Skip to main content

The dark side… and the light.

Trailers
Star Wars: The Force Awakens

I don’t hate the prequel trilogy. There’s much in them I don’t especially care for; the preponderance of CGI, the wooden acting, the insane lengths Lucas goes to link every character and event he possibly can to the original films. But they didn’t incite me to throw my fanboy toys out of the pram. There are individual sequences or plotlines I enjoy in each of the movies. By the time The Phantom Menace came out my enthusiasm for the series was already dampened. I’d seen Return of the Jedi more than enough times to conclude it wasn’t really all that (in some ways this is more disappointing than the prequels, since, as the concluding chapter, it cannot easily be ignored), and I’d witnessed the clueless changes Lucas made to the special editions (in particular, Sy Snootles and the CGI Song floored me; the spoof of the new trailer is absolutely spot-on with regard to his discretion-free additions). The lacklustre reaction to The Phantom Menace dissuaded me from seeing it until the tail end of its theatrical run. I didn’t even bother catching Revenge of the Sith at the cinema.


And, after the debacle that was Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (I’d rather watch the Star Wars prequels any day, if it came down to it), the chances of successfully resuming once reliable series seemed dead in the water. And probably for the best. Concentrate on new things if disinterring the old brings only disappointment. It was difficult to get too excited over the announcement of the sale of Lucasfilm and the production of a whole new trilogy (and multitudinous spin-offs). J J Abrams did a great job on the 2009 Star Trek, but his wrongheadedness over the follow-up (admittedly it’s one I like more than the audible majority, but many of the decisions involved are flat-out terrible) rightly gave pause; was he a suitable choice for resuscitating a franchise Lucas had done his best to pixelate to death? Abrams may love Star Wars with a passion he never reserved for Trek, but that’s no guarantee.


Everyone and their dog has already commented on the teaser trailer. It’s a solid appetite whetter but it’s not of the order of, say, Fury Road, which instils the palpable desire to see the movie at the most immediate possible opportunity if not sooner. The most interesting aspect of the teaser is the manner in which it announces itself as a mission statement. For all that nostalgia-hound Abrams has been given the keys to the kingdom (the man who made Spielberg love-in Super 8) and for all that there is recognisable iconography in nearly every shot, the intent is clearly to establish a new trilogy with new characters for a new generation to call their own. The prequel trilogy was made to measure, to occupy a predefined space. It became even more beholden to looking inward the more Lucas focussed his attention on it. How did so-and-so start out or get built, look there’s such-and-such who has no good reason to be there. Reams of unnecessary backstory were introduced and connections made, leaving negligible space for the imagination to fill in gaps and most often sacrificing the most mysterious and tantalising or reducing them to the humdrum.


There aren’t any familiar faces in the trailer, which is a good thing. It tells us this trilogy may kick off with old timers, but they will not be carrying it. While I’m genuinely intrigued to see Mark Hamill return as Luke Skywalker (something I would never have said 20 years ago), I have next to no interest in seeing Han again (something I also would never have said 20 years ago, but that was before I’d realised Ford had stopped trying). 


There are recognisable landscapes and artefacts, however; sandy locales (just like Tattooine); snowy locales (just like Hoth… well okay, not really); watery locales (just like… er, Naboo?!). But no sign of space? There wasn’t very much (exploration of) space in Star Trek either, which might be a worry. Does J J need to ground himself? There are also Stormtroopers, X-wings, a Sith Lord, a lightsaber, TIE fighters and the Millennium Falcon. The general sense is one of reconfiguring the familiar in the aid of creating something new. How that plays out, well we’ll see.


I was never much for following the extended Star Wars universe once the original trilogy was over; the Marvel comic strip was about the extent of my interest, until after a few years any hope of more cinematic outings petered out. I have no problem with the unsettled universe that seems to exist in The Force Awakens. Apart from the obvious problem that it would be very difficult to make a movie where peace reigns, a post-Empire utopia coming miraculously into being with the demise of the second Death Star always felt like a massive stretch (Lucas’ CGI celebrations at the end of the Return of the Jedi Special Edition only served to underline the unlikelihood of this instantaneous galaxy-wide collapse of the Empire). If there’s one thing the sequels did instil, it was the sense of a far from perfect pre-Empire order (Return of the Jedi looks more and more like a hasty botch job, designed to draw a line under everything and move on to more pressing matters... like Willow).


