PT Calling all AOTC lovers.

Love this movie. It's so exciting to watch and after many repeated viewing it still hasn't gotten old to me. In my personal ranking, AOTC is not at the top but that's not a bad thing, I don't dislike any star wars movie. Most of my reasons to love this movie have been mentioned by others (there's so many!), just wanted to say...

Definitely agree here. I don't really understand the negativity for these parts of the movie. Anakin fell for Padme at full speed and with extreme intensity. That's who he is. They are awkward at times and yes, cheesy, but as you say "we've all been there". Very true indeed.

 

I read some great posts of Cryogenic and xezene about several aspects of AOTC.
Also here is some interesting article ( I don't agree with every point there, but was interesting to read it).
http://brightlightsfilm.com/defense...hrills-sophisticated-filmmaking/#.VuSMi0DOuuI

 

AOTC has pacing problems,(due to the different stories) but at the same time it does so well. The pacing is something I noticed in TPM but it wasn't very problematic at all.

I think this is due to the to differentiating stories at hand, which is why I give the pacing a pass.

You have Anakin's journey(plus Padme), and Obi-wans. not only that, both of the narratives of their stories have 2 DIFFERENT TONES and feeling.

Obi-Wan's arc is a 1950's Noir Style with mystery, suspense and great classic action, while Anakin's is a Shakespearean style arc with emotions, romance, drama. It amazes me that Lucas decided to play with 2 different styles in one movie, and honestly, pulled it off in such an amazing way(with flaws of course).

I have a hard time putting ROTS above AOTC just because Lucas did such a thing that, not many filmmakers would even do or try.

 

I like the pace of AOTC, but yes, it is unusual for a SW movie. AOTC is very sofisticated as movie, as is said in the article above. What I really would like is that AOTC could be a little larger, and most of the deleted scene would be included. I like them too.

 

Thanks for the link, I enjoyed reading that article. The author pointed out some things I hadn't thought of before, such as Jar Jar and Amidala representing id and ego divided over the military creation bill. Or how the aggressor in each fight is the one defeated.

Attack of the Clones is the movie that has the most memorable visuals to me, from Anakin on the speeder-bike with the blood-red sky in the background to Obi Wan and Jango grappling in the rain on the water planet. Also some of the best sound design, I think, with the highlights being those seismic charges in the asteroid field and the distinctive low warbling of the republic gunships.

 

Yes, a thread dedicated to my favorite SW episode! AOTC and ROTS are tied for first for me, but when I was young, AOTC was always my favorite (couldn't tell you how many times I made my family rent the VHS from Blockbuster). My current love of the film definitely stems from that time in my life.

Originally, I loved AOTC for its visual appeal-- I was 7 when the film came out, so I didn't have a very good intellectual grasp on the politics of AOTC. But I did love the visuals, particularly those of Coruscant and Kamino. But now that I'm older and can better understand the more depthy aspects of the film, I love AOTC even more because of its political undertones, and the dualism of Obi-Wan and Anakin's arcs. Also, I'm a romantic sap, so I've always loved Anakin and Padme's romance. I love AOTC's costumes, too. Especially Padme's-- in fact, I'm currently working on sewing three of Padme's costumes from AOTC. (Packing gown, purple senate gown, velvet gown) AOTC was the high point of Padme's costuming in the PT, in my opinion.

As I write this I'm finding I'm having a difficult time nailing down exactly why I love AOTC other than because it's pretty........ Everyone else who's said why they love AOTC in this thread-- I agree with you.

 

I love Attack of the Clones but not as much as The Phantom Menance. The Phantom Menace is now my favorite PT film with Attack of the Clones a close second and Revenge of the Sith third. Revenge of the Sith is a damn good movie in that its made good but I just don't like the plot. Its too damn dark to "enjoy". Necessary to show how Anaiken becomes Vader and Palpatine takes over as Emperor.

But I love the PT overall. I think they are brilliant movies. Let the haters hate. They aint gonna change my mind about the films.

 

I prefer TPM and ROTS, but AOTC is my third favorite of the saga, in which I lost most of it so I do indeed love AOTC. There are only a very few things I dislike about the movie, so I will just list those instead:

1. The CG on Coruscant because it isn't properly lit and the texture details aren't as good as they could be.
2. Some monotone acting from the cast, even though I think they're just fine most of the time.
3. The re-edit sequences for the Blu-ray release, which makes the music in these small snippets unsynced.

