Machete Order, Special Editions, and the Decline of George Lucas

In which I talk at great length about all things Star Wars and weigh the pros and cons of the Special Editions.

Some time ago, in preparation for Rogue One, my wife and I decided to marathon the Star Wars films over a few days using the now popular Machete Order.  The following are a few thoughts that came to mind as we went through the Star Wars saga.

• I personally think Machete Order is best done in two-film chunks.  Following up The Empire Strikes Back (still the best Star Wars, in my opinion) with Attack of the Clones feels like an awful mistake
• I think Episode II could easily be removed from Machete Order entirely, and still make sense for a complete newcomer.  Revenge of the Sith contains all of the context clues necessary to understand the Anakin Skywalker story arc, and anyone who wants more detail can go back and watch Episode I or II later.
• The only reason anyone thinks Episode II is better than Episode I is that people felt a bit cheated by Episode I, and felt that Episode II redeemed things somewhat by having more action and drama.
• Out of all the prequels, Episode III feels the most like a real Star Wars movie.
• I think it's funny that when we first encounter Jabba the Hutt (I'm not counting Episode IV, see below) he's high as a kite.
• There's an interesting contrast that happens going from the darkness of Revenge of the Sith into the much more lighthearted Return of the Jedi.  Seeing the story in a different context is fun for an old time fan like myself.

Now, let's talk about the Special Editions.
For some of you younger readers, this may be the only version of Star Wars you know.  Being from an older generation, I remember a time when we had VHS copies of the original, unaltered cuts of the films.  In 1997, George Lucas decided he wanted to go back and change some things, since the technology had caught up to his ambitions in the late 1970s.  This event is very similar to Steven Spielberg's infamous 'walkie talkie' edit of E.T. on DVD in 2002, which he later admitted was a mistake.  The same, however, cannot be said for Lucas.  For many years now, the 'special edition' Star Wars films have been the only ones available on the market, and are now considered canonical.  I personally think this is a shame and insulting to all of the hard working effects people who made the original Star Wars films what they were.  Film fans should be offered at least the option of purchasing the original cut or the enhanced version, but it's just not something you can't find out there, except for a few ambitious internet fan projects.
So, what's so bad about the special editions, you say?  Well, let's start with Episode IV.  To begin with, the CGI effects are obviously inserted, and carry the stink of things we would later see in The Phantom Menace.  There are goofy background slapstick moments for no real reason, which I find messes with the tone of the film.  The Jabba the Hutt scene is completely unnecessary to the story, and in my opinion, out of character for Jabba.  I don't think it's reasonable that Jabba would take the time and resources to track down Han Solo just to remind him he owes him money, especially when he's clearly hired thugs to capture/kill him.  Speaking of Greedo, the decision to have him shoot first rather than Han, as in the original cut, is one of the biggest problems with the special edition cut of Episode IV.  Not only does it change the audience's perception of Han from a dangerous scoundrel to an okay guy with some money trouble, but it also makes Greedo look like a pathetic fool with worse aim than your average stormtrooper!  It's a huge disservice to both characters, and makes me all the more sad that for some, Greedo shooting first is the only version they've ever known.
The Empire Strikes Back, by contrast, seems to be the only film that actually benefited from the special edition treatment.  The additions to Empire include some extra footage for the wampa scene, and more detail in the Cloud City sequences.  The rest of the film is cleaned up, and for the most part, not altered significantly.
Then, we come to Return of the Jedi.  Like Empire, much of the film remains intact, but unfortunately, the film suffers badly for the new ending.  I'm willing to forgive the little song and dance in Jabba's palace, but the complete alteration of the ending of Return of the Jedi is inexcusable.  First of all, there's a conversation Luke and Leia have about their mother that, because of the prequels, now makes no sense at all.  Then, we are force-fed a different ending from the classic 'Yub-yub' song many of us grew up with.  Not only that, but Naboo is included in the celebration montage, seemingly for no reason other than to say "Hey, remember The Phantom Menace?  You really loved it when you saw it the first time, right?  Right??"  As if all that wasn't enough, just before the end credits roll, we see the smirking face of Hayden Christensen.  I find this an incredible insult to Sebastian Shaw, who performed the Darth Vader death scene so well.