So the sight of more Empire (-ish, at any rate) forces, and more Sith, and more Rebel Alliance? On the one hand, it suggests disarray for 30 years; there’s nothing of the leap between III and IV. On the other, this may be wholly germane to the tale set to be told (rather than just a reluctance on the part of Abrams to venture into anything new); hence the awakening.  Abrams also faces the challenge of making a series that has well-worn tropes seem fresh. Part of the pleasure of A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back is that they conjure a galaxy of unknown spaces, mysterious pasts and hidden depths. Once everything is set out in broad daylight, lustre is lost. If Abrams finds himself too in thrall to stir-and-repeat archetypes (the black-clad Sith bad guy, the Han rogue substitute, the Luke and Leia vanilla hero and heroine figures), even given Lucas' dependence on same in formulating the characters, he could find himself with problems. Hopefully the purveyor of the “mystery box” is cannier than that.


There are seven mini-sequences shown here (seven for Episode VII), separated by black frames for maximum epic impact and import (which has its mirthful side when the droid is introduced). I don’t know how many worlds they cover, but I’d hazard a guess that at least five of the sequences take place on the same planet. John Boyega’s Stormtrooper (if that’s what he is; it depends how tall he is) pops into the frame of a desert establishing shot (this in itself has more the sense of a Spielberg-esque visual cue than a Lucas one, even given the Cantina sequence in A New Hope; or maybe it’s just a Lost trick recycled). If the verbal cues are anything to go by, he represents an awakening in the Force. Or maybe Boyega, Daisy Ridley and Oscar Isaac all experience an awakening since we see them before the next piece of dialogue; the ball droid too, for that matter.


The bouncy ball droid announces that yes, this trilogy will have humour, but hopefully nothing approximating Simon Pegg’s wacky little alien pal in Star Trek. At a guess the droid belongs to Ridley, who is riding around this planet, presumably in a nearby desert region to Boyega's desert region, on a rusty old speeder (the lived-in universe is back). It doesn’t look like the most comfortable of jalopies. So that’s three new characters (I’m counting the droid, who will have a hilarious altercation with R2D2 at some point).


Isaac is piloting an X-wing across a lake (or ocean?). The X-wings are further evidence of Abrams game plan; a familiar design, slightly modified, in an environment we haven’t seen before. Isaac isn’t wearing the best fitting of helmets by the look of it. Either that or his head has swollen up like a balloon from the recent fight he has evidently been in (that’s what comes of heckling), I wasn’t certain it was him initially, as I’d read he was piloting the Falcon.


He may, or may not, be part of the gorgeous and giddy last sequence in which we see the Falcon evading and being intercepted by TIE fighters over both land and water. Is Boyega in one of those TIE fighters (I’d have guessed not; the pilots have their own special clobber, don’t they?), but it wouldn’t surprise me if Abrams were dividing up only a couple of sequences to make it look like there’s more going on here than there is. Keeping as much back as possible wouldn’t be unusual for him.


Then there are the shaky-cam Stormtroopers on a drop ship, no doubt off to battle a xenomorph. It’s an atmospheric shot, with flickering lights and a nice new livery that lends them an extra-imposing bent (except for the short one, who is…) It’s true that handheld camera doesn’t exactly evoke the classically-defined Lucas universe but, since the busy busy prequels established not only an entirely unlived in universe but one that wasn’t even physically there, it’s not something that seems particularly sacrilegious (the moment in the prequel trilogy where I concluded Lucas had thrown the baby out with the CGI bathwater was when he staged a scene of Padme talking to a CGI clonetrooper in close-up). There’s enough diligence towards the established look of the original trilogy to be confident Abrams is adding a new colour to the Star Wars palette rather than discarding the old paints entirely. And, as far back as The Empire Strikes Back, Kershner was adulterating Lucas’ vision, enhancing the creator’s rather utilitarian stylistic choices with a considerably richer and more satisfying approach.


