Category: Culture

Art For . . . Something Else’s Sake?

A new study by the Rand Corporation analyzes the fairly recent phenomenon of "selling" the arts based on their instrumental effects (like an enhanced local economy, or higher student test scores) as opposed to their intrinsic value. The study, entitled Gifts of the Muse: Re framing the Debate of the Benefits of the Arts,  concludes that in promoting the arts across the country there has been too much focus on broad economic and social benefits.

The report places the origin of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s, and offers alternatives. The assumption is that there are just not enough people enjoying art.

One recommendation is that "attention and resources be shifted away from  supply of the arts and toward cultivation of demand" . The summary of the study gives several suggestions for the "promotion of satisfying arts experiences" including the need to develop the language needed for discussion and acknowledging the limitations of current research. In other words, like alot of research, the study concluded that more study is needed (a little job security, there).

But the money quote is right here:

"Research has shown that early exposure is often key to developing life-long involvement in the arts. That exposure typically comes from arts education…  The most promising way to develop audiences for the arts would be to provide well-designed programs in the nation’s schools."

So, rather than paying artists to produce more art that nobody looks at, we should strap students into specially designed art-appreciation chairs and refuse to release them until they grasp the "surrealism of the underlying metaphor" ("Welcome, Billy. Are you ready to have a satisfying art experience?").

This is wrong-headed for several reasons. For one, there is no shortage of art in kids’ lives. They are practically choked with art. Animé, comic books, movies, tattoos… heck, they are bombarded with art through cable television. Sure, it is generally of a low quality, but in a culture that has elevated subjectivism and relativism to the level of religious dogma, how would an art teacher even begin to help these kids distinguish "good" art from "bad" art? The very idea of good or bad art is anathema to the current art establishment. It’s all good, Billy, in it’s own way. Graffiti is as valid an expression as the Sistine ceiling. We have been feeding people this line for years.

Funding for the arts indeed began to come under (quite justifiable) attack around the early 1990s, as the preposterous excesses of goverment funded art began to come to light. The arts bureaucracy unwisely aligned themselves with the purveyors of artsy anti-religious hatred and pornography. Now they find themselves somewhat against the wall in trying to justify continued funding.

If the art establishment in this country had not been peddling ugly, meaningless art to the public for so long I doubt that they would find themselves in this position. Graffiti may not really be as good as the Sistine ceiling, but it is as good or better than Mark Rothko or Willem de Kooning.

Beauty is the key. People are starved for it. Alot of animé is quite stunningly beautiful, which is why kids respond to it. Give the people beautiful art and they will respond to it. Continue with the present course and the arts will always go begging for funds.

The report can be found online in the full version or just the summary.

GET THE REPORT HERE.

(Warning!! Evil File Format – PDF)

The Age Of Google

I research things for a living. Knowing where and how to get information–at least within my chosen field–is the warp and woof of my trade.

This has an impact on how I read and watch fiction. F’rinstance: I like the movie All The President’s Men about the Woodward-Bernstein investigation of Watergate. Set in the early 1970s, I’m fascinated by the way the two reporters go about piecing together the story that’s in front of them. It’s fascinating because they have to go to great lengths to get certain pieces of information that you could get in five seconds today (e.g., by doing a search on Switchboard.Com). They also manage to get their mitts on certain info that would be incredibly hard or impossible to get today due to their being subject now to much greater privacy and confidentiality requirements.

If you wrote a story about a similar investigation today, you’d have to change the ways that the reporters go about putting the story together.

Technology has changed the flow of information in society dramatically, and it has and will continue to force changes in how the flow of information is depicted in drama.

Take the episode "Passing Through Gethsemane" of Babylon 5, which I was watching last night. This episode has a lot going for it:

  • It features the Dominican monks who were recurring characters on the series.
  • It lets one of the Domincans get in a really good poke at those who claim to be "openminded" as a cover for refusing to find a definite belief system.
  • It features the only on-screen (or off-screen) administration of the last rites I know of in any mainstream sci-fi TV show.
  • It has extensive discussion of religious belief including the strain Jesus was under in the Garden of Gethsemane.
  • It has ethical discussion of the death penalty and the sci-fi alternatives there might be for it.
  • It focuses heavily on themes of sin and guilt and atonement and forgiveness, including making the point that God can forgive your sins even if you don’t remember them.
  • Part of the soundtrack is Gregorian chant.
  • It shows monks living up to ideals that are harder than humanly imaginable, but clearly worthwhile.
  • And it features Capt. Sheridan and Garibaldi doing something flagrantly illegal that you’d never see Picard and Riker doing in a million years. (Sticking a bag over the head of an alien telepath so he can’t identify a human telepath as she rips a crucial, potentially life-saving piece of information out of his head against his will.)

And all this written by an atheist!

But despite all these great elements, it’s obvious that the episode was written before Google.

Why’s that?

Because one of the Dominicans in the episode–Brother Edward (played by Brad Dourif)–beguns to have a number of really weird and sinister things happen to him. Among them are the appearance of a black rose and the words "Death Walks Among You" apparently written in blood on a wall.

Br. Edward reports this to Security Chief Garibaldi, but despite this fact, the first thing Garibaldi doesn’t do is search Google (or the 23rd century equivalent of Google) for the words "black rose" and "Death Walks Among You."

