The New Yorker tears apart Star Wars...

tymeblind

Literotica Guru
Joined
Apr 12, 2005
Posts
6,453
http://www.newyorker.com/critics/cinema/articles/050523crci_cinema


SPACE CASE
by ANTHONY LANE
“Star Wars: Episode III.”
Issue of 2005-05-23
Posted 2005-05-16

Sith. What kind of a word is that? Sith. It sounds to me like the noise that emerges when you block one nostril and blow through the other, but to George Lucas it is a name that trumpets evil. What is proved beyond question by “Star Wars: Episode III—Revenge of the Sith,” the latest—and, you will be shattered to hear, the last—installment of his sci-fi bonanza, is that Lucas, though his eye may be greedy for sensation, has an ear of purest cloth. All those who concoct imagined worlds must populate and name them, and the resonance of those names is a fairly accurate guide to the mettle of the imagination in question. Tolkien, earthed in Old English, had a head start that led him straight to the flinty perfection of Mordor and Orc. Here, by contrast, are some Lucas inventions: Palpatine. Sidious. Mace Windu. (Isn’t that something you spray on colicky babies?) Bail Organa. And Sith.

Lucas was not always a rootless soul. He made “American Graffiti,” which yielded with affection to the gravitational pull of the small town. Since then, he has swung out of orbit, into deep nonsense, and the new film is the apotheosis of that drift. One stab of humor and the whole conceit would pop, but I have a grim feeling that Lucas wishes us to honor the remorseless non-comedy of his galactic conflict, so here goes. Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) and his star pupil, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen), are, with the other Jedi knights, defending the Republic against the encroachments of the Sith and their allies—millions of dumb droids, led by Count Dooku (Christopher Lee) and his henchman, General Grievous, who is best described as a slaying mantis. Meanwhile, the Chancellor of the Republic, Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), is engaged in a sly bout of Realpolitik, suspected by nobody except Anakin, Obi-Wan, and every single person watching the movie. Anakin, too, is a divided figure, wrenched between his Jedi devotion to selfless duty and a lurking hunch that, if he bides his time and trashes his best friends, he may eventually get to wear a funky black mask and start breathing like a horse.

This film is the tale of his temptation. We already know the outcome—Anakin will indeed drop the killer-monk Jedi look and become Darth Vader, the hockey goalkeeper from hell—because it forms the substance of the original “Star Wars.” One of the things that make Episode III so dismal is the time and effort expended on Anakin’s conversion. Early in the story, he enjoys a sprightly light-sabre duel with Count Dooku, which ends with the removal of the Count’s hands. (The stumps glow, like logs on a fire; there is nothing here that reeks of human blood.) Anakin prepares to scissor off the head, while the mutilated Dooku kneels for mercy. A nice setup, with Palpatine egging our hero on from the background. The trouble is that Anakin’s choice of action now will be decisive, and the remaining two hours of the film—scene after scene in which Hayden Christensen has to glower and glare, blazing his conundrum to the skies—will add nothing to the result. “Something’s happening. I’m not the Jedi I should be,” he says. This is especially worrying for his wife, Padmé (Natalie Portman), who is great with child. Correction: with children.

What can you say about a civilization where people zip from one solar system to the next as if they were changing their socks but where a woman fails to register for an ultrasound, and thus to realize that she is carrying twins until she is about to give birth? Mind you, how Padmé got pregnant is anybody’s guess, although I’m prepared to wager that it involved Anakin nipping into a broom closet with a warm glass jar and a copy of Ewok Babes. After all, the Lucasian universe is drained of all reference to bodily functions. Nobody ingests or excretes. Language remains unblue. Smoking and cursing are out of bounds, as is drunkenness, although personally I wouldn’t go near the place without a hip flask. Did Lucas learn nothing from “Alien” and “Blade Runner”—from the suggestion that other times and places might be no less rusted and septic than ours, and that the creation of a disinfected galaxy, where even the storm troopers wear bright-white outfits, looks not so much fantastical as dated? What Lucas has devised, over six movies, is a terrible puritan dream: a morality tale in which both sides are bent on moral cleansing, and where their differences can be assuaged only by a triumphant circus of violence. Judging from the whoops and crowings that greeted the opening credits, this is the only dream we are good for. We get the films we deserve.

