Friday, August 3, 2007
Thursday, May 31, 2007
SAW Another Sequel
I wanted to make a short note about one of my favorite film series: "Saw." You might laugh at this as "Saw" is clearly no "Star Wars" but I had wanted to write about it as it is, I think, a perfect example of why critics need to be more...umm, critical--about themselves.
Presumably, you don't accidently wander into a theater showing any of the "Saw" movies. Presumably, you go into said theater knowing what you are going to see. But I guess the film critics missed Basic Common Sense 101 Class. "Saw" is "Saw" whether it's the first, second, or third in the series. People die horrible deaths by being placed in impossibly devious devices or situations and then at the end there is some kind of twist and then they make another sequel. That's it. If you liked the first one I would imagine you likely liked the last one and will probably like the new one coming out next Fall. If you didn't--you probably won't. Is it anymore complicated than that?
How much do my fiancee and I like...er, love the "Saw" films? Last year we went to the premiere of "Saw III" dressed up as Jigsaw. If you don't know who Jigsaw is...well then, why are you reading this in the first place?
Presumably, you don't accidently wander into a theater showing any of the "Saw" movies. Presumably, you go into said theater knowing what you are going to see. But I guess the film critics missed Basic Common Sense 101 Class. "Saw" is "Saw" whether it's the first, second, or third in the series. People die horrible deaths by being placed in impossibly devious devices or situations and then at the end there is some kind of twist and then they make another sequel. That's it. If you liked the first one I would imagine you likely liked the last one and will probably like the new one coming out next Fall. If you didn't--you probably won't. Is it anymore complicated than that?
How much do my fiancee and I like...er, love the "Saw" films? Last year we went to the premiere of "Saw III" dressed up as Jigsaw. If you don't know who Jigsaw is...well then, why are you reading this in the first place?
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Sequel Bashing--Catch the Fever!
Sequels. Love them. Hate them. Leave them. Take them.
Lately it seems that everyone is just bashing them. Can't a sequel get a lil' love? After reading reviews of sequels the last few months, I'd have to answer with a resounding "NO!" it's a harsh world out there for those litty bitty sequels. They always are getting compared to their older siblings and that's just not fair. We don't do that with children anymore--or at least we're not supposed to! I don't do it with my cats--except when I'm throwing them. Can't a movie just be judged for itself, for it's own intrinsic value? I guess not.
"Spiderman 3" is admittedly no "Spiderman 2" but then again, thankfully, it's no "Spiderman I" which may have been the worst "first" I've ever seen.
"Pirates 3" (I'm not writing all of the additional titles out because, well, I'm lazy) was my favorite of the three. I loved it. It was a whale of an action movie. Was it better than the other two? I dunno. Better? Hard to say. My fiancee can't really answer it because she is madly in love with John Depp and considers "Private Resort" to be a classic and is pretty sure that "Platoon" is in fact, a John Depp movie. All the other soldiers were just window dressing as far as she's concerned.
"Shrek 3" came out a bit ago and the poor ogre has been having an...ogre of a time of it in the press. Judging from the reviews you'd think that "Shrek 3" was some kind of cosmic assault against our collective consciousness. I thought it was a kid's movie. One review said there were, of all things, fart jokes in it! To paraphrase a line from Casablanca, "FART JOKES! FART JOKES IN A KID'S MOVIE?! I'm shocked!" Were the critics thinking Bill Shakespeare was writing the screenplay? Does a fart by any other ogre not smell as good?
I haven't seen "Shrek 3" yet. The reviews were just too bad. Okay, that's not true. I haven't seen it because I have no money. I read reviews for the fun of it and as a general rule of thumb don't read them until after I've seen a movie--especially if it's a movie I am anxious to see. I've just read too many reviews which have attempted to ruin a movie for me. If I go in expecting to see a bad movie I am such a weak brained individual that that's just what I 'll see. If the review is for a movie I know I'll never see I'll read it because I'm funny that way. If it's a movie I don't really care about I'll read it because I won't really care it the writer dumps on it. If it's a movie I don't want to see but my fiancee wants to see, I'll definitely read it and then tell her how awful the critics think it is--this strategy has saved me many a bad date. Use it if ye like.
What I'm concerned about is not really that poor Shrek and Fiona got hammered by the critics, they're ogres and have been through much worse. What bothers me is that critics are getting progressively meaner and meaner and their reviews are getting leaner and leaner. A few words to describe the movie and the stars and then it's rip city! Then it's expository writing time! Do we need to know if the existential questions involved in "Spiderman 3" are ripe with the transgressions of typical metaphysical questioning? Probably not. If it's not as good as "Spiderman 2" then just make a note of it. "Spiderman 2" was considered by many (most notably, Roger Ebert) to be the best superhero movie ever made so if "3" isn't as good--is that a shock to anybody? But you know what? I loved comic books when I was growing up and as a fan of comics I absolutely loved "Spiderman 3." Sure, it didn't all work so well, yeah, Gwen is more of a babe than M.J. so Peter Parker and Spiderman should have dumped the one and stayed with the other and the "New Green Goblin" had a costume which looked like it came out of the Ax Man surplus store but who cares?! It's a movie about a guy who crawls up buildings and swings on webs like a spider. Could we have a little room just for entertainment? The action sequences were a lot of fun. Maybe that's not a grandiose achievement (or critique for that matter) but it's a summer movie. I go to summer movies to be entertained. Here in Minnesota I have all winter (about eight months of it) to watch serious, artsy movies and contemplate the universe while it's fifty degrees below zero outside. In the summer, well, a good action movie at the drive-in is a beautiful thing.
"Pirates 3" may be convoluted in some areas with all the characters switching sides as fast as they can but my fiancee pointed out that they've been doing that for the entire series so I am not entirely sure it's right to criticize it now. It has tremendous action scenes, is flippin' hilarious, and it has KEITH RICHARDS IN IT! Do you want to know how good I thought it was? I have been waiting to see Keith's cameo for about two years now. And guess what? I was so engrossed in the movie that I completely forgot to watch for it and it wasn't until he had been on the screen for two minutes that I realized it was him! Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. My fiancee too. My brother too. His wife too. And we all love Keith and were waiting for him the entire movie and we all forgot about it!
