FYI, there’ll be spoilers, so be on guard.
Let’s get the biggest elephant in the room out of the way: Rey’s character. Detractors have pegged her as a Mary Sue, meaning that she’s super good at what she does and has no flaws. I don’t agree. Rey has fears and concerns throughout the film, most-notably using her family as an excuse to avoid attachments, and she does make mistakes, like when she accidentally releases the rathtars aboard The Millennium Falcon. Rather, I think Rey’s a victim of a different problem. It’s one that I normally expect more from Hollywood’s most-infamous stink-writer, aka Damon Lindelof, than Michael Arndt and Lawrence Kasdan, and that it appears here is annoying. Essentially, Rey’s a “mystery box” character, a character where everything about her is riddles and secrets meant to be revealed in the next film.
To be fair, Luke Skywalker had minimal development in the original Star Wars film. And, like Rey, he was innately and unnaturally skilled. But that movie didn’t hide who Luke was from the audience. We knew who he was, what he wanted and how the war had impacted him. We get a bit of that with Rey, especially with the revelation that she’s a Jedi, but most of her character remains a mystery. I’m willing to suspend my disbelief if it means her being fun and relatable, but I’d have liked to not have more questions after watching the film than when I started it. If she doesn’t have a payoff in the sequel, I’ll be disappointed.
Speaking of which, the montage when Rey touches Luke’s lightsaber, which I’ve seen a few times on YouTube, bugs me for that same reason. I’ve heard theories as to what it means, but it’s never resonated. It never directly makes sense in the context of the film, and it leaves too much open for interpretation. I always scratch my head when it happens, and while I know that film is all about show-don’t-tell…there’s a fine line between that and being vague for the sake of it. Also, the movie brushes off how Maz Kanata acquired the lightsaber in the first place, which is lazy…even with the film’s time constraints.
The destruction of Hosnian System remains a mixed bag, even after seeing that part of the movie multiple times on YouTube too. The reason why is the reverse of Alderaan in the original movie; where as that had the emotion from Leia’s end, at the expense of seeing it from the people of Alderaan’s point of view, the Hosnian System has the emotion of the system, but no reason to emotionally be invested in its destruction. This is because there’s no build-up. I wouldn’t have even known why the Hosnian System was so important without a YouTube video’s explanation. MYSTERY BOX INCORPORATED!
Finally, little details leave open questions of in-story character decisions. Questions like, “Why did Kylo Ren turn to the Dark Side?”, or, “Why did R2-D2 turn on at the exact second that he did?”, or, “Why didn’t Leia accompany Rey to Luke’s location if she was so insistent on finding him?”. Considering that film has such progressive leads, i.e. a woman and a black man, for its franchise, that Leia gets shafted for the fourth time in a Star Wars film is starting to get grating. We see that she’s become a general, so why relegate her to the sidelines?
Also, Finn’s character development is rushed.
So what do I like about this movie that I didn’t pick up on before?
Well, pretty much what everyone else has praised: the acting, the effects, the music and the sense of scope. I’ll forever remain steadfast in my belief that Star Wars, up until now, was never known for A-list acting. People give the Prequels crap for being badly-acted, but guess what? So were the original films. They tried, but I can think of a dozen moments where the acting was off or bizarre. The Prequels merely upped the ante, such that it was overtly apparent. But yeah, this is the first film with actual, genuine performances.
As for the effects, they’re good. The overhype about “practical effects” didn’t initially impress me, especially since I’m not a believer that “less CGI is automatically better”, and the idea that so much of it was supposed to “look real” was a turn-off. After all, the original films didn’t look real either, as much as people state otherwise, while the Prequels had effects that, in my opinion, looked decent. But I guess the lived-in, gritty feel is important for immersion. And it’s definitely a beautifully-realized world.
