Jedi Council Forums - Should Kirshner have directed ROTS

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »

Locked Topic | Read Only Topic | Previous Active Topic | Next Active Topic

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Author	Topic: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
PrinceEspaaValorum Registered: Jan '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 12:51pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	No. In the SW INSIDER, when discussing the ESB DVD edition, he answered the question to whether he liked the PT (this was before ROTS)? He said not as much as the OT. Why? Well, not bc of the script, acting, dialogue, or SFX. But bc Yoda got angry in AOTC, whereas in the OT he did not in the OT. Then Kersh conceded that it was GL's vision. Well, he is right. It is GL's vision. The characters in the PT or more complex psyschologically. And anger is natural, as Padme explains to Ani after his contrition for killing the Sandmen. But it is obsessive anger, giving too easily to anger, lack of compassion, allowing anger to turn to hate either bc of fear (Jedi Knight Anakin) or out of ideologially and selfish manipulation of the Force (Sith Lord Vader) that is wrong. And for the record, Yoda did get angry in the OT. Skywalkers can be such frustrating students. -----signature----- "Still, Star Wars will do very nicely for those lucky enough to be children or unlucky enough never to have grown up." -- John Simon, New York, (June 20, 1977), collected in the book, Reverse Angle (1982)
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Koto-Ogami Registered: Feb '03	Date Posted: 1/23/06 12:52pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Kershner's direction isn't what lead to Empire's critical success, it was the story and the way it expanded the concepts of the original: if Vader hadn't revealed himself to be Luke's father in Empire it would -not- be held in the high regard that it is. Kershner certainly deserves credit for getting the performances from the actors and muppets, but without the story the acting means nothing.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tyranus_the_Hutt Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 1/23/06 12:56pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I can't help but think that Kirshner would have done a better job on ROTS. A better job than Lucas, Spielberg, or even occasional fan favorite Kevin Smith. That is a rather large assumption to make. As RolandofGilead has already pointed out, Kershner is not above making a bad film; while he has made what are arguably two masterpieces ("Loving," and "The Empire Strikes Back"), he is also responsible for some wretched pictures, such as "S.P.Y.S" and the aforementioned "Robocop 2." In addition to that, Kersh hasn’t made a big-screen feature since 1990; for all of those who felt that Lucas should have honed his filmmaking skills somewhat before returning to the director’s chair to helm "The Phantom Menace," what about this? Ultimately, there is no guarantee that a Kershner-directed SW picture would be any better than or worse than the Lucas versions we received, regardless of what you happen to think of them. I fail to see how Kershner and the oft-invoked Lawrence Kasdan somehow hold the key to the supposed "greatness" that is so obviously "lacking" from the PT (and what is Kasdan, the guy who "should" have scripted Episodes I-III, doing now? He’s only writing and directing such "well-received" items such as "Wyatt Earp," "Mumford," and "Dreamcatcher"). HOw would Kirshner made ROTS different than Lucas. And should he have directed ROTS? 1) I don’t know; and 2) no. The lame portrayal of Grievous, I get the sense that Grievous would have been more widely accepted if it weren’t for the fact that he was characterized in a "cowardly" fashion. I don’t profess to have any deeply-rooted adulation for the figure, but I imagine that Lucas didn’t the character to be infused with a more prominent antagonism that might overshadow the more weighted Palpatine/Anakin dynamic. the oddly quick turn of Anakin, I respect why many don’t like this component of the picture, and although I don’t know that Hayden is afforded enough of an opportunity to really portray the complete arc of Anakin’s internal psychology, I think his character’s submission to Palpatine does make a certain amount of sense. Lucas spent much of the expository-laden first hour cultivating an ambiguous political milieu in which all of the various factions involved in the Republic appeared, from a certain perspective, to be intrinsically flawed; this is an angle that Palpatine exploits in his calculated seduction of Anakin, and given the larger context of Skywalker’s emotional trajectory, his final allegiance with Palpatine does appear to be grounded in a modicum of cogency. To reiterate, yes, I do think that the passage in question could use some embellishment, but it is effective overall, particularly with the tone poems which "bookend" Anakin’s pledge to Palpatine, involving the "Ruminations" scene, and the Mustafar walkway segment, both of which enable us to empathize with his conflict. the ridiculous method of Padmes death. I tend to agree with you on this one, Achilles; the specific nature of Padme’s death did not work, exactly, although it could have if only Lucas had woven more of a fully developed arc into his script, one which anticipated this development. I do, however, admire KnightWriter’s "Symbiotic Relationship" theory. These are story telling blind spots, not directorial failure. In the hands of Spielberg, Smith, Scott or anyone else, the movie would still have these problems if Lucas was