Lucas, Star Wars, genre, sadness
On May 19th, the third of six and in all liklihood, final regular episode of the Star Wars film sextet will be released. As a great fan of genre (science fiction and fantasy), I must say I look to this with a certain sad resignation.
What fascinating world George Lucas created in my childhood, I now realize in my adult years that he did so largely by accident. The first Star Wars film, while not novel in any storytelling, was a pure creative icon, and the birth of modern science fiction on film. Taking Campbellian heroes and archetypes, and in turn using them to craft a scifi homage to Kurosawa's films, among other influences, Lucas created the most memorable films of my childhood. The follow-up, Episode V, was perhaps an even better film. Note that this is the film that Lucas had the least role in. Since then, his films have gone downhill. Episode VI was childish in many regards, and pointless in its redemption plotline, due to the lack of (pretty stupid) backstory that would follow in Episodes I and II. George Lucas' idiotic two-dimensional morality, obsession with drag racing, inability to see why his Campbellian 'heroes' are the way they are, the inability to pick a hero in the most recent two films, and a score of other problems has lead to a franchise that is at best damaged goods. David Brin
http://www.davidbrin.com/starwarsarticle1.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_main/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06/15/brin_side/index.html
has already made some excellent points. When you strip away the almost unbelievable (and sometimes quite unbelievable - see Yoda turbo midget ninja) technical prowess with digital effects in the most recent spate of films, you end up with films not many levels beyond B-grade horror, bad sweaty epics, or even Plan 9 from Outer Space. The characters are flat, unnuanced, flawed, yet take the roles of redeemable demigods. I can look back to The Phantom Menace and the only thing I found compelling was the skill with which (Scotsman Martial Arts Expert) Ray Park [aka Darth Maul] could move. The difference in disappointment between the Star Wars films and, say, The Matrix, was that the coolness of ANH and ESB had almsot twenty years to gel in my head, whereas the Matrix produced one great film, one bad film, and one film I have refused to see since I heard it was even worse than film two.
This brings me to some of the problems of science fiction in general. There seems to be a certain opinion that you can forgo plot, characters, and all the things that make up drama, and in their place put CGI porn. George Lucas' legacy may end up being ILM more than any film he made. There have been scores of uncompelling science fiction worlds on film, and reliance on computer rendered explosions to draw audiences is a major reason why. The best science fiction has been niche in recent years. I'll leave my 'sad resignation' over Star Trek for another day.
Having watched the trailer, I have no doubt that Episode III will be much of the same. Flat acting, CGI candy, and a whole lot of story to get through with a director who seems not up to the task. At least it is nice to see Christopher Lee getting some work.
So, do I go?
Yeah, as much as I don't want to enable George Lucas and Fox with my $9, I need some closure (not something I usually desire). If it is the final nail in the coffin of my rosier memories of Luke and Han (shoots first!) and Leia, then so be it.
Oh, and please note that "Serenity", likely to be a far better scifi film out Septmeber 30, was supposed to be out around the same time and moved its release because of not wanting to compete with Lucas' overblown gasbag franchise finale. Perhaps there is a future for science fiction, one that has compelling flawed heroes and good storytelling. But it is not likely to be Star Wars, and perhaps that is a lesson to learn from this.
4 comments:
I am going to re-open a discussion you and I had regarding 'Serenity'. I found 'firefly' to be weak Sci-Fi. I kept feeling it was 'Wild, Wild, West' in space, which I do not really care for as I prefer my sci-fi to be dark and dystopic.
It was NOT "Wild, Wild West" in space. It had western elements, but none of the hokey steampunk that would have played like crap in that concept. Firefly was more of a scifi with low-tech elements, sometimes very low tech. There was a considerable sense of 'haves' and 'have nots', with the idea that just because technology exists doesn't mean you can afford it, or want it for that matter. Western elements have existed in scifi for a long time. Heck, Star Trek was 'Wagon Train to the stars!' Also, Cowboy Bebop, et al. As to your acusation that it was 'up', Firefly was pretty damned dark and dystopic. It was almost a scifi take on the American civil war, from the point of view of the South. Being crushed by centralist authority who just wants to take away all your liberties and control everything. This is no different from the Empire in Star Wars, or even the Patriot Act in real life. In the end, Firefly was good storytelling with compelling and deeply flawed characters. That is about all I can ask for. If you are annoyed by some of the more western elements, you should know that 'Serenity' (the Firefly feature film for those not in the know) is rumored to have tuned down the western elements a bit and focused more on the higher-tech worlds type stories (like Ariel and Trash) . In any case, we'll just have to see...
Hires trailer for Serenity . Looks pretty shiny to me.
You already know what I think about Lucas' "I hate sand," dialogue. You also know what I think about his skills as a director. (I mean, how does one get a BAD PERFORMANCE out of SAMUEL FRIGGING JACKSON?) And hell, you also know what I think of rock-em, sock-em Yoda. So the following comment will likely surprise you:
I'm actually excited about Episode III.
I actually purchased the novelization and was surprised at how much I enjoyed the actual story. That inspired me to read the screenplay. Hmmm...not as good, but still surprisingly dark. Sure it has its weaknesses (which I won't post, to save the spoiler-averse), but I still think it's better than the All Jar-Jar, All the Time travesty that was Episode I, and the "I'm looking for a plot, any plot will do..." muddle that was Episode II. Faint praise, sure...but praise nontheless.
Besides, this is *it*. This is the story that I wanted to see back in 1977. Who is Darth Vader? Why is he a mouth breather? And how can this Lucas guy get away with just stealing so many SF ideas without being sued? (Okay, the last one won't be addressed, but you get my point.)
So yeah, I'm there on May 19th. I'll bring my son to see the PG-13-rated toast-a-thon that'll shove the Sand Hatin' Anakin into his mobile CPAP machine. Will I love it? Dunno. But it'll still be fun to see the curtain fall.
(And, for my money, 'Firefly' was just great, no matter the genre.)
Post a Comment