“The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga” – Jar-Jar Binks

Here is the seventh article on moral ambiguity found in the STAR WARS saga: 

 

 

“The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga”

Jar-Jar Binks

I have encountered many articles on the Internet about why many fans consider the “STAR WARS” Prequel movies a failure. A number of these articles tend to be dominated by opinions on what was wrong with the Gungan character known as Jar-Jar Binks and why he is so hated.

First of all, what was really wrong with Jar-Jar Binks? Well . . . I have several opinions. And they are not pretty. One, Jar-Jar clumsy and naive. Jar-Jar’s clumsiness had irked Boss Nass and the other Gungans for years. And when the young Gungan wrecked the Boss’ personal heyblibber submarine, the latter had him banished from Otoh Gunga, the city underneath Naboo’s waters. In “STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE”, Jar-Jar’s meeting with Jedi Master Qui-Gon Jinn and Jedi padawan Obi-Wan Kenobi, the adventures he shared with them and his participation in the Battle of Naboo, allowed Jar-Jar to resume his position within Gungan society.

Many fans still solely blame Jar-Jar for Chancellor Sheev Palpatine’s growing political power, when he, as the Junior Representative for Naboo in the Galactic Senate, had proposed that the Sith Lord receive emergency executive powers during the political crisis leading up to the Clone Wars in “STAR WARS: EPISODE II – ATTACK OF THE CLONES”. But other Star Wars characters had committed their own share of mistakes – including those Original Trilogy characters worshiped by the franchise’s fans. Naboo’s Queen Padmé Amidala (later Senator) had declared a no-confidence vote against Chancellor Finis Valorum in “STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE”, unintentionally paving the way for Palpatine’s election as the Galactic Republic’s chancellor. The Original Trilogy leads had committed their own mistakes – especially in “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”. Padmé was never crucified by the fans for her mistake in “THE PHANTOM MENACE”. As far as many are concerned, her only mistake was marrying then Jedi padawan Anakin Skywalker (the future Darth Vader) in “ATTACK OF THE CLONES”. Many fans have been willing to criticize Padmé, Anakin and many other Prequel Trilogy characters. But I do not ever recall any of them being crucified for their flaws and mistakes like Jar-Jar. I could almost say the same about the Original Trilogy leads. However, very few STAR WARS have been willing to even acknowledge their mistakes.

So, why had so many fans had dumped so much hatred upon Jar-Jar’s head? Why do they still crucify him in such an excessive manner? Many claimed that due to Jar-Jar’s naivety and clumsiness and especially his dialect that seemed to resemble a Caribbean patois, Jar-Jar was a racist fictional trope. The ironic thing is that actor Ahmed Best, who is African-American, was responsible for the creation of the Gungan dialect, not George Lucas. Best, who had initially been hired to provide Jar-Jar’s motion capture performance, was the one who had created Jar-Jar’s speech pattern. He was also the one who had convinced Lucas to allow him to also provide the character’s voice. Because of this, I have a great difficulty in agreeing with those criticisms that Jar-Jar was a racist trope. Unless this accusation stemmed from the fact that an African-American actor had provided the character’s voice. For me, that says a lot about many moviegoers and film critics and not the character or Lucas.

Had Jar-Jar’s lack of social graces created so much hatred from certain fans?After all, he was clumsy and naive. Considering that the franchise’s biggest fans tend to be “geeks”, did many of these fans (who tend to be the loudest on the Internet) view Jar-Jar of their own personal flaws? Or lack of social graces? Was that another reason why they hated him so much? He reminded them too much of themselves? I can understand why many of these fans would rather associate themselves with characters that are regarded as “cool” or “ideal”, instead of a character who may have possibly been a reflection of themselves.

There is also the consideration that Jar-Jar was a part of the Prequel Trilogy. And in the eyes of the Darth Media and rabid fanboys, anything or any character that originated with the Prequel Trilogy was bad. It is still bad, as far as they are concerned. Why? Even more so than the Original Trilogy or the Sequel Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy seemed to come closer to being a TRUE reflection of mankind and its societies’ ambiguous nature. For me, watching a Prequel Trilogy movie seemed to be the equivalent of a human being looking into a mirror and seeing his or her true self. And for some reason, this seemed to bother many fans. Most of their complaints about the Prequel Trilogy seemed to stem from this ambiguity. The only STAR WARS movies that seemed to have come close to the Prequel movies’s ambiguity are “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK” and “ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY”. These films did not allow moviegoers allowed their characters to make some ambiguous decisions without being painted as “heroic” or “cool”. Nor did these movies have their characters triumph in the end.

