So, in keeping with my New Year’s resolutions, I am going to
try to produce two blog entries a month this year, one on pop culture, and one
on politics. This entry is devoted
to the biggest movie in pop culture over the last month, Star Wars: The
Force Awakens. Most of the reviews that I have seen of the movie have been
pretty positive, but there have also been some criticisms, mainly that the
movie is too nostalgic and derivative, and a couple of concerns with the
characters. Right off the bat, I
will admit that I loved the movie, and the second viewing did nothing to temper
my enthusiasm. As a student of
literature, a Star Wars enthusiast, and a lover of movies, I thought The
Force Awakens got a lot of things
right. Most of the areas where I
had concerns were actually areas that were not addressed in most of the
criticisms I heard and read. So,
without further ado, my thoughts on The Force Awakens, and my response to the film’s critics.
What They Did Right
I love Star Wars. My dad got the box set of the 1995
special edition releases, and we watched it together as a family when I was
young. Darth Vader was the first
movie character to really scare me, and when I went out to play, I pretended to
be Han Solo, flying the Millenium Falcon.
The reason I bring this up is that The Force Awakens is oriented toward two audiences. The first, is people like me now:
people who grew up with the original trilogy (whether you saw it in theaters or
not), and were disappointed by the prequels. Director J.J. Abrams himself falls into this particular
category, and as a nostalgia flick, the movie shines. There are small tastes of the original; a glimpse of the
game board on the Falcon harkens back to episode four, Rey’s dismissing of the
ship as “garbage” references Luke’s initial “what a piece of junk.” The lighting is similar, the opening
shots deliberately parallel, and the texture, from the ships to the costuming,
is much closer to the feel of the original trilogy than the prequels. The other main audience is me from 20
years ago… the child who is being introduced to the world for the first time,
who is going to the movie with her family, and to whom this world is new. For such a child, the story had
everything one could desire; great fights, a scary looking and sounding
villain, amazing effects that do not look like the slipshod product of a a
video game designer (yes, I am looking at you, Revenge of the Sith). The
use of puppets, animatronics, and sets, with the tasteful application of CG
gave the film a texture and vibrancy cannot be equaled by films that take
advantage of “all that CGI has to offer.”
I also loved the way the characters developed. One of the major deficiencies in the
Star Wars franchise has been in the development of the characters. This is especially noticeable in
episodes 1,2, and 3, where terrible acting performances from the leads resulted
in flat and unlikable characters, and in episode 4, where the emphasis on
visual effects, the introduction of the massive universe, and relative lack of
experience in both the crew and directorial aspects resulted in a film where
character was largely sidelined.
In contrast, The Force Awakens
introduced the viewers to a number of really interesting characters who
developed over the course of the film.
The characters that we see at the end of the film have changed because
of their experiences; Finn has begun to overcome his cowardice and to figure
out the reason he is fighting in this battle. Kylo Ren has (presumably) overcome his instinctive pull
toward the light side, and taken his place as a Dark Force user on par with
Darth Vader (even Vader succumbed to the pull of the light when family was at
stake), and Rey has transitioned from a girl waiting for her family to return,
to a powerful woman who is willing to build her own life and family. Even minor characters like General Hux,
Po Dameron, and Princess Leia are given the chances to show their attributes,
and develop according to the events of the story.
Critical Complaints
Most of the critical complaints about the film focus on two
areas. The first is that the film
is too derivative, too “exactly like episode 4.” The similarities between the two films are striking. We have a main character raised on a
desert planet, who discovers they have force abilities and destroys the super
weapon of an evil regime with the help of an established rebellion leader and a
roguish sidekick. That main
character is is forced to watch as the person they considered a mentor/ father
figure is brutally murdered, and must confront the murderer in order to win the
day. The critics make a fair
point. Many of the locations are
very similar to those we see in the original trilogy: a desert planet, an ice
world, a battle on a vaguely forest-y moon (planet?). Starkiller base is another, bigger and badder Death Star;
and as soon as we saw what the base was and could do, we knew that the story
would end with the Resistance blowing the place up.
I want to address the two parts of the derivative
criticism. First, that the
locations are very similar to those of the original trilogy, showing a lack of
vision and originality. While
valid, the criticism lacks vision about episode 7, and the franchise as a
whole. Of course Jakku looks like
Tattooine, the other desert planet of the Star War’s universe. Deserts have played an enormous role in
the series; Tattooine was the beginning of Anakin’s, Luke’s, and (to a lesser
extent) Obi Wan’s adventures. The
desert is symbolic for George Lucas, who grew up in Modesto, and experienced
the ennui associated with living in a wasteland area. It is symbolic for the viewers, who are looking forward to
the experience of leaving the vast, boring real world for the vibrant, verdant
world of the screen. It is also
symbolic of the characters, who begin each story at a dead end, in the desert,
with no prospects, no future, only to discover that there is a vast world
beyond the desert that seemed endless.
