23 November 2015

I SHALL BECOME MORE POWERFUL THAN YOU CAN POSSIBLY IMAGINE

This review is based on the "Despecialized Edition" prepared by fan editor Harmy, something akin to the original 1983 release.

It is very nearly almost claimed that Return of the Jedi is the weakest film of the original Star Wars trilogy, and this is absolutely true. The specific reasons for this, and how many of them and how severe they are, depend on who's making the argument, but one thing that can be counted on: it's not going to take too long before somebody mentions the Ewoks as Problem No. 1. I think this is perhaps maybe less true. Don't worry, this isn't the overture to a "defending the Ewoks" review, simply pointing out that the hate directed their way is overblown - they are transparently toyetic and the most extreme symptom of the remarkably sudden downshift Return of the Jedi makes from The Empire Strikes Back, as the franchise's glummest and most adult-friendly entry (though "adult-friendly" is all relative; these are all boys' own adventure matinee epics at heart) explosively gives way to what is pretty unabashedly a kids' film for a very large percentage of its running time.

And that is one of the film's problems. Not that the Star Wars franchise is meant to be some kind of sacrosanct thing that must not be for children: this is the trilogy about people with laser swords, funny robots, and the big scary man with the shiny black mask. Where Return of the Jedi trips up is in trying to balance its most kiddie-friendly instincts with the relative maturity and gravity of Empire, resulting in a film with some astonishing tonal lurches - some of them right in the same frame, like when the big slug-beast Jabba the Hutt (just as obviously a sop to pre-adolescent audiences as the Ewoks, though perhaps a marginally older pre-adolescent audience) is all gross and sluggy right next to the notorious sight of Carrie Fisher wearing a metal space bikini that wouldn't feel out of place in Heavy Metal. To say nothing of the climax - since we will say much about it later on.

Back to the Ewoks. They're a symptom of the film's sometimes clumsy attempt to be a four-quadrant hit (a phrase that I do not think existed in 1983, when it was newly released), but not a cause, and they are not devoid of merit in and of themselves. There's a profound disjunction between what the Ewoks are (animate teddy bears) and what they Ewoks do (wear tribal costumes, wield stone-age weapons, attempt to cook and eat the protagonists, stage traps to destroy a vastly more technologically accomplished aggressor - George Lucas has claimed that they were inspired by the Viet Cong, and that seems entirely reasonable), and for my part, I think that the film benefits from it. One thing Return of the Jedi does persistently and quietly is to get weird: the cantina scene in Star Wars and the fleeting glimpses of bounty hunters and the layout of Cloud City in Empire point in the direction of overheated pulp of the '30s or '50s style, where sci-fi world building could be at its most indulgent, but Jedi is where that kicks into overtridve. It has, for one thing, by far the largest number of non-human characters in the original trilogy (as well as the largest number of women with speaking roles: a whopping two, double that if you include aliens speaking made-up languages. But Star Wars-as-boys' club is not a new observation and I will not belabor it). The warrior plushies fit into this newly expansive sense of "what the hell, it's a big weird universe" nicely.

Mostly, though, I want to go to bat for the Ewoks because they're a key element of one the best and most easily-overlooked moments in Return of the Jedi: the storytelling scene. Newly-appointed primitive god C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) is eagerly recapping for his audience of rapt bearlings the plots of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back, and we can't understand a word of it, of course, it's in one of this film's multiple invented languages (more of the pulpy universe-expanding - there's even a new alphabet introduced in this one). But between Daniels's enthusiastically stiff pantomime and the tinny reproductions of Ben Burtt's sound effects, we get all of it anyway. More to the point, the Ewoks very clearly get it: their puppety little faces are absolutely transfixed throughout. At one point, after the droid says "[gibberish] Han Solo [more gibberish]", a couple of the Ewoks sidle up to the smuggler-turned-general and hug him, and that's really the moment that crystallises the scene: intentionally or not, this is about the reason we love watching Star Wars. It's about big, bold characters for whom we feel intense (maybe unjustifably so) affection, and exaggerated adventures that are so simple that a droid can communicate them using arm movements. And also the creativity and perfection of the sound design is a key element of how the story is told. The audiences that made Star Wars an incomprehensibly big hit in 1977 and have kept it alive and important for most of the years ever since: we are those rapt Ewoks, and they are us. How can you hate the fuzzy little shits once you've realised that?

