main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

The Original Trilogy as "Dramatic" and the Prequel Trilogy as "Epic."

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Pyrogenic, Sep 17, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    But the artist's intention is not the same as the artwork itself. I think it's just plain silly to analyze artistic intent as opposed to analyzing artwork. If it were all about intent, then what would be the point of the artwork in the first place? Placing any credence on intent over art kills interpretation. The artist could be a liar. The artist could be inaccurate. You can't truly know what the artist intended, and even if the artist supplies his/her intent, it should have no authority over what the artist presented in their piece because the piece should and does speak for itself. It's the "intentional fallacy," and I'm sure you've seen me rant about it before. Noboby's ever taken the time to defend authorial intent for me, so...want to give it a go?

    I've given examples like this in the past:

    I draw a picture of a furry, round-faced, pointy-eared creature chasing a mouse up a tree, licking its paws, and yelling "Meow! Purr...Meow!"

    If I say it's a picture of a dog, does that make it a dog?

    What if I say it's a picture of a cat? Does my saying it's a cat make it a cat or does the image itself make it a cat?

    What if I say it's a picture of a goofoo? Is it automatically a goofoo even though nobody knows what a goofoo is?

    What if I don't say anything at all? If I'm not there to be relied upon, is the picture of nothing?

    As you can see, my intent is irrelevant when it comes to interpretation. I certainly intended to make the picture a certain way, but when it comes down to what the picture actually represents, how can I have any authority? Just because I made it? Writers aren't the definitive readers of their own works, DarthMatter. The picture is of a cat, and NOT because I said so.
     
  2. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    Perception falls by the same sword - if the intention is not the work, the perception is even less so.
    ...and vice versa.
    ...again, what proves the perceiver is somehow infallible?
    ...you can't know what the perceiver is bringing to the intrepretation, and you can't know what a set of them are bringing to it.
    ...but your interpretation is irrelevant when considering the intent.

    The problem with this "Intentional Fallacy" thing, which essentially came from academics who were not artists, is that it's really a false dichotomy, and is itself fallacious. Its usefullness is in illustrating a point, only by erroneusly dividing things. Its not an accurate way that we actually interact with ourselves and the world. It's like the epic/dramatic thing above - a total oversimplification from a false basis of binary opposition. A really mature Aesthetic is one which sees the work in full context and transcends the simplistic dichotomy.

    So, there is an intention, and the work is the hopeful result. No audience is necessary for this to have produced an Artwork, but for a fuller layering of meaning and true communication, it is satisfying to subordinate n-layers of meaning from multiple perceptions. None of them outweigh the artist's intention in creating the work, as the artist has the authority of declaring the primary meaning of the work, but the audience perceptions are nevertheless necessary for communication to have occured.

    The basic error is that people who don't make Art seem to act like the work belongs to them, that its meaning belongs to them. So, they naturally discount the artist's intention. Show me a serious artist who believes their intention doesn't matter and I'll show you an unserious poser. Without intention, the work doesn't happen, for one thing. So, the writer must be the definitive reader of the work, the artist of the art, the filmmaker of the film. To presume that the audience rules the work is to turn Art into mere product, or worse, a totalitarianism, but certainly, the "fallacy" theory denigrates Art in favour of academic presumption. Now, perception is crucially important for communication, but there is no requirement that an artwork communicate, or that it communicate the same thing to all people - this is the very basis of Modern Art, for example.

    Of course, you don't see that you implicitly believe this. How would you react if I said your post was, let's say, "sexually offensive"? Naturally, you'd respond that it wasn't your intention. Of course, I'm using this as a hypothetical example, but it serves to show that your intention is more important than my perception of the post - because it's yours. However, for clear communication to have happened, my perception is very important, indeed, but as a perceiver, I bring my own baggage to the work which may have nothing to do with it, and might pull it completely out of context. The art of communicating is manipulating intention so that through the work the correct perception is achieved. In a job interview, this can be a real problem, but in Art, it is a welcome complexity which adds even more meaning in most cases.

