Saga Attack of the Clones or Empire Strikes Back

I just made a long post about the topic at hand: "AOTC or TESB?"

Hope you enjoyed it.

 

This is one where I can't state "easily" in my choice (like I can in the TPM vs ANH or ROTS vs ROTJ threads).
For a long time I valued ESB over AOTC, but in the last year (after rewatching the Saga two or three times) I've discovered more & more things that bother me about ESB that bother me (mostly to do with Han, who I grow to strongly dislike more & more).

So at this stage, AOTC quietly inches over ESB.

 

Uh, there's a little bit more to it than that. Just like there's more to: "Vader gets electrocuted. Dies."

Addiction is very much a factor in their story, yes, as intended.

 

dARTh Nub: I respect your wishes, and I will back off. I just didn't need Cryogenic lecturing me on how to post on TFN, because he seems to think he is a mod and knows what is the right or wrong way to post around here.

Cryogenic: You can now go back to posting your 'War and Peace-like' essay on the SW movies....

 

Ah but Han and Leia argue all the time! That can't be healthy either!

 

No text explanation is necessary. Just fallow the prequel narrative and its imagery.

This is weird. You've got the storytelling logic of it just right and yet you're still somehow missing the logical conclusion. Unhealthy codependency is, in part, what leads Anakin and Padme's love story to a tragic end. It's not just about bad stuff happening to them externally. If they were in it together the way Han and Leia were, with those same strengths, you wouldn't have much of a story to tell in the first place, at least not one as thematically driven.

 

For me it’s Attack of the Clones. But first...

The Empire Strikes Back is primordially id. It’s a movie that recedes inside itself, so to speak, inverting the concrete, semi-documentric universe of A New Hope into a murky head trip, dismissing any attempt to maintain logical time-frames with its split narrative and casting nearly every scene in some manner of sleep-light. It’s also a black comedy of sorts, skirting Brazil-levels of managerial madness. I’m surprised by the number of criticisms regarding Han and Leia. Never had a problem with it myself. Their interludes are fun and feisty; I can almost see them posing together in a promo ad for some 80s romantic TV dramedy:

​

You know what else I love about Empire? Crazy-eyed Yoda off his rocker:




Soon followed by this shot:

 

The Star Wars saga as a whole is innately odd; Attack of the Clones is even odder. Part of what makes it so strange is how contrarily straight it plays everything. Characters behave ordinarily amidst the plot proceedings, with zero bemusement to their surroundings and seemingly oblivious to any number of 'WTF?!' moments. For example, when Obi-Wan abruptly crashes through a window onto a courier droid, Anakin reacts without so much as even a "Huh," or "Well, that just happened," before bolting off. Of course, all the Star Wars films do this to a degree, but this one seems even more ubiquitous with invention ranging from silly to absurd to surreal. I mean, stop for a moment and plainly consider the following:

A cafeteria full of Jangos.

Wat Tambor adjusting his voice modulator like some phat beatbox artist.

Threepio battle droid.

Watto wearing a little hat.

Casual Force floating: silver ornamental balls, star-map marbles, fruit.

First-step mechanization of the Galactic Empire initiated by Jar Jar Binks.

Padme inside a giant bowl or, conversely, a regular-sized bowl with a miniature Padme inside.

Padme lying in the sand ...moaning.

Super Mario Yoda.

Just what is going on here? Warped anamorphics and those gauzy digital artifacts unique to Sony/Panavision’s HDW-F900, way back yonder 2002, tipped the whole damned thing into some kind of bizarre videographic theater as imagined by a future-past era, as if the movie slipped into our reality from an alternate timeline where 1930s Hollywood was using 1930s HD cameras. Far out.

 

You almost make me wanna watch it again

 

Absolutely! Although I still am not sure if I've found anyone who shares my particular view on the saga (in, the OT are overall better films simply because they tried to do less and and were successful with greater frequency within those parameters than the PT films were with theirs, BUT that all 6 films are ultimately incredibly satisfying and engaging films). But I have found this environment much more friendly than the "let's all assume everyone hates the PT" mentality of other parts of the internet.

I want to echo Cyrogenic and Ingram for a moment that I think both of these films are the most pure, the most undiluted representations of the goals of their respective trilogies. Empire, as many have noticed, is the most focused on intimate human drama, on bringing the whambam glitzy action of classic sci-fi serials into the modern film world of philosophical undertones and realistically painted characters. It's the most focused on that pseudo-Christian, pseudo-Buddhist idea of subverting gut expectations, showing the light that can come out of the darkest, grimiest areas, and the dark that can rest at the core of the superficially pristine (have you ever considered that cloud city, in terms of locations, is essentially ESB's Death Star? That says a lot about the film.) It's a visually and thematically cold film that has a heart of sweeping romanticism at its core (what a great contradiction.)

