History Channel show article

It May Not be History, But It's Part of History

Check this out guys. Cryogenic I'd particularly like your thoughts on some of the things the author says.

The article concerns the History Channel's new Star Wars doc, in which critics, authors and philosophers speak of the symbolic merit of the saga. According to the author of the article, who proceeds to rant about the pointlessness of even mentioning the prequels in the documentary, the prequels are composed only of 'middlebrow symbolism' and he is obviously nostalgically tied to the first films released in the 70s and 80s.

The reason I am posting this in the saga forum and not say, the community forum, is because it raises fundemental issues about what Star Wars really is. Of coarse it's been debated endlessly, but nevertheless the answer is an elusive one.

Though I did love the prequels, especially Episode III, I can see that such a view may have some merit.

"Why insert a moment of topical nuance in what is basically a video game peppered with middlebrow symbolism stolen from the classics? Mr. Lucas has made a career of ignoring the real world. Why stop now?"

A 'video game peppered with middlebrow symbolism'. That is the one quote that depresses me the most. Over the past few days I have been reading the CBC forums for Episode III, and indeed the kind of analasis and thought that individuals are putting into it would obviously astound the author of this piece. Star Wars, even the prequels, have been something more to me than 'video games peppered with middlebrow symbolism' and they warrent discussion. Perhaps the History Channel's presentation is a little geeky or overly self-important, though I suspect the prequels are not as nut headed as this man perceives them to be.


"Why do the "Star Wars" films have to be dissected as if they were big-screen versions of T.S. Eliot's "The Wasteland"? In the end, "Star Wars: The Legacy Revealed" seems like damage control, an attempt by powerful Lucasfilm to rewrite history, especially when it comes to the execrable prequels ? and what better place to do that than the History Channel? Why can't these films be just what they are: moralizing adventures for little boys and overgrown ones who want to blow up aliens with their laser guns?"

So asks the author. Basically, this is the question I'd like us to think about: Are the Star Wars prequels 'video games', masquerading as intelligent epics, or are they imperfect incarnations of something utterly important and relevant, something beyond "moralizing adventures for little boys and overgrown ones who want to blow up aliens with their laser guns?" Or, are they something else entirely. As I love both the original films and the prequels, my personal opinion is shaped by the emotion that I have experienced in the acts of viewing the films, utter escapism, utter joy, happiness, a feeling of transcendance, otherness. I love the films, even if my intellectual self is unable to support my emotional side.

Into the mix the author tells his readers that "I don't know what it says when our entire literary tradition can be boiled down to a cartoon excuse to sell merchandise. It makes one wonder if Greek children ran around wearing Odysseus branded togas." Funny, but ultimately a lame attempt at wit. oF course, he had to mention Jar Jar: "How many marketing focus groups were required to design the despised, child-friendly Jar Jar Binks, who appeared in the recent "prequels"? I don't mind Jar Jar as a relevant character, and in a recent, rather emotional viewing of Episode I his presence did not take away from the film one iota. But is that good enough. Does the author have point?

In justifying his great love for the originals, the author comments that: "These "prequels" tell the story of the fall and rise of Darth Vader, and if not utterly reviled by fans, they are less than embraced. The original three films in the series are beloved, even with their ridiculous '70s haircuts, rubber alien suits, amateur swordplay

 

Until I see the documentery, I don't really want to comment. However, at first glance I'll be honest and say the author seems to be displaying some "sour grapes." Looking through his remarks he seems to be the sort of journalist thats been carping and nit-picking about Star Wars ever since 1977 (complaining about how George Lucas destroyed Hollywoods "Golden Age" is just so 80's) There were a lot of people in the media that thought from the very beginning; "Whats the big deal about these silly, childrens movies?" And they could never understand why the public just wouldn't stop it's love affair with Star Wars - Particularly after the TPM.

Truthfully, at this point, there is no answer to your questions. Star Wars works at a variety of levels; from a fun but silly popcorn movie level, right down to a deep and meaningful level of greek tragedy. What you take into these films is what you take with you. Each and every SW movie can be ripped to shreads if you feel so inclined and cynical enough, but ultimately its not for you, me, or some journalist writing for the New York Sun to tell people what to take out of these movies. History and the public will make that judgement for themselves in time. We'll see...

