George Lucas and the Prince of Petulance
Jeff at Quid Nomen Illius has understandably low expectations for Revenge of the Sith:
I found much to dislike in the past two Star Wars movies, so I'm skeptical of this new one, too. George Lucas has what can charitably be described as a "plot problem," and I don't see many signs that he's done even the minimal thinking about good and evil that's required to tell a solid adventure story.
My bigger problem, though, is that neither the actor he chose nor the character he (barely) created seem plausibly seducible by evil. Psychopathic dictators need--they demand--a charismatic but unmistakably oppressive presence that hangs in the air wherever they go, even before they immerse themselves in badassery and hire minions to people their death-lairs. That presence should at least partially explain why the evil character is the way he is, and we the audience should want to know more--much more. Real-world evil often may be banal, but that doesn't mean that a good depiction of it shouldn't arouse sickening curiosity. In melodrama, evil should persuade. Evil should frighten with its immeasurable depth. And, of course, evil should seethe. That kid in the second movie just didn't seethe. He couldn't! In fact, he struggled to emit little more than the faintest puff of half-baked petulance.
Jeff is dead on in his characterization of the "charismatic but unmistakably oppressive presence" that is conspicuously absent in Hayden Christiansen's portrayal of Anakin Skywalker (and in the way Lucas has written the character). The "half-baked petulance" that Jeff describes not only renders Anakin's turn to the dark side implausible, but it also makes it a matter of indifference to the audience. It's not just that I don't understand why or how Anakin turns to the dark side, but that -- at this point -- I just don't care. I don't care because there was never any hint in Anakin of the "immeasurable depths" of evil and, moreover, because there was never any hint of a "moral grandeur" that was perverted and deformed by Anakin's fall.
I've been watching a lot of the original Star Wars trilogy lately, since my husband has successfully indoctrinated our girls, and I've begun to think that I've given Return of the Jedi short shrift because of my disdain for the cuddly Ewoks. That movie has what I consider to be the only moment which remotely approaches tragedy in the whole trilogy -- the moment when Darth Vader asks Luke to remove his mask because he wants to look on his son "with [his] own eyes." I expected episodes 1-3 to fulfill the promise of that moment. For all the reasons that Jeff enumerates (and more), that's just not going to happen.
I could see the movie anyway, but I prefer not to.
Ah, Anakin! Ah, humanity!
I found much to dislike in the past two Star Wars movies, so I'm skeptical of this new one, too. George Lucas has what can charitably be described as a "plot problem," and I don't see many signs that he's done even the minimal thinking about good and evil that's required to tell a solid adventure story.
My bigger problem, though, is that neither the actor he chose nor the character he (barely) created seem plausibly seducible by evil. Psychopathic dictators need--they demand--a charismatic but unmistakably oppressive presence that hangs in the air wherever they go, even before they immerse themselves in badassery and hire minions to people their death-lairs. That presence should at least partially explain why the evil character is the way he is, and we the audience should want to know more--much more. Real-world evil often may be banal, but that doesn't mean that a good depiction of it shouldn't arouse sickening curiosity. In melodrama, evil should persuade. Evil should frighten with its immeasurable depth. And, of course, evil should seethe. That kid in the second movie just didn't seethe. He couldn't! In fact, he struggled to emit little more than the faintest puff of half-baked petulance.
Jeff is dead on in his characterization of the "charismatic but unmistakably oppressive presence" that is conspicuously absent in Hayden Christiansen's portrayal of Anakin Skywalker (and in the way Lucas has written the character). The "half-baked petulance" that Jeff describes not only renders Anakin's turn to the dark side implausible, but it also makes it a matter of indifference to the audience. It's not just that I don't understand why or how Anakin turns to the dark side, but that -- at this point -- I just don't care. I don't care because there was never any hint in Anakin of the "immeasurable depths" of evil and, moreover, because there was never any hint of a "moral grandeur" that was perverted and deformed by Anakin's fall.
I've been watching a lot of the original Star Wars trilogy lately, since my husband has successfully indoctrinated our girls, and I've begun to think that I've given Return of the Jedi short shrift because of my disdain for the cuddly Ewoks. That movie has what I consider to be the only moment which remotely approaches tragedy in the whole trilogy -- the moment when Darth Vader asks Luke to remove his mask because he wants to look on his son "with [his] own eyes." I expected episodes 1-3 to fulfill the promise of that moment. For all the reasons that Jeff enumerates (and more), that's just not going to happen.
I could see the movie anyway, but I prefer not to.
Ah, Anakin! Ah, humanity!
posted by Kate Marie | 2:35 PM | Permalink
|
2 comments
2 Comments:
Oh yeah, Kate Marie? How many multi-million dollar selling movies have you scribed? George Lucas is a billionaire, and you're lucky to have two plush Ewok toys to rub together! You talk about petualance...why don't you drop all this "depth of evil" and "moral grandeur" whining and just worship Mammon with the rest of us!
I loved the first 3. They should have stopped there.
If they really wanted evil, I would suggest a charater modeled after Joseph Stalin, or one modeled after Dr. Evil. . .it really depends on which direction you want to go, as they say in the biz.
Post a Comment
<< Home