It was like the unfunny, awkward parts of the Attack of the Clones mixed with the most boring parts of Empire Strikes Back with some leftover fluffy garbage from The Force Awakens.
Rey replaces Han & Luke, so why would I root for this Rey character if I now KNOW Star Wars' best heroes ended up as failed losers? We have very little faith in the justice of this universe now. "Luke's as honorable as Yoda and Obi-wan" Except they were supporting B characters who trained him to be better than them. The action of 3 movies amounted to false hope and quite clumsy failure. That was intentional with the Prequel Trilogy. Its the anthithesis of the original Trilogy.
Disney's execs, more than any other studio's, fundamentally do not understand storytelling, cinema and fans of both. The same greedy suits who made a fortune off poor quality, repetitive "sequels" to every classic they ever made. They just regurgitate from the past works of talents that probably never got paid their due. They are everything wrong with the business side of moviemaking.
Showing posts with label star wars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label star wars. Show all posts
Saturday, December 23, 2017
Monday, December 18, 2017
Justice League / The Last Jedi 2017
I'm ranking all the major releases of 2017 so I bit the bullet tonight and tackled the two big franchise films of the season (illegally bootlegged, of course).
Justice League was quite a disappointment. WB is becoming infamous for studio meddling and its so painfully obvious here. What should've been the climax of Zack Snyder's brutal, operatic Man of Steel/Batman V Superman films is an uneven unofficial Avengers film. WB got rid of David S Goyer, the man who wrote those films and Nolan's Batman trilogy (and the undervalued Blade trilogy) and replaced him with some newbie and Joss Whedon. Whedon handled extensive reshoots as Snyder faced a horrible personal tragedy and its shows. Only 1/3rd of the film feels like Snyder's work (mainly the epic action scenes that save the picture) while there's just too much boring, unfunny character play. What made BVS so special was the conflict between characters. Here, there's no chemistry at all as they are played as playful co-workers. That style fits the colorful, family friendly Marvel world but not DC.
Its not a bad movie but its very generic. Superman Returns/Dark Knight Rises territory. I thought the casting was great, if wasted. The dialogue was the worst element but at least the script had a brisk pace. The plot was low on drama or any real message besides what has to be the most over-used, commodified empty sentiment of the 2010's: "Hope".
Perfect segue to The Last Jedi. Star Wars 8 is like the lighter, dumber twin of this year's Alien 8. Its an epic achievement of CGI, moody digital photography and franchise callbacks. But Alien Covenant struck me as so important because it sets up so much nauseating formula just to radically reject it while Jedi can't find any confidence outside of its knowledge of source material. But the problem with this new Disney trilogy is that each film is beholden to ONE old film at a time. Jedi is a remake of Empire in tone, visuals, settings, character arcs with a "surprising" reversal of the ending of Return of the Jedi (only because Force Awaken took Empire's ending).
But Episode 8 is much better than Ep 7. Its even more poppy, emo, silly, sleek and that becomes a distraction. If this wasn't set in George Lucas' old film it would just be another post-Harry Potter fantasy flick for teens. The drama is on that same level. Take a swig every time someone yells "Nooo!!!" or cries or stares into the void to a silent soundtrack. Its such generic melodrama and emotional exploitation, but it works for 4/5 audience members, right? I dunno. The film is facing major backlash and my takeaway is that audiences are quickly growing tired of Xerox-style sequels. They want futuristic science fiction, intelligent characterization and... newness. Ep 8 has too many dollars behind it to be a bad movie. Its watchable if very boring and overexerting. But I much rather watch Attack of the Clones for its awkward innovation and sincere sense of magic & chaos than a rich, warm but hollow redo of a better film.
The major failure is that Disney's films treat The Force as simply a Hippie superpower and not the political/religious allegory Lucas intended it to be. Thats what inspired a generation of fans to embrace it beyond the movies. It was based on something more than toys, one-liners and muppets.
The Last Jedi, like Justice League, leaves us after 2 hours of explosions with that bland non-message of "Hope". Things are awful and "the darkness" is winning (you know how much I hate this binary colorism Hollywood loves to sell) but keep faith that someone else will save you or things will just work out on their own. I like the pessimistic, pro-active moral of Alien Covenant much better: Stop hoping, evil won't lay down, FIGHT BACK.
