Too good to belong to Star Wars

Rating: 7/10 (17 October 2010)

The assessment of the Star Wars films seem to be all upside down. To my mind, The Empire Strikes Back from the original trilogy is by far the worst of the six, but it is universally judged to be the best. On the other hand, The Phantom Menace is universally derided, and yet I find it to be the best. It is beautifully scripted; the pace is handled to perfection. The acting all round is superb. The special effects are dazzling, and only gratuitous in the sense that there are too many ugly aliens walking around the periphery. Since this is a problem with all the Star Wars films, TPM should be commended for being restrained, in fact. At least it minimises the ugliness factor by giving the alien characters depth and verisimilitude (utilizing CGI to its limits). Otherwise the effects serve the story very well. Other than the original film, this is the only instalment that never becomes boring and is always engaging.
But why does everybody hate it? It was perplexing at first, but then I had another look at the originals and it suddenly dawned on me. One thing we tend to forget is that the original Star Wars films were very ordinary. The hype and the history tend to cloud judgement in this regard. Stars Wars became a phenomenon because it symbolised something vital and crucial for its age. The concept of the Force embodied the morality/religion of the space age. The ground-breaking special effects imbued optimism in the troubled seventies. A fairy tale was told, and people were caught up in the story. They didn't mind that the acting, writing, direction etc was poor. We pretended that the films were good, and we maintained that pretense for a long time. Then came the Phantom Menace, and this really was a menace. It threatened our hallowed pretences. Here was a top quality film calling itself "Star Wars", and next to it the original trilogy looked extremely shoddy. The fans couldn't take the exposure, and thus the knee jerk reaction against the new instalment. That's my theory.
It is not just a question of improved special effects. Of course there is that. The effects are so advanced in TPM that those in the original film look distinctly prehistoric in comparison. The advance in science is matched by the cinematography, so that we are treated with a vision that is exponentially more grand in every way. But the fans can always persuade us to ignore technical excellence and focus on artistic excellence. That's what the critics of TPM appear to be doing, only that in the process they get stuck on an intransigent bias. The complaint is that the new film is badly acted, poorly directed, overburdened with special effects, boring, inconsistent, peopled with obnoxious and unappealing characters, and so on. It's one big bias, that's all. The fans feel threatened by the new product, and there is a spontaneous rejection. Whatever they are saying about TPM, I will say that the exact opposite is true. It is not only a triumph of filmmaking; it is also the triumphant realisation of a long cherished vision of George Lucas. The man himself has proclaimed that he does not like the original trilogy, not after he has perfected his vision in the later instalments. His legion of fans begs to differ, preferring the inept filmmaking of the young George Lucas, and the wooden interactions of Mark Hamill, Carrie Fischer and Harrison Ford.
Of the host of criticisms leveled by the die-hard fans, only one stands up. Yes, midichlorians is a bad idea, and it virtually trashes the mysticism of the Force. But I can see what persuaded the story writers to it. The Jedi Council must grant discipleship to Annakin Skywalker, and the mystical hunches of Qui-Gon are not acceptable as proof of his suitability. It is a major gaffe, and shows that the Jedi Council itself was wrongly conceived. Lucas should have seen that midichlorians are the antithesis of everything that Star Wars stands for. Maybe there's some truth in the charge that Lucas has sold out, lost the original vision, moved over to the dark side of the Force (i.e. succumbed to commercialism). But there is still enough of that vision left to make TPM a truly memorable film. The pod race is said to go on too long, but I didn't think so. People forget the unending battle sequences in the original trilogy The only other issue I would like to bring up is the ugliness of the aliens. It has become a regular feature for science fiction films to feature ugly aliens, and it points to a chronic dearth of vision among such filmmakers. Stars Wars may have started it all, and it has a lot to answer for in that regard. Why should the beautiful future be marred by ugly aliens? These creatures aren't low-life. In fact in most cases they are superior to humans. The model should have been Spock from Star Trek. His alien-ness is suggested by his pointed ears and that is enough. The rest is left to our imagination and that's how it should be. It comes across through his excessive logicalness, his quizzical reaction to human ways, his posture, his special abilities etc. The aura of alien-ness is very strong with Spock; it's almost non-existent with Jar Jar Binks. Spock was the winning grace of Star Trek. Jar Jar Binks, and indeed all other alien life forms in the Star Wars saga, are merely eyesores and annoyances. An alien is supposed to inspire wonder. What has ugliness got to do with that?