In my original review, I criticized the film’s score for being subpar by John Williams’s standards. I still hold that to an extent, but I’ll admit the orchestrations are growing on me. I’ve had the opportunity to listen to many of the tunes on the radio, and I like them a lot more now. I’ve especially become fond of March of the Resistance and The Jedi Steps, the former for being incredibly catchy and the latter as a haunting remix of one of the most-iconic pieces of music in film history. It’s not an excellent score, but it comes pretty close in certain places.
Finally, there’s the scope, both in wonder and emotional resonance. The former is self-explanatory, as the movie looks like big. I always thought that the Prequels did too, especially since they, like it or not, expanded on the Star Wars lore, but this film acknowledges its scale on several occasions, most-notably with Poe Dameron staring at the ceiling while being escorted by Stormtroopers through Starkiller Base. The emotion is made most-apparent through the relationship Kylo Ren has with Han Solo, making Han’s death that much more tragic. That the movie made Kylo Ren more interesting in one film than Darth Vader in six is also a testament to how much thought was put into him.
In my original review, I gave Star Wars: The Force Awakens 4/5 stars. It’s actually a quarter of a star higher, maybe half if I’m being generous. I still have issues that keep it from getting a higher grade, but I can’t say that it hasn’t grown on me. And who knows? If the sequel fixes some of my problems, I might like it more in the future!
(By the way, did Kylo Ren actually lose a limb in his fight with Rey? It was never clear.)
I'm glad to hear the movie grew on you. Its not the greatest thing ever, and it could have been better. But its not a terrible movie either- it was decent.
ReplyDeleteI'll briefly address a few of your points here:
1. You're one of the few commentators I've encountered whom I believe has correctly isolated the *actual* problems with Rey's characterization in this movie. The film holds off *too* much in the explanation department when it comes to what makes her tick for the viewer to feel fully invested in her. To the extent that she works, I think its largely thanks to Daisy Ridley's performance.
2. I can live with the montage scene in the end, but I sympathize with your complaints.
3. Regarding the destruction of the Hosnian system: The movie flat out states more than once that the New Republic's central government
is offering covert support to the Resistance, and by the time the First Order fires its weapon, it has been firmly established who they are targeting, and why. So to say that the scene comes out of nowhere is to ignore some crucial information that is actually spelled out explicitly in the movie. The real issue with the scene is twofold, I think:
A. There are no scenes in the movie from the perspective of anyone in the Republic Government, let alone any scenes showcasing them at work at all. We therefore have no real emotional investment in their deaths, even if we can [sort of] comprehend on an intellectual level why their deaths matter, both for our heroes and for the galaxy as a whole.
B. There just isn't enough of an explanation of the galactic political situation as of when the film begins. From what we can glean via the film itself, its not that hard to infer that the First Order is some sort of super-successful Neo-Nazi-esque junta, with the New Republic being a mixture of Nevile Chamberlains and Winston Churchills currently undecided about risking an open declaration of war, and the Resistance being a homegrown movement from the members of already conquered worlds that has been attracting secret support from the Churchills in the government. But that's just logical inference- a few minutes of basic exposition really wouldn't have hurt. Maybe -*gasp*- a brief glimpse of some politics. [Contrary to popular belief, it was not the mere presence of the political elements that crippled the prequels- it was the largely crappy execution of said elements.]
4. I've never claimed that John Williams' score here was one of his best, merely that I thought many people were underselling it even after having taken its "more average by John Williams standards" status into account. I'm glad to know that you're starting to appreciate it more.