This is what happens when our culture becomes too steeped in man-child culture. We have to put to bed all of the lofty idealism and fluffy entertainment and make films that are about the real world and how to survive. The evil villains in JL and SW have no motivation beyond "I'm bad. I'm angry." Why aren't the heroes angry? Why don't the villains see themselves as heroic? Again, Alien Covenant nailed this. Some damn realism goes a long way. Anakin Skywalker was manipulated by a fascist system for 3 movies before he turned evil. Ben Solo's reason is unknown. Actually, Luke explains that Ben was brainwashed similar to Anakin, so why would Luke not see this happening? How is the hero of Star Wars so stupid to let the tragedy of his father repeat EXACTLY? And, overthinking this, Yoda saw Anakin turning and prepared for it but Luke didn't prepare for Ben? And why did this chick even need training when she was more powerful than Luke within a few days? And did the writers forget about this? http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_of_Two This is all fanboy continuity but if you aren't going to pay attention to the details, why even make the film?
Answer: money
Justice League was quite a disappointment. WB is becoming infamous for studio meddling and its so painfully obvious here. What should've been the climax of Zack Snyder's brutal, operatic Man of Steel/Batman V Superman films is an uneven unofficial Avengers film. WB got rid of David S Goyer, the man who wrote those films and Nolan's Batman trilogy (and the undervalued Blade trilogy) and replaced him with some newbie and Joss Whedon. Whedon handled extensive reshoots as Snyder faced a horrible personal tragedy and its shows. Only 1/3rd of the film feels like Snyder's work (mainly the epic action scenes that save the picture) while there's just too much boring, unfunny character play. What made BVS so special was the conflict between characters. Here, there's no chemistry at all as they are played as playful co-workers. That style fits the colorful, family friendly Marvel world but not DC.
Its not a bad movie but its very generic. Superman Returns/Dark Knight Rises territory. I thought the casting was great, if wasted. The dialogue was the worst element but at least the script had a brisk pace. The plot was low on drama or any real message besides what has to be the most over-used, commodified empty sentiment of the 2010's: "Hope".
Perfect segue to The Last Jedi. Star Wars 8 is like the lighter, dumber twin of this year's Alien 8. Its an epic achievement of CGI, moody digital photography and franchise callbacks. But Alien Covenant struck me as so important because it sets up so much nauseating formula just to radically reject it while Jedi can't find any confidence outside of its knowledge of source material. But the problem with this new Disney trilogy is that each film is beholden to ONE old film at a time. Jedi is a remake of Empire in tone, visuals, settings, character arcs with a "surprising" reversal of the ending of Return of the Jedi (only because Force Awaken took Empire's ending).
But Episode 8 is much better than Ep 7. Its even more poppy, emo, silly, sleek and that becomes a distraction. If this wasn't set in George Lucas' old film it would just be another post-Harry Potter fantasy flick for teens. The drama is on that same level. Take a swig every time someone yells "Nooo!!!" or cries or stares into the void to a silent soundtrack. Its such generic melodrama and emotional exploitation, but it works for 4/5 audience members, right? I dunno. The film is facing major backlash and my takeaway is that audiences are quickly growing tired of Xerox-style sequels. They want futuristic science fiction, intelligent characterization and... newness. Ep 8 has too many dollars behind it to be a bad movie. Its watchable if very boring and overexerting. But I much rather watch Attack of the Clones for its awkward innovation and sincere sense of magic & chaos than a rich, warm but hollow redo of a better film.
The major failure is that Disney's films treat The Force as simply a Hippie superpower and not the political/religious allegory Lucas intended it to be. Thats what inspired a generation of fans to embrace it beyond the movies. It was based on something more than toys, one-liners and muppets.
The Last Jedi, like Justice League, leaves us after 2 hours of explosions with that bland non-message of "Hope". Things are awful and "the darkness" is winning (you know how much I hate this binary colorism Hollywood loves to sell) but keep faith that someone else will save you or things will just work out on their own. I like the pessimistic, pro-active moral of Alien Covenant much better: Stop hoping, evil won't lay down, FIGHT BACK.
This is what happens when our culture becomes too steeped in man-child culture. We have to put to bed all of the lofty idealism and fluffy entertainment and make films that are about the real world and how to survive. The evil villains in JL and SW have no motivation beyond "I'm bad. I'm angry." Why aren't the heroes angry? Why don't the villains see themselves as heroic? Again, Alien Covenant nailed this. Some damn realism goes a long way. Anakin Skywalker was manipulated by a fascist system for 3 movies before he turned evil. Ben Solo's reason is unknown. Actually, Luke explains that Ben was brainwashed similar to Anakin, so why would Luke not see this happening? How is the hero of Star Wars so stupid to let the tragedy of his father repeat EXACTLY? And, overthinking this, Yoda saw Anakin turning and prepared for it but Luke didn't prepare for Ben? And why did this chick even need training when she was more powerful than Luke within a few days? And did the writers forget about this? http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Rule_of_Two This is all fanboy continuity but if you aren't going to pay attention to the details, why even make the film?
