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

No, it really wasn't. The was a character that was created by a movie maker capable enough to make American Graffiti, THX 1138 and A New Hope. Not only that but he had an entire team of designers around him.It's almost as if Lucas's brief to his creative team was to deliberately come up with the most annoying and least funny character of all time. What's even worse is that we're told that "Jar Jar is for kids" so as to soften the blow those of us who first encountered him as an adult. But I call BS on that as well. Even when I was a kid I know I would've spotted just how bad a character he was.

 

jar jar is a goof that makes good things happen despite of his own dumb actions. people may not like that about him but it's an archetypal character. he's also based heavily on the slapstick physical comedy of buster keaton from the 1920's. people may not like this style of comedy as much in the modern day but it was huge at the time. buster keaton was amazing and did everything for real.

 

Honestly, I've always really liked Jar Jar as a character in general.

I do think that he does become quite a bit... overwhelming, in TPM, though. And I think that's what drove so many people insane. Hardly a minute went by in the movie without Jar Jar blabbering his head off. I think George should have limited his screen time at least to 50% of what we ended up getting in TPM.

And no, I think he was designed very well in CGI. I don't think he would have worked with a more practical medium.

 

If it went over people's heads, that doesn't necessarily mean it was subtle -- it could simply mean that people weren't paying attention, secondary to personal and psychological biases that precluded them from noticing or caring.

For instance, in TPM, outside of Palpatine's office, Anakin and Jar Jar wait listlessly, until they eventually walk off in boredom, excluded from adult society. Lucas first shows you them waiting in close-up, but their departure occurs in the background. That it happens in the background does not change the fact that it happens; or that Lucas first establishes their waiting in a manner that clearly emphasizes it to the viewer.

In other words, there's a deliberate dialectic between things that are shown, or made obvious, and things which form part of the story on the fringe, building directly on the brasher aspects of the narrative to convey a plenitude of ideas or sensations not so readily apparent on the surface. That's poetry, that's art. But you do have to be watching in a relatively attentive way to see these small details and nestled depths.

They aren't there until you see them. But once you see them, they become fairly incontrovertible. Of course, there's no true, monolithic meaning; the viewer is required to "complete" the art to their personal satisfaction. Yet to act like there's some difficulty to this is rather odd.

And then...

He did or he didn't serve a purpose "from a story point of view"?

"Alien" is the watch word. Jar Jar is not a clunky droid, or even a heavy, fleshy human, but a sinuous, amphibious alien, equally adept -- if clumsy -- on land and in water. Try to imagine Artoo or Threepio beckoning the Jedi to the hidden Gungan city. And look how even the Jedi need breathing devices and drag awkwardly in the water because of their robes. Jar Jar's unique physiology grants him incredible dexterity denied to other beings in the story.

The assertion that his antics were "cringe worthy" is merely, of course, your personal opinion. While the adults chatter about their wearisome quest as they cross the threshold and enter Mos Espa, Jar Jar inadvertently finds a more apt and concise way of summing up the difficulties they're about to face and their own grim determinism. This is in the best tradition of a trickster / fool archetype. Paul McDonald's original essay from 2010, which I'll link to again, even notes the appropriateness of linking Jar Jar with copro-aesthetics. He has some extremely thoughtful observations on both incidents (I wish these hadn't been excluded -- banished -- from his subsequent book):

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

That Jar Jar terms the mysterious substance "goo" adds further irony to the story, given that Jar Jar himself is of a goo-ey nature, to the extent that he has a cartoon-like viscosity which challenges the hard resin of the firmament on which most of the saga is presumed to play out. Jar Jar immediately perceives this substance as something "icky", as if he is making a circuitous comment about his own presence at that point; he and the goo are one. Okay, so this paragraph is a little less-serious in nature, but I find it fitting that it's Jar Jar who suffers this misfortune and verbalizes it as he does -- while the adults simply saunter on and ignore him.

These little gags, for me, open the world of Star Wars up, simply in their basic "world detail". That Jar Jar is cleverly linked to them is a great bonus. There are surely many practices throughout the world, that have come to us through the rich sociological science of anthropology, that would shock the living daylights out of us if we became aware of them, never mind spectators -- or participants! -- as they take place. Jar Jar, in some sense, is plugged into the story at that level, in that he is essentially a complex mask or aberration for the sublimely sensual and unfathomably arbitrary aspects of subjective experience -- the woeful extraordinariness of living in this world and being alive -- which seem all the more heightened when placed in an anthropological context. Jar Jar is almost "another being" from "another time". The galaxy "far, far away" abstracted from and folded in on itself to account for the maddening febrility and surreal variety of personal cultural experience. Both the insipid and the extraordinary are accounted for in Jar Jar. The smallest, silliest moments that Jar Jar has, or creates for himself, in the film entail both extremes simultaneously.

There is even a further dialectic about action vs. inaction. Walk forward and encounter goop. Stay where you are and get farted on. Either mode of being risks the company of crudity and a basic level of abnegation or being brought low. That Jar Jar takes it all and keeps going is perhaps a measure of the shambling, yet stouthearted condition of being human. Even though Jar Jar isn't.

Thank you. It is sometimes difficult to avoid an argument no matter how hard one tries. But I appreciate the concession.

No, it really was a strawman. I then provided a simple refutation of it to prove you'd been too hasty and (perhaps inadvertently) caricatured what had already been propounded about Jar Jar and his various levels of meaning.

As above, I addressed precisely what you said and countered it.

I never mentioned a "band wagon"; but you just did. Yet neither did I say or imply that the negativity toward Jar Jar came from a void; clearly, it came from somewhere.

Your remark was kind of tangential and implied some prickly defensiveness on the part of those who do defend Jar Jar -- as if defending something under constant attack is bad to begin with.

And your remark seemed predicated on the notion that no-one was saying positive things about Jar Jar when the film came out, before a true backlash developed. But they were.

I agree wholeheartedly with you here.

You get that vibe, I think, because you like the characters. You can more easily see it being true for characters you already find favourable. The same is true of me, to a large extent, with Jar Jar. In Jar Jar's case, it at least seems deliberate that most of the characters in the same movie find him pretty intolerable, or at the very least, off-putting (including the formerly "annoying" audience guide, Threepio, from the OT). Of the people he meets in TPM, only Padme / Amidala seems to have real affection for him.

Lucas spoke at the time of Jar Jar being designed like a little kid who constantly bugs their parent for this or that. Maybe he did genuinely believe that people would find Jar Jar funnier than they seem to today, but it can't be claimed he didn't deliberately give Jar Jar a certain incorrigibility that all other Star Wars characters, in comparison, lack. The sense that Jar Jar is an irksome, jarring presence is even encoded in his name. He clearly wasn't meant to engage people on exactly the same level as the droids in the original movie.