    So, for Art to happen, intention is all that matters. For that Art to communicate, then audience perception becomes key, but is still outweighed by intention. Put simply, the easiest refutation of your Interpretational Argument is the fact of perception and personality: With so many v
     
  3. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    The point of an artwork is to be percieved, not made. Neither intention nor perception are the work. The work is the work, and the only legitimate meaning the work "contains" is derived from perception.
    Interpretation depends entirely on perception, not intention.
    It's not as if one should take any interpretation as infallible--just as you like, the best argument will win. Also, an artist's interpretation of his/her own work would be different from his/her expressed intent. The artist should be placed no higher than anyone else in matters of interpretation. Intent is another matter. Intent is what the artist meant to do. The artwork is what the artist did. We must interpret the artwork, not the intent. Have it any other way, and the artwork becomes irrelevant.
    Ideally, the perciever(s) won't add anything. If they do, their "interpretation" would have to be taken with a grain of salt.
    Exactly. Interpreting intent would have nothing to do with interpreting the work, which is what I set out to do.

    When criticizing art, one must know the rules. When creating art, one must forget them. The "intentonal fallacy" and "affective fallacy" were coined by academics who were part of the New Criticism, which was a movement very much driven by formalist poets and critics (like T.S. Eliot). Their main tenant was that an artwork should be treated as if it were a self-contained, self-referential object. The "intentional fallacy" is a decision about how we should interact with art. Everything has a binary opposition and everything is different. Seeing a work in full context is mixing biography with literary criticism--two things that are not necessarily intertwined. And how convenient that I was indeed using Brecht's "oversimplification" to illustrate a point.

    This isn't a matter of interpretations outweighing intent. They are different in kind, not degree. Intent presumably creates a work, but interpretation is what "gives it" meaning. There is no art without the communication possible only through interpretation.

     
  4. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    "The point of an artwork is to be percieved, not made."

    Says who? Your professors?

    Obviously, you're not an artist or creative person who makes things, are you? If you were, you wouldn't believe a word of what you've posted tonight. There are some rare souls out there who say things like that and are creative, but they are just that, and they almost never really mean it - if you tried to take over their work, for example, they'd assert natural authority real quick. So no, you're wrong. Art is always primarily and fundamentally and irreversibly a product of expression from an artist (in any medium) which first and foremost matters only to the artist creating it. GL has said this about his films, as well, referencing Auteur Theory. The audience is always secondary, a passive consumer of prior work, an observer of someone else's real expression and talent.

    You seem to have your mind made up, so I urge you to go out locally where you are and try to meet a serious, talented artist in any medium - not an academic pedant, but a real working, creative person who lives and breathes their work. I can tell you flat out that these, again "sophomoric", aesthetic theories are essentially meaningless, and the artist(s) you meet will laugh in your face. This opinion you have always breaks down (as I've refuted your position above) on simple perceptual and communication realities. But you don't want to hear those facts - its easier to assume you know what any possible artwork is all about by glancing at it, that you can reduce it to what your subjective interpretation demands of it.

    See, you are saying that artists have some duty to make work for you to consume, for you to alone interpret. Yet, if you had put your heart and soul into something and someone came along and reduced your hard work the way you just reduced all of Art, you'd be quite offended, my friend. You'd immediately see the falsity and ethical danger of your unfortunate reliance on academic pedantry. I certainly respect you as a person, but I can't respect your position on this. Sorry.
     
  5. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    "The point of an artwork is to be percieved, not made."

    Me.

    Actually...

    This has nothing to do with auteur theory. The creator should be able to make their work as well as they want. It's just that expression is only half of the game.

    I can do that...by myself.

    Artists don't have to make anything for anyone. But if they didn't, there would be no art.

    Peace out, homefry.[face_peace]
     
  6. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005
    Or thread derailment.

    Then why the following remarks?

    Yes . . . why don't you?

    What an arrogant, insulting comment!

    THEN DON'T!

    . . . which is just what MisterVader, in starting this thread, has attempted to do.