Why am I so cranky about this? Well, like I said, I'm funny with the way I like to read reviews as a hobby. I would love to write a book reviewing the reviewers (Greil Marcus watch out!). I love The Onion and I have been reading it for years, but their critics--they have about forty of them--are taking themselves so seriously that it's time that someone come up with a paper/website parodying The Onion and it's staff with a headline with something along the lines of "Former Hilarious Fake Madison Newspaper Which Sold Out and Moved to New York City Years Ago Now Takes Itself So Seriously That--In Between Its FIFTY PAGES OF VERY REAL ADVERTISEMENTS--It Must Trash Kiddie Movies In A Vainglorious Attempt to Justify Its Lack of Any Real Humor." Or something like that. Hey! They're sequels. In the entire history of humanity there have only been two sequels which surpassed the original--The New Testament and "The Godfather II."
And not necessarily in that order.
Lately it seems that everyone is just bashing them. Can't a sequel get a lil' love? After reading reviews of sequels the last few months, I'd have to answer with a resounding "NO!" it's a harsh world out there for those litty bitty sequels. They always are getting compared to their older siblings and that's just not fair. We don't do that with children anymore--or at least we're not supposed to! I don't do it with my cats--except when I'm throwing them. Can't a movie just be judged for itself, for it's own intrinsic value? I guess not.
"Spiderman 3" is admittedly no "Spiderman 2" but then again, thankfully, it's no "Spiderman I" which may have been the worst "first" I've ever seen.
"Pirates 3" (I'm not writing all of the additional titles out because, well, I'm lazy) was my favorite of the three. I loved it. It was a whale of an action movie. Was it better than the other two? I dunno. Better? Hard to say. My fiancee can't really answer it because she is madly in love with John Depp and considers "Private Resort" to be a classic and is pretty sure that "Platoon" is in fact, a John Depp movie. All the other soldiers were just window dressing as far as she's concerned.
"Shrek 3" came out a bit ago and the poor ogre has been having an...ogre of a time of it in the press. Judging from the reviews you'd think that "Shrek 3" was some kind of cosmic assault against our collective consciousness. I thought it was a kid's movie. One review said there were, of all things, fart jokes in it! To paraphrase a line from Casablanca, "FART JOKES! FART JOKES IN A KID'S MOVIE?! I'm shocked!" Were the critics thinking Bill Shakespeare was writing the screenplay? Does a fart by any other ogre not smell as good?
I haven't seen "Shrek 3" yet. The reviews were just too bad. Okay, that's not true. I haven't seen it because I have no money. I read reviews for the fun of it and as a general rule of thumb don't read them until after I've seen a movie--especially if it's a movie I am anxious to see. I've just read too many reviews which have attempted to ruin a movie for me. If I go in expecting to see a bad movie I am such a weak brained individual that that's just what I 'll see. If the review is for a movie I know I'll never see I'll read it because I'm funny that way. If it's a movie I don't really care about I'll read it because I won't really care it the writer dumps on it. If it's a movie I don't want to see but my fiancee wants to see, I'll definitely read it and then tell her how awful the critics think it is--this strategy has saved me many a bad date. Use it if ye like.
What I'm concerned about is not really that poor Shrek and Fiona got hammered by the critics, they're ogres and have been through much worse. What bothers me is that critics are getting progressively meaner and meaner and their reviews are getting leaner and leaner. A few words to describe the movie and the stars and then it's rip city! Then it's expository writing time! Do we need to know if the existential questions involved in "Spiderman 3" are ripe with the transgressions of typical metaphysical questioning? Probably not. If it's not as good as "Spiderman 2" then just make a note of it. "Spiderman 2" was considered by many (most notably, Roger Ebert) to be the best superhero movie ever made so if "3" isn't as good--is that a shock to anybody? But you know what? I loved comic books when I was growing up and as a fan of comics I absolutely loved "Spiderman 3." Sure, it didn't all work so well, yeah, Gwen is more of a babe than M.J. so Peter Parker and Spiderman should have dumped the one and stayed with the other and the "New Green Goblin" had a costume which looked like it came out of the Ax Man surplus store but who cares?! It's a movie about a guy who crawls up buildings and swings on webs like a spider. Could we have a little room just for entertainment? The action sequences were a lot of fun. Maybe that's not a grandiose achievement (or critique for that matter) but it's a summer movie. I go to summer movies to be entertained. Here in Minnesota I have all winter (about eight months of it) to watch serious, artsy movies and contemplate the universe while it's fifty degrees below zero outside. In the summer, well, a good action movie at the drive-in is a beautiful thing.
"Pirates 3" may be convoluted in some areas with all the characters switching sides as fast as they can but my fiancee pointed out that they've been doing that for the entire series so I am not entirely sure it's right to criticize it now. It has tremendous action scenes, is flippin' hilarious, and it has KEITH RICHARDS IN IT! Do you want to know how good I thought it was? I have been waiting to see Keith's cameo for about two years now. And guess what? I was so engrossed in the movie that I completely forgot to watch for it and it wasn't until he had been on the screen for two minutes that I realized it was him! Then it hit me like a ton of bricks. My fiancee too. My brother too. His wife too. And we all love Keith and were waiting for him the entire movie and we all forgot about it!
Why am I so cranky about this? Well, like I said, I'm funny with the way I like to read reviews as a hobby. I would love to write a book reviewing the reviewers (Greil Marcus watch out!). I love The Onion and I have been reading it for years, but their critics--they have about forty of them--are taking themselves so seriously that it's time that someone come up with a paper/website parodying The Onion and it's staff with a headline with something along the lines of "Former Hilarious Fake Madison Newspaper Which Sold Out and Moved to New York City Years Ago Now Takes Itself So Seriously That--In Between Its FIFTY PAGES OF VERY REAL ADVERTISEMENTS--It Must Trash Kiddie Movies In A Vainglorious Attempt to Justify Its Lack of Any Real Humor." Or something like that. Hey! They're sequels. In the entire history of humanity there have only been two sequels which surpassed the original--The New Testament and "The Godfather II."
