In case you were wondering what the "premiere Star Wars Blog of 2014" thought before making your decision, yeah, you should watch Andor. I think most of you know about it already, and hear it was good. If you haven't watched it, go do that thing. It's worth subscribing to Disney+ for a month. The rest of this post is analysis and highlights assuming you've seen it.
I admit I have been thrown into nihilistic depression by the last Star Wars and other similar movies this past year. They have not been bad - they have made me wonder whether art is even possible.
Or rather, just when limited to these mega-blockbusters that are the tentpoles of the entire culture. Are they even making anything worth analyzing? Is it worth trying to pick apart the pieces of Skywalker?
This is related to “Justice League.” I liked Man of Steel and Batman vs Superman and had a lot to say about them, but as the series went on, there was less to say about each movie. Justice League had a couple good moments, but was otherwise pablum.
If you have the time, watch this video about “the Snyder cut” that goes deep into the process of making these half a billion dollar budget movies.
And I just have this dark vision of modern cinema. A very high paid actor, standing alone with ping pong balls and velcro taped to the, saying a few lines against a green screen, giving as much fungible footage as possible to give the CGI artists. A dozen hours of this is cut into something resembling a plot, it’s shown to focus groups, and they give feedback on what they can’t follow or understand or who isn’t likable enough. Then months after shooting, the scenes are re-cut, dialogue is added (especially behind a mask or off screen), to make entirely different plots, and remove or add entire narrative lines. The result has no coherence besides being the least offensive thing to the particular focus group. Then half a billion is spent on marketing, the majority of its ticket sales come from viewers the opening weekend before anyone has seen it, and with weak “legs” the movie disappears into irrelevance within weeks.
What is there to even analyze here! There is no auteur’s vision. There is no deep resonance with society that makes audiences remember it, because it didn’t resonate with society. I’d analyze the output of a million monkeys on typewriters if people loved it, just so see what they loved, but no one loves it. Let alone how genre franchises have made it so you are stuck with certain characters or settings, but studios are too cowardly to stick with or plan a throughline for multiple films. You have the weaknesses of using the same ingredients, with none of the benefits of a strong, ongoing foundations.
It’s all depressing and stupid.
I even “liked” a few bits of this movie. The scene on the shattered remains of the Death Star combined the two best actors, an environment that represented Rey’s inner turmoil (which is what Star Wars planets are best at), and some good writing. I didn’t mind the reveal that retconned TLJ. The horror around Palpatine’s presentation was well done. The ForceSkype scenes and fights were good. I went in with low expectations and so did not emerge disappointed.
As we all know now, Lucas’ films have a very clear and simple - but very nuanced - story structure. We have two trilogies, OT and PT. The plot is laid out in numerical order, but the actual story is achronological.
4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 2 - 3
Although there is no literal time-travel in Star Wars, the story is about a time loop. The eternal return of the same. Prophecy. Things are doomed to happen again, and again.
The only good Disney film, Rogue One, is the void at the center of the ring. Despite fitting into the plot between 3 and 4, Rogue One is extimate to Lucas’ narrative. Picture a circle with an ‘R’ in the middle. Everything circulates around it, but it never connects. For Lucas’ satire to function, the leftism of Rogue’s worldview must be pointedly excluded - even if it’s at the core of what Lucas was expressing.
4 - 5 - 6 |....R....| 3 - 2 - 1
So, that’s the groundwork out of the way. Now, how is the ST structured? This is where things get extremely complex.
I really loathe these films as a standalone trilogy because a ton of it is confusing as hell without the previous films
To understand the ST, you need to confront this confusion. Unlearn what you have learned. There are so many bad takes because people cannot separate one film from another, and from some “meta” cultural experience:
“Luke saw the prequels!” No, he didn’t.
“Kylo’s a Star Wars cosplayer!” No, he isn’t.
The Disney films do obviously follow Lucas’ plot (to some extent), and they do correctly identify Episode 3 as the end of the Lucas narrative. But, ultimately, they scrap what Lucas established. They’re a new thing. It’s what we call a ‘soft reboot’, subtly easing you into an altogether different narrative.