Compared to the rest of the saga, AOTC, as Ingram alluded to, is probably the least aware of its own absurdities. I sometimes wonder if, as a direct reaction to the public outcry over TPM's steadfast sense of silliness, George Lucas decided to make a second film that was, on the surface, much more self-serious, but still contained all of the quirk that Lucas was so fond of. It is kind of remarkable how understated the humor is. Take, for instance, the "I dreamed about you" exchange between Anakin and padme. Any other director would have milked that for as much awkward humor as possible, but not George. I think the film is also the most representative of George's prequel mentality. Because it lacks the childlike warmth of TPM and the end-of-days tone of ROTS, Clones relies purely on its combination of the political and the romantic, the mysterious and the bombastic. Getting off my pretentious, analytical podium, I'll also say that I don't think I watched any movie sequence in the entirety of my childhood as much as I watched the Btattle of Geonosis. Good Lord that was just a wonderful, technologically marvelous third act bonanza. As a kid, those are the kinds of finales you dream about. To see one on screen was amazing.

Ultimately, although AOTC might be my favorite film in he saga just because of the childlike glee and nostalgia that it gives me, I think I ultimately have to give the benefit to ESB because it's truly, in my eyes, a better film. Not only is it the most intimate, human, and quietly emotional of the saga, but it's also a movie that, along with the second Godfather 6 years prior, changed the modern idea of a film sequel, and, when you consider how much of ESB was essentially made up in reaction to ANH, it's a pretty remarkable feat of storytelling.

 

Apologies, everyone, for the double post, but...

Are entertainment and art two mutually exclusive concepts? Can they not intermingle? They both aim to stimulate the senses, one to please, the other to challenge. But is it unacceptable to consider a film that does both? I think not, especially when you consider that so many of the "greatest films of all time" do exactly that. The prequel trilogy had a different set of goals than the original trilogy. They aimed to not only be entertainment, but also intellectually challenging works that comment on society in a way the originals never did, or tried to. You can argue that they weren't successful in that regard, and in some ways I'd agree with you. But to hate them for trying would be a mistake.

 

I misread your post, thought you were talking about the PT in general. I actually concur that the circumstances around Padmes death have never sat well with me, regardless of any greater significance.

Also, MST'd?

 

Attack of the Clones hands down. I've always felt Empire is so overrated, and Clones was my childhood favorite, so there's that

 

Uuuh... oh. kay.

Not really ...I'm not really sure, where to go with this. Why then do you even bother watching Star Wars? Why do you bother watching movies, period?

Well, that's great and everything, though I'm not sure what English Lit has to do with the matter at hand. Look, comprehending Padme's demise beyond the cursory 'death by broken heart' cliff-note hardly requires some cryptic, esoteric, arcane knowledge of...I dunno...whatever it is you think must be necessary; rather, just a basic engagement in a movie that uses "movie" to tell its story.

I want a movie with a story. Characters and plot without themes or ideas isn't a story–it's an audit, which isn't something I consider to be entertaining.

 

Whoa. Easy, there. Where did that come from? You're on a Star Wars message board engaged in a discussion about Star Wars, but then claim you have no time or interest in the very thing that makes up a Star Wars movie, or any movie for that matter, which seems a tad contradictive and counterproductive, to say the least. So, I was just trying to get some bearing on your stance, is all. Wasn't exactly asking for a diary confession.

False dichotomy and a circular argument. That's a double whammy. Impressive. As for the rest...

Ayeee got nothin' here. I mean, themes are bull****? Over complicate things? ...Libyans?

Hows about this: a movie, has moving images and sounds, that you see and hear. This information, goes to your brain, and becomes, thought. Images and sounds, form narrative, which presents themes stuff. Stuff, tell brain, what happening.

 

Listen... on some level, I agree with you. Many films, and parts of films, are meant to be taken at face value. That's great. That kind of cinema is what made me the rabid movie fan I am today. But there's more than that out there. There are numerous films, many of them considered to be truly great, that use symbolic imagery, have themes or allegorical elements that relate to the real world, or use other literary techniques to tell a story that operates on multiple intellectual levels. When the heads of the 5 families being assassinated is intercut with Michael Corleone being made his nephews godfather, and renouncing satan, is that really meant to be taken at face value? That doesn't mean anything other than "some people died and a baby got baptized"?

I get the point you're trying to make that Padme's death was a poor bit of storytelling. I even agree with you. But I don't understand why you're trying to argue that narrative complexity is an illusion created by over-analytical art critics, or that any attempt by an author to invest their work with some
greater meaning is a sham. I get that it's not your cup of tea. That's fine, you're entitled to your opinions. Just know that centuries worth of history and culture happens to disagree with you.

 

Eh, not quite. But they at least deserve...thing-king.

Entertainment is the only reason I watch Star Wars.

 

A preference for thinking = condescension?

What case?

I did? When?