People who dislike the original film would surely make a similar comment concerning the droids: "He did it merely to add life to his limping, silly space movie. Its mediocrity would be more apparent without the robots." Etc. (That's an invented quote, but all opinions are valid, right?).

You dismiss Jar Jar as random ink smudges, I think, as a defensive measure. It's easier to reduce something to a trivial size, the better it can be swept aside and ignored.

Of course, your contention could easily be that I'm the one doing this in reverse; inventing reasons that Jar Jar is a work of genius in order to justify my peculiar affinity for him and see off any opinions to the contrary.

Yes -- and no. What you're still left to struggle against is that nothing I see in Jar Jar has to have been consciously intended as Lucas painted. He could have been randomly painting and all that I see in Jar Jar would still be valid. It doesn't throw anything out of joint.

Emerson made a comment once: "Proclus and Plato last me still, yet I do not read them in a manner to honor the writer, but rather as I should read a dictionary for diversion and a mechanical help to the fancy and the Imagination. I read for the lustres as if one should use a fine picture in a chromatic experiment merely for its rich colours."

I take delight in Jar Jar according to the volition of my own imagination. I do not chiefly need Lucas to have been striving to achieve anything in particular. But the fact that something was done, while tons of other things were not done, is thrilling in itself. That alone means something to me. Indeed, it is the imperative behind all meaning; for, were nothing done, there would be nothing to be thrilled to, and no conversation to be had right now.

Talking of intent is, in large part, a fallacy. The most important manifestation of intent is the bringing into being of the art itself. All that follows is nonsense.

Well, then our discussion would simply switch gears, from the interior to the surface. Glue, rubber.

For the record, I don't ignore the surface. In fact, I feel another quote coming on:

This is me quoting TFN-er Ingram_I quoting author Gerald Mast on film-maker Howard Hawks:

"The apprehension and understanding of art that is fun and easy requires not special learning but special sensitivity to complicated essences that have been translated into perfectly elegant, graceful, brilliant surfaces, and special care not to be fooled by those simple surfaces into believing the art is simple. They also require a certain immunity to the puritanical suspicion that something fun cannot be good for you."

That quote originally appears here:

http://boards.theforce.net/threads/indiana-jones-and-the-last-crusade-mega-review.50012937/

As written, that barely reads as a concession, and more like a dismissal framed as a concession.

Well, great! The peculiarity and quality of the technology used to bring Jar Jar to life is still one of my favourite things about him. I'll admit that the CG can seem a little dated in freeze-frame, but I still think it looks excellent in motion. And even as it dates, I think it will only begin to ripen, for me. I also enjoyed watching TPM in 3D. Jar Jar seemed even more wonderful -- to me -- in the third dimension.

You have strongly implied it.

I think you have misapprehended what fans often mean when they cite silliness in the OT. They're not saying that Jar Jar and the silly things of the OT are alike. They're saying there's a precedent for Jar Jar.

Jar Jar, in some ways, is borne out of the disparate silliness of the OT, but he is also a sublime creation, echoed by but separate to the farce and whimsy contained in the OT. I think this opinion is pretty widespread no matter which side of the debate you fall on.

Usually, though, when people start to atomize Jar Jar, they might imply he's no more extreme than X, Y, or Z from the OT, and it can look like they're saying he's the same. Similarly, another form of the argument goes that Jar Jar is not more of an impediment to the supposed ballast of the Star Wars saga than, say, Ewoks, or the backwards-talk of Yoda, but even this argument doesn't quite say Jar Jar is entirely equivalent. In its condensed form, when making this argument, some fans are saying to other fans, "get over it".

That said, there might be a few fans who are apt to look on Jar Jar as no more of a journey up -- or down -- the comedy curve than Artoo, Threepio, cheesy one-liners, or whatever, and that's fine. It's not my view, though. On the other hand -- again, this is where confusion creeps in -- I think there's ample precedent for Jar Jar in the OT, and I don't find him so outrageous that he doesn't fit where he's found.

LOL, yes. This is a common obstacle to people being able to enjoy Jar Jar or quite see him as a valid addition to the Star Wars film canon. I understand that entirely. We just have different views on what we find acceptable here.

The universe is shared, but the presentation is not totally linear or unambiguous. People have confused the telling of the story and what that story actually is. The telling certainly informs the latter to a large extent -- and vice versa -- but seeing the story as a bigger entity than any one of its constituent components is essential, in my view, to grasping the components; and, in turn, in grasping the components, or merely trying to, one better understands the whole.

I refer you back to my remarks on fans arguing from precedence.

Ah, I'll let you have that one.

That's true. Jar Jar is a condensed ball of silliness -- from a certain POV. But ever noticed how prudish and even cantankerous some of the other characters are? He kind of stands in opposition to them, knocking on the door of their brutish certainty. We're enjoined to see past the other characters' calcification, the stuntedness of their world-views, and the untenability of the societal fortress, full of holes, they've built or are still trying to protect themselves within. To quote Paul McDonald, in a Taoist sense, Jar Jar represents that place "where wisdom looks foolish and foolishness looks wise."

Jar Jar has a totally different function and purpose to Sy Snootles, Wicket, and Artoo. If anything, when seen in linear story order, these latter characters and their appearances, however brief, are little reminders of a life energy Jar Jar embodies, totally different to the precise, meretricious, order-some machinations and feeble concerns of the adults. Jar Jar is a beacon for the childish rhythms that beat the length of the story and define much of its texture and mood. He's just particularly outsized. But then, he appears at "the beginning" of the story, only to then rapidly slide from the pages of history.

Fair enough. We're agreed, I think, that one can read these things in any number of ways.

The amplitude of Jar Jar's buffoonery differs from one scene to the next. For instance, when the Jedi are sneaking and about to drop down on Amidala and the battle droids, before fleeing to Coruscant, Jar Jar is mostly downplayed, though he does get a brief moment of physical humour when he clings awkwardly to the ledge, second-guessing his decision to drop into the fray. That's all, though. Other times, he is clearly "louder", as it were, but it really varies a lot.

I think people tend to believe that Jar Jar up-ends entire scenes and huge passages of the film with unremitting slapstick because they keep seeing him everywhere, perhaps as a reaction to the storied seriousness of the film in other areas. He has turned into an irritant that many cannot "unsee". Which is not exactly invalid, per se, but I still think it does Jar Jar a disservice. He has a lot of "moments", but these vary considerably in execution and meaning.

It's actually not my interpretation; at least, not entirely. The basis of my interpretation is derived from musings I originally encountered here:

http://www.echostation.com/features/esoteric2.htm

In my opinion, a great read -- but I'll quote the relevant portion:

Speaking of need -- is that swipe at TPM really necessary?

That's why I chose to assert earlier that the OT and the PT are different things.

