Skip to main content

Strike me down and I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope
(1977)

It's a slightly depressing realisation that the Return of the Jedi special edition has been the "definitive" version of that film now for longer than the 1983 original. A whole generation has no knowledge of the actually rather good original tunes in that film, only the dreadful CGI performance piece in Jabba's palace and the sick-making uplifting tune at the end. 

A New Hope's additions remain intrusive but my reaction to them is more "Well, that was unnecessary" than being actively aggrieved. In part that's a result of obvious CGI characters (that haven't been noticeably updated since '97) not fitting at all with the most tangible environment of the series. As has been stressed by those involved in making the film, Lucas wanted a "used future" where everything is no longer shiny and new; it's falling apart and a bit grubby. The CGI additions, except where it involves space sequences, detract from that goal (the CGI stormtrooper on a dewback, Luke's speeder with CGI characters aboard, entering a busy CGI-populated Mos Eisley). Lucas bemoans only being able to dress up an elephant as a Bantha, not realising that this limitation is precisely why it remains a visually impressive and intriguing creation. 

Elsewhere, additions show the creator at a loss over what made his creation so successful (Greed shoots first and the accompanying furore) or that he was right to exclude a scene in the first place (Han and Jabba is visually awkward, but worse it only repeats what we were told in the previous scene with Greedo. Lucas' reason for not including the opening scenes with Biggs and Luke, which he said were at the studio's behest who were fearful of spending so much time with two robots, is sound but without it the reinsertion of his reunion with Biggs on Yavin lacks any impact). As I mentioned with the prequels, the passage of 20 years has been shockingly deleterious to those humans surviving the prequel trilogy (and it took a hell of a long time to build the first Death Star, given how quickly the second one is up and running). And did I miss something? Did Obi-Wan pick up Anakin's light saber at the end of Sith? Either way, telling Luke that his father wanted him to have whoever's light saber it is counts as just another big fat porky he's told.

What shines through with the film is the confidence of design and world (galaxy) building. After this and Empire, the series is mostly second-guessing itself (although Jedi has its merits), and you just have to shake your head sadly when recognising the superb design of the storm troopers versus the CGI mimicry of the clone ones.

Structurally the film has always been a little awkward for me; the real climax is the rescue of Leia, and the attack on the Death Star has a slightly clumsy stop-start aspect to it (let's yak about what we'll do for 5 minutes). Talking of which, the medal ceremony is as horrendous as anything the series has offered (and it's a real slight on the other surviving ships that none of their crew got gongs). 

The star turn of Harrison Ford  is as strong as ever, but the chemistry been the central cast is evident in a way that never comes through for the prequels troop. Fisher in particular deserves credit, as the sparks between her and Ford are palpable. And Alec Guinness is so good that his every thoughtful response seems to allow for whatever crime Lucas will eventually inflict upon his back story. I can't get out of my head that Peter Cushing wore carpet slippers throughout.

****

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

They'll think I've lost control again and put it all down to evolution.

Time Bandits (1981) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam had co-directed previously, and his solo debut had visual flourish on its side, but it was with Time Bandits that Gilliam the auteur was born. The first part of his Trilogy of Imagination, it remains a dazzling work – as well as being one of his most successful – rich in theme and overflowing with ideas while resolutely aimed at a wide (family, if you like) audience. Indeed, most impressive about Time Bandits is that there’s no evidence of self-censoring here, of attempting to make it fit a certain formula, format or palatable template.

Oh, you got me right in the pantaloons, partner.

The Party (1968) (SPOILERS) Blake Edwards’ semi-improvisational reunion with Peter Sellers is now probably best known for – I was going to use an elephant-in-the-room gag, but at least one person already went there – Sellers’ “brown face”. And it isn’t a decision one can really defend, even by citing The Party ’s influence on Bollywood. Satyajit Ray had also reportedly been considering working with Sellers… and then he saw the film. One can only assume he’d missed similar performances in The Millionairess and The Road to Hong Kong ; in the latter case, entirely understandable, if not advisable. Nevertheless, for all the flagrant stereotyping, Sellers’ bungling Hrundi V Bakshi is a very likeable character, and indeed, it’s the piece’s good-natured, soft centre – his fledgling romance with Claudine Longet’s Michele – that sees The Party through in spite of its patchy, hit-and-miss quality.

I never strangled a chicken in my life!

