Mstrmnd.com Analysis of the Prequel Trilogy and how it mirrors the Original Trilogy

http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/12/26/did-george-lucas-change-cinema-with-star-wars-prequels/

One of the writers on the Mstrmnd site decided to do a guest article for the hero complex section of the LA Times. The article mainly talks about how each film in the series mirrors each other and how certain scenes mirror to another scene in the same film. Most of the comments for the article have been very negative so far and only a few positive ones. I'd say its an interesting read but it doesn't really make the prequel trilogy any better than it is.

 

Most of the comments for the article have been very negative so far and only a few positive ones. I'd say its an interesting read but it doesn't really make the prequel trilogy any better than it is.


The Prequel Trilogy doesn't need the article to make it better. It's fine, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Its so sad that we can't even discuss something interesting without the few determined to 'convince' us that the prequels have no merit despite not backing up their assertions and usually not talking about the topic at hand.

 

I've actually grown to like the prequels much more (after time away from them and watching the recent SpikeTV marathon and thinking about a lot of the discussion here); however, I don't think that article is very helpful; the prequels, like any other film, story, work of art, etc. succeeds or fails based on whether or not a viewer or audience enjoys them; identifying techniques, whether they are new and innovative or not, does not make something any better or worse and isn't illuminating or useful (in my opinion) as criticism. So Lucas used "mirroring" and "pattern cognition" or didn't--so what? That is like saying Petrarch is a great poet because he used the form of the sonnet. That is not helpful in making me appreciate Petrarch or Lucas any more or less, that is merely discussing technica--maybe useful in pedagogy, but useless in criticism and appreciation. That article said nothing that hasn't been discussed countless times in other places (including these forums and by Lucas himself) and does not explain why "mirroring" and "pattern cognition" make the films any better. I thought that essay was a waste of words really; I was hoping for the level of insight I usually find here or better; the author failed to deliver.

 

McLeod makes the rather bold claim that Lucas' use of "mirrors" are revolutionary - implying a profound impact on film-making since the release of the PT. What I would like to see is examples of how it was revolutionary, particularly since McLeod states that Speilberg, Kubrick and even Chaplin used mirroring before Lucas did. What did Lucas do that separates the PT from what these other directors did? Simply use the technique more than the others (i.e. quantative change)? Did he make some revolutionary change to the use of the technique (i.e. qualitative change)? If the effect has been genuinly revolutionary, what film-makers have taken up the change in its use? Or is this revolution only a potential one - a possibility for profound change in the storytelling medium, as of yet unrealized because of the visionary genius of Lucas, as implied in the last paragraph? If so, what is keeping other film-makers from realizing the significance of this technique?

I felt the piece gave rise to more questions than answers, given the claims it makes.

 

His stuff is like that. But its probably for the best.

 

Interesting article though it is hardly news.
Lucas has said that the two trilogies mirror and reflect each other like rhyming verses of poetry.
The OT is Campbell's Heroes Journey, the PT is the inverse--

-TPM follows the same structure as ANH--Hidden Fortress: Two Jedi/Two Droids stumble upon Anakin/Luke and they go on an adventure involving galactic intrigue and consequence, a heroes journey begins with a master taking on his apprentice and finally there is a battle involving a lightsaber duel and the explosion of a Droid Control ship/Death Star. The battle of the Gungans vs. the Droids also mirrors the battle of Endor. Finally, the Qui-Gonn funeral mirrors the funderal of Darth Vader/Anakin.

-AOTC and TESB loosely follow the same structure. The main characters are split up. Han and Leia/Anakin and Padme are on the run and begin to fall in love; Luke/Obi-Wan go on a separate adventure where they find something more important--Yoda and Jedi training for Luke / the clone army for Obi-Wan. As the article points out, both middle films involve the Fetts and Slave I. Dooku revealing the Sith as rulers of the galaxy mirrors Vader revealing his identity. Anakin losing his hand clearly mirrors the same loss for Luke. The scene with Dooku and Sideous at the end mirrors a scene in ROTJ of Vader and the Emperor.

-ROTS and ROTJ not only mirror each other in title but also in major themes and plots.

 

But it really goes beyond those obvious connections between I/IV II/V etc. This is when it starts to get interesting - when you see the connections between ALL of the films. TPM has as much in common with ROTJ as it does ANH. Jedi bonfires, hunger getting our heroes into trouble, soon-to-be Jedi enslaved to Hutts...

And don't forget that the Revenge of the Sith got its title from Darth Maul himself.
I think one thing that MSTRMND overlooks are the words that connect the saga. Here are some words to listen for closely.
"HELP" probably the most important one.
"POWER" pretty obvious, but also central to the underlying story.
and one of the more surprising ones "STAY".

 

The argument "You should like the prequels because Lucas filled them with clever mirroring" strikes me as like arguing "You should like Titanic because Cameron went to great lengths to duplicate the historical structure". Yeah, these guys worked really hard on these things that I can certainly appreciate on an intellectual level. But at the end of the day these are dramatic works, and if the drama doesn't work than neither do the films themselves.


P.S. Is this the same mstrmnd.com guy who posted here a year or so ago? If so good for him for growing - so far he seems on the LA Times site to have overcome the urge to create a user account to flame those who dispute his genius.

 

Yeah that's him. He's been doing his thing on imdb.com lately.

His analysis doesn't necessarily make the movies themselves any more enjoyable, but once the mind is open to these "reflections" it makes the process of watching the movies much more interesting and rewarding. It's just another way to open yourself to more than one perspective.

I will say that if it weren't for this guy, I don't know if I would have started appreciating the thought that went into the prequels and for that matter the OT.