The only element here that really gives me pause is the Sith. The guy we see in the woods amid the snow with the red sparky lightsaber, the one with love handles (the lightsaber, not the Sith), is apparently Adam Driver (it would make sense for it to be a new character, as the others all are). The shot is atmospheric and all, even if the saber itself seems on the unwieldy side. The voiceover, though. There was speculation as to whether it was Cumberbatch, or Serkis or even Max von Sydow. Cumberbatch was the first person I thought of, but it seems it belongs to Serkis. Unfortunately, it’s the most generic sounding of villainous vocals. If they’re doing Sith they’d be better off following the offbeat path go the urbane (Christopher Lee) or weird-ass (Maul), rather than going down the throaty-raspy Emperor route. That’s three time I’ve said vaguely good things about the prequels! It would be unfortunate if this is a movie where everything falls into place except the bad guys (unsatisfying villains also encumbered both Abrams’ Star Treks)



There's a persuasive accumulation of movement and urgency in all these shots, yet without any clear narrative trajectories. That's Abrams for you, leaving a few breadcrumbs and so creating anticipation for something more tangible in terms of drama and conflict. And, in the absence of definables, a different kind of tangibility is the trailer’s major trump card. The effects, the world(s), the elements; they are palpable, solid. This is identifiably the same universe as that of the original trilogy. Just a little shakier and with a touch more flare.





Popular posts from this blog

I’m smarter than a beaver.

Prey (2022) (SPOILERS) If nothing else, I have to respect Dan Trachtenberg’s cynical pragmatism. How do I not only get a project off the ground, but fast-tracked as well? I know, a woke Predator movie! Woke Disney won’t be able to resist! And so, it comes to pass. Luckily for Prey , it gets to bypass cinemas and so the same sorry fate of Lightyear . Less fortunately, it’s a patience-testing snook cocking at historicity (or at least, assumed historicity), in which a young, pint-sized Comanche girl who wishes to hunt and fish – and doubtless shoot to boot – with the big boys gets to take on a Predator and make mincemeat of him. Well, of course , she does. She’s a girl, innit?

Everyone creates the thing they dread.

Avengers: Age of Ultron (2015) (SPOILERS) Avengers: Age of Ultron ’s problem isn’t one of lack. It benefits from a solid central plot. It features a host of standout scenes and set pieces. It hands (most of) its characters strong defining moments. It doesn’t even suffer now the “wow” factor of seeing the team together for the first time has subsided. Its problem is that it’s too encumbered. Maybe its asking to much of a director to effectively martial the many different elements required by an ensemble superhero movie such as this, yet Joss Whedon’s predecessor feels positively lean in comparison. Part of this is simply down to the demands of the vaster Marvel franchise machine. Seeds are laid for Captain America: Civil War , Infinity Wars I & II , Black Panther and Thor: Ragnarok . It feels like several spinning plates too many. Such activity occasionally became over-intrusive on previous occasions ( Iron Man II ), but there are points in Age of Ultron whe

If you ride like lightning, you're going to crash like thunder.

The Place Beyond the Pines (2012) (SPOILERS) There’s something daringly perverse about the attempt to weave a serious-minded, generation-spanning saga from the hare-brained premise of The Place Beyond the Pines . When he learns he is a daddy, a fairground stunt biker turns bank robber in order to provide for his family. It’s the kind of “only-in-Hollywood” fantasy premise you might expect from a system that unleashed Harley Davidson and the Marlboro Man and Point Break on the world. But this is an indie-minded movie from the director of the acclaimed Blue Valentine ; it demands respect and earnest appraisal. Unfortunately it never recovers from the abject silliness of the set-up. The picture is littered with piecemeal characters and scenarios. There’s a hope that maybe the big themes will even out the rocky terrain but in the end it’s because of this overreaching ambition that the film ends up so undernourished. The inspiration for the movie

This entire edifice you see around you, built on jute.

Jeeves and Wooster 3.3: Cyril and the Broadway Musical  (aka Introduction on Broadway) Well, that’s a relief. After a couple of middling episodes, the third season bounces right back, and that's despite Bertie continuing his transatlantic trip. Clive Exton once again plunders  Carry On, Jeeves  but this time blends it with a tale from  The Inimitable Jeeves  for the brightest spots, as Cyril Basington-Basington (a sublimely drippy Nicholas Hewetson) pursues his stage career against Aunt Agatha's wishes.

I’m the famous comedian, Arnold Braunschweiger.

Last Action Hero (1993) (SPOILERS) Make no mistake, Last Action Hero is a mess. But even as a mess, it might be more interesting than any other movie Arnie made during that decade, perhaps even in his entire career. Hellzapoppin’ (after the 1941 picture, itself based on a Broadway revue) has virtually become an adjective to describe films that comment upon their own artifice, break the fourth wall, and generally disrespect the convention of suspending disbelief in the fictions we see parading across the screen. It was fairly audacious, some would say foolish, of Arnie to attempt something of that nature at this point in his career, which was at its peak, rather than playing it safe. That he stumbled profoundly, emphatically so since he went up against the behemoth that is Jurassic Park (slotted in after the fact to open first), should not blind one to the considerable merits of his ultimate, and final, really, attempt to experiment with the limits of his screen persona.