ReplyDelete5. If you're trying to imply that all of the acting in the Original Trilogy was consistently bad all of the time, then I have no choice but to tell you that you are wrong. Only a handful of performances stand out as anything remarkable, but it was not all bad all the time. [And before you try to rebut me, consider the fact that, in a movie like the original Star Wars, a smarmy performance like what Peter Cushing gave for Tarkin is technically a good performance, insofar as it is exactly what the screenplay requires.] Where I *will* budge is that I'll say it was often inconsistent. For every few lines that were reasonably well delivered, there were several more that were flubbed. [Mark Hamil is a very frequent offender here- I don't think he ever got all that good until "Return of the Jedi"]. As regards the prequels, I'm not so sure its that the acting is worse than the original trilogy as a whole [although their are some performances that are objectively dire, eg. Portman and Christiansen in "Clones"], as that the prequels' screenwriting was demonstrably worse in the aggregate, enough so that even fine actors like Ewan McGregor and Sir Christopher Lee were unable to salvage it.
But if you merely are trying to say that "The Force Awakens" had the most *consistently* good and believable set of performances out of any Star Wars movie to date, then I will agree with you. In the aggregate, the acting was by the strongest collectively of any of the movies.
6. Regarding practical effects versus CGI:
It was not the mere presence of CGI in the prequels which I myself took umbrage with- it was *how* it was used. In the latter two prequels especially, the screen is often cluttered, showcasing more on the screen than the average human eye can reasonably keep track of, in scenes where it is crucial that the average human eye be capable of keeping track of most or all of what is on the screen. An especially egregious sequence is the speeder chase near the beginning of "Attack of the Clones', which remains one of the most poorly edited and directed action sequences I've seen outside of a Micheal Bay Transformers movie. It matters not a whit whether the CGI looked believable [and in the case of "Clones", it mostly does not- "Sith" holds up better]. The reason it does not matter is because all too frequently in the prequels, the special effects lose their proper place, which is in full subservience to the screenplay, as George goes wild with his then-new digital toys at the expense of getting better performances from his cast, who all too often look visibly lost amidst the cacophony of digital scenery. Effects may have progressed beyond the puppetry, makeup, and modelwork of the Original Trilogy, but it still holds up better in context- not because it was all practical so much as because it was always used wisely, or nearly so.
[For the record, I think "The Phantom Menace" has aged the best of the three prequels on an aesthetic level. The digital effects have aged considerably, but they're (mostly) less cluttered and incoherent on the screen, and thus are less of an eyesore.]
As for "The Force Awakens", it had plenty of digital effects in addition to its practical effects. But both were fully subservient to the screenplay at all times. *That* is what makes it better aesthetically than the prequels.
7. Vader is not a wholly uninteresting character [at least in the Original Trilogy]. But it wasn't until near the Empire Strikes Back that we began to see the level of depth which his character actually had. If Kylo Ren seems more involving from the getgo, perhaps its because unlike the Original Trilogy, this current storyline has been mapped out as a single tale in three movies from the beginning, with no retcons like Vader being Luke's father altering the overarching narrative in mid-development. Unlike Vader's as of when the original Star Wars was released in 1977, Kylo Ren's ultimate trajectory has [presumably] already been more or less set in stone.
ReplyDelete8. Kylo Ren did not lose a limb. Watch the scene again closely, and you'll see that he merely takes some cuts to the torso and limbs, as well as a slash across the face.
I was waiting for you to comment, honestly.
Delete1. Thank you. The whole Mary Sue argument drives me crazy, especially since it ignores the real issue with Rey.
2. It's personal, but those kinds of montages need context to work. This one didn't.
3. I guess, but it was still not clear in-film. Like I said, some exposition and scenes from the Hosnian side would've helped. The technology was there to make it work, this isn't 1977 anymore.
4. Neither did I, but I was initially disappointed by it. Considering that Star Wars has consistently given us some of his best work (even the Prequels,) this felt like a step down. Then again, I hear he's been having some health issues lately, so this score was rushed into production to continue his treatments. And I'll take okay Williams over a lot of stuff anyway.
5. Oh no, the acting was fine in the original films. It was just, like you said, inconsistent. People frequently criticize the Prequels for being lamely-acted, when I could easily provide a list of weirdly-acted moments in the Original Trilogy.
