my third Item:
slavei_detail.png
Star Wars Lives!
-
This was product cinema, a “just good enough” tentpole movie to set up a new series. It’s not an unmitigated disaster like most of the prequels, but by no means is it noteworthy or even particularly memorable.
Slight deviation from the matter at hand, since I haven’t seen Force Awakens yet… I know it is the trendy refrain that the Prequels were terrible, not Star Wars, etc… but I really don’t think they are as abjectly terrible as so many say. Maybe this is because I first saw these movies between the ages of 11 and 15 and I can’t objectively see them again for the first time. But I have at least one reason as to why.
Compared to the Original trilogy, the Prequels are all a step below in nearly every regard: acting, visual effects, the cast, tone, etc… However, and in spite of the many faults, there are positive elements, chief of which is the story arc for Ep I - III. Star Wars I-VI is very much the story of Darth Vader; the Prequels in particular exist for no other reason. Strip away the on-screen blunders and I think the vast storyline for the Star Wars galaxy, The Republic, the Jedi and Darth Vader/the Empire is quite excellent. Again, implementation is poor in many ways; often it is like watching a tv soap opera. But personally, I will take a great story that lacks somewhat in implementation over a shallow, re-hashing of an already established story. Maybe I am in the minority.
Ep I, II and III are frequently wooden and often stray into outright opera-level plot declaration and emotional statements. They also reveal too much about the Star Wars universe, which sheds much of the mystery and wonder of the franchise. The plot is somewhat complex, at least compared to Ep IV - VI. This is both good and bad. Many people deride the Prequels (Ep I in particular) for opening the plot with statements on “taxation of trade routes”; somehow implying that such material is too esoteric (and therefore boring) for Star Wars. The entire plot of the galactic struggle in the Prequels is predicated on this split between the Republic and various economic and industrial factions. Granted, this is generally a background element and not constantly elaborated on, but it gives very plausible reason for why things occur as they do. Maybe my appreciation of this background and complicated story comes from me being primarily a Star Trek guy. A good story means more to me than the number of explosions, laser swords, throwback references and funny quips. You can argue that such a nuanced story is not Star Wars - because it is definitely more muddied than the Original trilogy. But I obviously don’t believe that a complex plot detracts from the enjoyment. Rather I think it is necessary for the story that was to be told. To some level, the prequels, by their very nature, have to be different than the Original trilogy. Again, the implementation is poor in many respects, but it is intellectually compelling if nothing else. There are plenty of explosions and crazy sword fights in it too.
Am I overvaluing originality? I don’t believe so. But if I am it is only because there is a tremendously apparent lack of it in the film industry and media in general today.
-
As another side note, this was quite eye-opening. Even if I think 90% of it is BS. It is some darn well framed and supported BS. I just have a hard time believing that writers/producers/directors think about think about their scripts to the extent of making the entire film full-blown subliminal allegory.
Digging Deeper- Jurassic Park: Finding the Lost World https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kEf6UQuzvPo
Can this be applied to The Force Awakens?
I could possibly buy that Steven Spielberg, with his decade spanning experience, creative authority and self-aware filmmaking, is capable of doing this with The Lost World. It is much more difficult to imagine that Jurassic World continued that deep intro/extrospection. Jurassic World seemed entirely, like The Force Awakens, the revival of a beloved franchise with the sole intent to capitalize on billions of dollars in nostalgia. However, after watching Jurassic World, I remember having the distinct thought that the masses in the film were a direct representation of the people in the theater seats. But that is as far as I got with the impression of having been punked.
Can anything so smart be attributed to JJ Abrams in any of his creations, most pertinently The Force Awakens? In one sense, making a movie that is entirely a subliminal commentary on itself or the industry implies a great deal of directed intent and intelligence. However, can this redeem a film that is still a poor action/visual spectacle that is unabashedly rides the same plot, characters and success of the past? I would say no.