With a closing swipe like that, you're maligning the PT for not being a copy of the OT.

While there are obvious parallels in the Anakin-Luke victories over their oppressors, there are clear differences, too. And I have no problem with that.

What ANH needs is what ANH needs. TPM is a different slice of the pie. I don't want nor expect it to be entirely the same.

There are a million things that ANH doesn't need. It isn't relevant to discussing TPM, let alone Jar Jar.

I do tend to look at the whole series with different eyes. Perhaps I am simply more comfortable with Jar Jar for this reason.

For instance, that bit about the term "Grand Army". Don't you find it fascinating?

I like all the interlinking and whatever else. Keeps me entertained.

Jar Jar was, and is, a wonderfully-peculiar, eccentric, delightful, assumption-challenging alien sidekick who I love. From the brief glimpses of him in that first trailer until right now, he has always held my interest. Not even every everyman needs to be an easy-going, sure-footed, soft-spoken, lawn-watering, tax-paying citizen. Extremes are sometimes warranted. That Jar Jar stumbles is far less interesting to me than that he keeps going. In that vein, he is redoubtable, and truly as valiant or heroic as any other. I'm happy for him to be my avatar in the GFFA, even if no-one else wants him to be.

Thanks. It's been an edifying chat.

 

SHUT UP BEFORE YOU GIVE GEORGE LUCAS ANY MORE BRIGHT IDEAS!!!!!!! WE DON'T NEED TO RUIN THE INHERENT BADASSERY OF EWOKS!!!!!!!

 

Hey they took down a legion of the Emperors best troops, their badassery can never be questioned !!

 

Not if animals start farting on them, and they all stick their heads in beams of electricity! They need to keep their street cred somehow.

 

CGI wasn't the problem, but it added fuel to the nitpickers to try and pin it on the effects somehow.

Personally, I thought a character as ridiculous as Jar-Jar could only be done with CGI. If he wasn't, could you imagine how disastrous that would be? I thought that there probably was a bit too much of him, and that's where it became too much. Chewbacca had his great moments, but he didn't steal every scene he was in. Sometimes, he just stayed in the background. My point is that Jar-Jar was an important character, but his character was already well-established in his important scenes; additional slapstick just kinda beats a dead horse.

 

jar jar also reminds me a lot of indiana jones. indy as a character especially in the "young indy chronicles" gets into and out of messes by fooling around or bad luck. he comes out on top but almost always by accident. this still happens in the films but not as much as when indy was younger. most people would say they never want to see indy being foolish but he has always had that element in his character. he never gets the "main" relic he's after. ever. in some ways he doesn't accomplish anything during his adventures, except maybe defeating evil.

 

Ok I'd like to add a quick question to the OP before continuing this discussion due to slightly veering off topic...

Why is this question being asked? Is there an implication that perhaps Ahmed Best would have played the character a bit differently had he been a man in a suit rather than a man in a motion capture suit? It is interesting to ponder. He may have not have had the physical freedoms that CGI allowed. I do wonder what it would have been like if he had been played in a suit. Not sure if better or worse - just interesting to think about.

I don't see any of this as incontrovertible. Especially If it is a matter of personal interpretation.

I don't see why it is "odd" that I don't see Jar Jar's antics on the battle field as some type of "abstract pastiche" for Anakin's time with the jedi. These are clearly the personal analysis and reflections of individuals. I saw what was onscreen and I did not ascribe any hidden meanings or overt ones to Binks. I saw what was presented as a clear character for children to add levity, comedy, a break from the more "adult" stuff.

He served the purpose of helping the two Jedi in the beginning and later serving as a bridge to the Gungans and the Naboo. That is what I mean.

I understand that. It was why I put "no pun intended". Alien in this context is foreign/different. I never said anything about his biology to be wrong. I'm fine with him helping the Jedi but all of that could have been done without his hyper-clowness.

Yes.

Thank you for the link.

Yes, interesting.

You, of course, can interpret these "gags" in this fashion. It certainly helps to do so. That way, you don't see the reality of a cartoon character stepping in excrement and being farted on for childish humor.

No, it really wasn't. Caricatured - yes. Hasty - no. I read what you and others have posted. I took the time to do so and I still do not agree. Sarcasm aside of the "caricature" - my point still stands. I see no special meanings, metaphors, themes, etc. attached to Jar Jar. Most people who dislike the character also see no such themes or they cannot get past the absolute silliness of his stupid scenes. Your point of view of Jar Jar and his role, while unique, is eclipsed for "humor" such as him being kicked in the crotch by a robot. While you can say "it's their fault for not being able to push aside the "humor" and not seeing the pivotal role Jar Jar plays." Yes - maybe. But not everyone views these characters through your prism (nor do I think you are implying that).

Yes...I did. The accusation is often made that hatred from Jar Jar is done simply because it was cool to do so. That people were going with the crowd. Thus - the band wagon. That maybe the case for your average movie goer that doesn't care about Star Wars, but maybe watched it as a random summer movie. But that isn't the exact case for all of us that dislike him.

Not necessarily "bad" but I do notice there is certainly a hint of counter-cultureness to it.

I didn't mean to imply that NO ONE on the planet liked Jar Jar back in 1999. I'm saying this current wave against those who disliked him seems to partially stem from an exhaustion of the vitriol lobbied against him by fans that cite Jar Jar as the death of Star Wars. A more "...look...it is hyper-exaggerated that he was the end of Star Wars as we know it. Calm down." kind of thing. That isn't bad. It was simply an observation that apparently has warranted "defensiveness". I am not against people liking Jar Jar Binks or even defending him. Me questioning things is hardly the same as when some of the more...aggressive/defensive...SW fans attack the character or attack his fans.

You are assuming I am some Threepio fan and thus - I excuse any silliness from his character.

Yes - it is deliberate that the characters in the movie find him intolerable (or at least some of them). I never questioned that. I said all the meanings you ascribe to Jar Jar are hardly deliberate, incontrovertible, etc. They are subjective. Me bringing up Threepio and R2 being "guides" is much more noticeable (to me) than say Jar Jar representing a manifestation of Qui-Gon's living Force idea. I don't question that you see it being true of Jar Jar. I am saying that I don't agree on the interpretations reached, not your sincerity or your methods of reaching the conclusion.

This is true. I wasn't implying that Jar Jar is on the same level of the droids. I meant in the context of some kind of sub-textual meaning behind the characters. One is more obvious and incontrovertible than others. Let me use another example so it doesn't seem like I am implying Jar Jar is the PT Threepio. In the case of General Grievous - it is undeniable (to me at least) that he is clearly the proto-Darth Vader. A cybernetic creature (more machine than man) with lightsabers. He clearly is representative of what Anakin will one day become. Threepio and R2, as you perfectly put it, being audience guides are hard to argue. They're in every movie and witness many major events (even participate in many of them). Jar Jar representing innocence or a more normative character amongst "greater" (not better, as in epic) characters is a bit more believable - I think. But beyond that - the prospect of him having any analogous, metaphorical, unique meaning is a dubious prospect (to me). And unfortunately - it is as well to (some of) those who dislike the character.

