Subject:
|
Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Thu, 1 Jun 2000 13:16:23 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
933 times
|
| |
|
|
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 :)
Dave Schuler wrote:
> 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.
I always find it ridiculous to complain that George Lucas did a "poor job" with
anything. People too often fall into the comfortable habit of critiquing his
movies (well, the ones after ANH) as products of the movie industry, WHICH THEY
ARE NOT. Lucas financed the films himself, completely - he has no obligation to
produce a certain caliber of product, or appeal to a certain sect of the
population. It is completely alien to filmmakers and film critics to operate in
an environment where the product and its producers are not beholden to financiers,
advertisers, and third-party interests. IMNSHO, the proper way to evaluate these
movies is as you would view and artists' work - after all, that's exactly what
they are. A rendition of an individual's vision, realized solely from their own
minds, and not outside parties. It's pretty unreasonable to look at an early
Picasso and say he did a poor job. You may say you don't like it, or that it
doesn't speak to you, but to say that the artist did a poor job because you don't
like it is pretty unreasonable.
And I don't say this as a die-hard Lucasphile. There are certainly aspects of TPM
that I don't like. But, considering that Lucas produced exactly what he wanted to
produce when he wanted to produce it, I find it hard to accept the notion that he
"let me down". It's more like I feel lucky to have gotten a chance to see it,
examine it, and "peered in through the window", if you will. Maybe the best way
to think of it is as getting to listen into some parent making up an ongoing
bedtime story night after night - you may not like all parts, or have gone in the
same directions, but you still feel damn lucky for having gotten to listen in.
Since that's basically the crowd that Lucas specifically wanted to appeal to in
his vision, it seems like a valid comparison.
>
> 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.
See above - it most definitely should *not* be subjected to the same critiques as
other films, since the process by which it came about is anything but filmlike.
And it should only be compared to stories that don't have to pass through
publisher, editor, printer, and a whole board of corporate sponsorship - that is,
bedtime stories, spoken history, and the like. That is, pieces that are evaluated
on their vision and art.
> 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?
Lucas included JarJar because it was a character that appealed to the people his
concept addressed - ten year old boys. And that's according to him. His story is
fabricated with that audience in mind - an epic tale for kids who get an
adrenaline rush running around swingsets in the back yard pretending to dodge
carbon freezing chambers. He isn't there to develop the plot, which is a purely
adult requirement. He isn't there to add interpersonal character development. He
doesn't have any of these grand notions that people keep trying to pin on him.
He's there to make the ten year olds laugh and giggle and smile. Which they did.
Which is not an ignoble fate. Personally, I didn't like him, but that doesn't
mean he shouldn't have been included in the artist's rendition. He didn't speak
to me, and I accept that.
> 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.
When I was ten years old, I thought the Smurfs showed excellent characterization
and detailed plots, and that Superfriends captured the essence of suspence and
tension every week.
> 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.
'Cause the bad guy always takes too long to take decisive action while the good
guys make their move. See also: James Bond, Scooby Doo, Murder She Wrote (ugh,
where'd I dredge that up from?), etc. etc.
> 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!
To the contrary - only a film industry film needs to do that. Art is allowed to
preach wherever and to whomever it wants to preach.
All right, that's enough from me. I'm sure I've offended some, alienated others,
and been disregarded by the rest. Some of the comments here should be read
tongue-in-cheek, and the rest, well, who knows. I really feel strongly about the
film-vs-art comparison, and why one fits these movies while the other doesn't. I
love the movies, though I can also see lots of things I wouldn't do in them, or
would have done differently. I really respect Lucas, but I don't see eye-to-eye
on everything he does. Ah well, take it all with a grain of salt :)
shaun
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Another one of those 'what's wrong with TPM' posts
|
| (...) Irrelevant. I'm not saying "George should have done such-and-such to realize George's vision better"--I'm saying that George could have done such- and-such to make a better film. Whatever else it is, it is also a film. (...) Not really. He (...) (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
|
| (...) George Lucas, most notably. (...) 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 (...) (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
|
|
|
|