And not necessarily in that order.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Oh Where Oh Where is the Emperor?
And now...the continuing rant about some of the failings of the greatest movie franchise of all time, Star Wars. I know this is somewhat contradictory. Oh well. I started out by stating that, love it or not, Star Wars has some serious issues as far as plot, quality, and continuity. And I stand by that statement. Today we tackle the case of the missing emperor.
For the True Geeks of the Star Wars Republic it is common knowledge that our creator, George Lucas, had a general outline or plot line or vision of Star Wars in the early or mid-seventies and that, not knowing whether he would have a chance to make anymore than one film, started in the middle of the series. It's also accepted into the canon of Star Wars that our creator pulled bits and pieces from different aspects of the stories into what would become known as "Episode IV: A New Hope." To put it another way: He did some of this on the fly. And he has continued to write and create Star Wars on the fly. The evidence is overwhelming and his own thoughts betray him.
For example, one of his latest mantras is that Star Wars is really, in the end, the story of Anakin Skywalker.
Um, no it isn't.
Because in the first movie, the fourth episode, Anakin, as Vader, is hardly in it. Oh, he (along with Han Solo) steals the show, but clearly, "A New Hope," is not about Anakin. And it's not about his kids. It's not about the Republic Anakin once defended and it's not about the Empire he helped usher into existence. No, ANH is about Luke. It' s Luke's baby all the way and there's really no getting around it. Yes, the spaceships are neato and the canteen scene is really keen (sorry), and as a kid it was cool to see a "walking carpet" who could also navigate interstellar space, but the most famous shot in the entire movie is of Luke, standing and looking longingly at the multiple suns setting on the horizon. In one image Lucas neatly summed up what it means to be growing up, looking out "there" for your life, destiny, future.
Maybe Luke should have been looking for the Emperor.
One of my issues with the entire "fly by the seat of your pants" making of Star Wars is that there are problems with characters coming and going and not coming and not showing up. I've already talked about the complete disappearance of Yoda and Anakin and the Jedi in general from known existence in ANH and "The Empire Strikes Back." But even General Grievous, who apparently slaughtered entire worlds---just kinda, sort of, appears...in "Revenge of the Sith." Just like that. A slaughterer of entire worlds. According to the book, "Labyrinth of Evil" and the novelization of "Revenge of the Sith" (both of which are interesting reads if you are a Star Wars Geek, like myself. Of the two I prefer the "Revenge of the Sith" novel as it fleshes out the characters well and gives a whole extra dimension to the evilness of Palpatine, who was, at one point, supposed to be the focal point of this blog!), entire populations were wiped out by Grievous. Again, this isn't the sort of thing that makes the news out there in Tatooine. The fabled Death Star wipes out one world of peacniks (Alderran) and we're all mightily impressed but poor ol' Grievous kills billions and billions and a whole bunch of Jedi but no one ever recalls him. Nobody. It's a tough galaxy. You can be forgotten very easily. Even if you're the Emperor.
If you have a fabulous memory or still are a collector of Star War cards from back in the day you know that there wasn't ever any mystery as to the true identity of the Emperor. He was listed on a card, in the first set of cards for the movies, as "Emperor Palpatine." So when we met Senator Palpatine in "The Phantom Menace" you knew he wasn't a very nice guy at heart and the only true mysteries were how he was manipulating everything and how he would become disfigured--was he a clone, was he in a battle, bad skin genes, did he smoke a lot? But the biggest mystery of the all--where the Hell was he for the first two films?
In "A New Hope" one of the many white men in charge of the Death Star announces that "The Emperor" has done something like disbanded all the senate and made the regional governors in charge of their...um, regions. And that's it. So long Emperor. It's been good to know ye.
But then! An actual sighting of the Emperor, you know, the man in charge of the entire, umm...galaxy. Yes, in "the Empire Strikes Back" we actually see a "Holo image" of the Emperor, the ruler of the galaxy. (A clever Star Wars Geek really ought to edit some Monty Python dialogue into the film, such as, "You're such a big (emperor). We're all really impressed!")
And not only do we get to see a holo image of the ruler of the galaxy, we get to see it for, oh, sixty seconds! (I'm sure someone will correct me on this: "Dude! You are SUCH a jerk! The Emperor is on screen for ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT SECONDS! DUH!") Of course, the True Geek will know that this is another one of those deals where Lucas keeps changing things. First it was some other guy (actually, it was a woman, with a voice over by a man, and yes, if you know this, you are a True Jedi Geek) who had fish eyes and then the image was replaced by Ian McDiarmind's face which had somewhat less fish eye looking eyes. And the dialogue was changed too. Originally it was the standard "there is a great disturbance in the Force" routine and then blah, blah, blah. And now there's the standard "the offspring of Skywalker" routine and then blah, blah, blah. I really should minimize this stuff as the Over Zealous Geeks have written entire books longer than the Bible on these MINUTES of film and dialogue asking the timeless questions of "What Does This All Mean?" and "Why Do We Live?" and "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear, Every Time You Are Near?" I'm serious. But our Over Zealous ones are missing the real point, which again, is: Where's The Emperor?
We get to see quite a bit of him in "Return of the Jedi" and that's really good because his scenes on the New and Improved Death Star (I envision the galactic ads screaming, "It's so good it doesn't even have to be finished to be a completely operational battle station!") are intertwined with teddy bears taking on the most feared armed forces in the galaxy, the Imperial Stormtroopers, and winning! Which, if you are a True Geek you know that originally this battle was supposed to feature Wookies rather than Care Bears but Lucas already had Chewbacca piloting a starship and so portraying his kinfolk as being a little backwards would have been a little, umm...backwards. So, in a fit of genius, he made the hulking, seven foot tall wookies into walking teddy bears, which sold roughly eighteen billion toys and helped Lucas to buy all of San Francisco. So, it's--cut from the Teddy Bears of Death to-- The Emperor!