Any kind of ritualistic clues like that immediately call out for a cyber-search to see if there are any parallels to them.

Had Garibaldi searched on these items sooner, he would have found out what was at the basis of the mystery much sooner, and possibly prevented a crime and saved a life.

Heck, if you search Google today for those items, you’ll find out what was at the bottom of all this.

TRY IT.

In the future, expect a lot more cyber-searches in detective stories.

Art imitates life. (At least to some degree.)

Still a great episode, tho.

All About Books

I haven’t yet been tagged in the book meme going around St. Blog’s Parish, but the questions about books interested me, an inveterate reader, so I figured I’d leap into the fray untagged.

  • Total books owned:  Likely in the thousands.  Every few years, I tend to collect enough to open a used bookstore in my house.  I purge them by donating to libraries or used bookstores, and then the vicious cycle starts again.  My name is Michelle and I’m a bookaholic.
  • Last book purchased: We Have a Pope!, an upcoming biography of Pope Benedict XVI by Matthew Bunson.  I bought it through Catholic Answers and am eagerly anticipating receiving a copy when the shipment arrives.  <Commercial>If you want to purchase a copy, too, GO HERE.</commercial>
  • Last book read:  Benedict XVI by John L. Allen Jr.  Although some of Allen’s later books, such as Conclave and All the Pope’s Men, are very good, I understand now why Allen himself thinks this book (originally written when the Pope was Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger) is not one of his best.  It is not so much a biography of the Holy Father but uses him as a pretext to discuss Allen’s own liberal views.  Allen said recently that he wished he had been able to write new material to preface the U.S. edition of the book, but did not have the opportunity.  Apparently, though, the U.K. publisher did allow for a new preface.
  • Five books that mean a lot to me:  The Bible (natch), God Help Me! These People Are Driving Me Nuts by Gregory K. Popcak (very helpful), Catholicism and Fundamentalism by Karl Keating (first Catholic book I read), Morning Glory by LaVyrle Spencer (favorite romance novel), Diary of a Young Girl by Anne Frank (favorite book growing up).
  • Tagging:  Since I wasn’t tagged myself, I won’t tag another blogger; but feel free to answer one or more of the questions in the comments box.  Consider yourself tagged, if you like. 🙂

(Nod to Selkie for inspiration to do the St. Blog’s Book Meme.)

Wal-Art

KindredspiritsThe painting at left, Asher B. Durand’s "Kindred Spirits" was recently sold at auction through Sotheby’s for a bid of over 35 million dollars, the highest price ever paid for an American painting.

The painting depicts artistThomas Cole and poet William Cullen Bryant together in a Catskill Mountains scene. Henceforth it will be housed (surrounded by a number of other classic American artworks) in a new museum in… Arkansas!

The painting was offered for sale by the New York Public Library and was purchased at auction by the Alice Walton Foundation. That’s Walton, as in the supposedly evil Wal-Mart corporation.

The noble Metropolitan Museum of Art and the courageous National Gallery of Art combined forces to offer a competitive bid, but were beaten by the hideous strength of the Walton Foundation’s malevolent checkbook. At least that’s how the struggle is being depicted in certain cultural circles. Some letters to the New York Times online have whined as if the transaction amounted to out-and-out theft.

True, if I lived in New York I would miss the painting, too. In a spirit of real restraint, Met spokesman Harold Holzer said, "We’re disappointed that the painting is leaving New York…". The disappointment seems very one-sided, though. I have not heard much criticism levelled at the New York Public Library for putting the painting on the auction block.

Disappointment I can understand, but the bittereness displayed by some hints at something deeper. See, this is another victory for the Red Staters, a sign of the ascendency of Flyover Country. Arkansas, for cryin’ out loud?!! And, to make matters worse, the evil Wal-Mart corporation is behind it all, no doubt punishing the Empire State for it’s icy rebuff to the retail giant’s expansion efforts in that region.

The planned museum, to be located in Wal-Mart’s hometown of Bentonville, will house a collection of national significance. How strange, that the evil and greedy Walton family would spend millions and millions of dollars just to bring a little culture to those who have never had access to such treasures. Southerners don’t have the capacity to appreciate great art, and anyway, don’t corporations always use their money to just make more money? Don’t they have some slave-labor factories to build overseas?

Am I biased by the fact that I will be living close enough to this new museum to practically throw rocks at it? Probably. We are as excited here as they are disappointed in New York. Look at it this way, y’all; Won’t there be plenty of culture left in New York? Can’t you spare a piece or two for us benighted hillbillys?

FIND OUT MORE.

How To Kill A Major Character

One of my interests is the dynamics of fiction. Even though I don’t get much of a chance to write fiction myself, the subject fascinates me, and I seem to have a knack for it. Friends sometimes consult me about plot problems in their own works of fiction and seem to be pleased with the solutions I propose.

It seems to me that there are two basic ways to kill a major character who is one of the good guys in a story.

The first method is the shock killing. This occurs when one has established the major character and unexpectedly whacks him a substantial distance before the end of the story. This is done to freak out and unsettle the audience. When done well, it makes the audience afraid by suddenly crushing out the hope that the character seemed to carry and makes them wonder how the surviving main characters will achieve their goals now that the great hope has been extinguished.