Besides that, I really have no personal issues with the rest of the movie.

 

The movie shows there's not always black and white good and bad sides in wars. It was subtle, as seeing the enemy's goodness usually is.

Jango vs Obi-Wan was actually one of the best fights in all of star wars. Made a none Jedi look threatening without a jedi looking like a wimp or nerfed.

made the clones look epic, unlike stormtroopers which we've all made into jokes because how useless they were in the OT

good comedy. stuff like the death sticks and Obi-Wan and Anakin's dialogue was spot on!

great CGI. Yoda looks like he's really there. Broke the limits of puppetry.

fantastic score!

great acting. Only thing people can complain about is kid boba,who was akward (as kids are so not unbeleivable) and Anakin who was whiney...but that isn't acting, it's the script not giving you what you wanted from your assumptions of Anakin you had as a kid. I made the mistake myself and learned from it.

even when you can see the rare disapointement(like the lightsaber fight being a downgrade IMO from TPM's fight) you still love the epicness of what you see. The fight was a downgraqde for me, but the fight was still great, great action, very fast like a fight with yoda should be, made him look tough and the music was great as always. Thanks Willaims!

Started the clone wars. People wanted the films to cover the clone wars, but I think it's better to be covered stretched out in a series. having a film be the beginning and the next be the end was smart. I just wish TCW cgi series wasn't so flawed. I love it, but it's definitely flawed. (jar jar actually annoyed me.....not even prequel jar jar annoyed me so that says a lot about TCW jar jar....beating grievous gave me depression. to much nerfing)

the jedi seamed strong, accept in the geonosian arena. that was silly for me. but vs jango and Dooku they looked strong.

we got a fett that ACTUALLY DOES SOMETHING!

better deaths....you know....by a jedi master and a monster Rino,instead of a blind man by accident....

Overall this move was great. 5th best film of all time for me.

 

It's funny, as much as I love TPM, I think that's the one movie that has genuine pacing problems.

The first act is a little eratic, but once they land on Tattooine the movie settles into a nice groove and from there builds up perfectly to the epicness of the pod race. After that it stumbles quite badly and completely loses momentum IMHO. It slows down way too much again and the Coruscant stuff is so long-winded that it feels like forever before the action starts again. I think that's why people complain about the senate stuff. It's not that there's really all that much of it, it's just that it's kind of in the wrong place in the movie if you see what I mean. I realize that it couldn't actually happen earlier in the story for obvious reasons. But because it follows the beautiful build up and payoff of the pod race it loses the audience's attention.

Luckily, the movie is then redeemed - for me, at least - by that lightsaber fight.

 

This thread has Davak24 and Dandelo written all over it. I'm eager to submit my own reply when I have more time later

 

You should check the first page, Slayer. Hehehehehe....

 

TPM was meant to be real slow actually. As you know, it's a prologue. It has to have a lot less action and more talking.

Lucas warned fans way before the PT that the first episode of the PT was going to be real slow. It has to set up a lot of themes, characters and world building.

That's way AOTC and ROTS have all that action. It doesn't need all the exposition as TPM.

 

oh boy, I could be here all day on why I think AOTC is GOAT, so I'll reply when I have more time thanks for the tag DS

 

I love Attack of the Clones, but it remains largely a mystery to me. It is undoubtedly the most complex and ambitious of the prequels, at least in my mind.

What I'd really like to think about my next viewing of the Saga is the extent of Palpatine's powers. The events in AotC are seemingly random events at times but always work to the clear advantage of Sidious. I suppose the question really comes down to is what was the scope of the emperor's foresight. I believe there are some aspects of the story of the PT that are largely unexplored. Take for instance the death of Darth Maul. Was Maul going to lead the separatist army? He looks like the devil incarnate. Wouldn't it be much, much more sensible to have a statesman lead the army? Someone with renown and class? Someone who could sway moderate worlds to the cause? Oh wait, Sidious already has this person lined up. You literally couldn't ask for a better candidate for the task than Dooku. Did Sidious foresee Maul dying? Did he plan it by sending Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan in the first place? Our only reference to Sidious' intentions in TPM are his exchanges with Trade Federation, whom we know he is playing already (is Lucas playing us too?), and his extremely brief scene with Maul. Sidious almost sounds like he is amping Maul up, falsely building up his confidence. "They will be no match for you." Two Jedi Knights? One of whom was trained by the apprentice, Dooku, whom you clearly have under your influence already? Does Sidious think so little of his new apprentice Dooku? Or is it the opposite? Has Dooku assured him Maul would be no problem? I just think of how happy Palpatine is when he walks off the shuttle at the end of TPM. He is so happy. Happier than we've ever seen him, perhaps. I think that is because Maul died.

