What's Wrong With
STAR WARS
Criticism of The Rise of Skywalker
I have a compulsion to correct people on things; couple that with a mild case of ODD, that manifests itself most in a writing style that is vindictive, insecure and verbose and you have got to cut me some slack.
My intent with this column was to select all kinds of TROS reviews and counter low hanging fruit assertions that I thought were well off-base. I read 4-5 reviews and was struck by one in particular that I couldn't get away from. Now, I concede the reviewer, Scott Mendelson, a senior contributor for Forbes, is generally far more qualified than I am to write a movie review. But I believe his conclusion for TROS, and as I soon found, his assessment of a couple other Star Wars movies, is pretty out there.
The title of his review- "Star Wars: How the desire to erase 'Last Jedi' doomed 'Rise of Skywalker," not to mention some of his assertions, was a bit more than I could tolerate. In his byline, he boasts 30 years of experience in writing about film. With my superior math skills, assuming he's not as "gifted" a film critic, as Anakin was a Jedi, let's say he started when he was 15; that puts him in his mid 40s- not too far behind me. If he's giving himself credit for reviewing 1985's Ghostbusters as a pre-teen, and a hard-hitting comment in that review is something about how realistic Slimer looks . . . my bad.
Yes, yes, everyone is entitled to their opinions. But I also think that mainstream criticism gets a bit too much credit, with its high-mindedness and its legitimacy. My takes are underground, cave-dwelling bastard children my own friends don't even pay attention to, because they think someone with a volcano full of interconnected touchstones bouncing around in his mind should be able to keep them under wraps or unveil them while in twitter-mode. Well, I can't, because, you know- that compulsion thingy.
Before I started writing the review for TROS, which I posted a few days ago, I meant to start it with a call-out to someone a bit more talented than the men behind Charlie's Angels, but it fits better here anyway. Alexander Pope published a 20 page poem in iambic pentameter "An Essay on Criticism" at the age of 21, which begins with this:
'Tis hard to say if greater want of skill
Appear in writing or in judging ill,
But of the two less dangerous is the offense
To tire our patience than mislead our sense
Some few in that but numbers err in this,
Ten censure wrong for one who writes amiss,
A fool might once himself alone expose,
Now one in verse makes many more in prose.
'Tis with our judgments as our watches, none
Go just alike, yet each believes his own
In poets as true genius is but rare
True taste as seldom is the critic share
Both must alike from Heaven derive their light,
These born to judge as well as those to write
Let such teach others who themselves excel,
And censure freely, who have written well
Authors are partial to their wit, 'tis true
But are not critics to their judgment too?
Brilliant! Genius! I don't throw either of those words around irresponsibly.
Now, I'd be suffering from an extreme case of a lack of self-awareness if I didn't turn those words around on anything I've been critical of, not just my opinions on Star Wars. So, mindful of that, my purpose with this offering is to present the other side of the story, to the extent that whiners like me haven't made their true feelings known about the wreck into which this generation of writer-directors has turned this franchise. In short, I don't write for Forbes, but I too have been paying attention for decades to this franchise and if this review of a review goes unread by the masses, or by people I know, at least it exists, and it is their fault for not paying attention to it.
Mine is the reflexive protectionism of a child whose pride in family takes a hit when someone passes judgment on his mother. My "mother" in this case, is the original trilogy. Anyone claiming I've got a blind spot, and think I'm too willing to forgive the franchise any of its numerous missteps, would have a hard time proving that- as I've already written reviews of the original trilogy, and pulled no punches there.
People short-sighted enough to contend that the below is a deluge of insecurity which proves some critic's point that a mass of people weaned on Star Wars have overreacted with their backlash is missing the whole story. I have done well more than rail against the creative overreaches; I've justified why I think that way, and often what I would have done instead. If that doesn't separate me from the convenient box, those like Mendelson would put all old-timer Star Wars addicts into, I can't help that.