Here’s proof: in the ST’s backstory, there is only one Death Star. There was only ever one Death Star. There is never any mention of a second Death Star. When Rey walks up to the Death Star wreckage near Endor, she says “it’s the Death Star!” - not “it’s Death Star 2, the Emperor’s personal Death Star, built to replace the first Death Star after it was destroyed near Yavin”.
The “ST” films are set in the aftermath of a big war, but it is not the same war we see in the Lucas films. It’s a remixed version. For lack of a better term, it’s the Stupid Version. There were some mean ol’ baddies who were angry for no reason, and killed one trillion people with a Death Star, but Luke The Jedi inspired Leia’s Rebels to eradicate them all in a blinding rainbow Light of Hope. The Emperor of the baddies was killed by Luke, his Death Star was blown up, and as long as people retained their faith in the Light of liberalism, the baddies couldn’t return....
There is no mention of slavery and racism in the Republic in this stupid version. The Kessel Run isn’t an obvious lie. The fact that the Rebels failed, and Darth Vader (with the Ewoks) ultimately defeated the Emperor, is erased. Instead of being complicit in the rise of the Empire, the Jedi were merely too weak to stop it. Instead of just being a dude with legitimate grievances, Darth Maul is now an evil alien from planet Exogal, who literally all wear black robes. Etc.
So, while TFA seems to follow from Lucas’ films - jumping off from Episode 3 while retaining the same numerical system - it’s a trap. Once you’re in, the door closes behind you. Lucas’ films are replaced with Solo: A Star Wars story, Rogue One, and the yet-unreleased Obiwan film (now a miniseries).
Why? Because Solo is an origin story for Han, Rogue One is a (stealth) origin for Leia, and Obiwan will inevitably end on a young Luke. Each of these characters gets a film where they die, and so each gets an origin story. (Additionally, each midquel re-introduces a key faction: smugglers, Rebels, Jedis). This is why Disney developed a ‘midquel trilogy’ in the first place. The goal is to generate a new six-film continuity to replace Lucas’, without technically remaking anything. Who’s this old guy in Episode 9? Watch Solo to find out. Who is Darth Vader? Watch Rogue One to find out. What the fuck is a Jedi anyways? Watch the new Obiwan series. (This planned structure is likely why Solo was desperately reshot to be unfunny).
4 - 5 - 6 - 1 - 2 - 3 - [S - O - R] - 7 - 8 - 9
Of course, the Disneyverse is in constant flux due to market forces. Although we can think of the Disney films as two trilogies, Solo was also likely meant to start an Expanded Universe of Solo films, which were aborted. Obiwan is now a TV show alongside Mandalorian and a new Rogue One prequel. Meanwhile, even Episode 8 was rendered narratively irrelevant and quietly shuffled away like the Lucas films, to be fodder for references.
Basically, that’s a long way of saying that the Disney films are designed in such a way that you can selectively acknowledge or ignore whatever you want. And that means things can change dramatically, depending on each viewer. Currently, the closest thing we have to an “ST” is Solo, 7, and 9 - a ‘Millenium Falcon’ trilogy, focussed on the ownership of the Falcon (and, to a lesser extent, the Solo family). Anyone reading the films this way, though, will reach vastly different conclusions from anyone following that the ‘official’ (but less coherent) numbered trilogy of 7, 8, and 9. Second Question: Exogol????
We need to talk about Exogal.
I’m honestly surprised that fans aren’t absolutely furious about this. Undead Palpatine gets all the attention, because everyone loves the prequels, but the actual massive twist in ROS is that literally every conflict in Star Wars was the work of the Exogolians from planet Exogol.
Who’s that weird guy at the end of Solo? In the context of the ST, he’s an Exogolian, wearing the telltale robes of his culture. Exogalians are behind organized crime. Who’s that guy at the end of Rogue One? That’s the Exogolian known as Darth Vader. (According to Wookieepedia, the Exogolian relic from the start of ROS was Vader’s personal “wayfinder”). Who is the “Darth Sidious” Luke’s talking about? Another Exogolian - he destroyed the Jedi. Palpatine is obviously an Exogolian. Rey’s parents were, of course, killed by an Exogolian.