What does this have to do with AotC? Sidious' foresight plays a much larger role in the plot here than ever before. We know Sidious meant to thrust Anakin and Padme back together to begin his corruption of Anakin; therefore, we know Sidious knew the assassin would be unsuccessful (Who else would know Padme's penchant for dopplegangers better than the Chancellor from Naboo?). From here on things happen that are seemingly coincidental. Namely, Obi-Wan having a friend that could identify the marking on the Kamino dart. From this point on you could say everything that unfolds is happenstance. However, Sidious at the end remarks how everything went as planned. This doesn't sound like something one would say after a seemingly random cacophony of events transpired. Unless of course, he really did plan everything. Or foresaw it? Dooku's little chat with Obi-Wan is interesting. Here Dooku tells Obi-Wan the Republic is now under the control of Darth Sidious. This is pretty huge. This is the moment Sidious reveals himself to the Jedi, whether they believe the extent of his power, or not (not, in this case). How could Dooku possibly reveal this, he must have been told to do this. That means he must have known Obi-Wan was going to arrive. Did the emperor foresee every single event in the entire film? What was the plan, if not?

The whole thing kind of hurts my brain. I only watch the Saga once every couple years so it remains somewhat fresh in my mind. I've just been thinking about it a lot since my last viewing. If Sidious foresaw all the main events, what effect does that have on the story? The only time I remember Sidious being surprised was when Yoda showed up at the end of RotS. It would make sense that Yoda, his diametric opposite, goodness incarnate, would be invisible to him. Even the scenes with Windu, it seems Sidious is in complete control, as if expected.

Where does free will enter into the equation if the emperor can foresee all? I'm starting to think there is only one free will in the entire PT, and that is Anakin's. The one thing the emperor can't see, upon which the entire future relies, is the choice Anakin makes. To save Padme or to let her die. It would be very poetic in a sense. It would be like Anakin is the only dynamic being in the PT. I'll have to give it a rewatch soon and think about it. I haven't even considered how this would project into the OT.

 

Running with the thought of Anakin being the only dynamic being, I think that Palpatine was so happy not just because of Maul's death, which was probably planned and expected, but because Anakin destroyed the droid control ship. If Anakin is someone whose actions remain outside Palpatine's foresight, then it kind of makes sense. Obi-Wan killing Maul really changed nothing. The Jedi can't wage war for Padme. The droid army would defeat the Gungans then march on the city. Who knows what would happen then, it's not clear. If we remove Anakin everything from Coruscant onwards remains unchanged. Most likely Palpatine would have foreseen Padme capturing Gunray and the stalemate would have caused Gunray to withdraw. Anakin unexpectedly destroying the droid ship actually helps Palpatine even more. By doing so Gunray is captured. Now Sidious has major leverage. He can make Gunray do essentially whatever he wants in exchange for keeping him in power by manipulating the various bureaucracies from his new position as Chancellor.

I also just want to add I find it interesting Palpatine was so sure he would turn Luke at the end of RotJ. He had foreseen it, yet it didn't happen. Maybe it was the same with Anakin. He had foreseen it and doubted it to be possible, but it happened. However, with Luke he was so sure because he was right about Anakin. Palpatine mistakes the choice Anakin made as fateful and this belief is his undoing in the future. Palpatine loses the ability to recognize free choice after Vader turns.

Maybe the only thing Palpatine did in fact see a vision of was Anakin turning Vader? Hmm... If so, it would align with the OT. The only vision we hear of was Luke turning to darkness. Maybe it was the same with Anakin? And simply knowing this would happen Palpatine only needed to stir the pot in order for fate to occur. Who knows, I'm just thinking as I type! As I said, I need to rewatch!

 

Sums it up for me.

But perhaps in a different way.

I've said some -- probably most -- of this before, but here goes...



Clones is crazed, desultory, weird.

It has has a disquieting ambiance, an oscillating tonality, a strange torque. And me loves it.

I daresay that Clones is my cynosure/focal-point for Star Wars as a whole.

Along with that, it's also my intellectual fulcrum, my cosmic centre. Particularly with regard to Anakin. It would be meaningless without all the textures he brings to the film; and out of which much of the film's shifting topography is built.