never questioned, which was not the case in the OT but certainly is now. You think it's a coincidence that the better Star Wars films aren't directed by Lucas? You mean "Star Wars" (1977) was actually directed by Gary Kurtz? – Please, don’t take offense – I’m just being silly. In seriousness, I don’t understand your point; earlier, you had indicated that the weaknesses of ROTS were firmly ensconced in the storytelling, not the actual filmmaking. Now, it would appear that this conceit has been undermined by the implication of the above remark, which suggests that there were/are deficiencies in the mechanical directing process. It could be said that the PT is an interpretation and an imitation of what the OT started, regardless of it's creator being in charge or not. I don’t agree with this assessment. These more recent pictures have been tonally inverted and positioned in stylistic opposition to the OT in order to suggest, by dramatic implication, the disparate nature of two aesthetically and temporally removed eras. Mallrats was awesome because it was funny as hell. You have to be of that generation to get the humor a lot of the time though. I’m quite a bit younger than Smith and although I tend to enjoy his pictures, I thought that "Mallrats" was awful. I believe he went so far as to publicly apologize for making it. It's really just a matter of subjective taste. That’s a very good point – if I think a film is "awful," that is merely my opinion, for what it’s worth. All of his movies become cult classics (except Jersey girl) for a reason. It doesn't matter if his editing isn't perfect. The point is to have a laugh and to enjoy yourself. Smith isn’t a particularly accomplished director (he himself admits as much), but he is a gifted writer; since his films depend upon smart dialogue and characterizations, he can get away with having a relatively meager visual acuity. This helps to explain why Smith should not be allowed to direct a "Star Wars" movie, just as Lucas should not be allowed to direct a "View Askew" picture. ESB is recognized - outside of this forum - as the best or second best of all 6 films. AND moreover, it is recognized as perhaps the greatest sequel ever made, second only to the Godfather II. That may or may not be true, but generally speaking, ESB is the one installment that is given the distinction of being deeper and more emotionally complex than any of the surrounding episodes. I would tend to agree with that, and while it remains my personal favorite of the sextet, I don’t think that it is beyond any and all criticism – "critic-proof," as it were. It, like any of the other pictures in the canon, can be scrutinized in terms of routine performance, oaken dialogue, dull passages, etc., and yet personally, I am of the mind that these things are given proper context within the parameters of the aesthetic being implemented. Certainly, you can’t compare the stylized acting in a SW picture with the method brooding of Lee Strasberg or Al Pacino in "The Godfather, Part II," and this helps to illuminate a truth of sorts, which is that criticism is relative, not absolute – different criteria must be used to gauge the relative merits/debits of a given film. -----signature----- "The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." - Stanley Kubrick
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Philip023 Registered: Aug '02	Date Posted: 1/23/06 1:47pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Certainly, you can’t compare the stylized acting in a SW picture with the method brooding of Lee Strasberg or Al Pacino in "The Godfather, Part II," and this helps to illuminate a truth of sorts, which is that criticism is relative, not absolute – different criteria must be used to gauge the relative merits/debits of a given film. Which is precisely the issue at hand and why ESB stands out. Certainly you cannot compare the performance of any actor in Godfather II with any performance in ESB. They are completely different in probably all respects. Certainly no one can compare film-making between Godfather II and ESB. Two completely different films exercising different elements and styles of film-making. However the question at hand is whether Kirshner could have done better. Like you I would say that it remains to be seen either way. Kirshner's body of work is not overly impressive. But it is also perhaps illusory to compare Kirshner with Lucas. Lucas is NOT an actors director. Kirshner was. Whereas Lucas' strength is technical in nature, Kirshner added characterization into ESB as he should have. After all, it was the middle part of a 3 part series - most of the character depth is likely to be found here. Thus the question should be whether this added depth could have helped ROTS. Probably, particularly in the instances of Anakin's turn or Padme's death..or perhaps even during the Duel or the genocide committed by the Emperor. Most criticism heaped upon TPM was that the brevity of the film intruded on the story itself. ESB is not immune from criticism, nor should it be. No film should be. But the universe is SW here and as we are so prone to compare and critique all that is star wars, the only film (save ANH) that truly stands out as a lasting pop culture icon is ESB. Recall all the comparisons of the Empire with the old Soviet Union. The attachment of SW during the mid-late 80s on missle defense. The affection given to ESB is that sequels tend to diminish the original product. ESB showed that to be false. With Kirshner at the helm and Lucas performing technical duties (Lucas admittedly hated England - the weather, the food) it is often demonstrated that it is the best film of the 6 in terms of story and acting.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