In a way, both Jar-Jar Binks and the STAR WARS Prequel Trilogy seemed like a true reflection of humanity. Jar-Jar’s clumsiness and naivety could easily be a reflection of the same level of social graces as many of the franchise’s fans. And the Prequel Trilogy definitely struck me as a reflection of our societies throughout history. As I finish this article, I find myself wondering if this is more of a exploration of the STAR WARS fandom’s ambiguity than of Jar-Jar’s character. Because I find these fans’ hatred of Jar-Jar rather disturbing . . . and odd.

image

 

“GANGS OF NEW YORK” (2002) Review

 

“GANGS OF NEW YORK” (2002) Review

With the exception of a few, many of Martin Scorsese’s films have been set in the City of New York – whether in the past or present. One of those films is his 2002 Oscar nominated film, “THE GANGS OF NEW YORK”

Loosely based upon Herbert Ashbury’s 1927 non-fiction book, “GANGS OF NEW YORK” had the distinction of being a crime drama about a gang war . . . set during the first half of the U.S. Civil War. Before I continue, I should add that the film was not only based upon Ashbury’s book, but also on the life and death of a street gang leader named William Poole.

“GANGS OF NEW YORK” began in 1846, when two street gangs – the Protestant”Nativists” led by William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting; and the “Dead Rabbits”, an Irish immigrant gang led by “Priest” Vallon; meet somewhere in the Five Points neighborhood of Manhattan for a fight. Near the end of a vicious street brawl, Cutting kills Vallon. A close friend of Vallon hides his young son inside an orphanage on Blackwell’s Island. Sixteen years pass and Vallon’s son, who has renamed himself Amsterdam, returns to the Five Points neighborhood to seek revenge against “Bill the Butcher”, who now rules the neighborhood. Against the back drop of the early years of the Civil War, Amsterdam maneuvers himself into Cutting’s confidence, as he waits for the right moment to strike and get his revenge against the man who killed his father.

There are aspects of “GANGS OF NEW YORK” that I either liked or found impressive. Considering that Scorsese shot the film at the Cinecittà Studios and the Silvercup Studios in Queens, New York; I must admit that I found Dante Ferretti’s production designs serving for Manhattan rather impressive. Impressive, but not exactly accurate or near accurate. The movie looked as if it had been shot on a sound stage. But I must say that I admired how the designs conveyed Scorsese’s own vision of Manhattan 1862-63. I also noticed that the color tones utilized by cinematographer Michael Ballhaus reminded me of the three-strip Technicolor process from the early-to-mid 1930s. Rather odd for a period movie set during the U.S. Civil War. However, thanks to Ferretti’s designs and Michael Ballhaus’ very colorful photography, the movie’s vision of 1860s Manhattan had a theatrical style to it – especially in the Five Points scenes. I did not love it, but I found it interesting.

I could probably say the same about Sandy Powell’s costume designs. They struck me as an extreme version of 1860s fashion, especially in regard to color and fabrics, as shown in the image below:

And there was something about the movie’s costume designs for men that I found slightly confusing. Mind you, I am not much of an expert on 19th century fashion for men. But for some reason, I found myself wondering if the costumes designed for the male cast were for a movie set in the 1840s, instead of the 1860s, as shown below:

But if I must be honest with myself, I did not like “GANGS OF NEW YORK”. Not one bit. The movie proved to be a major disappointment. One of the main problems I had with this film was that Scorsese; along with screenwriters Jay Cocks, Steven Zaillian and Kenneth Lonergan; took what should have been a character-driven period crime drama and transformed it into something nearly unwieldy. When you think about it, “GANGS OF NEW YORK” was basically a fictionalized account of a feud between American-born William Poole and an Irish immigrant named John Morrissey, the former leader of the real “Dead Rabbits” gang. And their feud had played out in the early-to-mid 1850s. Instead, Scorsese and the screenwriters shifted the movie’s setting to the early years of the Civil War and ended the narrative with the New York City Draft Riots of 1863 in some attempt to transform what could have been a more intimate period drama into this gargantuan historical epic. I found this perplexing, considering that the Civil War had little to do with the film’s main narrative. It also did not help that the film’s narrative struck me as a bit choppy, thanks to Scorsese being forced to delete a good deal of the film at the behest of the producers.