The general opinion of “Revenge of the Sith” seems to be that it marks a distinct improvement on the last two episodes, “The Phantom Menace” and “Attack of the Clones.” True, but only in the same way that dying from natural causes is preferable to crucifixion. So much here is guaranteed to cause either offense or pain, starting with the nineteen-twenties leather football helmet that Natalie Portman suddenly dons for no reason, and rising to the continual horror of Ewan McGregor’s accent. “Another happy landing”—or, to be precise, “anothah heppy lending”—he remarks, as Anakin parks the front half of a burning starcruiser on a convenient airstrip. The young Obi-Wan Kenobi is not, I hasten to add, the most nauseating figure onscreen; nor is R2-D2 or even C-3PO, although I still fail to understand why I should have been expected to waste twenty-five years of my life following the progress of a beeping trash can and a gay, gold-plated Jeeves.

No, the one who gets me is Yoda. May I take the opportunity to enter a brief plea in favor of his extermination? Any educated moviegoer would know what to do, having watched that helpful sequence in “Gremlins” when a small, sage-colored beastie is fed into an electric blender. A fittingly frantic end, I feel, for the faux-pensive stillness on which the Yoda legend has hung. At one point in the new film, he assumes the role of cosmic shrink—squatting opposite Anakin in a noirish room, where the light bleeds sideways through slatted blinds. Anakin keeps having problems with his dark side, in the way that you or I might suffer from tennis elbow, but Yoda, whose reptilian smugness we have been encouraged to mistake for wisdom, has the answer. “Train yourself to let go of everything you fear to lose,” he says. Hold on, Kermit, run that past me one more time. If you ever got laid (admittedly a long shot, unless we can dig you up some undiscerning alien hottie with a name like Jar Jar Gabor), and spawned a brood of Yodettes, are you saying that you’d leave them behind at the first sniff of danger? Also, while we’re here, what’s with the screwy syntax? Deepest mind in the galaxy, apparently, and you still express yourself like a day-tripper with a dog-eared phrase book. “I hope right you are.” Break me a fucking give.

The prize for the least speakable burst of dialogue has, over half a dozen helpings of “Star Wars,” grown into a fiercely contested tradition, but for once the winning entry is clear, shared between Anakin and Padmé for their exchange of endearments at home:

“You’re so beautiful.”
“That’s only because I’m so in love.”
“No, it’s because I’m so in love with you.”

For a moment, it looks as if they might bat this one back and forth forever, like a baseline rally on a clay court. And if you think the script is on the tacky side, get an eyeful of the décor. All of the interiors in Lucasworld are anthems to clean living, with molded furniture, the tranquillity of a morgue, and none of the clutter and quirkiness that signify the process known as existence. Illumination is provided not by daylight but by a dispiriting plastic sheen, as if Lucas were coating all private affairs—those tricky little threats to his near-fascistic rage for order—in a protective glaze. Only outside does he relax, and what he relaxes into is apocalypse. “Revenge of the Sith” is a zoo of rampant storyboards. Why show a pond when C.G.I. can deliver a lake that gleams to the far horizon? Why set a paltry house on fire when you can stage your final showdown on an entire planet that streams with ruddy, gulping lava? Whether the director is aware of John Martin, the Victorian painter who specialized in the cataclysmic, I cannot say, but he has certainly inherited that grand perversity, mobilized it in every frame of the film, and thus produced what I take to be unique: an art of flawless and irredeemable vulgarity. All movies bear a tint of it, in varying degrees, but it takes a vulgarian genius such as Lucas to create a landscape in which actions can carry vast importance but no discernible meaning, in which style is strangled at birth by design, and in which the intimate and the ironic, not the Sith, are the principal foes to be suppressed. It is a vision at once gargantuan and murderously limited, and the profits that await it are unfit for contemplation. I keep thinking of the rueful Obi-Wan Kenobi, as he surveys the holographic evidence of Anakin’s betrayal. “I can’t watch anymore,” he says. Wise words, Obi-Wan, and I shall carry them in my heart.
 
The reviews I read slamming Episode III, for the most part, seem a little bit "proud" in their ability to go against the prevailing winds.

Which, thus far, have been raving. :D
 
RoryN said:
The reviews I read slamming Episode III, for the most part, seem a little bit "proud" in their ability to go against the prevailing winds.