I find Anakin a fascinating character and I identify with him a lot: a being full of powerful energies and subtle contradictions. He's dealing with so much and has a very interesting and painfully touching Orphic journey. Being who he is, what he is, where he is, and when he is, he brings a haunted presence to the screen. And the journey would mean nothing without the presence. This is a character that is both heroic and desperately flawed: part devil, part angel, with an intriguing mixture of creative and destructive tendencies held in uneasy alliance.

Of course, this is a character that has aroused a great deal of hostility and contempt. And it isn't hard to see why. Anakin's slouching humanity -- his blustering youthfulness, his ribald sulkiness, his farouche posturing -- can be taxing. One can say it more fully: his sullenness can be distancing, his self-centeredness displeasing, his arrogance distasteful, and his reckless embrace of violence troubling. But all these attributes give him a strange vitality and make him a powerfully tragic and wonderfully human figure, too. He is a profoundly beguiling character, in my opinion, to construct a movie cosmogony around.

Then there are the other characters and the complexity of the roles they inhabit and their relationships with one another. Clones is probably best at creating a canvas where all those little "jazz riffs" can play out and manifest of their own accord. This also fits nicely with the broad scope of the story and the motif of shifting responsibilities: a motif that runs through all the Star Wars movies but is played in more of a "major" chord in Clones. However, again, it's watching all these subtle beats and frictions play out that give the film a beautiful edge. As theatrical and stylized as Clones willfully is, its very artifice creates something close to a living canvas, on which thrive unusually compelling subtleties. It as if these artifacts, given the space to thrive, are self-generated.

Indeed, I think there's an autopoietic -- that is, self-constructing -- quality to all of Star Wars (it is mythology/art, after all), but which is perhaps best embodied by Clones. In part, Star Wars is an artistic exploration of foils and antagonisms, and perhaps no entry better works these pleated contrasts into its makeup than Clones; though I think its effortless "quotidian" weirdness (that free-wheeling sense of abstraction and playfulness) is rivalled by the original picture. In some ways, I actually see Clones as more intimately connected with the original than it is with its structural cousin, TESB. The homestead would be one reason. But I think it goes beyond surface quoting. It's the strange attitude of both pictures: their visual construction, their unprecedented mashing of genres, their obliquely humourous forays into personal and global violence, and their alternating rhythms of being deadly serious about pain and suffering and mocking these concepts endlessly (consider, for example, the plight of the droids in the original movie).

Clones also uniquely for Star Wars has a very expansive, collegial and familial feel. It is, in many ways, the most intimate of the Star Wars pictures, exquisitely blending what one might call the personal and the political, or even the operatic and the mundane. To express this in broad terms, we get to see more of the Jedi's inner workings and sub-structures in this movie than any other. Similarly, there is a strong thematic emphasis on claustrophobia, blindness, arrogance, aloofness, and the inescapable fact that there is always more to learn. Everyone is a "padawan learner" for their whole materialistic sojourn on Earth. Taken seriously, Clones encourages one to take a more critical look at the world and their place within it, and to strive to simultaneously learn and unlearn every hour, every day, every year. I think that takes care of "collegial". Whereas, by familial, I mean to indicate that Clones has a very wide scope (it is surely the densest story of the saga), and that seeing all the Jedi rally together at the end is extremely satisfying. Anakin's look of pride and adoration when the Jedi show up isn't only a nice character detail, but also annotates some inner pride and awe on the viewer's part: not just at the Jedi as avatars of power or self-sacrificing moral guardians (albeit with serious flaws), but just that everyone comes together in some oddly reassuring show of strength and fraternity. This not only, in my mind, lends the film its own strength (felicitous "full circle" plotting and whatever else: consider how the Jedi just sit on their rumps in TPM and let Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon deal with a serious issue that concerns them all), but also lends a suitable dose of irony: while the series generally has something to say about co-operation and collectivism, the Jedi's extended show of might marks the first battle of the Clone Wars and tragically sets their doom.