 

Every movie ever made can be ripped to shreads if you feel so inclined and cynical enough, just to echo what G-FETT said and I have to say I'm sick and tired of people calling the Prequels "video games" what a load of rubbish if the Original movies were made today they would have to be called video games because there would as much CGI as there is in the PT because GL has the technology you can argue whether that?s good or bad is a point of view but it?s true.

 

I agree with both your views-indeed you will take in only what you take with you, and indeed it is for knowone to dictate the fundemental aspects of experience that arise out of the saga.

I just hope that as fans, and viewers, we are not dodging such questions as this man makes.

 

Honestly, I've seen the points this man makes posted on these boards, probably over a thousand times. Nobody is dodging the question, but the point is only you personally can answer the question. For some people, everything that the guy says is exactly how they feel - And thats their truth. Others will think that the views they see in Star Wars: The Legacy, represents their view, best. And who is right and who is wrong? Well, the truth is, there is no right or wrong about this. Only opinions. And its far too early either way to say how the general public will view Star Wars as a Saga, in say, 30 or 50 years time.

 

Great topic for a discussion =)

I don't know how accurate the initial post is about the History Channel documentary, or how biased the doc mite be in certain areas, and I would hope its a little less opinionated. I would usually expect better from the histroy channel, or at least hope that they would show us both sides of the issue evenly. There are plenty of regular fans who love the prequels, and other fans felt they were poor.

We are all entitled to our bias, even the folks presenting this documentary. I see tons of threads here that see amazing symbolism in these films, and there is no way all of it it was done intentionaly. This extreme is no different, a huge fan sees things that aren't really there, thats what fans do. The intention is for critics to function as a pure observer, but the nature of a critic is to function on extremes. A critic sees something and they are immediately a fan, or they become a detractor. Rarely will you find a critic saying "It was.. eh..see it or don't". I don't mind someone pointing out the flaws, as long as its presented fairly, and from several viewpoints. Usually the HC does that pretty well.

I think ultimately you would have rather had a fan do the presenting?

 

Not having seen the thing, I can't say too much. One thing I do know, though, is that there are plenty of people out there who see themselves as "high brow" who can't bring themselves to like anything with massive popular appeal as they think it will lower them down into the relams of the middle and (shock horror) low brow. It's a form of intellecual snobbery which can be seen in many areas of endeavour. It's like these people who only admit to liking bands if almost no-one has ever heard of them, and when the band does have commercial success, they claim that they've "sold out" and go and find something else sufficiently obscure to start liking. I'm pretty sure if ANH had bombed in 1977, many of the film afficianados who now turn their noses up at SW would hail it as a cult classic and personal favourite.

 

Yeah that is a common criticism but I just hope we as fans are not dismissing the points these critics make. We have a right not only to love the films, including the prequels, but also to intellectually defend, and well as promote, the films.

 

Since I'm here at TFN, the PT is obviously something I like a lot (and love in the case of ROTS), but I think that there's no question that the OT had a far, far more profound impact on both viewers and the culture at large than the PT.

I mean, in terms of box office, the OT was just in a total league of its own. But you look at 'Pirates of the Carribean', LOTR, 'Spider-Man', 'Shrek', and all these other franchises doing business at least as good as (and often better than) the PT, and it's clear that the PT wasn't the quasi-religious phenomenon that the OT was.

And with that more modest perspective on the PT in mind, I do think that lots of Lucas's self-aggrandizing statements about the "mythology" of the movies (not to mention his repeated lies about conceiving them all in advance, which is insulting and embarassing to me as a fan), and I can see where a writer can go ahead and tear into Lucas and the PT.

So I like the PT, but I do think that there is plenty of room for legit criticism, from many angles.

 

Fantastic points. Indeed there is room for criticism, as there is for the OT. And you're dead right in saying that the PT were not the phenomenen that the OT was 3o years aga. p.s happy b-day star wars.

However is that because there is inherently somenthing 'wrong' with them, or something, 'video game' about them that discounts them from being being such icons as the OT, or is it just the audience of today is constantly bombarded with 'sophisticated' blockbuster epics, such as LOTR, which as films were insuperior by far to the books, Pirates, which is a great action flic that I enjoyed immensely, and Spider Man, whose, cooky-cutter do good morality almost made me vomit.

