Subject:
|
Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Wed, 31 May 2000 21:08:30 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
899 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.starwars, Mark Sandlin writes:
> Unfortunately, I think people paid too much attention to the special effects
> and missed a lot of the story.
George Lucas, most notably.
> Even people I know who are usually into dramas and plot missed many of the
> plot points around pivotal characters... they were like, "who? I don't
> remember that." Then they go on to talk about how it was all special effects.
>
> This is my statement to those people: If you can't pay attention to the
> story, then quit complaining about how bad the plot is.
At the same time, one cannot ignore the actual problems with the plot,
whether or not someone else decides to "pay attention" or not. Further,
"paying attention" to the plot doesn't simply mean carefully watching what
happens--it means noting and relfecting upon the dramatic, rhetorical, and
narrative choices made in the telling. I'm bordering on literary snob to say
it this way, but if the film wants to be respected for its dramatic merits
(such as they are or are not), then it must be prepared to be subjected to the
same critiques as other films and stories.
> I will admit that TPM had its problems with acting and perhaps people
> had trouble following the plot... but it's not the horrible mess that the
> me-too bandwagon likes to preach about.
Several of the main problems are the absolute uselessness of JarJar, whose
absense would be notable only for the reduced length of the film. Seriously--
what point does he serve? More importantly, what could possibly justify his
inclusion in future installments, since he brings nothing of merit, in terms
of drama, to the story. Still worse, the fact that his clumsiness allowed him
singlehandedly to take out an AAT, a Destroyer Droid, and at least several
Battle Droids cheapens the deaths of anyone who'd fallen in battle against
these droids.
Another dramatic failure of the film is the supposedly clever "decoying" of
Padme/Amidala. As I’ve mentioned in another post previously, I have yet to
meet anyone who wasn’t immediately aware that Padme was actually the queen.
As a result, the mighty Qui-Gon’s (and everyone else’s, for that matter)
inability to spot the ruse seemed less and less plausible as the film
progressed, so that the "revelation" came too late to be of any dramatic
value. There are any number of ways this could have been played to better
effect, and the fact that George consistently showed "the queen" in full
regalia indicates that he realized some misdirection was in order.
Nonetheless, since Amidala is a central character, and since she drops more or
less completely out of the film while "Padme" is onscreen, the deception
becomes obvious.
Since these (JarJar and "the decoy") comprise a sizable chunk of the story,
it is only fitting that their success or failure should have a great impact on
the story overall. For that matter, why wouldn’t the Viceroy order both "the
decoy" and "the queen" slain when both were standing in front of him? At
least the decoy, at any rate, before giving her a chance to arm herself.
> I suppose I was able to follow the movie because I cared about the story
> to begin with... so maybe one of the problems lies in the film's inability to
> easily convey its plot.
This may very well be true; the plot of the first chapter might become more
apparent after the two following. However, it nonetheless remains true, as
you observe, that the acting was problematic. In addition, the movie should,
dramatically speaking, make an effort to appeal even to viewers who don't
particularly care about the story to begin with; otherwise the film is simply
preaching to its own bandwagon.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
| (...) what (...) and (...) But how can you make those notes and/or reflect on anything if you didn't pay attention to the plot to begin with? I can't tell you how many times I've asked people to explain their opinion and they can't tell me why they (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
| | | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
| WARNING: There's a grand amount of soap-boxing going on in this post. I've already posted these ideas before, but a long time ago ... ahh well, it's time to air out the attic, I guess. Please feel free to ignore me, I always do :) (...) I always (...) (24 years ago, 1-Jun-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
| (...) not (...) I don't see this as a problem. I think one of the real problems is that people went to see TPM, expecting it to be a stylistic copy of ANH: a swashbuckling adventure against a powerful Empire. That's not what it's about. TPM was (...) (24 years ago, 31-May-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
94 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