All that being said, and as I've implied already, Return of the Jedi is much less rapt-attention-inducing than what went before it. The expansive weirdness in the alien design and the flickers we see of how society works has to stand in contrast to how much smaller the film feels than Empire - smaller than Star Wars too, really, though Jedi has more locations than the first picture. Part of that, perhaps, is the bland mix of locations: the first film had a desert planet full of bizarre '70s space architecture and a giant, freakishly utilitarian space station, the second had an ice planet, a magical swamp, and a phenomenal gas giant mining colony, and what do we have here? Back to the same desert planet, two rooms in another space station, and the only wholly new location is a redwood forest that looks transparently like northern California right from its very first "postcard from Yosemite"-style establishing shot. We're not very far from the old '50s B-producers going to Bronson Canyon and putting absolutely no effort into disguising it: the budget is bigger and the ecology at least somewhat less familiar, but the aura of "find me a location we can drive to!" manages to come through loud and clear.

What really doesn't help is the team Lucas assembled to execute his vision this time around. There wasn't nearly as much turnover between Empire and Jedi as between Star Wars and Empire, but two of the replacements were critical: welcome to the franchise cinematographer Alan Hume and director Richard Marquand (given the job after David Lynch turned down Lucas's offer to take the film: best for everyone involved, of course, though I'd be hella curious to know what Lynch would have done with Jabba), both of them a pronounced step down.

Let's not pussyfoot: Return of the Jedi is astonishingly poorly-shot. The 2nd unit work is as good as ever; the visual effects are a sizable leap even over the state-of-the-art work in Star Wars; the jagged edges of the half-made Death Star hanging in space is as beautiful as any visual effects in the series. But most of the scenes filmed on sets with actors are frightfully over-lit. Or not even over-lit - just badly lit. The interiors of Jabba's palace are certainly dim enough, and the vast depth of the entry hallway, terminating in a crescent of bright desert light, is a great achievement, responsible for two of the film's best images. But those aliens, boy do they look like props: the little monkey-beast Salacious Crumb (who was, like an astonishing number of characters in this film and the Ewoks as a species, only given a proper name in the merchandising for the movie, not its dialogue) looks exactly like a puppet, and if I were to see him popping up in a crowd scene in Fraggle Rock, I wouldn't bat an eye. Jabba himself is so clearly a rubbery suit - in one shot, you can see what looks suspiciously like a molding seam under his left arm - that it takes a huge amount of commitment from Fisher and Mark Hamill to make it seem like the gangster is a threat at all. More generally, the film has a bad tendency to make sets look like sets and props like props and matte paintings like (beautiful, detailed, rich) matte paintings: for what was assuredly not a cheap production, Return of the Jedi surely doesn't look like it cost much.

Beyond its stylistic limitations, the film's screenplay (Lawrence Kasdan came back from Empire, now to share a script credit with Lucas, who takes sole story credit) is much the weakest in the trilogy as well. Most apparently, the film has a protracted false first act, in which all of the main protagonists and nobody else go to rescue Han, and it has no connection at all to the rest of the movie, which starts only when all of the main protagonists and nobody else with a name or line of dialogue gets to head to the forest to have adventures. This is clumsy, and the rumored original notion that the third Star Wars film would consist of the quest to find Han with an unrealised fourth involving the final assault against the Empire would have been, I suppose, unambiguously better. But it's not just the clunkiness of having to entirely re-start a feature film after it's nearly a third of the way over. There's a smallness to this: a sense that nothing matters outside of this handful of characters, and that the universe literally doesn't exist without them. This is most appallingly evident in the mid-film twist, the discovery that Luke and Leia are brothers: the rumored original notion had a totally different Skywalker sister, which would have maybe been less "cool", but would have made more sense, and freed the series from the horrifying intimations of incest that now retroactively enter the first two movies, especially Star Wars's sketched-in romantic triangle.

But then, fucking with the series' established continuity is something Jedi does disappointingly well. Empire, of course, got to cheat: it let the reveal that Darth Vader was Anakin Skywalker hit us in the gut and then it ended without dealing with the ramifications of that. Jedi is the one that has to do the clean-up work, dragging in poor blue-tinged Alec Guinness to deliver a speech that even his extraordinary gifts can't redeem, with Obi-Wan Kenobi's attempt to paper over a pretty glaring plot hole making him sound like even more of an idiot than an asshole - and he sounds like quite an asshole. "Luke, I lied, because you needed to hear that lie" would have been no less unethical and quite a bit less convoluted than the dismal monologue that not only screws with Star Wars but gave an entire trilogy of prequels a task to fulfill that they are not remotely prepared for.