Exogolians are the ‘midichlorian’ twist times a billion, in terms of their devastating impact on the Star Wars narrative(s). But where the midichlorian twist was specifically laser-targeted at New Age horseshit interpretations of The Force, the Exogolian twist is just aimlessly moronic.
But it’s in the film. You can’t avoid it. Sorry.
Exogal is a seemingly-barren planet, home a relatively small (but nonetheless sizeable) population of Sith. Sith is the national religion of the Exogolians, who are otherwise notably multiracial. (The ‘rule of two’ is evidently out, or non-applicable here.) So, when Palpatine says that he is “all the Sith”, he clearly means that he wields the collective psychic power of all the Exogolians in the arena.
But, who’s not an Exogolian? Kylo Ren!!(And probably Dooku). Kylo is now officially confirmed to be not a sith, for what it’s worth. For a more philosophical-type question: did Snoke know he was being controlled?
Anyway, the Exogalians’ sole major industry is Starship production. Note that the stormy, hidden planet and stony arena imagery are a mix of Kamino, Geonosis, and the mining planet from Solo. Implicitly, the Exogolians are the arms dealers ‘selling to both sides’, from TLJ.
Call it a plot hole, but the Exogolians don’t employ droid or clone slaves for some reason. But then, they ask for no money either. They want nothing but manpower. The economics of it are baffling. Who’s building all this?
Who is Snoke supposed to have been a clone of? Is it a poorly grown and rushed version Palpatine? Random Sith mook #6731? Grown from the Force like Anakin but without a human mother?
So this leads us to the next thing:
Third Question: What The Fuck Is Even Going On?
One thing I like to point out is that there never was an "OT", until after Return Of The Jedi. The first three Star Wars films became a trilogy retroactively, because it was never really certain how many films it would take to complete the story. There were plans for multiple Empire Strikes Back sequels, which were then condensed down into Episode 6 (with mixed results). The prequels were the first time that Star Wars films were ever actually planned out as a trilogy, with a definitive ending in mind. So, in a sense, we would not have an "OT" without the prequels' structural role. They cemented things: Lucas' Star Wars is now, definitively, two trilogies that complement eachother.
Now, Disney's approach with the sequels is a sort of worst-of-both-worlds approach. We have the slipshod, improvisational nature of the OT combined with the absolute certainty that this WILL be a trilogy. 'We cannot fail, we won't lose money. We can just churn out anything, with the promise that it'll eventually work.' It's not just Disney that bought into this silliness; Snoke appeared onscreen and fans said "it's going to be great when they finally make a movie about who Snoke is" - oblivious to the fact that TFA is the movie about who Snoke is.
"It's going to be great when they finally make a movie about what happened to the New Republic". TFA is that movie. The New Republic sucked and got blown up.
"It's going to be great when they finally make a movie about what Rey's parents did." TFA is that movie. Rey's parents dumped her on Tatooine because they were dumbasses.
"It's going to be great when they finally make a movie about what happened to Luke". TFA is that movie too. Luke's temple sucked and got blown up. Luke slinked away as a loser.
And Episode 8 simply repeats the above. There's nothing actually subversive in it, which is why it's so redundant. Yet, fans still believed in the power of the franchise over individual films. It'll all eventually work. Episode 9 will fix everything... right?
Nope. Episode 9 also repeats the above. The parents are still dumbasses, and Luke is still a loser. (Were fans really expecting a really good and sensible reason to sell a six-year-old girl into slavery to a feudal lord?) So, getting back to the point: giving Snoke an origin could never 'fix' anything. It had the potential to affect how we interpret the story of TFA, but it could never actually change the story of TFA. Like, so what if Snoke's grown in a vat? That doesn't actually mean anything. Instead of being a quasi-Stalinist 'Evil Pope' figure, Snoke is now a quasi-Stalinist 'Evil Pope' figure who came from a vat. Wow.