Rope (1948) (SPOILERS) Rope doesn’t initially appear to have been one of the most venerated of Hitchcocks, but it has gone through something of a rehabilitation over the years, certainly since it came back into circulation during the 80s. I’ve always rated it highly; yes, the seams of it being, essentially, a formal experiment on the director’s part, are evident, but it’s also an expert piece of writing that uses our immediate knowledge of the crime to create tension throughout; what we/the killers know is juxtaposed with the polite dinner party they’ve thrown in order to wallow in their superiority.

You must have hopes, wishes, dreams.

Brazil (1985) (SPOILERS) Terry Gilliam didn’t consider Brazil the embodiment of a totalitarian nightmare it is often labelled as. His 1984½ (one of the film’s Fellini-riffing working titles) was “ the Nineteen Eighty-Four for 1984 ”, in contrast to Michael Anderson’s Nineteen Eighty-Four from 1948. This despite Gilliam famously boasting never to have read the Orwell’s novel: “ The thing that intrigues me about certain books is that you know them even though you’ve never read them. I guess the images are archetypal ”. Or as Pauline Kael observed, Brazil is to Nineteen Eighty-Four as “ if you’d just heard about it over the years and it had seeped into your visual imagination ”. Gilliam’s suffocating system isn’t unflinchingly cruel and malevolently intolerant of individuality; it is, in his vision of a nightmare “future”, one of evils spawned by the mechanisms of an out-of-control behemoth: a self-perpetuating bureaucracy. And yet, that is not really, despite how indulgently and glee

I'm an old ruin, but she certainly brings my pulse up a beat or two.

The Paradine Case (1947) (SPOILERS) Hitchcock wasn’t very positive about The Paradine Case , his second collaboration with Gregory Peck, but I think he’s a little harsh on a picture that, if it doesn’t quite come together dramatically, nevertheless maintains interest on the basis of its skewed take on the courtroom drama. Peck’s defence counsel falls for his client, Alida Valli’s accused (of murder), while wife Ann Todd wilts dependably and masochistically on the side-lines.

Miss Livingstone, I presume.

Stage Fright (1950) (SPOILERS) This one has traditionally taken a bit of a bruising, for committing a cardinal crime – lying to the audience. More specifically, lying via a flashback, through which it is implicitly assumed the truth is always relayed. As Richard Schickel commented, though, the egregiousness of the action depends largely on whether you see it as a flaw or a brilliant act of daring: an innovation. I don’t think it’s quite that – not in Stage Fright ’s case anyway; the plot is too ordinary – but I do think it’s a picture that rewards revisiting knowing the twist, since there’s much else to enjoy it for besides.

A herbal enema should fix you up.

Never Say Never Again (1983) (SPOILERS) There are plenty of sub-par Bond s in the official (Eon) franchise, several of them even weaker than this opportunistic remake of Thunderball , but they do still feel like Bond movies. Never Say Never Again , despite – or possibly because he’s part of it – featuring the much-vaunted, title-referencing return of the Sean Connery to the lead role, only ever feels like a cheap imitation. And yet, reputedly, it cost more than the same year’s Rog outing Octopussy .

I don’t like fighting at all. I try not to do too much of it.

Cuba (1979) (SPOILERS) Cuba -based movies don’t have a great track record at the box office, unless Bad Boys II counts. I guess The Godfather Part II does qualify. Steven Soderbergh , who could later speak to box office bombs revolving around Castro’s revolution, called Richard Lester’s Cuba fascinating but flawed. Which is generous of him.

Never lose any sleep over accusations. Unless they can be proved, of course.

Strangers on a Train (1951) (SPOILERS) Watching a run of lesser Hitchcock films is apt to mislead one into thinking he was merely a highly competent, supremely professional stylist. It takes a picture where, to use a not inappropriate gourmand analogy, his juices were really flowing to remind oneself just how peerless he was when inspired. Strangers on a Train is one of his very, very best works, one he may have a few issues with but really deserves nary a word said against it, even in “compromised” form.

Do you know the world is a foul sty? Do you know, if you ripped the fronts off houses, you'd find swine? The world's a hell. What does it matter what happens in it?

Shadow of a Doubt (1943) (SPOILERS) I’m not sure you could really classify Shadow of a Doubt as underrated, as some have. Not when it’s widely reported as Hitchcock’s favourite of his films. Underseen might be a more apt sobriquet, since it rarely trips off the lips in the manner of his best-known pictures. Regardless of the best way to categorise it, it’s very easy to see why the director should have been so quick to recognise Shadow of a Doubt 's qualities, even if some of those qualities are somewhat atypical.