O.K., get ready for a nerd explosion. Here we go.
Table of contents:
1. Introduction
2. Disclaimer
3. Apology
4. The theory
INTRODUCTION
When the Star Wars prequels came out, I could not contain my excitement. If that had been true only of The Phantom Menace, it would have been one thing. But it was still true after I saw The Phantom Menace and knew it to be deeply, deeply bad: even though that movie pained me, injured me, even so, I was doing the metaphorical equivalent of salivating—hell, I was literally salivating—by the time I got to see L'attaque des clones in Paris three years later. But no, it was worse than that: being excited to see the second prequel after hating the first is bad, but I saw the first one like eight times. Stop for a second: did you hear and understand what I just said? I said I hated the first prequel and still watched it again and again and again...in the fucking theaters!
There is something wrong with me. Of course, whatever it is is evidently not unique.
I grew up on Star Wars. I saw Return of the Jedi with my dad in the theater; I think we drove to Brooklyn or something in order to avoid the crowds. I had mad action figures, yo. I had the sheets, I had the Underoos. I had this. I even had the pre-hipster retro dorky-cool semi-demi-ironic Star Wars passion in the early-to-mid 1990s: there was a time when there was something great about talking with people about Star Wars, when it was almost kind of a funny topic of conversation, whereas of course now the prequels have ruined that. Yet another thing the prequels have ruined.
Summary: I was brainwashed, sorta.
But if you can believe it, I am not here (up on this soapbox) in order to complain. Nay, I come rather (if you can believe it) to explain how the prequels are not quite as terrible as they... Well, not seem. Let me put it this way: how the prequels are not quite as terrible as they actually indeed indisputably are.
First, an unnecessary ranking of the six films, which I'm not sure why I'm including except that I know that people will disagree and want to argue with me:
Star Wars: A-
The Empire Strikes Back: A
Return of the Jedi: B+
The Phantom Menace: C-
Attack of the Clones: C+/B-
Revenge of the Sith: B
[I have corrected partially but not completely for grade inflation. Here a C is not an F; however, an A is not a real A, either. If you know what I'm sprayin'.*]
So that's, what, an average of about a C+ for the prequels? In a series with an overall B average, where the first three films averaged out at a solid A-?
DISCLAIMER
I have been known to come up with elaborate, persuasive theories that are not necessarily true. Usually these are the result of rationalization, by which I mean that my motives in developing the theories have to do less with the pursuit of truth than with the construction of a more palatable truth. For example, I will come up with excuses for people when it appears that they have done something rather embarrassing or shitty, and people will say, "Hm, well, that makes an awful lot of sense, and you may be right, but frankly I think you're way wrong." This is not what I am doing here today.
What I am doing here today is speaking truth to power.
APOLOGY
Generally I have mixed feelings about referencing Star Wars "facts" that didn't happen in the Star Wars movies themselves—hell, I don't even like to treat the prequels as "canonical." I think, for example, that the name "Palpatine" might not actually appear in the original films, I might have known it only from reading the novelizations—I'm not so sure about that, but I am sure that shit like what you read on Wookieepedia is preposterous. I gather that contemporary Star Wars fans (age 17?) talk about what's canonical, what's part of the "extended universe," and so forth; to me, there are three categories: the original movies, the prequels, and total ridiculousness. I mean, when I first looked at Wookieepedia (after a student recommended it), I found myself reading about the Sun Crusher, which "was built by using funds diverted from the Death Star I project": ludicrous. Later I learned that Boba Fett didn't die when he fell into the Sarlacc ("the Sarlacc could never hold Fett"). Apparently he escaped, fell back in, was regurgitated, fell in again, and wound up leading the Mandalorians (whom you have not heard of): "After returning to Mandalore, Fett made a few controversial decisions..." And while writing this I found the following information under the heading "Did you know..." on the main Wookieepedia page:
- ...that Dezono Qua would purchase slaves of various sentient species so that his droid E-10 would cook and serve them to him?
- ...that protocol droid C-3PO once served fungus crackers as a snack to Jedi Master Mara Jade Skywalker?
- ....that Pter Thanas saw action on F'Dann IX early in his career in the Imperial Navy?
- ....that Colonel Niovi surrendered the Super Star Destroyer Guardian to the New Republic?
- ....that Helen and Roric Goldenfield were Tatooine residents who had trouble with a group of pirates?
- ...that Obi-Wan Kenobi once left the Jedi Order to take part in a civil war on Melida/Daan?
No. No, I did not know any of that. I have heard of C-3PO and Obi-Wan Kenobi and Tatooine. But none of the rest of that shit is real. C-3PO and Obi-Wan and Tatooine are real; the New Republic, Mara Jade Skywalker, and Melida/Daan ARE NOT REAL.
BUT:
I am going to draw on the ridiculousness because here the ridiculousness connects to something you can actually see in the movies. (Of course, the central question is whether that's "you can see" in the sense that you can see something apparent that inheres in what you're observing or "you can see" in the sense that you might perceive something that isn't there—the way "you can see" dippers big and small in the night sky. See "Disclaimer" above.) I guess the idea here is that it's not evidence; it's an illustration. It's not material; it's a tool.
THE THEORY
The very, very short version of why I think the prequels have some value is that I think they're like crappy picture books—by which I mean that just as the little kiddie-book version of Return of the Jedi (with like 15 pages and a record at the end that you were supposed to play while reading) wasn't as good as the actual motion picture Return of the Jedi, a movie like Revenge of the Sith isn't as good as what you might call the ideal version of Revenge of the Sith. My theory is that George Lucas is actually a pretty good storymaker and a godawful storyteller (which is why the very best of the six films was not written by George Lucas and the very worst three were). The Star Wars prequel trilogy is like a crappy storybook version of a much better series of films that just unfortunately does not technically exist.
Here's what I mean:
In the Third Great Salivation Period (2004–2005)—during which, in spite of my disdain for Star Wars Episodes I–II, I grew increasingly crazed in my anticipation for Star Wars Episode III—I purchased and played two video games (note, please, that I do not generally play video games): Jedi Knight II and Knights of the Old Republic. I had heard that the latter was much better than the prequels, and it is that game that I'd like to discuss with you (see "Apology").
In Knights of the Old Republic, you get to go to both Jedi school and Sith school. (The Sith, as I believe was also never mentioned in the original movies but only in the novelizations,** are bad Jedi.***) You're given the ability to choose whether to be a good guy or a bad guy, so if you're going down the path of the Dark Side, then when Yoda's grandfather*** says, "Are you ready to begin your Jedi training," you can say either "Yes" or "Yes [lying]." Funny, but not important. What's important is that you know already from the movies that the Jedi are against getting too personally attached to anyone—that's particularly clear in the prequels, but in the originals, too, Yoda and Obi-Wan are both telling Luke that he should give up on his dad, that he should forget about his friends when they're being tortured in Cloud City—and of course they're also always trying to get him to chill out and keep the passion under wraps. The Jedi want you to clear your mind of all emotion, whereas the Emperor wants you to get mad, feel the hate flowing through you, etc.
With me so far?
Well, in Knights of the Old Republic, you learn—this isn't heavily emphasized, but it's clear and unambiguous—that the one thing both the Jedi and the Sith have to teach you in their respective training programs is that love is not kosher. The Jedi tell you to avoid love because it leads to passion; the Sith tell you to avoid love because it leads to compassion. But either way, caring too much about any one person is to be avoided—Jedi and Sith agree!
So now look at the course of the whole six-movie saga. What is it about? Anakin Skywalker is supposed to "bring balance to the Force," yeah? The Jedi weirdly assume that "balance" would mean wiping out the Sith, but whatever: as it happens, Anakin Skywalker does wipe out the Sith (when he kills the Emperor and himself goes back to the good side, no more Sith, prophecy fulfilled). But it's not just that. A big part of what makes Anakin go bad is that he is secretly in love with Natalie Hershlag and gets no support from the Jedi (after having been separated from his mother with no sympathy from the Jedi), so all the Sith have to do is pretend to help him out, to care about how he feels, and he's theirs. But of course Darth Sidious doesn't give any more of a crap about Natalie or the Moms than the Jedi Council does. Again, Jedi and Sith (and Snoop Dogg) agree: "We don't love them hos!"
But so then what have we got? Luke Skywalker ignores what Obi-Wan and Yoda and Darth Vader all tell him and risks everything to try to save his dad. Why? Because he thinks it's strategically valuable? No: because it's his dad. Repeatedly Luke goes against official Jedi advice by making choices to save his loved ones or family members, and this is what wins the star wars. Why-and-how does Anakin Skywalker end up killing Darth Sidious? Because-and-when he is moved by the sight of his son's being electrocuted. In other words, the crucial, most important, pivotal actions in the saga have to do with people acting out of love, or at least out of caring for other people, which is exactly what both the Jedi and the Sith forbid. In other words, the balance that's brought to the Force is a new, third course, neither dogmatically Jedi nor Sith, one that puts love and personal attachments front and center. In other other words, all you need is love?
When you view the saga this way, then all the ridiculous bullshit that happens to Anakin Skywalker takes on at least something resembling meaning. Love is more important than any ism, maybe you could say.
I don't really know. But I do know one thing:
"Around the survivors a perimeter create" may be one of the worst lines of dialogue ever written by anyone in any context.
P.S. The prequels are terrible.
* In case you don't know what I'm sprayin': when I taught at an elite Manhattan private school, a veteran teacher complained that there were now in effect only 5 grades: A, A-, B+, B, and B-. That was a bit of an exaggeration, but true it was indeed that students responded to something in the C range pretty much exactly as you ought to assume someone would respond to a flat F. The idea that "B" means "Good" and that "C" means "Satisfactory" would strike a lot of people as ludicrous. But come on, people: 85%? If you get a C, that means (or ought to mean) that you're ¾ of the way to perfect! A recent article about how Fæcebook makes you dumb was based on a study of college students in which "Facebook users...had GPAs between 3.0 and 3.5, while non-users had GPAs between 3.5 and 4.0." A 3.5 GPA is a fucking B+/A-! This is the average? The dumbest of the dumb are getting B's?!
** I remember being very interested to see Darth Vader identified as "a Dark Lord of the Sith."
*** This is not quite precise and will piss some people off. Ha ha.
6 comments:
the whole "third course" thing is cool, just not sure how it connects to exploring the idea that the prequels are poorly told good stories. are you saying they establish the plant for the payoff of the third course being the course that wins the star wars/fulfills the prophecy, but that they don't do it very well, and that the mere attempt (the storymaker aspect of the prequels) is why we should reserve our hatred for them a little bit?
Yeah, that's pretty much what I'm saying.
I am so agreeing with this post, right down to the buried Infinite Jest reference.
While visiting the guy who introduced me to Alt '85 last weekend, our late Friday night discussion was committed to a re-write of the prequels.
I'll save the details but, not having read this post yet, we did have some important parallels, particularly that Jedi vs. Sith dogma (neither being optimal) should play a major thematic role.
Some of the keys to fixing the story:
1. Anakin must be at least 13 when he is discovered by the Jedi. No six year old is so far gone that he can't be saved. Amidala is then 17 (just old enough that at their first meeting, a romantic relationship is not likely). Obi Wan is thus 21 when we meet him. The equivalent spacing in ages is important because...
2. Anakin/Amidala/Kenobi Love Triangle. Obi Wan acknowledges his feelings for the Queen by the end of Movie I, but he shuns their love because of the Jedi code and because of age difference (a college junior doesn't date a high school junior). Amidala seizes on the love of Anakin to prove Obi wrong since he is also four years apart, and a Jedi. Obi in turn has taken Anakin as his student (so she can't have him either). Anakin's jealousy toward Obi Wan, combined with the obvious, odious and hypocritical sanctimony of the Jedi are what tempt him to reject Jediism.
3. Queen Amidala* is not democratically elected. Naboo is an absolute monarchy, and her only claim to power is primogeniture, and therefore she sucks at being queen of a planet, and is taken advantage of. She is a Richard II or Henry VI character who was moved to end her minority by evil counsel, provided by Sideous, who rules Naboo through her as an unwitting patsy. Palpatine is thus her natural choice as Naboo's representative, and she trusts him; as an absolute monarch herself, she supports his later efforts to consolidate power in the Chancellor seat.
3-sub. As in Lucas' version, Amida as a exempli gratia of the sympathetic settler under barbarian siege, (and symbolic virgin female in peril) is played up by Palpatine. However, the more she learns about the world through the series, the more she sees through him, such that she is now a danger to him and needs to be executed.
4. Among Jedi, Mace Windu is the most respected and powerful. He is power-hungry with fascist tendencies. He is un-subtle, an absolutist with regard to Jedi dogma. Palpatine is thus able to play galaxy-wide distrust of Windu into support for his fascist rise to power.
5. Yoda is not on the Jedi Council. He is an academic, a relic of a more republican age (when dogma was secondary to service as policemen for an expansionist Republic), and largely discounted by the current pro-Windu generation of dogmatic Jedi who see their order as a power in of itself. Yoda does attract the occasional contrarian or renegade follower, e.g. Qui-Gon.