Of course - they are free to believe that. I don't argue otherwise. But I am not ascribing some kind of metaphor that is a bit of a stretch to the droids. Whether an average viewer says "I don't buy that they are the audience guides. They're just there. Stop looking so deep at the random robots." That's fine. Could also be true. But the droids are in every movie and witness many major events. It is as not as much of a dubious prospect as Jar Jar's antics on the battle field being metaphorical to Anakin (or some part of his journey in the saga). However - I agree with you that the arguments made against Jar Jar could be used against the droids. But...I wasn't arguing otherwise.

You seem to think that my disagreeing with your analysis or reflection is akin to me saying you are WRONG. I am not saying that. I am saying I don't see it the same way.

I agree with everything minus your accusation of a "defensive measure". I wasn't reducing Jar Jar to an ink smudge directly. It is not literal. I am using the analogy of the painter to say that sometimes the painting is just what he claims. Nothing more. If Lucas were to make the claim that Jar Jar was invented for the children (or even adults) to enjoy some levity then I would take him at his word.

I will say this, however. You are very correct that it is irrelevant if Lucas were to say that. You, the viewer, complete the art (as you said) or view it through your own prism. We all do that. It's natural and opens the world to us in a way that maybe even the creator of the subject couldn't fathom or did not intend.

I'll say this again because it bears repeating - I am not saying that you are wrong in your interpretation. I am saying why I don't agree. You have a unique POV on the character. Great. But I don't because I take the painter at his word. That's how I view it. I do find it fun to maybe look at it from a different POV and see it as more epic than it really is, but I always remain cognizant of the fact that it is me adding to it.

I don't disagree with this sentiment at all. I only disagree with the conclusions reached about Jar Jar. Not because your reflection of Binks is wrong - but because I simply do not see it, nor ascribe the same meanings to Jar Jar.

Somewhat true, but not always. I mean - if I was a creator/writer/artist/etc. I would ascribe a meaning (whether specific or broad) to my characters and I would hope that the audience sees what I intended. Granted - once I have put it out there - they would of course take what I created and perhaps take it to the next level. Ascribe their own interpretations. Perhaps see the character reflected in a way that didn't even occur to me. However - while there is no right or wrong, there is likely or unlikely.

My first debate on this site was a topic about if the Galactic Empire was truly evil and if maybe the Rebel Alliance was bad. Ok - is this open to interpretation? Technically - yes. ANYTHING is open to it. However, the intent by the creator was clear. The opening scrawl even described the Galactic Empire as EVIL. You can dismiss the intent or claim that talk of it is a fallacy. However, there is a potential here (I am not saying this is your intention with Jar Jar) to be dismissive of what the creator wanted when they put out their work. It's wonderful to take a character and see an amazing metaphor, but it is another to literally transform the work to look nothing like what was the original purpose. In the example above - making the Empire the "good guys" and the Rebels the "bad guys" radically transforms the movies. Why would any artist want to make their ideas manifest for such a dismissal of what they were putting out there in the first place?

Let me clarify before it is taken out of context - I am not saying that is what you are doing with Jar Jar. You're not transforming the character, but actually emphasizing that his antics were not simply buffoonery and can have meaning in context with the story. I understand that. I just kind of question the idea that once the artist puts the work out there - anything that follows is "nonsense". I do agree with you personal interpretations are key and even inevitable. But I do take the intent into account and yes - it shapes my own point of view (often). I think the only place where I have a rather radical departure on intent with the creator of Star Wars is about the Force.

What you said here was really interesting and despite my not so full agreement - I do agree with your notion that intent is not always important to everyone (however it is to me).

Thank you for the quotes. I don't disagree with the sentiment, though. But as I had told you - that wasn't my problem with Jar Jar. So we're slightly going in circles here.

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.[/quote]

As written, that barely reads as a concession, and more like a dismissal framed as a concession.[/quote]

Frame it however you want. I am explaining what I find important about the character for me. His serving as a bridge between the two species. Again - you fight really hard to ignore that I don't have an issue with Jar Jar having meaning, significance, importance, etc. (although I do feel that some of what has been presented by others is a bit of...shall we say...a stretch). I am saying that that was not really my issue with the character. I never said "If only he had more meaning then maybe I could see him in a better light." That isn't my issue with the character. While I really feel he has no more meaning beyond what was displayed, I do not begrudge others having that outlook. Only that I feel a lot of it is dubious and I find it difficult to agree with.

And yes - that is what I personally find important in regards to his role. This is all subjective anyways. If you find more or different meaning and significance to the character - then fine. Again - that isn't the point of what I said. You even quoted the second part - "But his importance or lack of it was never really the problem..." The topic was on a potential way some of us could have seen Jar Jar in a better light or would have been liked. I am saying that his CGIness, his metaphorical meanings, etc. None of that is why his character is largely hated. At least - I haven't really seen any criticism leveled at him in regards to his lack of significance, but perhaps there are some that...have that view.

Is it really dated? I haven't seen the movie in so long that I haven't been able to make a judgment on that. I should try just to see. Regardless, I whole heartedly agree with your sentiment that Jar Jar was a marvel of CGI for the 90s. Really well done.

He's also very expressive and I wonder if a guy in a suit could have captured the expression that CGI allowed. Another reason I don't think he should change from CGI.

No, I did not. I am surprised that this needs repeating. You clearly read my posts because you were nice enough to go piece by piece and give me succinct and interesting replies. So I'm not only surprised you think I implied it, but that I strongly implied it.

What is weird is you even quoted why I bring up any OT/PT comparisons. Directly below this - - - - - -

This is why I bring up the OT in this topic. It has nothing to do with me thinking the OT = the PT.

As for what you said - that isn't the case all the time. Some people have outright, not implied precedence, stated that there is buffoonery of the Jar Jar kind in the OT. Thus, expressing irritation, surprise, and annoyance that some fans imply "The OT never had such outright stupidity!" I'm addressing them.

However, to address those who imply there is precedence (however subdued) for a Jar Jar-type character from some of the silly things in the OT. This is a bit of a stretch. If he reflects the next level of the goofiness in the OT - then anything is permissible with enough minor precedence. We could have a Quentin Tarantino blood bath shoot out in a bar for Episode 7 after some witty dialogue because Han Solo gunned down Greedo in a cantina in Episode 4. In both cases, the latter is a hyper-exaggeration of the precedence established before and for some viewers - that is jarring.