At least The Lost World had a different, more complicated story with new and interesting characters. The plot is actually a reasonable extension of the events in Jurassic Park. I have always thought it is underrated.
-
I have not read any of your post. I’m heading to watch Star Wars tonight with my family.
-
Nice to have you back, Worsham.
Enjoy the film. -
So, finally saw the movie a couple days ago. It was about as I expected content-wise, though not as painful to watch as I anticipated. I thought the first 30 minutes were actually quite good and engaging, but it was pretty much downhill from there. John Boyega does a better job with Fin than the trailers indicated. Rey is a very worthy Star Wars character and she is acted perfectly; definitely the best in the film.
Kylo Ren is simply a poor villain. His personal conflict does not have much weight and is not given enough background. Adam Driver gave it a good effort, but he could not do much with how his character was written or edited. Even so, he was able to make Ren creepy and bordering on perverted during the interrogation scene with Rey. The Darth Revan cues of his costume and voice are good and I do like how he is not as menacing to his troops as Vader is. However, in that respect Ren is inconsistent. He is often fair or reasoned with subordinates, giving him a calmer and more thoughtful presence than Darth Vader. Yet more than once he totally flies off the handle with rage and destroys things. I found these two aspects hard to reconcile and they made him (and his inner turmoil) less believable. Going back to the costume, I like it and I do not like it. I like the style but I do not think it fits for how Ren’s character is portrayed. He wears a mask that alters his voice, but why? It is only for show because clearly (unlike Vader and any other Sith in the movies) he has no injuries to cover up. Establishing a character as fearsome, anonymous and dangerous via a dark shroud and a mask suggests certain things… but once Kylo Ren removes the mask and we see nothing more than a long-haired adolescent who is essentially a rebel without a cause, whatever gravitas was established is forever lost. Maybe that was intended, but I can’t tell.
I liked how the lightsaber fight(s) were less like the lightning fast duels of the prequels and more methodical, heavy handed affairs of the original trilogy. Rightly so because the continuity is closer to Ep IV-VI and these are un or semi-trained force users rather than Jedi Knights and Sith at the height of their skill. That said, Kylo Ren was still a poor excuse for a Jedi-Sith-Force user whatever-he-is. Some of his force manipulations were cool, but his sword fighting was sub-par from what should be expected. The incompetent Fin gave better than he should have and Ren was essentially defeated by Rey, who had never touched a lightsaber before.
BB-8 was also a much better character / sidekick droid than I expected. He was funny and endearing for a modern audience in the same way that I am sure R2-D2 was in the 1970s and 80s (and still is). BB-8 is more like a highly capable pet than a mechanical companion and that serves his character well. Particularly in his interaction with Poe Dameron, who speaks of him like his dog.
Poe Damaron was also good. I like Oscar Isaac and think he is perfect for the character. Poe is like a mix of Wedge and Han as they were in IV-V-VI. His part in the Force Awakens was rather limited and kind of boxed in his character, but I liked him. I think there is promise here.
Han was okay. And just barely okay. There were a couple of glimmering moments, but overall I found him to be less like the Han Solo of old. It is also difficult to get used to a guy his age still doing all the things he used to and wearing a variation of his original getup. I think what happens to him in the film is heavily due to the fact that Harrison Ford simply did not want to play Han Solo anymore. It showed a bit and I think the events support that. Without giving away more than I just did, I think the scene of his “fate” is both way too quick and lacking in almost every way. There was little emotional impact for me as an audience member and perhaps even less from the characters that have a relationship with Han Solo. I will try to leave it at that but overall I felt it was poorly done and tragically swift for the character’s legacy and import.
My favorite part of the movie, BY FAR, was the very end. I won’t say what that is yet, but seeing that guy just turn around and stare, not saying a word was absolutely amazing. The most Star Wars thing in the entire movie and it almost made up for a lot of the bad stuff. That was very, very cool.