6. The Great Threat to the Republic is that of barbarian uprisings on the most recently settled/conquered parts of the galaxy. Organized barbarian raids are seeking to destroy all human-settled colonies, even those like Naboo that have been established for several centuries. The key reason for replacing the sanctimonious and hypocritical Jedi as the Republic's peacekeeping forces with a massive Navy (true star destroyers) and army (the clones) is that the Jedi are ineffectual at dealing out imprecise justice. They can't blockade a planet, or decapitate a headless rebellion.
7. Darth Maul is one of the barbarians. Their leaders have been trained and organized by Sideous. They include many minority, more warlike species who were supplanted by human settlement on their planets. One of their methods is to align with other pre-Industrial races supplanted by settlers of various planets (this is why the Empire is so species-ist later on). The Wookies are among their strongest allies later on (thus sealing the Wookies' fates as slaves under the Empire).
8. C3PO makes a cameo appearance in the last film as a translator for Bayle Organa - his personality has not been developed. R2D2 does not. Obi Wan Kenobi is not Han Solo's long-lost father, and neither is Captain Needa the love child of Chewbacca and Wicket. It's a big galaxy; it's okay if some of the characters over 30 in the original films had never met one another before that.
9. Anakin's pre-Jedi history is very dark. Other slave kids choose not associate with him. He first encounters Qui-Gon et al. through Amidala, who while visiting Tatooine is kidnapped by human traffickers, and promptly rescued by Anakin, whose secret outlet for his emerging Jedi powers is hunting and murdering Tatooine's criminal class, particularly the human traffickers. Anakin's mother is dead when we meet him -- a suicide. There are clues throughout the series that she was a settler's daughter who was kidnapped around Amidalah's age and made a sex slave (hence Anakin's love for her -- he sees Amidala, the queen of a settler community -- as the idealized version of mommy).
10. Forget "Bring Balance to the Force;" The Prophesy says that the Chosen One will destroy the Sith. Since the Jedi believe they are in a good-and-evil battle with the Sith, they are just fine with this and allow Anakin to be trained, against the warnings of Yoda, who thinks the kid is already on his way toward being a sociopath. We learn in Movie II that the Sith also have a prophesy that says the Chosen One will destroy the Jedi.
* Why is it we Jews like using Natalie Portman's pre-stage name? We don't do this for any other actors. Nobody says "John, Paul, George and Richard Starkey." We all know someone who knew her in school or at camp** or at Harvard, but I still think the chances of her looking us up through this person and calling and saying "hey" and us ending up together because we're from similar backgrounds except she was in Star Wars are pretty slim.
** oh, I do!!!
Wow, you've got your own movie, here! I most agree with the business about the age difference: making Anakin a sweet little kid was such a mind-boggling misstep.
As for Hershlag, I think the reason we care is that she's Jewish. I do do it with other actors: Winona Horowitz, e.g. There's something kind of icky about Jewish people changing their names to make them less Jewy, no? (I was at a party with her once in 1996 and walked by her several times. Does that count as knowing her?)
Icky, maybe.
The problem is we are guessing (even if it's a good guess) that the person changed their name only to "sound less Jewish."
The acting business is not about integrity, but the ability to project false integrity. Her job is not to put the real Natalie Hershlag on screen, but to be able to convince people that she is Padmé Amidala one minute, and Evey Hammond the next. The persona of Natalie Portman is nothing but one more layer, one more facade.
It's also protection. Think of the legions Star Wars fans who would respond to any Hershlag they met, if that was the name she used. Again, the intent is to not project integrity, but one more persona for fans to consume, "Natalie Portman" being the character she plays in the cross-media ongoing series "The Personal Lives of Celebrities."
On the way up, there's more that goes into the choice to use a stage name than "I don't want to sound Jewish." With the line between success and obscurity so fine, a tiny thing like a difficult-to-pronounce surname could easily make the difference. Those with a say as to who gets to be a star and who doesn't are not interested in someone who takes a stand for their heritage -- they want somebody whose entire being is committed to being really good at acting and projecting whatever kind of image is best for promoting her projects.
In that paradigm, who are we to judge?
All that said, I really brought it up because I spent several years calling her "Hershlag" as well. I have also found that at least half of the people I know claim some sort of tenuous connection to her, which I take as evidence that Ms. Hershlag was cultivating a very large network very early.
Also, my Word Verification for this post is "balls" which is a fair approximation of how seriously you really need to take my opinion on this matter, i.e. not very.
Post a Comment