PT Would Jar Jar have been better if he was not CGI?

Absolutely. I think Jar Jar enriches and enlivens the canvas of TPM and the whole Star Wars saga considerably.

Yes. A powerful moment. At that point, both characters are displaced and essentially shipwrecked, but Jar Jar has enough perspicacity and wherewithal to light a fire under Padme / Amidala's hopelessness, beginning the final and most spectacle-laden act of the movie -- and changing the direction, meaning, and intent of the entire saga. One of those awesomely tentative "prequel" character-connection moments that I love.

Big Adventure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pee-wee's_Big_Adventure

And yes, Jar Jar was primarily intended to appeal to a young audience, but it should be noted, in-universe, that the conspicuous "child" character of Episode I only grudgingly tolerates Jar Jar -- which undermines the claim that Jar Jar was out-and-out intended to pander to a young mindset without any underlying commentary or subversion in the movie itself (there are other counterpoints; but this is, if anything, one of the more subtle ones).

Another thing I dig about Jar Jar is that he is the only "main" who doesn't, necessarily, have a royal lineage, or an obvious connection to greatness (though he does seem to be "in" somewhat with the Bosses; or formerly "in" with them; and he is inadvertently swept up in an adventure with the reigning queen of Naboo and her Jedi protectors). If you look at the other characters, they're all somewhat lofty, whether because of the position they already hold (Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan as elite Jedi, for example), or because they have special origins (Anakin), are the offspring of a person with special origins (Threepio, Luke, Leia), are royalty (Amidala), or in the service of royalty (Artoo), or have a cool ship and connections to a lucrative criminal underworld (Han). Jar Jar is really the first and only "main" with an authentically arboreal, earthen, sensuous quality -- a wild sprite whose home is the forest floor. He is the true aberration; and appropriately named.

Well, why not Jar Jar as he is? What's so horribly bad about that?

Lucas could have made him any way he pleased, but he was evidently after a very specific character, in service of very specific aims, inside of a very specific story.

Artoo and Threepio aren't true bumblers. They echo Jar Jar in being unwanted bric-a-brac characters by the start of the OT, and in having that comedic, child-like aspect that tends to permeate the series and manifest in a felicitous fashion in certain of its dramatic incarnations, and they're even in the role of audience guide .... but for all that, they're not Jar Jar.

One major design feature that sets Jar Jar apart from the droids is -- as I tried to elucidate earlier -- that he is incredibly elastic to their hardened and brittle (the droids in use by the TF and the classic comedic duo of Artoo and Threepio). Jar Jar is a supple, energetic, life-embodying avatar. A sort of "court jester", if you will, only, the whole galaxy is his courtyard. That is he such a livewire, but also dignified, resigned at times, and sagacious, even, makes him incredibly fascinating, to me.

TPM is a film about things that jar (hint), about the wildness of nature and how it is tamed and sublimated within civilization, about interruptions and breakdowns in communication, and about the interplay between the "fringe" of society and its values and regimens and its core. Jar Jar is the perfect emissary to place inside a movie of this sort -- high-low fantasy with an extremely dense allegorical construction. To me, he is perfectly at home in an episode that itself lies on the fringes of "the saga", but is also its anchor, its foundation. Indeed, there is a cadre of unlikely, yet essential, outliers here: Qui-Gon, Maul, a "naked" Threepio, a child "hero" protagonist, and an actual queen of a lush world who defies her advisors and takes back her planet, based on inspiration borne of the unlikeliest of bonds.

Jar Jar is plenty interesting to me as he exists, as he was conceived and molded. I don't really want for anything more.

I also think you're describing a quite-alien set of alternatives -- well, one alternative; just variations on a theme.

Jar Jar is different because he's not a warrior, or a criminal, or a drunkard, or a gambler, or a venture capitalist, or a free-wheeling opportunist (not all of these categories are discrete / non-overlapping). He's simply a down-on-his-luck guy living as blissfully, or as earnestly as he can, moment-to-moment.

Jar Jar actually comes close to an ideal advanced by Qui-Gon at the beginning of the film, in that he's more connected to the moment, rather than striving conceitedly, or railing against past transgressions. This makes him an excellent foil for the kind of moody, surly character Anakin morphs into in the latter prequel episodes. Where Jar Jar apparently holds no ill-will for his fellow Gungans, despite being cast out of their society, Anakin stews in resentment at the mere perception of being slighted and denied a more expansive role in a societal fabric he already holds a prestigious position within.

Lucas subtly casts Jar Jar as calm counsellor at several points in the prequel narrative, even having him dispense basic reassurance to Anakin in an early scene in AOTC -- this could have been Jar Jar's true calling. If only Anakin had adopted more of Jar Jar's laid-back optimism. We all have such latent resources within us. Jar Jar is a paean for the doomed child suddenly "in over his head", as it were, and forced to contend with the "busy"-ness that is a nominal function of the tall, dressed-up adult world we inhabit and seem carelessly cast into before we know it; and a pleasing reminder, once we realize it is possible to let go of most of what ails us, that we tend to take on too many responsibilities and let stress and negativity overwhelm us. While joining a power structure, he remains an affront to its decayed assumptions.