So, considering all of this revisionist history, which (outside of films like Blade Runner) hasn't been done so dramatically since, what are we left to think?  My personal theory is that something happened to George Lucas along the line that changed his personality.  Somewhere between wrapping up on Return of the Jedi and the Special Edition era, I believe that Mr. Lucas began to want more money, and above all, more attention.  I think this is why, instead of making a new film, George Lucas decided to use his legacy to his advantage, dressing up his old films that really didn't need any kind of changes.  As the years passed, Lucas seems to have become more and more alienated from his fanbase,  He now seems to be the equivalent of the bitter, divorced dad, desperately trying to win his child's approval.  His comments after the recent Lucasfilm/Disney merger reflect this.
Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I am a big fan of Star Wars.  I fully respect George Lucas for bringing the modern mythology of Star Wars to the big screen.  My problem is with the man Lucas has become in the past few decades.  I'm not offended that Lucas decided to change his films.  As the director, that's entirely his right.  What bothers me is that I, as a film fan who grew up with Star Wars, have been denied any option to see the original cut.  The films I grew up seeing, in their original form, are now relics of the VHS era, in an age when some people don't even know what VHS is.  With the new Disney merger, it's my hope that the original cuts of Star Wars will one day be available in stores, but I'm still not holding my breath for it.
Outside of the courtroom, the concept of ownership of a film is somewhat debatable.  While it certainly belongs to the director, it also belongs to its audience.  The idea of changing a wildly popular film that has existed in one form for several decades is a bold one.  To further that, and systematically remove any trace of the previous version feels almost tyrannical.  George Lucas is one man, and there are millions of Star Wars fans across the globe.  How many people have to tell you the odds, George?

Entertainment (2015)

To begin to understand a film as strange as Entertainment, you first have to understand Neil Hamburger.  Neil Hamburger is the alt-comedian persona of Entertainment star Gregg Turkington.  The closest comparison one can find for his act would be Andy Kaufman's Tony Clifton character.  In short, Neil Hamburger is the most offensively hostile comedian on the planet.  His jokes are either insulting, infantile, or in horrifically bad taste.  When the crowd isn't receptive to his brand of humour, Neil patronizingly urges the audience to 'put a smile on your fool faces'.  If this approach doesn't work, he moves to level two hostility, viciously targeting specific members of the audience with insults until they either retaliate or leave.
Entertainment follows Neil as he tours the Mojave desert, performing at various prisons and dive bars with his opening act, a clown/mime (Tye Sheridan) who specializes in only the crudest jokes possible.  Between shows, Neil takes stops to examine the few interesting areas of the desert, such as an airplane graveyard, or an abandoned car wreck.  He also calls and leaves messages to his estranged daughter each night and keeps her up with how things are going, though it's uncertain if she actually listens to these messages.  John C. Reilly features as Cousin John, who does his best to book shows for Neil, although he has difficulty understanding why he doesn't make his comedy more accessible to people. (much like the viewers themselves)
The cinematography and style of Entertainment owes a lot to the work of Stanley Kubrick.  (The Shining, in particular)  There are a great many long, almost glacially paced scenes, packed with uncomfortable silences from the characters.  One of the defining traits of Neil's character is that he almost never speaks a word when he's not onstage.  This is somewhat frustrating for a viewer who might want to understand his motivations, but I feel that it was a conscious directorial choice.  Another interesting choice is the sound of this film.  Many moments are punctuated with eerie, harsh white noise, which increases the strange feeling of dread and tension this film creates.
All of these stylistic choices add up to Entertainment's ultimate mystery:  why does he do it?  What good reason would a comedian have for sticking to such a controversial act, touring dead-end venues, and aimlessly wandering the desert?  Furthermore, is Neil suffering from a crippling depression, losing his mind, or is he simply bored to death?  Unfortunately, the film provides no true answers to any of these questions.  The film, much like its main character, simply exists.
Entertainment was nothing like what I expected it to be, but I think that's a good thing.  Certain scenes are very uncomfortable to watch, and the main character is barely likeable at all.  That being said, it is still well shot, and demonstrates good technique when it comes to filmmaking.