Which, thus far, have been raving. :D

There have always been the few that give negative reviews just because they can and it makes them feel superior. There were critics who slammed ET and Jaws and The Godfather and Gone with the Wind and so on. For the most part I kinda like critics, they have their place and are usually more insightful than the average moviegoer but sometimes those fuckheads piss me off.
 
I'll probably end up seeing it even though I despised Episodes I and II. The action scenes will, I'm sure, thrill me beyond belief. The acting, dialogue, and plot holes large enough to pilot Star Destroyers through will make me wonder why I paid 8 bucks for it.

Right now, I think that Lucas is a complete bastard. After purposefully making movies he knew would draw in small children and want them to see the other movies (Jar Jar and the Ewoks anyone?), he's now made a movie that he has said isn't for small children.

Yet he's pimping the movie on candy, in fast food restaurants, and with Lego's (among other things) - just the places that small kids are likely to see. He's advertising directly to them even though it's a movie he has told parents they shouldn't see.

Money-grubbing fuck.
 
KRCummings said:
There have always been the few that give negative reviews just because they can and it makes them feel superior. There were critics who slammed ET and Jaws and The Godfather and Gone with the Wind and so on. For the most part I kinda like critics, they have their place and are usually more insightful than the average moviegoer but sometimes those fuckheads piss me off.

I don't get this. I'm sure that, because the films were generally applauded, some reviewers slams were harsher than warranted in response to that, but are SW III, The Godfather etc. supposed to be immune from (incredible) dislike? (I ask because I don't follow the logic from the reasonable "some critics have superiority issues and trash pop. films for no other reason" to "yeah some of them slammed ET".) What is there in Lane's review that, despite all the la di daa typical of a NYer writer, leads you to believe he doesn't honestly dislike the film?

I thought ET was crap. I hardly remember it now. From the trailers of Ep III I've seen it looks to only suck marginally less than the other prequels. A few of the reviews I've read still point out that the script is beyond redemption.

I mean come on, check the part Lane quoted! That does not have you rolling with laughter, SW geek or not?
 
I agree with people that said he trashed the movie because he could.

tymeblind said:
Sith. What kind of a word is that? Sith. It sounds to me like the noise that emerges when you block one nostril and blow through the other, but to George Lucas it is a name that trumpets evil.

I can't take this review seriously if he's going to mock George Lucas's choice of fake words. I couldn't read the entire thing.
 
MechaBlade said:
I agree with people that said he trashed the movie because he could.

I can't take this review seriously if he's going to mock George Lucas's choice of fake words. I couldn't read the entire thing.

I agree. He also trashed the movie because the movie because he's jealous. As a mere critic, he will ever be taken seriously for any suggestions on how to make a good movie. All he can do is criticize, which is something anything any ugly-minded person can do.

That he mocked completely fictional names without any adquate explanation or excuse as to what was wrong with them only shows he's full of crap.

No wonder I never read most of these critics reviews. I certainly won't reading that twit's reviews on any matter.
 
I understand how important the entire Star Wars event has been in the history of film but, I must confess, I have never really enjoyed the films. It’s a personal opinion and I know others really enjoy them but I didn’t share the fascination.
The success is great and it brings people to film so that is positive. I haven’t seen a Star Wars film since The Empire Strikes Back and then I fell asleep on the couch.
 
MechaBlade said:
I can't take this review seriously if he's going to mock George Lucas's choice of fake words. I couldn't read the entire thing.
Critics raise the art of the putdown to a career. It's fashionable to not be swayed by popular cultural phenomena. The reviewer in question sounds more like he's angling for Andy Rooney's job than anything else, which undermines the credibility of his assessment(s) even if he's making valid points.

Is Episode III going to go down in history as one of the best stories of the past 10 or 20 years? Almost certainly not - but neither is "Hitch" and I managed to enjoy it for what it was.
 
Oh no, The New Yorker has deemed it unworthy. I guess I'll save the money and stay home. :rolleyes:


After reading the uptight review I can tell they expected this film to be Oscar worthy and Lucas broke their heart.
 