I think it’s pretty clear whose side the Lord’s on, Barrington.

Monte Carlo or Bust aka  Those Daring Young Men in Their Jaunty Jalopies (1969) (SPOILERS) Ken Annakin’s semi-sequel to Those Magnificent Men in Their Flying Machines tends to be rather maligned, usually compared negatively to its more famous predecessor. Which makes me rather wonder if those expressing said opinion have ever taken the time to scrutinise them side by side. Or watch them back to back (which would be more sensible). Because Monte Carlo or Bust is by far the superior movie. Indeed, for all its imperfections and foibles (not least a performance from Tony Curtis requiring a taste for comic ham), I adore it. It’s probably the best wacky race movie there is, simply because each set of competitors, shamelessly exemplifying a different national stereotype (albeit there are two pairs of Brits, and a damsel in distress), are vibrant and cartoonish in the best sense. Albeit, it has to be admitted that, as far as said stereotypes go, Annakin’s home side win

Death to Bill and Ted!

Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey (1991) (SPOILERS) The game of how few sequels are actually better than the original is so well worn, it was old when Scream 2 made a major meta thing out of it (and it wasn’t). Bill & Ted Go to Hell , as Bill & Ted’s Bogus Journey was originally called, is one such, not that Excellent Adventure is anything to be sneezed at, but this one’s more confident, even more playful, more assured and more smartly stupid. And in Peter Hewitt it has a director with a much more overt and fittingly cartoonish style than the amiably pedestrian Stephen Herrick. Evil Bill : First, we totally kill Bill and Ted. Evil Ted : Then we take over their lives. My recollection of the picture’s general consensus was that it surpassed the sleeper hit original, but Rotten Tomatoes’ review aggregator suggests a less universal response. And, while it didn’t rock any oceans at the box office, Bogus Journey and Point Break did quite nicely for Keanu Reev

Just because you are a character doesn't mean that you have character.

Pulp Fiction (1994) (SPOILERS) From a UK perspective, Pulp Fiction ’s success seemed like a fait accompli; Reservoir Dogs had gone beyond the mere cult item it was Stateside and impacted mainstream culture itself (hard to believe now that it was once banned on home video); it was a case of Tarantino filling a gap in the market no one knew was there until he drew attention to it (and which quickly became over-saturated with pale imitators subsequently). Where his debut was a grower, Pulp Fiction hit the ground running, an instant critical and commercial success (it won the Palme d’Or four months before its release), only made cooler by being robbed of the Best Picture Oscar by Forrest Gump . And unlike some famously-cited should-have-beens, Tarantino’s masterpiece really did deserve it.

Poetry in translation is like taking a shower with a raincoat on.

Paterson (2016) (SPOILERS) Spoiling a movie where nothing much happens is difficult, but I tend to put the tag on in a cautionary sense much of the time. Paterson is Jim Jarmusch at his most inert and ambient but also his most rewardingly meditative. Paterson (Adam Driver), a bus driver and modest poet living in Paterson, New Jersey, is a stoic in a fundamental sense, and if he has a character arc of any description, which he doesn’t really, it’s the realisation that is what he is. Jarmusch’s picture is absent major conflict or drama; the most significant episodes feature Paterson’s bus breaking down, the English bull terrier Marvin – whom Paterson doesn’t care for but girlfriend Laura (Golshifteh Farahani) dotes on – destroying his book of poetry, and an altercation at the local bar involving a gun that turns out to be a water pistol. And Paterson takes it all in his stride, genial to the last, even the ruination of his most earnest, devoted work (the only disappoint

Piece by piece, the camel enters the couscous.

The Forgiven (2021) (SPOILERS) By this point, the differences between filmmaker John Michael McDonagh and his younger brother, filmmaker and playwright Martin McDonagh, are fairly clearly established. Both wear badges of irreverence and provocation in their writing, and a willingness to tackle – or take pot-shots – at bigger issues, ones that may find them dangling their toes in hot water. But Martin receives the lion’s share of the critical attention, while John is generally recognised as the slightly lesser light. Sure, some might mistake Seven Psychopaths for a John movie, and Calvary for a Martin one, but there’s a more flagrant sense of attention seeking in John’s work, and concomitantly less substance. The Forgiven is clearly aiming more in the expressly substantial vein of John’s earlier Calvary, but it ultimately bears the same kind of issues in delivery.