Interestingly, though some people think Jar Jar only brings ugly stupidity and crass destruction of tone to a saga that would have its share of light-heartedness and silliness without him, anyway, he also -- in my mind --- brings a greater sense of irony, scope, and feeling to a story that is in a more complex configuration at its "beginning". On a basic level, Jar Jar simply adds to the lovely pictorialism of the prequel trilogy -- in Episode I, his tan shades are in perfect agreement with the browns, yellows, and oranges that have a strong presence at the start, and on into the second installment. He can be enjoyed simply for the lustrous visual properties he imparts. Yet it's possible (as I obviously do) to go much further and see many greater and more varied dimensions in Jar Jar if one chooses to do so ("your focus determines your reality" 'n' all that jazz).

That's why I really love Jar Jar. He's everything and nothing to people in the story and outside of it. In a pivotal essay, and in his brilliant book ("The Star Wars Heresies"), prequel scribe Paul McDonald propounds that Jar Jar's very "uselessness" -- this is often the battle cry of people who dislike Jar Jar -- represents a sort of Eastern challenge to Western orthodoxy, and he cites the parable of "the useless tree". I shall provide two quotations. First, Paul McDonald himself:

Source: http://www.forcecast.net/story/blog/The_Case_For_Jar_Jar_134218.asp

And here is the story, or one variation thereof, expounded in more detail:

Source: http://www.spiritual-wholeness.org/mystic/text/wonder2.htm

Jar Jar has actually proven, well, "useful" to me in his very (perceived) uselessness. I have used him to bring clemency to a friend of mine who has undergone considerable mental and emotional trauma.

I really like that George Lucas chose to develop and impute a character like Jar Jar into the real beginning of the saga. One whose elan is perfectly sublime and ripples through the entire mythologic fabric. He is a comedic character with a difference. One who MAKES a difference and leaves an imprint, either because or in spite of himself.

Would Jar Jar's shtick have grown tired and utterly lame had he been inserted heavily in all three PT movies? Most assuredly. But he only has a light presence after TPM; and even his appearance in TPM is not quite as enlarged as detractors often claim (loud moments on Naboo and Tatooine interspersed with quieter ones; and an almost totally-introspective Jar Jar on Coruscant).

It's a remarkably rich and unapologetically dense, fast-moving story. Star Wars is not only an opus that is improved with Jar Jar, but actively needs him to adumbrate and make sense of a host of forbidding thematic elements and motifs that carry down the course of the saga. He makes the whole thing infinitely better -- in my humble, Gungan-obsessed opinion.

 

If you have a problem with Jar Jar, there is a simple solution. The Fast Forward button.

I've worn out several remotes since 1999.

 

Watching the Phantom Edit is a more healthier solution, or not watching at all (that's what I do)

Regarding the question of this thread, it would not make a difference, his personality is what annoys me from him. I don't mind his CGI look, he looks like Ronaldinho Gaucho.

 

Why does every character have to be 'badass' or cool? Star Wars isn't The Matrix, or some such soulless, pretentious tripe.

IRL people like Jar Jar show up the shortcomings of those of us who otherwise think of ourselves as 'nice'. We can't help feeling impatient with them, even despising them at times, for their sheer bloody ineptness. They bring out harsh truths about ourselves. That's exactly what Jar Jar does, in respect of the supposedly calm, patient and compassionate Jedi. He's pushing the outer boundaries of their storied compassion for all innocent beings. Obviously enough with Obi-Wan, but with Qui-Gon too.

Exactly. I'd find the Jedi a lot less human if not for Jar Jar. Without him, they're just a bunch of warrior-wizard monks being either awesome or mystical onscreen, or helping out equally cool, competent and important people. For me, Jar Jar puts the characters into the same psychological universe I'm in.

edit: I realise that the last paragraph is groping towards what Cryogenic puts a lot more eloquently. I agree with pretty much everything he's said ITT.

 

Basically, people who hate Jar Jar because he's clumsy and annoying failed to learn one of the central lessons of Episode I--that lesson being that every life is valuable and serves a purpose, even lives belonging to the social outcasts among us.

 

You're point is a correct one. But, if you're looking to make a statement like that in a film. The audience has to have a real sense of empathy for the 'hapless' character. It's a skill being able to pull that off. Unfortunately Jar Jar was a disaster. He was neither funny (very important) nor did his character have a serious side (equally important) IMO

 

Anyone else notice that almost nobody has actually answered the question since the first page? This thread has been about Jar Jar hate literally since day one.

If I may, I'd like to voice an alternate opinion about what made Jar Jar such a hated character. He wasn't an ewok. Look at the difference in how the two are percieved by fans. At least by the older fans anyway.


And if Lucas was trying to pander to younger people with Jar Jar, he clearly overlooked this graph:


And if some of you still insist on a badass character, fine. Here's the darker side of the Ewoks.


While we're at it, why not replace more characters with Ewoks? For example, there is currently a small debate on whether Darth Maul is a "sucky" character. Circumvent the entire argument. Scrap Maul entirely and replace him with an Ewok antagonist.


And wouldn't it be an interesting plot twist if it turned out that Anakin was raised by Ewoks?


And if Cryogenic is so insistent on Qui-Gon being a horrible racist, just turn him into an Ewok as well.