Who is Snoke a clone of? Nobody. We're shown in the film that he was built from scratch, and emerged from the vat fully grown. But, even if he were a clone of someone specific, this still wouldn't change the character. He would still be Snoke, the quasi-Stalinist 'Evil Pope' figure who came from a vat. So the ST was always about one thing: a not-very-timely critique of the Soviet Union. Horseshoe theory with Hux. A literal Red Dawn in TFA.
Episode 9 changes absolutely nothing about the previous films. It just moves away from them, by finally introducing something interesting: Rey's realization that she is a bad guy. The true big reveal is that she always knew this, but could never admit it to anyone. She's reluctant to participate in battles because she knows inside that the Republic is fascist. She knows that Resistance are Contras, and the fact that she loves killing scares her.
All the stuff about her parents and lineage is nonsensical dross, but easily tuned out. Palpatine is not Rey's grandfather except in a metaphorical sense. He's the guy who killed Rey's parents and thereby created her. (It's a reference to Conan The Barbarian.) The dagger that killed them is the source of Rey's power, and her passport to Hell.
I think the specific reasons behind it was what bugged people, I've read a lot of "they made Luke into a child murderer!" People probably assumed Luke was blameless and was hiding out on the island planet because he was scared of the villains or something
Fourth Question: Seriously, What The Fuck Is Going On?
It’s vital to never forget that the Lucas films ‘end’ with Vader dying our sins - in what is, narratively, the middle of the story.
Lucas’ point with that twist is that, while the Jedi keep talking about the eventual appearance of a ‘Chosen One’ who will balance the universe, “the Messiah has already arrived; the Event has already taken place, [and] we are living in its aftermath.” (Zizek, my italics)
In other words, killing the emperor doesn’t solve anything in-and-of itself. So long as there is still inequality, the job isn’t done. Vader’s crucifixion - literally the death of God, aka The Force - means simply that there never was an excuse for suffering. We are freed from ‘the energy field that controls our destiny’ - but authentic freedom is a burdensome responsibility.
So, David Fincher was correct to say “Star Wars [is] the story of two slaves who go from owner to owner, witnessing their masters’ folly - the ultimate folly of man.” Lucas’ films can only truly be read two ways: either you believe in Christ and demand an end to droid slavery, or - however well-intentioned you may be - you are on the side of Rome and suffering.
Fincher was approached to do Episode 7, but declined. Three guesses what ideas Disney went with instead.
“Well, if droids could think, there'd be none of us here, would there?"
This line, clearly demonstrating Obiwan’s intense racism, is Disney’s quasi-official political stance. We see it in Black Panther, for example: if black slaves could think, “the sun will never set on the Wakandan Empire.” Black leftists ‘go too far’ and seek to enslave the white race in retaliation. Episode 9, likewise, makes Kylo Ren suddenly an avowed imperialist and - simultaneously - reveals that Snoke was, all along, an organic droid.
Moreso than even the Clone Troopers, who were at least raised from infancy, Snoke is an organic machine. But Snoke is evidently ‘a droid who can ‘think’ and therefore endeavours to eliminate humanity. (Pop Quiz: can you name the other Star Wars character to wears only gold, and sits on a throne as god-king?)
Disney’s policy of ‘anti-imperialism’ sounds appealing, because who can say they like imperialism? But it’s ultimately a trick: anti-imperialism in defence of capitalism is a dogwhistle for anticommunism. A few decades ago, they called it ‘domino theory.’
Anyways, if you’ve seen only the Disney films, Darth Vader is presented exclusively as “a very powerful evil guy”. All reference to Vader as a Christ figure has been scrubbed. But, still: why was Ben so angry? What made him open to Vader’s teachings (via Snoke) in the first place?
It’s not actually a mystery, of course. Ben’s dad trafficked endangered species for the venal rich, and his mom headed some kind of extralegal feudalist death squad. Ben begins thinking commie thoughts, and that is why Luke plots to murder him.