Yay! We found him! We found him!
Actually we found him earlier when he first arrived at the Death Star II amid great pomp and circumstance and found out that Vader is in fact, his lap dog. We don't know why because "Revenge of the Sith" wouldn't be made for another eighty nine years but we do get a real sense of the Emperor's power. We already knew from ESB that he had some serious skin issues but now we see him in full form and find out that he is, like his Jedi counterpart Yoda, wrinkled and bent over and in need of a walker. And this points to what is good and true about Star Wars: Lucas has, with or without knowing it (I think he knew it and did this deliberately), created what I think is a fascinating parallel between the Jedi and Sith by having their "leaders" resemble each other so much. On some level it says, "See, this is what having a lot of power does to you. it corrupts absolutely, and isn't good for your skin or posture!"
We get a lot of "other stuff" in between his entrance and his attempt to seduce Luke into turning to the Darkside, which really is his attempt to get Luke to kill his father, which really is an attempt for Palpatine to secure the Sith's legacy because there is no way Vader is healthy enough to take his place when he's gone, I mean, the dude can't even wield the Force Lightning on account he's "mostly machine" and it wouldn't work with his suit so well. And you can't blame Paply for wanting to see a change at the Vice President level either. Look at how many years he had to endure countless Senate speeches and political maneuvering just so he could start the Clone Wars and take over the galaxy. I mean, you don't want to throw away all of that hard work for nothing!
For me now, twenty five years later, the Emperor's truly menacing presence betrays the Ewoks for being a truly, truly bad idea made worse in the later revisions with music even worse than that played in the original version (which makes me wonder if Lucas has an ipod and, if so, who does he listen to, I assume it must be Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground because the dude has some seriously twisted takes on what he construes to be music...).
On the one hand we have the guy who is so scary he makes Darth Vader go doo-doo in his death suit and he's laughing and cackling and throwing a little lightning here and there and watching father and son do the whole Oepidal thing and then--cut to--"an entire legion of (his) best troops" getting the snot knocked out of them by the Teddy Bears From Hell. Oh, it doesn't play well does it? Don't give me the whole, "Well Lucas was trying to show us how the primitive but good natured Ewoks would persevere over the highly advanced but naughty stormtroopers and their lasers and sixty foot tanks." I'm not buying it. If you had fifty machine guns and fifteen cannons and a reasonable amount of ammunition for them you could go back in time a mere two hundred years and take over the world in about one month. Ewoks may be cute and they may be clever but no, they aren't really going to defeat the best troops the Empire has to offer are they? Really? The wookies I would have bought. But not Teddy and the gang.
After seeing "Revenge of the Sith" it's a little disappointing to see Paply get wasted so easily in ROTJ. I mean, Vader just picks him up and throws him, which I can do with my cats but seldom have done to any Sith Lords. But I digress. At least in this instance we can grant Lucas some room for artistic license because Palpy is older, his vision of the future is a little clouded because of all the stuff the Skywalker clan is going through, and if we've learned anything in Star Wars (besides that they don't get the daily paper on Tatooine) we've learned that the Force is strong in a particular family (which makes me wonder if, when growing up, kids in the Star Wars galaxy hurl taunts such as "The Force is weak in your family--hah hah!"). But still, in "Revenge of the Sith," Palps is a force to be reckoned with: He can control the entire Senate (or at least most of it, and frankly, who would want to control the unfortunately named Mon Mothma?) and kill three Jedi Masters in a single bound. And then he can manipulate events so that it looks like Jedi Master Windu is about to commit a heinous act of treason against the Republic and the Jedi Code by killing an unarmed man, gets Anakin to slice Mace's hand off, and then kills himself a fourth Jedi Master...oh what a day, what a day. So this is the same guy who gets picked up and thrown by his apprentice. Oh well. It's a fitting end I suppose. It fits neatly into the up and down nature of the entire series. In one movie Palpatine is killing Jedi left and right and in another he's tossed around like a dead puppy and then in yet another, to paraphrase Bob Dylan,
He's not there.
For the True Geeks of the Star Wars Republic it is common knowledge that our creator, George Lucas, had a general outline or plot line or vision of Star Wars in the early or mid-seventies and that, not knowing whether he would have a chance to make anymore than one film, started in the middle of the series. It's also accepted into the canon of Star Wars that our creator pulled bits and pieces from different aspects of the stories into what would become known as "Episode IV: A New Hope." To put it another way: He did some of this on the fly. And he has continued to write and create Star Wars on the fly. The evidence is overwhelming and his own thoughts betray him.
For example, one of his latest mantras is that Star Wars is really, in the end, the story of Anakin Skywalker.
Um, no it isn't.
Because in the first movie, the fourth episode, Anakin, as Vader, is hardly in it. Oh, he (along with Han Solo) steals the show, but clearly, "A New Hope," is not about Anakin. And it's not about his kids. It's not about the Republic Anakin once defended and it's not about the Empire he helped usher into existence. No, ANH is about Luke. It' s Luke's baby all the way and there's really no getting around it. Yes, the spaceships are neato and the canteen scene is really keen (sorry), and as a kid it was cool to see a "walking carpet" who could also navigate interstellar space, but the most famous shot in the entire movie is of Luke, standing and looking longingly at the multiple suns setting on the horizon. In one image Lucas neatly summed up what it means to be growing up, looking out "there" for your life, destiny, future.
Maybe Luke should have been looking for the Emperor.