6. It's largely aesthetic, so I won't get too much into detail here. But I do think people don't give the Prequels enough credit for what they did right visually (particularly the Order 66 montage. That was heart-breaking.)
7. I never said he wasn't interesting, but that Kylo Ren was more so. Then again, it's probably for the reason you mentioned.
8. Then it'd be a first. Star Wars, amongst other things, has become notorious for its motif of hacked-off limbs, such that it's become a running joke and has even been referenced in other franchises (see the MCU films, which have that as a running joke too...)
Any time you post a piece on IRD or here, I read it, but I only post comments if I have something substantial I want to say in response.
Delete"People frequently criticize the Prequels for being lamely-acted, when I could easily provide a list of weirdly-acted moments in the Original Trilogy."
As I've already said, I think a lot [if not necessarily all] of the difference comes down to the quality of the screenwriting. Regarding the dialogue in particular- there was a time when George Lucas was willing to admit that he stank at writing dialogue. So he allowed others to revise his screenplay for the original Star Wars behind the scenes, took no role in writing the screenplay for "Empire" outside of constructing the basic plot outline, and took only a secondary writer's credit for "Jedi", leaving the bulk of the work to Kasdan. And the difference shows. Even when the dialogue in the Original Trilogy is "bad", its mostly the sort of "bad" dialogue that I could picture somebody saying in real life. That's frequently not the case in the prequels, enough so that great actors such as McGregor and Lee struggle to save their own lines. They could probably have saved a lot of the clunkier lines in the Original Trilogy, because the clunkiest lines in the Prequels are, on average, just that much clunkier than the clunkiest lines in the Original Trilogy.
"It's largely aesthetic, so I won't get too much into detail here. But I do think people don't give the Prequels enough credit for what they did right visually (particularly the Order 66 montage. That was heart-breaking.)"
Agreed, even though I've seen much better use of visuals in films that were their contemporaries. [Case in point- The "Lord of the Rings" Film Trilogy]. I've already praised the [relative] restraint of "The Phantom Menace" compared to the other two prequels, and I'll likewise reiterate my belief that "Sith" looked noticeably better than the [mostly] visually ugly/banal "Clones".
I will likewise praise the Order 66 Montage, and here's why:
I've long maintained that there's a decent movie trying very hard to break out of the inconsistent final product that is "Revenge of the Sith", and the whole "Order 66" scene is one proof of that. At last, Lucas largely steps aside and lets the cast and crew at his disposal do their thing, and its so good compared to a lot of what we've seen in the prequels that its worthy of a better film than the one its in. Out of all the prequel films, "Sith" has by far the most numerous of these moments; I actually consider about fifty percent of it to be a decent movie. And while in the end, the film still breaks down before the finish line, I nonetheless have a healthy amount of respect for what it *tries* to be.
I guess the whole complaint is that people overrate the greatness of the original films, such that one person even put them in the same category as Citizen Kane and the first two Godfather movies. In influence, maybe I can agree on that. But as far as actual filmmaking goes, it's not even a comparison. Star Wars, as a franchise, is much sillier than an A-list drama, so while it has serious moments in it, they pale to the real greats.
DeleteAs for the Order 66 segment, I'm glad you agree with me on that. It's also made more tragic by both the score being so great for that montage AND the tie-in TV cartoon building up a rather convincing explanation for why the clones would suddenly turn on their Jedi without warning (a fact that bothered many people for the longest time.)
Speaking of which, I recommend watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It's jumpy from time-to-time, and the animation quality is consistently poor, but it really does justice to the Prequel world in ways the movies only touched on. Also, it's really well-written 90% of the time...
"Star Wars, as a franchise, is much sillier than an A-list drama, so while it has serious moments in it, they pale to the real greats."
