"I am your Father" - A real reward?

Well, I never really experienced either of them, so I use my imagination. I think I've gotten pretty good at imagining that I haven't watched Star Wars.
It would help, of course, if you watched the movies about once a year. Tops.



Imagination - it's wild
/LM

 

I follow Qui-Gon's advise in the PT and "keep my concentration here and now where it belongs". In the OT I listen to Yoda and see "the future, the past, old friends long gone..."

 

I agree. I wouldn't change a thing about my viewing experience.

I remember way back when what a HUGE thing it was that Vader was Luke's father. I remember all the buzz and talk surrounding it when the movie came out. Good times.

 

"i am your father" is one of the all time great cinema twists!!!
Nothing can ever change what it meant, and the effect it had on audiences in 1980.

I suppose that that is true, although I hadn?t yet been born at the time when "Empire" was initially released into theaters, and therefore I am unable to form a commentary that is drawn from personal experience. However, the scene?s impact is such that the "surprise," as it were, no longer retains its sense of mystery due to the fact that the "Star Wars" mythos has permeated most, if not all, facets of popular culture. I was well aware of Vader?s identity long before ever having the opportunity to see the film itself.

The problem is, since then, it has also become well known as a qoute, fact and even used in quite a few parodies.
And also, ask any non star wars fan, and i guareentee they will be able to tell you who lukes father is or the relationship between Vader and Luke...

Its one of those things that we cant just change. thats what happens when something becomes a part of "pop-culture".

You make some excellent points, Master_Jedi80, and so that leaves us with one matter as of yet left unresolved: is the scene in question capable of functioning independently from the parameters of the artificial plot mechanism mentioned above? Yes, I think so; films which rely solely on gimmickry for their cumulative effect do not often become resonant and enduring artistic entities. Once the more fleeting aspects of "surprise" have dissipated, one should be able to assess whether or not said property has any internal dramatic value ? i.e. does the "surprise," when considered in terms of the context in which it appears, function on a level other than that of the more transitory device I have just mentioned? It does so in "Empire," because we are able to grasp the emotional weight that Vader?s revelation entails ? it has urgency and resonance for the two characters it concerns most, and is thus successful on its own dramatic terms within the story, transcending the scene?s underlying mechanical operation.

Why else would movies like Hitchcock?s "Psycho," which also contains a number of surprises, retain much of their potency? Good films are often able to surpass the more routine plot constructs and become effective on their own terms. Consider the great French filmmaker, Robert Bresson, who made pictures whose titles usually revealed either significant incidental material ("Pickpocket," "The Trial of Joan of Arc") or even the outcome of their stories ("A Man Escaped"). Bresson, whose films could not be more aesthetically removed from the cinema of either Hitchcock or Lucas, gave away this sort of information in his movie titles, because the films themselves were not intended to be about surprising the viewer with notions that are solely based upon the banality of a "plot apparatus"; although Bresson?s spiritual plumbing really has nothing to do "Star Wars," I use the "title" analogy as a means to indicate how the most effective pieces of work tend to allow us to consider their artistry long after the immediacy of their plot gimmickry has eroded. "The Empire Strikes Back" is a film of that nature.