The audience, by the time of Phantom Menace, were used to blockbusters...in 1977 it was truly something else. In other words, are these man's criticisms endorsable, if so which ones, or, if not, is it just that the prequels were taken like any other blockbuster, which, I might add, was still very well indeed.

 

Aussie Rebel,

In that last post, you sort of presented a bunch of personal opinions as if they were holy truths. Whether you're talking about the innocent morality of 'Spider-Man' (how could you NOT like those sweet-hearted movies?) or LOTR's "insuperiority" (I don't mean to insult, I'm sure you wrote on the fly....but you meant to write "inferiority"), you definitely should separate fact from opinion.

As far as the OP's content, I agree with it in spirit, but not necessarily in terms of the specifics. As I've written before (at www.starwarsessay.blogspot.com), the PT was, by George Lucas's own admission, very much a profit-seeking endeavor. This is evident in Jar Jar Binks having more lines in TPM than any other character, and then utterly vanishing after TPM, because Lucas was ceding to market demands. This...."greedy" mindset on Lucasfilm's part, I think, was far too prevalent in the PT, and it came across in too many lines, too many characters. They just didn't feel as much like heartfelt people as the OT characters did.

But whatever. I still like them (and, like I said, I love ROTS), so I'm usually willing to overlook even the most obvious flaws. I just wish Lucas would stop pretending to have plotted the whole thing out from the start when it's so damn obvious he's lying.

 

Give any idiot a keyboard and he can write an article. I'd just take what he says with a grain of salt. The PT might be flawed (I for one am not happy that the first two were geared so much towards kids) but it still has plenty of messages, symbolisms, spirituality and lessons.

As for Lucas coming up with the ideas before hand. Yeah, he did. He didn't write scripts. He didn't have details. But he did have vague ideas of what he wanted to happen. Take a look at the making of Star Wars. His original notes are right there from the drafts of ANH. Certain things changed. He never claimed to have written the scripts for the PT in 1976.

 

Yeah, thanks for correcting me...sorry I probably did rant on a bit about those other films...but once again you make good points.

 

And yes I did mean 'inferior'. Please ignore my absurd australian english and if I post any more feel free to correct me!

Your essay concerning the prequel trilogy was a fascinating read, and quite funny (in the humour sense). I can see why you would have won. Just for the record, I would not consider myself a 'fanboy' in the sense that you describe him. I have little merchandise, no costumes, few books. I went to see each prequel film only once, and that was that. I'm not sure if the your essay can be said to espouse the entire truth of the matter...I don't want to get in an argument with you about it because you're obviously my intellectual superior and you obviously know a great deal more about the creation process of Star Wars than I do. Nonetheless, there were many, 'commonmen' non fanboy types, including my own father, his friends and almost everyone I know, who enjoyed the prequels. Rotten tomatoes is a testament to the negative receptions of Phantom and Clones, though I notice ROTS scored an OT comparable 81% positive rating.

It is strange but most of the people I talk to actually enjoyed Phantom Menace more than ROTS. Strange perhaps, though personally I enjoyed the latter more.

 

The article lost me when it listed the Bible next to "Frankenstein." Interesting world-view he has there.

 

He's talking nonsense.

It's 2007, folks. Either love the films or move on. It's really quite simple.

 

Exactly. If you don't like it, good on you. But stop resenting and questioning the fact that, or the reason why, millions of people do.

 

I actually made three edits to the above post to make it as succinct as possible without causing offence. I really could have said more, of course, but why? What would it have accomplished? I think G-FETT has already given the perfect answer. I mean, if I came up with YET ANOTHER hearty defence of the prequels, I'd clearly be repeating myself and wasting my breath, and people would only be too eager to tell me that it's just my opinion -- and they'd be right. There's no need to seek a detailed response to prequel bashing anymore; either you've kept an open mind and already educated yourself or you haven't.

 

I heard it come on tomorrow night, at 9pm here on the east coast, if anyone wanted to know. I'm recording it on my DVR, wouldn't have even known about it if it wasn't for this thread!

 

thanks cryogenic. the reason behind my mentioning you was I think quite obvious; indeed i've read you're stuff on other posts and it's good. I understand your reasoning though I suppose my idea was that this guy might have some specific points you might like to rebut. Evidently I haven't 'educated' myself enough yet, so i'd had better shut up and assume you're opinion is already well known among forumers, which you obviously believe it is.