Any prolix panegyric on Clones would be terribly lacking if it didn't talk about the movie's enrapturing art direction and cinematography. In a word: stunning. There is no other movie that, in my mind, can claim to be half as colourful, or as busy, or as arty. The DEC of AOTC (Design, Environments, and Circumstances) are just incredible. Clones is tremendously layered. It's a sweeping adventure movie and then some: a sword-and-sandal fantasy epic, a forbidden romance, a noir/mystery movie, a political thriller, a war film, an action comedy, and a novel-esque character study, all in one slick, showy, cunningly compendious package. And, above all, it's very much a visual experience: an ode to cinema of old, an ode to romance, a soaring sonnet of a movie. Every scene has something visually delectable to it. In general, Clones hums with colour, pulses with metaphor, and is a veritable symphony of symbolic implication. Its brooding, Hydra-like construction sees to it that Clones cannot be reduced to one thing or another, and often has this unreal "meta" quality that one can't ever put their finger on. Just south of the Rishi Maze?

And, oh, yes, the romance. Probably -- undeniably? -- Clones' most derided aspect; yet, the romance, to me, is also perhaps the picture's highest achievement. Find me another romance like this one. Sure, it echoes any number of love stories in film, literature, and myth, but it remains totally unique. And again, it's told in lustrously visual ways; accompanied by gorgeous musical scoring. It feels, to me, like George Lucas truly waited some fifty years or more to make this movie and craft a romance like this. Clones draws ravenously from so many aspects of the human experience: love, war, mystery, temptation, triumph, failure. But it's the romance that makes it all work (if it, indeed, works for you) and gives you a reason to care. It is the enchanted flask in which all other elements merge and dissolve.

I have to cheat a bit here and not deal with Anakin or the romance -- two absolutely vital aspects of Clones -- in any greater detail. There are literally thousands of other discussions to dip into, over the years, concerning these aspects; and I feel I've said my share in that span of time. So if I give these elements short shrift in this more general essay, it is merely a consequence of already having talked about them numerous times before. And this essay, for my part, is intended to be a wider look at Clones, not constraining itself too much to one element or another. I think the movie as a whole is plenty interesting and would rather devote a bit of time to singing its praises without digressing onto well-worn aspects that, yes, are fantastically engaging and effectively the central elements, but yet are still not the be-all and end-all of the film, nor the larger work to which Clones obviously belongs.

I struggled to add a more nakedly positive adjective when talking about the wider aspects of human experience that Clones draws on back there (love, war, mystery, temptation, triumph, failure). And that's because Clones is also a bleak movie (albeit a colourful one), expressing a view of the world that gives off charitable sparks of hope, but is mostly dark, anguished, and cynical. At least, on a basic thematic level. That is another great strength of the movie: it's not necessarily depressing, but it is ruminative and tragic, and that's the right quality, to me. Moreover, Clones is also wantonly subversive, throwing so much of the former mythology of Star Wars (or the decayed assumptions made by the literal-minded viewer) ruthlessly on its head, like Anakin tumbling off that shaak. This is where theme and mood arrestingly dovetail. To quote Darth Eddie from a former AOTC thread: "Anakin's a creep, the romance is doomed, the politicians are duped, the Jedi forsake their ideals, and the war of disposable soldiers is utterly pointless, but guess what? That's the point."

A final word, if there must be one, about the film's symbolic nature. Well, I like that it's all one grand allegory for the fall of civilization and the failure of reason. Even the camera panning up evokes a fall of sorts. In the words of Andre Gide: "Fish die belly upward, and rise to the surface. It's their way of falling." I think Donald Trull, the fabulous author of "The Shroud of the Dark Side", a six-part disquisition on Clones done before the arrival of ROTS (complete with a prologue and an epilogue: it's beautifully thorough), noted there being something like nine explicit examples of just characters falling a notable height or having some sort of tumble in the movie, along with the more abstract notion of "falling in love". Similarly, along with falling comes floating (the opening and pattern-defying (and pattern-cementing) pan up, again, evoking both), and there are numerous instances of characters or objects floating or being suspended in the film, as well as a more general feeling of "floatiness" or ethereality throughout (one might term it the phenomenological evocation or equivalent of light-headedness). Clones' immense symbolism certainly doesn't end there. There is also a pronounced "beheading" motif in the film, from bickering holograms during Anakin and Obi-Wan's contentious hunting down of Zam (touche, George!), to Jango quickly ducking as he enters an ascending Slave I (also a hugely symbolic ship name), to Jango literally losing his head to Mace's purple lightsaber, to Threepio's unfortunate beheading incident, to Anakin slicing off the head of a Tusken Raider, which then segues to Anakin's own beheading with a powerfully-distinctive scene wipe effect.