An example of a successful shock killing is the death of Scatman Caruther’s character in the movie version of The Shining. With creepy, evil stuff going on in the Overlook Hotel, the boy in the movie has telepathically summoned Scatman Caruthers, who represents the boy’s best chance to escape back to the world of sanity. Yet when Scatman takes an axe in the chest as soon as he arrives at the Hotel, this hope is ended forever, leaving the audience to wonder what will happen next. How will the boy ever survive?

Another example of a successful shock killing is the death of Qui-Gon Jinn toward the end of Star Wars I (as many flaws as that movie had overall, Qui-Gon’s death was effective).

The problem with the shock killing is that, if the character is too major and too beloved by the audience, it will alienate many of them. As a result, the shock killing is not used that much as it is rather hard to pull off.

More common is what may be called the climactic death  This occurs when the death of the major character occurs at the climax (or a climax) of the story.

For the climactic death to work, a number of factors have to be in place. The death needs to seem inevitable, emotionally weighty, and meaningful. If these conditions are not met, the audience feels cheated, with the death seeming arbitrary (non-inevitable) and frivolous (non-emotionally weighty or meaningless). From these requirements, several plot elements regarding the death tend to fall out:

  1. There has to be no other alternative to the death. Though the characters may seek other alternatives only to have them eliminated, in the end the audience must understand that there are no alternatives to the character’s death. Otherwise they will feel that the death was arbitrary.
  2. To make the death feel emotionally weighty, it must occur at the climax (or a climax) of the story.
  3. Also to keep the death emotionally weighty, it frequently must take time rather than happening in an instant.
  4. Since climaxes need to be seen coming a long way off, the audience generally needs to see the death coming in advance, with a building sense of doom as it approaches. (This is a distinguishing characteristic of the climactic death compared to the shock killing.)
  5. To make the character’s death seem meaningful to the audience there frequently needs to be a goal that he sacrifices his life to achieve, making his death a heroic sacrifice.
  6. Finally, between the usual needs to see the death coming in advance and for it to be a heroic sacrifice, the sequence of events that leads to the death usually needs to be closely tied to the main plot.

An example of a successful climactic death is that of Mr. Spock at the end of The Wrath of Kahn. Here all the elements are met: (1) Spock is the only one who can save the Enterprise, due to his unique physiology. (2) It occurs at the climax of the movie. (3) Spock doesn’t die immediately upon going into the radiation-filled chamber. His death takes time. (4) We see it coming in advance, particularly after all the talk of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and then seeing the Enterprise in a situation only Spock can save it from. (5) Spock heroically sacrifices himself in order to save his shipmates. And (6) the main plot of the movie (Kahn’s quest for revenge against Kirk) is what drives Spock to make this sacrifice.

The most spectacularly unsuccessful major character death that I can think of was the original death of Tasha Yar in Star Trek: The Next Generation. It violated all kinds of rules: It was an attempt to combine the shock killing with the climactic death, and it totally flopped. Tasha was walking along on an away mission in front of an evil creature, when suddenly the evil creature lashed out and killed her.

It didn’t happen at a climax (violating Rule 2). It happened way too quick (violating Rule 3). We didn’t see it coming in advance (violating Rule 4). It wasn’t a heroic sacrifice to achieve an important goal (violating Rule 5). It seemed arbitrary as the creature could have struck anyone or Tasha could have walked outside its reach (violating Rule 1). About the only rule that it might have obeyed was it was tied to the main plot (i.e., dealing with the evil creature).

The second deat of Tasha (going back in time to save the Federation from a crucial historical misstep) was much more satisfaying dramatically–and went far to redeem the first death (which the new episode confessed was "meaningless")–though in the end they welched on this and decided that Tasha survived her heroic sacrifice.

The most recent Star Trek attempt to kill a major character–Trip Tucker–also failed horribly.

This was a remarkably unsatisfying death. It was nowhere near as horrible as the first Tasha death (’cause it didn’t violate as many rules), but it was bad enough. Here’s why:

  • The death managed to honor rules 1-3, and 5. It honored Rule 1 because the episode made it clear to us that in order to save Captain Archer there were no other (clear) alternatives. Further, the self-sacrifice occurred at a climax, satisfying Rule 2. And it took a while, so we got a "goodbye" scene in sick bay, satisfying Rule 3.
  • Things get shaky with Rule 4: Whild we were told way in advance that Trip would die, we didn’t see the act of self-sacrifice until moments before he made it. Rule 4 was thus only satisfied in a pro forma way in that the audience was told what would happen but not in a plot-level way by letting the events themselves reveal what needed to happen.
  • Rule 5 was completely bungled. Trip didn’t die saving the universe or even the Federation. His motivation for self-sacrifice was much murkier. It wasn’t an act of duty or friendship (though these may have played roles in it) but an apparent attempt to enable the Captain to keep his schedule in order to make an important speech–one that Trip had no good reason to think the future hinged on. This came across as totally stupid.
  • Rule 6 was the most egregiously violated. There weren’t sinister anti-Federation forces trying to keep the Captain from making his oh-so-important speech. That would have (despite the implausibility of hinging all of history on a speech) at least tied the forces they were fighting into the goal that they were trying to achieve. Instead, the folks who drove Trip to self-sacrifice were passing, never-before-seen hoodlums who the Captain himself involved himself with and then honked off.

