ST Rian Johnson (Director Of TLJ) Discussion Thread

I donkt think it’s so much Johnson having a post-modern take on Star Wars that hurt it; I think someone can totally do that and make it work in the franchise.

I think it’s that his fandom for Star Wars is completely abstract and removed from an investment in the characters and much more in the film theory behind it.

Like...

TLJ’s story probably had to be written with a mindset that would view ANH like this: “Man, Luke, Han, and Leia are such good characters, and the story is so good, with a real human heart to it, and that finale against the Death Star is a great bit of storytelling, and the Force is this fascinating mythological element!”

But Johnson’s view of ANH is likely more like this: “Man, I love the filmmaking behind this thing! The way it uses archetypes, the way it plays out along the Hero’s Journey, the homages to old films like The Dam Busters, with this vague, undefined trippy Force stuff added in as extra!”

The ST needed to have someone who liked the human and drama elements, and who had a respect for the previous material as a story and for the audience. Lucas was deeply involved in the emotional arcs fo his characters, in the dramatic payoff for the audience in the long run, and while he made the film for kids, he respected the capacity for mature viewing in children. Johnson was only tangentially interest in the emotional arcs of his characters, had a flippantly uninterested view in long term payoff, and while he was trying to “elevate” and “mature” the franchise, was still talking down to most of his audience.

They needed to treat the ST as an intrinsically connecting and rewarding addition to the Lucas films as a deep Space Opera, but Johnson couldn’t do that because he didn’t see a Space Opera, but a shallow blockbuster instead.

 

Some good conversation going on here. I think this conversation shows just how varied what people love about Star Wars can be.

Personally, for me, the clever and compelling twists on archetypes in the OT and the PT as well as the classic hero's journey Luke goes on in the OT and the tragic hero's journey that defines Anakin's arc in the PT is a large part of why I love Star Wars. However, I don't think of those parts as being separate from the emotional drama of the characters, because I feel the characters are fleshed out as individuals so that they become more than just archetypes, but at the same time, the archetypes allow Star Wars to function on a very mythical level. Archetypes can be deeply meaningful and satisfying from a storytelling and audience perspective, or else we probably wouldn't see so much overlap in archetypes across cultures and spanning from ancient times through to the modern era. At the same time, because we have seen these archetypal characters before in many stories, it is important to find a way to bring something fresh to the characters that makes them flesh and blood. Also, since many archetypes go back to ancient times, it is important to think about how those archetypes can be updated to avoid harmful stereotypes (sexist and racist tropes and characterization spring to mind here) and to feel timeless rather than dated.

Part of the appeal of the OT and PT for me is that while each of those trilogies had elements that reflected the Earth eras in which they were created, there was still that timeless sense of myth about them, a feeling that old tales and characters were being updated for a modern age and placed in a fantastical space setting. It was epic fantasy and tragedy set in space combined with a very East Asian inspired spiritual power and philosophy of the Force.

So, I'd be reluctant to say RJ was wrong to be inspired by the archetypes or the hero's journey of Star Wars since those aspects of Star Wars are also part of its appeal to me. More that RJ made mistakes with his execution of those elements at least from my point of view. For instance, in TLJ, he seemed to think it was his job to continue Luke's journey as a hero rather than to further develop Rey's journey as a heroine, and that meant that Luke got a lot more focus and development as a character at the expense of Rey, the purported protagonist of the ST in general and TLJ in particular. Also, sometimes his characters felt too stereotyped and as if they existed to preach at the audience rather than as flesh and blood characters with drama and emotions that I could get wrapped up in as an audience member. In that way, I'd say it was more an execution issue for me than a fundamental difference in what is appealing about Star Wars philosophy.

Likewise, I did find that RJ had some interesting ideas and imagery about the Force that did seem compatible with East Asian spirituality that I would have enjoyed seeing explored further even if those bits were offset by Luke's rants against the Jedi that made me roll my eyes every time. The Prime Jedi symbol resembles a yin-yang one, for example, and I do think that has fascinating implications for the relationship between the light and the dark side of the Force that would have been cool to explore in more depth. Similarly, I like how Rey describes the light and dark elements as well as the balance between those elements when Luke is guiding her through her first meditation and reaching out into the Force in that spiritual way. That felt genuinely spiritual and meaningful to me. So, more of that and less rants about the Jedi and determination to deconstruct rather than rebuild the Jedi would have improved TLJ in my opinion.

One of the big misses with TLJ's tone and the overall tone of the ST for me was that it did take a sort of post-modern, meta approach to Star Wars. TLJ felt like a Star Wars movie commenting on and critiquing other Star Wars films in a way that for me broke the fourth wall. Luke's rants about the Jedi and Rey's knowledge of the events of ROTJ as if she had watched a DVD copy are examples that spring to mind. Star Wars to me had never been meta in that fashion, and I didn't enjoy it suddenly becoming super meta. I also think that the fact the ST is so meta can diminish its appeal to new fans as it presupposes the viewer will have a fairly strong familiarity with previous Star Wars films and will be interested in listening to the characters provide (sometimes distorted) meta commentary on them. That kind of meta commentary and critique can appeal to film critics as super deep and artsy but for many general audience members may prove ineffectual or cringe-inducing.

(On a somewhat tangential note, this is part of why I say that I don't really know who the target audience of the ST in general and TLJ in particular was supposed to be. For the fan of the PT, much of Luke's rants against the Jedi will feel like an unneeded slap in the face and a distortion of the Jedi we saw in the PT. For the fan of the OT, there is deconstruction of Luke and the portrayal of him as essentially a grumpy, disillusioned failure. And for fans of the new characters such as Finn,Poe, and Rey, there is little time that they spend together developing their relationships and Rey herself gets overshadowed by Luke and Kylo.So to whom was this film meant to appeal? Not the OT generation. Not the PT generation. Not even fans of the new ST. A rare and mystifying misfire by Disney in my opinion.)

