Monday, October 19, 2009

1977: STAR WARS

What’s it about?

A couple of robots escape from a space battle with sensitive data that could help a scrappy band of rebels destroy a giant weapon called the Death Star. The robots crash land on a desert planet, where they hook up with a young moisture farmer (who dreams of space heroics) and a grizzled old hermit played by Alec Guinness (who hopes to teach the youngster an old martial arts philosophy called “the Force”).

A young Harrison Ford and an alien who looks like Bigfoot agree to transport the fugitives and the secret plans to the rebel base. But first they must rescue one of the rebellion’s leaders (a feisty princess) from deep inside the Death Star (a moon-sized space station that destroys entire planets) and have a quick electric sword fight with top bad guy Darth Vader (a black-helmeted mystic voiced by James Earl Jones). After all that’s done, the rebellion uses the captured plans to launch a last-ditch attack against the Death Star before their secret headquarters is blasted into oblivion.

Is it any good?

I said at the very beginning of this project that I was going to focus on less well-known movies instead of the ones that everybody knows about. That’s still true -- I’m still watching at least one movie that I haven’t seen yet for each year and still doing my best to dig a little deeper to find them. But I have known for a long time now that I was going to write something about STAR WARS. Even if I had nothing to say myself, it would at least give other people a chance to say whatever they wanted. Because, as you all know, everybody has an opinion on STAR WARS.

The version that I just finished watching is the DVD of the original theatrical version (as opposed to the special edition with additional footage that came out in 1997). I picked this version on purpose -- not because I think it’s “better”, but because it’s practically impossible for me to watch the special edition without playing a (very distracting) game of “spot the new footage”.

Like most folks my age, I watched STAR WARS a lot as a kid. It was on television every few months, and at some point my folks taped one of those broadcasts so that we could watch it whenever we wanted on long summer days. (We had no Nintendo in my house, incidentally.) I was in high school when the special edition version was released to theaters, and my friends and I naturally all went, since none of us had ever had the chance to see it on the big screen. And then, after that -- nothing. Except for a snippet here and there on television, I didn’t watch STAR WARS again for ten years. I did see a couple of the prequel movies (one in a second-run theater and one on DVD), but after 1997 I left the original trilogy alone for a decade.

The ten-year gap was at least partly on purpose. After watching something so many times during such formative years, I felt like STAR WARS was no longer just a movie to me. It’s a rare experience that I can remember having at many different points in my life. Watching STAR WARS had become like an archaeological expedition -- I could use the movie as a prism to look back into my past and remember how I felt at different stages of growing up. And for some reason, I wanted to put a rest to that. Without being too melodramatic about it, I suppose I packed up STAR WARS with the rest of my childhood and started looking for new experiences instead.

Until, that is, one fateful night in a hotel room in Ventura, California. Flipping around the cable stations, I came across the very beginning of STAR WARS on HBO. It was totally unplanned, but it had been ten years since I had last seen it and I decided right then that enough time had passed. I could watch it again with an uncritical eye and judge its merits as a mere movie. The result? I didn’t much like it.

I liked parts of it, of course. I couldn’t deny that the assault on the Death Star was an amazing fifteen minutes of cinema, and some of the screwball chemistry between Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher was fun. But by and large, I was not impressed by the simple plot, flat characters, and borderline nonsensical events. I could see why Alec Guinness had asked George Lucas to kill him off. Yet, watching it again now, I can’t help but think I completely missed the point in that hotel room.

Of course, things are different now. For the past nine months, I have almost literally watched nothing else besides science fiction movies from the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s. A couple entries ago, I said that I had this secret hypothesis that science fiction could be divided into pre-STAR WARS and post-STAR WARS. I don’t really think that’s true anymore, but it is certainly true that there is nothing else prior to 1977 that looks or even feels even remotely like STAR WARS. George Lucas didn’t invent the space opera, but he made it look absolutely incredible.