Although...one could argue in both examples that they are simply ways of taking what was done before and taking it to another level.

Perhaps, yes.

Pretty much, yeah. Funny enough, I find that argument (while blunt and not conducive to discussion) more reasonable than talking about precedents or outright stating there are plenty of Jar Jar moments in the OT.

Fair enough that you don't.

True. I mean - I can't say that I outright find him "unacceptable" because I do agree with your sentiment/argument/POV that Jar Jar is not as radical of a departure versus some of the critters in the OT. I agree there. After a little more reflection - I think what I find jarring is the peculiar "humor" used through Binks. Like I can't picture Chewbacca being hit in the crotch for a quick laugh. Perhaps it isn't Binks as much as the "humor" they put him through that I find so odd and it forces him to stand out to me.

True.

But do you see why if the presentation is not linear that some fans (I don't necessarily put myself in this category) feel that the PT is especially jarring when one tries to watch it in completion with the OT? I often wonder if the ST will feel so differently that people will feel the same towards it.

I agree that he is in stark contrast to everyone else. Nice quote, BTW. Again - that aspect of Jar Jar I don't mind. A character that kind of adds levity to the seriousness is often popular. Which is why Deadpool in the Marvel universe is well liked. He mocks everyone and everything. He slaps out the melo-drama so to speak. Jar Jar in that role is nothing I have a problem with. I do take issue that his levity feels, again no pun intended, alien to the franchise. Every franchise has its own brand of humor. Some of it is dark humor. Some of it is slap stick. Some of it is subtle/witty, but if you're in the know you find it funny. It just feels like his brand of humor doesn't fit (for me).

While this is true, that wasn't why I brought up those characters. I was trying to understand what from the OT is like him. Off the top of my head - I chose them due to having read criticisms leveled at them to be similar to Jar Jar. Childish. Embarrassing. Out of place. Goofy. Silly. Slap-stick. etc. So I was wondering if the "precedence" for him, according to those that say the OT had it's fair share of Jar Jar moments, are those characters.

One thing you said that made me wonder something....were those other examples more..."acceptable" due to their limited screen time versus Jar Jar having a more integral role in Episode I? Would Jar Jar have been as hated (by some) if he were in only...let's say...the scenes with Naboo? I wonder...

You're right about all of that. I agree with you and I think you touched on the pulse for some of the Jar Jar haters. One thing you mentioned that resonated with me is because you hit why I don't like him. I'm trying to watch an interesting scene and if Jar Jar is in the back drop - he is sometimes distractingly acting like an idiot. When Padme and Anakin are talking in the shop for example. Big moment. Luke and Leia's parents having their first conversation and Anakin expressing, in an awkwardly childish way, how beautiful he finds her. Meanwhile, in the back drop, Jar Jar is knocking things over and juggling awkwardly. It is annoyingly distracting.

I will say this - I agree with you there are scenes where he is tolerable and isn't doing anything silly. Plus - his obnoxious behavior can be used for story purposes. Example: when he tries to eat food with his tongue and Qui-Gon quickly snatches his tongue out of the air. Why is that done right (IMO)? Because it shows the Jedi have reflexes that surpass the average person. It was a nice case of show, don't just tell. Plus - it fit in with the conversation. Qui-Gon clearly sees Anakin has very good reflexes, possibly beyond Human, due to pod racing which prompts him to see him as a potential for being a Jedi. It all fit so well and probably the only time that Jar Jar being...well...Jar Jar fit so well with the narrative.

Very interesting read. However, that is not why I am uncomfortable with him at all. In fact - I find that interpretation not uncomfortable but really interesting. Again, all of these subtexual meanings could been done without the insane buffoonery. I am fine with Jar Jar being terrified, clumsy, and prone to making mistakes due to his lack of experience and his own inadequacies. What I don't like is that it took an important moment and used a sequence for cheap laughs. Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are fighting for their lives, Padme is trying to capture the leader of the group invading her world, and Anakin (although there were some "wacky hijinks" here too) was trying to survive in space and destroy the orbital station/ship/thing to turn those droids off. Even in the Gungun plot line, you realize these Gungans are dying so that the others have enough time to succeed. Jar Jar's antics did not add levity to me as it did for some. It just annoyed me how it kept cutting to him to screwing up (and of course getting lucky with each and every mistake he made). The Force is truly with him.

No, actually I am not. Again - I am pointing out comparisons made by others. It's not that I want the PT to be a copy of the OT, but I do wish to understand why the standards are so radically different by some fans. Some argue, "we needed levity or a breather from a very serious battle. Thus, Jar Jar." My remark above is wondering "What happened between the OT and the PT that caused this mindset to spring up?" Why is it that I've never seen, for example, in the Battle of Yavin people saying "Too serious. We should have had a bit of levity mixed in there." Where does this idea come from? Unless there is something that I don't know and people DO feel that the final battle of ANH was simply too serious and needed a small dose of comedy mixed in. Do people feel that way?

I don't have a problem with it. I do, however, wish to understand the change in standards. In fact - your argument about how the PT is simply different, naturally divergent and thus does not hold to what the OT brought forward is a better argument (to me) then "levity was needed". I am asking you or anyone why it was needed.

Yes, I do find it fascinating. To be honest with you? I never even made that connection until you brought it up. So I do appreciate you making that link for me.

Well if you enjoy the character, then I do believe he succeeded.

I couldn't agree more. I also do appreciate the links you provided. I am not sarcastic when I say thanks. lol Polite (if even heated) discourse on the internet is tough. You know how forums in general can be a hive of scum and villainy.

 

damn, now that's a long post ^ if you've watched "the beginning" they discuss whether to use him in a suit or go completely cg. around 17:00 and 50:00 minutes in. one of the things i love the most about gl is him pushing the boundaries of film making. he wanted the first photo-real cg characters in a live action film and he made it happen.

 

I was talking about the presence of detail existing at different scales and their individual framings. It is fairly incontrovertible that Anakin and Jar Jar are first shown in relative close-up outside Palpatine's office. It is fairly incontrovertible that they walk away in the background of a later shot. This is not a matter of interpretation, merely observation. The meanings that arise from such observations come down to personal interpretation, but not the filmic details themselves. I offered this to nuance what you said about subtlety. Some things are subtle, but they don't all come down to a viewer's fancy; some just require watching the film with an attentive eye.

Okay, great. Jar Jar has a purely pragmatic function, nothing more.

Jar Jar has other story purposes more than merely cheering up the kiddies, then?