The unspoken horror of the film (again, if there be just one) is the horror of cloning, and more specifically, the twinned theme of slavery and deindividuation; which, because Clones can't help constructing reciprocal antagonisms everywhere, brushes paradoxically against Anakin's restless appetite to follow his will within a "Jedi" cloning space (if you will -- ack! if you allow me; to make such an analogy). They're both locked -- Anakin and the clones -- into a fatalistic phantasm: their wills enslaved to forces beyond their reckoning. Tellingly, no-one ever outright questions the moral injustice of a clone army; not once. Chillingly, Obi-Wan is happy to engage in deception when he meets the Kaminoans, and even if what he says is just a facade, he remains trapped by his own sham. Indeed, he shares a flippant scene with Dex when the notion of "cloners" is introduced (and note how Dex is clad in a tatty white shirt when he meets with Obi-Wan; later reprised with Amidala's literally tattered white battle suit on Geonosis -- both are symbolically linked, the anima and the animus, with the clone army). In that scene, the idea of clones, and of "thinking" droids, is essentially tossed off as a joke between friends. And at the denouement of the movie, now that the clones have been "unleashed" on the galaxy (much like the opening of Pandora's box), Obi-Wan expresses a kind of suspended (remember floating?), peripheral unease, but doesn't go beyond this and condemn the clone army and its conscription by the Jedi and the Republic in an intellectually forthright, unequivocal, and unambiguous way (ambiguity being baked into everything in Clones). Yoda sharply repudiates the idea that they won a "victory" on Geonosis (another nice parallel with Obi-Wan shouting at Anakin on the gunship: here we find key Jedi characters with their hackles raised, but both times, failing to register the true extent of the horror that has roused them to shock or annoyance, and which they're ostensibly passing judgement on), but depressingly fails to articulate anything obscene about the clones themselves (even if his portentous "prayer" at the end somewhat implies a judgement about the clones themselves -- themselves!! note the irony: they're lacking in self-hood). I suppose I should revise the opening sentence of this paragraph. The unspoken horror is just that: it's never really spoken. Lucas has called these films "silent". Clones deepens that ascription by contriving to have its characters remain mute on the real moral cliff they've all just tumbled off of.

Blimey, I'm still not finished, and it feels like I could go on forever. I must make a set of final observations. There is, first of all, some irony in focusing on symbolism, as Dex cautions Obi-Wan that "those analysis droids only focus on symbols"; weirdly echoing Obi-Wan's earlier words to Anakin: "you're focusing on the negative". But, in point of fact, Obi-Wan's problem, and the problem of the entire Jedi Order, could be that they don't focus on the "negative", but block it out and pretend it isn't really there. This could be the true source of blindness pertaining to the Jedi's waning powers and their obliviousness to the existence of a clone army (as lamented privately by Yoda to Mace in his meditation chamber). By not considering the "dark side" of a philosophy or assumption, you allow it to fester and grow, and when it's right under your nose (e.g., Palpatine), you're ill-equipped to deal with it, even when you have your suspicions (e.g., Yoda). Yet symbolism is such a tremendous part of Clones. It leads straight to homiletic meaning. But is it all a bait or a ruse? Perhaps. The symbolic landscape of Clones -- and of Star Wars generally -- is so vast, however, that ignoring it seems criminal, maybe even impossible. For example, Clones offers many instances of what you might call "counterpointed symbolism" (again: as does Star Wars generally), where opposing ideas are coincident with one another (remember from earlier: Clones, like the saga as a whole, is replete with antagonisms and foils). Again, in his six-part essay on Clones, Donald Trull comments that Anakin and Obi-Wan discuss an incident of falling even as they are conveyed upwards in an elevator. On some level, this is suggestive of their own focus (a hidden preview of their forthcoming tragedy, what one might call the "transcendent" tragedy of the whole saga with which they are intimately bound, or attached, versus the immanent tragedy of their bond, happening moment to moment, full of micro examples of communication breakdowns and tensions never fully resolved). On another, it reveals the witty inclinations of the saga's "maker": his penchant for pithy, implosive humour, as disclosed by the near-colloquial co-mingling of fantastically juxtaposed visuals and starchy, wooden dialogue. Lucas is both a master of editing, and as he once self-deprecatingly boasted, "the King of Wooden Dialogue". The latter is perhaps a sneaky admission, on his part -- and I often look at Lucas as a jester/trickster figure -- that, as he sees them, humans themselves tend to speak with a mixture of revealing awkwardness and artifice, as if puppets on a string that occasionally (only occasionally) utter a word of truth, but rarely anything of discernible intelligence ("the ability to speak does not make you intelligent" -- I dimly grasp the irony!). In France, a person who speaks deceitfully is said to speak with a "wooden tongue", and this could also apply to all us humans, alas. We speak falsely, with a concealed meaning, even when no concealment is necessarily intended. So, from this point of view, the dialogue in Star Wars is as elegant as it should be: its clunk the better to expose human hubris and mind-shock a viewer into a higher level of awareness. Like the peculiarity of Clones generally. In this way, note how the first word of the film is a lie ("Senator..."), though the next words are symbolically true ("we're making our final approach into Coruscant"). The response, too, is funny: "Very good, Captain" (and, again, this isn't "really" the "Senator's" voice). This is how Yoda responds to the clone Commander on Geonosis. What is "good", exactly? Clones throws a lot of distrust onto spoken language. Is it any wonder, seen this way (again: consider the trickster aspect of Lucas; or try to imagine, for a second, it really exists), that Lucas has dissed dialogue (that is: dialogue as a whole; not just his writing) as a "sound effect" or a "rhythm" in the overall sensation of the movie as an artistic and experiential thing?