That was pretty much all of the good I can muster for this movie. Everything else is either average (not very interesting), poor or outright bad.
On a whole, it does give potential for future films, but only if the story is good. I can look beyond bad special effects and fan service, but if future stories are as derivative and use as much recycling of locales, character types and poorly contrived plots, then it will all be a terribly shameful waste.
-
That was a better critical review than almost every one I’ve read out there, and many of them were probably paid to do it. I agree with much of what you said, especially about Ren, Rey, and BB-8
Final scene didn’t strike me nearly as much as it did you - I liked the rotating panning of the Scottish hillside the best. (But the fact that it made me think of Scotland I guess ruined the immersion)
-
That was a better critical review than almost every one I’ve read out there, and many of them were probably paid to do it. I agree with much of what you said, especially about Ren, Rey, and BB-8
Final scene didn’t strike me nearly as much as it did you - I liked the rotating panning of the Scottish hillside the best. (But the fact that it made me think of Scotland I guess ruined the immersion)
Thanks for the compliments. I like to review things I am knowledgeable about or can at least speak intelligently of. I also am interested to hear what the people on A&A.org have to say because they are both intelligent and often have compelling perspectives. It’s nice to keep the dialogue going if nothing else.
I certainly have more to say, but most of it is more on the critical side. Much of it I am sure has been written of already.
-
-
Yes, great review Hoff… well worded. I also watched it recently and was very impressed with most of it. With a cultural icon film as influential as Star Wars, almost everyone will walk away from it with thoughts that stick in their heads (good or bad). Hoffman laid out a great analysis of the villain and I agree with him 100% even if I didn’t know I had the same opinions about him until Hoffman explained it to me.
For me it was the story lines, the plot twists, and overall script structure I was fixated on as it was all too familiar, I can understand why JJ Abrams wanted to “play it safe” as far as story goes considering how the prequels faired among public scrutiny. However, it is quite fair to label the force awakens as a remake of the original 2 films in my opinion, as I can easily chop the entire film into 10 minute segments and compare them scene for scene with a New Hope and the Empire Strikes Back.
But don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying this is a bad thing. In fact what makes the obvious so palatable is that everything seemed fresh. Like I said earlier, I agree that Kylo Ren reminded me more of a spoiled teen that was denied the keys to his dad’s car, rather than a savage mercenary using a fierce army to conquer the universe and enslave all jedi knights… but everything else was new and vibrant even if the obvious parallels were there. The desert planet provided great panoramic visuals as the same landscape did for the original… The bar maiden at the new Canteen played the wise and unassuming character which was just a fresh take on Yoda, and speaking of the bar… what a great sequence that was, although it will be hard for most of us to compare it to the original scenes, especially knowing that the new band jingle was far more forgettable than the original tune… and finally the new faces of the rebellion are very fresh, and I had no problem with any of them… even Adam Driver’s facial bone structure is unique enough to carry our attention through his scenes and I think the only reason for the mask is the whole Kylo knights order, or to be more like his grand father.
For the fan boys there was enough visuals to awaken their hibernating imaginations and allow them to forget the fact that Han Solo leading a team to take down the shields while the rebellion’s ace pilot and loyal squadron wait to fly their mission to the centre of the “round weapon” to shoot at “something” that will start a “chain reaction” which will destroy it… is, well… you know, a recycled story line. For the 90s babys who were let down by the prequels to the first movies they may or may not have seen, the force awakens will provide them with a buffet of everything they should have got from George Lucas in his second crack at it.
But in George Lucas’s defence, I honestly felt that the battles between the X-wing and tie fighters were more intense in a New Hope. I know many will disagree with me due to the upgrades in digital effects, however… I just felt more was at stake, tensions were higher, and the odds were tougher against the death star… so the force awakens dropped the ball a tad with me when building up the tension for what should have been the most exciting scenes of the whole movie. Still, it’s really awesome to have a Star Wars film to watch, that actually feels like you’re watching Star Wars. I especially appreciate the control JJ had not to over stay his welcome on many of the action sequences, and his transitions from story layer to story layer was very fluid and didn’t feel forced at all.