Of course the story starts on another desert world, because that is how
Star Wars stories start. Criticism
of further locational choices are also limited in their scope. The “ice world” of Starkiller base is
very different from Hoth. One is a
tundra, with little to know wildlife, and conditions so brutal that prolonged
exposure will almost certainly result in death. The other is reminiscent of vast mountain ranges, richly
forested; a planet where a commander can make extended speeches to his troupes
outside in the elements without fear of them dying of hypothermia. Just because both places happen to have
snow does not make them the same.
Those who focus on the similarity between the two films visually will of
course find it; the film is an homage.
At the same time, to say the film lacks vision because of those
similarities is to miss the point entirely, and to overlook the fascinating and
ultimately unique aspects of the film.
Each location is separate from the ones we have seen before; we are not
back on Tattoine, Naboo, Coruscant, Endor. Instead, we get new locations that are similar to the old
ones, but majestic and beautiful in their own right.
Now that I am done talking about scenery, I have a quick
note about Starkiller base. Yes,
it can be viewed as another Death Star (although such a view is
reductive). Why is that a bad
thing? Think about it… no one gets
angry when Tom Cruise has to defuse ANOTHER
nuclear bomb planted by Russian spies in the middle of New York. Why not? Because a nuclear bomb is a super weapon, and as many times
as the good guys cut the blue wire in time to stop it, the bad buys will still
try to blow up the place because the payoff if they do succeed is worth the risk
if they don’t. The same can be
said of Death Stars, and Starkiller Base.
The first Death Star blew up a planet… A PLANET! The second Death Star blew up half of
the rebellion fleet before the shield generator was destroyed and the thing
could be blown up. Starkiller Base
destroyed FIVE republic planets, including a city planet that was likely a seat
of government. The government
behind the resistance was shattered IN ONE FIRING! The defenses of the base were strong enough that they
destroyed half of the resistance’s fleet when they attempted an attack. How many of the First Order commanders
did the resistance effectively neutralize? NONE! Kylo Ren
escapes, as does General Hux.
Supreme Leader Snoke isn’t anywhere near the base when it is
destroyed. Commander Fazma may
have died in the explosion, but it is highly unlikely (given the lack of a
body, and the character’s decision not to kill her outright). All the resistance accomplished was
denying the First Order the ability to use the weapon a second time, while
taking heavy losses. A pure cost
benefit analysis shows that building a Death Star/Starkiller Base is still a
great plan, even if it is not totally successful.
Rant done.
Sorry about that, I get a little carried away sometimes.
The second part of the criticism says that the story line of
episode seven is too similar to episode 4. Again, the critics have a point, but they miss the greater
Star Wars vision. When George
Lucas created Star Wars, he
structured the story around Joseph Campbell’s theory of Hero With a
Thousand Faces, which outlines the idea of
the hero’s journey, a cyclical story pattern that exists in all the great,
classic stories, and most of the great new ones. This pattern is as old as human story telling, and resonates
deeply across history; it has a mythic impact. What J.J. Abrams has done in Force Awakens is return to that structure, that pattern, replaying
the same drama over again as history repeats itself, but this time, because the
world and characters have been developed so much deeper, the “same old story”
begins to spin in a different direction.
A hero receives a call to adventure, but this time, instead of leaping
head first into the adventure, the hero is reluctant, tied to a home she
doesn’t have, and a family that may not return. The hero sees their mentor/father figure killed in front of
him, but this time it is not the crazy old man from the edge of the desert, it
is Han Solo, the first person who treated her with respect and gave her a
family, a character that the audience knows and loves on a deeper level, whose
death is emotionally jarring, and even more so that it comes at the hands, not
of his former apprentice, but of his son.
The good guys defeat the bad guys, but at the cost of five republic
planets, half of the resistance fleet, and the death of one of the greatest
heroes of the franchise. The
impact of the story becomes greater because the cost is greater… there is more
meaning in the events this time around than there was in the original, and that
deeper emotional impact provides a foundation for the next movies to build a
new and even greater story upon.
Yes, but… a movie must be judged on its own merit, not on
the merit of its potentially awesome sequels. Whether or not episode 8 is as fantastic as I think it
can/will be, is episode seven a justifiably good movie in its own right. I believe that it is, but I also think
that in the Star Wars universe, movies do not stand or fall on their own. If there had never been an Empire
Strikes Back, would New Hope still be remembered and watched today? Would it still have been one of the
most influential movies in film history?
I think not. One of the
major impacts the ring cycle structure of the original trilogy has had upon the
films is that they stand, not as individual movies, but as a group, on the
merits of all three, not upon the merits of any single film. I believe that episode 7 will do that
for a new trilogy of movies; provide the foundation for the next series of
adventures with these characters, and draw all three films together into a
singular Star Wars experience.