There's plenty of sloppy writing that's much smaller: the eyebrow-raising development that untrustworthy rogue Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams, given much less interesting to do in this film than the last) is now a general in the Rebellion, and using a joke to call attention to that fact doesn't help. Worse yet is everything to do with Han Solo: I don't know if it was an attempt to punish Harrison Ford for wanting to be largely written out of the movie and killed off at the end (this was back in the "Search for Solo" draft), but his character has been written into a more fumbling, inconsequential comic relief idiot than the prissy C-3PO ever was. Han does nothing well, overreacts, and gets some of the wobbliest dialogue, and has only one mournful look at at his beloved Millennium Falcon to make up for all of it. No more of the great space pirate of Star Wars here.

All of that is a tremendous amount of complaining about a movie I largely enjoy. The truth is, what doesn't work in Return of the Jedi mostly happens at the margins - and it happens at most of the margins. But the meat of the film is generally good: as the major showpiece film for Lucas's new effects house ILM, there was an impetus to include as many visual effects and as many different kinds of effects as possible, and it is immodestly satisfying as a work of spectacle as a result, whether something as elaborate as the final space battle or as quiet as the Death Star in the Endor night sky. It has the benefit also of getting better and better as it goes along. The film's climax is, to my mind, the best-assembled setpiece in the Star Wars franchise, combining a tremendously inventive and well made as that space battle with its astonishing number of moving parts, a hectic ground battle, and the relatively small and coiled-up battle of wits between Luke, Vader, and the cackling Emperor (Ian McDiarmid). The editing flawlessly matches the mood in each location to give the whole piece of cross-cutting a single fluid narrative line, and John Williams stitches it all together with an exemplary piece of scoring that juggles themes from across the franchise and culminates in an impressively soaring piece of choral music as Luke hammers on his father with a lightsaber.

Williams's score is, once again, the best thing going on here: we're back to the more insistent "music as storytelling" aspect of Star Wars, after Empire mostly used score as especially omnipresent mood setting. His woodwind-driven theme for the Ewoks goes a long way to making those toys-in-waiting seem otherworldly and also gives the impression they have some kind of real culture, which is part of why I'm so content to tolerate them; his new theme for Luke and Leia has a dour tenderness that's subdued in all the ways that the rest of the score is not, and is thus all the stronger for it. The way that the Vader's established theme and the Satanic droning of the new motif Williams writes for the Emperor cut in and out of each other is already enough to make their relationship one of the most driving and well-defined in the movie, and we don't even know who the Emperor is, really. Throw Luke into that mix, and add Hamill's most confident, but also most haggard performance yet, and there's a three-way conflict throughout the second half of the film that is as interesting and complex as anything in the character arcs of anyone in the Star Wars series. It's astonishing, really, how bland Leia is (though Fisher gives her all, and even with less to play, she's personally at the same level she was in Empire), and how outright bad Han is, when Lucas and Kasdan had things like Vader's deep film-long ambivalence waiting inside of them.

Anyway, the film's last sequences are by far its most powerful and exciting, and not even the hokey Ewok song at the end (which I still much prefer to the hokier celebratory suite ending the Special Edition cut of the film) can rob the echoes of the emotional heights reached by Hamill's purposeful downshift from fury to calm after his last lightsaber battle, or McDiarmid's lizardlike croak switching from pleasure to rage (McDiarmid is absolutely magificent in the role: he's hamming it up while also being totally plausible as a realistic figure of literally pure evil, and his faux-kindly way of delivering crushing taunts to Luke is some of the best villainy in all of popcorn cinema), or the solo harp carrying Anakin Skywalker to his grave.

In sum: it's a film that's pretty rough, even by Star Wars standards, at story structure and plot holes; it's largely captivating at gigantic SFX and VFX spectacle; it's good at family movie and it's trivial at adult movie. But it is truly splendid and moving at Luke Skywalker's character arc: taken as the culmination of three films' worth of building him up, and challenging him with his own flaws, it is a rich, operatic finale. Even if we just take it as the sum of this one movie's journey from Luke's quiet expression on the hologram projected in Jabba's throne room to the grin of triumph as he rejoins his friends after saying goodbye to his redeemed father, it is moving and soaring and Hamill, though never anywhere close to a major actor, earns every bit of the emotions the film traffics in for its final twenty minutes. The proportion of good-to-bad in Return of the Jedi is damned dubious, but it leaves us on a huge high after a protracted burst of its best material, and that makes it a hell of a popcorn movie, even after everything.

