[Superman: The Movie -- 24th Anniversary]

It's not often enough I get a chance to voice agreement with Joe, so I'd better strike....

We were in the midst of doing a stage version of A Christmas Carol when Scrooged came out. Maybe we benefitted from having the original work fresh in our minds, or perhaps we just had the right sort of twisted sense of humor, but the cast and crew (including myself) thought it was a scream. I still do, but that could be a stolidly preconceived bias talking.

Still, even apart from that one, Donner's done some great stuff--although he has had his fair share of stinkers, too. (The worst? Radio Flyers, culminating with one of the most unforgivable plot devices in film history.) I've always respected him, though, and I'm looking forward to Timeline.

Superman is certainly one of the reasons Donner won my favor to begin with. That the movie happened to made during a period whose fashions and altruisms haven't aged particularly well shouldn't be held against it. It's still just about the best transition from comix and T.V. to the big screen any superhero's ever made, with it's character-driven story, great visual effects (for the day), and stylish, wink-and-a-nudge sense of humor.

As for John's score....well, I'll get to that soon enough.

- Uni

[Matessino misses the mark, boy did he]

Not at all, I was just pointing out that he was a bit presumptuious.

A bit, perhaps....he said it "would certainly sell to every member" of our auspicious board. So he was off by two, maybe three. On the other hand, I don't think it a stretch to say he's got a finger to the pulse here. A new Hook release would be the hottest topic around here since Padmidala jumped out of lip gravy early....and it would be the most welcome new release imaginable.

Hook stands as one of the very best of Williams's scores, certainly his most variegated palette of themes, and one of the paramount examples of how a filmography can lift a mediocre movie out of its own mire. I haven't been able to snatch up one of the boots yet (I'm still not sure I'd be okay with that anyway), and I'd be the first in line for another Matessino masterpiece.

And now my mind is made up....after Superman is finished, Hook will be my next topic of review--especially after seeing such an exultant uprising in its defense.

- Uni....who strongly suspects that even the critics of the score would clandestinely get their hands on a copy, should the wishes of the majority come true....

[Twas my duty sire. Superman.]

Another coincidence....I decided to dust off a few reviews and score analyses I've never gotten around to finishing. The first one I'm knuckling down on? Why, Superman, of course. My personal favorite, and without question one of his all-time best.

SupII was all right (the elevator ride into space is one of those brief vignettes that's always popping into my mind), but so much of it was based on reorchestrations of the first score, and so much of it sounds like it was performed by a high school marching band, that I could never take it all that seriously.

- Uni

[OT: ROTFLOL!!!!]

You see a lot, Melange. But are you strong enough to point that high-powered perception at yourself? What about it? Why don't you look at yourself and write down what you see? Maybe you're afraid to....

I'm only asking you to listen to me, Melange.....either you will or you won't.

- Uni....whose attempt is but a pale shadow, but fun nonetheless....

[OT: ROTFLOL!!!!]

Melange does enjoy his petty torments....

The original Batman movie is one of the funniest things I've ever seen. I laughed from beginning to end. It's ridiculous, lame, asinine in its seriousness....and pure joy to watch.LOL

BATMAN (reading one of the Riddler's chestnuts): What weighs four ounces, and is dangerous?

ROBIN (slapping fist in hand, in total earnest): A sparrow with a machine gun!

- Uni....who might just have to dig out the tape and watch it again....

[What's the single most amazing moment by Johnny?]

Say, Jeff, you wouldn't happen to be the same Jeff who used to write reviews for Scott Hanson's site, would you?

The one and only.

For the curious. I'm the first one listed:

www.classicalrecordings.com/johnwilliams/reviews.htm#contributors

Isn't that something? As far as I can tell, you join a distinguished few on this board, the others being Scott Fields, Markus Hable, and Jeffrey Wheeler.

By the way, I was a fan of your reviews.

You're kidding me. I had no idea that was you, Jeff. It's nice to see a fellow refugee from the Unofficial site hanging around here. (As you said, for the curious--since I evaded direct reference in another thread--I'm the third one listed.) Alan's right; you showed some good stuff over there.

Some of the best moments are hidden away in just a few seconds of music on a score waiting to be discovered. One of my favs is literally a few seconds of music in Close Encounters where the gang escape near Devils mountain and on the movie you get this sudden side shot of them running up the field saying "Hi i'm roy etc" and introducing themselves to each other. Its a wonderful few seconds of score (imo). If you want to hear the moment i refer to, then insert your Close Encounters Cd (collectors edition) and go to track 16 (the escape) and slide to counter 1:43 and listen until 2:17. Superb uplifting piece of music which begs to be extended everytime i hear it . I can't get enough of that classic score.