Answer: money
Saturday, December 16, 2017
David Lynch almost directed Return of the Jedi and I'm so glad he didn't. At that stage of his career,he could never match the charm, color and epic weirdness of the finished film. You can tell he regretted passing on it by making Dune, which is heavily inspired by Star Wars 1-3. And it really doesn't work (although its well-directed). It just sucks seeing a great experimental director doing commercial work only for the money or to copy.
Interestingly, Twin Peaks: The Return (my favorite show of 2017) felt like Lynch finally doing a convincing job of commercial Hollywood style from the modern era. The original Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet are excellent but they work best as 1950s realism (much like Lucas' work is always reminiscent of 1960s realism). Lynch has explored lots of different eras and localized American cultures and tried to showcase all of it in a TV series. It was a fantastic experience, feeling galactic and making the smallness of life seem so alien and mystical.
Its bizarre that people seem to see Lynch & Lucas as being so different. I think David is just a small town guy and Lucas always thought big. Now its kinda like they've developed the same style, just in different genres and arenas. One commercial and the other still indie/TV.
*And the latest Star Wars has Lynch stars Laura Dern & Justin Theroux???? Weird stuff.
And Lynch has basically preached the same mystical Eastern religious theories of oneness in Twin Peaks as Lucas has in Star Wars. Is Lucas the secret rival inspiration for Lynch's commercial career?
Interestingly, Twin Peaks: The Return (my favorite show of 2017) felt like Lynch finally doing a convincing job of commercial Hollywood style from the modern era. The original Twin Peaks and Blue Velvet are excellent but they work best as 1950s realism (much like Lucas' work is always reminiscent of 1960s realism). Lynch has explored lots of different eras and localized American cultures and tried to showcase all of it in a TV series. It was a fantastic experience, feeling galactic and making the smallness of life seem so alien and mystical.
Its bizarre that people seem to see Lynch & Lucas as being so different. I think David is just a small town guy and Lucas always thought big. Now its kinda like they've developed the same style, just in different genres and arenas. One commercial and the other still indie/TV.
*And the latest Star Wars has Lynch stars Laura Dern & Justin Theroux???? Weird stuff.
And Lynch has basically preached the same mystical Eastern religious theories of oneness in Twin Peaks as Lucas has in Star Wars. Is Lucas the secret rival inspiration for Lynch's commercial career?
Thursday, November 23, 2017
The Farce Awaken Pt 2
That last post turned into a long-coming political rant. This net neutrality decision shows the Trump administration is on the side of Hollywood and not independent film, so I am thoroughly disgusted.
But Disney's handling of Star Wars details how gloomy the future of mainstream film is. They took the most successful truly independent film company, LucasArts are turned it everything evil about cinema. They quickly killed Han, Leia and Luke (because old people are not cosmetic enough) to replace them with dumb Millennial aged puppet characters who add nothing but superficial social progressivism to grab a broader base of tickets. Its such shallow, cynical and morally bankrupt garbage for human toddlers.
I'm disappointed in George Lucas for selling Star Wars to them, knowing the positive influence it once had and how much Disney would liquidate, neuter and corrupt it. But maybe they gave him no other option. They could've waited til he died to buy it from his estate, but Lucas decided to enjoy and use the fortune while he still can. I can't hate him for selling out but it ruins the whole sentiment behind Star Wars a bit when they are owned by Hollywood's "evil empire".
I expect Luke becomes the new Emperor but Rey and Kylo overthrow him because Kylo turns Rey against him. Uh-oh! Kylo becomes the new ruler or whatever with Rey by his side... until the 3rd movie where she comes to her senses thanks to her old buddies... Is that an inspiring Disney princess feel good message for kids? Sure. But its just rewriting the old movies and not actually telling a new story. Gender-swapping. Race-swapping. Extra happy endings. Its glorified fan fiction. And I wouldn't be surprised if Disney cops out now that Hillary Clinton isn't president. They love to go conservative when their fanbase leads them to it. Because its about dollars to them.