I am eager to hear all your endorsements. Nobody could possibly find this idea to be disagreeable.

 

Ewoks have Kettech and Tarfang. The Gungans? Who do they have that can compare to Kettech and Tarfang?

 

I though that the lesson of Episode 1 is that the Dark Side is cool. Palpatine was evil and he got to hang out with Maul and had Destroyer Droids. Qui-Gon was good and he hung out with Jar Jar and Jake Lloyd. No contest.

I agree that Jar Jar has no serious side. Its joke after joke, and not even good ones. Poop and fart jokes have no basis in Star Wars. With C-3PO the humor came from him being out of his element for the Trilogy.

Also, Ewoks are awesome. They eat people and were never involved in as slapstick a way as the Gungans.

 

"Also, Ewoks are awesome. They eat people and were never involved in as slapstick a way as the Gungans."

yeah right.

 

Wow...certainly some...interesting posts here. Can't really say I agree. This notion that Jar Jar is some subtle, brilliantly constructed character that adds depth to the plot line is pretty difficult to agree with. I noticed that when Jar Jar got this wave of hatred, scorn, and vitriol lobbed at him that eventually some counter-wave formed to come out and defend him. It is one thing to say you personally enjoy his character or he never bothered you. It's another thing to put this level of hidden important upon him. In fact - the only aspect I find "important" was that he kind of bridged the Naboo with the Gungans. But his importance or lack of it was never really the problem...

On the topic - No. In fact - the CGI was one of the few things I liked about him. For 1999 CGI? He looks pretty good. Very well done for technology of that day. I was really impressed with it at least. I mean - it's been a while since I watched Episode I. So maybe it hasn't aged well, but during that time I thought he was ok. In fact - out of the huge litany of complaints, I don't think I've ever seen anyone say they didn't like him due to how real/fake he looked. Being a puppet like Yoda or a guy in a suit like Chewbacca probably wouldn't have helped much.

He is largely hated for the slap stick humor, the irritating child-like voice, and his buffoonery. I noticed some people said the OT had it too. The Ewoks? Yes. And they are largely disliked. Threepio? Like what? Being carried around by Chewbacca in Bespin? I didn't mind that. It wasn't at all at the level of Jar Jar fighting in a battle and reducing it to a humorous, wacky exercise in hijinks. A CGI alien dancing in Jabba's Palace? Stupid - I admit. But it is onscreen for what? Two minutes or so? Jar Jar had all of Episode I and a small portion of Episode II. What else in the OT is the equivalent of Jar Jar?

My biggest grievance was not Jar Jar's behavior. It was that he ate up time that could have gone to the other characters.

I also noticed that it is claimed that Lucas created Jar Jar so kids would have a character to root for/enjoy/etc. in the PT. What? Where did he get this idea that kids cannot identify with Obi-Wan? Anakin? Padme? Maul? Etc. When I first watched the OT as a KID - I didn't need a cartoon character bouncing around like an utter buffoon (especially when characters are getting killed or fighting in battles). As a kid, I thought Luke's destiny was cool. Leia leading a rebellion against an evil empire exciting. Han Solo being the smooth rogue to be fun. I found Obi-Wan/Yoda to be wise and their teachings of the Force interesting. I found Darth Vader to be a bad-ass. I found Chewbacca, Threepio, and R2 to be funny. Where is this notion coming from that kids cannot identify/enjoy Star Wars if there isn't goofy, slap-stick, ridiculous "humor"?

So no - puppet, man in costume, or CGI. Nothing would save Jar Jar for me. I didn't need Jar Jar to be bad-ass, cool, or hip. I'm fine with a character that is just "normal" in a sea of Jedi, soldiers, and queens. But he wasn't.

 

exsqueezeme is my message tone

 

Just a little note: the Gungans weren't involved in slapstick. Jar Jar was. His immature, childish antics were enough for an entire species. If that isn't a sign that he was overdone with the toilet humor, I don't know what is. Other than the massive amounts of hate he generated, that is.

 

I'm glad you brought up the Ewoks being disliked. The Ewoks are disliked because it's cool to dislike them now. Not because of humor, or anything else really.

I remember as an 8 year seeing ROTJ for the first time in 1983, it never once crossed my mind that the ewoks were out of place. That they were marketing tools or whatever is the cool anti-ewok stance. I just remember thinking how awesome the battle of endor was. My friends and I never had conversations about how teddy bears brought down the Empire while we were playing Star Wars in the neighborhood. I'm not saying that those conversations didn't happen with older kids that saw the movies, but, as I stated above about Jar Jar, Star Wars was aimed at kids. As kids, most (not all) of us didn't care about what the Ewoks were. We thought they were cool as hell, or we didn't care at all, we didn't think they were a possible hit to our maturity level with our friends. I had most of the Kenner Ewok action figures as a kid. However, as time went by, and we got older, the Ewoks didn't appeal to us as much anymore. Our taste in entertainment changed, but, Star Wars didn't. So it got cool to bash Ewoks, as a way to show we matured past Teddy Bears. We forgot that once again, the Ewoks weren't there for 30 to 50 year olds to enjoy. They were there for kids to enjoy. Just like Jar Jar.