One of my issues with the entire "fly by the seat of your pants" making of Star Wars is that there are problems with characters coming and going and not coming and not showing up. I've already talked about the complete disappearance of Yoda and Anakin and the Jedi in general from known existence in ANH and "The Empire Strikes Back." But even General Grievous, who apparently slaughtered entire worlds---just kinda, sort of, appears...in "Revenge of the Sith." Just like that. A slaughterer of entire worlds. According to the book, "Labyrinth of Evil" and the novelization of "Revenge of the Sith" (both of which are interesting reads if you are a Star Wars Geek, like myself. Of the two I prefer the "Revenge of the Sith" novel as it fleshes out the characters well and gives a whole extra dimension to the evilness of Palpatine, who was, at one point, supposed to be the focal point of this blog!), entire populations were wiped out by Grievous. Again, this isn't the sort of thing that makes the news out there in Tatooine. The fabled Death Star wipes out one world of peacniks (Alderran) and we're all mightily impressed but poor ol' Grievous kills billions and billions and a whole bunch of Jedi but no one ever recalls him. Nobody. It's a tough galaxy. You can be forgotten very easily. Even if you're the Emperor.
If you have a fabulous memory or still are a collector of Star War cards from back in the day you know that there wasn't ever any mystery as to the true identity of the Emperor. He was listed on a card, in the first set of cards for the movies, as "Emperor Palpatine." So when we met Senator Palpatine in "The Phantom Menace" you knew he wasn't a very nice guy at heart and the only true mysteries were how he was manipulating everything and how he would become disfigured--was he a clone, was he in a battle, bad skin genes, did he smoke a lot? But the biggest mystery of the all--where the Hell was he for the first two films?
In "A New Hope" one of the many white men in charge of the Death Star announces that "The Emperor" has done something like disbanded all the senate and made the regional governors in charge of their...um, regions. And that's it. So long Emperor. It's been good to know ye.
But then! An actual sighting of the Emperor, you know, the man in charge of the entire, umm...galaxy. Yes, in "the Empire Strikes Back" we actually see a "Holo image" of the Emperor, the ruler of the galaxy. (A clever Star Wars Geek really ought to edit some Monty Python dialogue into the film, such as, "You're such a big (emperor). We're all really impressed!")
And not only do we get to see a holo image of the ruler of the galaxy, we get to see it for, oh, sixty seconds! (I'm sure someone will correct me on this: "Dude! You are SUCH a jerk! The Emperor is on screen for ONE HUNDRED AND EIGHT SECONDS! DUH!") Of course, the True Geek will know that this is another one of those deals where Lucas keeps changing things. First it was some other guy (actually, it was a woman, with a voice over by a man, and yes, if you know this, you are a True Jedi Geek) who had fish eyes and then the image was replaced by Ian McDiarmind's face which had somewhat less fish eye looking eyes. And the dialogue was changed too. Originally it was the standard "there is a great disturbance in the Force" routine and then blah, blah, blah. And now there's the standard "the offspring of Skywalker" routine and then blah, blah, blah. I really should minimize this stuff as the Over Zealous Geeks have written entire books longer than the Bible on these MINUTES of film and dialogue asking the timeless questions of "What Does This All Mean?" and "Why Do We Live?" and "Why Do Birds Suddenly Appear, Every Time You Are Near?" I'm serious. But our Over Zealous ones are missing the real point, which again, is: Where's The Emperor?
We get to see quite a bit of him in "Return of the Jedi" and that's really good because his scenes on the New and Improved Death Star (I envision the galactic ads screaming, "It's so good it doesn't even have to be finished to be a completely operational battle station!") are intertwined with teddy bears taking on the most feared armed forces in the galaxy, the Imperial Stormtroopers, and winning! Which, if you are a True Geek you know that originally this battle was supposed to feature Wookies rather than Care Bears but Lucas already had Chewbacca piloting a starship and so portraying his kinfolk as being a little backwards would have been a little, umm...backwards. So, in a fit of genius, he made the hulking, seven foot tall wookies into walking teddy bears, which sold roughly eighteen billion toys and helped Lucas to buy all of San Francisco. So, it's--cut from the Teddy Bears of Death to-- The Emperor!
Yay! We found him! We found him!
Actually we found him earlier when he first arrived at the Death Star II amid great pomp and circumstance and found out that Vader is in fact, his lap dog. We don't know why because "Revenge of the Sith" wouldn't be made for another eighty nine years but we do get a real sense of the Emperor's power. We already knew from ESB that he had some serious skin issues but now we see him in full form and find out that he is, like his Jedi counterpart Yoda, wrinkled and bent over and in need of a walker. And this points to what is good and true about Star Wars: Lucas has, with or without knowing it (I think he knew it and did this deliberately), created what I think is a fascinating parallel between the Jedi and Sith by having their "leaders" resemble each other so much. On some level it says, "See, this is what having a lot of power does to you. it corrupts absolutely, and isn't good for your skin or posture!"
We get a lot of "other stuff" in between his entrance and his attempt to seduce Luke into turning to the Darkside, which really is his attempt to get Luke to kill his father, which really is an attempt for Palpatine to secure the Sith's legacy because there is no way Vader is healthy enough to take his place when he's gone, I mean, the dude can't even wield the Force Lightning on account he's "mostly machine" and it wouldn't work with his suit so well. And you can't blame Paply for wanting to see a change at the Vice President level either. Look at how many years he had to endure countless Senate speeches and political maneuvering just so he could start the Clone Wars and take over the galaxy. I mean, you don't want to throw away all of that hard work for nothing!
For me now, twenty five years later, the Emperor's truly menacing presence betrays the Ewoks for being a truly, truly bad idea made worse in the later revisions with music even worse than that played in the original version (which makes me wonder if Lucas has an ipod and, if so, who does he listen to, I assume it must be Captain Beefheart and The Velvet Underground because the dude has some seriously twisted takes on what he construes to be music...).
On the one hand we have the guy who is so scary he makes Darth Vader go doo-doo in his death suit and he's laughing and cackling and throwing a little lightning here and there and watching father and son do the whole Oepidal thing and then--cut to--"an entire legion of (his) best troops" getting the snot knocked out of them by the Teddy Bears From Hell. Oh, it doesn't play well does it? Don't give me the whole, "Well Lucas was trying to show us how the primitive but good natured Ewoks would persevere over the highly advanced but naughty stormtroopers and their lasers and sixty foot tanks." I'm not buying it. If you had fifty machine guns and fifteen cannons and a reasonable amount of ammunition for them you could go back in time a mere two hundred years and take over the world in about one month. Ewoks may be cute and they may be clever but no, they aren't really going to defeat the best troops the Empire has to offer are they? Really? The wookies I would have bought. But not Teddy and the gang.