Lastly, there is Clones' dream-like tapestry and tonality. It has a very strange repose. And the dialogue -- as much as it might deserve to be distrusted -- seems to clue us in. Indeed, it could be said that Clones is so dream-like that allusions to dreams and nightmares can't help but "leak" into the dialogue; but, of course, in "puppet" tradition, the characters know it not (they're just mouthing words). It's not that this is any kind of fallacy. The film is saying, the construction and the implications that arise from the construction are so crazed, so dense, so opaque, how could this be anything other than a dream? It represents Clones' most intimate engagement with itself: everything is just a dream. In banal thematic terms, one can extract a simple meaning: the Jedi are sleep-walking to the edge of the cliff, and nothing punctures through enough to wake them. Life this callous, this unstudied, could only be a dream, right? Even the opening scene -- as all opening scenes should -- rightly "sets the scene". The camera panning up (the world is often, if not always, "inverted" in dreams), the mellow descent of that silver ship, the eerie calm of everything, the soothing fog. The tops of buildings jutting through the thick cloud cover recalls a famous passage from Shakespeare's "The Tempest". I shall end with it because it seems both lazy and appropriate to do so (hey, antagonisms, remember?). With Clones, Lucas not only constructed a searing allegory, but brought Prospero's elusive paean to new life:

Our revels now are ended. These our actors,
As I foretold you, were all spirits, and
Are melted into air, into thin air:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And, like this insubstantial pageant faded,
Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep.

Clones, ultimately, is a funny little love letter to the human condition, about 1,000 years ahead of its time.

 

Cryogenic That was a beautiful essay.

Forever in awe of anyone who can articulate their opinions better than my own "I liked it because it was pretty".

 

More of a rant, I feel, but thanks.

"'Cos it's pretty" is actually a pretty good reason in AOTC's case, in my opinion.

 

Cryogenic

Clones is truly a work of art, is it not?

 

I should certainly think so!

And there was so much more I could have mentioned.

Never enough space or time.

 

How about that awesome soundtrack?

 

You mean the music, or the sound field, or both?

I LOVE the love theme. Natch.

And the stirring music at the end (which, obviously, also includes the love theme).

But I don't think the score is consistently strong throughout. That's one area where, arguably, Clones goes a little slack.

However, there are lots of nice musical accents that I really enjoy in the film. Very subtle stuff that it is difficult to always call to mind outside of the movie itself.

As for the sound design: fantastic, of course!!!

Clones is visually and aurally distinct.

 

Cryogenic

Yeah absolutely, and who doesn't love the recurring mystery theme?

 

Again -- are you talking about the music or the "mystery" aspect of the film as a whole?

I'll tell you that I really like and admire both.

Clones, in fact, presents a mystery (or a set of mysteries) that's never truly solved.

And that speaks, to me, of its artful construction in general. We're never meant to know everything.

Clones begins with fog and ends with an authoritative declaration that a "shroud" has fallen. The movie can never be fully penetrated.

I love that and am very comfortable returning to see new bits, or have fresh intimations, without truly finding the bottom of anything.

The movie almost seems birthed out of those bottomless pits we see in the other Star Wars movies. Search your feelings. You know it to be true.