 

The Ewoks had a giant tree village! How is that not cool!??!1??!!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

Well, we can go back and forth all day on whether he was funny, given that it's an entirely subjective notion (though anecdotally I've never met a kid who didn't find Jar Jar's antics hilarious). But Jar Jar actually did have a serious side. He was legitimately sad when talking with the Queen about the likelihood of the Naboo and Gungans getting genocided by the Trade Federation. He was more or less a completely serious character in that scene. I don't think Threepio or Chewie ever had a scene as serious as that one.

I'm not sure who's claiming Jar Jar is a "subtle, brilliantly constructed character". He really isn't. There are hardly any subtle, brilliantly constructed characters in Star Wars. Generally, Star Wars characters are based on broad archetypes.

But he did serve a thematic purpose in the story. It's precisely because it wasn't subtle that makes it so hard to believe people didn't get it.

 

I do think that JarJar's basic speech patterns do follow those of black stereotypes. But, the reason is that JarJar's behavior is like that of a 20th century cartoon (Warner, namely). Like it or not, classic cartoons got their start aiming for adult audiences, rather than children. And there was no holding back on topics like race or sterotypes back then. It would take quite a few decades before those elements faded. Even in the 80's, the WB cartoons that were shown would be considered out of line today (although the most blatantly racist ones were censored or banned by then).

There is nothing that JarJar does or says that is demeaning to any culture, as far as I remember. But people do pick up on the connection, and I don't think they're incorrect to do so. Some people are uncomfortable being reminded of that connection, but George isn't guilty of doing anything racist. If there's anything worth having a problem about with George, it's that he has written a cartoon character into the movie. And this has been discussed at length here, too, but it's obviously a less serious "crime". I for one, mostly, don't mind his CGI. As someone brought up, it has held up decently for 1999. Far better than 1997 Jabba. It's good enough to believe that he's really interacting with the actors, and not a character from Reboot being superimposed. He's at his worst when he's most cartoonish, diving into the lake, getting his tongue stuck in things, etc.

So what about his character? I'm not opposed to him being used as comic relief. There are times that I start to cringe, but realize that this is the kind of thing I would accept from 3PO, if it didn't look and sound as stupid as it does. For instance, "How wuuude!!" would sound totally fine coming from 3PO's more dignified voice, directed art R2. But we get the Merrie Melodies version of it. Oh well. So, in many cases it's a matter of presentation.

*Given* that they wanted a more silly comic relief character for the children (they were very successful. My young sister, in 1999, absolutely loved him), I still think they missed the mark. He needed to also be competent, in his own way. I think the point of JarJar should have been that he is easy to mistake as a fool, superficially, but that the reason that we identify this way with him is that he is from a different way of life. And I thought that was what we were going to see, honestly. He should have been surprisingly effective at accomplishing goals *his own way*. Instead they had him accomplish things by accident. It's not the same, and he never earns his keep just by being lucky. I get that George didn't want the kid's character to actually be skilled in war. But then don't put him in the war. Make him a non-violent answer, or make him deceptively talented. You want to sympathize with JarJar when he's down, but it's impossible to take him seriously by his own right. He's made to be objectively incompetent. From what I've seen of Clone Wars, they're going in the right direction. "The Gungan General" has him being properly solemn after someone dies. It has him noticing critical patterns to save lives (regarding the beasts and the volcano holes), showing that he has either instinct or wisdom that others don't, and helps start to make the case that they shouldn't have just dumped him on Tatooine and never looked back.

 

I know Ahmed Best partially based his Jar Jar voice on an exaggerated version of his Jamaican relatives' accents, but I don't really see how the speech patterns themselves are stereotypically black.

 

I don't have a particular fondness for the Ewoks but at least they didn't have animals farting in their general direction or happen to walk in bantha ****.

I've no problem with them putting in a character specifically designed for the younger audience but why the toilet humour ?

It's the performance and the direction that's the problem not the CGI.

 

I agree that the eopie fart was dumb and out-of-place. But I didn't really have a problem with him stepping in the bantha poo. It actually is kind of funny, like, "Yeah, you see these weird and amazing creatures walking around in the background all the time, of course there's going to be alien **** in the streets."

 

These days, one can simply use a slider bar.

LOL! Timely reference.

Some people draw a different association:




I can see the resemblance:




Particularly with The Simpsons' version:

Thank you for this. Precisely.

Jar Jar is many things, including the wise fool who represents a challenge to Jedi hegemony and ingrained prejudice.

Notice that the introductions of Jar Jar in TPM and Yoda in TESB are quite similar.

Wow, yes! Indeed.

It's been noted before that the human actors -- certainly the "adults" -- are a little starchy and aloof, while Jar Jar brings some levity to the proceedings, playing off against their strained seriousness. Even Liam Neeson wryly commented that they, the humans, come off as "a little wooden". I say "even" because people have tried to claim Liam said this or that about the prequels or the one he was one in, but some of those claims are unfounded. This one of his, though, nicely aligns with a common criticism of the picture, but doesn't seem all that disparaging, despite the slight. Jar Jar is a fun and funky character, in my opinion, and I like seeing him as the "wild" to the Jedi's "tame". This contrast might be a little grating for some in some stretches of the picture -- the "bongo" scenes, for example -- but I think it speaks to the genius of the directorial approach of TPM / the PT all the more.