This is not to say Snoke is a good person, of course. He’s still just a quasi-Stalinist ‘Evil Pope’. But the filmmakers still, curiously, decided to make Snoke an enslaved clone-droid - a hybrid of the two most overtly oppressed peoples in the Star Wars. And his sendoff is a big closeup of his tongue drooping grotesquely out of his dead face, like “fuck you, Snoke!” And then Pippin dismisses cloning as unnatural.
I'd should emphasize that this "ideology is contradiction" is part of what makes the Prequels so good.
As we know, most ideological systems are obsessed with a pre-lapsarian past, some Garden of Eden, where everyone was harmonious, before the bad guys ruined it with their excessive greed.
Now a critic can easily point to the factual details, and say "no the 1950's had plenty of problems, there were racial tensions and Cold War paranoia after all and..." as a way to empirically dismantle American traditionalist ideology. And golden pasts are so rare in our history that you could be sure to always find some way to context their details, as a way of critiquing a particular ideology (be it racist, or Capitalist, or Nazi, or liberal ideology.)
But, by operating purely in fiction, the Prequels attempt something much bolder. They say even in the most convenient fantasy of our minds, this myth of a harmonious past is unworkable. Fans dreamed about how awesome the Republic was for twenty years, but since it necessarily had to fail, then it could not have been that great. There must have been serious problems if it became the Empire.
(Or maybe Lucas intended to draw a perfect past, spoiled only by one mischievous Sith Lord. It just so happens that depicting this in detail was impossible, and so the attempt to do so revealed its internal contradictions.)
Not only does this movie invite comparison to the other recent Star Wars movie, The Force Awakens, but the heavily marketed white female protagonists (with slight British accents*) invite comparison with each other. There are some really interesting story telling in the differences between them.
Rogue One doesn’t leave audiences arguing about much, but one point of contention is the role of Galen Erso. Galen was the leading scientist on the Empire’s greatest weapon of mass destruction, and the Rebellion and the Empire alike treat him as necessary for its development - but Galen insists that it would have been without him anyway (and that working on it allowed him to sabotage the project from within.) We must confront this unpleasantness before moving to our discussion of the themes of fathers and god.
There's a lot more to say about Rogue One than The Force Awakens, so this blog will hopefully spend the week scratching the surface of this weird, profound, deviation in the Star Wars franchise.
Let's start with explaining the quote from last week:
“We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it."
- Arcadia, by Tom Stoppard
“We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it."
A lot of the mockery seems to miss his underlying point, which is that "Star Wars" films most people think of, such as A New Hope or The Force Awakens, are about one or a few people having awesome hijinx, and not so much "the terrible reality of war." And he actually discusses the cinematic choices that convey this, without spending too much time on the writing quality of the plot, or how many billions of dollars it will make the franchise.
He ignores that the Prequels were really very good about this. Phantom Menace shows the subjective reality of colonization. Attack of the Clones spends time on these giant, lower class armies clashing. The powerlessness of the heroes in the face of amoral systemic forces is part of what makes it so uncomfortable for audiences, after all.
However, the more depressing truth is that Vox knows very well how dumb this headline will look, and will enjoy many angry people clicking it to see what he is talking about.
The broadest theme of "The Force Awakens" is that which awakens, which is the light side of the Force. Let's talk about this terrifying concept a little.
The elements of The Force Awakens that we’ve described so far have been mostly about the writing, and almost all of them can be found in the script alone. However, that leaves us most of the actual interesting decisions about appearances, timing, and everything else that makes a movie different than a novel - what pretentious critics call “filmic” factors. Unfortunately there, TFA falls down.
This blog is about the Prequel Trilogy after all, and it would be impossible to ignore how The Force Awakens relates to the immediately preceding movies. Onward through spoilers!
Apparently Episode 8 will be written and directed by Rian Johnson, who doesn't have a lot of movies under his belt, but is known as a brilliant auteur. His three movies so far are Brick, the Brothers Bloom, and Looper.
So if you want to get a sense of how Episode 8 might go, check them out.
