But it's 9 months later, and people are STILL arguing about this movie online. (This might be a sign that I'm spending too much time online while normal people have moved on with their lives).
Plus The Last Jedi is now being run on cable TV, and I've re-watched it this week, so I'm going to try to clarify my thoughts.
(Hopefully I'll say what I want to say, get it out of my system, and then move on to doing more worthwhile things with my life.)
To begin with, I'm puzzled about this whole outrage in general:
If you didn't like this movie, that's cool. We're still friends. In fact, within my circle of friends, the whole range of opinions is represented. (People who loved it, people who hated it, people who were luke-warm, etc).
But... the amount of entitled fanboy whining about this movie is truly baffling. (Perhaps this is what the Internet has done to our culture?)
I personally liked this movie. But even if you didn't, the law of averages dictates that not every Star Wars film is going to be brilliant. If a franchise goes on long enough, eventually it's going to produce some bad films. It's just statistics. You can't have every Star Wars film be better than average. There's no magical super-power protecting this franchise from mediocrity. There will be bad Star Wars films from time-to-time. It doesn't mean the whole franchise is ruined. Just suck it up.
What makes all this outrage even more baffling is that this is a franchise which has already produced a lot of terrible entries. Repeatedly. Remember The Holiday Special, those 2 Ewoks movies, that Droids cartoon show, the Clone Wars theatrical movie, and the whole prequel trilogy? Many fans believe that even part of the original trilogy, Return of the Jedi, was a disappointment.
So why are people acting like the franchise is ruined now?
Thoughts on Re-watching The Last Jedi
My original opinion remains largely unchanged. This is a brilliant film. One of the best Star Wars ever.
...with a few missteps. That flying space Leia was an unfortunate wrong note. And I still don't like how Luke died at the end.
Okay, so it's not perfect. (Perhaps I was a bit overly generous in giving this film 10 out of 10. Maybe 9 out of 10 is more accurate).
Also, I think Phil Christman has convinced me that Luke's character is not consistent with his earlier portrayals. It works fine as a character arc within this film, but doesn't mesh well with the broader continuity. To quote Phil at some length:
We should talk about Luke. Rian Johnson has constructed an interesting storyline about an interesting Generic Grizzled Veteran character who happens not to be Luke Skywalker--impetuous, activist, goes-where-he's-needed practical farmboy Luke Skywalker--on any level whatsoever. Unfortunately, the script requires that this character be Luke Skywalker, and you never get over the fundamental incongruity, despite Mark Hamill's very best efforts. (Hamill has alluded to this, in his characteristically nice way, in several interviews.) Luke's role in these films has always been to present a kind of Christian active love in untheorized, almost unspoken dissent from the superficially attractive but morally appalling Stoicism of the Jedi. (If I had a nickel for every idiot who has told me that Christian ethics "cribbed from" the Stoics. Christianity subverted the Stoics! And thank God! Fuck the Stoics!) Recall that in Empire Strikes Back Yoda tells Luke in no uncertain terms that he's wrong to fly back to Cloud City and rescue Han and Leia, that he's sacrificing both the Jedi code and the Rebellion's ultimate victory. But yet Yoda is clearly shown to be wrong. Luke's choice sets in motion the chain of events that leads to the Empire's downfall and Darth Vader's repentance and is undoubtedly the correct one. In the next film, Yoda sternly orders him not to go and confront Vader, and he's wrong about this too. Luke is shamed, again and again, for being excitable, for being anxious, for caring. (This is presented in the films as a mere vainglory; Last Jedi is particularly hard on this trait, which it unsubtly codes as intrinsically male.) But he's right and Yoda is wrong in every case where they disagree. Indeed, Yoda is so useless over the course of the six Star Wars films that some fans theorize he was a Sith Lord the whole time. To have him appear in Last Jedi, of all characters--looking at least as stupid as the CGI Thanos in the Avengers trailer--and deliver the coup de grace to hidebound Jedi ideology, while Luke looks on, as dumb as he was back on Dagobah watching his ship lift from the swamp, mistakes completely what both these characters are about. Yoda is hidebound Jedi ideology. And while I appreciate that someone in these films has finally made an explicit critique of the Jedi--from movie one, they have always been magic lying dipshits who speak in platitudes and give bad advice--Luke's isn't particularly coherent, nor is he very consistent about it. If he's worried about a warrior elite lording it over the galaxy, he might start by being a little more considerate of the slapstick aliens who act as caretakers of his remote Jedi hermitage. (When he gives Rey her "first lesson," he should have made it be "fix this hole you laser-blasted in the wall and apologize to these nice people." Anti-elitism begins at home, Luke.)
This didn't occur to me on the first viewing, but I've been thinking about it, and Phil is probably right.
Now that Phil has put the thought in my head, Luke's portrayal jarred with me on the second-viewing.
...Although, counterpoint, Movie Bob argues that this is portrayal is just staying faithful to the King Arthur legend. Arthur was young and idealistic in his youth, but became old and jaded near the end, and allowed his kingdom to disintegrate among his quarreling nephews.