Many thanks! If that's groping, grope away!

Banishment is a cruel and unusual fate to heap on a person -- though, metaphorically, it's the norm in any given societal structure (one is "banished", and also becomes the banisher, repeatedly in daily life). Jar Jar is extremely illuminating on this level.

Social outcasts can be some of the most important members of our species. Being made an outcast, or making one's self into an outcast, is in relative proportion to what a society deems acceptable, and in that sense, what a society's principles, assumptions, values, codes, and sicknesses are -- including, of course, what it fears.

I like the fact that in-universe, no-one seems to be able to get rid of Jar Jar, but they pass him around like a hot potato. He starts off being part of the Gungans, then finding himself roaming amongst the animals, then back with the Gungans, but under the Jedi, in several configurations as he journeys to Tatooine, Corusant, and finally back to Naboo, then suckered into the bloated behemoth of the Galactic Republic. It all culminates in that final appearance behind Padme's casket on a still, chilly, Dickensian morning. He's a bit like a hurricane passing through, only to then dissipate and scatter as if he never existed at all.

I sense, subliminally, why people hate Jar Jar -- at least, in part -- is that the PT is as much *his* journey, his story, as it is anyone else's. His presence would seem the least predictable in advance; so it is with some irony that he ends up being the trilogy's fulcrum. Well, from a certain POV.

It's already been rebutted, but Jar Jar most definitely has a serious side. In fact, he's as often mute or merely minding his own business as he is loud or gesticulative. It's simply not the case that Jar Jar is involved in a string of never-ending jokes.

Moreover, I must contest the peculiar assertion that "poop and fart jokes have no basis in Star Wars". As I recently wrote elsewhere:

Do not underestimate the elegant art of the poop joke. Some people obviously have short memories and even smaller imaginations if they can't see that Star Wars is, to some extent, heavily invested in poop and the more antediluvian side of life.

How about Han's chiding of Leia in -- of all places -- a murky garbage compressor? "What a wonderful smell you've discovered!" High art there. Later on, Luke will blow up this compressor, along with the monstrosity that houses it, with a "one in a million" shot inside the monstrosity's, well, anus? TESB, the most glorified of the OT films, continues this motif with the swampy, pseudo-belchy world of Dagobah. True to form, Artoo is spat out of a lagoon creature's mouth -- well, let's assume it's a mouth -- and spits mud, which looks like diarrhea, after his unfortunate encounter. In the following scene on Dagobah, Yoda briefly nibbles on some sausage-shaped foodstuff that also looks like, well, a straightened-out doggy deposit, let's say? We don't quite know what that other protocol droid says to Threepio on Cloud City, but it could be something similar to, "Eat s---!". And that doesn't include other gags and events that kinda run more toward the slapstick: the toolbox falling on Han's head, for instance. Nor does it include (or, for that matter, exclude) the more esoteric happenings of TESB or the other OT (or PT) movies.

The anal fixation has ever been with us. By the time we get to Jar Jar stepping in that unidentified gloop, it's old hat, if anything. And I'm struggling to work out what's so childish about it -- it expresses something pertinent about the world that Qui-Gon and Padme are also stepping into (not as literally as poor ol' Jar Jar) and can also be taken as a metaphorical statement about the rising entropy of the narrative: things get complicated (a word Qui-Gon uses to sum up the journey, thus far, when he arrives at Coruscant, the next planet in this subliminal sonata) from Tatooine onwards. Yes, we also have Jar Jar being farted on, but it's quite amusing if you study the wide shot before it happens and notice Artoo discreetly backing off, like he senses what this creature is going to do in advance (while Jar Jar haplessly tinkers on Anakin's pod), and for the way Jar Jar seemingly can't resist smelling the air, the dirty look the creature gives him (it WANTED to deliver this payload), and the whole timing of the gag: Lucas mocking the pretense of the flag parade (a gag with surprising significance if you notice the reprise of this kind of pageantry in the film's baroque closing scene).

I've also never quite gotten the claim, or at least the implication, that TPM is saturated in potty humour, when it basically encompasses about fifteen seconds of film-time, if that. I mean, of all the wonderful sights and sounds in a movie that lavishes the viewer with three very distinct planets / locales -- when most fantasy movies can barely convincingly manage one -- and it's a couple of "crap" gags that earn almost all of the attention? Something's wrong with that picture. George Lucas presents the Star Wars universe in TPM as a a kind of globalized sensation, where the biggest and the smallest details matter, where the story's highest and lowest beings are intrinsically yoked together in an epic life weave. If we can have formidable podracers and gleaming senate chambers on the one hand, I think there's room for a couple of brief flirtations with the excremental side of life. To me, it rounds out the beauty and floridity of the movie: a film with enough tonal and thematic space for a fitting blend of the sacred, or at least the majestic, and the silly and profane. If you had to watch one Star Wars movie to understand what the series is all about -- as a ravenous sea monster devouring little fish and big fish alike -- then TPM would be the one to go for, I think. It's not like the structure precisely repeats. Microcosms are themselves unique.

You may have difficulty agreeing with it because it's a strawman. Jar Jar can be a clever and intriguing character without being subtle or even necessarily "brilliantly constructed".