DeleteAnd silly, non-dramatic movies cannot be great in their own way? Is that what you're saying? Because if so, I strongly disagree. The Original Three Star Wars movies *are* great movies- the problem is that way too many people do not understand the *actual* reason they are great. They are not great because of any mythic/literary resonances, or because they are some super compelling commentary on humanity/culture, etc. They are great because they managed at the time to take a whole lot of silly, pulpy influences from disparate sources and synthesize them into [mostly] competently assembled popcorn blockbusters whilst simultaneously pushing the popcorn movie envelope in terms of both overall quality of execution, and also visual design specifically. That's a *heck* of a lot harder than it sounds. They've been equaled or surpassed in the popcorn blockbuster department since their release, but not so often that its routine for them to be surpassed by summer blockbusters in all respects.
So really, it depends on how you define "great". If you restrict "great" to meaning only "A-List Dramas", then no, the old Star Wars movies cannot lay claim to greatness. If you allow for the possibility that greatness can be achieved in other ways, then yes, I think a plausible argument can be made for greatness on their part. They are not great dramas by any stretch of the imagination, but a good case can be made for the original three Star Wars movies being great popcorn blockbusters.
Short version- you're getting perilously close here to falling into the dangerous trap of blaming a movie for not being something its not trying to be. Don't do that.
"Speaking of which, I recommend watching Star Wars: The Clone Wars. It's jumpy from time-to-time, and the animation quality is consistently poor, but it really does justice to the Prequel world in ways the movies only touched on. Also, it's really well-written 90% of the time..."
So far, I've seen the first season and the first few episodes of the second, and I like a fair bit of what I've seen- especially Anakin Skywalker, who for once is properly coming across as the "great pilot, cunning warrior, and good friend" that Obi-Wan described in "Return of the Jedi" for much greater amounts of consecutive screen minutes than two or three. I also like that it seems poised to retroactively add the requisite amounts of emotional depth and plot development to the prequel storyline which the movies themselves never fully achieved. But at the same time, it needs to be said that the fact it has to do that to any degree is a further indictment of the prequel trilogy for not being as well paced, structured, or developed as it ought to have been.
Before you respond, remember that I'm not saying that the old Star Wars movies are the *greatest* of popcorn blockbusters. Because I don't think that's true, and I can name some popcorn flicks which i believe are objectively better than they are. I'm merely saying that plausible arguments can be made for their being *among* the roster of greats when it comes to that particular type of movie.
ReplyDeleteYou're right. Years of frustration with the fandom's insistence that nothing is wrong with the originals and everything is wrong with the Prequels, completely ignoring nuance in the process, has created a bit of an irrational bias. I meant that the Star Wars are great in their own right, but that it's not fair to compare them with the aforementioned films.
DeleteAs for Star Wars: The Clone Wars? Keep with it. As much as you like it now, you'll like it even more as it progresses...
Oh, Star Wars fandom is full of vocal asses who don't fully understand that which they love, no argument there. Even the prequel defenders can be jerks in their own way from time to time.
DeleteI know how to put my critical thinking cap on as relates to Star Wars, but I also know how [and when] to take it off and just roll with whatever I get because I'm in the mood for some pulpy fun. And I'm not just talking about the movies here. Now that its a closed continuity, I've been reacquainting myself with the old pre-Disney Star Wars expanded universe of novels, comics, and games. Sure, a good fifty to sixty percent of it is crap, but you know what? I don't care, because its all good fun in my eyes. Some of it was genuinely good [eg. a lot of what Timothy Zahn and Michael A. Stackpole wrote]. Some it was always garbage. But when even the garbage was at least hilariously awful [eg. "The Glove of Darth Vader" and its sequels], should I really complain about its existence? Its kriffing Star Wars! Star Wars was always supposed to have been about bringing joy to young and old. I'll complain about something Star Wars related if I feel the need, but I'm not going to let my emotional stability revolve around any grievances I have with the material. Because at the end of the day, what Star Wars means to me is joy- joy that I can remember forever, and share with generations to come. And God only knows I need that joy right now.