7/10

Reviews in this series
Star Wars (Lucas, 1977)
The Empire Strikes Back (Kershner, 1980)
Return of the Jedi (Marquand, 1983)
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (Lucas, 1999)
Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (Lucas, 2002)
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (Lucas, 2005)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (Abrams, 2015)

23 comments:

  1. Some enterprising soul decided to imagine what Lynch's Jedi would be like: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PALjbTo1D5U

    ReplyDelete
  2. I never really had a problem with the Ewoks personally. I liked them as a kid, but didn't grow up to loath them as so many have. What I have grown to loath, as you pointed out, is this movie's version of Han Solo. I never heard the theory that it was a punishment for wanting to be written out - I always thought it was the screenwriters' way of wrestling the movie back to Luke after Han more or less stole the whole show in Empire. Either way, he's the worst. Killing Boba Fett by accident, saving Lando by accident, giving up the game to the scout troopers - and then the blatantly stupid orders to his squad - "all right, everybody whose face isn't on the poster, go for a walk for the rat of the movie. But be back for the finale, we'll need you to be captured later." He's easily the worst military commander in Rebel Alliance history.

    ReplyDelete
  3. David Lynch's Jabba the Hutt: a pretty scary thought there.

    As I said on YouTube: say what you will about the Ewoks; I think the "Ewok Parade" is some of the best music in the series.

    Speaking of which, are the rumors true that the original plan was to have the final ground battle on Chewie's home planet?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I must admit, this movie does have merit. But personally its hard for me to get over how god awfully clunky and hamfisted the script is. So many scenes don't have characters making conversation, they have plot props making declarations.

    "I sense good in you!"

    "I'm too evil to be saved."

    "Kill your father. That will turn you evil. Or me. Either works."

    Its cringe inducing to have some of the worst examples be in scenes that are meant to be the emotional heart of the movie.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I dunno about your "man, Jabba and Leia on the barge! what a tonal difference!" thing because - as I think you yourself have said in the context of slashers or the Heavy Metal movie - twelve-year-old boys like giant space slugs and metal space bikinis in equal measure.

    The climax, now - I remember watching this as a kid, maybe ten or twelve, and being literally unable to follow the scenes on the Death Star because I simply could not figure out what the Emperor was trying to do. I mean, having rewatched it as an adult, it's great and pulpy-dark in exactly the right measure, but it is just not in the same movie as wacky jungle pitfall trap hijinx and that babbling dude sitting next to Lando.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I always find myself surprised at people who say the movie's first act is completely disconnected from the rest of the story. It is not, perhaps, a baseless claim, and its prime purpose IS far more about resolving the lingering question of Han's fate than anything to do with what winds up being "Jedi"'s main plot, but I also feel like it is essential in establishing that the Luke Skywalker we will be dealing with for this movie is not the lost young man who only one movie ago lost his hand (and indeed the foundation of his own self-image once he learned just who his father REALLY was), but instead a truer Jedi than he has ever been before, cunning and powerful and fully able to exercise those new strengths to defeat an enemy who has successfully out-maneuvered the usually-more-on-the-ball Han Solo. Given the threats he faces afterwards, I feel like it's rather crucial we understand that this is how far Luke has evolved since "Empire", too. So yes, it's mostly a mini-story unto itself, but that opening act feeds into the rest of "Jedi" better than I feel it tends to get credit for.

    Honestly, though, the movie's effective ascension of Luke is its biggest saving grace all over. I agree with most of the complaints you list here (save Jabba, who I actually rather liked as the final reveal for that mysteriously looming shadow in the background), but I forgive ALL of them for successfully delivering on the promise the original "Star Wars" first gave, that this seemingly-unassuming farm-boy could in fact become the new rebirth of the Jedi Order. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me" is a line that gets me every bit as much as "I am your father", and the fact that Luke's final, defining act is as honest as it is (rejecting the Dark Side the only way he truly can, by laying DOWN the immense power he's shown all over the film elsewhere) makes for an incredibly effective cap to his character arc.
    It cannot erase the many ways "Jedi" goes awry, perhaps, but it CAN make the film a remarkably effective ending to the original Trilogy, one that feels earned and right even despite its obvious deficiencies.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There was a feeling right at the end of Empire, as the battered heroes look out the window while the music plays a soaring theme of hope, of the possibilities of the next installment. The characters, having been soundly beaten, would pull something tremendous out of their courage and moxy, would certainly have to go to the extreme length's of badassery, in order to defeat the empire. And Jedi was going to be the film that delivered everyone's shining moment.