Listen, Star Trek guys: Next time y’all get a series (not any time soon) or a movie (probably ditto) and you wanna kill off a major character, please note the above list before you do so.

It’ll save y’all a lot of grief.

That Awful Last Episode Of Trek

Ick!

Okay, now that everyone (who wanted to) should have had a chance to see the final episode of Star Trek Enterprise, whenever it got aired in their local market, I can complain about it without giving away spoilers.

If, for some reason, you didn’t see it and don’t want to be spoiled, stop reading now.

SPOILER SPACE:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Now, the producers tried to spin this episode as "a love letter to the fans," but it left me feeling more like I’d received a "Dear John" letter.

Even after details emerged (amid complaints from castmembers, notably Jolene Blalock) about what the episode would involve, I tried to keep an open mind, particularly in light of how much better Manny Coto had made the series in its last season.

But apparently boneheaded writing reasserted itself for the final episode, no doubt at the behest of the producers.

Here’s the basic idea: The last episode of Enterprise . . . wasn’t an Episode of Enterprise at all.

STUPID THING #1

It was an episode of Next Gen. Specifically, it’s set in the seventh season of Next Gen. This was so the producers could bring back Riker and Troi and have them guest star, as if watching the actors portray characters they’re now 12 years too old to play would be a "magical" experience for fans.

But they don’t get Riker and Troi hooked up with the Enterprise crew by time travel (which could be cool). Instead . . .

STUPID THING #2

The whole episode is a freakin’ holodeck adventure! Sheesh!

Riker is playing the holodeck adventure to try to find guidance for a Big Decision that he’s got to make (and which you already know the outcome of it you watched the seventh season of Next Gen), and so he decided to play a holodeck adventure set on the (apparent) founding day of the Federation to sort things through by watching someone else make a Big Decision.

Does Riker get the help he needs?

STUPID THING #3

No! He doesn’t! When it’s become clear whose Big Decision he was focused on (Trip), and after he’s watched Trip make it, and when he asks Trip if he has any advice about making his own Big Decision, holo-Trip says nope, he doesn’t! Riker will just have to figure it out for himself.

Now, what was Trip’s Big Decision?

This has to do with the main dramatic action of the episode.

It is, after all, the (apparent) founding day of the Federation, so you’d expect the main action of the episode to be tightly bound up with the founding of the Federation. The crew of the Enterprise ought to be thwarting some last-minute threat to the Federation that could unwravel Star Trek history as we know it if they fail. Instead,

STUPID THING #4.

The main dramatic action of the episode has nothing to do with the founding of the Federation. Instead, the characters interrupt their Federation-founding schedule go galavanting off and help Andorian recurring-character Shran (Jeffrey Coombs, nee Weyoun and Brunt) rescue his daughter from kidnappers.

This was a bad, bad move on the part of the writers/producers. Never have your Big Finale deal with a threat completely unrelated to the main thing the viewers have tuned in to see (and, in fact, been waiting years for you to finally get around to showing them).

The previous two episodes–which did focus on a threat to the founding of the Federation–were far better and would have made a far better finale to the series than this tacked-on doo-dad.

So how does all this hook into Trip’s Big Decision?

STUPID THING #5

Well, the alien kidnappers get mad at the Enterprise crew for snatching the little girl from them and so they come after them, cornering Captain Archer and Trip.

Now the thing is: Captain Archer is s’pposed to give an inspiring speech at the (apparent) founding of the Fedration, and "I’m sorry but he was just killed or otherwise delayed by kidnappers" is not going to be an acceptable excuse for not making it.

Thus in a "Gotta git the Cap’n to the church on time" frenzy, Trip uses his engineering wiles to undertake an action that he reasonably foresees will kill the kidnappers–and himself–while leaving the captain free to go make his uber-important speech.

That’s the Big Decision.

Only the whole thing falls completely flat because (a) it’s implausible to think that the whole future of the Federation hinges on this speech and there are no valid excuses for not making it or being late and (b) Trip had no reason to think that this speech was so crucial that he needed to sacrifice his life for the captain to make it.

It might have been different if Trip had simply sacrificed himself for the sake of his captain out of duty or for his friend out of friendship, but dragging the speech into it casts a whole "saving history" aspect over the whole thing that is completely implausible. If they’d at least had a time traveller show up to tell them "The captain must make this speech or the future will come crashing down in flames" that would have at least given Trip a better reason to do what he did–even if it would still be acting on a totally stupid premise.

But then

STUPID THING #6

We get a post-Big Decision scene in sickbay where it looks like Trip might survive (except that we’ve been told by Riker and Troi that he won’t). Thus Trip goes smiling into some kinda big cat scan device, only to have us find out next thing that he really is D-A-I-D.

A pointless major character killing in the service of a boneheaded premise distracting the reader from the main plot the viewer tuned in to see, wrapped in a freakin’ holodeck story in a pseudo-Next Gen episode.

What drek!

Oh, and what about loose ends, like Cap’n Archer’s crucial speech?

STUPID THING #7

We never get to hear it! Not one syllable! All that build-up and we don’t even get to see what was so important that a major character had to die for it!