Actually, people were defending Jar Jar back in 1999, and a Gallup poll conducted that summer found that adult viewers ultimately ranked Jar Jar third (above Obi-Wan Kenobi and Queen Amidala; behind Qui-Gon Jinn and Anakin Skywalker).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/3757/public-gives-latest-star-wars-installment-positive-rave-reviews.aspx

There may still have been some blowback to the years of virtually untrammelled negativity since. I admit to being more motivated to defend Jar Jar in light of endless detraction. I even came in here, primarily, because I saw so much text already given over in hatred of the character.

And really, it's okay to see hidden importance in a thing. Star Wars is awash with allusions to there being much more to something than a first impression can possibly outline or even give the vaguest hint of.

Star Wars is poetry. And to echo a remark by Virginia Woolf, poetry is full of "sunken" meaning. Paul McDonald, the aforementioned author of "The Star Wars Heresies", puts it this way: "A competent poet uses his verse to echo beyond itself, doing in words what a painter does when he uses a vanishing point to give the illusion of three dimensions on what is really a flat surface."

The true poetic spirit abides in perception. The deeper you perceive, the more you penetrate the surface of work of art, and the more you recover from it. William Blake famously wrote the following four lines: "To see a World in a Grain of Sand / And a Heaven in a Wild Flower / Hold Infinity in the palm of your hand / And Eternity in an hour". A grain of sand, in and of itself, is not necessarily special .... until it is, until the seer makes it special.

I could give you many more examples, but I think these are sufficient to convey the point.

Well, fine. But that's what you personally find important. The meaning and significance of a character doesn't stop with a lone authority.

One thing I forgot to address before is that I think Jar Jar was well-chosen to be the subject and representative of a nascent form of art like digital character design / animation. A more restrained character would not have really been able to show the same range that Jar Jar shows, who is -- in my opinion -- both elastic and eccentric enough to exhibit a broad spectrum of physical and affective expression. Jar Jar's calmer, quieter moments play off against his livelier ones, and the artform is given its best demonstration as a result. Yet Jar Jar is far more than a tech demo.

The efficacy of the rendering and animation of Jar Jar still blows me away. I really like, for instance, what the animators did with Jar Jar's hands in TPM. I'd ask anyone keen to explore the brilliance of Jar Jar (such as I see it, anyway) to really study his hand and arm movements throughout the film. They're really quite articulate -- feels like a whole language is birthed in TPM through Jar Jar .......... only to be lost (or made far less explicit) in the subsequent movies. My personal take.

Er, well...

This needs stressing. For all they have in common, the PT is not the OT; nor, by definition, is the OT the PT.

At some point, the trilogies must, inevitably, diverge and do their own thing, independent of the other.

There isn't a character quite as comedically extreme or as divisive in the OT as Jar Jar, no. But this is hardly news.

Similarly, no other Star Wars movie -- PT or OT -- has a child Skywalker as its main protagonist.

Episode I is inherently more extreme in some of its design features. Including Jar Jar.

I fail to see any of the above as a deficiency. Rather, I see it as cause for celebration.

That said, you're clearly in error to claim that Jar Jar "had all of Episode I", when the truth is that he waxes and wanes throughout the picture.

I concede this quite happily even as I claim that the PT can be read as Jar Jar's story. I think it is one of those attributes of hate / disdain that people often see more of something than is actually there. Literally, with a little delusion, it is possible to see what you want wherever you want it: Jesus in a cloud, Jesus in a puddle, Jesus in a slice of toast, etc.

On an objective basis, Jar Jar does not appear in every scene in Episode I. And in some scenes in which he appears, he says and does very little. Rather like the inordinate dwelling on "poop" and "fart" jokes, some people have long fashioned a parody of TPM in their minds, then offer this simulacrum as the real thing. Lucas never remotely made the sort of film that some have chosen to believe exists.

As to the comment regarding Jar Jar's battle antics, it's something I want to address here and now:

I see Jar Jar's antics in battle as a brutal satire of the societal disjunct between knowledge and responsibility. We have structured our societies to impress upon children the importance of regularly attending school, sitting exams, and getting good grades, then we suddenly cast them out into the wider world, expecting them to make their way with barely any knowledge in the bank, so to speak. Their early lives are a prison sentence, then suddenly, they're free -- or at least no longer tethered to the same set of learning rituals. It's a recipe for calamity. Of course, most people "get by", and pride themselves on having supposedly attained the means to do so, but the school of life is a hard one, and our attitude to education and preparation, before they're cut loose, given that they're going to be cut loose, is surprisingly dissonant.

Jar Jar fumbling with boomas, swinging on tank turrets, panicking and doing his level-best to survive .......... these are all metaphors. One can argue that a person is never truly "ready" for any experience life throws at them, but there are surely worse ways and better ways to develop a person's intellect and imagination, rather than suddenly foisting them into situations unknown, in which they are severely lacking in understanding and must think on their feet or come undone. Yet this very mode of thinking -- based, such as it is, on subjectivity, motivated by fear -- is surely ruinous: therefore, people do come undone, whether they want to or not. The Greek tragedy of Anakin's life is clearly being set up by what happens to Jar Jar on the battlefield. What is he even doing there in the first place? Imagine it as an abstract pastiche of Anakin's time with the Jedi and you will have the measure of its brilliance.