Brick is considered the best of those, and is very heavily stylized, taking a lot of fast, close cuts and using them to put a hyper-noir style onto a high school setting. It's great.
Looper does that, but less so. It's a time travel based noir. And his interpretation of how to explain the science in a science fiction movie is... pointed.
Okay, spoilers for Episode 7 from this point forward, and probably any future posts on this blog. So go see the movie if you haven’t yet. It’s pretty good. Onward!
Best of luck to everyone going to see "The Force Awakens" tonight. Maybe I'll have some things to say about it in this space, over the next week. I am likely to only be interested in things related to Darth Vader, but we'll see. Speaking of...
This blog has previously discussed the somewhat unsatisfying reveal of Leia being Luke's sister, and how it doesn't really fit well with the rest of the series. The cynical theory, of course, is just that while filming Episode 5 they didn't want to be wholly reliant on Mark Hamil coming back for Episode 6, so they left a loophole for them to introduce a new character. This is probably true, but art should be understood on it's own merits of what it actually says, and not just second-guessing the director and crew.
So what is actually said? Well I went back and watched the relevant scenes, and they are pretty interesting.
Empire Strikes Back:
BEN: That boy is our last hope.
YODA:(looks up) No. There is another.
&
Return of the Jedi:
YODA: Luke, the Force runs strong in your family. Pass on what you have learned, Luke...
(with great effort)
There is...another...Sky...Sky...walker.
And then later, Obi-Wan gives the ghostly exposition dump to Luke, about Leia and stuff.
Yoda, in his dying moments, Yoda I trust. But Obi-Wan? Obi-Wan lies. Not just in general, but especially in matters related to Luke's family. This, remember, is the same conversation where Luke is all "hey why did you lie to me about my dad that kind of sucked" and Obi-Wan is all "Well, it's true from a certain point of view." Obi-Wan clearly has still not personally dealt with Anakin's betrayal.
Since when does anyone refer to Leia as a Skywalker? She's always identified as Leia Organa, and takes way more after her adopted home than anything to do with her patronym.
Huh. So what did Yoda actually say?
"There is another [hope.]"
"There is another Skywalker."
And of course these things are both true.
Luke goes to confront the Dark Side, and fails. He throws down his sword and gets electrocuted by the Devil incarnate.
And Anakin Skywalker steps up and frees the galaxy from tyranny. There is another.
Yoda knew. He knew that the son of suns was still out there, and even though he had betrayed the Jedi Order, he still represented at least some hope of bringing balance to the Force. He knew that Luke needed to pass on what he had learned to Darth Vader. He may not have known what entirely would be needed, but these lines still represent allusions to what actually ended up happening rather than "awkwardly creating a loophole then covering it up."
The Dissolve asks whatever happened to Avatar (the James Cameron movie that looked like a cartoon, not the one based on a cartoon). https://thedissolve.com/features/forgotbusters/877-avatars-rapid-rise-sudden-downfall-and-endless-bil/ Avatar was one of the highest grossing movies ever, but years later seems to have left zero cultural impact. Can you remember a single line from the movie? (And the lone word "unobtainium" doesn't count as a line.) Why?
Unfortunately the article doesn't really grapple with that question or provide any satisfying answer. But it's good to keep in mind. Many movies - good, bad, and mediocre - come and go, barely leaving any footprint on our cultural psyche.
So it's interesting *sixteen years later* many people can not stop talking about the Prequel Trilogy. What other bad movies get this much obsession, memorization, and immortality?
Secondly, the commenters at metafilter do attempt to answer the question of why Avatar is so forgotten. http://www.metafilter.com/155521/Project-880
Their analysis seems mostly to be that the movie is racist, or at least colonialist, in the way it treats the native culture. While superficially about "stopping imperialism", the movie romanticizes the noble savage and puts agency in the hands of the white male protagonist. This is definitely the case (though it was less the case in the original cut.)
But, if you want a movie that's "Avatar, but the white saviors are depicted as morally compromised people who barely understand the culture they are stomping around"... you should probably try The Phantom Menace.