I suppose for me the bottom line is this: What was RJ's great sin in TLJ from my point of view? Not getting too mythical, but getting to meta. Not being fascinated by the hero's journey of Star Wars but forgetting who the protagonist of his film and the ST in general was supposed to be. Breaking the fourth wall and losing track of where his focus should have been from a character perspective. At least that is my take on the issue.

 

Y'know that phrase "Miss the forest for the trees"?

I feel like TLJ is a case of "missing the trees for the forest".

It's an approach that I think *could* work for new characters and a new conflict - Star Wars *can*, to me, survive meta-commentary and post-modern sensibilities. But if you don't know who and what Luke, Rey, Finn, Kylo, The Resistance, and the First Order are or should be... then they're not going to survive such treatment.

 

Or alternatively, he didn't know he had a daughter.

Or he thought she was dead due to a great trauma his family suffered, and her awakening was the only clue he got she was still alive.

Or he'd been cut off from the Force by something, and when he searched for her, he couldn't find her.

Honestly, anything involving losing a wife or a daughter would have made more sense for shell-shocking Luke than him feeling guilty at "betraying" someone he then thinks immediately murdered his other students.

And maybe he'd been investigating the Force to try and figure out how to defeat Kylo without killing the willfully evil snot, or he'd suspected how Snoke got ahold of Ben and was searching for a way to break the hold, or any one of a hundred different options that don't require the film insisting Luke is selfish coward because it's too lazy and apathetic to come up with a better answer to TFA's intriguing mysteries.

The film that insists on having Rey and Kylo forced into a weird "Force Skype" situation and is convinced Rey will be attracted to her violator when he agrees he's a monster, can't understand Finn's character arc in TFA on even a basic level, and can't even maintain consistency in what makes the main chase of the film dramatic, doesn't get to complain about being boxed in.

And arguably the greatest problem of the ST is believing the story must revolve around Kylo; he's not the main character, and he's not even the male lead until TLJ plugged its ears and and whined about him being viewed as a shallow monster... because that's what he was, and it didn't feel the need to expand him into anything else.

 

I’m not that cynical about it.

I think KK thought more like “This kid’s good! Brick, Looper, Brothers Bloom... this guy has the stuff! I’m not a story person *myself*, but surely he can deliver the kind of quality I expect, and his film sounds like all the thing’s I expect as a person in Hollywood to work!”

I really don’t think there was any thought to “suckers” in her mind... but I *do* think there’s a very good chance the “artisté” nature of Johnson’s script made KK and others think there was more quality in the script than there actually was. In the same way you should never underestimate the power of corporate interests seeking popular mainstream blockbusters, never underestimate an echo chamber about “real art” overriding actual critical analysis elsewhere.

My objection to that would be the “let the man work!” philosophy applies to *singular* works... but probably shouldn’t to collaborative work.

In the case of collaborative work, there actually is something like an assembly line explicitly at work; you are not only sharing the “toys”, but a common plot structure with distinct responsibilities.

It’s a teamwork thing compared to a solo action. You’re playing (American) football, not Golf, and you can’t be a diva doing your own thing.

 

“Diva” was probably the wrong word... but Johnson is comparable to an over-confident teammate who makes a selfish play, not because they’re a bad person, but because they make a bad decision... and the team, not just him, suffered for it.

Sometimes the quarterback has to know when to hand the ball of and when to pull it. Normally, the coach makes the call that actually tells them what they should do. Sometimes he doesn’t, and you have to hope your quarterback understand his obligations and has enough situational awareness to trust the player best suited for the job, and give it to the fullback behind your offensive line...

...But instead, Johnson, partially because he didn’t have a good coach, kept the ball and tried to outrun a quick 265 lbs linebacker. And that stuck the ST at 4th and long instead fo getting the easy first down.

The story was bigger than Johnson’s film, and while LFL does deserve a great deal of blame for the lack of alignment, consistency, and momentum, Johnson could have rewarded his fellow teammates with the selfless and aware play, and he didn’t.

Because here’s the thing:

All the most major changes between TLJ and TROS were already occurring and locked into the story before TLJ was released. Abrams wasn’t trying to “apologize” to the audience; he was coming into try and find an answer to changes LFL was demanding when they got into Episode 9’s pre-production and started realizing some of the conundrums of having only one new Skywalker in the 9-film family story they wanted to wrap up, but he was set-up to be the main villain, even though Johnson had tried to reroute the entire trilogy around him.

That's ultimately why Palpatine came back; LFL wanted to follow up Johnson on one point (Kylo as the male lead) but realized it would be detrimental to the longer story to have Kylo be the main villain.

...Now, I would argue that Abrams trying to “salvage” the story is a valid assessment...

But that’s because the story needed salvaging, because:

- TLJ forgot who the ST’s main character was supposed to be, as it gave Luke the main character arc and dramatic meat of the story, and stripped away Rey’ character and significance to give to Kylo.

- TLJ screwed up and regressed most of the new characters, and failed to use Luke to propel the ST’s story forward.

- And TLJ also left the ST in a place where, fundamentally, a rewarding finale for the ST *and* for the Skywalker story before it was out of reach.

Those are the kind of things an entry into a collaborative story can’t do. And those are the things Johnson did with his vaunted freedom of creative control.