Fuck, I don't care. Disney has bought and sold tons of cool properties before and I doubt Star Wars will stick once Disney has milked the cow dry, like they always have. They always over-do things and kill the golden goose. I just pray Star Wars doesn't get too shitty beyond repair. Ironically this is the nightmare that movie fans claimed the Prequel/Expanded universe was. Fools.
But Disney's handling of Star Wars details how gloomy the future of mainstream film is. They took the most successful truly independent film company, LucasArts are turned it everything evil about cinema. They quickly killed Han, Leia and Luke (because old people are not cosmetic enough) to replace them with dumb Millennial aged puppet characters who add nothing but superficial social progressivism to grab a broader base of tickets. Its such shallow, cynical and morally bankrupt garbage for human toddlers.
I'm disappointed in George Lucas for selling Star Wars to them, knowing the positive influence it once had and how much Disney would liquidate, neuter and corrupt it. But maybe they gave him no other option. They could've waited til he died to buy it from his estate, but Lucas decided to enjoy and use the fortune while he still can. I can't hate him for selling out but it ruins the whole sentiment behind Star Wars a bit when they are owned by Hollywood's "evil empire".
I expect Luke becomes the new Emperor but Rey and Kylo overthrow him because Kylo turns Rey against him. Uh-oh! Kylo becomes the new ruler or whatever with Rey by his side... until the 3rd movie where she comes to her senses thanks to her old buddies... Is that an inspiring Disney princess feel good message for kids? Sure. But its just rewriting the old movies and not actually telling a new story. Gender-swapping. Race-swapping. Extra happy endings. Its glorified fan fiction. And I wouldn't be surprised if Disney cops out now that Hillary Clinton isn't president. They love to go conservative when their fanbase leads them to it. Because its about dollars to them.
Fuck, I don't care. Disney has bought and sold tons of cool properties before and I doubt Star Wars will stick once Disney has milked the cow dry, like they always have. They always over-do things and kill the golden goose. I just pray Star Wars doesn't get too shitty beyond repair. Ironically this is the nightmare that movie fans claimed the Prequel/Expanded universe was. Fools.
The Farce Awakens
The future of Star Wars is the same as the future of Disney. They will make a mega popular Disney princess icon out of Rey while we get a safe, lovable, sexy Ken doll out of Poe, Finn & Kylo. It will serve a major slot in history culturally but won't have the lasting positive futurism of George Lucas' vision and personal intention. Because its commercialized and child-proofed like the Star Wars films that had too much conglomerate interests and TAMPERING from outside studios. Lucas wanted an independent theatre group, like Jim Henson's and other special effects companies. And he made an impressive American dream company out of his artistic vision. And he let other artists express themselves through it. He learned that from Francis Ford Coppola; who supported plenty of filmmakers without signing their souls away to constrictive deals. By extension and osmosis, Lucas comes from the same cloth as Roger Corman and all other independent artists in the film industry. Independent cinema has influenced almost everything. It must continue for us to innovate ideas, worldviews, politics, art and entertainment. But it mustn't become propaganda for conglomerate pirates. Things are too connected to business and hucksterism within Hollywood movies. And through them independent films became too cut-throat and heavy on exploitation.
Movies seem like a dying art in today's climate. But the climate always changes. It hasn't soared in years but there are things in place making filmmaking a soul-sucking job. And cinema influences our lives so much. TOO MUCH. How the brain is wired, humans are hypnotised and magnetised to blinding light. Its in our reptilian brain. So films stimulate and simulate our dreams. But that can be a negative experience when the magic of an artform or technology becomes stifled & homogenized. If government must get involved in cinema to preserve it, so be it if they economically support the most lucrative and positively influential independent voice.
Trump's administration is the most cold-hearted, corrupted, dishonest and self-destructive thing I've ever seen. Its frightening and I'm scared for the first time in ages about D.C.'s effect on the rest of the world. But I think the older American states plotted together to get him elected. Senators and private interests on lower radar's then the "big conglom-o".
