Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace
When I was thinking of possible movies to review for my final paper, I tried to think of movies that were both recent and controversial. Recent because, frankly, I�d like to see something made after 1985, and controversial because I needed opinions from both supporters and opposition. My initial attempts included Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, however, that didn�t work because negative reviews were scarce at best. The latest addition to the Star Wars series came to mind right away. There are people all over the map on this one: from your diehard IV, V, and VI fans who hated it to the new generation who never heard of the �first� three. I read several reviews on it, trying to stick to credible critics, and decided on Roger Ebert and Michelle Goldberg. Roger Ebert is easily the most well known movie critic in America. He writes for the Chicago Sun-Times, and is a recognized authority on movies. Michelle Goldberg is a movie critic employed by Metroactive Newspapers in California. Her review is titled �Young Jake Lloyd Skywalks Into Obscurity,� effectively summing up her feelings on the entire film. Ebert liked the film, giving it 3 � stars. Let�s dig into particulars. Ebert�s overall impression of the film was good�he calls it �an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking.� He is most impressed with the visual elements: the dramatic and awesome backdrops, the spectacular fight scenes, and the pod race scene (�one of the film�s high points�). He compares the settings to Venice and Rome, praising the creativity of Lucas and his team (undoubtedly) of artists. As for the plot, it was �little more complex than the stories I grew up on in science-fiction magazines.� He sees the plot as simple, but good enough. �Within the rules he has established, Lucas tells a good story.� Of course, there is a lot of history that needs explaining�Lucas created an American legend in the late seventies, and we now get to see his vision for the beginning of the story. So, the plot may be simple, but I think it was still a lot of fun to see the beginning of the story unfold. A big chunk of the vessel of the plot is the dialogue, and this is where Ebert has some complaint: �The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as it the characters had read but not retained �Julius Caesar.� I wish the �Star Wars� characters spoke with more elegance and wit.� He goes on: ��But dialogue isn�t the point, anyway: these movies are about new things to look at.� That effectively sums up his view: this movie is about cool things to look at and a fun time. He emphasizes the �fun.� He points out that other futuristic movies (Matrix, Dark City, Metropolis) have a rather bleak view of the future, whereas this one is commitedly more cheerful. �What (Lucas) does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of The Phantom Menace, as he tries out new effects and ideas. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think�; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.� His closing statement is great: �As for the bad rap about the characters�hey, I�ve seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They�re called Star Trek movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day.� Now let me examine a review that takes quite a contrasting view of The Phantom Menace. Michelle Goldberg writes with a little more passion, and with a little less professional constraint. However, she makes several good points, although when describing her review, one might use such nasty words as �rant,� �rave,� and �politically correct power-tripping feminazi.� Her huge problem is the acting. Whereas Ebert avoided the acting issue and praised the film�s visuals, Goldberg targets what she sees as the painfully embarrassing aspect of the film. A lot of the poignant shards she spews are actually quite funny. Take a few of her opening lines for an example: �Like The Phantom Menace itself, Lloyd (the actor who plays young Anakin Skywalker) is very pretty but utterly hollow. His insipid line readings grate like nails on the proverbial chalkboard.� �Lloyd�s performance is so irritating that one is comforted by the knowledge that he�ll eventually sell his soul and become the arch-villain DarthVader.� Ha! Rarely do I laugh out loud while reading. She goes on: �At least (Lloyd�s) not alone. The Phantom Menace displays some of the worst acting ever to find its way onto the big screen (note the gross overstatements and generalizations; apparently she�s never seen American Pie). Liam Neeson, ordinarily so robustly dignified, is plodding and portentous as Jedi Knight Qui-Gon Jinn, his horrid dialogue not helped at all by his equally unfortunate hairdo (note the bad taste in hair�besides, appearance has nothing to do with acting).� At least she recognizes a truth that the rest of us have known since 1977: �Of course, no one is going to see Star Wars for the acting. Fans are going for the action, or the myth, or the truly astounding computerized characters and sets.� She praises the visual and effectual (word?) aspects, but contends that they in no way overcome the horrendous acting. This is where she differs from Ebert, who maintains that the visuals carry the film with ease, despite a tepid plot and common story. �Although The Phantom Menace is a smorgasbord of luscious eye candy, it is emotionally stingy.