    Oh, yes. This is EXACTLY what some people do. Go to zombie's "Secret History" thread for a very potent example. But this is not what EVERYONE does. Indeed, it is the people debasing and defiling Lucas and constantly pointing the jealous finger, presuming they know better than he does, rubbishing his work and all examinations of it, that are the repeat offenders.

    Utterly incorrect. The fallacy does this; the theory does not.

    No, it isn't. For art to happen, there must be a universe. To be any more specific is to descend into folly. Ask any artist and they'll always tell you that there are elements that are invariably beyond their control.

    Interesting. How are we to apply this to the collected works of William Shakespeare -- a person we know next to NOTHING about. Indeed, we don't even know if his works wer
     
  7. Darth-Stryphe

    Darth-Stryphe Former Mod and City Rep star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Apr 24, 2001
    Cyro has been banned for posting a blatant flame. I would ask everyone to ignore this post and continue on with the discussion. I hope that there is no one else who feels that they can call someone stupid and get away with it in a forum I mod. If no one else feels that way, then we're all good. Carry on.
     
  8. Jamiebacca

    Jamiebacca Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 17, 2003
    I'd say each trilogy has a sense of epic scope and drama. I grew up on the OT and had my imagination to fill in a LOT of gaps back in the days when the EU was small (I only saw a few comics back then) - so a lot of the scope of the OT exists in my own mind, I think.

    But yes, the OT is more dramatic, funny and mystical than the PT. And yes, the PT is far more visually ambitious than the OT.

    I wonder where/how the tv show (live action) will present itself within the two.
     
  9. RamRed

    RamRed Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 16, 2002
    From ?Wikipedia? site:

    ?Generally speaking, the term ?epic? refers to movies that have a large scope, often set during a time of war or other conflict, and sometimes taking place over a considerable period of time. A historical setting is commonplace, although fantasy or science fiction settings are not unknown. Sometimes the story is based around a quest that the characters are embarked on over the course of the film. A large cast of characters is also common.?

    This sounds like a description for both the Prequel and the Original Trilogies.

    Beside that, I'm sick and tired of "OT/CT" and "PT", and wish that we could just move on, get over it, and see a Saga. Every thread in this forum seems to boil down to comparing the trilogies, ranking the films, accentuating their differences, endlessly repeating "I liked this one but didn't like that one", ad nauseum, and then it all comes back again in the next thread. I've done it, too, so I'm not claiming the high road, just that there is a road, and I wonder where it leads.

    I have to agree. I am also getting sick and tired of the OT and PT comparisons, usually to one of the trilogies? disadvantage. I see both trilogies as one ?Saga?. As an entire story. Sometimes, when I am watching one of the PT movie, I see something that reminds me of something I had seen in one of the OT movies, or vice versa. It?s just one saga to me. I wonder how long will it be before many fans and the media realize this, and stop indulging what seems to me as some rather stupid compartmentalizing?


     
  10. DarthMatter

    DarthMatter Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Jul 12, 2004
    QFT on that. I haven't taken a scientific poll, but I think it might already be underway, yet will take more time. Most normal people (not most of us here) probably consider them as one six-part set of films, while on boards like these, the only sure-fire way to pick fights and generate discussion is to start in with the whole PT/OT dead horse, and so that division has stuck very hard. In fact, people here have argued quite passionately that we must see two separate trilogies. Some of it is natural, given that we have watched it all unfold over the years, but eventually, I think it will wash away.
     
  11. Master_Starwalker

    Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 20, 2003
    It's definitely one Saga now, but given that it's made up of two equal length trilogies which were released 30 years apart and have different tones, it's only natural that there's a division there in the minds of some. It also works as a clear and well known division for comparing the fall of Anakin Skywalker and the rise of Luke Skywalker.
     
  12. Jamiebacca

    Jamiebacca Jedi Padawan star 4

    Registered:
    Jun 17, 2003
    I totally agree. They are different triologies made a generation apart. One by a man in his 30s, the other by a man in his 50's with children.
     
  13. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    OK, so my "Oppositional Cinemas" class has just provided even more insight into this fascinating dichotomy!