This is you trying to remove one aspect from the complex ecosystem that is Jar Jar Binks. I invoked his alien physiology to suggest that it may give rise to Jar Jar's various mishaps, making them less jarring than they may at first appear. Using different lenses can give one greater resolving power in understanding a given problem or issue. I'm not saying that Jar Jar's physiology need be the reason, but it's one example that helps explain some of his peculiarity and his penchant for physical tomfoolery. If you further study, say, "The Beginning", where Lucas instructs Ahmed Best to walk around rather lazily with his gangly arms, as if "they don't have much in 'em", then it lends credence to the idea that Jar Jar has innate anatomical qualities that make him a suitable candidate for enlarged comedic misadventure.

It's one of the best -- maybe the single-best -- writing(s) on Jar Jar there is.

That reads rather contentiously. I can see those things and also see something else. It's not like I'm limited to one layer of entertainment or meaning here at a time. Such a sentiment to the contrary would retard all art appreciation profoundly. Jar Jar can be funny, and have both a simple appeal and a certain "glow" about him, and still offer something more; and my appreciation for the latter needn't blind me to the former.

I don't know if it's about "attachment", per se. Still, if you don't, you don't -- there's nothing that I or anyone else can really do about it.

There's an easy way to deal with your charge, and it's simply to say that every rose has a few thorns. Not every aspect of Jar Jar, or Star Wars, for that matter, need be the product of high-minded genius, or bring a viewer to inimitable ecstasy. Some moments can simply be cheap or dumb, without marring the bigger picture or sending the aesthetic experience down the crapper.

That's the simple charge. The more sophisticated way to respond to your objection is to claim the big and the small -- the wondrous and the facile -- as two expressions of the same thing; to admire the whole pie with equal glee. Personally, I don't see what's wrong with having a character being kicked in the crotch; is it worse than seeing Chewbacca growling at a mouse droid, or horrible violence like burning or decapitation?

Again, Jar Jar is often associated in TPM with the lowlier side of life. He's a creature who comes from a swamp. He was banished by his people for causing one too many accidents. He seems inquisitive and prone to wander. On Tatooine, he gets into trouble in Watto's shop activating and trying to take hold of a type of droid that we later see in the podrace behaving mischievously with its own kind. Jar Jar holds it by the scruff; it tries to break free by delivering a blow that might incapacitate Jar Jar (but doesn't).

I'm completely fine with moments like this. I like the deadening "thunk" when the droid kicks Jar Jar. In fact, I genuinely didn't even realize the droid had aimed a kick at Jar Jar's nether regions until other fans pointed it out by complaining about it. Some of them remind me of old prudes looking dirty words up in Samuel Johnson's first great dictionary of the English language.

The bandwagon effect applies by default to a movie series as popular as the Star Wars films. If anything, however, it applies far less to casual viewers, who decide by the light of their own reason or personal tastes as to whether a film is worth bothering with again or not. It's only fans who tend to get uppity and recast their preferences as uniquely free of the bandwagon effect -- often, ironically, after going on message boards to gauge sentiment, then clanning together or referencing a larger body of opinions than merely their own.

I dunno, I find it a little difficult to separate the two, if I'm honest. Why even make the observation if you had no larger point in mind? It shouldn't really matter what germinates a set of opinions if you're only looking to deal with those opinions on their own merits.

No, but I assumed you had some affection for the droids, when you wrote, "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." That implied some fondness for the characters above and beyond what you claim to feel for Jar Jar. Hence my comeback.

The meanings are subjective -- naturally.

But some of the things within the film, the fine details, are there -- even though they are passed over or, on occasion, denied.

You've zoomed ahead to the "manifestion of the living Force" idea, which I regard as a zoom because I agree that that particular reading is a little esoteric. But how about Jar Jar being a sort of audience guide, not entirely unlike the droids in the first film?

To me, it still seems that you are more sympathetic to ascribing greater meaning to the droids than you are Jar Jar. I sense a bit of a double-standard, though, as you're about to clarify, the droids tend to persist in their audience-guide function across the OT, while Jar Jar declines from the prequel narrative. Obviously, then, they're not alike; but I think elements of the droids abide in Jar Jar (and vice versa).

Incidentally, I feel this also underscores what I've written about the PT and OT here and elsewhere: they most certainly overlap and yet are different. There are elements of one in the other, yet in tone and execution, they are also unique tapestries of meaning; tapestries which simply get better (in my opinion) when you join them together.

At the end, you're really repeating yourself, which means I have to, now, as well -- of course, people who dislike the character will struggle to ascribe any greater meaning or metaphors to the Jar Jar character! Why would they be keen to play around and take a second look at a character they dislike or even hate? Citing numberless unknowns at the close of that paragraph, who you imagine agreeing with you, weakens your case.

The other fallacy here is a common one when it comes to discussions of Jar Jar and it's this: "Sorry, no meaning to Jar Jar. He's only really in one movie, so he can't mean a damn thing." That's a callow argument, since you could apply it to literally hundreds of things in all of the Star Wars movies, and leave yourself with very little to regard on anything but the most superficial of levels. All you've done is gut the films.

No, obviously, Jar Jar doesn't remain an audience guide in the way the droids do; and he isn't the same guiding force in the first place. That doesn't suddenly render him incapable of being a guide in TPM, though. By your strict argumentation, whatever happens in one movie, but doesn't happen in the next, can't really exist or shape the story in any meaningful way. What's your take on Qui-Gon? He dies in Episode -- so no good?

What makes my interpretation a "dubious prospect" by the way? I don't quite understand your criteria. Because Jar Jar only gets in that kind of trouble in that section of the film, he can't be shadowing Anakin or outlining a tragedy to come?

OBI-WAN: Why were you banished Jar Jar?
*Jar Jar's explanation*
OBI-WAN: You were banished because you were clumsy?

What happens to the Jedi, in the PT, ultimately? They're banished from the new social order, right?

How do they treat Anakin? What is their relationship with the Force, with the Republic, with their own members?

Do they understand their own fallibility? Can they see the limitations of their code? Do they have wisdom enough to root out contradictions and adapt?

I think Jar Jar can certainly be taken as a luminous metaphor for the Jedi's eventual fall from grace.

Star Wars offers an infinitude of pleasing analogies and interlinkings.

See it however you want. I take issue with some of your simplistic skewing -- perhaps unconscious -- of my points, that's all.

Okay, so at least you have no problem seeing and using analogy when you feel like it.

But no ground is given to George Lucas and Jar Jar. Rather, one analogy is made to dismiss the analogical inclinations or aptitude of another!

Irony, where is thy sting?

Well, why wouldn't you? This is already the only level you think Jar Jar was intended to work on, is it not?

Again, not sure what imaginarily invoking Lucas on this aspect does to strengthen your case. Smells like circular reasoning to me.

I wouldn't say it's irrelevant -- it would, theoretically, open up new avenues of inquiry, or at least provide one in a series of supporting pillars or counter-blows for this perspective or that.

I'm not sure you realize how much irony is bound up in that last statement.

