can be cheaply made and still look great. Or a film can deliberately look bad if that's the intent and look great doing it. Anyway, I'm beginning to feel like we're talking past each other, and it may be because I'm trying to explain myself off the top of my head and thinking it through as I type....
Yeah, we're not that far apart. I'm thinking of a film like Return of the Secaucus Seven, which is definitely crudely made, in comparison with something like Star Wars, but I find much more compelling. But Secausus Seven is also well-edited (good editing is essential to a good film). But Secaucus Seven is not particulary well photographed, and has no production design to speak of.
ReplyDelete