    What follows are excerpts from an essay by Peter Wollen called "Godard and Counter-Cinema," which examines how the French director Jean-Luc Godard created a storytelling style that conflicts with classical Hollywood narration on seven fundamental levels.

    "1. Narrative Transitivity v. Narrative Intransitivity.
    (One thing following another v. gaps and interruptions, episoding construction, undigested digression.)

    2. Identification v. Estrangement.
    (Empathy, emotional involvement with a character v. direct address, multiple and divided characters, commentary.)

    3. Transparency v. Foregrounding.
    ("Language wants to be overlooked"--Siertsema v. making the mechanics of the film/text visible and explicit.)

    4. Single Diegesis v. Multiple Diegeses.
    (A unitary homogenous world v. heterogeneous worlds. Rupture between different codes and different channels.)

    5.Closure v. Aperture.
    (A self-contained object, harmonized within its own bounds v. open-endedness, overspill, intertextuality--allusion, quotation, and parody.)

    6. Pleasure v. Unpleasure.
    (Entertainment, aiming to satisfy the spectator, v. provocation, aiming to dissatisfy and hence change the spectator.)

    7. Fiction v. Reality.
    (Actors wearing make-up, acting a story v. real life, the breakdown of representation, truth.)"

    I think that the prequels tend to be much more oppositional than the originals and that the originals tend to be much more classical than the prequels based on Brecht's and Wollen's models, but I digress...

    How well do you think the ENTIRE SAGA fits into these frameworks? Is it, as a whole, more classical or oppositional? It will certainly have elements of both, but where do you think the chips mostly fall?

    Hopefully, this will satisfy those like DarthMatter who didn't like the inherent divisiveness of my earlier approach and allow us to discuss the entire work wothout worrying about the accuracy of the models with respect to the two trilogies as separate texts to be compared.



     
  14. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    I think non-fans already consider it one big series. Not a "saga" (a term LFL and fans use to try elevating the series' 'modern mythology' status), but a series. To the general public, the Star Wars series is no more 'complete' now than it was when Jedi came out. Lucas could come out with one or several additional films and generally people would go, "Okay, another Star Wars movie." Whereas fans would go, "Okaaayy, but I thought the saga was complete!"

    I also think regular folks see the movies in terms of the old ones and the new ones, because the trilogies are in fact very different. It's almost as if OT=Star Trek and PT=Star Trek: The Next Generation. The two compartments are distinct enough that there will very naturally be some who prefer one over the other. Although style-wise I feel the each film in the OT is rather different from one another whereas the style in the PT is very consistent and homogeneous from film to film.

    Even more than that, though, I've noticed that non-fans tend to view the series, more than anything, as individual films, rejecting the all-or-nothing approach most fans seem to have with either individual trilogies (P.S. another word overused by Hollywood and LFL because it sounds like the audience is getting something more or better than just a series of three movies) or the series as a whole. Non-fans have told me they only liked one of the films, or that they liked these two but not the other four. Sometimes it even crosses the OT/PT border: "I like SW, Jedi, and Sith".

    But by and large, I've only ever met people (fans or otherwise) who either
    A) liked all the movies,
    B) liked some of the PT/all of the OT
    C) liked some of the PT/some of the OT
    D) liked none of the PT/all of the OT
    E) liked none of the movies

    I have never met a single person in real life who liked the PT but didn't like the OT. Just sayin'.
     
  15. Master_Starwalker

    Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 20, 2003
  16. RamRed

    RamRed Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 16, 2002
    think that the prequels tend to be much more oppositional than the originals and that the originals tend to be much more classical than the prequels based on Brecht's and Wollen's models, but I digress...


    I don't understand. How is it that the Original Trilogy is supposed to be more "classical" than the Prequel Trilogy? That does not make sense to me.


    But yes, the OT is more dramatic, funny and mystical than the PT. And yes, the PT is far more visually ambitious than the OT.


    I would agree that the OT is more funny than the PT. It's not a tragedy in the making, unlike the PT. And the latter is set during a more formal age. But as to the OT being more mystical, I don't agree. In fact, I do not see how the OT should be viewed as more "mystical" than the PT.
     