Okay -- but that's just it. You should want to add to it and look at it from more than one angle.

If the artist wanted you to understand everything in advance just as he or she intended it, they could have written out or dictated a manual, no?

Would certainly have saved Lucas a couple-of-hundred million dollars and two decades of his life.

Right. You see no meaning; or only one meaning. I see a plurality of meaning.

That's the difference.

"Likely or unlikely" is a more pressurized way of saying "right or wrong".

It's not really the right way to approach art (in my opinion).

Okay.

My own view is that the rebels can be seen as the Empire in microcosm.

This is brought out more clearly in "Empire" -- particularly on Dagobah, the swampy, esoteric mid-point of the OT.

As the cave scene alludes to, the father resides in the son, and the son in the father. Even the rebels' hiding place is called ECHO BASE.

Putatively, the rebels are "good" because they're bold and inventive, versus a stagnant, male-saturated technocracy.

Beyond that, it's just details.

No, but in your case, you seem to be fairly unequivocal in stating you regard Jar Jar to be a simple creation, with little depth or finesse; and that your opinion is largely contingent on what you feel the artist intended or has said on the matter. Hence the above quote.

Yeah, I know. The thing is that you do seem to move to dismiss in places, rather than take the time to think or consider. I'm open to new takes on Jar Jar, fresh insights, but for you, it's all "dubious" and "difficult to agree with".

This sidebar chat of ours isn't even a discussion of "why" Jar Jar is "largely hated". It's meant to be about our opinions -- yours and mine.

If I was to dip into that other realm, I'd be here all year. I think it's best we don't.

Even the thread question is, "Would Jar Jar have been better if..."; not, "What are the origins of Jar Jar hate?"

We can argue over "strongly". You definitely implied it, though.

Okay, but some people thinking there's a precedent for something elsewhere, isn't automatically an argument that the newer thing must conform in every sense to the source of the precedent.

Bringing up the OT in your context is meaningless. The OT is the OT. The PT is something else. They have things in common, but they're by no means identical clones with identical personalities.

The earlier films have cheesier moments within them: slapstick, farce, irreverence, whimsy, pap. I find it hard to see how this can be argued against by a reasonable commentator or fan.

Lucas even wanted to delete some moments from the original film because he was worried people wouldn't be able to take it seriously. Such as Leia kissing Luke before swinging across the chasm, and Chewie scaring off the mouse droid by snarling at it.

Threepio's endless wittering puts pay to that notion. By that, I mean that lengthy bursts of comedy are more apparent in the first film, at least, than protracted, hideous violence. And the violence that's there is largely stylized and bloodless (if, at times, still quite swift and graphic). Empire, in part, deals with violence in a more mature way, but it's still far removed from a Tarantino movie.

The films are, ultimately, light and propulsive, and also very old-fashioned in their grammar and timing. I don't see how your comparison really holds. Jar Jar is George's nod to the silent era of film comedy. I can see Abrams being far more brash and less subtle about things than Lucas, sadly, but I don't think even he will quite pull the saga down to that level of sexualized violence -- not under Disney.

So, no... not a good analogy you just made.

Why? It isn't reasonable to discuss points of similarity or seeds of inspiration between trilogies?

You're making this sound like a faith-based position. True discussion should never be defined solely by dogma.

Okay, but I can't imagine Threepio counselling Amidala on Coruscant, either. Or having his tongue grabbed by Qui-Gon.

Can they not simply be different characters with beguiling idiosyncracies? Why the drive to have them be so alike?

Jar Jar's a grown-up kid in a world that has little time or tolerance for him. For me, the humour works perfectly.

I see that -- it just bores the backside off me.

Fair enough, but I think Jar Jar fits. My thought experiment is to imagine Jar Jar in Star Trek. There he seems to stick out to me; but I can happily integrate him with my conception of Star Wars.

Okay, but when I read it back a second time -- as when I read it the first -- you seem to only be saying that Jar Jar is an unwarranted leap from the likes of Sy Snootles, Wicket, and Artoo. That, yes, the OT has sillier characters and sillier moments, but these are relatively contained, while Jar Jar is not. Now you claim you were "wondering".

Were you wondering or just upbraiding? I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, but in places it's hard. Star Wars also never had such affected seriousness until the Jedi and other high-ranking characters of the PT. Jar Jar is sort of the "yin" to their "yang". My basic point was that Jar Jar might be more extreme, but a) there's precedent for goofiness in Star Wars, and b) Jar Jar's extreme nature is in proportion to other extremes elsewhere in TPM and the PT.

Even the name -- and I haven't seen you address this...

JAR JAR. One who jars.

Also suggests a "jar" or container that is overflowing or filled to bursting.

Again, I think the character was superbly designed and executed.

Well, that's some neat speculation -- who knows?

Maybe, maybe not. I personally think that TPM would be a much duller and significantly less effective film without him having the presence he does.

For me, Jar Jar leavens the mood, helping things to not get too serious too soon. Further, given Padme's strong affection for him, Jar Jar also helps shade her attraction to Anakin -- she may be a queen, but she's also just a young girl, longing for the lighter side of life. Jar Jar clearly gives her some connection to a more primordial side of life, allowing her to escape into a mild fantasy of irrepressible id. Moreover, if Padme has genuine empathy for the disaffected and the downtrodden, Jar Jar is an excellent conduit in allowing her to display that, deepening her bond with Anakin. TPM is meant to show the galaxy "before the dark times, before the Empire". There's still meant to be a basic sense of virtue and innocence to this slice of the story. Jar Jar goofing around in Watto's shop sells that concept to me. I find his presence there fun, intriguing, even poignant.

It's a well-picked example, but I would find Jar Jar, and the film, extremely banal were it all to play out on that level. I prefer Jar Jar being part of a wider tapestry, woven in at different levels of meaning and obviousness. The humour of Jar Jar is relatively supple and free-flowing, to me. But if it all came across like Qui-Gon grabbing his tongue in service of a transparent story "point", it would be incredibly tedious for this viewer. Less is more, and again, despite very vocal and very persistent protestations to the contrary, Jar Jar's antics play out in a variety of ways, in a variety of hues. It's like taking in a grand painting.

"The Force is truly with him". Are you conceding, in some way, some of my other musings on Jar Jar?

Anyway, buffoonery is part of Jar Jar's makeup. You can't remove all the oxygen from water and still have water.

I don't think his hijinks ruin anything in the end. Rather, I think they accentuate what's at stake; they cap the mania that is unfolding across multiple levels of the storyline.

Even Jar Jar knows what is at stake as he fights -- clumsy though his tactics and movements may be. He is doing his bit for queen and planet. That I like seeing.