    Only Luke got his moment. Save for the Speeder Bike sequence, nothing cool happened on Endor, thus robbing both Solo and Leia of the heroic exploits we expected from them. Chewie is in this movie, not that anybody remembers. And the whole, "attack the second Death Star" thing was just lazy, almost as if Lucas couldn't be bothered to think of anything creative, and so just decided to regurgitate his previous climax but with better special effects.

    They delivered on none of the things that the end of Episode V promised. The empire fell so easily. On what felt like a random Tuesday. In the same situation the heroes used two movies ago.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Every time I watch Jedi, I think of how great it is for the first act of the movie, but by the time they rescue Han and fly away from Jabba's exploding sail barge, it all kinda comes to a halt.

    It could be another piece of famous George Lucas revisionism, but I recall hearing him in a commentary on Jedi saying that his original plan was to have Jedi's resolving conflict take place on Coruscant, but because of budgetary restrictions, he couldn't make his vision of that work, and so opted out for the second Death Star thing. Didn't a Harrison Ford starring sci-fi pic just come out at that time which successfully depicted a large bustling dystopian metropolis tho? I guess I don't want to belittle the production challenges, but that would be cool. The Death Star could stay in the first movie.

    I thought, wouldn't it be cool if the moon of Endor was actually orbiting Coruscant? Then maybe throw in some themes of industrialization of the empire vs. the ewoks on Endor, being a forest moon and whatnot. I'm getting ahead of myself but it seems like no brainer to me now with the coruscant idea.

    But yeah, I sort of agree that the ewoks get too much hate. Their creature design is blatantly cute, especially the lead ewok interaction with Leia, but at the same time they feel like a real functioning primitive humanoid alien culture, or something.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You talk about Han being terrible in this movie, but I think Leia is even worse. She's like an entirely different person in the Ewok village. Mopily wanders through the trees, speaks in weirdly vague platitudes, and breathlessly asks Han to hold her, this lovesick puppy dog thing. Not that female characters can't show a softer side, but I don't see any of the complex, competent woman she was in Star Wars/Empire Strikes Back.

    And then the whole sister thing...basically Han and Leia got sacrificed for Luke...the trade was worth it, but only BARELY.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I thought the first act of this film was the only part worth watching. Sure, the puppets look like puppets, but we get a lot of good stuff, too. We get exciting action scenes (sorely lacking everywhere else outside of the speeder chase). We get Leia looking sexy – not just in her bikini but in her bounty hunter disguise, when she takes off the helmet and kisses Han, that’s as hot as this franchise gets. We also get that scene of Luke walking into the palace uninvited and unarmed - that’s as badass as this franchise gets.

    After Act I, however, it’s crap. Sorry, Tim, but the supposed mind games between Luke, Vader, and the emperor are terrible. Not only does the emperor try to outwit Luke by spelling out his strategy as candidly and clearly as possible (like when he tells Luke, “Kill me and/or Vader and you will be evil and I will win and the moviegoers will be robbed of a happy ending bwahaha! Wait. Why aren’t you doing it?” or words to that effect.), but his strategy itself is ridiculous. By this point, we’ve seen Luke take the lives of countless storm troopers, imperial fighter pilots, Jabba henchmen, and God knows how many people who were on the first Death Star when he blew it up. Somehow he did all that and kept his soul untainted, but killing either of the two worst men in the galaxy would bring him to the dark side??

    ReplyDelete
  11. Act 1 is like that James Bond opener that only vaguely related to the main story.

    But instead of being like 5 minutes long, its fuckin' FORTY.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems fitting that RotJ was tagged under "Sequels." Not "Worthy Sequels," but not "Needless Sequels" either.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Great point about what a clown Han is this time around. Doesn't the same thing pretty much permeate Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade? I know Ford has always been forthright saying he considers Indy comedy (obviously), but Last Crusade definitely makes the character pretty much a moron (Scottish accent etc.).