brook_33 Registered: Dec '03	Date Posted: 1/23/06 2:03pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Aside from the over-excessive Visual EFfects, I think that Lucas was the man for the job. -----signature----- Infinite Faith - Filming Summer '08 Star Wars: Strikers - In Development
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
CJedi72 Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 2:50pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	darth-sinister posted: Wouldn't matter anyway. Last I heard, Kershner retired a few years ago. Besides, the film is fine. I never seen a difference between what Kershner and Marquand did and what Lucas has done. The one thing the director is responsible for is the actors performances. Compare the three OT movies, Marquand did the worst job. Lucas got very good performances out of the big three Luke, Leia, and Han in ANH. They were funny, and the chemistry is great. The characters don't go into too much detail, but that is the way the story is, general. Kershner one up'd them, Han Solo steals ESB, that is his movie. Leia is great to as her and Han bicker in the millenium falcon, and really make a small side plot romance very believable. Luke is very good next to a damn puppet! ROTJ, Han & Leia give subpar performances. They are more subdued, and the humor between them is lacking in the movie as it was in the previous two movies. True, their characters were beginning to change, but overall Han & Leia are not nearly as good as the first two movies. Luke on the other hand steals the show, as the throne room scenes he is great in, but everyone has said that Lucas directed those scenes. So Marquand really did an average job with the actors. Watch the OT again, Darth Sinister, and let me know if Han & Leia's performance in ROTJ is nearly as good as ANH & ESB?
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JohnWesleyDowney Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/23/06 3:10pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Irvin Kershner is now almost EIGHTY THREE YEARS OLD. That is way too old to be doing something as strenuous as directing a major feature film. George did a great job on ROTS. It's a masterpiece. -----signature----- George Lucas has finally chosen a director for his RED TAILS film about the Tuskugee Airmen. Discuss it here....the LED is counting down, not much time! http://boards.theforce.net/lucasfilm_projects_indiana_jones_4/b10265/18604036/p6/?144
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Tyranus_the_Hutt Registered: Nov '04	Date Posted: 1/23/06 3:11pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Which is precisely the issue at hand and why ESB stands out. Certainly you cannot compare the performance of any actor in Godfather II with any performance in ESB. They are completely different in probably all respects. Certainly no one can compare film-making between Godfather II and ESB. Two completely different films exercising different elements and styles of film-making. However the question at hand is whether Kirshner could have done better. It’s really impossible to know; would a more actor and performance-oriented filmmaker have produced a better film? I cannot say. I very much appreciate the picture as it now stands, so in that sense I don’t look for what could or could not have been improved. Others, who may dislike or even loathe the film, will feel differently. I will try to address my personal feelings on this matter below. Like you I would say that it remains to be seen either way. Kirshner's body of work is not overly impressive. But it is also perhaps illusory to compare Kirshner with Lucas. Lucas is NOT an actors director. Kirshner was. Whereas Lucas' strength is technical in nature, Kirshner added characterization into ESB as he should have. You make some excellent points, Philip; Lucas is more of a technically-inclined filmmaker, whereas Kershner appeared to be less interested in the ebb and flow of effects work and more singularly concentrated on motivation, human nature, and performance. I imagine that a director of Kershner’s capacity for instructing actors could have been largely beneficial in some specific instances during the PT, and yet there are scenes within ROTS that are as accomplished and well-performed as one could expect, given the parameters and nature of this material. I am thinking, specifically, of passages such as Palpatine’s discussion with Anakin at the Opera; the confrontation between Padme, Anakin, and Obi-Wan on the Mustafar landing platform; the wordless "rumination" scene; Palpatine’s revelation to Anakin within the corridor of his chambers; Obi-Wan’s emotional plea to Yoda to send him to kill Sidious, rather than Vader; the immolation scene; and so on. In this film, Lucas and his actors really identified the specific emotional beats that needed to be played in order for this tricky material to function properly, and for the most part, I think they succeeded. After all, it was the middle part of a 3 part series - most of the character depth is likely to be found here. Indeed, ESB is often compared to the second movement of an opera, in which the transpirations deepen tragically and gather a sort of epic resonance. Thus the question should be whether this added depth could have helped ROTS. Probably, particularly in the instances of Anakin's turn That development could have used some additional embellishment, as I have previously indicated; I don’t necessarily have a problem with Christensen’s performance here, but the actual material with which he is given to work is somewhat, though not