And what, then, about that two-season loose end: Trip’s relationship with T’Pol?

STUPID THING #8

Nothing comes of it!

After shoving the relationship down the viewers’ throats for two seasons, after establishing that there was ongoing romantic chemistry between the two, after establishing that they were telepathically linked on some level as a result of their relationship, after having the two of them discover a technologically-created daughter of theirs in the previous two episodes, after having that daughter die tragically (causing both of them to tear up), and after ending THE VERY PRECEDING EPISODE with the two of them holding hands and tearfully talking about how it would be possible for a Human and a Vulcan to have a baby together if they wanted . . . NOTHING COMES OF THIS!

Rick Berman and Brandon Braga, what the heck were y’all thinking?

After the viewers have been made to suffer so much from the incompetent set-up of this relationship, the least you could do would be to PAY IT OFF by having them become the first Human-Vulcan married couple, setting the stage for Spock’s parents later on.

After that tearful, hand-holding, "Y’know, T’Pol, a Human and a Vulcan could have a baby iff’n they wanted to, wink, wink, nudge, nudge" scene, simply dropping the relationship (and pointing out explicitly and repeatedly in the finale that it was dropped) is a TOTAL letdown.

I’m sorry. Y’all may have meant this as a love letter to the fans, but after watching it I feld like I’d received a "Dear John" letter instead.

You can see why.

Another Anti-Spoiler

Anti-spoilers (revelations that something does not happen in a movie, show, or book) can not only help folks who haven’t seen/read it yet from getting their hopes up. They can also help them not to needlessly worry about what the fear the work might contain.

You may have read press accounts that try to interpret Star Wars Episode III as an anti-American parable of some kind.

Don’t worry ’bout that.

This story was apparently set off following the debut of the film at Cannes, France.

Now the thing about France is, they just loooove America over there. So much so that they want to be a "counterweight" for us.

They love our President even more.

They’re so pro-American and pro-Bush that they’re obsessed with them, so any time they see anything in the movies that can plausibly be interpreted as being a symbol of America or Bush, that’s how they interpret it.

Their affection for us is touching.

That’s what’s going on here. T’ain’t nuthin’ to it.

I feel a bit sorry for the folks over yonder who are so caught up in Bushmania that they lept to this interpretation. It reveals that they don’t know their own history–European history–which is what Lucas is really playing off of.

Ever since Episode IV originally came out, Lucas has been playing off the history of ancient Rome. Y’know how in Episode IV Grand Moff Tarkin (sounds like Tarquin–an important name in Roman history) announces that "the Emperor has dissolved the Imperial Senate–permanently–sweeping away the last vestiges of the Old Republic."

That’s straight outta Roman history. Any time you get an Emperor, and Empire, a Senate, and a Republic being supplanted by an Empire, you’ve got an allusion to Roman history.

In fact, the term "Emperor" comes from the reign of Augustus Caesar. In Latin the word for "Emperor" (Imperator) was voted a title to Augustus (nee Octavian) as a substitute for the term "king," for Romans were very proud of the fact that they didn’t have a king. They could have one in reality–as long as they didn’t call him a king–so they called him an Imperator. Their subjects, some of whom shouted "We have no king but Caesar!" a few years later–were not fooled by the different in terms.

The term "empire" also comes from this.

The "Senate," of course, was the body that ruled Rome and voted folks titles like "Emperor."

And the "Republic" was what Rome became once they kicked out their last king (Tarquin the Proud). The term is Latin for res publica or "public thing"–a reference to the political order or "public thing" of Rome.

Now, the Roman Republic proved not to be stable. With time it became corrupt, with ineffective leadership.

Eventually a guy named Julius Caesar showed up and decided to provide strong, decisive leadership, even if it meant backstabbing his colleagues on his way to absolute power. This led to . . . civil war (dum! dum! dum!) . . . and to avoid perpetetual civil war, the Senate voted Caesar progressively more dictatorial powers until he became "dictator for life."

His successor, Octavian (later Augustus), became the first Emperor and continued with dictatorial powers lest civil war break out again.

Any of this sound familiar?

Yeah! It sounds just like what we’ve been watching (in an altered form) in Episodes I-III.

Palpatine’s rise from Senator to Chancellor in Episode I mirrors Julius Caesar’s rise. The Roman Civil Wars that led to Julius being voted dictatorial powers are mirrored in the Clone Wars. And Palpatine’s creation as Emperor mirrors the voting of the title to Augustus. (Oh yeah, and <SPOILER SWIPE>there was an assassination of Julius in this time, mirroring the attempted assassination of Palpatine</SPOILER SWIPE>.)

Rome, not contemporary American politics, is the central organizing framework for what Lucas is doing.

That’s not to say that there’s no reference to American history in there. In Episode II the separatist movement is modelled on the Confederacy. It’s even called "the Confederacy of Independent Systems" (also an allusion to the Commonwealth of Independent States that used to be the Soviet Union) in the script.

As to allusions to more recent American history, there ain’t many. Maybe an individual line of dialogue here or there, but that’s it.

When episode I came out in 1999, Clinton was still on the throne and the Monica Lewinsky Scandal was still big news, and I couldn’t help thinking that Palpatine’s line that Chancellor Finis Valorum (Latin = "Last of the Valiant") was a good man brought low by scandal derived from "baseless allegations" had an echo of Lucas’ views of the Clinton-Lewinsky mess, but I couldn’t prove it in court.

