A game I like to play with people is to ask them "What image first comes to mind when I say this movie title?" The most illuminating, perhaps, is when I say "Star Wars." For me, the first image that comes to mind, and always will come to mind, I think, is Luke and Vader crossing green and red sabres in the throne room. Being born in '79, Jedi was the first of the series I was old enough to really enjoy. For others, their image may be Luke shooting the Death Star, or Han gutting the tauntaun. What's so revealing about this question is basically discovering which Star Wars is YOUR Star Wars. In other words, what era are you from?
And now, well, I'm really glad we watched the original theatrical release of Star Wars.
In college, I watched it in a film class as an example of the power of editing, and it truly is a great example! I've also seen a lot of documentaries on the making of the movies and that gave me even more appreciation for just how much Lucas owes the editor of the first film. Star Wars was originally shot almost as a documentary. There are countless horror stories about the first cut!
But the editor (whose name escapes me) came in and completely re-hauled the film, even creating some of the film's most memorable moments in the cutting room, such as the climatic attack on the Death Star while the Death Star is attacking the rebel base, and the Tuskan shaking his staff above Luke (achieved by rolling the film forward and back a couple times and looping the audio!).
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c5f4b/c5f4b5e72eac0855e8d04003143fe5824987c666" alt=""
What saves the film, and keeps it worth loving and watching to this day is the simplicity of both the plot and the effects. The effects aren't that dated and still are very impressive. The plot and story are phenomenal, but again, I'm more likely to credit the editor than the screen writer (sorry, George). The speed and pace of the film really compensate for a lot.
While I do think the performances pale a bit to the later two films, I'm more likely to blame the director than the actors. Each of them became iconic in their roles, and they really sell it in the first film despite some awkward lines. In the end, the movie really is an amazing feat of film making and is just plain fun to watch.
One of the great things about this film is that it's the perfect example of how setting and plot don't have to be bound to one another. While this is certainly a sci-fi setting, the story is straight swords-and-sorcery fantasy. From being given the sword of his father to facing the black knight, Luke is the hero in training who is taught the magical arts by the old wizard. And it's brilliant.
I've always been hesitant to get into any sort of argument deciding the better series between Star Wars and Star Trek because for me, they're not really comparable. Star Trek will always and forever be science first, and fiction second. The entire plot of Star Trek revolves around Man and his interaction with technology. Most Trek stories would be hard pressed to work in any other setting.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1880c/1880caeda15457ddbec411e8c5db9be636ac85ae" alt=""
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/452ee/452ee2b72b5a45f52a174d61b2e6037f8d73116d" alt=""
Kate says it is hard to imagine that either Mike or I will say anything terribly negative in our reviews of this specific movie, so I decided to begin my review with a little personal history.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c0661/c0661037b8da79accd9535041a610e799031efad" alt=""
Of course, this scarred me for life. Ever since then, I have insisted on getting to theaters 45 minutes or more before a movie starts. This has, naturally, caused much confusion amongst my friends ("Why are we going to see The King's Speech more than an hour early a month after its release?").
But once I saw Star Wars IV, I was hooked. I was Luke one Halloween; the next Halloween, I was Princess Leia. One Christmas, I asked for a light-saber (you can see it in the picture; I was disappointed that it wasn't real!); the next, for a Princess Leia doll. A few years later, I read Lloyd Alexander's Prydain Series because the edition I saw had a Luke-looking person on the cover.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5c3e1/5c3e121f0477da4d9eb8d061cb63766c3e4c2fb7" alt=""
And then Return of the Jedi happened and the Ewoks, and I was a teen (War Games came out in 1983; behold, the teenager girl's brain), and for me, the magic faded. Mike with his Boba Fett action figure and Plinkett have brought much of that magic back. I can now re-appreciate what an amazing universe Lucas ushered the world into, even if he proved an unreliable guide.
Watching 1977 Star Wars IV confirms (almost) everything Plinkett argues in his reviews. In this original, fresh film, Luke isn't the secret son-of-a-Dark-Lord; Leia isn't his sister; R2D2 and C3PO weren't built especially for the hero. The story is truly one of extraordinary things happening to an ordinary person rather than some soap opera tale of dysfunctional rich people.
And despite the stilted dialog from the extras, the movie has a strong professional tone. The main actors are believable, taking their characters and interactions seriously. First, well, Alec Guinness: need I say more. Harrison Ford is dead-on as sardonic rogue. Anthony Daniels is hilarious. Peter Cushing is coldly reptilian. Carrie Fisher is sweetly regal and regally smart-mouthed. Even Mark Hamill is plausible. He doesn't have to be as subtle as the others since the whole point of the movie is his youthful naivety.
Oh, and the Leia-Han Solo sexual tension is already there.