But if Donald Trump can put money back into independent film by making it a subsidized industry and not a Hollywood monopoly, I will be grateful for this disastrous and poor showing as a president. He's gotten his hand caught in every cookie jar but he hasn't been a detective or avenging hero of the common man & woman. He has no real connection to his kids so I imagine childhood will be numb and vacuously commercialized. Trump's just not a good influence on anything. But there is a tiny bit of good in him. Everyone has God in them, I say. So maybe he can do this one favor for the history of mankind and start socialism in the 21st century. I only have faith in this possibly happening because Trump originally wanted to be a movie director as a child, before a traumatic indoctrination into the world of old-school "card shark" business via NYC. He's a dulled, brutalized, machismo-built, poorly bred, off the cuff, brutally honest meathead jock who wants you to like him but he's also spineless, backstabbing and a proficient spinner of lies. He's a bullshit artist. He's a reflection of proper society's archetypal king complex. The apex predator wet dream of capitalist market merchants. The egomaniac & money. And the sickest person with that disease is modern white men. The 20th century and all of human history has resulted in a pyramid scheme for the most vicious animal behavior humankind can muster. Its so sad, monstrous, haunting, demoralizing.
Our culture is too violent. Are films too violent? Does cinema produce this sick violent expression in humans? Has humanity always been as brutal as the rest of the jungle? If anything film has fought to neuter the viewers with its anti-violence messages. But there's always been a balance of pro-violence propaganda, inspired by gladiator-obsessed war instincts in weak willed, ego-driven men who cling to childhood and the status quo. The "patriarchy" can't let go. That hurts movies! It makes the films unwatchable to about 9/10ths of the world's population and limits the amount of storytelling, perspectives, dialogue, language, evolution, know-how and knowledge.
Film (all of entertainment and human interaction, really) is very vanilla right now. Too conservative, frightful, uninterested, repressed and uncommunicative of the world. Film should be about the world. Not just American mainstream white male interests. Its a one-trick circus and its tanking in popularity. Because Disney and Warner Bros have the most market share of the distribution & marketing in film. Its too much power given to a symbiotic rivalry out to profit on regular customers. You can't abuse the audience's money. Film should be free, produced by government money or private money (independent). Its started more as a technological exercise, a kind of prototype for the modern computer, but only the visual making aspects. Thats why CGI adapts so well to established filmmaking techniques and technologies. But the Hollywood studios aren't groups of independent producers anymore. They are a unionized, privatized, tax-paying arm of conglomerate telecommunications & news "infotainment" media. Its so divorced from honest documentary. Its all basically cinema now. You can't give all the means to these private banks essentially. You have to stimulate government funds with return from investments. They could make more money for the entire world by taxing Hollywood more than the little filmmaker in Arkansas, Africa who borrows a few thousand to shoot a film they thought people might want to see. If you want to make money, filmmaking shouldn't be the interest you pick up. Its not a job, its a calling.
Make movies because you love movies and the making of movies. Not because its an easy way to get rich. I 100% trust Donald Trump because he could've easily become a filmmaker later, but didn't. So that shows he 's this soul crushed guy who really is withered to nothing emotionally. Or is that a projection. The world is projecting so much on this president and we don't know what is him and what is our idea of him. Because he's such a shocking character to some, he is popular and protected and his downfall is ignored. But to the rest of us he's a trainwreck waiting to happen if he doesn't change, ask for help and own up to whatever he's guilty of. Having a liar for a president is toxic for America. And it will be very hard for Hollywood to show this side of nature. They steer away from mature, R-rated, adult content. And TV gives a pale imitation of reality.
Independent filmmakers like all artists are the biggest hope of inspiration, motivation and innovation out of our problems socially, ethically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. So I think if Trump can make a profit from entrepreneurs OTHER THAN HIMSELF, he would become a popular president globally and historically. But can he do it before his time is up? You have to hope he will be remembered for something good. If its all darkness, we have to get him out of power. He's gonna serve time if they find anything, if he tries to overturn it secretly he will become more hated than Richard Nixon, so he's left to confess and hand over all of his power to other people just to save his own life. I almost feel sorry for him, but with these last moments to months of his reign before getting Caesar'd, he can do something to become a tragic anti-hero and not just a complex hilarious villain who gets punished.
Movies seem like a dying art in today's climate. But the climate always changes. It hasn't soared in years but there are things in place making filmmaking a soul-sucking job. And cinema influences our lives so much. TOO MUCH. How the brain is wired, humans are hypnotised and magnetised to blinding light. Its in our reptilian brain. So films stimulate and simulate our dreams. But that can be a negative experience when the magic of an artform or technology becomes stifled & homogenized. If government must get involved in cinema to preserve it, so be it if they economically support the most lucrative and positively influential independent voice.
Trump's administration is the most cold-hearted, corrupted, dishonest and self-destructive thing I've ever seen. Its frightening and I'm scared for the first time in ages about D.C.'s effect on the rest of the world. But I think the older American states plotted together to get him elected. Senators and private interests on lower radar's then the "big conglom-o".