One of the most interesting things about STAR WARS (in the context of the popular sci-fi flicks that came before it) is that it isn’t designed to make you think. It has no specific message or cautionary tale to deliver. George Lucas famously cribbed from Joseph Campbell’s work on the monomyth when he was working on the movie, but any “meaning” in the movie is vague and mushy. This is a big departure from movies like PLANET OF THE APES (1968) or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968) or A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971) or even CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND (1977), where all the spectacle and circumstance seem crafted specifically to make you ponder the nature of humanity (or something equally heavy).

STAR WARS is entirely an adventure -- and it’s an adventure in a startling universe. The Mos Eisley cantina scene alone contains more surprising aliens than the rest of sci-fi cinema had managed to conjure up in the previous eighty years. The same holds true for the other details of the sci-fi world -- the giant skeleton of some extinct creature in the Tatooine desert, the glimpses of banthas being ridden by sand people, the brief allusions to the Galactic Senate by the Imperial brass, the battered and dirty ships of the rebellion, and so on.

STAR WARS is a movie that is just full of stuff -- much of it half-realized or barely mentioned. Even the concepts of Jedi knights and the Force itself are undeveloped here. I don’t think this is a bad thing though. Much of what I loved about STAR WARS as a kid were these tantalizing glimpses at a world beyond. It was a few years before I saw any of the sequels, and I know that I wanted to know more about everything in the world. (Most of all, I wanted to see more banthas.) In some ways, the sequels and the special editions ruin some of this feeling of wonder and excitement.

On the other hand, as I was watching this time, I was surprised how much my knowledge of the rest of the series gave more meaning to certain events. I found it very hard to identify anything redeeming about THE PHANTOM MENACE and ATTACK OF THE CLONES when I saw them (never saw REVENGE OF THE SITH), but I was aware this time that knowing what Obi Wan Kenobi was like back in his prime made his appearance here as an old man all that more meaningful. And his acquiescence to death at the hands of Darth Vader was something that never ever made any sense to me as a kid or teenager. It’s only in knowing what Obi Wan knows about the relationship between himself and Darth Vader, and between Darth Vader and Luke Skywalker, that it actually makes sense.

So STAR WARS is pretty well ruined for me as a movie, from a combination of individual factors, cultural factors, and George Lucas specific factors. From my point of view, we’ve all collaborated to turn a perfectly decent movie into... what exactly? Something more than a movie, I suppose, and something seemingly completely unique. Maybe generations from now or in countries somehow untouched by American culture, folks will think of STAR WARS as just another movie. But for me at least, I don’t think that kind of assessment is possible at all.

What else happened this year?

More entries to come! Stick around and find out!

12 comments:

  1. It might be a cliche, but it's worth mentioning: I like to think that Star Wars is more a fantasy movie than a science fiction one. A young orphan farm boy meets a mysterious old man who turns out to be a magician. He gets a magic sword and it turns out he's actually the son of a legendary magic knight and, by the way, he needs to rescue a princess from peril. It's even set in "a long time ago in a faraway land". Sure, there are science fiction trappings like robots, spaceships and turbo lasers there, but their operation is always so arbitrary (or even contrary to known laws of nature) that they can only be described as magical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If science fiction is not identifiable by its trappings, then how is it identifiable? STAR WARS does have some explicitly mystical and magical elements and isn't really interested in any traditional sci-fi themes, but it also has a lot of sci-fi stuff and just looks and feels like a sci-fi movie.

    I know you're not trying to start anything here, but the question of what exactly is science fiction is something I have thought about a lot, with no really satisfying answers. Different people seem to want different things out of the genre, so I tend to think that science fiction is a set of overlapping (but not congruent) definitions that also often intersect with related genres (fantasy, horror, adventure, fable, and so on).