8.5 /10
-
I saw the film over the holidays. I had done my best to avoid learning anything significant about the movie prior to seeing it, so I knew almost nothing about the characters and the plot; I don’t know if the writers assumed that the audience would have any advance knowledge of the new episode, but at any rate I found it to be a huge disappointment. The film struck me as being a remix of many elements of the previous films, and in particular of the original trilogy, and as a result it came across as being shockingly unoriginal. I found many parts of the story to be unengaging, including the quest (announced in the opening scroll) that supposedly drives the plot. The writers don’t seem to have given much thought to whatever is supposed to have happened in the galaxy, politically and militarily, since the fall of the Empire at the end of Episode VI and the start of Episode VII. As far as I could figure out, this galaxy of millions of worlds now seems to consist of a reconstituted Republic that lives on one planet, a revamped Empire (the First Order) that lives on a super Death-Star, and a Rebellion that lives in scattered places here and there. And I can’t at all figure out the part about a “Republic-supported Rebellion.” If the Republic is now in charge, and the Rebellion is helping the Republic fight a resurgent outlaw neo-Empire, why is the Rebellion called a Rebellion, given that they’re on the same side as the established legitimate regime?
-
@Young:
But in George Lucas’s defence, I honestly felt that the battles between the X-wing and tie fighters were more intense in a New Hope. I know many will disagree with me due to the upgrades in digital effects, however… I just felt more was at stake, tensions were higher, and the odds were tougher against the death star… so the force awakens dropped the ball a tad with me when building up the tension for what should have been the most exciting scenes of the whole movie.
I for one completely agree. Supposedly there was an above average use of practical (non-digital) special effects in Force Awakens, however much of the ship battles still seemed too reliant on cgi and looked artificial. Much of the battle sequences not looking entirely real stems from what I would call artificial camera angles: placement or track of a camera which could not realistically be achieved if the scene was being filmed with completely real action. For example, if the Millennium Falcon was actually dogfighting with Tie Fighters outside your window right now, would you be able to get a camera following 70 feet behind the Falcon through all its loops, rolls and twists? Of course not, which is why it looks very fake when watching it in a movie. In general, George Lucas employed a mounted camera on ship exteriors, cockpit view shots and standard panoramas to focus in A New Hope and the other original trilogy films. This lent a sense of realism to (many) older films which is often absent from action/effects shots in newer films. I know Christopher Nolan is a big advocate of using plausible camera placement to enhance the realism of his films. Watch Interstellar and you will really notice.
The non-realistic camera angles are usually far more visually dynamic, but a normal movie-watcher innately knows that it makes the scene feel fake. Lately, I think they have become a gimmick for enhancing the 3-D watching experience. 3-D works better when you have things flying at you as you speed through a tangled mess of wreckage. But are we supposed to be on a virtual roller coaster or watching a film?
-
I have the same issues too CWO Marc. Is the “Resistance” a military arm (like a StarFleet) of the “Republic” used to do battle with the “First Order” on their frontier? This is starting to sound a little Star Trek-y (nothing wrong with that but this is Star Wars) and I have to wonder if the poorly executed political elements of the prequels played a role in this ambiguous setup that included only a throwaway mention of the Senate in Hux’s Hitler-style speech. At least in A New Hope the Senate is mentioned in a context that paints the setup of the galaxy as that of Rome.