This will be painfully obvious, but the below is a review of Mendelson's assertions, almost all of them are directly quoted from his December 18, 2019 review of TROS, followed by my rebuttal, and in some cases, an additional concession on my part.
1)
Assertion: “The Last Jedi didn’t retcon or undo anything from The Force Awakens”
Rebuttal: The Force Awakens didn’t propose much of anything. When you haven’t started any ingredients in a stock pot for a soup, or even turned on the stove, the soup has no chance to burn.
2)
Assertion: “ . . . what exactly did fans think was going to be Luke’s reaction to a random nobody showing up on ‘exile Island’ with his old lightsaber?”
Rebuttal: not throw a Jedi’s weapon over the side of a cliff. And if Luke is as strong with the Force, he is capable of Force Ghosting, the person handing him a Jedi’s weapon, isn’t a nobody (meaning, he's psychically aware of who she is). If Rey is friendly and found him, perhaps she is a member of the resistance worth hearing out, and if an enemy who is that spatially close to him, maybe having a weapon isn’t a bad idea.
3)
Assertion: Abrams had no intentions of returning for an additional Star Wars movie, so by association- he could afford to not care about Snoke’s origin, Rey’s parentage, and the respective futures of Finn and Poe.
Rebuttal: that doesn’t give the next writer-director the power to torch all that is holy and not suffer the consequences of having his reputation suffer. Just because Gary Glitter’s reputation suffered as much as his royalties since we found out he was a pedophile, doesn’t mean Rock and Roll Part I is better than Rock and Roll part II.
4)
Assertion: “What I was expecting, at worst, was a well-made and character-driven action fantasy that perhaps contained plot threads or story beats for which I didn’t care.”
Rebuttal: I knew not to expect that. I was hoping for that; "Hope is the last to die" is an Italian proverb that comes to mind for some reason. Unfortunately, both of us (Mendelson and me) were disappointed. As mentioned in my review- the characters lost.5)
Assertion: “ . . . The Rise of Skywalker is a genuinely bad movie . . .”
Rebuttal: It isn’t “bad”, but it isn’t good either. Since I was close to declaring TLJ a great movie if Johnson hadn't made some key mistakes, I can't be too high-minded.6)
Assertion: “The problem with Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker isn’t just that it absolutely walks back a number of potent reveals and plot threads from the last movie . . .”
Rebuttal: Potent reveals? The writer-director revealing there was no plan for Snoke, has a revered Jedi toss his own weapon over his shoulder and over a cliff, which is symbolic that he has given up, are not “potent” reveals.7)
Assertion: “. . . but rather that the 142-minute movie spends almost its entire running time retconning its predecessor and adding painfully conventional ‘plot twists’ and patronizing reversals in the name of mollifying the fans who merely want to be reminded of the first three movies.”
Rebuttal: Think we covered most of this, but I’d made it clear with The Force Awakens that being significantly reminded of the first three movies (since TFA was Star Wars in disguise) was not something I endorsed. Think of a long piece of music- playing a sequence of familiar notes, in different ranges, keeps one mindful and appreciative if there are slight variations, but not if it turns the composition into a completely different song. Beethoven’s Symphony Five transitioning into something from Pit Boss is not going to earn praise from people expecting to hear classical music for the whole concert.
Concession: the plot twists were “conventional” and yes, they were also painful.
8)
Assertion: “It [TROS] inflicts additional damage to the legacy of the first six Star Wars movies.”
Rebuttal: Let’s keep the legacies of the original and prequel trilogies quite separate. Nevertheless, I’d still contend it does no damage to either. The writer-directors of all of them to date seem glaringly unable to rectify the missteps of their predecessors with a consistency that severely challenges my willing suspension of disbelief.
Note- The Empire Strikes Back, the consensus best of the bunch, was written and directed by two different people, neither of whom was George Lucas. Maybe give that another shot.
9)
Assertion: “It [TROS] undermines the previous two ‘episodes’ in the name of giving (some but not all) original-trilogy Star Wars fans a reassuring pat on the head.”