wholly, insufficient. or Padme's death. I don’t fault Portman for this; as portrayed in the film itself, Padme’s death was a bright idea that didn’t quite work as intended – the entire notion of her character "losing the will to live" felt artificial and tacked on. I don’t, in principle, have a problem with a character doing something that is "against their basic nature" as long as it is properly contextualized; Lucas failed to feed a convincing thread into his narrative that would anticipate this development. Even the "Symbiosis" angle, which I appreciate on an intellectual level, is more difficult to discern, only because it leaves the viewer grasping; if this was Lucas' intent – and it could have been, for all I know – he would have been well-advised to draw a more clearly defined arc connecting these ideas, and thus making Padme’s death seem plausible, rather than arbitrary. However, I feel that the scene itself functions in a dramatic sense, which redeems the conceptual shortcomings that exist beneath the surface. or perhaps even during the Duel I quite liked the duel – it resounded with a visceral ferocity that gave weight to the interpersonal drama that was being played out in the physical engagement between these two characters. If anything, I felt the sequence could have been a bit longer and more expansive. or the genocide committed by the Emperor. This was another masterfully, uh, executed sequence, one which unfolded with a visual cohesiveness and symmetry that gave breadth and significance to the nature of the tragedy, without becoming an independently self-conscious or awkwardly flamboyant set piece. Lucas taps into that which is alternately exhilarating and depressing – exhilarating because of the fluidity with which his images feed poetically into the fabric of the others, and depressing because of the destruction that his frames portray – thus crafting a precariously negotiated passage that elevates destructiveness to an operatic tier, one which lends weight to the on-screen developments. I have heard countless complaints about how this sequence should have been "longer, and more graphic," but those comments miss the point; by infusing the "Order 66" montage with a sort of mechanical poetry, Lucas adopts a moral stance on his material, decrying the genocide, rather than endorsing it through some sort of a pumped-up, viscerally engaging spectacle. Most criticism heaped upon TPM was that the brevity of the film intruded on the story itself. I like TPM, although the story, character, and visionary matters are not well-proportioned. ESB is not immune from criticism, nor should it be. No film should be. But the universe is SW here and as we are so prone to compare and critique all that is star wars, the only film (save ANH) that truly stands out as a lasting pop culture icon is ESB. I tend to view the larger saga as having imprinted a resonant iconography onto popular culture; certainly, the original films had more of an impact than these more recent entries, and part of that is inevitable. By going back to expand upon the universe and concepts he initially created some years ago, Lucas could not "re-invent" what was already intimately familiar to contemporary audiences; he could only work from it. In terms of craft, ESB and ANH are probably the leanest films in a narrative and editorial sense, but that does not automatically mean that they are the "best." Indeed, ANH, which is a fantastic piece of escapist entertainment, is for me one of the least emotionally engaging (in terms of interpersonal conflict) installments in the entire canon. Curiously, ROTJ, which is more engaging and sentimental, is, to my mind, a lesser film. Go figure. Recall all the comparisons of the Empire with the old Soviet Union. The attachment of SW during the mid-late 80s on missle defense. Yes (see my previous comments about cultural impact). The affection given to ESB is that sequels tend to diminish the original product. ESB showed that to be false. With Kirshner at the helm and Lucas performing technical duties (Lucas admittedly hated England - the weather, the food) it is often demonstrated that it is the best film of the 6 in terms of story and acting. I don’t know that I concur with your assessment that ESB is the best film in terms of acting and story; as heretical as this may seem, I tend to prefer ROTS in both of those categories (I already commented extensively on the acting; the story is rather more ambitious than ESB’s, if perhaps less successful overall). However, ESB is undoubtedly superior in terms of dialogue (save for some of Palpatine’s speeches in ROTS) and editing. "Empire" is my favorite installment because it is the most visually complex, emotionally salient, and dramatically interesting episode in the six-film cycle, not for the other reasons that you mentioned. Irvin Kershner is now almost EIGHTY THREE YEARS OLD. That is way too old to be doing something as strenuous as directing a major feature film. Hi, John. To play Devil's Advocate here, Robert Altman, who isn't much younger, is still a proficient filmmaker (he has a new picture coming out this year); Ingmar Bergman, who is even older than Kersh, directed a great film entitled "Saraband" for Swedish television a couple of years ago (it received a theatrical release in U.S. theaters in 2005). Even Manoel de Oliveria, who I believe is in his mid 90's, continues to make films. George did a great job on ROTS. It's a masterpiece. Agree with this, I do. -----signature----- "The screen is a magic medium. It has such power that it can retain interest as it conveys emotions and moods that no other art form can hope to tackle." - Stanley Kubrick