But if Donald Trump can put money back into independent film by making it a subsidized industry and not a Hollywood monopoly, I will be grateful for this disastrous and poor showing as a president. He's gotten his hand caught in every cookie jar but he hasn't been a detective or avenging hero of the common man & woman. He has no real connection to his kids so I imagine childhood will be numb and vacuously commercialized. Trump's just not a good influence on anything. But there is a tiny bit of good in him. Everyone has God in them, I say. So maybe he can do this one favor for the history of mankind and start socialism in the 21st century. I only have faith in this possibly happening because Trump originally wanted to be a movie director as a child, before a traumatic indoctrination into the world of old-school "card shark" business via NYC. He's a dulled, brutalized, machismo-built, poorly bred, off the cuff, brutally honest meathead jock who wants you to like him but he's also spineless, backstabbing and a proficient spinner of lies. He's a bullshit artist. He's a reflection of proper society's archetypal king complex. The apex predator wet dream of capitalist market merchants. The egomaniac & money. And the sickest person with that disease is modern white men. The 20th century and all of human history has resulted in a pyramid scheme for the most vicious animal behavior humankind can muster. Its so sad, monstrous, haunting, demoralizing.
Our culture is too violent. Are films too violent? Does cinema produce this sick violent expression in humans? Has humanity always been as brutal as the rest of the jungle? If anything film has fought to neuter the viewers with its anti-violence messages. But there's always been a balance of pro-violence propaganda, inspired by gladiator-obsessed war instincts in weak willed, ego-driven men who cling to childhood and the status quo. The "patriarchy" can't let go. That hurts movies! It makes the films unwatchable to about 9/10ths of the world's population and limits the amount of storytelling, perspectives, dialogue, language, evolution, know-how and knowledge.
Film (all of entertainment and human interaction, really) is very vanilla right now. Too conservative, frightful, uninterested, repressed and uncommunicative of the world. Film should be about the world. Not just American mainstream white male interests. Its a one-trick circus and its tanking in popularity. Because Disney and Warner Bros have the most market share of the distribution & marketing in film. Its too much power given to a symbiotic rivalry out to profit on regular customers. You can't abuse the audience's money. Film should be free, produced by government money or private money (independent). Its started more as a technological exercise, a kind of prototype for the modern computer, but only the visual making aspects. Thats why CGI adapts so well to established filmmaking techniques and technologies. But the Hollywood studios aren't groups of independent producers anymore. They are a unionized, privatized, tax-paying arm of conglomerate telecommunications & news "infotainment" media. Its so divorced from honest documentary. Its all basically cinema now. You can't give all the means to these private banks essentially. You have to stimulate government funds with return from investments. They could make more money for the entire world by taxing Hollywood more than the little filmmaker in Arkansas, Africa who borrows a few thousand to shoot a film they thought people might want to see. If you want to make money, filmmaking shouldn't be the interest you pick up. Its not a job, its a calling.
Make movies because you love movies and the making of movies. Not because its an easy way to get rich. I 100% trust Donald Trump because he could've easily become a filmmaker later, but didn't. So that shows he 's this soul crushed guy who really is withered to nothing emotionally. Or is that a projection. The world is projecting so much on this president and we don't know what is him and what is our idea of him. Because he's such a shocking character to some, he is popular and protected and his downfall is ignored. But to the rest of us he's a trainwreck waiting to happen if he doesn't change, ask for help and own up to whatever he's guilty of. Having a liar for a president is toxic for America. And it will be very hard for Hollywood to show this side of nature. They steer away from mature, R-rated, adult content. And TV gives a pale imitation of reality.
Independent filmmakers like all artists are the biggest hope of inspiration, motivation and innovation out of our problems socially, ethically, emotionally, intellectually, etc. So I think if Trump can make a profit from entrepreneurs OTHER THAN HIMSELF, he would become a popular president globally and historically. But can he do it before his time is up? You have to hope he will be remembered for something good. If its all darkness, we have to get him out of power. He's gonna serve time if they find anything, if he tries to overturn it secretly he will become more hated than Richard Nixon, so he's left to confess and hand over all of his power to other people just to save his own life. I almost feel sorry for him, but with these last moments to months of his reign before getting Caesar'd, he can do something to become a tragic anti-hero and not just a complex hilarious villain who gets punished.