Before I finish up, I just want to address one more
criticism; “Rey is too perfect!”
This is another criticism that I have heard a lot, that the new female Jedi lead for episode seven is too competent, too good to be true, and
unlikable for that reason. I have
a couple of responses to this issue, which address it from a critical
perspective, a gendered perspective, and a “what movie did you watch”
perspective.
To the simplest of these responses, if you think Rey is too
perfect, what movie did you watch?
She made mistakes just like all the other characters. She accidentally opens the wrong door
on Han Solo’s freighter and lets out the monsters to rampage around the ship
(yes, I know those monsters are called Rathtar, but that is not useful at this
moment). She runs away from her
force abilities, is easily captured by Kylo Ren, and has to try three times to
force brainwash a stormtrooper (who are notoriously weakminded). Rey is not perfect; she has faults she
must overcome, and makes mistakes in the film.
What Rey is, and it is here that the gendered perspective
becomes useful, is highly competent.
She has survived ten years, on her own, on a desert planet; no guardian,
no assistance, just her ability to fend for herself. In that time, she has learned to speak a variety of alien
languages, fight with a staff, fly a variety of vehicles, and generally operate
on her own. Add to that the fact
that she is obviously a very gifted force user, and suddenly Rey’s competency
begins to make sense. The skills
that she has are not unreasonable for someone in her position. The skills that Rey possesses would not
be considered unusual or inappropriate in a male character. Just looking at the Star Wars universe,
no one is hugely shocked that Anakin Skywalker is able to build a protocol
droid, pilot a racing pod, speak the alien languages of Tattooine, and out-fly
the air force of Naboo at the age of 10.
It is assumed that his background has given him the requisite skill sets
to accomplish those feats.
Similarly, no one questions that Luke Skywalker, with hardly any
knowledge of the force is able to out-fly Darth Vader, one of the most powerful
force users ever, and “the best star pilot in the galaxy” having never been off
Tattooine before in his life, or how, with barely any lightsaber training
(remember, Yoda never trained Luke with a lightsaber, only in how to use the
force) he was able to duel with Darth Vader and win. The competency that we expect in the male characters of the
Star Wars universe seems extraordinary when given to a female character.
Yes, but what about Rey’s duel with Kylo Ren? How was she, with no training, able to
take on a powerful dark side user and trained duelist like Ren? There are a couple answers to this
question. First, Kylo Ren was not
physically at his best in that duel.
He had just been shot with Chewie’s bowcaster; he was wounded and losing
blood for the entirety of the fight.
Such a wound would significantly slow and hinder even a powerful force
user. Second, he had just killed
his own father. The Force
Awakens goes out of its way to emphasize
Kylo Ren’s uncertainty about the dark side, his emotional volatility, and his
pull toward the light. He had just
committed the single most evil act in the Star Wars films; the deliberate and
fully rationalized murder of a relative.
Anakin at his darkest never killed a member of his own family, and
neither (on screen) have any of the other Sith we have encountered. Of course he was not at his best in his
battle with Rey; he was still dealing with the emotional repercussions of
killing his father.
The final reason I think the fight between Kylo Ren and Rey
is not unrealistic in its outcome has to do with the story rational I mentioned
earlier. Many people make the
mistake of thinking of Rey as “female Luke Skywalker.” As such, they expect her to come into
the story with a similar set of competencies and faults. But Rey is NOT Luke. She is not even the Luke Skywalker
figure of the story. Luke was the
audience stand in for the original trilogy; the blank, but surprisingly important
character that has to be fed information along the way because he doesn’t know
anything. Rey is not that
character. Finn is that character;
the audience stand in who has to be told how things work in the universe as a
way of expediting world-building.
Rey is Obi Wan Kenobi or Han Solo; she is a character with an enormous
amount of history already built into her character. Her mysterious background and unknown parentage seem to
indicate that there is more to her as a character than we have already been
given. It is entirely possible
(and I think future movies will bear this out) that Rey has had some training
with the force before being left on Jakku, and has been made to forget what she
has previously learned. If, instead
of viewing Rey as a tabula rossa who’s competency must be established in the
film, she is viewed as an established force with inherent competencies from an
(as yet) unrevealed background, her force ability and generally high acumen is
perfectly legitimate.
Well, dear readers, I am running out of time. I think I have probably bored you
enough with four pages of my rantings, so I will delay a discussion of my
speculations for episode 8 and the future of the characters for another
month. I hope you enjoyed most of
what I had to say, and if not, that at least it made you reconsider the initial
response to The Force Awakens. I should be back in two weeks with a
political post; I am leaning toward an examination of the role/purpose of government,
so come back for that.
Anyway, back to reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment