"Recapturing the 'Magic' of 'STAR WARS'"

 

I had written this article back in 2018, not long after the release of "SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY":

"RECAPTURING THE 'MAGIC' OF 'STAR WARS'"

When a good number of critics and STAR WARS fans had started talking about how Lucasfilm and the Disney Studios need to recapture the "magic", I could not help but wonder what "magic" to which they were referring. The "magic" of Disney's first film in the franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS"?  "STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI"?  The six films that George Lucas had produced between 1977 and 2005? Or the "magic" of the franchise’s Original Trilogy?

If these fans and critics were referring to the "magic" of the Original Trilogy, I find this demand rather ironic. And I find it personally ironic, considering that it took me several years to appreciate that particular trilogy after it first came out, long ago. Do I want the "magic" of the Original Trilogy to be repeated? No. Not really. Or should I say . . . not literally. In the words of F. Scott Fitzgerald, "you can’t repeat the past". But a person can move on and experience or create something new in his or her life. And in regard to a movie, a novel or any other works of art . . . a person can create something new, while at the same time, pay homage to a past work of art or form a narrative connection to it.

I am a big fan of the Original Trilogy movies. Even though it took several years for me to appreciate them, I became a big fan of that first trilogy. I am also a big fan of the Prequel Trilogy movies, "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" and "SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY". And one of the reasons why I am is that while having a connection to the Original Trilogy from a narrative point of view, those five films managed to offer something new to the franchise.

The Prequel Trilogy had depicted the downfalls of Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader, the Jedi Order, and the Galactic Republic. The trilogy also conveyed how these calamities had led to the emergence of the Galactic Empire and the Sith in the form of Emperor Sheev Palpatine. And the 1999-2005 trilogy did all of this with a great deal of ambiguity that I found more than satisfying. This ambiguity was also on display in stand alone movies like "ROGUE ONE" and "SOLO". "ROGUE ONE" not only told the story of the theft of the Death Star plans; but with a great deal of brutality hardly ever seen in previous movies of the STAR WARS franchise. "SOLO" conveyed the origins of Han Solo, one of the leading characters from the Original Trilogy. Unlike the STAR WARS films before it, "SOLO" gave audiences more than a mere peek into the criminal underworld within the STAR WARS saga. Ironically, the leading protagonists of both stand alone films were not Force sensitive individuals.

The Original Trilogy was not perfect. Neither were the Prequel Trilogy, “ROGUE ONE” and “SOLO”.  I believe that the two trilogies and the two stand alone films had their flaws. But for me, their virtues . . . in which originality happen to be one of them . . . far outweighed their flaws. However, I cannot say the same about the first two films featured in the recent Sequel Trilogy, produced by Lucasfilm and the Disney Studios.

I am willing to give the trilogy points for conveying some originality. None of the three major protagonists is a white male . . . so far. The main antagonist, who is constantly compared to Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader, did not come from an obscure background and/or upbringing. And this same antagonist had killed his evil mentor halfway into the trilogy. Despite these bouts of originality, I am simply not that impressed by this new trilogy. I believe there are too many plot holes and inconsistent characterizations for me to regard it as worthy entertainment. Worse, I feel that the trilogy’s first two films had borrowed just a bit too much from the 1977-1983 movies for me to regard it as truly original. In fact, the Sequel Trilogy’s overall narrative seemed to be a re-hash of the Original Trilogy’s Rebel Alliance-Galactic Empire conflict and the rise of Luke Skywalker as Jedi Knight. And the numerous plot holes make me begin to wonder if the trilogy’s main narrative was ever outlined in advance.

When people talk about recapturing the "magic" of the past . . . or the Original Trilogy, I find myself wondering what exactly do they want. Do they want a re-hash of the Original Trilogy? If so, the Sequel Trilogy seemed to be fulfilling that demand. Or perhaps this demand is centered around having major protagonists who are white males. Who knows? But if these fans and critics are referring to the "spirit" of the 1977-83 trilogy, then I am at a loss. What exactly is this "spirit" or "magic"? I cannot help but wonder if an answer my last question might be riddled with pitfalls. I believe it could easily be perceived in so many ways.

Personally, I simply want a STAR WARS movie that not only connects to any of the previous films in the franchise, but also provide something truly original . . . and well-written. The movie does not have to be perfect. I have yet to see a perfect movie - even one from the STAR WARS franchise. Nor do I expect it to be. But I hope that the franchise’s future movies . . . whether they are parts of a serial or merely a stand alone . . . will be a lot better than the first two Sequel Trilogy films.

"The Celebration of Mediocrity and Unoriginality in "STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS"

 

"THE CELEBRATION OF MEDIOCRITY AND UNORIGINALITY IN “STAR WARS: THE FORCE AWAKENS"

Look . . . I liked the 2015 “STAR WARS” movie, “THE FORCE AWAKENS”.   I honestly do.  Well . . . I had enjoyed the movie's middle section.  Heck, I feel it is better than J.J. Abrams’ two “STAR TREK” films.  But I am astounded that this film had garnered so much acclaim. It won the AFI Award for Best Picture.  And It was nominated by the Critics Choice Award for Best Picture.

“THE FORCE AWAKENS”??? Really? It did not take long for certain fans to point out that the movie’s plot bore a strong resemblance to the first “STAR WARS” movie, 1977's “A NEW HOPE”. In fact, I am beginning to suspect that J.J. Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan had more or less plagiarized the 1977 film, along with aspects from other movies in the franchise. Worse, it has some plot holes that Abrams has managed to ineffectively explain to the media. In other words, his explanations seemed like shit in the wind and the plot holes remained obvious.

Then I found myself thinking about “THE MAN FROM U.N.C.L.E.”, Guy Ritchie’s 2015 adaptation of the 1964-1968 television series. I will not deny that the movie had some flaws. Just about every movie I have seen throughout my life had some flaws. But instead of attempting a carbon copy of the television series, Ritchie put his own, original spin of the series for his movie. And personally, I had left the movie theater feeling impressed. And entertained. It is not that Ritchie had created a perfect movie. But he did managed to create an original one, based upon an old source. Now that was impressive.

But instead of having his movie appreciated, a good deal of the public had stayed away in droves. Warner Brothers barely publicized the film. Worse, the studio released in August, the summer movie season’s graveyard. And for those who did see the movie, they complained that it was not like the television show. Ritchie had made changes for his film. In other words, Ritchie was criticized for being original with a movie based upon an old television series.

To this day, I still find this incredibly pathetic. One director was criticized giving an original spin to his movie adaptation. Another director was hailed as the savior of a movie franchise by committing outright plagiarism. This is what Western culture has devolved into, ladies and gentlemen. We now live in a world in which the only movies that are box office hits are those that form part of a franchise. We live in a society in which glossy and mediocre shows like “DOWNTON ABBEY” are celebrated. We live in a world in which a crowd pleasing, yet standard movie biopic like “THE KING’S SPEECH” can receive more acclaim than an original film like “INCEPTION”.

In regard to culture or even pop culture, this society is rushing toward conformity, familiarity and mediocrity. God help us.

"STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" (1977) Review

 

"STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" (1977) Review

Long ago (forty-six years and ten months, to be exact) and in a galaxy far, far away, producer-director-writer George Lucas made film history with the release of his movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE". Only, during the summer of 1977, it was simply known as "STAR WARS". And this science-fiction/fantasy homage to Saturday morning serials and mythology was something that moviegoers had never seen before.

Now considered as the fourth film installment of Lucas' STAR WARS saga, "A NEW HOPE" chronicled the adventures of a space-aged farmboy named Luke Skywalker, who finds himself swept up in a galactic conflict between a tyrannical empire and a band of rebel fighters determined to return freedom to the galaxy. Not only did the film introduced the concept of the summer blockbuster and created a movie/television/literary franchise that made billions for its creator, it also became the second highest grossing film in Hollywood history (as of 2012) and ushered in a new age for movie special effects. This movie has made such a major impact upon Hollywood that its effects are still being felt to this day.

"A NEW HOPE" began with an opening crawl describing a galaxy in a state of civil war. Spies for the Rebel Alliance have stolen the plans for the Galactic Empire's new weapon - a heavily armed and armored space station capable of destroying an entire planet called the Death Star. One of the Rebel Alliance leaders, Princess Leia Organa of Alderaan, is in possession of the Death Star plans when her ship is attacked by Imperial forces under the leadership of the Sith Lord Darth Vader. Before she could be captured, Princess Leia hides the plans and a holographic recording into the memory of an astromech droid called R2-D2. The small droid and its companion, a protocol droid named C-3PO flee to the surface of the desert planet Tatooine. While Darth Vader sends a contingent of stormtroopers to look for the droids, R2 and 3PO find themselves captured by Jawa traders, who sell them to a moisture farmer and his nephew named Owen Lars and Luke Skywalker.

Luke, who is an orphan, yearns to leave his uncle's farm and find adventure in the stars. He finds it when he releases Princess Leia's holographic recording, while cleaning R2-D2. The recording is for a man named Obi-Wan Kenobi. Surmising that Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ben Kenobi, who is a neighbor of his Uncle Owen, are one and the same; Luke delivers the droids and the message to the aging hermit. The young man also discovers that Kenobi is a former Jedi Master, who knew his father Anakin Skywalker, who used to be a Jedi Knight. Obi-Wan suggests that Luke help him deliver the Death Star plans to Princess Leia's father on Alderaan. At first, Luke rejects the offer. But when his Uncle Owen and Aunt Beru are found murdered by Imperial stormtroopers looking for the droids, Luke decides to join Obi-Wan on the latter's new adventure. They recruit the services of two smugglers - Han Solo and Chewbacca - to convey them to Alderaan. The journey proves to be a new beginning not only for Luke, but also his new companions.

I have a confession to make. When I first saw "A NEW HOPE" during the summer of 1977, I did not like it at all. Looking back, I realize that my hostile feelings toward the movie stemmed from a sense of being overwhelmed by something I found mind blowing and completely new. The release of "THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" and "RETURN OF THE JEDI" eventually eased the impact of Lucas' saga upon my psyche. But it took several years for me to first warm up and eventually embrace "A NEW HOPE". Despite my eventual love for the movie, I have never viewed it as my favorite of the saga (so far) . . . or as one of my top favorites. But I can honestly say that after thirty-five years, it still has quite a punch. In fact, I believe that it is probably the most entertaining of the six STAR WARS films produced by George Lucas.

It is easy to see why "A NEW HOPE" is so beloved by many fans of the saga. The plot, written by Lucas, has the hallmarks of a first-rate adventure filled with space battles, escapes, daring-dos, a lightsaber duel, snarky dialogue, a roguish smuggler, a villain in black, a royal damsel-in-distress (who becomes a protagonist herself), a wise mentor and an innocent boy who answers the call to adventure. I suspect that another major reason why "A NEW HOPE" is so appealing to many of the saga's fans is the "good-vs-evil" aspect of both its tale and its characters. It must have been very easy for moviegoers to identify with the movie's protagonists and their fight against the tyranny of the "evil" Empire. For me, the movie's pièce de résistance proved to be the entire sequence aboard the Empire's Death Star. From the moment the heroes' ship the Millennium Falcon found itself forced into the depths of the large battle station, to the moment when they escape some 20 to 30 minutes later, the entire Death Star sequence seemed to be one major fun fest that crackled with humor and action.

With the exceptions of Alec Guinness and Peter Cushing, the cast of "A NEW HOPE" was filled with unknowns. I do not recall any well-known movie that Mark Hamill had appeared in before he became famous as Luke Skywalker. But Carrie Fisher, who portrayed the sharp-tongued Princess Leia, had already appeared in 1975's "SHAMPOO". And Harrison Ford, who would become a bigger star than either of his co-stars, had worked for Lucas before in the latter's 1973 classic, "AMERICAN GRAFFITI". But all three actors created an excellent screen team. Actors such as Peter Mayhew, who portrayed Han Solo's first mate Chewbacca; along with Anthony Daniels and Kenny Baker, who appeared in all six movies as the droids C-3PO and R2-D2; added their magic to the mix. Many people have made a big deal over David Prowse's physical and James Earl Jones' vocal portrayals of Sith Lord Darth Vader. And they were quite right to do so. Both actors contributed a great deal to the character. But I have rarely come across any comments about Peter Cushing's performance as the cold-blooded and arrogant military commander of the Death Star, Grand Moff Tarkin. I find that a shame, because I thought he made a very effective villain . . . even more so than Vader. And of course, there is Alec Guinness, who portrayed Obi-Wan Kenobi. Guinness earned an Academy Award for his portrayal of the iconic Jedi Master. And I believe it was well earned. He did an excellent job as Luke's wise and patient mentor, who was haunted not only by his past, but past deeds.

I was not kidding when I had stated that "A NEW HOPE" was not one of my top favorite STAR WARS movies. I believe that it has its flaws. While I found the movie's innocent air and joie de vivre approach to its story very appealing, I feel that the movie lacked a complexity that I believe gave an edge to the other five movies. I am not stating that the story and its characters lacked an emotional depth. There is some depth to both the story and the characters. But aside from the Han Solo character, the other characters seemed to be a bit one-dimensional in comparison. They were either good or evil. I can even say this about the Darth Vader character, who was given an opportunity for a bit of complexity in a scene in which he tried to explain the Force to the Death Star's senior officers staff. While there are many who have no problems with a lack of moral ambiguity, I do. And I have to say that I was more than relieved when Lucas finally injected some moral ambiguity into his characters, in his other five films.

If there is one movie that initiated my dislike of Tatooine, it is "A NEW HOPE". From the moment the camera focused upon 3PO and R2 trekking across the planet's desert, I found myself struggling to maintain my interest on the movie. It is possible that Tatooine has a talent for putting me to sleep. Only something really exciting has to happen - like Luke and Obi-Wan's first meeting with Han Solo and Chewbacca, along with their subsequent escape from the planet - could keep my interest sharply focused. I also have to admit that I am not a fan of the Battle of Yavin sequence that marked the destruction of the Death Star. It smacked too much of a World War II aerial dog fight, straight out of a 1940s movie. Speaking of that particular decade, I was not that impressed by Harrison Ford's attempt to sound like a 40s tough guy, during Han's argument with Leia following the escape from the Death Star in the following scene:

LEIA: That doesn't sound too hard. Besides, they let us go. It's the
only explanation for the ease of our escape.

HAN: Easy...you call that easy?

LEIA: Their tracking us!

HAN: Not this ship, sister.

Frustrated, Leia shakes her head.

LEIA: At least the information in Artoo is still intact.

HAN: What's so important? What's he carrying?

LEIA: The technical readouts of that battle station. I only hope that
when the data is analyzed, a weakness can be found. It's not over yet!

HAN: It is for me, sister! Look, I ain't in this for your revolution,
and I'm not in it for you, Princess. I expect to be well paid. I'm in
it for the money!

I know, I know. It does not seem like much. But hearing Ford spew those lines still make me wince after so many years. I was also disappointed by how Lucas handled the Princess Leia character in this film. I can already see heads spinning over this complaint. Superficially, Leia seemed like the perfect embodiment of a fictional female character of the late 20th century. Her intelligence, courage and razor-sharp wit practically screamed "I am woman, hear me roar!" And yet . . . Lucas dropped the ball with her character in one very significant moment in the film. His screenplay never revealed Leia's reaction to Tarkin's use of the Death Star to destroy her home planet, Alderaan. Not once. The moment Alderaan blew to smithereens, the movie cut back to the occupants of the Millennium Falcon and Obi-Wan's reaction. Audiences saw Leia's reaction to Tarkin's order to destroy the planet. But we never saw the aftermath. We never saw Leia mourn over the deaths of millions of Alderaaneans - including her parents. Instead, Lucas allowed audiences a look at Luke's reaction and grief over Obi-Wan Kenobi's death at the hands of Lord Vader. Even worse, Leia seemed so focused over comforting Luke that she seemed to have forgotten about Alderaan's destruction.

The production values for "A NEW HOPE" still holds up today after so many years. However, I suspect that one can attribute this to Lucas' decision to utilize CGI to make the special effects for the 1977 movie and the other two from the Original Trilogy more effective and less dated. I realize there are many veteran fans of the saga who claim that Lucas' CGI retouches were unnecessary. They have also expressed their dislike of the revamped movies. All I can say is that they are entitled to their opinions. I simply do not share them. However, John Williams' score remains as stirring and iconic as ever. John Mollo did an excellent job for his simple and elegant designs for the movie's costumes. However, I am a little peeved that he managed to snag an Academy Award for his work on this film; whereas the Motion Picture Academy failed to give Trisha Biggar even a nomination for her outstanding work in the Prequel Trilogy.

In conclusion, I can happily state that STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" stands up very well after thirty-five years. The movie and the five other films of the STAR WARS franchise remain among the best adventure films ever made in Hollywood, as far as I am concerned. And I can only wonder if George Lucas and 20th Century Fox Studios ever released what it had unleashed upon the world when the movie was first released in theaters back in May 1977.

"STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" (1977) Photo Gallery

Below are images from the 1977 movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE". Directed by George Lucas, the movie starred Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Alec Guinness:



"STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" (1977) Photo Gallery

Favorite Films Set in the 1950s

 

Below is a list of my favorite movies set in the decade of the 1950s:





FAVORITE FILMS SET IN THE 1950s



1. L.A. Confidential (1997) - Curtis Hanson directed this outstanding adaptation of James Ellroy's 1990 novel about three Los Angeles police detectives drawn into a case involving a diner massacre. Kevin Spacey, Russell Crowe, Guy Pierce and Oscar winner Kim Basinger starred.





2. "Grease" (1978) - John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John starred in this entertaining adaptation of the 1971 Broadway musical about a pair of teenage star-crossed lovers in the 1950s. Randal Kleiser directed.





3. "The Godfather, Part II" (1974) - Francis Ford Coppola directed his Oscar winning sequel to the 1972 Oscar winning adaptation of Mario Puzo's 1969 novel. Al Pacino, Diane Keaton, Robert Duvall and Oscar winner Robert De Niro starred.





4. "Quiz Show" (1994) - Robert Redford directed this intriguing adaptation of Richard Goodwin's 1968 memoir, "Remembering America: A Voice From the Sixties", about the game show scandals of the late 1950s. Ralph Fiennes, Rob Morrow and John Tuturro starred.





5. "The Mirror Crack'd (1980) - Angela Landsbury starred as Miss Jane Marple in this adaptation of Agatha Christie's 1962 novel. Directed by Guy Hamilton, the movie also starred Elizabeth Taylor, Rock Hudson and Edward Fox.





6. "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls" (2008) - Harrison Ford returned for the fourth time as Dr. Henry "Indiana" Jones in this adventurous tale in which he is drawn into the search for artifacts known as the Crystal Skulls. Directed by Steven Spielberg, the movie was produced by him and George Lucas.