 

Where I take issue is the implication that those who don't appreciate the prequels are somehow closed-minded. Most people simply don't consider it worth the time to ponder these extra layers on a film that we've found deficient in the main.

The fact is, there are countless films whose makers have put in just as much thought and artistry as Lucas did into the PT, and a cursory glance around the internet will reveal that people have no problem delving into McLeod-ish levels of analysis - on films they like.

To put it another way, why spend a great deal of time developing an intellectual appreciation of a film that I will only ever appreciate on an intellectual level when I could be spending it developing my intellectual appreciation of a film that I already enjoy on a visceral level (of which there are already too many to ever achieve this for them all)?

 

Because its Star Wars and you deserve to enjoy it this time.

But to put it more bluntly, liking something is more rewarding than not liking something. And your mind is like underwear, the more you change it, the better it smells.

"Unlearn what you have learned" is actually a rather practical piece of advice. Don't stop unlearning.

 

It is interesting to note that the same examples can be yield very different interpretations. With McLeod, the reoccuring imagery is a sign of genius, and his use of the term "mirroring" signals this as it is presented as an advanced storytelling technique, only used by masters.

However, Stoklasa, of RedLetterMedia fame, used the some of the same examples - Kamino vs. Bespin, the two Asteroid fields - but in his interpretation, they are used to make the opposite point of McLeod; they become indicators that Lucas is of his lacking originality and needs to plagiarize himself and tap into the success of the OT to appeal to the audience, a clear sign of lacking film-making skill.

Interesting, eh?

Which, again, implies that those who do not like the PT are narrow-minded or lack mental "flexibility", prompting me to ask: does that apply only to Star Wars, or also to movies you don't like?

 

It applies to people, music, politics, everything.

 

But as we've both acknowledged above, this sort of analysis doesn't actually make an unenjoyable film any more enjoyable.

As a blanket way of life? No thanks.

I'm sure if Palpatine had told Luke to "unlearn what [he had] learned" about the evils of the Dark Side, Yoda would have taken some issue.

Open-mindedness is good, but complete open-mindedness is what gets you sucked into Heaven's Gate or Scientology.

 

What I like the most about the entire trilogy is that I have found myself watching scenes from one of the PT movies and found myself thinking about mirror scenes from any of the OT movies. And vice versa. Very entertaining exercise for me.

 

Then you'd probably enjoy 33:20-34:10 in the third segment of the new Plinkett RotS review.

 

If you have to deliberately put yourself into a mindset and force yourself to like something then the movie fails. It is the films job to put me into the mindset to enjoy it, NOT mine.

Sorry, I just can't take, "points," like the one above seriously.

 

I think that statement swings a bit too far to the other extreme. It's unreasonable to go into a comedy in a totally sour mood and go, "Now MAKE me laugh, movie."

Several teachers over the years have said, "You don't start at an A and work your way down; You start at an F and work your way up." With movies, I feel like it's the opposite - especially movies that are a continuation of one of my favorite series of all time.

Nearly every time I've gone into one of the prequels, my mindset has been one of WANTING to enjoy myself. If I didn't want to enjoy watching the prequels, I wouldn't bother trying to sit through them. It's just that there are so many things I consider failings in the films that they eventually fall far from that starting A.

 

I hope you appreciate that this question could more pertinently apply to yourself. I mean, why spend time on a message board, for years on end, dedicated to films that you apparently don't get much out of on any level? To some extent, being on a message board, especially one as fine-grained as being for the purpose of discussing three motion pictures, is an intellectual pursuit; the very thing you rhetorically ask the value of (in light of not getting much enjoyment from the very three motion pictures this board exists for). If you're going to grandstand with remarks like the one under quotation, it seems that you'll never be satisfied here. Clearly, you're going to rub up against fans who champion things like this, and they're going to rub up against you. Put another way, a fan is saying, "This article means something", and you're saying, "It doesn't mean anything and stop calling me close-minded for saying so!" This is masochism writ large. I'm not a huge fan of football, let's say, so I wouldn't waste years of my life arguing against football on a football-oriented message board, pre-empting attacks by striking back with the "you're all close-minded because you don't accept my view" cannards. But if I were you, apparently, that's exactly what I'd do. It's all a bit odd, don't ya think?

 

Makes a change to see someone sticking their head above the parapet to say something positive about Lucas and the Prequels.

Theres nothing particularly new or revelatory about this article, but I have to take my hat off to the writer for having the cojones to write this for the LA Times.

 

To be fair, if it's a case of an article where the flaws are matter of its structure, rather than the subject matter it ventures to discuss, then it is entirely possible that someone who criticizes it could be negatively received by those who like the subject matter simply by their virtue of doing so, notwithstanding the structural flaws of the piece in question. In such cases, I'd argue that it would not be very open-minded to simply dismiss the critique.

And as you might guess, I do consider the article structurally flawed. Every case McLeod uses as examples of mirroring might be true, but the text does little to show that the PT has revolutionized film-making, which, it seems to me, is the central thesis statement of the piece.

Having said that, I don't think that there has been much reflexive dismissing of critique on in this thread...

 

W((()))M
STARWARS

 

Posting in the throes of an "heroic dose" again, Stampid?

 

Nope. I just think that's what the dude's getting at. Lucas didn't just make a set of movies, he made a symmetrical picture. It's imperfect symmetry, but that's just the nature of things. Like right handedness, or losing your right hand. Lucas turned a seemingly point A point B series into something more like a B A B series. It's not THE GREATEST THING OF ALL TIME but its clever, and it should be discussed at ridiculous length. Sometimes that requires thinking about the movies that do exist and not that movies that should have existed.