Neither can I....and it's also nice to find another CE3K enthusiast among the few around here. You're exactly right about that particular moment, too. To me, that's the precise beginning of the film's third and last act--and the music is such that it actually hearkens to mind the accoutrements of a stage production. Neary's risk, calculated by faith, in the helicopter; the first few frenetically-stringed seconds of the chase; and Lacombe's expression through the window are all an immediate prelude to the transition. Then, like a curtain rising behind an already-grand setpiece to reveal the setting for the final climax and resolution, the music swells to greet a wide shot of the fugitives' goal--Devil's Tower, rising into the dusk (the exact moment the "curtain" rises begins at 1:49). As you said....superb.

However....with the arguable exception of a couple in this list (none that I'll name specifically), I think each and every moment cited so far has been a special one in the Williams canon--and reviewing them like this, pulling them out of their respective scores and lining them up side-by-side, is one of the best ways to appreciate them all. Great topic...!

- Uni

[What's the single most amazing moment by Johnny?]

Sounds like you love this film as much as me then?

You two aren't the only ones. The concert version of "Cadillac of the Skies" is one of Williams's chief achievements, and the segment of "Cadillac" actually in the film (during the air strike) could easily contend for a place on this Best Moments list.

- Uni

[Dux Avatarium]

I think the form of anarchy some people really want (and I'd agree with them, just that it's simply not practicable, at least not until mankind has evolved more) is no laws, but rules "made" by the society. I.e. you simply don't do "something bad" because you know it's bad, and partly because it wouldn't be tolerated - but mostly because you just don't do it. Desireable I think, but it won't happen until many many years from now, if at all.

Heh....you're right. We're straying dangerously near forbidden territory here....but I can't resist toeing the line once more before dropping it.

You're touching on some intruiging stuff here, but your first step requires another: How do the people in the society know that something is "bad"? You "just don't do it," as you say, but why? What tells you it's wrong? You've been conditioned, naturally, taught by parents or school or whatever....but what told them that such behavior was immoral? In the end, there has to be a source, some inherent understanding of right and wrong, assumed by all who consider themselves moral citizens. To make any statement concerning that source would be to cross the line in the sand where this board is concerned, so I'll leave that up to you; except to say that this is the initial step on a road that has always fascinated me.

Actually, usually that only happens when jwfan posters make an input on FSM JW fanatics don't go well with Goldsmith fanatics.

You're right, of course. The same thing seemed to happen when JW fans spoke up over at the Hornershrine, too (I haven't been there in forever....is that place still around?).

And I agree with most of what you said, too. I'd probably have to recharacterize the FSM interaction as less personal attack and more just wide-open, brawling debate. Less class, I think, but if you can hold your own and not take things too personally, then it's all right.

It is interesting that in a place like this--more of a community environment--the ill-considered sludge that sometimes rises to the surface often does strike a little more personally. I wonder if this is something akin to sibling rivalry, where in being "closer" with one another, we often risk cutting more deeply than we intend to. If so, it would be indicative of both the very postive (friendlier relationships) and the sometimes negative (vulnerable feelings) aspects that can arise by taking things a step further than the average chat group.

Precisely, that's what I always say as well.....freedom is not only precious, it's fragile too. There's more constriction than there is freedom...which is not that unfortunate because it's constriction to teach us that freedom is precious.

Interesing that you should mention this....I'm reading Heinlein's Starship Troopers for the first time right now (on the recommendation of a friend). There's a chapter in it where the teacher of History and Moral Philosophy discusses the downfall of the North American Alliance at the end of the twentieth century, primarily due to the breakdown in what you call "constriction". Heinlein wrote it in 1959, but it's amazing how close his prediction is to the truth of our age. We find ourselves drained of more and more personal freedoms simply because we want to allow everyone too much freedom. So we refuse to spank our children, we slap delinquents on the wrist and let them free to do more violence, we tie the hands of schools and parents, telling them that to "constrict" is to deny a child their rights--when in truth, too much freedom is like giving a child too much candy. It does them no good in the long run. Pop psychology's gonna be the end of us all. As a result of it, we can no longer walk in our parks after dark; we live in a latchkey society, forced to protect everything we own; and we can't let our kids out of our sight for an instant. It's astonishing how much freedom, much of it already lost, that we take for granted.

If, on the other hand, we define boundaries for ourselves and teach them to our children, we ensure the continuation of freedom for everyone. It's basically the same thing you said in your (excellent) bit on political correctness, the willing brother to pop psychology.

So in my book, as long as you meant it to be truely contributing, you can say whatever you want whereever you want....though with that we enter another paradox...that of 'tact'. But let's not talk about that now...in order to not make it too complex.  

And so, you are allright in my book.

Tact is supplemental, the process of fine-tuning freedom. It isn't required for freedom to exist, but it sure is an improvement.

And thanks....I've always wanted to make an appearance in someone's book. :)

- Uni

[What's the single most amazing moment by Johnny?]

Hmm....faintly reminiscent of a similar post from days long past....

And doggone it, even with only a handful of posts, I knew mine would be taken right away. No matter how hard I consider it, I can't come up with a better one than E.T.'s departure. There is a magic in that moment that is more than just visuals and instrumentation. Wow.

If I had to come up with one of my own....I'd probably go with (off the cuff) another departure scene: Roy Neary, just before he climbs up the shimmering ramp into the spaceship, looking back at Lacombe and Gillian. Beautiful stuff, that.

- Uni

[Dux Avatarium]

Well I don't think that necessary, you can simply ignore people who don't respect opinions, it's not like you have to reply to every post.

True.

I mean I think that in messages boards pretty much lawless anarachy works extremely well, as filmtracks, FSM and especially newsgroups show.

Those who can't stand those sites would disagree with you, I think. That sort of anarchy makes them very unappealing.

With message boards, it's very hard for users to damage other users freedom.

It's easier than you think, though it does require the consent of the person offended. They can choose to not take it quite so personally. But a big part of the "freedom" we're talking about here flourishes best when a person feels like they're part of the group, a contributor to the community, and supported (even in disagreement) by the other constituents. In those circumstances, they're much more likely to speak their mind, relatively assured they'll be understood and appreciated. On the other hand, when said user takes the brunt of a direct personal attack in specific response to their stated opinion (or even fact), it can easily have the effect of making them more self-conscious, and often even less willing to be as open, honest, and involved as they might otherwise have been. That sort of wing-clipping is a curtailing of the kind of freedom we're referring to here....and the fact that this board represents (for the most part) the former example is just the sort of "unique wierdness" that makes it so great.

Those other boards call for a more competitive, centralist approach to discussing a common interest like this (and is this a subject that really calls for that sort of discord...?). Too often you have to dig in against the "opposition," hoping that at least a few others might join you in the foxhole to last out the firefights that spring up all too easily. Granted, though, there are surely people out there who thrive in that sort of environment....and unless I'm much mistaken, I think you're just that sort of person, Morn. That's not a slam, just an observation. My earliest memory of you on this board has you proclaiming Empire Strikes Back as Williams's greatest feat, and you would brook no disagreement on the matter. Since that time, I don't think I'm the only one who believes that sometimes you throw down the glove just to be the only one who does it.

However, you very rarely stray into outright offense, so it's tolerable. Sometimes we could wish you'd jump into a discussion with a little less ardor and cynisism, but hey--that would be denying you your freedom, right?

- Uni

[Dux Avatarium]

Actually, if something is unique, then isn't it weird in most people's views? As in, not normal/common. So weird here means something positive.

That's what I thought you meant....just wanted to be sure.

It's sad how people abuse the freedom to express themselves...with such kind of freedom, with any kind really, comes responsibility as well. Even freedom is limited.

As it should be. Some people confuse real freedom with absolute freedom, which is in fact anarchy--which in turn is an antithesis to freedom, since it denies the very personal rights that make freedom such a wonderful thing. In short, taking too much liberty with your freedom (now there's an interesting construct....) usually means robbing someone else of theirs, and like you said, that's an abuse.

In this context, all that translates to mean that everyone should respect the opinions of others, even in disagreement. (Isn't that the best arena for intelligent discussion anyway?)

I see....well, Uni was the name of a young unicorn in the animated series Dungeons and Dragons from the 80's....I loved that series. The most annoying part of it was this Uni, sort of a sidekick that got himself always in trouble and yet contributed nothing to the series. I thought perhaps you wanted to make a statement.

Kidding of course.

I dunno....I've gotten in trouble once or twice, and sometimes I wonder just how much I contribute (especially given my sporadic appearances, as Stefan loves to point out....).

Oh, that has become a pretty long story. So, here's a shortcut. I used both names (Prick and DD) in some 3D shooters, which had again a bunch of different reasons. I'm actually The Delicate Dutchman...perhaps that rings a bell, perhaps only a tiny one since I usually post scarcely (I believe I explained to you the concept about Walking Warm during some chat )...the DD was a name I just used in lack of a better one really.

Hey! Of course I remember you. I've thought more than once that there are some board veterans (or at least older posters) who're lurking around here under different names than the ones I remember. Nice to know you're still around....

Uni has cleverly mixed Latin and Sanskrit for his post title. The word dux is Latin for 'leader' while the word avatar is from a Sanskrit word meaning 'descent' (usually of a god). Uni has Latinised it to a neuter noun and put it in the genitive plural. Stefancos is therefore "leader of the avatars."

And in turn, your use of the word "cleverly" has just taken a new meaning, akin to "accidental"....:roll:

So what you're saying, then, is that this new title of mine means "Leader of our descent"...? LOL

All kidding aside, thank you for this. I'm an amateur philologist myself, and I do love seeing phrases cut up like that (for us, parsing is a sport). All the better knowing it's a brand-new form I created myself....

- Uni....who's having more fun with this thread than he ever expected to....:wiggle: yipee

[Dux Avatarium]

This MB really needs a gathering fast!

I'd love to see it happen.

This is surely the weirdest MB I've ever seen. But then again, I just fit riiiight at home here.

I'm curious....what's your definition of "weird" (in this context)? Unique, I agree, but we may be thinking along two different lines here....

It's good to see this MB is not being overrun with idiots that do nothing but bicker and bitch about everything...hmmmmm...anyway, let's hope it lasts.

Yeah, the B&B crowd has thankfully remained in the minority up until now. I used to post at the FSM board (and yes, I even checked out Filmtracks for a while), but after FSM's prolonged down time, it returned as a mutated, evil version of its former self, and I couldn't stomach it any more.

Uni? Hmmm, did you simple wanted to use that term 'uni' or are you one of the few people that actually liked that %&*@#%!%* unicorn in Dungeons and Dragons?

I don't know anything about this %&*@#%!%* unicorn (hope I got his name right....). Sounds interesting....but mine is a nickname I had in high school, short for "Universal Studios". Film buff, director hopeful....you get the idea.

Turning the question back on you....just who is The Prick, who's the DD, and which one are we rooting for?

- Uni

[Sorry I can't resist.]

For once, Morn (take a picture, someone!), I have to side with you. Apart from Hector's exclamatory remark--which I considered as innocent as all the others, personally--I fail to see any sign of this "homophobic" streak Kevin's denouncing. Even ocelot got in on the fun, fercryinoutloud.

Someone put a funny picture up. We're having fun with the funny picture. Freestyle captioning. Improv comedy. Sorta Kids in the Hall in text. (Those guys are hilarious, by the way....as are those other classic crossdressers of the Monty Python clan.) I don't for an instant believe that anyone presumes this to be some sign of an impending change in Daniel Radcliffe's life (although....wouldn't that make the future Potter films interesting...? ).

Now....what we do know from previous experience is that if this had been a picture of Radcliffe with his shirt off, then there would have been an uproar.

- Uni

[My new attitude]

In general, my opinion of a person goes down when he is also an unoriginal copycat.

CharlesK

Among other things....:roll:

The thing is, generally, it starts with something small, and snowballs out of control. This is the way that forums tend to be, to a certain extent.  

I think it's important to remember that it's very easy to misinterpret what is written in a forum, is it humor, scarcasm, sincere? etc. Even emoticons are open to interpretation.

Except for the fact that this plague of misinterpretation seems to happen so rarely around here. Oh, we've had a few corkers to be sure, but they're usually pretty easy to smooth out. And maybe it's just me, but....it does seem like the biggest snowballs tend to congregate in your general vicinity. (A big part of this, I think, lies in how different your definition of "something small" is compared to most other folks around here.)

Andreas can I change my username to GigoloJoe?! I want an all new attitude

How little he learns....

- Uni....who finds it striking, the difference in reaction between this thread and Ricard's original....

[Dux Avatarium]

S'allright, Morn....it took me a minute to catch onto yours, too.

No hints, though. Sorry.

- Uni

[Dux Avatarium]

Isn't it lovely how people get along  

Even lovelier to have started a thread (regardless how minor the subject) where we get some friendly commiseration for a change!

Dux Avatarium?  

Sounds lke a track from "More music from Gladiator" or something

Don't ask me....it just popped into my head. Sounded cool, and it has the added bonus of granting me the title "Duke of Avatar"--though where I presume to come by such nobility is anyone's guess. :roll:

:? I'd like to see you install Linux.  

He was all right, but I always liked Snoopy the best.

- Uni

[My new attitude]

M'kay. See ya.

- Uni

[Sorry I can't resist.]

Daniel Radcliffe as Laura Ingles Wilder in the Special Edition of Moulin Rouge....

- Uni

[Dux Avatarium]

At long, long, long last, I'm finally graced with an avatar (the one I used to post by on the old board).

I'd like to express my deepest thanks to my long-time JWFan companion Stefan for making this possible. Da man? Yoda's got nuthin' on you, my friend.

- Uni....perched up there at his desk, preparing notes for another post.... :roll:

[Sorry I can't resist.]

*Footage from the original shooting of the Dueling Club scene, later cut from the film.

(Or is it possible that Radcliffe originally auditioned for the part of Hermione...?)

- Uni

[A must read for everyone...especially AOTC "haters&quot]

Also, all of the talk about symbolism seems sort of beside the point. We don't go to a movie for Scorcese like dialogue nor do we go to the movie for Scorcese like imagery and symbolism. What percentage of the average moviegoer notices this stuff?

Which reminds me of my favorite line in the article: "Many of these points should be obvious to even casual viewers." Whatever, dude. No "casual viewer" would put quite so much effort into drawing nonsense from nonsense.

- Uni

[A must read for everyone...especially AOTC "haters&quot]

In deference to this conversation, I'm not saying that Lucas failed in his vision, only that his vision was not as broad and deep as this guy suggests it was. Beowulf's original question (way back at the beginning of this thread) challenged us to draw from this article whether we thought Lucas to be a closet genius or a guy who got lucky with the spinning Symbol Wheel. If anything, I'd opt for the latter.

Who is to say that Star Wars doesn't contain such symbolism? Even if Lucas didn't consciously intend it, does that mean it's not there?

I did mention one example (and certainly not the only one I believe exists) of a symbol I thought was both intended and very effective. I don't doubt there are probably symbols in this series that even the article missed pointing out. That's not the point.

I'm one (and I definitely do not believe this is the only valid point of view) that doesn't put much stock in the finding of symbols not intended by the author, for several reasons. First, I believe that an author creates a story to communicate something to his audience; when the audience begins drawing their own conclusions, it becomes very easy to alter the message--even missing the intended moral of the story altogether--and that can be tantamount to putting words in the author's mouth. There have been numerous times when authors have denounced the meanings some of their critics or readers have attempted to credit to their works (one such example is Tolkien, who couldn't stand it when people called his Rings trilogy an outright allegory, a form of literature he despised). Also, I think the practice can rapidly degenerate into self-indulgence, as the audience begins sticking their own thumbs into the pie, pulling out fanciful plums and congratulating themselves on what good boys they are. Too often these prognosticators are simply trying to make themselves sound intelligent by finding some Grail of interpretive meaning that no one else had the wherewithal to discover for themselves. Finally, and ultimately, it's a practice that's just too easy to take overly seriously. I mean, anyone can find some supposedly hidden symbolism if they look hard enough--and if you accept one such argument, don't you have to take them all? By those rights, my Belching Beast symbol is as valid as any suggested in that article. It's too easy for the whole thing to sink into pure silliness.

Now, don't get me wrong. I do appreciate the value of symbolism, and I will reluctantly agree that subconscious bits of significance can wander into a work without the deliberate intent of the author. (One interesting example: During a session of the Actor's Studio show, where students in a film study program are given the opportunity to visit with their favorite actors and filmmakers, the host pointed out to Steven Spielberg that near the end of Close Encounters, when the computer takes over the keyboard in the communication sequence, there was a subtle reference to Spielberg's parents. As the host put it: "Your mother was a piano teacher; your father was a computer technician." Steven reacted with surprise, and the audience laughed as he admitted he had no idea he had done such a thing. But he did turn to the host and say, "Thank you for that.") I don't have a problem seeing things like that once in a while. But to go overboard to that extent, painting a symbolic landscape so painstakingly detailed in scope, is to give too much credit where it isn't deserved--and even to assign significance to things that don't have the inherent strength to hold it up (i.e., the entirely comical--though not consistently funny--Threepio/battle droid sequence). And examing a film like AOTC so microscopically is bound to expose as many of its weaknesses as its strengths (of which it does boast several!).

You have to consider the fact that the symbolism is there, it's targeted on a sub-conscious level. The corny dialogue etc is a ploy in order to make the films appealing to the masses, in order to communicate these ideas on a subliminal plane.

Again, I'm not biting. I've read the early drafts of Star Wars, and I've seen other examples of Lucas's writing. If you expect me to invest higher repute in writing that poor by suggesting it's a deliberate attempt to reach people on a "subliminal plane"....oh, please. That's an insult to both the audience and the subliminal plane itself, a very respectable vehicle for communicating literative truth.

If Lucas starts going off into Scorsese type dialogue, his audience is lost. That's not the intention. Where does Star Wars go then?

I'd submit that's just as demeaning to his audience. I think they deserve a little more credit than that. But Scorsese isn't necessary; a dash of remedial dialogue would sew up some of the biggest holes--and then Star Wars could indeed go a lot farther, at least with those of us who were hoping for better.

None of this is meant to undermine your respect for the films, A.I. If you're finding some of that symbolism in there, and it's deepening the experience for you, that's great. Just don't expect everyone to jump into the same rocking boat.

- Uni

[A must read for everyone...especially AOTC "haters&quot]

And now, for the rest of you....

And OK that TPM and AOC received more bad reviews. It normal with people like you that cannot think about exanding and advancing things....

I beg your pardon, Herr Luke? Are you saying that those of us who didn't give the prequels a shining review are incapable of appreciating--or even thinking of--the art of expanding and advancing an existing universe or concept? On the contrary, my friend; I love expansion. It's part of my own job. I just wish Lucas had done some with the first two chapters of his story....

This isn't to bash the prequels, which I have enjoyed. I'm not so much disappointed in what they were, as I am disappointed thinking about what they could have been.

Beautifully said, Ray. You just summed up the real frustration those of us who had a problem with the prequels feel about them. I'm tired of this "Four Stars Or None" notion. To point out inconsistencies and flaws isn't to say that we hate these films. Just the opposite, in fact (at least in my case; Ricard seems to be pretty adamant about his position). We're frustrated because we did like them--or wanted to, at least, but couldn't enjoy them as much as we might have if they had been better made. It's the wealth of lost potential that gets under our skin.

The dialogue and acting you see on every starwars movie is, I think, exactly what GL wants. It's not so much a matter of being a good director/writer or not. You can question his taste, but I think he's getting exactly what he wants

But don't you see? That's exactly what defines his ability as a director. When the creative visionary behind the camera actually wants his actors to sound stilted, to look like highspeaking buffoons, then I definitely think his technique deserves to be called into question.

And while we're on the subject of directorial choices....thank you, charlesk. Thank you, thank you, thank you. I've thought for a while about maybe posting a thread in which we talk about what we would have done with the problem scenes in these two films. Too often, in discussing other subjects, we've heard the argument, "As if you could do better." In this case, yeah, I think a lot of us could have done better, and it's only appropriate that we back that up with how we would have improved upon it.

You're right about the Shmi scene, too. That he would show up, of all times, just scant minutes before she bites the dust (sand?), and that her capture and death should be so arbitrary, instead of a part of the natural flow of the story, is an almost unforgivable plot device. I liked your idea better. More dramatic, certainly. (I wonder....knowing all the flak we'll get for it, does this idea deserve its own thread?)

"It is obvious that this is not going to be decided by posting messages in this thread but by our skill with the lightsaber"

Son of a bitch....stole my line.

- Uni

[A must read for everyone...especially AOTC "haters&quot]

I'm late, as usual, but I had to get in on this one. This'll be in two parts, the first post dealing with the article, the second the rest of the discussion.

Concerning the article: Wow. Absolutely fascinating. It's about time someone saw this series the way I've been watching it for years. There are so many symbols and allegorical references in these films that people miss, and finally I know that there are others out there who understand the purpose of the Rancor, and its inate connection with the rest of the parable between Luke and his father. One of my favorite images, though, that he did miss, concerns that beast sitting outside Jabba's palace. The scene comes in the midst of the plot developments, even as one by one, the heroes are drawn into the smuggler's web and caught. In the middle of that, we see a small, scurrying creature, unaware of his danger, suddenly sense something is amiss. He tries to dart away, but too late--like lightning, the larger creature captures him, just like the characters, unaware of their true danger, are pulled inexorably into the trap. Then, in the real moment of brilliance, the creature burps, signifying Jabba's satisfaction, and cannily foreshadowing the belch of the Sarlacc as Boba Fett--wearing green, of course--ends his career unceremoniously, which in turn is a clear mirroring of the Space Slug in Empire,--full of mynocks, which obviously represent the worlds within the greater Empire as they attach themselves to witless victims--trying to grab hold of the escaping Falcon--which, like the heroes had been doing until that point, does manage to get away, only to wind up betrayed in Cloud City, which is a "floating device", another vivid image in the series, meaning....

I trust that by now my point is becoming clear. (If not, we need to talk.) Whatta buncha hooey. I read this article with an increasing sense of disbelief, until at one point (I think it was the footnote on colors) I actually began to think it was a joke, just like what I wrote above. I mean, no one would really think this stuff is valid, right? By the time I finished, though, I was convinced that the author meant every word of it. While doubtless well-meaning, he's done an astounding job of stretching for this one.

Reminds me of my high school days when, in order to please the teacher and filch a good grade, we'd drum up some wildly outlandish analysis for an expository paper on some book or short story. It was usually complete BS. The teacher knew this, of course, but having spent the semester trying to coax any sort of rational thinking out of us, she wasn't about to discourage even the most meager fruits of her labor (what was she gonna do, write in red pen What the hell is THIS crap? across the top?). So she accepted it, even though she knew it was bupkiss, and we knew that she knew, and so on. Same thing here. I haven't seen someone work this hard on arguing a senseless thesis in years.

I had a whole pageful of notes in direct response to many of the gratuitous, sometimes contradictory, and all too often just plain strange assertions brought to light in this analysis, but it just became too much. I'll sum up instead by nailing down the bottom line, the one point of logic that makes the whole house of cards tumble (in my opinion, at least): If George Lucas was that sharp a tack, if he was capable of weaving so many intricate and profound allegorical nuances into the same tapestry, then he would have written a better film. Period. A character who has changed heads as an ellucidation of the paradoxical juxtaposition of diplomacy and military might within the New Republic does not say things like, "What a drag" and "I'm beside myself." To say such clumsy simplicities as well as such sagacious symbolism have the same source is like trying to connect two magnets at the same pole. I'll never believe it.

Ironically, coming at it from the other direction and actually agreeing with the points laid out in the article provides an even graver condemnation for Lucas's efforts....because if he really was bringing all that to the table intentionally, then shame on him for doing it so ineptly. What use is allegory, if it's presented so poorly that hardly anyone gets it (other than those deep-thinking film school students desperately seeking an A on their final paper)?

I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I think there are a few symbols worth noting (the crucifixion below Cloud City was a particularly fascinating viewpoint), but I don't for a second believe that Lucas had even a fraction of the icons this guy suggested in mind when he made these films. George Lucas is certainly a student of myth, as is well known, but he's trying to make his own myth here, full of its own symbols and meanings; to credit him with unlocking a Pandora's box of ancient hierograms is either to give him too much credit, or to show he doesn't deserve it to begin with. The argument is self-defeating.

- Uni

[Worst scored scene by John Williams]

Oh, COME ON.  

Did you poll everyone sitting around you? Every single person around you laughed because they thought it was stupid and badly done? Gimme a break. And I highly doubt they all shouted "What crap."

....And you made it seem like everyone in the audience said, "That's crap" or whatever.

In the theater I helped occupy, it didn't require any sort of poll. The awkwardness of the reaction was palpable. And he didn't say they all cried foul. He distinctly said, "There were shouts of....", meaning someone said, "Oh, come on," while another one came along with the "What crap!" line. I recall any specific wording at my own event, but the laughter wasn't what normally follows a satisfying punch line or apparent comic twist. It was somewhere between the polite laugh you give someone who's desperately trying to entertain you with a joke that was petrified in Shakespeare's day, and the laugh of sheer disbelief as involuntarily as an untimely belch, usually accompanied by a bewildered shake of the head and a glance askance at any companion at hand ("Did I just see that?").

I could very well be wrong and I hope I am, but I just cannot see how anyone can think that this scene was THAT bad, let alone being the worst scored scene in any movie ever.

Believe it. It was that bad. I dunno about the whole "worst scored" thing now (see below), but it was a corker either way.

As Uni suggested, the weakness of the scene was that Williams -- or edited Williams -- was in complete control of its tone. Let's say Lucas was going for a laugh there...he would've failed if it weren't for Williams's music fading out so abruptly.

Yeah, but as I also suggested, I don't think he was aiming for a laugh--it goes totally against the grain he's trying to establish (again, see below)--and so in a way he did fail because the music fades so abruptly (that's part of the reason, anyway).

Any of the scenes in which Anakin and Padme were togheter were just as corny dialogue and acting wise....