I was also very annoyed to keep hearing about this precious Resistance “Fleet” with nary a throwaway shot of recycled Mon Calamari Star Cruisers and Corellian Corvettes. Instead at one point in my second viewing I heard a technician say during the Starkiller battle that “half their fleet” has been destroyed. So their fleet consisted a bunch of modified X-wings? Stupid nitpick but I felt the screenplay was littered with holes, including overuse of ‘light side’ and ‘dark side.’ There are many other ways to describe good and bad. I’m also not sure why Starkiller Base was never mentioned in the opening crawl and is introduced about halfway into the movie for such an important plot element. The battle itself is underwhelming and very anti-climactic. There are some good shots here and there, but Poe effortlessly squeezes his fighter into the oscillator room, casually takes out the targets and waltzes right out. Not nearly as dramatic as the previous two Death Star runs.
And if you’re going to go down the flashback/vision route with Anakin’s lightsaber, you better acknowledge the good and the bad, specifically the time it belonged to its original owner in the prequels. Very convenient to show the Cloud City hallway and use audio clips from A New Hope and Empire. I would rather the old artifact be Luke’s saber from Jedi.
That’s a very good observation LHoffman on camera angles, I do need to watch Interstellar again. The Falcon chase on Jakku was more disorienting than thrilling. I just don’t think JJ knows how to shoot ships or dogfights.
-
Hux’s Hitler-style speech.
The bad-guy portrayal was possibly the most annoying aspect of the film for me. That would include the Republic/Resistance-First Order relationship mentioned above.
But what I am specifically talking about is the jarringly stark portrayal of the First Order. First, they are essentially the Empire with a new name: same ships, same soldiers, same superweapon, same mysterious talking hologram. Lack of originality aside, they feel thin compared to the Empire. Perhaps naturally so, because they are not the government in power as the Empire was. Yet they are portrayed as far more militarily capable and superior than the completely impotent Republic. It is a weird dynamic.
Secondly, the First Order’s military and leadership image is that of late 1930s National Socialists. They use the same colors, theatrics, rhetoric, parade banners… Hux is an over-acted and unimpressive general-stooge who is completely one-dimensional and a ridiculous facsimile of Adolf Hitler. For WWII history people such as myself and all here, I can only assume this deliberate imitation was somewhat insulting in its simplicity. Now… I do understand the the Empire was very much created in that same image, but it is not nearly so overtly paralleled.
Third, why were all of the First Order officers and leaders a bunch of posh British white people? The Resistance was incredibly diverse, with a Latin American (Isaac), a black Englishman (Boyega), a strong British female main character (Ridley), plus a multitude of other alien and human races including the first time I have ever seen Asians in Star Wars. It’s as if the First order is comprised entirely of white, haughty aristocrats. Whether or not that was a politically safe play I don’t know and to be honest I really don’t care. I just think it makes the First Order bland and further unrealistic. While the majority of the Naval Officers in Ep IV-VI were white men with British accents, not all of them were and I honestly do not recall their accents being so obvious. Maybe I need to re-watch the originals.
I believe there was some proposed reason for this in the Expanded Universe material which stated that Palpatine was something of a human-supremacist and did not want other races in positions of power or military rank. However, as we all know very well now, all the EU material is meaningless, so they need another reason.
Lastly: Supreme Leader Snoke. What an awful name. Not very scary. Maul, Dooku, Vader, Grievous, Plagueis, Sidious… Snoke.
His image and presentation, beyond being utterly derivative, was too defined. He looked like a mix between ET and the stereotypical big headed aliens at Area 51. Unlike the Emperor hologram in Empire Strikes Back, we saw everything there was to see with Snoke; he really wasn’t mysterious in the slightest. Nor did he exude any particular Force-filled presence. He just looked like an old alien on an exaggerated throne. And apparently this theory is no good anymore (http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Popular-Supreme-Leader-Snoke-Theory-Just-Took-Major-Hit-103707.html). But then again, don’t they just deny everything until they want to reveal it?
-
One of the many absurdities (besides the ones already mentioned) was that 30 years after the events of ROTJ, the “Republic” and the “Empire” are using roughly the same military technology as the regimes preceding them. I can understand the idea that differences in the Jedi and Sith (or republican and imperial) philosophy and military tactics might manifest in different kinds of technology. Or that at the time of ROTJ, the Republican side only had the factories to construct the technology they had. But it seems absurd that 30 years down the line they’d be using the same tech. In war, the tendency is to make use of whatever tech best fits the purpose one is trying to achieve, even if it is initially the “enemy’s” technology.