After seeing "Revenge of the Sith" it's a little disappointing to see Paply get wasted so easily in ROTJ. I mean, Vader just picks him up and throws him, which I can do with my cats but seldom have done to any Sith Lords. But I digress. At least in this instance we can grant Lucas some room for artistic license because Palpy is older, his vision of the future is a little clouded because of all the stuff the Skywalker clan is going through, and if we've learned anything in Star Wars (besides that they don't get the daily paper on Tatooine) we've learned that the Force is strong in a particular family (which makes me wonder if, when growing up, kids in the Star Wars galaxy hurl taunts such as "The Force is weak in your family--hah hah!"). But still, in "Revenge of the Sith," Palps is a force to be reckoned with: He can control the entire Senate (or at least most of it, and frankly, who would want to control the unfortunately named Mon Mothma?) and kill three Jedi Masters in a single bound. And then he can manipulate events so that it looks like Jedi Master Windu is about to commit a heinous act of treason against the Republic and the Jedi Code by killing an unarmed man, gets Anakin to slice Mace's hand off, and then kills himself a fourth Jedi Master...oh what a day, what a day. So this is the same guy who gets picked up and thrown by his apprentice. Oh well. It's a fitting end I suppose. It fits neatly into the up and down nature of the entire series. In one movie Palpatine is killing Jedi left and right and in another he's tossed around like a dead puppy and then in yet another, to paraphrase Bob Dylan,
He's not there.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Roger Ebert: King of the Reviews
Roger Ebert recently held court at his movie festival in Champaign, Illinois. It's now called "Ebertfest" which is appropriate because, well, he started the entire thing. It used to be his Overlooked Festival which captures the festival's flavor better but anyone who reads Mr. Ebert on a routine basis will know what its purpose is--to screen films which have been passed over by the great, ignorant masses of filmgoers. Which sounds elitist. Which Mr. Ebert isn't. Not in the least.
Roger holding court at a film festival named after him may seem obvious but not if you know that he has been battling serious illnesess for several years now. If you go to his website, and I highly recommend you do, you can find a slide show of the festival and you will see that Mr. Ebert looks like he's been through a lot. And he has. Throat surgery, for cancer. But, true to form, he has refused to back down or disappear. While he hasn't been able to appear on his show (thus all the guest reviewers) he has recently been writing as much as he can and while he cannot give speeches, his appearance alone at the festival drew exclamatory cheers from his well wishers. I wish I had been there.
I don't know if I could have gotten through the past 365 days without him. I have read no fewer than five books by him in that time. Maybe more. I lose count. My fiancee thinks I am absolultely crazy for sitting and reading book after book of his movie reviews and maybe you do too. My advice to you? Read him.
I don't know what your local movie reviewers are like but here in the Twin Cities in Minnesota they are awful. I try not to read them unless I am truly bored or if I know I will not be seeing the movie anyway. My local reviewers are typical, I fear, of what many papers expect these days: They are abrupt--typically encapsulating the plot in one or two paragraphs, offer one relevant quote from the entire movie, they list the actors and director and then, nine times out of ten, rip it to shreds.
Read Mr. Ebert's reviews. Get one of his yearbooks. Pick a year you really enjoyed going to the movies and just read, read, read.
His reviews are very often, a leisurely stroll through the plot, the actors, the director, perhaps the writer, perhaps he'll tell you what he had for lunch. And you may think--why would he write about his lunch in a movie review? But by the end of the review you'll understand. He'll take his time getting to the end though. And he won't give away key details of the plot. And if he's going to, he will make sure to give you a spoiler warning. He doesn't want to ruin the movie for you. No, he wants you to love movies as much as he does, which may very well be impossible.
He loves movies enough to appreciate that they don't all need to be Citizen Kane. He knows that there are times when all you really want to do is escape into the incomprehensibly impossible action of a film such as Lethal Weapon. And, unlike many critics, he doesn't have a problem with it. Movies have many purposes but one of their original ones, and one of their most popular ones still, is to provide us with an escape. If a movie provides that, Roger will tell you.
He will tell you many things you did not know. And he will tell you if a movie is jolly. He uses the word "jolly" more than Santa Claus. Which I think is a key to his success and to the effectiveness of his writing. You see, he adores movies. He takes pleasure in educating us about directors and their stars and the kind of film they used and what three films they made before their current one. Oh, he will tear a movie apart if it's warranted (just ask Rob Schneider!) and he express doubts if he feels a movie missed its intended mark. He will steer you to movies you have never heard of and you will be glad to have watched them. His "Answer Man" sections are often hilarious and his reports from places such as Cannes or the Toronto Film Festival will give you the heads up on what everybody will (or should) be watching in six months.
One of my favorite aspects of Mr. Ebert's reviews is that he strives to judge each film on its own intentions. Jaws did not have the same goal as Driving Miss Daisy so why judge them the same way? It makes sense. Roger's a very sensible guy.
Which is kind of remarkable since he's been hanging around directors and movie stars and in Cannes for about forty years. But he still writes to write. In one of his introductions he writes about how much he still loves the act of writing, of crafting a review for others to gain insight and information from. And Roger will meander. But, if you love movies, and if you come to appreciate his manners and habits, you will come to love the meandering because you will come to understand that this is a man who knows an awful lot about movies. And life. And sometimes, you need to write about one in order to better understand the other.
Best wishes Mr. Ebert. Thank you.