    Still, I prefer it. I guess I've always been in the minority thinking Luke is the cool one and Han is the goon. Loser orphan -> Warrior monk is a cooler class evolution than '50s loner -> Emasculated husband. It's just one of those things where since I was born in 1988 I never really separated the movies and always processed the story as a single entity. It's just that basic retroactive parsing where the same way I see everything in Episode IV leading up to Luke's paternity (even as a kid I immediately took Obi-Wan's story about Anakin to be a lie), I see everything in Han's arc leading up to being a tamed and harmless joker (and why I can't imagine how anyone who saw the prequels first could ever enjoy the series).

    It is perhaps not fair as a process reading, which is why it's interesting to follow yours, but then again Star Wars is the epitome of the viewer bringing their own movie with them.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Great review, although I'll still totally go to bat for the opening mini-movie on Tatooine.

    It may be disconnected from the main plot, but it's just so much fun-- It's the series fullest embrace of the John Carter/space romance style of storytelling. Much as I've come to abhor the space bikini and all it has come to represent, I just love that Leia is full on Dejah Thoris with Luke becoming the purest kind of pulp hero, fighting monsters in gladiatorial combat and battling aliens with a sword. It's the last hurrah of swashbuckling style storytelling that "Star Wars" ever gets-- After that, you've got the high-speed speeder chase and the second Death Star run which have a different feel entirely, and the last lighsaber duel of the original trilogy (like those before it) has more in common with samurai duels than anything you'd see in an Errol Flynn movie.

    For that, I'll always love everything about Luke taking on Jabba and his cohorts; if only for the fact that it shows a Jedi willing to use his mind and out-think his opponents rather than simply hacking them into little bits like the superheroes of the prequel trilogy.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I didn't see the two parts as disjointed, really. The opening rescue of Han Solo got me psyched for the second and third acts, and felt like a test of Luke's character before we got onto the main mission. It also enables the movie to escalate from personal (Luke saving his friend) to grand (fighting against the Empire itself).

    One thing that disappointed me, though, was the way Darth Vader's character was handled. Namely, the movie tries too hard to set him up as better than the previous continuity can justify. Only a movie ago, he was killing inferiors left and right, and insisting his son join the Dark Side so they can rule together. Even in this movie, he tries his best to kill his own son. But because he changes his mind and throws the Emperor off a bridge, and basically repents on his deathbed, we're supposed to look upon him more favourably. Callously murdering corruptor =/=> Sympathetic father figure. I wouldn't go so far as David Brin does in his criticism of that dynamic on ContraryBrin blog, but he's got the general point.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I love the heist-movie feel of the Jabba sequence. The sense that there is a plan that we're not privy to, but we can see all the elements coming together, the failure of the initial plan and the confident execution of the backup plan. There's no sense of actual danger because Luke is so damn calm even as he's about to be thrown to the Sarlacc, but a growing sense of excitement at what the hell our heroes are getting up to.

    With regards to the infamous gold bikini, what surprises me is how tastefully it's handled- or should I say, not tasteless. The camera never once stops to ogle Leia in her getup (just imagine that scene shot today by Micheal Bay), and the sense is more that Jabba made it happen as his version of a hilarious joke. And then she uses the bikini itself, or at least the chain that's as much a part of the costume as anything, as the weapon that destroys him once and for all. I won't argue that Lucas and crew didn't deliberately stack the deck so that they could put their sole attractive female in a revealing costume, but I will argue that they at least found a way to make it fit with the actions and motivations of the characters.

    ReplyDelete
  17. What strikes me most about "Return of the Jedi" in terms of wasted potential, is this exchange between Luke and Obi-Wan :

    Obi-Wan : So, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view.
    Luke : A certain point of view?
    Obi-Wan : Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view

    Does this not beg to be followed by a musical number featuring Obi-Wan singing about the subjective limitations of the truth? Maybe it's just me, but I can't even read the the last quote without hearing the line "on our own point of view" being sung with the orchestration starting up.

    Ok, maybe it is just me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I mainly have two big issues with Return:
    1. How it handles Leia--not just the bikini, which is obviously gross, but the way it removes all agency from her narrative by retconning her to be Luke's sister. Empire seemed to be setting her up to make a choice between Luke and Han, and Return essentially takes that away from her and makes her a counterpart in the process--instead of being "Leia", she's now "Luke's sister" and "Han's girlfriend". It's not as if she was a beacon of feminism in the earlier films, but this is really the death knell for her character and all the ways she's been unfairly treated in the scripts.
    2. There's really no reason it couldn't have been James Earl Jones instead of Sebastian Shaw under the mask. His is the performance we remember for Vader, and he deserved to get some actual screen time out of it as well. Especially since then Vader would've been canonically black, which would've been nice for a series as sparse in representation as Star Wars has been.