Video HERE
Now I'm not sure what to believe. Both sides have good points.
Legacy
Both The Last Jedi lovers and The Last Jedi haters believe that time will vindicate their viewpoint.
The Last Jedi defenders point out that The Empire Strikes back was poorly received on its initial release, but when on to be regarded as the best of the franchise.
The Last Jedi haters point out that The Phantom Menace got an initial positive response from fans before the initial euphoria died away, and everyone realized it sucked.
Me? I'm in The Last Jedi defenders club. I believe that in the fullness of time, everyone will realize this was actually a great movie.
...kind of. Although actually, in another 30 or 40 years, we'll all be in the nursing home, and no one will care what our opinion is. (Boy, it's depressing when you do the math like that, isn't it? But it's true.)
To assume anyone will still be talking about Star Wars at all in the future is to assume that Star Wars is going to be as important to the next generation as it was to us. And that's not assured. (My elementary school students like Star Wars well enough, but it's only one of many franchises competing for their attention).
It's perfectly possible in the future no one will care about this movie one way or the other.
But assuming, for the sake of argument, that people are still debating Star Wars in 30 years, I think this movie will be treated with respect. And some admiration for its ambition.
...although the pacing is an issue. I noted this in my original review, but it was more evident on re-watching. When I first watched this movie, the suspense of not knowing what was going to happen largely held my attention through the more talky parts of this movie.
On re-watching this movie, I was in danger of getting bored during the talky parts.
It's also a little bit too long to sit through.
If you just watch the first half, or if you just watch the second half, it's great. But if you try to watch the whole thing in one sitting, it does get a bit too long.
Like most people of my generation, I've watched the original trilogy more times than I could count. (It was constantly brought out for slumber parties, youth group events, high school parties, et cetera.)
Could you do the same with The Last Jedi?
Maybe The Last Jedi is not meant to be watched over and over and over again like the other Star Wars films. Maybe it's meant to be watched just a few times, and then reflected on. Less of a popcorn action film, and more like The Godfather.
But, okay, enough fence sitting. What is my final prediction on this?
Prediction
It's going to go the trajectory of The Empire Strikes Back. In 30 years time, it will be remembered as one of the greatest Star Wars films.
Links
In addition to being a response to Internet chatter generally, this post is partially a response to Whisky Prajer's post: Does Star Wars need saving?
I was originally going to leave a comment, but the more I thought about it, the more my thoughts grew into an entire post.
2 comments:
Taking the SW fandom long-view strikes me as a surprisingly unique tack -- it certainly never occurred to me. When I saw Empire back in the day (Grade 9) it blew my mind, as it did all my classmates. Or at least the ones I talked to -- it could be the cool kids and jocks thought it was garbage. Regardless it surprises me to see that Empire rates a distant fifth in box office grosses, even after inflation is accounted for. If the fans finally speak with their wallets, then Empire isn't as beloved for some as it is for me (for years I claimed it was superior to '77, until I was able to put it in perspective and switch the rankings).
There are moments of visual panache unique to TLJ that I suspect will keep their grip on the memories of younger viewers and possibly swing this debate over the long haul. I'm thinking particularly of battling the Imperial Guard in Snoke's vestry, but (as Phil points out -- and thank you for linking, because I had not read that the first time around) ramming the Imperial cruiser is another, etc.
Macek's argument is passionate and not a little hoary, so my initial reaction was to shake my head dismissively. But it did finally strike me that the heart of it -- there is an expanded universe that was surprisingly coherent because attention was paid, and that it would have shown some respect to the fans to acknowledge and use those elements of it that worked best -- was valid.
But I'm with you. If you haven't kept up with all that, this movie rocks pretty hard.
Yeah, I could be wrong on this.
I just barely missed The Empire Strikes Back myself. (I think I was 2 years old at the time.) Although I can definitely remember all the buzz on the schoolyard playground when Return of the Jedi came out.
I have a colleague who is about 5 years old than me, and he was telling me about all the schoolyard excitement with The Empire Strikes Back. (Digression: He was also telling me about "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" and saying everyone on the playground had read it... even the kids who usually hated reading had read it. Does that ring any bells?)
I read off the Internet that The Empire Strikes Back got disappointing reviews at the time. People thought it wasn't as good as the original.
But I could be wrong. Maybe this is just an Internet urban legend.
I think you and I have already traded thoughts on Star Wars versus The Empire Strikes Back before. But since I've never been afraid of repeating myself, I'll chime in again.
A few years back, when I was showing these movies in my classroom, I came to the same conclusion you did. Star Wars was brilliantly crafted narratively. Every 10 minute segment moved the story forward in well defined chapters. Clear forward story momentum throughout the same thing. Empire, by contrast, was a bit of a muddle throughout most of the middle.
But, to give Empire its due, it's one of the greatest sequels of all time. Considering that 99% of sequels don't have any inventive ways to move the story forward, and that (initially) no one knew what to do with these characters after the original Star Wars, Empire gets credit for coming up with a creative way to continue the story.
Post a Comment