Despite its largely derivative content and simplistic portrayal of the light/dark duality, “The Force Awakens” was a more entertaining movie, all in all, than any of the prequels. It seems to have exceeded most people’s expectations (including mine) and many people I talk to see it as “great” (which baffles me). Hopefully the next one will be a little more original and contain a little more substance in the dialogues. Hopefully the motivations and background of the hapless Darth Ren and his Oz-like master will get filled in…and we’ll learn more about the mysterious Rey.
-
Secondly, the First Order’s military and leadership image is that of late 1930s National Socialists. They use the same colors, theatrics, rhetoric, parade banners… Hux is an over-acted and unimpressive general-stooge who is completely one-dimensional and a ridiculous facsimile of Adolf Hitler. For WWII history people such as myself and all here, I can only assume this deliberate imitation was somewhat insulting in its simplicity. Now… I do understand the the Empire was very much created in that same image, but it is not nearly so overtly paralleled.
Third, why were all of the First Order officers and leaders a bunch of posh British white people? The Resistance was incredibly diverse, with a Latin American (Isaac), a black Englishman (Boyega), a strong British female main character (Ridley), plus a multitude of other alien and human races including the first time I have ever seen Asians in Star Wars. It’s as if the First order is comprised entirely of white, haughty aristocrats. Whether or not that was a politically safe play I don’t know and to be honest I really don’t care. I just think it makes the First Order bland and further unrealistic. While the majority of the Naval Officers in Ep IV-VI were white men with British accents, not all of them were and I honestly do not recall their accents being so obvious. Maybe I need to re-watch the originals.
I believe there was some proposed reason for this in the Expanded Universe material which stated that Palpatine was something of a human-supremacist and did not want other races in positions of power or military rank. However, as we all know very well now, all the EU material is meaningless, so they need another reason.
I quite agree that the leadership of the First Order is problematic. I found Hux’s frothing-at-the-mouth hysteria to be too over-the-top to take seriously; I was baffled by the concept of giving the evil and powerful Supreme Leader a name like Snoke (which sounds like it ought to be a brand of chewing tobacco); and I have reservations about the effectiveness of depicting the movie’s aspirant Sith Lord as a low-key, angst-ridden young man who broods about whether or not he has what it takes to find his Inner Vader.
Regarding the posh white British people thing, here are a few thoughts. At the theatre after the movie, I picked up a free copy of the Cineplex Magazine and looked at the article it has on the film. There’s one section called “Behind the Mask: Captain Phasma” which includes the following line: “The Force Awakens is righting some of the franchise’s cultural wrongs by bringing more women and minorities into the mix. And they’re not all good guys and gals.” The writer is explicitly refering to Captain Phasma, a very senior female Stormtrooper (though I have to wonder about why she’s simply be a captain, which in the infantry is a fairly junior officer rank), and is referring indirectly to the fact that we see another female officer on the Starkiller base, and to the fact that Boyega starts out as a Stromtrooper before joining the good guys. In my opinion, the writer of the article is missing the point of the original trilogy. Episodes IV, V and VI deliberately contrasted the Rebel Alliance’s multi-species, multi-ethnic, open-to-women composition with the reactionary character of the Empire, which was depicted as an authoritarian – one could almost say fascist – regime which was run by organic white human males (including, at the very top, Palpatine and Vader) and whose faceless (and, at least originally, entirely cloned) soldiers illustrated its philosophy of total conformity. I thought this depiction of the Empire was actually very fitting. “Socially progressive” isn’t a phrase that should apply to the Empire, so the depiction of its successor as a more equal-opportunity regime is one of the aspects of the movie that leaves me quite perplexed.