    I also have qualms with the Emperor (basically I think he wrecks the more complex morality introduced in Empire and I find the original conception hinted at in drafts and outlines vastly more compelling than what we got), but that at least still works and more a matter of personal taste than anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I'll link to the instalment of my own podcast-shaped retrospective where some friends and I discuss our thoughts on Return of the Jedi at length - http://twofriendswatch.libsyn.com/star-wars-return-of-the-jedi

    In brief, I actually like this movie slightly more than I gather is the consensus - it's actually the only Star Wars film I feel is customarily given less than it's due. Not as good as Empire of course, but I'd put it about on par with A New Hope; if the plot's a bit more cumbersome and contorted, then that's offset by the deeply satisfying resolution of Luke's character arc. I certainly don't have a problem with the opening scenes on Tattoine; they always felt to me like an entrance exam, the warm-up giving Luke a chance to demonstrate how far he's advanced since we last saw him.

    If there's one major problem I DO have, it's the film's characterisation of the Dark Side - less as an allegory for the perversion of good intentions and more as an actual, literal, magical "force" that can automatically reshape someone's personality against their will. It cheapens the moral conflict established in Empire, but it's the only way that I can make sense of the Emperor's claim that being killed by Luke would be a victory for him.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I am stunned at all the Jabba hate. That is the most evocative,compelling, original sequence in the film and a truly glorious example of animatronics at work. Jabba ranks up there with the Alien queen, Audrey II,and the Thing as landmark practical effects achievements.

    Having said that, the rest of the movie is pretty shaky. Corny Han, bad dialogue, and incredibly shoddy Ewok costumes. I don't even think they would bother me much if their eyelids and mouths just moved a little.I still love it, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Just to beat a dead horse some more, here's what Carrie Fisher had to say about her controversial outfit. I'm not making any kind of point, I just find out interesting.

    "Fisher said "The father who flipped out about it, "What am I going to tell my kid about why she's in that outfit?" Tell them that a giant slug captured me and forced me to wear that stupid outfit, and then I killed him because I didn't like it."

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/165311-Carrie-Fisher-Weighs-in-on-Slave-Leia-Controversy?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=share&utm_campaign=all

    ReplyDelete
  22. This is kind of silly, but I still feel it.
    I can't quite understand how people rate this one so low. This is the movie that features the climax and resolution of Luke's arc, which is kind of the whole point of the OT, and it does so in a satisfying way, even according to Tim's review. So in a way the movie goes to the very heart of the story they claim to love. So even if it has other problems, the movie should mean something to them. How can they downgrade that?
    Maybe fans just don't like endings, they want more. Luckily for them, Hollywood agrees.
    More likely, it's just that I'm too sentimental. Because I cry with the "ewok dead in battle" bits. Oh yes I do.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There's plenty of sloppy writing that's much smaller: the eyebrow-raising development that untrustworthy rogue Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams, given much less interesting to do in this film than the last) is now a general in the Rebellion, and using a joke to call attention to that fact doesn't help.


    Untrustworthy rogue???? You mean Lando would have been a lot more trustworthy if he had chosen to risk the lives of Bespin's citizens and help Han? Then he would have become an untrustworthy leader. The pity is that Leia and Chewbacca were so blinded by their emotions that they were too stupid to realize the situation that both Han and Vader had put Lando in.

    Or did you expect Lando to be "the good boy" and play at being Han's other sidekick?

    ReplyDelete

Just a few rules so that everybody can have fun: ad hominem attacks on the blogger are fair; ad hominem attacks on other commenters will be deleted. And I will absolutely not stand for anything that is, in my judgment, demeaning, insulting or hateful to any gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or religion. And though I won't insist on keeping politics out, let's think long and hard before we say anything particularly inflammatory.

Also, sorry about the whole "must be a registered user" thing, but I do deeply hate to get spam, and I refuse to take on the totalitarian mantle of moderating comments, and I am much too lazy to try to migrate over to a better comments system than the one that comes pre-loaded with Blogger.