The First Three - Galavant (2015)

For an introduction to my First Three series, click the link!
ABC's Galavant is a musical comedy that follows the adventures of Galavant (Joshua Sasse), a washed up knight whose present exploits include heavy drinking and being kicked out of inns when he can't pay the tab.  This changes when he meets Princess Isabella (Karen David), and tagalong squire Sid (Luke Youngblood), who reignite his better nature as they begin a quest to liberate Madalena (Mallory Jansen), Galavant's lady love, from the clutches of the evil King Richard (Timothy Omundson).  What Galavant doesn't know is that Isabella is actually working for King Richard, and the quest is an elaborate double cross.    
The first thing you will notice about Galavant is the music.  Every episode contains at least a few songs, and this is where the show works best.  I initially dismissed the music as a bit too simple, but I guarantee the theme music will stick in your head even if you just watch the pilot.  As well, there are some very clever lyrics used in the songs, which give a good sense of the show's general style.
On the acting side of things, Joshua Sasse plays the arrogant, overconfident Galavant quite well.  He's not exactly likable, but the enthusiasm of his companions helps to make him look good.  I found the foppish King Richard to be the standout performance of the show.  His cruel, yet childishly sensitive character is consistently funny, especially when it comes to musical numbers.  One particular number involves him detailing how he'd execute his rivals in song, and is a perfect example of the style Galavant aims for.
Galavant's sense of humour ranges wildly, from Monty Python style silliness, to the self-aware modernism of the Shrek films.  As such, it's very difficult to pin down exactly who the target audience of this show is.  There are some dashes of adult humour, so it's not exactly for kids, but other than that, it reads as a family friendly comedy.  It feels as if the writers took an 'anything goes' approach, which is a bit problematic, as many of the jokes are hit and miss affairs.  In particular, I'm reminded of a joke from episode 2:  the king's henchman Gareth (Vinnie Jones) makes an off-colour comment involving his unusual taste in women.  At first, I found it funny enough to laugh at, but then the writers draw the joke out a few beats too long.  At this point, the joke fails and becomes uncomfortable, or even offensive to some.  This lack of consistency is my main issue with Galavant.  Perhaps these issues are resolved in future episodes, but as it stands, I can't recommend Galavant on the basis of its comedic style.  If you're looking for a medieval musical comedy, this will certainly fit the bill.  For me personally, it's not nearly as smart or funny as it wants to be.

Year In Review - 2016

Another year is in the books, so here are some of my standout picks for the films of 2016.  Since no two films are exactly alike, I'm listing these in no particular order.  Links to my own reviews are included in the headings.

The Jungle Book

Disney's new live action take on The Jungle Book was a welcome surprise for me.  The story paid great respect to Rudyard Kipling's original book, giving us an exciting, fresh look at the Disney classic.  The cast was well thought out, bringing the voices of such great talents as Bill Murray and Ben Kingsley.  It's a great adventure film for all ages.





Eddie the Eagle

Eddie the Eagle may have flown under some people's radar this year, but it's well worth a look.  This film is based on the true story of Eddie Edwards (Taron Egerton), the first British ski jumper who, against all odds, competes in the 1988 Winter Olympics.  It's both funny and heartwarming.  A refreshingly different sort of sports movie.




Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

A great new addition to the Star Wars franchise.  Lots of excitement, a well written story, and plenty of interesting reference points for hardcore fans.






10 Cloverfield Lane

This (sort of) sequel to Cloverfield takes some of the best tools of Alfred Hitchcock and uses them to great effect.  This film does for John Goodman what One Hour Photo did for Robin Williams.  Brilliantly frightening, and well shot.







Ghostbusters

This film was the subject of more controversy than any other this past year.  I myself was a little skeptical at the idea of an all-female team, but 2016's Ghostbusters turned out to be a very funny spiritual (pun intended) successor to the original films.





Stranger Things

Technically, this wasn't a movie, but I couldn't leave such a great show out of this list.  Stranger Things was by far my favourite thing to come out of Netflix this year.  It's both an great original horror/sci-fi story, and a love letter to the 80s.  It's also got one of the best young casts I've seen in a very long time.  I'm looking forward to seeing what new surprises we get with season two.



And the rest...