Or not. For these things differ in how we see them; or are even able to see them. That Jar Jar is not a pacifist is interesting. No-one in Star Wars actually is. Remember, pacifism is not merely the absence of violence, but the active desire to see it never made manifest (perhaps a contradiction; but all philosophies have them). He boasts about the Gungans having a "Grand Army" -- a term later appropriated by Palpatine when Jar Jar suggests the Senate give Palpatine "emergency powers" -- and willingly rides out to battle as a newly-appointed "general". In some sense, he heaps violence on himself by failing to question, or get others to question, the validity of violence, and the various factors that play into conflict and war. Such is Jar Jar's fate. Some of the end imagery, while ostensibly humourous, is quite horrifying, if looked at through this lens. Jar Jar both defies authority and capitulates to it in different ways. This makes him a particularly rich and fascinating character to me. He is not the one-note obscenity that some often claim he is.

See above.

It's been put forward by numerous people -- including George Lucas and Rick McCallum -- that Jar Jar was either designed with young children in mind or that young children were the inspiration and guiding principle for Jar Jar's inception and development. On the other hand, the idea that all young kids would like Jar Jar a priori, or that they would even need a character like this as a hand-hold, is, as I said before, partially refuted in the film itself with Anakin, who is roughly at the target age and seems to take a rather dim view of Jar Jar (at least on Tatooine).

Yet the plotting and imagery of the prequel trilogy are so dense, it's salient to have a character like Jar Jar, in my opinion, to cut through the mire, giving the viewer a sort of epicurean jester-figure to identify with: someone who's as confused and overwhelmed at the rapid-fire sweep of the tale and its various conflagrations -- visceral and intellectual -- as they likely are. He is a kind of dynamic barometer for the Byzantine machinations happening either on-screen or just behind the screen .... a measure, in a sense, for how preposterous it all is.

Jar Jar. One who jars. Twice over.

You're right. Jar Jar is no mere "everyman". He's actually quite extraordinary.

 

A large part of this post - I agree. I don't mind the Ewoks that much. It is slightly exaggerated about how much they "ruined" ROTJ or whatever nonsense. They had their role to play. It was interesting to see the "force of nature" almost representing life rising up against the cold, mechanical soulless Empire. Plus - they had help from the Rebel Alliance. It made sense to me. It was all pretty interesting as a kid and an adult. However - there is legitimate criticism on how they beat the Imperial forces using bows and arrows. The whole "It's an analogy to Vietnam". Yes - I got that. And it's a terrible one. The Vietnamese had modern weapons, but unmodern tactics. They had guns and explosives. The Ewoks had...bows/arrows, rocks, and logs. It is peculiar that they managed to win, but one has to factor the Imperial presence on the planet was a minor one plus the Ewoks had Rebel help. Again - the Ewoks don't really bother me at all. I was just using them as a possible example for when posters claim the OT had silly aspects equal to Jar Jar.

One thing I will disagree with on your post? This notion of saying it is "cool" to hate the Ewoks. I see this with Jar Jar or the prequels in general. That the only reason we dislike these things are due to trying to fit in. How do you differentiate between people that have a legitimate grievance with this character or that plot line or whatever versus people on the bandwagon?

Finally - your last point about he was made for kids, just as the Ewoks were. Again, I reject this notion. As a kid, I loved ANH and ESB without silly cartoon characters and "teddy bears" (funny enough - I never saw them that way.) Little kids loved the other Star Wars movies without cutesie characters (unless one counts R2-D2 as cutesie)???

I read through the posts in this topic. Some posters seem to imply that Jar Jar was very important but in a way that went over most peoples heads. That he was an embodiment of Qui-Gon's living Force idea (live for the moment), helped Obi-Wan's development, etc. You even claim that he served some type of "thematic purpose in the story". I don't see any of that at all. Again - it's not even a matter of people getting it or not. I've read the points of views of people claiming Jar Jar had some type of importance, but it doesn't suddenly make me like him. Even if I "get it". His role in the grand scheme of things isn't necessarily the problem (for me). From a story point of view - he lived up to what he was meant to do. You're right. He served whatever purpose he had. But the problem (for me) was his utter buffoonery, cartoonish nature, and annoying scenes. It just felt so, no pun intended, alien to this universe. We could have been an exile that isn't the best at what he does, has clumsiness issues, etc. without stepping in poo or whatever nonsense. It was cringe worthy.

Ok...I enjoy the post you made. It was very thought-provoking. A lot of effort went into it clearly. So I honestly will try my best not start some argument.

However, it is...worth noting you accuse me of a straw man argument when...you fill the rest of your post with them in reply to me plus take my quotes out of context. Perhaps I should choose my words with more precision, but it is not at all a straw man argument. It was implied, not just from you, but other posts that Jar Jar had some great importance and that it was "subtle" in regards to it clearly going over our heads or that his role in the plot was pivotal both to the story and his interaction with other characters. You're so focused on my wording that you neglected to address what I said. In fact - I even said that I can understand if people personally enjoyed him, or weren't bothered by him, or *insert positive emotions towards Jar Jar here*.