Roger holding court at a film festival named after him may seem obvious but not if you know that he has been battling serious illnesess for several years now. If you go to his website, and I highly recommend you do, you can find a slide show of the festival and you will see that Mr. Ebert looks like he's been through a lot. And he has. Throat surgery, for cancer. But, true to form, he has refused to back down or disappear. While he hasn't been able to appear on his show (thus all the guest reviewers) he has recently been writing as much as he can and while he cannot give speeches, his appearance alone at the festival drew exclamatory cheers from his well wishers. I wish I had been there.
I don't know if I could have gotten through the past 365 days without him. I have read no fewer than five books by him in that time. Maybe more. I lose count. My fiancee thinks I am absolultely crazy for sitting and reading book after book of his movie reviews and maybe you do too. My advice to you? Read him.
I don't know what your local movie reviewers are like but here in the Twin Cities in Minnesota they are awful. I try not to read them unless I am truly bored or if I know I will not be seeing the movie anyway. My local reviewers are typical, I fear, of what many papers expect these days: They are abrupt--typically encapsulating the plot in one or two paragraphs, offer one relevant quote from the entire movie, they list the actors and director and then, nine times out of ten, rip it to shreds.
Read Mr. Ebert's reviews. Get one of his yearbooks. Pick a year you really enjoyed going to the movies and just read, read, read.
His reviews are very often, a leisurely stroll through the plot, the actors, the director, perhaps the writer, perhaps he'll tell you what he had for lunch. And you may think--why would he write about his lunch in a movie review? But by the end of the review you'll understand. He'll take his time getting to the end though. And he won't give away key details of the plot. And if he's going to, he will make sure to give you a spoiler warning. He doesn't want to ruin the movie for you. No, he wants you to love movies as much as he does, which may very well be impossible.
He loves movies enough to appreciate that they don't all need to be Citizen Kane. He knows that there are times when all you really want to do is escape into the incomprehensibly impossible action of a film such as Lethal Weapon. And, unlike many critics, he doesn't have a problem with it. Movies have many purposes but one of their original ones, and one of their most popular ones still, is to provide us with an escape. If a movie provides that, Roger will tell you.
He will tell you many things you did not know. And he will tell you if a movie is jolly. He uses the word "jolly" more than Santa Claus. Which I think is a key to his success and to the effectiveness of his writing. You see, he adores movies. He takes pleasure in educating us about directors and their stars and the kind of film they used and what three films they made before their current one. Oh, he will tear a movie apart if it's warranted (just ask Rob Schneider!) and he express doubts if he feels a movie missed its intended mark. He will steer you to movies you have never heard of and you will be glad to have watched them. His "Answer Man" sections are often hilarious and his reports from places such as Cannes or the Toronto Film Festival will give you the heads up on what everybody will (or should) be watching in six months.
One of my favorite aspects of Mr. Ebert's reviews is that he strives to judge each film on its own intentions. Jaws did not have the same goal as Driving Miss Daisy so why judge them the same way? It makes sense. Roger's a very sensible guy.
Which is kind of remarkable since he's been hanging around directors and movie stars and in Cannes for about forty years. But he still writes to write. In one of his introductions he writes about how much he still loves the act of writing, of crafting a review for others to gain insight and information from. And Roger will meander. But, if you love movies, and if you come to appreciate his manners and habits, you will come to love the meandering because you will come to understand that this is a man who knows an awful lot about movies. And life. And sometimes, you need to write about one in order to better understand the other.
Best wishes Mr. Ebert. Thank you.
Skywalker--the Smiths of a Galaxy Far, Far Away?
Skywalker. Smith. Skywalker. Smith. One name is dynamic and seems to usher in thoughts of lightsabers and stunning piloting skills and deathstars, dismemberment, and Tatooine. The other? Not much. A plain name, an average, common name that we use in cheap motels. But are they that different? Maybe, maybe not. After all, "Skywalker" may very well have been the "Smith" of the Star Wars galaxy. It must have been. How else can you explain it--explain the galaxy sized hole in the plot of the Star Wars saga that involves the anonymity of Luke? As I have said previously, I absolutely love and adore Star Wars and am a Star Wars Geek. But, but, but...the Skywalker thing. It bothers me. I know that the apologists will dutifully explain to me, as if I am a complete idiot unversed in Basic, that Tatooine is a desolate desert outpost, a "barren wasteland," and that on Tatooine, they don't get the daily paper.
This explains why Anakin Skywalker, the most spectacular and famous Jedi knight in the galaxy is apparently unknown to the fine citizens (actually, they're a hive of scum and villainy, at least in certain parts). It's why nobody on fair Tatooine, not Watto, not Ani's childhood friends, and not any of the thousands of spectators who watched Little Ani become the first human to win--not just compete in--but win a pod race, says, "Hey! Remember that little bugger who won the pod race, his name was Anakin Skywalker and now there's this insanely powerful Jedi named Anakin Skywalker...I wonder if it's the same person?!"
And the plot hole widens. After Ani blows up the droid command ship and wins the Battle of Naboo for the Republic, no one on Tatooine, which we have learned is a desolate desert outpost, says, "Hey! That kid sure is something...first the pod race and then he wins a battle all by himself! Wow. That's a name I'll have to remember!" It's the first major battle in a thousand years and you're telling me no one catches the name of the kid? You're telling me that Tatooine (a desolate desert outpost...) doesn't hear the news? It's that remote? And yet it's in five of the six movies? Umm...okay. Coruscant, the capitol of the Republic is in only three of the six movies (I'm not counting the window dressing victory shots that were edited into the Return of Jedi). But Tatooine is in five of them. Umm...okay.
And the plot hole widens. Luke has friends going to the "academy" and they know about the rebelliion on far off Tatooine but Luke has never heard of the greatest tandem of Jeid knights in the history of the Republic--Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker? He's never heard of Yoda? Really? For eight hundred years Yoda did train Jedi. But a scant twenty years later he's completely forgotten by, apparently, everyone? I mean, no one in the rebellion, which is crafty enough to steal plans for the Empire's most prized weapon, remembers Yoda? Packing up his x-wing for his flight for Dagoba Luke didn't talk to anyone else?