Wednesday, November 22, 2017
Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 2005
Its Star Wars season again and I'm preparing for the temptation to see the newest film, The Last Jedi. I found the last film to be offensive, dumb, cheap and somewhat boring, but its surely an important and popular piece of 2010's Hollywood populism/propaganda. But its attracted or given voice to a kind of anti-intellectual casual movie fan who has to hate George Lucas' prequels as the only defense of the Disney continuations. It irks me to no end because I have a soft spot for those films and I genuinely think Episode 3 is George Lucas' finest hour, an actual masterpiece to prove his genius. And we know genius is understood too late... because most people aren't geniuses... or else they would enjoy the work of another genius.
Episode 3 works on a conceptual level as THE only companion piece to the original Star Wars genesis (Episode 4) actually directed by the guy who understands it enough to have created it. This prequel was actually conceived along with the original concept that would become what we all know as the Star Wars mythos. Granted Episodes 1 & 2 are inferior and less essential, but they were engineered that way; to be prequels to the prequel, not standalone hit films like Empire or Jedi. Lucas seems inspired with Episode 3 as becoming a testement that prequels can be superior to sequels. Whether you prefer Empire to Sith is moot because one is objectively more accepted without much kickback. This is about Lucas making a Star Wars spin-off he can embrace as HIS and not a work of studio committee.
Now Episodes 5&6 were the most commercial and successful until the Disney reboots, but they are vastly divergent from the style, tone and overarching themes of Lucas' first film. What Star Wars started as was a post-modern kids film based on bygone sci-fi serials, a bizarrely refreshing blend of childish American fantasy and academic British-inspired theater. It quickly evolved into a more cold, realism-based soap opera set in space and an outrageous campy merchandised FX reel. Those were two extreme sides of Lucas' creation, but not a pure mix of both. But to match them Episode 1 is a queasy yet ambitious experiment in style trying to reclaim the series from "Jedi" back into a violent, mature kid's film & Episode 2 is more of a teenage soap opera/popcorn adventure film like "Empire". And with "Sith", Lucas reboots his series back to the politically serious, technically dazzling, spiritually questing allegory for modern morality during wartime.
Lucas has always been recognized more for his technical invention and know-how than his commercial flair or legit artistic talents, because he has always shared credit with his crew more than Hitchcock. But why is the latter considered an auteur but the former is not? Its because Lucas is even bigger fan of radical experimentation and expects more intellectual understanding from his audience. He doesn't care if the film isn't understood or doesn't make a ton of new fans, having created the comic books, video games, cartoons, etc. to serve his immature fanbase. The films are for connoisseurs of classic cinema, not casual sci-fi fans. Surely audiences in the 2000s expected a showcase of sexual innuendo, slapstick jokes & good triumphing over evil. But Lucas refuses to retread, while still cleverly throwing the nostalgia critics a bone.
"Sith" allows Lucas to identify himself as a director fully and the previous films as warm up's. Here is a showcase of George Lucas the abstract visualist, the "pop art" lover, the political theater deconstructionist, the social progressive, the hippie nerd, the digital animator, the narrative editor with non-narrative editing influences, the Buddhist sympathizer, the Democratic Socialist, the critic of bad Y2K culture. All of that artistic impression, lamely dismissed as hollow stylistic masturbation, is really contextualizing Lucas' own worldview of his created universe. Fans still seem confused as to what Lucas was saying in the prequels because they refused to understand the clear language and sentiment in them.
But with this climax of his 2nd trilogy and really a puzzle piece that legitimizes FIVE previous films, Lucas goes for a new level of closure and cyclical completion. We finally see the maturation in legendary figures and clarity in what a young George Lucas initially wanted in Empire & Jedi. In many ways this film is a deconstruction of Star Wars for his haters as much as his fans. The film is packed with allegories to politics & spirituality that are timeless and have become relevant again. While Hollywood was asking very mild and sometimes flawed philosophical questions in Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter films, Star Wars was exploring new levels of mass-media communication. Something so mainstream and accepted as Star Wars is used to confront horrible social conflicts and looming global fears that have unfortunately become more pressing.
And Ep 3 succeeds in becoming a kind of coping device for the Post-9/11 American atmosphere. Lucas gives valuable backstory and motivation to The Jedi & The Sith, placeholders for any binary conflict you want by asking the essential question of all morality, "Am I my brother's keeper?" This has divided religions, political parties, artistic movements, families, races & communities and (I assume most urgently to Lucas) futurists. Lucas gives a very well-versed and elegantly boiled down perspective on human conflict by presenting "Light" and "Dark" as choices both valid emotionally and rationalized socially, much more nuance than is given in Star Wars films before or since. And he still offers a positive beam of hope to remind us that there's a meaning for all of the suffering. Thats GREAT drama.