Isn't that the truth....although that does, in a way, make nitpicking about this one particular example a case of splitting microscopic hairs. But then, it's the music that stands out in this one, and what else are we here for? :roll:

From Slate.com's David Edelstein:  

"In these prequels, Lucas is attempting nothing less than an epic saga of corruption, more ambitious than even David Lean's in Lawrence of Arabia (1962)... The scale of the enterprise is thrilling; it's too bad the movie is so muddled on so many different levels."  

He wasn't the only critic to sense the potential in the film's premise; who knows what Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace could've been in the hands of a skilled filmmaker.

EXACTLY!!! And there's the crux of it. With the original trilogy, Lucas was going for a simpler paradigm, hanging a sly, fast-paced space opera on the standard framework of Joseph Campbell mythology. (If you watch closely, A New Hope wasn't all that far a cry from American Graffiti.) Bringing cutting-edge SPFX to the table helped mask some of the missteps he suffered even at that stage, and the result was a very aptly-handled adventure saga. But now, he's going for the Big Kahuna, trying to leapfrog off the success of the originals to encompass an epic romance (in the classic sense of the word), fit to rival Homer or Mallory or Tolkien. His fierce effort for Edda is obvious in almost every scene in both films (except for those where he's pandering with sophmoric humor, with Jar Jar Binks serving as champion of that particular cause in TPM--which, ironically, goes most of the way in undermining his broader purpose). But he's simply not up to the task. Not only is the faltering love affair not Romeo and Juliet, it's barely up to snuff with Saturday morning cartoons.

I think that's what frustrates me the most about it. There is so much potential to be had from the notion of a young and courageous Knight trying to win the hand of the beautiful, influential lady he fancies, even as he is drawn inexorably toward an evil path from which he cannot return. There's a glorious exhilaration that comes when watching a filmmaker or actor reach for something grand, nearly impossible even, and then achieve it; but it is conversely just as disappointing to see them reach, know they're reaching and what they're reaching for, and watch them fumble around and fall short. In extreme cases, it's downright embarassing, though aside from an unavoidable cringe or two, I don't know that I'd go that far in accusing Lucas. It's just a little sad to see what could have been a better product not break through, that's all.

It worked for me. Its works for me because up to that point their attraction is a little too serious.

Exactly. It seemed to loosen up the tension and the uncomfortable awkwardness in that scene AND in the audience. I mean, it IS a pretty rough scene, them just standing there, staring at each other.

See, and that's why I think it didn't work. The tension should be there. He is trying to draw near, she's drawing away. They both know the impossibility of their situation; he's willing to risk it, though, whereas she is not (not yet, anyway--nor should she be). Wooden acting and ill dialogue aside, here's the situation where he nearly breaks through her resolve, a key point in the progression. How much better might it have been to key down the music (as in the Raiders and Empire examples previously suggested), and to see the shadow of desire in her eyes--even as she reminds him of his place? (And then, perhaps, to see him stolidly accept this, almost growing cold with it, and see her flash of regret as he leaves? You can get ten times the mileage out of subtext than simple dialogue.)

Regardless of what might have been, I simply can't buy that even Lucas, inept as he is with the trappings of romance, would choose to resolve a scene of this import with the dramatic equivalent of a comedian's Ba-doom, ching! and a laugh track....which is ultimately why I call the scoring choice an error, whether his fault or Lucas's (although I'm very inclined toward charlesk's assessment, which puts the potato square in Lucas's hands--and makes it harder to call it the "worst scoring choice" by Williams, who may not even have been consulted).

Now, before we're finished here, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS (again!): I don't hate this movie. I don't. After I first saw the sneak preview, we went outside to a refreshment tent attended by people wearing the authentic costumes from the films, and we sat and drank fake bubbly and raved together about how much fun we'd just had. I felt it went a great deal further than Menace in recapturing the spirit of the first trilogy, and I was well willing to overlook its shortcomings. (As a matter of fact, the romance isn't even its worst part....that cake goes to Threepio, who actually does shoot off jokes that were petrified back in Shakespeare's day.) For discussions like this, I go into this sort of painstaking detail for two reasons: 1) I'm responding to an alternative (not by any means invalid!) opinion, not trying to change it but attempting to help them understand why I hold to my opinion, and 2) the challenge of stating a thesis on a subject like this, then backing it up it as best I can, is one of the chief joys I find in writing here (if you really want to know). Keeps me thinking, and gives my toes a workout.

So puh-lease, none of this Lucas/Star Wars-bashing business. Like those Nitpicker Guides to the Trek shows, it's all based first and foremost on respect and love for the franchise. If I really hated it, I would bomb the thing as a whole, and would hardly waste my time breaking it down in such detail.

- Uni