This didn't happen:
Unknown Rebel says, "Hey Luke buddy, too bad we got obliterated today here on Hoth but we'll get 'em next time! See you at the rendezvous point."
Luke replies, "Oh, I'm going to Dagoba instead."
Unknown Rebel says, "But why?"
Luke says, "Oh, I'm going to see some Jedi named Yoda."
Unknown Rebel says, "Oh! the former trainer of the Jedi? For eight hundred years trained Jedi did he...don't mind me Luke, I guess that's how he talked. But, are you sure about this? I thought he, along with all of the other Jedi was wiped out about twenty years ago after serving the Repulblic for about a thousand generations...give or take." Luke shrugs and leaves.
Growing up on Tatooine Luke never heard of the Jedi? He didn't ever think it was cool that his last name was the same as one of the greatest Jedi ever to have lived? He never thought that "Ben Kenobi" might be "Obi-Wan Kenobi?" Oh, that's right. They don't know about these things on Tatooine. NOBODY ON TATOOINE REMEMBERS A FAMOUS JEDI KNIGHT NAMED "SKYWALKER?!" Really? No one? None of Luke's friends make the connection--and I don't mean that Luke could be related to Anakin but even that they have the same last name. No, Skywalker is Star Wars' Smith. And Kenobi must be its Johnson.
They have computers and holograms and ships that can go into hyperspace and hovercraft and laser guns and androids that can speak eight million languages and yet they don't have any history books on Tatooine. Or in the rest of the Republic/Empire? When Luke SKYWALKER blows up the Deathstar, nobody, NOBODY in the galaxy, upon hearing the news, said, "Oh, remember that one Jedi a few years ago? Wasn't his last name Skywalker too? Say, I think he was renowned through out the galaxy for his skills as a pilot and now there's this new Skywalker kid who flew through all kinds of blasters and was the only one not to get blown up during the assault on the Deathstar and then the sonofagun even blew the thing up and dig this now, I hear he didn't even use his computer and that he 'used the Force' instead. Hmmmm...I wonder."
pause
"No, it must just be a coincidence. There are just too many Skywalkers in this darn galaxy."
This explains why Anakin Skywalker, the most spectacular and famous Jedi knight in the galaxy is apparently unknown to the fine citizens (actually, they're a hive of scum and villainy, at least in certain parts). It's why nobody on fair Tatooine, not Watto, not Ani's childhood friends, and not any of the thousands of spectators who watched Little Ani become the first human to win--not just compete in--but win a pod race, says, "Hey! Remember that little bugger who won the pod race, his name was Anakin Skywalker and now there's this insanely powerful Jedi named Anakin Skywalker...I wonder if it's the same person?!"
And the plot hole widens. After Ani blows up the droid command ship and wins the Battle of Naboo for the Republic, no one on Tatooine, which we have learned is a desolate desert outpost, says, "Hey! That kid sure is something...first the pod race and then he wins a battle all by himself! Wow. That's a name I'll have to remember!" It's the first major battle in a thousand years and you're telling me no one catches the name of the kid? You're telling me that Tatooine (a desolate desert outpost...) doesn't hear the news? It's that remote? And yet it's in five of the six movies? Umm...okay. Coruscant, the capitol of the Republic is in only three of the six movies (I'm not counting the window dressing victory shots that were edited into the Return of Jedi). But Tatooine is in five of them. Umm...okay.
And the plot hole widens. Luke has friends going to the "academy" and they know about the rebelliion on far off Tatooine but Luke has never heard of the greatest tandem of Jeid knights in the history of the Republic--Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker? He's never heard of Yoda? Really? For eight hundred years Yoda did train Jedi. But a scant twenty years later he's completely forgotten by, apparently, everyone? I mean, no one in the rebellion, which is crafty enough to steal plans for the Empire's most prized weapon, remembers Yoda? Packing up his x-wing for his flight for Dagoba Luke didn't talk to anyone else?
This didn't happen:
Unknown Rebel says, "Hey Luke buddy, too bad we got obliterated today here on Hoth but we'll get 'em next time! See you at the rendezvous point."
Luke replies, "Oh, I'm going to Dagoba instead."
Unknown Rebel says, "But why?"
Luke says, "Oh, I'm going to see some Jedi named Yoda."
Unknown Rebel says, "Oh! the former trainer of the Jedi? For eight hundred years trained Jedi did he...don't mind me Luke, I guess that's how he talked. But, are you sure about this? I thought he, along with all of the other Jedi was wiped out about twenty years ago after serving the Repulblic for about a thousand generations...give or take." Luke shrugs and leaves.
Growing up on Tatooine Luke never heard of the Jedi? He didn't ever think it was cool that his last name was the same as one of the greatest Jedi ever to have lived? He never thought that "Ben Kenobi" might be "Obi-Wan Kenobi?" Oh, that's right. They don't know about these things on Tatooine. NOBODY ON TATOOINE REMEMBERS A FAMOUS JEDI KNIGHT NAMED "SKYWALKER?!" Really? No one? None of Luke's friends make the connection--and I don't mean that Luke could be related to Anakin but even that they have the same last name. No, Skywalker is Star Wars' Smith. And Kenobi must be its Johnson.
They have computers and holograms and ships that can go into hyperspace and hovercraft and laser guns and androids that can speak eight million languages and yet they don't have any history books on Tatooine. Or in the rest of the Republic/Empire? When Luke SKYWALKER blows up the Deathstar, nobody, NOBODY in the galaxy, upon hearing the news, said, "Oh, remember that one Jedi a few years ago? Wasn't his last name Skywalker too? Say, I think he was renowned through out the galaxy for his skills as a pilot and now there's this new Skywalker kid who flew through all kinds of blasters and was the only one not to get blown up during the assault on the Deathstar and then the sonofagun even blew the thing up and dig this now, I hear he didn't even use his computer and that he 'used the Force' instead. Hmmmm...I wonder."
pause
"No, it must just be a coincidence. There are just too many Skywalkers in this darn galaxy."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)