Last edited:
The Star Wars names ARE stupid and have been from the beginning. "Old Ben" Kenobi. Organa. Skywalker. Hey look! There's a fat guy named Porkins! There's a loner named Solo. A comic relief character named Binks. A bad guy named Grevious. Boba Fett? Boba Fett?

Yeesh!
:rolleyes:
 
Don't waste your time on this movie unless you are all about the action. The fights are excellent, the story is missing.
 
kbate said:
Don't waste your time on this movie unless you are all about the action. The fights are excellent, the story is missing.


It's the best one of the series. Say it. SAY IT!!!!
 
DevilishTexan said:
It's the best one of the series. Say it. SAY IT!!!!


It is better than phantom or clone, but that is like saying puke is better than crap.
 
KRCummings said:
There have always been the few that give negative reviews just because they can and it makes them feel superior. There were critics who slammed ET and Jaws and The Godfather and Gone with the Wind and so on. For the most part I kinda like critics, they have their place and are usually more insightful than the average moviegoer but sometimes those fuckheads piss me off.


I agree...... However, I wonder what happens, if anything, to THESE types of critics when the movie brings in TONS of money??
To me.... I think that would matter most. IF the movie makes tons of $, thus more people like it than not.... thus the critic is wrong and should look for a new job.
 
kbate said:
It is better than phantom or clone, but that is like saying puke is better than crap.


Would you rather have puke on your feet? Or crap? Uh huh, seeeee?

You're just a silly young girl. You didn't get to experience the joy that was Star Wars at the tender age of 11. You didn't grow up with it.

And plus a light saber to you is just a faster way to turn your hard top into a convertible. :p
 
The Mutt said:
The Star Wars names ARE stupid and have been from the beginning. "Old Ben" Kenobi. Organa. Skywalker. Hey look! There's a fat guy named Porkins! There's a loner named Solo. A comic relief character named Binks. A bad guy named Grevious. Boba Fett? Boba Fett?

Yeesh!
:rolleyes:


What about Jabba the Hutt? you gotta love the hutt.
 
It's easy cartoon sci-fi. It's Lucas's story and he obviously is having fun with it and he's taking us along for the ride. Sure, he gets lots of money from it, but then we give it to him and he has devoted 30 years of his life to making his imagination come true.

I never go in to a film with great expectations, but then, I'm not a film connoisseur. I'm going to pay my money, I'm going to take my 10 year old son and we are going to go see it and have a fun time.

Violence? That's why the PG13 rating. My son watched Jurrasic Park at 4 and he never confused reality with make believe so I'm not going to worry about it and I'll be there.

I love the action stuff, but then, I liked the Terminator movies, too. I'm looking forward to it.

I understand that the critics look at films with a totally different eye than I do. For those who agree with the critics, then fine. I'm much more easily entertained.
 
ksmybuttons said:
It's easy cartoon sci-fi. It's Lucas's story and he obviously is having fun with it and he's taking us along for the ride. Sure, he gets lots of money from it, but then we give it to him and he has devoted 30 years of his life to making his imagination come true.

I never go in to a film with great expectations, but then, I'm not a film connoisseur. I'm going to pay my money, I'm going to take my 10 year old son and we are going to go see it and have a fun time.

Violence? That's why the PG13 rating. My son watched Jurrasic Park at 4 and he never confused reality with make believe so I'm not going to worry about it and I'll be there.

I love the action stuff, but then, I liked the Terminator movies, too. I'm looking forward to it.

I understand that the critics look at films with a totally different eye than I do. For those who agree with the critics, then fine. I'm much more easily entertained.


OMG you're normal!!!!!!!:eek:
 
Sith-Boom-Bah!

kbate said:
Don't waste your time on this movie unless you are all about the action. The fights are excellent, the story is missing.

Right on. I go to watch it because it looks cool and try not to laugh at the dialogue. Ep. 2's love scene reminded me of a douche commericial. "Ani, I'm not feeling so fresh, let's tumble through the fields." Blech.
 
DevilishTexan said:
Would you rather have puke on your feet? Or crap? Uh huh, seeeee?

You're just a silly young girl. You didn't get to experience the joy that was Star Wars at the tender age of 11. You didn't grow up with it.

And plus a light saber to you is just a faster way to turn your hard top into a convertible. :p


True, I never saw a star wars movie until the re-release before the new flicks came out.

I so want a light saber!!
 
Back
Top