Episode 3 works on a conceptual level as THE only companion piece to the original Star Wars genesis (Episode 4) actually directed by the guy who understands it enough to have created it. This prequel was actually conceived along with the original concept that would become what we all know as the Star Wars mythos. Granted Episodes 1 & 2 are inferior and less essential, but they were engineered that way; to be prequels to the prequel, not standalone hit films like Empire or Jedi. Lucas seems inspired with Episode 3 as becoming a testement that prequels can be superior to sequels. Whether you prefer Empire to Sith is moot because one is objectively more accepted without much kickback. This is about Lucas making a Star Wars spin-off he can embrace as HIS and not a work of studio committee.
Now Episodes 5&6 were the most commercial and successful until the Disney reboots, but they are vastly divergent from the style, tone and overarching themes of Lucas' first film. What Star Wars started as was a post-modern kids film based on bygone sci-fi serials, a bizarrely refreshing blend of childish American fantasy and academic British-inspired theater. It quickly evolved into a more cold, realism-based soap opera set in space and an outrageous campy merchandised FX reel. Those were two extreme sides of Lucas' creation, but not a pure mix of both. But to match them Episode 1 is a queasy yet ambitious experiment in style trying to reclaim the series from "Jedi" back into a violent, mature kid's film & Episode 2 is more of a teenage soap opera/popcorn adventure film like "Empire". And with "Sith", Lucas reboots his series back to the politically serious, technically dazzling, spiritually questing allegory for modern morality during wartime.
Lucas has always been recognized more for his technical invention and know-how than his commercial flair or legit artistic talents, because he has always shared credit with his crew more than Hitchcock. But why is the latter considered an auteur but the former is not? Its because Lucas is even bigger fan of radical experimentation and expects more intellectual understanding from his audience. He doesn't care if the film isn't understood or doesn't make a ton of new fans, having created the comic books, video games, cartoons, etc. to serve his immature fanbase. The films are for connoisseurs of classic cinema, not casual sci-fi fans. Surely audiences in the 2000s expected a showcase of sexual innuendo, slapstick jokes & good triumphing over evil. But Lucas refuses to retread, while still cleverly throwing the nostalgia critics a bone.
"Sith" allows Lucas to identify himself as a director fully and the previous films as warm up's. Here is a showcase of George Lucas the abstract visualist, the "pop art" lover, the political theater deconstructionist, the social progressive, the hippie nerd, the digital animator, the narrative editor with non-narrative editing influences, the Buddhist sympathizer, the Democratic Socialist, the critic of bad Y2K culture. All of that artistic impression, lamely dismissed as hollow stylistic masturbation, is really contextualizing Lucas' own worldview of his created universe. Fans still seem confused as to what Lucas was saying in the prequels because they refused to understand the clear language and sentiment in them.
But with this climax of his 2nd trilogy and really a puzzle piece that legitimizes FIVE previous films, Lucas goes for a new level of closure and cyclical completion. We finally see the maturation in legendary figures and clarity in what a young George Lucas initially wanted in Empire & Jedi. In many ways this film is a deconstruction of Star Wars for his haters as much as his fans. The film is packed with allegories to politics & spirituality that are timeless and have become relevant again. While Hollywood was asking very mild and sometimes flawed philosophical questions in Lord of the Rings & Harry Potter films, Star Wars was exploring new levels of mass-media communication. Something so mainstream and accepted as Star Wars is used to confront horrible social conflicts and looming global fears that have unfortunately become more pressing.
And Ep 3 succeeds in becoming a kind of coping device for the Post-9/11 American atmosphere. Lucas gives valuable backstory and motivation to The Jedi & The Sith, placeholders for any binary conflict you want by asking the essential question of all morality, "Am I my brother's keeper?" This has divided religions, political parties, artistic movements, families, races & communities and (I assume most urgently to Lucas) futurists. Lucas gives a very well-versed and elegantly boiled down perspective on human conflict by presenting "Light" and "Dark" as choices both valid emotionally and rationalized socially, much more nuance than is given in Star Wars films before or since. And he still offers a positive beam of hope to remind us that there's a meaning for all of the suffering. Thats GREAT drama.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)