  17. Master_Starwalker

    Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 20, 2003
    The Jedi being portrayed as adherents of an ancient 'religion', Vader's 'sorcerer's ways', the emphasis on the Force as 'an energy field created by all living things' rather than on midichlorians, Luke using the Force to make the Ewok's think Threepio has magic, Yoda's statement that 'luminous beings are we, not this crude matter.', and of course Force Ghosts.
     
  18. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Not to mention the numerous times in the original SW that people question the existence or power of the Force, both things which are taken for granted in the PT (See "A Jedi? We're SCREWED!!" during the beginning of TPM).

    RamRed (or Go-mer, I get you two mixed up), I'll grant you that if you go into SW after watching the PT, that mystery has been taken away, but the OT was constructed to be watched and understood without those chapters. If you start with SW and continue into ESB and RotJ, the Force is something that is slowly revealed and explained. Yoda's lifting the X-Wing from the swamp is supposed to be a 'holy crap' moment, because up until that actually happens we've never seen the Force used so powerfully. In other words, "I am your father" isn't the only thing that's screwed up by the 1-6 viewing order.
     
  19. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    We're straying off-topic, but...

    Jar Jar questions the Force in TPM, JKH. Just as "numerous" as in the OT--one mention by Han Solo.:rolleyes:
     
  20. Master_Starwalker

    Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Exactly.

    There's arguably more if we include Motti's "Don't try to frighten us with your sorcerous ways, Lord Vader. Your sad devotion to that ancient religion has not helped you conjure up the stolen data tapes, or given you clairvoyance enough to find the Rebel's hidden fort-*urk*!"
     
  21. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon

    Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Knight star 6

    Registered:
    Dec 17, 2000
    Jar-Jar is the biggest idiot in the GFFA. Qui-Gon hints at this in their first conversation. But for argument's sake let's use Jar-Jar to cancel out Han.

    Add Motti, as Master_Skywalker says. That's 1 for the OT.

    Add Luke's totally confused "The Force?" That's 2.

    "Their fire has gone out of the universe. You my friend are all that is left of their religion." Up to 3 now.

    I'll go ahead and add Han's half-hearted, nonbelieving "May the Force be with you" since it's a totally different scene. Basically, "I think your religion is bull, but I'm saying this to give you support." 4.

    Also, we've been shown very little of what the Force can do by the end of SW. It's not until ESB that the Force is actually shown to provide telekinetic abilities (It's not explicitly clear whether Motti is actually choking or just being made to believe he can't breathe). Contrast this to TPM where in the first few minutes we see Jedi run at superhuman speeds and drop from a huge height to land softly like cats.
     
  22. RamRed

    RamRed Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 16, 2002

    I don't see how a few words and phrases in the screenplays make the OT more "mystical" than the PT.


    RamRed (or Go-mer, I get you two mixed up), I'll grant you that if you go into SW after watching the PT, that mystery has been taken away, but the OT was constructed to be watched and understood without those chapters. If you start with SW and continue into ESB and RotJ, the Force is something that is slowly revealed and explained. Yoda's lifting the X-Wing from the swamp is supposed to be a 'holy crap' moment, because up until that actually happens we've never seen the Force used so powerfully. In other words, "I am your father" isn't the only thing that's screwed up by the 1-6 viewing order.


    That is your opinion. Not mine. Sorry, but I'm not convinced.
     
  23. Pyrogenic

    Pyrogenic Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 17, 2006
    I'll give you a couple of those, but otherwise, they're just wary of "religion." The reason the Force is MORE taken for granted in the PT is because there are Jedi everywhere!

    If nobody uses the Force except for literally ONE visible figure (Vader), OF COURSE people will be skeptical.

    It's not a criticism of the PT--it's an observation.
     
  24. Master_Starwalker

    Master_Starwalker Manager Emeritus star 6 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Sep 20, 2003
    Oh, the difference in the view of the Force's legitimacy makes sense and doesn't effect the quality of the films, but I prefer the OT where the mysticism is emphasized more.
     
  25. RamRed

    RamRed Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 16, 2002
    And I don't favor either trilogy.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.