The timing of this also puts the lie to the anti-Bush interpretation. The "corrupt Senate > civil war  > empire" stoyr was overtly set up in Episode I, which came out in 1999 and was written at least 3 years earlier than that. Waaaay before 9/11 and the events that followed.

Episode II came out in 2002 (and was written no later than about 1999), making it too early for the manufactured Clone Wars to be an allusion to the Iraq War, which happened in 2003 (and it would be silly to suppose that they were an allusion to the toppline of the Taliban).

So when Episode III comes out and we see the endgame of the scenario played out on screen, it just ain’t based on contemporary American history. It’s Roman history redux.

The single line of dialogue that could plausibly be read as a riff on contemporary American politics is Anakin’s line at the end of the film about "If you’re not with me, you’re my enemy." That maybe, kinda, coulda be interpreted as a riff on Bush’s line post-9/11 (or on Jesus Christ’s pre-9/11 line), but you couldn’t prove either one of these in court.

In any event, it’s too slim a basis on which to interpret Episode III as some kind of anti-American parable, no matter how awitter our French friends may be.

(And yes, Obi-Wan’s reply about only Sith dealing in absolutes is stupid; the Jedi clearly have absolutes. This is why Lucas really needs a good script doctor. It would be so easy to fix that line. Even "Only a Sith deals with that kind of absolutes" would do it.)

So yeah, Lucas is a Lib, but he’s not doing any kind of serious anti-Bush or anti-America riff here.

In fact, press reports report:

Lucas said he wrote Portman’s line ]about liberty dying to thunderous applause] and the screenplay’s other
politically pointed elements [like Anakin’s with me or agin’ me line] before the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist
attacks and the subsequent war on terror.

Lucas’ yes-man Rick McCallum also is quoted as saying:

"First of all, we never thought of Bush ever becoming president," "Star
Wars" producer Rick McCallum said, "or then 9/11, the Patriot Act, war,
weapons of mass destruction. Then suddenly you realize, ‘Oh, my God,
there’s something happening that looks like we’re almost prescient.’
And then we thought, ‘Well, yeah, but he’ll never make it to the second
term, so we’ll look like we just made some wacky political parody of a
guy that everybody’s forgotten.’ "

GO FIG.

NOTE: THE BELOW WILL ALSO BE A SPOILER-FRIENDLY COMBOX. IF YOU WANT TO AVOID SPOILERS, USE THE SPOILER-FREE COMBOX DOWN YONDER.

Episode III: An Anti-Spoiler

A spoiler, for those who may not be familiar with the term, is a revelation about something that happens in a work of fiction (a book, movie, TV show, etc.) that might spoil the story for someone who hasn’t seen it.

Minor revelations (e.g., Obi-Wan rides a Giant Battle Iguana-Chicken What Goes "Awp! Awp!" in a few scenes) are not spoilers, but more significant revelations (e.g., "No, Luke . . . I am your father!") are.

Lemme suggest a new concept, though: The Anti-Spoiler.

An anti-spoiler is a revelation that something does not occur in a work of fiction. Anti-spoilers can be useful in that they can help folks who haven’t seen/read the work not get their hopes up for something particular to happen that they may be imagining.

With that in mind, lemme give you an anti-spoiler about Episode III, though I’ll put it in a spoiler swipe in case you really don’t want to know it even though it’s something that doesn’t happen in the film. Select the text to see the anti-spoiler:

<SWIPE>Annakin does not fall into lava in the movie. Don’t go into the film with your heart set on seeing Hayden Christiansen falling into lava and screaming with pain–as tempting as that image may be as retribution for his acting in Episode II.</SWIPE>

Now, in case you read the anti-spoiler and need a little context to understand it given what you have probably seen in the previews for the movie, here’s a minor, minor spoiler (given that it’s all over the previews and mentioned in countless reviews) to help give you the context you may need:

<SWIPE>Annakin’s final confrontation with Obi-Wan does occur in a lava-infested environment which is very dangerous and dramatic. He just doesn’t fall into the lava. Heat from the lava does play a role in what happens, though.</SWIPE>

Hope those are helpful if you haven’t seen the movie! Didn’t want you thinking they were going to do something that they don’t, in fact, do.

Now,

BELOW IS A COMBOX FOR THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THE MOVIE (OR WHO DON’T CARE ABOUT SPOILERS). IT’S A SPOILER-FRIENDLY ZONE! HAVE AT IT!

Okay, I’ve Been Episode Three’d

Just got back from seeing Episode III.

It’s clearly the best of the prequel trilogy–by a longshot.

What surprised me most about it is that, despite its listed running time of 146 minutes, the movie itself is only 26 minutes long, after you sit through two hours of previews. Doesn’t take Annakin harly any time to fall at all. Hope they don’t put all the previews on the DVD to fill up space.

Okay, I’m kidding about that of course. They won’t put the previews on the DVD.

And the movie also is really 146 minutes long, it just feels like you sit through two hours of previews first.

Episode III is, as I said, the best of the prequel trilogy. It succeeds in the chief tasks it sets for itself, which are considerable.