Rebuttal: I would likely fall into both categories. As I admitted, I don’t go for melodrama or sentimentality, which is what we got with the returns of Han and Luke. I don’t have a problem with their returns, but I didn’t necessarily enjoy the treatments. I would also argue that Mendelson's ilk received a “pat on the head” two years previous which prompted him to compare The Last Jedi to The Dark Knight in his 2017 review of the former. That line is as offensive as anything Rian Johnson did wrong with the script, tone, story or character motivations in TLJ. See Forbes Last Jedi review
10)
Assertion: “It [TROS] even shies away from The Force Awakens’ darker real-world implications."
Rebuttal: This is a science fiction movie, supposedly set in the past, and nowhere near the universe we occupy. I don’t want it to have any real world implications, excepting those it violates which come from scientific and natural laws it hasn't previously established, for good reason, are worth violating.
11)
Assertion: “It is so concerned with character reveals . . .”
Rebuttal: Spending a combined five minutes on bringing back Han Solo and Luke Skywalker is not a pre-occupation worthy of complaint when you sanctioned two years previous in TLJ review- “Boyega [Finn] and Tran [Rose] make a fun odd couple, as their subplot offers a look at those living high on the hog while tyranny reigns.” A movie that features a ten minute romp on overweight camels racing through a casino, (a much bigger attempt at social commentary/real world implications than anything in TFA) is definitely a “concern.”
12)
Assertion: “. . . and ‘chase the MacGuffin’ plotting that it finds no time for any real character work.”
Rebuttal: I thought a MacGuffin was either a Shakespearean character or a sandwich available at McDonalds for a limited time. Turns out that a MacGuffin is this: an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance. A creation of Alfred Hitchock’s way back in 1939. There are more "MacGuffins" (writing, casting, editing, story development, plot) in the making of TROS than in the actual movie.
Concession: hard to disagree with the point, which I also already made multiple times, about how much the characters suffer because of the frantic nature of the plot.
13)
Assertion: “ . . . you have huge chunks of plot that are written and edited around deleted scenes of the late Carrie Fisher. That’s when things start to implode.”
Rebuttal: If a wax figure of Carrie Fisher were included in TROS and a one dimensional image of her Father Eddie dressed as a woman, with the voice of Bobcat Goldthwait was lip-synched out of a lip cut out, it would have been an improvement over any work Dern or Tran did in TLJ.
14)
Assertion: “ . . . resulting in some genuinely goofy filmmaking . . .”
Rebuttal: That’s an opinion about any of these sequel movies and needs no context.
15)
Assertion: “The Resistance immediately gets word that Palpatine is alive and has raised a world-killing army of super-ships, news that everyone takes pretty well.”
Rebuttal: Agreed. It is difficult to forgive the writer-director for so quickly glossing over the doom the Resistance should have collectively felt after learning this news, unless we are to assume that this is the second week or month living under such horror.
Concession: again with the world-killing mechanism? For the original boasting the line, spoken by Darth Vader: “the ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the force” everyone involved in story development aside from those responsible for The Empire Strikes Back, which did not feature, nor refer, to a world-killing mechanism, should be ashamed of themselves.
16)
Assertion: Mendelson compares Palpatine to Hitler.
Rebuttal: Couldn’t he have gone with Lance Armstrong, Harvey Weinstein, Satan, or a general contractor about to rough in the plumbing of your fourth bathroom or frame in the utility room, so those of us not alive when Hitler was have a much more granular feeling of doom?17)
Assertion: “. . . the filmmakers seem to think that the mere idea of Rey, Finn, Poe and Chewbacca on a journey together is in itself incredibly compelling.”
Rebuttal: It may have been compelling, though not incredibly so, if there were more dialogue and character development.18)
Assertion: lesser movie franchises share something in common with Star Wars, so Star Wars is just as guilty of a tired plot device sin.
Rebuttal: Hey, when you’re trying to clean up red wine spilled deliberately all over the white carpeting hours before an interested buyer is coming over to check out the property, using corn starch and white out to hide the mess might be your, ahem, only hope.
19)
Assertion: “It’s not just that Rise of Skywalker undoes Last Jedi’s ‘it’s not your franchise anymore’ metaphors—aimed at a generation that grew up loving Star Wars . . .”
Rebuttal: Thankfully it undoes enough terribly irresponsible story telling and replaces it with mediocre. I’ll take it.
20)
Assertion: “ . . . one cannot escape the fact that Rise of Skywalker has turned this entire new Star Wars trilogy from a kids’ franchise into one aimed at nostalgic adults yearning for a time when they believed they were the most important generation.”
Rebuttal: What, because we don’t like a movie? Unless I was tasked with staying alive through dismal Colonial winters, firing muskets in Revolutionary or Civil Wars, or taking back European hills and farmlands for our contemporary allies, or our future generations, hedgerows and yards at a time, I learned a long time ago I wasn’t a member of an important generation.
Mine is a problem of an overtaxed willing suspension of disbelief. When that psychological imperative, particularly when judging a science fiction story, has been purposefully (let alone accidentally) violated with as much gusto by the creative decisions and unwarranted goofiness Mendelson applauds, I side with an update to the thrill that is less about honoring the past than it is about, showing some respect, or at least, showing your disrespect in more meaningful, responsible, subtle, artistic and adult ways.
Hell, I have more suspended incredulity in reserve for the ridiculous scientific and natural law violations, horrible acting, strung out inconsistencies and nonsensical plot devices than for the decisions of trashing everything that made the earlier movies iconic. That said, if Johnson would have made five different decisions, of my choosing, given my trade and my Star Wars DNA, TLJ could have been saved- it could have been a great movie and it would have turned The Force Awakens into the black sheep of this three movie set.
21)
Assertion: “The Rise of Skywalker is possibly worse than any prior Star Wars ‘episode’."
Rebuttal: C’mon, now you’re just trolling. The Phantom Menace is almost unwatchable, aside from character introductions to R2 and 3PO, Liam Neeson, Ewan Mcgregor, and a few Darth Maul scenes.
22)
Assertion: “It ends a legendary franchise with a thud while denying this new trilogy its artistic reason for existence.”
Rebuttal: TLJ largely ended the franchise with a thud; TROS, via the Emperor's return, does what it can to bring back any faith in the Star Wars universe for subsequent generations. The New Testament didn’t do any favors for the old, which still stands just fine by itself.
23)
Assertion: “It represents the cultural theft of Star Wars from today’s kids by today’s arrested-development-stricken adults.”
Rebuttal: The “kids” of this generation got their movie when Abrams remade the original in TFA. And since Mendelson genuflected about both The Phantom Menace (see his review on the 20th anniversary of TPM) and The Last Jedi, how many movies, or parts of movies, must adult Star Wars connoisseurs concede to the world that brought them alive in the imagination department as children?24)
Assertion: “ . . . the kids who grew up with Harry Potter, The Hunger Games and the MCU [Marvel Comics Universe] have embraced harsh truths and challenging narratives.”
Rebuttal: I’m sorry, but again, comparing any of those universes to Star Wars just isn’t going to work. Fine, yes, cause us to embrace harsh truths and encounter challenging narratives, but hire people who can demonstrate they are capable of doing that.
One more here- how have fans of Harry Potter and MCU embraced harsh truths? Harry beat Voldemort. Snape died, but so did Obi-Wan (in the original). In Avengers: End Game, all of the good guys who were killed in Infinity War were resurrected, or they will be. If you think we've seen the last of Captain America on film, think again.
25)
Assertion: “ . . . now yesterday’s geeks who have taken over pop culture feel entitled to have the kid-friendly franchises aimed at them as well.”
Rebuttal: Disagree. Hire people qualified to tell compelling stories and develop meaningful characters, who say memorable things and we wouldn’t have this chasm of opinion between what is good and what is horrific. It isn’t the audience paying to see these movies that has the problem; it is the people making them. The reason adults aren’t going to see movies aimed at adults anymore is because there are too many movies, and yet still too few good ones worth the price. Oh, and our entertainment dollars are spent on services such as cable, Netflix, Sling, Dish Network, Apple TV, and Disney+, etc. Those didn’t exist thirty years ago. There is plenty of material for adults to consume to trouble with most of the tripe playing in movie theaters these days. When we do plunk down $10, $12, $20 expecting, at least, competence, and get trash, why would we keep doing it again and again.
Full disclosure- I was fortunate enough to watch this movie, The Rise of Skywalker, with some friends I’ve been going to see Star Wars movies with since TPM, and my teenage son. On my right was a boy, whose mom flanked him on the other side, who wasn’t much older than I was when I saw the original. In the second half of the movie, some old standbys make appearances- Han, Luke, Ewoks and Jawas, that the kid noticeably appreciated. He likely has no real sense of how impactful those characters are to adults who first encountered them two generations ago. But he had some idea, as I saw he and his mother show the bond they had developed (looking at each other, clasping hands, raising arms) every time a character made famous by other episodes in the saga came up on the screen. Undoubtedly, she had made him aware of how important those characters were to her, and he was probably excited she got to see them one last time as well.
26)
Assertion: Mendelson made a special point in his TPM re-review to state that kids are still on playgrounds playing Star Wars. "The Phantom Menace' At 20: In Defense of a Merely Okay 'Star Wars' Movie", May 20, 2019-Forbes Rise of Skywalker review
Rebuttal: Well, it ain’t because of TPM. Oh yes, it would be fun to sit around the swing set discussing no-confidence votes and midichlorian counts, pretend to jabber like a racist amphibian, caricaturizing himself and pretend to wear regal gowns that light up when visibly plugged into an electrical outlet. All kinds of impactful dialogue could be recited- “you believe it is this . . . boy?” “now there are two of them,” and “Are you an angel”? Gah!
When considering which movie to show my son as an introduction to Star Wars when he was 6, the original was the only option. There was no way I was showing him TPM first. I actually wanted him to enjoy the movie, so he would watch the others. You don’t go all in at the poker table on five unsuited, non-consecutive cards when there is a lot at stake; you go all in with your four-of-a-kind (Star Wars) and follow that up with the royal flush (The Empire Strikes Back).
27)
Assertion: " . . . as a gateway drug that successfully ensnared an entire generation of young kids and turned them into Star Wars junkies . . ."
Rebuttal: If you think TPM is a gateway drug that brought a new generation of kids on board the Star Wars freight train- ok, but that gateway drug is crystal meth.
28)
Assertion: ". . . it [The Phantom Menace] is an unqualified success."
Rebuttal: TPM was not, and remains, unsuccessful, excepting by the box office it claimed from a Star Wars starved world. TPM is an unqualified success in the same way that Gary Glitter's Rock and Roll Part I is. Went back to the well there.
29)
Assertion: "You don't hear them complaining that 'Jar Jar sucks!' "
Rebuttal: Too . . . many . . . options . . . "give it time" and "your hearing sucks" are just the first two that come to mind.
30)
Assertion: "You don't hear them protesting that "George Lucas raped my childhood!
Rebuttal: Then they don't know any better. And, "raped"? That's a little strong. I should have led with that in the rebuttal.
31)
Assertion: "For a generation of kids who came of age 20 years ago, The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones, and Revenge of the Sith ARE their childhood."
Rebuttal: And that is great. I care about whether someone thinks The Phantom Menace is a good movie, or that The Rise of Skywalker is a bad one as much as I care about when people think they've found religion. Good for you, if you want to deceive yourself, but don't try to convince me if I have very well-conceived, consistently thoughtful and resolute reasons for not believing, while not writing for a nationally syndicated column in a well-respected newspaper, magazine, or online source of entertainment or information.
No comments:
Post a Comment