-
@CWO:
I have reservations about the effectiveness of depicting the movie’s aspirant Sith Lord as a low-key, angst-ridden young man who broods about whether or not he has what it takes to find his Inner Vader.
Kylo Ren is so young and clearly conflicted that I would not be surprised if he turns into a good guy at some point. Just seems like like the writers are simply unable to squander a young, good-looking, talented, suave man like Adam Driver to being a total bad guy. If he remains bad, his defeat and death are inevitable. I suspect he will either be redeemed or all-out switch sides to be a good guy and fight for them.
@CWO:
Regarding the posh white British people thing, here are a few thoughts. At the theatre after the movie, I picked up a free copy of the Cineplex Magazine and looked at the article it has on the film. There’s one section called “Behind the Mask: Captain Phasma” which includes the following line: “The Force Awakens is righting some of the franchise’s cultural wrongs by bringing more women and minorities into the mix. And they’re not all good guys and gals.” The writer is explicitly refering to Captain Phasma, a very senior female Stormtrooper (though I have to wonder about why she’s simply be a captain, which in the infantry is a fairly junior officer rank), and is referring indirectly to the fact that we see another female officer on the Starkiller base, and to the fact that Boyega starts out as a Stromtrooper before joining the good guys. In my opinion, the writer of the article is missing the point of the original trilogy. Episodes IV, V and VI deliberately contrasted the Rebel Alliance’s multi-species, multi-ethnic, open-to-women composition with the reactionary character of the Empire, which was depicted as an authoritarian – one could almost say fascist – regime which was run by organic white human males (including, at the very top, Palpatine and Vader) and whose faceless (and, at least originally, entirely cloned) soldiers illustrated its philosophy of total conformity. I thought this depiction of the Empire was actually very fitting. “Socially progressive” isn’t a phrase that should apply to the Empire, so the depiction of its successor as a more equal-opportunity regime is one of the aspects of the movie that leaves me quite perplexed.
I quite agree. My question of where is the diversity in the First Order was a little more rhetorical than anything, but you do point out that the writers are, in fact, diversifying the Empire/First Order ranks. At least compared to what the Empire was. Even before I saw the movie, I thought the Capt. Phasma concept was rather shaky. Am I misogynistic that female stormtroopers rub me the wrong way? I don’t think so, because I am perfectly fine seeing Rebel/Resistance female soldiers. It fits their model to have female soldiers. As you pointed out Marc, it does not fit with the fascistic conformity perpetuated by the Empire/First Order.
In the movie Phasma felt like a shiny but hollow addition (kinda literally). She wears a cape and distinguished chrome armor and looks to be an iconic bad-guy lieutenant for the franchise, however in Force Awakens she was just incompetent, like Kylo Ren. I thought they would at least take her helmet off but they didn’t even do that. Good to retain whatever mystery exists and have at least a minimal sense of intimidation , but there was no reason why Han, Chewie and Finn would not have taken her helmet off when interrogating her.
I have two comments about Phasma: 1) part of her creation stems from the egalitarian diversification mentioned above. Star Wars has proven that even bad guys can be celebrated and hero-worshiped to some extent. Darth Vader is a venerated icon, yet he is predominantly a character of great evil (wife-beater, murderer, child-killer). Boba Fett is less dark and more of a bad-ass, but he is still firmly one of the bad-guys. Darth Maul is an occult-ish demon yet is probably the coolest Sith in all the films… All of these characters are cherished by pop culture and children all over the world dress in their costumes. Phasma struck me as a deliberate effort to provide a similar female bad-guy counterpart who was worthy of being cherished and dressed-up-as by all the little girls out there.
2) I question whether or not she will forever remain a bad-guy. Can a now firmly children oriented franchise suffer an irredeemable or forever “evil” female character? I think that is an important question. Supposedly some framework for the direction of future movies has been constructed. That framework could very easily contain the directive to somehow bring Phasma over to the “Good-Side” by some yet-to-be-determined means. That is my theory anyway. Can you see a female Nazi SS-style soldier in Star Wars films? I bet she defects or is captured and un-conditioned at some point.