� �If anything, The Phantom Menace is an inadvertent case study of the limits of special effects (again, she must not have seen Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within).� She ends by blasting Lucas, saying he should hire a writer, recognize his limitations, etc. She recognizes the stunning visual aspect, but reinforces that the acting and poor writing prevent us from joining in the fantasy. So we have two opposing views�dealing mainly with whether or not the visual presentation is adequate for carrying the movie along. I will now watch the movie and share my own view. (Lights, popcorn, blankie�. and turn that surround sound way up!) OK�the credits have rolled. One thing that strikes me right away that neither professional critic touched on was the soundtrack. Wow. What an amazing complement to the movie. The music is especially dramatic and noticeable during the last half� the Darth Maul fight scenes, the battle scenes, and the Gungan celebration. I think the soundtrack will do a lot to keep the movie timeless�as did the soundtrack for the �first� three. By avoiding trendy pop-sounding music, Lucas invites a longer-lasting watchablility time. If he had used popular 70�s type music in the �first� three, they might very well be laughable now (some of the haircuts are). I think he worked hard to keep the four movies bound together. Obviously, the way we think about the future, and what the future looks like to us have changed since the late seventies. If everything in the first episode looks way newer than in episodes IV, V, and VI, there would be a noticeably disturbing discontinuity form one to the next. Lucas does a good job of blending elements from the old into the new�spaceships, towns, costumes. They are consciously styled in the same manner as in IV, V, and VI. The music also helps to blur this twenty-year gap. In keeping the music timeless and classical, not only does he appeal to those of us who are a little tired of pop culture invading the movies, he helps in keeping the older trilogy credible (however�interesting side note: it is rumored that N*SYNC appears in Episode II; open the floodgates for pop culture! I mean, did Pink Floyd appear in IV?! The Wall was huge during that same time period! Anyway�). Let me comment on the acting. I can see where Goldberg is coming from when she goes off on young Lloyd�he isn�t a great actor at all. He does have some counter-attractive ways of delivering lines, but I think Goldberg is just not a Star Wars fan, and decided to take it out on the acting. Liam Neeson is not in his best role, but he brings what is needed to the part, and to the movie. I don�t like to evaluate the actor outside the frame of the movie too much. Saying, �Oh, it�s Liam Neeson�he�s good�like he was in Schindler�s List� he�s not good in Star Wars.� is full of fallacy. A good actor fits the role. He fit the role�he was a slightly stubborn, weathered, wise Jedi Knight. He was the role�geez, let him be. The same goes for Ewan McGregor. Now, I�m not saying the writing was the best, but I agree with Mr. Ebert: a rip-roaring, twisty, turny plot was neither called for nor needed. Some of the dialogue was indeed halting, New-Ageish, or preachy. In my opinion, it didn�t matter. This is the Star Wars that starts it all�we see the future Emperor begin his ruthless and cunning climb to absolute power, and we are introduced to all the characters and events that set in motion one of the greatest American epics of all time. I find it amazing that a movie can be all that and still find time to have a story all it�s own: a young ruler fighting for the lives of her people�against vast armies and a behemoth, indifferent democracy. As for the visual effects, they are everything Ebert says they are. The planet Naboo is an ideal combination of ancient Rome, Venice, and ancient Greece. The landscapes and backgrounds are stunning�even in Corsucant, the all-city capital planet of the universe. On the side, the cinematography is very well done, too. The shots are composed in very picturesque form�from the Jedi council to the fight scenes. The rest of the visual aspects are also outstanding. The costumes, carefully designed to semi-match the style of the �first� three movies, are amazing�especially Queen Amidala�s royal wardrobe. The fight scenes, although not on par with The Matrix or Crouching Tiger, are astounding in their own right. I mean, come on! They use light sabers! This is one area where Lucas may have outclassed the �first� three movies�the light saber scenes in this (twirling, flipping, flashing, kicking, swiping, lunging, falling) blow Alec Guinness� halting movements out of the water. The visual package is a grand one, and I believe it is one of the main points of the movie. Lucas is saying, �Join me in this vision I have�get swept away.� We get to see what he sees, and it�s a great view. Does it carry the movie? Almost�but the history and story step up and do their job. I�d invite you to sit back and turn up the surround sound for this one�and join George Lucas in his vision for the way the whole saga got started. -Levi