First and foremost, it has to find a convincing way to make Annakin turn to the Dark Side–something a lot more convincing than the "temptation" Luke gets put through in Episode VI. Ranting about the "true nature" and "power" of the Dark Side ain’t gonna do it. There has to be something more than that to make a convincing turn from good to evil.

The trick is harder than you’d think because of the extreme nature of the turn that has to be made. It’s not like getting somebody to cheat on his taxes. They’ve got to take Annakin Skywalker from being a little resentful to being a full-blown, black-wearin’, helmet-sportin’, Jedi-killin’, voice-raspin’ Supervillain.

What makes that so hard?

Well, people who are supervillains generally don’t believe that. Like everybody else, they like to think of themselves and what they are doing as good, and it’s hard to make Darth Vader-level evil look good.

The film thus has the challenge of taking us far enough into Annakin’s perspective to make what he’s doing seem intelligible, but not so far into it that we end up believing that the Jedi are evil and need to be wiped out.

The movie succeeds far, far better than I thought.

In fact, in some ways it succeeds a little too well, though there’ll be time to talk about that on another occasion, once folks have had a chance to see the movie.

I think there are flaws, though. Up to the point that Annakin actually turns to the Dark Side the movie is firing on all cylinders. Just after this, though, there is a scene in which Annakin formalizes his commitment to the Dark Side that I don’t think works as well. And then Annakin goes and does something so evil that, frankly, I could have done without it. It exceeds the bounds of what is believable in terms of sane human motivation and one can only be explained upon some kind of Dark Side mental compulsion that ain’t spelled out explicitly in the movie.

I would have handled things a little differently. Lucas has Annakin’s initial conversion to the Dark Side (which is quite intelligible) occur earlier than his final descent into total, irrational supervillainry, and I would have had the descent bridging the two be more even and gradual than what the film gives us.

Despite this, the movie does achieve its primary goal: Getting Annakin to break with the Light Side and embrace the Dark Side believably.

The movie also achieves its secondary objective, which is tying up the significant loose ends: How do Luke and Leia get born? How are they separated? How do the Jedi fall? What’s the sequence of events leading Yoda an Obi-Wan to go into exile? Why does the Emperor look so icky in the original trilogy? What’s with the "becoming one with the Force" bit? What is the confusing prophecy of "Bringing balance to the Force" supposed to mean in practical terms? Why doesn’t C-3P0 remember any of this? And most importantly: How Does Darth Get Physically Transformed Into A Half-Machine Icon Of Darkness And Why Doesn’t He Know About Luke And Leia?

The answers to some of these are obvious, but we still need to see them happen. Others are things fans have speculated on for years. The film manages to achieve these quite well, though at the price of introducing one notable departure from established continuity (something mentioned in a scene in Episode VI).

I’m prepared to accept the departure from continuity, though, as I think it serves the overall plot and makes the story of Episode III more believable. If Lucas hadn’t departed from continuity on this one point, it would have been harder to pull off the ending of the film.

The film’s third goal–like always–is to dazzle us with action, and it does that, though I’m probably not the best person to describe action scenes as my focus is more on plot and character.

It’s final major goal–also as always–is to be visually stunning, and it certainly is that. People are right when they say that this movie is more visually stunning than any previous Star Wars film. Not in every scene, mind you, but overall, it is. We get a raft of new visually dymanic worlds to look at–some (unfortunately) seen only in passing during the fall of the Jedi.

A favorite of mine are some scenes in which Obi-Wan is mounted on a Giant Battle Iguana-Chicken What Goes "Awp! Awp!" (It’s better than it sounds.)

We also get to (briefly) see the Wookies in action in their home environment, which can only call-up regrets about what Episode VI should have shown us. (Lucas originally planned for the forrest moon of Endor to be inhabited by Wookiees, but changed his mind, cut them in half, made them more teddy-bear like, and called them Ewoks–Wook-iee —-> Eee-wok, Get It?)

The acting has also improved, though it’s still poor. Ewan McGregor kicks butt as Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Yoda is okay. Samuel L. Jackson still comes off as flat to me, but Hayden Christiansen’s acting has literally doubled in quality since Episode II. Unfortunately, since his acting score last time was only 2.0 out of 10.0 possible, he’s still only up to 4.0 out of 10.0.

There are other things about the film that I’d nitpick, but there will be time for that later after folks have seen it, and these don’t fundamentally distract from the fact that this is without a doubt the best of the prequel trilogy.

I need to see it a second time before I try to compare it to the films of the first trilogy (though I strongly suspect I’ll conclude that it’s better than Episode VI, which is infested with teddy bears and lame attempts at conversion to the Dark Side, among other things).

NOTE: I know folks are likely to want to talk about this film, but since many have not seen it yet, please keep the combox for this post a SPOILER FREE ZONE. Comments with spoilers will be DELETED. I’ll create another post with a combox for spoiler-laden discussion for those who have already seen the film.

Okay, I've Been Episode Three'd

Just got back from seeing Episode III.

It’s clearly the best of the prequel trilogy–by a longshot.

What surprised me most about it is that, despite its listed running time of 146 minutes, the movie itself is only 26 minutes long, after you sit through two hours of previews. Doesn’t take Annakin harly any time to fall at all. Hope they don’t put all the previews on the DVD to fill up space.