-
I have two comments about Phasma: 1) part of her creation stems from the egalitarian diversification mentioned above. Star Wars has proven that even bad guys can be celebrated and hero-worshiped to some extent. Darth Vader is a venerated icon, yet he is predominantly a character of great evil (wife-beater, murderer, child-killer). Boba Fett is less dark and more of a bad-ass, but he is still firmly one of the bad-guys. Darth Maul is an occult-ish demon yet is probably the coolest Sith in all the films… All of these characters are cherished by pop culture and children all over the world dress in their costumes. Phasma struck me as a deliberate effort to provide a similar female bad-guy counterpart who was worthy of being cherished and dressed-up-as by all the little girls out there.
This is actually a very old problem that philosophers and theologians and literary critics have written about for a long time: the fact that, in works of literature and, more recently, in movies, the bad guys are sometimes more striking and dramatic and interesting as characters than the (often rather bland) good guys. An example that’s been given for – literally – several centuries is Milton’s Paradise Lost, in which the character who steals the show is Satan. The dramatic appeal of artistically-depicted evil has been something of a quandry for moralists and theologians over the centuries; as far as I know, the best answer some of them were able to come up with is that the appeal of this kind of evil to the reader is simply a reflection of man’s fallen nature. A more charitable explanation might be that bad guys are necessary in art because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it; ergo, the more towering and impressive are the bad guys, the greater the challenge is for the good guys and the greater their ultimate triumph is.
-
@CWO:
… bad guys are necessary … because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it
That’s profound, and I agree :-)
Interesting post -
@CWO:
A more charitable explanation might be that bad guys are necessary in art because they’re the ones who give the good guys the opportunity to fight heroically against evil and ultimately triumph over it; ergo, the more towering and impressive are the bad guys, the greater the challenge is for the good guys and the greater their ultimate triumph is.
I agree with that. It speaks to the basic dichotomy of the two and the eternal archetypes of good vs evil.
However, my contention was less about ‘evil being considered cooler than good’ and philosophical implications but more about them crating Phasma as a character to fill the female void in that respect. And without counting, my impression is that there are a great many more female heroines/protagonists throughout literary and cinematic history than there are evil/antagonistic ones. Not that it is impossible to have them, because it certainly is possible. But can Star Wars, now very firmly catering to an immature audience, sustain a main or major ancillary female role who is a bad guy or outright evil? Are there still enough social constructs in place to prevent a bad female role model in a children’s movie. There are plenty of bad male role models in children’s films; it is the norm. Are girls different or should they be?
Unfortunately, none of the evil doers in the Force Awakens were very towering or impressive. The challenge was surprisingly easily met.
-
From what I’ve read (after seeing the film), Phasma wasn’t originally created as female. The armour was originally designed for Kylo Ren, and even when that idea was dropped the silver armour continued to be thought of as armour for a male Stormtrooper; Phasma was changed to a female character less than 3 weeks before shooting started, as a result of the casting process. So it’s debatable whether Phasma can be described as being specifically conceived as a female Stormtrooper. And as you’ve pointed out, she has a rather marginal and ineffectual role in the film, so she hardly qualifies as a major female villian. She’s not that major, she’s not that villainous (her line to Kylo Ren, “Who gave you permission to remove your helmet?” isn’t exactly delivered with the blistering roar of a drill sergeant), and frankly she’s not even visibly female; the only hint that she’s a woman is her voice – and considering how odd everyone sounds when they speak on a Stormtrooper comlink, I didn’t even pick up on the fact that the character is female when I first saw the film. Conceptually, the closest parallel I can think of for her role – i.e. the mysterious armoured secondary character – is Boba Fett…and he had a much more impressive and menacing screen presence.
Suggested Topics