    So I agree that STAR WARS is not science fiction for the reasons you mention. But I also think it is science fiction simply because the robots and spaceships and lasers are inescapeable parts of the story as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i tend to define sci-fi as "film that explores how technology relates to humanity", because practically any movie you would want to call sci-fi can be awkwardly squished to fit into that at least a little bit

    ReplyDelete
  4. I differentiate sci-fi and fantasy so that sci-fi is possible or at least plausible given some uncanny advancements to our current level of knowledge whereas in fantasy anything is possible without question. One example is a dragon: based on our current knowledge of physics and biology, if such a thing were to exist, it would be unable to fly or breathe fire. A "sci-fist" dragon would at least require some justification (maybe it's on a planet with a weaker gravity than earth's?) whereas in a fantasy piece it's "oh hey, it's a dragon, let's fight it and/or run away!". Of course there are works that have both sci-fist and fantastic elements and not every science fiction piece needs to speculate on every uncanny aspect of technology or nature; for example, artificial gravity almost always happens just because it's convenient.

    In Star Wars a 9 year old can build droids that have human-level intelligence because his daddy is the magic power of the universe, lasers can be dodged and Newtonian physics are ignored while flying in space. The death star just blows planets up because it's so badass. Many of the creatures are kind of plausible, though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Science-fiction, to my mind, is simply any work that hinges in the telling on a fictional extrapolation of science (be it mechanical or social). The fact that Star Wars' science is utterly wrong-headed doesn't change the fact that everything in the series springs from a scientific, rather than a magical, base. You could argue that the Force is magical, but the prequels cleared that one up.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I kind of disagree, because The Force is clearly magic. Besides, in some fantasy stories the magic follows logical and internally consistent laws, and is treated like a science.


    I think it's a moot point anyway, because the differences between sci-fi and fantasy are so blurry that I consider them to be the same.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I think these are all pretty good definitions of sci-fi. A lot of them approach sci-fi from a prescriptive point of view ("sci-fi SHOULD do this"). That sounds like a bad thing, but I think with genres it's actually very helpful. We know if a horror story is good or bad because horror SHOULD make you scared. We know if a mystery is good or bad because it SHOULD make you puzzled. And we know if a sci-fi story is living up to its genre because it SHOULD say something about one of the thematic issues you guys mentioned.

    On the other hand, I think genres can also have a descriptive definition. A story full of vampires and ghosts and Frankensteins might not be scary at all (e.g., THE MUNSTERS), but the fact that it makes liberal use horror conventions still seems meaningful. You could say that THE MUNSTERS is a "comedy with horror trappings" or that STAR WARS is a "fantasy with sci-fi trappings". But if you're going to hang a story's genre on something as subjective as whether it is successfully doing what it SHOULD be doing -- then genre starts to become a very ambiguous thing.

    I don't think that's bad either. I've written about movies like EYES WITHOUT A FACE and THE WAR GAME which aren't really sci-fi at all, but they FEEL like sci-fi because of the kinds of questions and themes they deal with. But I also think that something like STAR WARS -- which looks like sci-fi but honestly doesn't really care at all about science -- is just as much a part of the genre, but on an entirely different end of the continuum.

    Anyway, I am not suggesting that my view is more correct than anybody else's, just kind of making my case. And this is something that is really interesting to me, so I hope people will continue to talk about it and disagree with me!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I always thought that genres should be divided into two separate categories - one of setting, and the other of intent. Obviously, some genres (like horror, as you pointed-out using the Munsters) would be represented in both categories. Star Wars seems to be a science-fiction film of setting but a fantasy film of intent. Hence, science-fantasy. I can't really think of any films that are science-fictional in intent, but not trappings, and so I'd argue that "speculative fiction" is actually a pretty good term to use to describe the questioning, extrapolative bent that underlies a lot of different fantastical genres.

    ReplyDelete
  10. That distinction Tom is making is something that's occurred to me too, though he's fleshed it out better than I've bothered to. It instantly sorts a ton of cross-genre fiction without as much oversimplification as plain one-genre categories. It's already sort of in practice without anyone necessarily thinking about it that way, mainly with humorous takes on the other genres (action-comedy, horror-comedy, etc.)

    ReplyDelete
  11. NEVERWAS is an interesting example (spoilers): It is very much a grown-up-boy-rediscovers-childhood-fairytale-world story like Hook, except that all of the fantasy turns out to be the delusions of a crazy old guy so its intent is really a psychological drama.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey, um, I don't mean to be rude, but when are you going to start this blog back up again?

    ReplyDelete