Given the density of the action strands in TPM's final quarter, I think it pays to have someone like Jar Jar ambling around, while even more intense things are happening elsewhere. It's a complicated, operatic action fugue. I love it.

The mindset probably arises from the fact that some people can perceive that TPM is meant to be a more innocent chapter in the Star Wars mythos. That and there is a LOT going on at the end of the film. Where ANH has one major action strand, TPM has four. When Lucas introduced three strands in ROTJ, he mixed it up with comedy and serious action even then.

Perhaps this is also where some PT fans grow tired and begin to lose their patience with OT fans who seem very wedded to an idealized past, and if going by the way many revere ANH and TESB, barely even 1/3rd of the existing Star Wars storyline. The idea that those early films define exactly the mix of levity and seriousness that should exist in all the rest is quite bigoted and reactionary.

No-one has changed their standards. Certainly, not me. (Not that it would be a bad thing for one's standards to undergone constant revision as new experiences pour in).

Levity exists in all six Star Wars films; and it's bound to exist in the sequel trilogy as well. It simply takes a different form, or a different blend, in each of the episodes.

I can't see a problem here. There is little place for humour in ANH's closing space battle after all the shenanigans and horseplay that have led up to it. It's good to close with something more condensed and serious.

For one, it gives the measure of how much the galaxy has shifted in its central concerns since the last days of the Old Republic. The tonality of the film does the telling. Now, there's no-one like Jar Jar to distract on the ground. His brand of heroism has been wiped from the galaxy.

Of course, that's merely my personal take. But as an epic work of poetry, I find the saga relatively easy -- and satisfying -- to read in this regard.

Great.

There are tons of links like this throughout the saga.

He's a roaring success -- to me.

It's been quite heated I guess.

I get burned out having to constantly face (no offence) naysaying of different kinds in the Star Wars community.

So you'll have to excuse any testiness on my part. I know there's a bit back there. Oh, well.

And thanks again. With all our quotes included, this might qualify as the longest post I've ever submitted to TFN.

 

Most of the time when people claim to speak for the majority of children about Jar Jar, they relate a personal anecdote about seeing Episode I in theaters as a child and immediately having the maturity and discernment to see that Jar Jar was a worthless, unfunny character. But I've never seen someone use their hypothetical childhood reaction to Jar Jar as evidence of his lack of juvenile appeal.

 

I actually was a child when I first saw Jar Jar. He got old pretty quickly. He was funny at first, don't get me wrong. But everyone who says he got way too much screen time is absolutely right.

 

Hindsight is always 20/20. What seems like a stranger idea -- a goofy character who resembles Buster Keaton or a robotic rolling trashcan that beeps, whistles, makes baby noises, argues with a robotic English butler and somehow manages to be a hero despite his physical limitations? Almost everyone involved in ANH thought GL had lost it when they learned of the character of R2 and realized that the 1st 20 minutes of the film would mostly be carried by him and 3PO bickering together in the middle of a desert. Given that, I have no problem with what GL tried to do with Jar Jar. I hope they continue to take such risks in the ST.

I don't think the CGI hurt Jar Jar at all. I actually think Jar Jar's CGI has aged well and I kind of like how he moves. My main complaints about Jar Jar are that I find his voice annoying and that he takes over scenes. If more his antics were more in the background then I don't think I'd have a problem with them. I think I find him least appealing on Tatooine when he distracts from the conversations central to the plot, and really, with the start of the pod race, we don't see him as much except as a participant in the Gungan-droid war.

I also don't hate Jar Jar. I understand that he's there for kids, and there are a few times he makes me laugh. At first I hoped that GL would make the PT more adult-oriented -- mostly for selfish reasons -- as I was an adult when I saw the PT, but now I recognize that I wouldn't have become enamored with Star Wars initially if I had seen in the OT as an adult. I might have liked the OT, but I'm sure it wouldn't have had the same impact on me. So, now, I'm glad that the PT has some kid-friendly stuff, and I hope the same is true of the ST.

 

But again, that's just our own personal experience. It has little or nothing to do with how the majority of children watching The Phantom Menace reacted to Jar Jar.

 

i think the problem stems from fandom itself. when people love something like sw so much and take it so seriously they tend to overreact if there is something in it they don't like. or they tend to get into pointless, name calling fights about it. (cough cough)

 

Some of the posts in this thread remind me of the South Park episode "The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs". Those not familiar with the episode, it's about 3 kids that want to write the worlds most disgusting, most vile book ever (the books story is just a nonsensical story with nothing but toilet humor and vulgarity). Their parents find the book, and read it. The book is so gross it causes whomever reads it to vomit. The parents think the book is literary genius and have it published. The book goes number one. Everyone that reads it interprets the book in their own way. Every one claims there are deeper meanings to the book, political, social economic, religious, etc. However, the boys are amazed because all they wanted to do was make the worlds most disgusting book.

Apparently Jar Jar = The Tale of Scrotie McBoogerballs

 

but someone could find meaning in scrotie mcboogerballs if it spoke to them. even if it's made in jest it can still mean something to someone. it's all subjective.

 

Maybe to an extent. Some of these interpretations of Jar Jar's character have gotten a bit tenuous. But at a base level, I think it's indisputable that Jar Jar was meant to be an argument for tolerance.

 

Which, ironically, makes the movie and the character all the more relevant.

 

I can't say for sure you're wrong as I have never heard anything from Lucas confirming or denying it. However, I still think that Jar Jar was suppose to be the humor part of the story aimed at kids. I always thought Lucas uses Jar Jar as a way to break up the tension of the final battle scenes. He does it to give little kids a "break" if you will from everything that is going on. Adults don't need that tension breaker, where a kid might need a second of silly humor to catch their breath. Notice Lucas also does this in AOTC with the scenes of Artoo and C-3PO in the arena battle. Silly humor intertwined with the seriousness of the battle. It's not there to make you and I (adults) laugh, as much as it's there to give a little kid that second or two break from all that seriousness of what they are seeing.

I will say that as I was writing this post, that I remember Lucas had this whole background theme of symbiosis going in TPM. Not sure why he was stuck on it at that time, but, it did pop up in many ways during the movie. So perhaps you are right in the realm of Jar Jar being about tolerance from the standpoint of symbiosis, that we all need each other to survive. I would still think that this was a secondary concern for the character and the Jar Jar's main function was that of humor for the kids.

 

An artwork ought to be (able to be) understood independently of digging up external evidence (or making guesses) of the artist's intentions. So it's fine if people see Jar Jar purely as comic relief. (In fact it's great, much better than the very tiresome hatred he generally gets.) But that doesn't make a deeper perception secondary if such a perception is equally 'consistent' (whatever that might mean) with the work itself. Star Wars is as deep as we want it to be. That's no less legitimate than the busy academic industries around Shakespeare, who intended his works as mass entertainment.