Deadpool

Deadpool is a strange animal of a film.  It was an incredible success in the box office, and proved to executives that an R-rated superhero movie can generate profit.  The production design and writing of the film got everything right for the rabid comics fans who lined up to see it.  For me personally, there were a few things about Deadpool that were very off-putting, however.  I had no issue with the violence, (which I actually thought was more toned down than it could have been) but my problem lies with the vulgar, and even sometimes flat-out offensive brand of humour this film made for itself.  For me, Deadpool is a wisecracking guy who shoots                                                                                          people for money, and not the sort to make raunchy sex jokes.  I really wanted to like Deadpool, but I

left feeling a bit disappointed by it.

Independence Day: Resurgence        

One of my wife's favourite movies of all time is Independence Day, so she cried tears of joy when we first saw the sequel's trailer in the theatre.  Unfortunately, the final product was a bit confusing.  It seems this film couldn't decided what it wanted to be.  The tone ranged from goofball action movie to serious sci-fi drama seemingly at random, which made it very difficult to take seriously.  This is a shame for a movie that had such great promise, and could have been executed far better than it was.  It                                                                                             wasn't necessarily a bad movie, we just expected                                                                                     more from it.  

Rogue One (2016)

Rogue One is the latest entry into the Star Wars canon.  It begins with the story of Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), daughter of Imperial scientist Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelsen).  Imperial forces appear at the Erso home to coerce Galen into continuing his work on the Death Star.  Jyn escapes and is sent into hiding, watched over by Galen's trusted friend, Saw Gererra (Forest Whitaker).   Years later, she is rescued from Imperial arrest by Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna) and K-2SO (voiced by Alan Tudyk), a reprogrammed Imperial droid.  Jyn is taken to meet the rest of the Rebellion soldiers, but doesn't want to get involved.  If she is able to find Saw Gererra, who is now a dangerous political extremist, the Rebellion will consider the debt repaid.  This leads Jyn to a fateful meeting with Saw, in which she discovers her father was, in fact, a Rebel sympathizer, and has built a flaw into the Death Star, the new super weapon of the Galactic Empire.  Banding together with a few other Imperial deserters and outcasts, the new team disobeys Rebellion orders and follows this trail to the planet Scarif, where they begin a guerilla operation to steal the Death Star plans and make sure the Rebellion has them before it's too late for the galaxy.  

One of the notable elements of Rogue One is that it doesn't begin with the standard Star Wars prologue text crawl.  I think this is appropriate, as Rogue One a different sort of movie.  It has much more in common with a classic war movie than any chapter of the Star Wars saga.  The presence of the Death Star throughout the movie reinforces the feeling that no one is safe, and that the Empire has the upper hand in the situation.  Even as a fan, knowing how things would eventually end up, watching Rogue One was an emotional experience.  The characters are all likable in different ways, and it's almost difficult to watch certain scenes, as you don't want to see any of them harmed. 

Each member of the cast brings their own interestingly distinct character to life on screen.  Felicity Jones does very well in the role of Jyn Erso, a woman struggling to trust others, as well as come to terms with her father's actions.  Forest Whitaker is also very memorable as the mercurial and dangerous Saw Gererra.  In addition the the great heroes Rogue One provides, there are also the classic villains of the Star Wars franchise.  James Earl Jones returns as Darth Vader, but I was most impressed with another returning character.  In an astounding feat of movie magic, effects team ILM brought Grand Moff Tarkin (the late Peter Cushing) back to the screen.  While some have complained about this use of effects, I initially thought it was an incredible makeup job rather than CGI effects.  Of course, Tarkin has always been one of my favourite minor Star Wars characters, so perhaps I'm biased.  The next down the Imperial chain of command is new character Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn).  I found his character a little puzzling.  While Krennic does show anger and a thirst for power, he doesn't really cut an impressive figure next to the likes of Darth Vader or even Tarkin.  At times, Krennic looks rather incompetent, although, perhaps that's the whole point.  In any case, it's a minor complaint and doesn't spoil the film for me.

Rogue One is big and exciting, like any Star Wars movie.  The difference is in the serious atmosphere the story creates.  The Jedi mysticism we've seen before is not visible here, replaced by the blood and smoke of warfare.  While it may not be for everyone, I found Rogue One to be a welcome departure from the familiar structure Star Wars has built.