With all due respect however, it is obvious the debate tires you and that you think we should all move on. I do in fact agree with this, and as I wrote in my introductory piece my enjoyement of Star Wars is in no way tarnished by prequel 'bashers'.

Nonetheless, I hope once again that we are not misguiding ourselves, simply assuming that basher's opinions are just opinions and that we can thus ignore them. As you rightly asserted, your opinion will be just that as well, though I suppose I would be interested to hear your critique of specific elements of the author's article, such as the reference to 'video game' movies etc etc.

However, if indeed you're tired to such an extent by the argument that it is all pointless background noise, and can say no more, I understand. I am most thankful to you for your various edits that refrainded from causing offence, I apologise if your esteemed self was in some way hurt by my post. We're not all veterans, and as poor and repetative as my contentions may be, I still have a right to post them.

 

The 2 commericals I've seen looks quite good. I'm looking forward to a freash look at SW. I'll let ya know more after I see it.

 

Spare us the melodramatics and veiled insults, AussieRebel. That article is a pure bash. So the author thinks that the prequels are "execrable". Good for him. How is anyone supposed to rebut that? His other charges -- that the films are "shallow", "poorly plotted", "woodenly acted", are like "videogames" and are a "cartoon excuse to sell merchandise" -- have been mounted and counter-mounted for years now. What new discourse are you genuinely looking for? I really think that your opening post was a bait. If you've read some of my own posts and various CBC threads, not to mention the various threads and insights of other fans on this same site, then you should be sufficiently educated by now.

Do you want me to throw you a few bones? Are you saying that you're too ignorant to teach yourself? I think you're better than that. I actually tried to show you respect by NOT preaching and linking to other things, but since you appear to still want these things, I guess I'll bite:

http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/38/clones1.htm
http://www.lardbiscuit.com/lard/shroud.html
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/~anne/clones.html
http://boards.theforce.net/the_star_wars_saga/b10456/22286544/p1/?270
http://boards.theforce.net/the_star_wars_saga/b10456/19957712/p1/?407

Please tell me that the films are shallow after reading those pages.

But, oh wait. You still could. There's no physical universal law that forbids you from doing so. I guess we're still getting nowhere. And those articles don't much address niggly little details like acting and visual effects. In the words of Anakin: "oops!" I guess you'll just have to take everything on faith and find your own answers. That's what G-FETT was saying. I don't know what you want from me. Would you like me to talk about the changing nature of Coruscant across the three films? Or the intricate lightsaber symbolism? Or the pre-method 1930's acting style? Or the interlocking layers of allusion and irony? Or the post-modern construction of the plot? Or the autobiographical nature of the narrative? Or the Taoist philosophy of the saga? The derivation of character and place names? The complex visual codings and compositions? The formal colloquy of the PT versus the quasi-contemporary banter of the OT? The marketing? The merchandise? I get sick of the sound of my own voice and those of the people I routinely defend these films against. Many others have said it so much better than I. The answers are out there.

 

Hold on, hold on, hold on. Let's not flame. Disagree but keep it clean. Sorry Mods if I beat ya to it!

 

Cryogenic, thanks for the links.

I apologise if you took my post as being 'melodramatic' (which is what people tell me I naturally am!!!) or laced with 'veiled insults' (which they were, fundly enough hehe...I took your post to be a little insulting and arogantly self-important)

However we do stand on the same ground so basically, 'this bickering is pointless'...I understand your reasoning and yes one should either like it or move on, though I thought the article was nonetheless interesting and debate inspiring.

I have read all the CBC discussions, and as i have already said your comments are very interesting...indeed what more can you say.

However with respect to myself, I was asking you for that very reason; I was awed, in a way, by your commentary and thought it might be benefificial here. Strangely enough, your reply post to me was everything I wanted, though I regret that it shouldh've come about under such negative circumstances.

Nonetheless, thank you for participating in the discussion; your input is always valued.

 

Well, what are you looking for? Are you hoping this thread will serve as an epic discussion on the prequels and their quality or lack thereof? I see plenty of other threads serving that purpose. And I see plenty of discussion, here and elsewhere, that delves into the deeper aspects of the saga. What's so special about this article? I just don't see why we should be putting the spotlight on someone like this. Their rant is nothing new.