The camera work is also professional. The scenes on Tatooine are downright majestic and so uncluttered! Especially compared to Star Wars I, II, and III! Really, Lucas shouldn't be let out unchaperoned. Not to mention, the cutting on Star Wars (1977) is so clean, it takes your breath away. The movie really moves, and the problems linking the scenes are clearly defined. Leia to R2D2 to Luke to Obi-Wan . . . Plus, the background explanations don't get in the way of the story. It's basically the Roman Empire versus the Gauls. Rather than a cliché, I prefer to think of this background as classic. After all, with so much human history to draw from, why reinvent the wheel?
Despite the cliché/classic motifs, the bad guys are refreshingly low-key. There's none of that so-evil-one-can-hardly-stand-it stuff. No twirling mustaches. No hideous laughter. I don't mean they aren't bad. Blowing up billions of people on a planet is BAD! But they aren't noticeably bad. They are efficient, tunnel-visioned, and coldly rational; Vader--in his insistence on the Force and on the political value of Leia's life--comes off as both more archaic and more human, in a totally sociopathic way, than the generals.
Likewise, the rebellion isn't some chest-beating exercise. It is smart warriors trying to think through a military problem (more American than French Revolution).
Yeah, the cackling emperor in Return of the Jedi really ruined things for me, and I'm afraid I think Lucas's downward spiral started there. Empire Strikes Back has its problems, but it is a still a tight story with decent pay-offs. Non-military Ewoks and over-the-top evil makes Return rather wearisome--though I would agree with reviewers that the final confrontation between Luke and his father is powerful (and created some awesome moments in Toy Story 2).
Leaving I, II, III, V, and VI alone, although I've always loved Star Wars IV in a nostalgic way, rewatching it made me appreciate how much it is worth loving for itself. This is a truly great film!
3 comments:
It is hard to understate the impact Star Wars (the original) had. It revolutionized special effects and had a huge impact on film design and musical scoring. In many ways, it saved Hollywood yet over time it has done much to destroy it (I won't get into this since Plinkett covers it well.)
One of the most stunning things about Star Wars is how often people went to see it. This was extremely unusual then and now. The Colony theater, or one near it, showed Star Wars on two to three screens for eighteen months and had lines through the parking the entire run. No other film has that distinction. It is the first movie I saw twice in the theater and the only movie I saw more than twice in the theater--I believe we went at least half a dozen times, if not more.
One thing I love about the movie is that it's a genuine tour de force in visual design. The design is about elementary shapes--triangles, squares, circles, all interacting. The opening shot illustrates this: the camera drops down, we see a small circle, a larger circle, and then a vast curve that takes up the entire screen. Suddenly a square shoots in overhead followed by a HUGE triangle that gets bigger and bigger. When you think it's big enough, it gets bigger!
Forms of this opening shot have become so common place that we forget just how different it really was.
It doesn't end there. The elegant simplicity of shot after shot follows. One way to truly understand how beautiful this is to watch the butchered version Lucas did with "new" digital effects, where he cluttered up the design. Entering Mos Eisley may be the most stark example--the scene went from a stark aridness to busy ugliness.
(Empire Strikes back starts out very strong in this design regard, but then gets muddled with all the touchy feely crap in middle. The design still somewhat recovers with Cloud City, though Lucas is still hell bent on destroying is own creation.)
I find John Williams very tedious now, but his score was spectacular and raised the bar for movie scores (or at least reset it back to Bernard Hermann's fantastic scores for Hitchcock.) That the score itself became a hit record was truly revolutionary, though so commonplace now, we don't give it much thought. (To be honest, by itself the score becomes very tiresome, but that's true with almost any music score--the best film music works WITH the film, not separate from it. There is documentary about Bernard Hermann where they illustrate this in a very dramatic fashion.)
Star Wars and the subsequent made films also starkly illustrate another point: when artists of any type become self-indulgent and are able to do things just the way they want it, without constraint, their art suffers. I struggle to find a single exception. Lucas is the poster child of this phenomenon.
The "elegant simplicity" of the movie surprised me the most. I loved the story as a kid and that's what I remembered--the strength of the narrative.
So I didn't expect to enjoy watching the film so much this time around--but I did: the individual shots as well as the flow between shots. And I think I probably remembered the narrative because the film is so beautifully rendered. (As Plinkett points out, the story-lines of the prequels are so convoluted as to be unintelligible--and the too-many-graphics-my-eyeballs-are-exploding imagery matches.)
Do you think Lucas was upset that the movie was such a classic based on the actual film work (rather than on gadgetry)? So he went out to prove that he could make a classic his way? Or does he really not get what makes the 1977 film so great?
My theory is that Lucas is a visual artist who doesn't understand story or character. Star Wars was a simple hero story told with stunning visuals. Then the intellectuals got hold of it and went on and on about the hero story and Lucas believed it and clearly came to believe he was a story teller as big as his myth.
He looks at Star Wars now and is embarrassed because it doesn't life up to the myth. (And while some of the effect were likely not what he envisioned, but money and technology limited him, I clearly he is full of it since he keeps tinkering, indicating he really has no vision, just things that bug him.)
Post a Comment