MENACE
TO MOVIES by Bennett Campbell Ferguson
Above:
Natalie Portman and Liam Neeson wage star wars.
Photo ©Lucasfilm Ltd., 20TH Century Fox, and Walt Disney
Pictures
These days, if you need a
director to work a crowd, your best bets are James Cameron, Christopher Nolan,
or J.J. Abrams; they know how to whip adrenaline and emotion into a
crowd-pleasing cocktail. But George
Lucas is different. Yes, his name is
synonymous with blockbuster filmmaking, but the rambling rhythm of “THX 1138”
and “American Graffiti” proved back in the 1970s that he is odder than most smack-you-in-the-heart
entertainers.
“Odd”
could certainly describe Mr. Lucas’ 1999 sci-fi extravaganza “Star Wars:
Episode I—The Phantom Menace.” But they
are other worthy descriptors—phrases like “majestically dull,” “horrendously
written,” and “blatantly racist.” In
interviews, the film’s actors have blamed the rage that greeted the release of
“Menace” on adults too cynical to appreciate yet another film determined to
unleash fiery explosions in the airless vacuum of space. But really, that’s just an excuse, a
smokescreen calculated to mask a film that remains an appalling artistic and
ethical failure.
“The
Phantom Menace” (which is a prequel to Mr. Lucas’ original “Star Wars” film
from 1977) kicks off in a galaxy guarded by the noble Jedi Knights—a
brown-robed gang of monk-warriors with a penchant for blabbering nonsense about
“Midi-chlorians,” whatever those are. Are
you bored yet? Liam Neeson was. He stars as Qui-Gon Jinn, a bearded Jedi
travelling with his apprentice, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor, gamely grinning
through a thankless role). They run
afoul with some greedy, planet-dominating merchants, a crisis that requires Mr.
Neeson to occasionally whip out his lightsaber (or laser sword, for the uninitiated)
and sleepily deliver pronouncements such as, “We’re running out of time” and “I
don’t know.” Who does?
Of course, Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan are just one strand of a vast
tapestry. Their quest leads them to Anakin
Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), a cheery slave who one will one day morph into Darth
Vader, the heavy-breathing tyrant of the original “Star Wars” films. In “The Phantom Menace,” however, Anakin is just
a painfully earnest young boy, and the movie aims its firepower at viewers of
age group—kids who will crack a grin both at the sight of a swooping spaceship and
the gurgle of a gratuitous fart joke.
Still, such inane goofiness is overshadowed by the film’s
infuriating reliance on racist caricatures.
Lest we forget, Mr. Lucas chose to place the pratfall-prone alien
Jar-Jar Binks (an animated character voiced by Ahmed Best) in the degrading role
of the wise, grammatically-flummoxed servant, making the character a direct
descendant of the nauseating stereotypes of African Americans found in the
“Gone With the Wind” era. And don’t even
get me started on the fluttery, bird-like Watto (voiced by Andy Secombe), whose
elongated nostrils and insatiable lust for cash seem ripped from an
anti-Semitic propaganda poster.
It’s disturbing that Mr. Lucas, a filmmaker whose work
often seems to yearn for all-together-now utopianism, would leap so far into
the gutters of insensitivity. But he
did, and the result has now been consumed by audiences worldwide for over a
decade. As a “Star Wars” diehard, I have
always believed that Mr. Lucas’ magnanimous franchise has positively
contributed to the world with its tales of heroism and hope. But whenever I re-watch “The Phantom Menace,”
I am forced to admit that sadly, that has not always been the case.
I gave this film a positive review several months ago, but your points are well taken, especially those regarding the racist caricatures. That was definitely a case study of an independent filmmaker trying his darned hardest to make some kind of Disney-esque, kid-friendly cross-appeal in what had to have been Star Wars's biggest attempt towards pop-commercial appeal up until that time. Essentially, one could argue that Lucas was trying to be Disney all on his own at the time. Not to mention the writing is admittedly quite flat and basic.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I find quite a bit to enjoy about the film. I find the actual story itself, the visuals, the ideas, and the mythos to save the film much more than it deserves. Or perhaps it is the opposite case: perhaps the material is great but was somewhat squandered by a lack of technical polish. I like to look at it in the latter sense.
I actually really enjoy the politics and the scenes on Coruscant much more than most people, even in the acting and the execution. I find there to be a subtly uneasy tone throughout, filled with squabbling otherworldly bureaucrats, majestic halls of a once great democracy, and the temple of a once-great monastic order. I could sum up this point with one moment in the film that I find to be somewhat overlooked: a moment in which Queen Amidala gazes at the beautiful sunset over the cityscape as she thinks of her suffering people; the sun is setting over the broken Republic and a darkness is rising from within it. I think evil is a shadow and an idea in this movie (hence "Phantom Menace"), in which the often-criticized lack of screen time for the villains, I think, enhances this idea of a rising shadow over what was once good, similar to Vader's turn.
Perhaps this is way too pretentious and deep than is warranted for this movie, and maybe I'm pulling stuff out of my behind, but there you go. I love the mythology overall, and I also love the ending of this film in which you see the fall of the idealist master, the apprentice becoming the master, and the beginning of a Saga. That is what I like to take from The Phantom Menace.
Hi Cody! I really like the points that you made. I especially like what you said about the decaying Republic symbolized in the visuals (especially the shot of Amidala staring out at the city that you mentioned). I admit I hadn't thought much about how that theme plays out in "Phantom Menace" till you brought it up.
DeleteI like the point you made about the villains rising up from the shadows as well. That seems to be a motif in the prequels; instead of visible villains, we have these menaces cloaked in mystery and conspiracy--a pretty fascinating difference from the original trilogy.
I confess that I sometimes get swept up in the general fan frustration with the prequels. But for all the issues I have with them, what you wrote reminded me of their good qualities. I agree; there are ideas there, even if they're not always executed perfectly.
For sure Ben: I admit that there are some issues with the prequels, but I still find them to be much better movies than what the general fan reaction gives them credit for. After recently rewatching all of the Star Wars movies, I will admit that "The Phantom Menace," as much as I still like it, is definitely the least-well executed, especially in terms of the script which relies on simple statements that tell us information rather than simply showing us things (the old adage of "show don't tell" was not followed here). For instance, when I brought up Amidala's preoccupation with her people's suffering, it is unfortunate that we never actually see their suffering at all: we only hear people talking about it. I think this also goes back to the fact that Lucas may have been trying too hard to make a "Disney-fied" movie that was clean and safe for kids while at the same time to trying to incorporate what I find to be very intriguing political elements, as well as the stuff with the Jedi and the Sith which I find quite interesting as well. Again, the film could've used more polish or collaboration, I don't know if it should've had a different director necessarily, but perhaps at least some rewrites/tinkering with the script a bit.
Delete