Okay, I’m kidding about that of course. They won’t put the previews on the DVD.

And the movie also is really 146 minutes long, it just feels like you sit through two hours of previews first.

Episode III is, as I said, the best of the prequel trilogy. It succeeds in the chief tasks it sets for itself, which are considerable.

First and foremost, it has to find a convincing way to make Annakin turn to the Dark Side–something a lot more convincing than the "temptation" Luke gets put through in Episode VI. Ranting about the "true nature" and "power" of the Dark Side ain’t gonna do it. There has to be something more than that to make a convincing turn from good to evil.

The trick is harder than you’d think because of the extreme nature of the turn that has to be made. It’s not like getting somebody to cheat on his taxes. They’ve got to take Annakin Skywalker from being a little resentful to being a full-blown, black-wearin’, helmet-sportin’, Jedi-killin’, voice-raspin’ Supervillain.

What makes that so hard?

Well, people who are supervillains generally don’t believe that. Like everybody else, they like to think of themselves and what they are doing as good, and it’s hard to make Darth Vader-level evil look good.

The film thus has the challenge of taking us far enough into Annakin’s perspective to make what he’s doing seem intelligible, but not so far into it that we end up believing that the Jedi are evil and need to be wiped out.

The movie succeeds far, far better than I thought.

In fact, in some ways it succeeds a little too well, though there’ll be time to talk about that on another occasion, once folks have had a chance to see the movie.

I think there are flaws, though. Up to the point that Annakin actually turns to the Dark Side the movie is firing on all cylinders. Just after this, though, there is a scene in which Annakin formalizes his commitment to the Dark Side that I don’t think works as well. And then Annakin goes and does something so evil that, frankly, I could have done without it. It exceeds the bounds of what is believable in terms of sane human motivation and one can only be explained upon some kind of Dark Side mental compulsion that ain’t spelled out explicitly in the movie.

I would have handled things a little differently. Lucas has Annakin’s initial conversion to the Dark Side (which is quite intelligible) occur earlier than his final descent into total, irrational supervillainry, and I would have had the descent bridging the two be more even and gradual than what the film gives us.

Despite this, the movie does achieve its primary goal: Getting Annakin to break with the Light Side and embrace the Dark Side believably.

The movie also achieves its secondary objective, which is tying up the significant loose ends: How do Luke and Leia get born? How are they separated? How do the Jedi fall? What’s the sequence of events leading Yoda an Obi-Wan to go into exile? Why does the Emperor look so icky in the original trilogy? What’s with the "becoming one with the Force" bit? What is the confusing prophecy of "Bringing balance to the Force" supposed to mean in practical terms? Why doesn’t C-3P0 remember any of this? And most importantly: How Does Darth Get Physically Transformed Into A Half-Machine Icon Of Darkness And Why Doesn’t He Know About Luke And Leia?

The answers to some of these are obvious, but we still need to see them happen. Others are things fans have speculated on for years. The film manages to achieve these quite well, though at the price of introducing one notable departure from established continuity (something mentioned in a scene in Episode VI).

I’m prepared to accept the departure from continuity, though, as I think it serves the overall plot and makes the story of Episode III more believable. If Lucas hadn’t departed from continuity on this one point, it would have been harder to pull off the ending of the film.

The film’s third goal–like always–is to dazzle us with action, and it does that, though I’m probably not the best person to describe action scenes as my focus is more on plot and character.

It’s final major goal–also as always–is to be visually stunning, and it certainly is that. People are right when they say that this movie is more visually stunning than any previous Star Wars film. Not in every scene, mind you, but overall, it is. We get a raft of new visually dymanic worlds to look at–some (unfortunately) seen only in passing during the fall of the Jedi.

A favorite of mine are some scenes in which Obi-Wan is mounted on a Giant Battle Iguana-Chicken What Goes "Awp! Awp!" (It’s better than it sounds.)

We also get to (briefly) see the Wookies in action in their home environment, which can only call-up regrets about what Episode VI should have shown us. (Lucas originally planned for the forrest moon of Endor to be inhabited by Wookiees, but changed his mind, cut them in half, made them more teddy-bear like, and called them Ewoks–Wook-iee —-> Eee-wok, Get It?)

The acting has also improved, though it’s still poor. Ewan McGregor kicks butt as Obi-Wan Kenobi, and Yoda is okay. Samuel L. Jackson still comes off as flat to me, but Hayden Christiansen’s acting has literally doubled in quality since Episode II. Unfortunately, since his acting score last time was only 2.0 out of 10.0 possible, he’s still only up to 4.0 out of 10.0.

There are other things about the film that I’d nitpick, but there will be time for that later after folks have seen it, and these don’t fundamentally distract from the fact that this is without a doubt the best of the prequel trilogy.

I need to see it a second time before I try to compare it to the films of the first trilogy (though I strongly suspect I’ll conclude that it’s better than Episode VI, which is infested with teddy bears and lame attempts at conversion to the Dark Side, among other things).

NOTE: I know folks are likely to want to talk about this film, but since many have not seen it yet, please keep the combox for this post a SPOILER FREE ZONE. Comments with spoilers will be DELETED. I’ll create another post with a combox for spoiler-laden discussion for those who have already seen the film.