Fair enough that some people enjoyed him from the get go. But the negativity didn't come from a void. There are legitimate reasons for hating such a character beyond jumping a band wagon.

I agree. Interpretations can't be wrong (well...for the most part). That's why movies/books/shows are so much fun. We can all have interpretations and it makes it even more epic for us personally. Star Wars is actually something that is perfect for that idea. Massive lore, diverse characters, epic stories.

The reason I said that I don't buy it with Jar Jar is because I get no hint that there is some hidden greatness within the character and that the writer (Lucas) knew what he was doing all along. If only we (the detractors) could see what Jar Jar is truly meant to represent or be then we'd enjoy him a lot more. I don't get that at all. I can see the specialness of Threepio and R2, their journey, their role in almost seeing the entire story from beginning to end. They don't have to outright spell it out. You can see they are more than just two bickering characters to offer a bit of comedic relief. Plus I get the vibe that it was intentionally done. I don't get that with Jar Jar. If you do? Great. I'm glad. But that is what I meant when I said I am just not buying it.

With Jar Jar and all his hidden greatness and the metaphors and etc. etc. etc. I get this image of a painter that colored on a canvas with giant slashes and different colors. Then an art critic appears and is like "The colors represent anger, sadness, beauty, hope! The slashing across the canvas is the force of the universe dragging us across life!" and then artist simply saying "....yeah...I was just randomly painting." That's what I see with Jar Jar and Lucas. In fact - I buy the idea more that he simply made a silly cartoon for the kids. Nothing more. But as you said - Star Wars offers us a lot of different interpretations.

I don't disagree with any of this. But the "danger" in this is some times the "seer" goes through such effort to see beyond that he or she doesn't see what is simply there on the surface. I understand you want to try and place this kind of unique point of view on Jar Jar. Again - not really my grievance with the character.

I never said that it did. I was saying that I do concede he had some type of importance and that is arguably the biggest one in terms of his role in the plot.

As a kid - that's what I enjoyed about him. He was an alien come to life. For once - he wasn't some guy in a suit or a puppet. I enjoyed that aspect (and pretty much only that).

I never said the OT=PT and PT=OT. This is what I meant earlier about taking it out of context. I was addressing some posters on here that say (and I've seen Jar Jar defenders say this in other topics/forums in the past) that the OT has plenty of silly stuff too. So attacking Jar Jar is unfair, hypocritical, and just wrong. My point about bringing up the OT examples is that none of them at all equal to Jar Jar. Even on my best day defending the OT - I fully concede there were childish, silly things in the OT. It's all there to see (if one does not have nostalgic blinders on).

I will say this, though. I can't imagine Jar Jar in the OT. I simply cannot. Not because the OT is dark and cool. Not because the OT is perfect (is most certainly is not). Not because the OT doesn't have puppets and alien masks and giant slug animatronics. He just seems like a radical departure from anything before in terms of the way he acts. It's as if Goofy from Disney suddenly appeared in a Lord of the Rings movie. One could argue "There are plenty of silly, comical, weird characters in LOTR. Why does Goofy stand out?" Well...if one is objective you'd know why he clearly stands out.

But you raise an interesting point - the PT is independent of the OT and would diverge in some ways. Do things differently. Create new things. Stand on its own. This is all true. But it is obviously going to rub some people the wrong way. Especially since, even if the two are different in the way they feel, it is part of a shared universe.

Apparently it is news because it is a common defense of Jar Jar Binks against those who dislike him.

"more extreme" is a very polite way of talking about the design features of Jar Jar.

I'm not in error if this was taken in context. Again, I am on a forum and should choose my words with more precision. What I meant by that was the issue of "the OT had silly stuff too". While I concede it most certainly did - none of it was front and center for a sizable portion of the movie. Sy Snootles had a childish dance number that last a minute or two. Wicket wacked himself in the head during the final battle of the entire trilogy. R2 "pukes" out swamp water. Whatever example to put here. None of that was in the movie as much as Jar Jar was in Episode I.

I don't think Episode I is Jar Jar's story. But he was in it far too much for my tastes, yes.

No, he does not appear in every scene. The majority of the scenes he does appear in, however, are often silly buffoonery.

Unfortunately this is where I am at on what you said. I am not saying that it isn't interesting, but this is a matter of interjecting your own deep interpretation on a scene that (to me) was clearly written as some comical (if one finds it funny) nonsense. I subscribe more to the theory that it was done to add some levity to the scene. Same thing with Anakin playing around in orbit. Weird how ANH didn't need that in destroying the Death Star.

Yes - to you he is not a one-note obscenity.

I wouldn't have minded a character that was down to earth (no pun intended), normal (in comparison to the larger than life people of that universe), even unsure of his own abilities due to his clumsiness, lack of experience, etc. But I didn't see that with his character. At all. They spent more time on him stumbling, knocking things over, getting electrocuted (and YES) stepping in poo, being farted on, etc. That any hint of him being the everyman of the GFFA was over shadowed.

We'll agree to disagree on that. Thank you for putting that information forward. Interesting to read.

 

Did Jar Jar have more screen time than Obi-Wan in Ep1? It seemed like he was there more, which was wrong.

 

Jar Jar would've been better is he was invisible and mute. I could've actually quite liked him then.