7. "Champagne For One: A Nero Wolfe Mystery (2001)" - Timothy Hutton and Maury Chaykin starred as Archie Goodwin and Nero Wolfe in this television adaptation of Rex Stout's 1958 novel. The two-part movie was part of A&E Channel's "A NERO WOLFE MYSTERY" series.





8. "Hollywoodland" (2006) - Adrien Brody, Diane Lane and Ben Affleck starred in this intriguing tale about a private detective's investigation into the life and death of actor George Reeves. Allen Coulter directed.





9. "My Week With Marilyn" (2011) - Oscar nominee Michelle Williams starred as Marilyn Monroe in this adaptation of Colin Clark's two books about his brief relationship with the actress. Directed by Simon Curtis, the movie co-starred Oscar nominee Kenneth Branagh and Eddie Redmayne as Clark.





10. "Boycott" (2001) - Jeffrey Wright starred as Dr. Martin Luther King in this television adaptation of Stewart Burns' book, "Daybreak of Freedom", about the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott. Directed by Clark Johnson, the movie co-starred Terrence Howard and C.C.H. Pounder.





Honorable Mention: "Mulholland Falls" (1996) - Nick Nolte starred in this entertaining noir drama about a married Los Angeles Police detective investigating the murder of a high-priced prostitute, with whom he had an affair. The movie was directed by Lee Tamahori.

Analyzing Love in the "STAR WARS" Prequel Trilogy

ANALYZING LOVE IN THE "STAR WARS" PREQUEL TRILOGY

I am curious as to why people think they can analyze love, whether between fictional characters or in real life. And why do many assume that love and morality is one and the same?

If Anakin Skywalker, in the STAR WARS Prequel Trilogy, had been the model Jedi who could do no wrong, people would have never questioned why Padme Amidala had fallen in love with him, or why she had married him. But since Anakin was presented as a very flawed person, people come up with all kinds of theories and reasons (which usually has nothing to do with love) as to why she fell in love with him in the first place.

The problem seemed to be that people harbor the mistaken belief that love is all about perfection or near perfection. Or that no one would fall in love with someone with the potential for evil. They also believe that one can only fall in love with someone after a certain period of time. Unfortunately, love does not work like that. Love is wonderful, dangerous, unpredictable and very confusing for all. You cannot pinpoint on why someone will fall in love with a certain person . . . or when.

One thing I have always admired about Padme was her willingness to love Anakin for himself. Yes, some people like to theorize that she became his wife, because she mistakenly believed that she could "reform" him. I cannot help but laugh at such a theory. Has it ever occurred to anyone that the true reason Padme fell in love with Anakin was because he brought up feelings within her that no one else has ever been able to?

When you love someone, you have to be willing to accept that person is and always will be flawed - and will always have the potential for both good and evil. Not only was this true of Anakin, but of Padme as well. She was no more perfect than Anakin or any other character. In "STAR WARS: EPISODE I - THE PHANTOM MENACE", the then Queen of Naboo had given in to her anger and frustration with the Galactic Senate, which allowed Senator Palpatine to coerce her into declaring a vote of "no confidence" against Chancellor Valorum. This act led to Palpatine's first step into a position of real power. And it also proved that Padme was just as capable of making disastrous choice on the spur of an emotional moment. Anakin, himself, discovered how arrogant and pushy she could be upon their arrival in Naboo, when he had served as her personal bodyguard in "STAR WARS: EPISODE II - ATTACK OF THE CLONES". During their time on Padme's home planet, he realized that she was not the symbol of angelic perfection that he had originally perceived. Yet, he fell even deeper in love with her.

In the end, I think we must realize that we cannot really judge why Padme fell in love with Anakin. She discovered that he was capable of evil, after his killing of the Tusken tribe in "ATTACK OF THE CLONES". Her own reaction merely highlighted a potentially ambiguous streak within her. But she also knew that he could be a good man. But I think that in the end, what really mattered was that he had made her feel something that no one else could. And when you find someone like that - why ignore it? Even if the relationship might end in disaster or tragedy?