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
jwebb1970 Registered: Aug '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 3:26pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I get the feeling from his various posts on various threads that Philip023 doesn't like ROTS that much. Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you. -----signature----- The Internet is a communications tool used the world over, where people can come together to bitch about movies & share pornography with one another -Holden McNeil It's the stoned movie you don't have to be stoned for-Tom Shales on Star Wars
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
JohnWesleyDowney Registered: Jan '04	Date Posted: 1/23/06 3:30pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	Tyrannus, Hey bro! I know what you're saying about older directors working into their 70s and 80s and so forth. David Lean was very old when he died, and he was well into pre-production on a feature film at the time. But very few films are as demanding and complex as a SW film. That's one of the reasons Kersh took so long on EMPIRE and went over budget. He had never come up against anything that big before. It's also one of the reasons he turned down doing ROTJ. He didn't want to do it again because SW films are very tough to do. The first one nearly killed George, and he was 32 and in good health. That's why HE didn't want to direct the next two. I just don't think Kersh should have done it. Lucas did a fine job of wrapping it all up. -----signature----- George Lucas has finally chosen a director for his RED TAILS film about the Tuskugee Airmen. Discuss it here....the LED is counting down, not much time! http://boards.theforce.net/lucasfilm_projects_indiana_jones_4/b10265/18604036/p6/?144
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KILLER-CLONE Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 4:05pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	mikadojedi posted: I can't help but think that Kirshner would have done a better job on ROTS. A better job than Lucas, Spielberg, or even occasional fan favorite Kevin Smith. HOw would Kirshner made ROTS different than Lucas. And should he have directed ROTS? Given that you're the one who thinks he'd do a better job, i think it's up to you to tell us how.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KILLER-CLONE Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 4:08pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	RolandofGilead posted: mikadojedi posted: I can't help but think that Kirshner would have done a better job on ROTS. A better job than Lucas, Spielberg, or even occasional fan favorite Kevin Smith. That's quite an assumption and a heck of a lot of credit to the man who brought us The Return of a Man Called Horse, Eyes of Laura Marrs, Never Say Never Again, and Robocop 2. I'm not slamming him since I actually liked his take on Ian Fleming's Thunderball and enjoyed Robocop 2. But he's hardly a better replacement for someone like Spielberg, or even Lucas himself. No one should have made the penultimate Star Wars film other than the creator himself. Everything else would have been an interpretation and an imitation and not the same thing. So ROTS was the penultimate SW film, huh? So when's the next one coming out then? Because i could've sworn AOTC was the penultimate SW film.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
Jedi_Master_Conor Title: Manager: • SFF: Movies • Box Office Host Registered: May '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 5:47pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	it would've been interesting to see. the scene i'd be most interested in would have to be where padme runs out to meet anakin on the mustafar landing platform and the lead up to the duel. that would've been interesting to see how kirshner did that
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
KILLER-CLONE Registered: Sep '05	Date Posted: 1/23/06 6:09pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	That scene is pretty damn fine as it is.
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History
That_Wascally_Droid Registered: Jul '01	Date Posted: 1/23/06 6:34pm Subject: RE: Should Kirshner have directed ROTS
	I'd be curious. Not because I think Lucas did a bad job, but just because I love seing different takes on things. Keep in mind, for everything added, we would've lost something else. Would we still have the exhilerating opening with the drum beats? Would we still have the Opera scene, or would it still be confined to the Office? Would we have the Ruminations scene? Would Order 66 be what it is? The scenes are they way they are now because of Lucas' direction. Nowhere in the script does it say, for example, "Haunting music echoes as we enter a hollow, dream-like sequence. Obi-Wan astride Boga rumbles down the cliff, the crying howl of the beast rising from the sinkhole. We cut to Mygeeto where a devastating battle is taking place. Ash falls like cold snow as Ki-Adi leads a charge. His command to charge sounding as though he is in another world..." Nope, it's more like: "Clones blast the Boga with Obi-Wan still atop. They fall. CUT TO: EXT - MYGEETO Ki-Adi leads a charge. His clones stop and blast him." etc. There's hundreds of ways to artistically interpret that scant peice of script. I'm not sure I'd want to risk losing those scenes... -----signature----- As has been said: Don't **** with Kenobi
	~~Locked Topic~~ \| Active Topic Notification \| Private Message \| Post History

Pages: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 - Previous | Next | Reload

Jedi Council Forums » Star Wars Films » Revenge of the Sith »