I did not have a problem with the conflict/relationship between Bill Cutting and Amsterdam Vallon. I thought Scorsese made an interesting choice by having Amsterdam ingratiate himself into Cutting’s inner circle . . . and keeping his true identity a secret. This paid off when Amsterdam saved Cutting from an assassinating attempt, leading the latter to assume the position of the younger man’s mentor. At first, I could not understand why Scorsese had included a romantic interest for Amsterdam in the form of a grifter/pickpocket named Jenny Everdeane. In the end, she proved to be a catalyst that led to Amsterdam and Cutting’s eventual conflict near the end of the film. One of the few people who knew Amsterdam’s true identity was an old childhood acquaintance named Johnny Sirocco, who became infatuated over Jenny. When he became aware of Amsterdam’s romance with Jenny, Johnny ratted out his friend’s identity to Cutting.

But what followed struck me as . . . confusing. On the 17th anniversary of his father’s death, Amsterdam tried to kill Cutting and failed. Instead of killing the younger man in retaliation, Cutting merely wounded Amsterdam, branded the latter’s cheek and declared him an outcast in the Five Points neighborhood. An outcast? That was it? I found it hard to believe that a violent and vindictive man like Bill “the Butcher” Cutting would refrain from killing someone who tried to kill him. Perhaps this scenario could have worked if Cutter had tried to kill Amsterdam and fail, allowing the latter to make his escape. Or not. But I found Scorsese’s scenario with Amsterdam being banished from Cutting’s circle and the Five Points neighborhood to be something of a joke.

As for the movie’s performances . . . for me they seemed to range from decent to below average. For a movie that featured some of my favorite actors and actresses, I was surprised that not one performance really impressed me. Not even Daniel Day-Lewis’ Oscar nominated performance as William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting. Mind you, Day-Lewis had one or two scenes that impressed – especially one that involved a conversation between Bill the Butcher and Amsterdam, inside a brothel. Otherwise, I felt that the actor was chewing the scenery just a bit too much for my tastes. Leonardo Di Caprio, on the other hand, was crucified by critics and moviegoers for his portrayal of the revenge seeking Amsterdam Vallon. Aside from his questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with Di Caprio’s performance. I simply did not find his character very interesting. Just another kid seeking revenge for the death of his father. What made this desire for revenge ridiculous to me is that Bill the Butcher had killed “Priest” Vallon in a fair fight. Not many critics were that impressed by Cameron Diaz’s performance. Aside from her questionable Irish accent, I had no real problems with the actress. I had a bigger problem with her character, Jenny Everdeane. To put it quite frankly, aside from her role serving as a catalyst to Cutting’s discovery of Amsterdam’s true identity, I found Jenny’s role in this movie rather irrelevant.

As for the other members of the cast . . . I found their performances solid, but not particularly noteworthy. I thought Henry Thomas gave a decent performance as the lovelorn and vindictive Johnny Sirocco. The movie featured Jim Broadbent, Roger Ashton-Griffiths, Cara Seymour and Michael Byrne portraying true-life characters like William “Boss” Tweed, P.T. Barnum, Hell Cat Maggie and Horace Greeley. They gave competent performances, but I did not find them particularly memorable. The movie also featured solid performances from the likes of Liam Neeson, John C. Reilly, Brendan Gleeson, Gary Lewis, Lawrence Gilliard Jr., Stephen Graham, Eddie Marsan, David Hemmings, Barbara Bouchet and Alec McCowen. But honestly, I could not think of a performance that I found memorable.

My real problem with “GANGS OF NEW YORK” was Scorsese’s handling of the movie’s historical background. Quite frankly, I thought it was appalling. I am not referring to the film’s visual re-creation of early 1860s Manhattan. I am referring to how Scorsese utilized the movie’s mid-19th century historical background for the film. Earlier, I had pointed out that the Civil War setting for “GANGS OF NEW YORK” barely had any impact upon the movie’s narrative. I think it may have been a bit in error. Scorsese and the screenwriters did utilize the Civil War setting, but in a very poor manner.

“GANGS OF NEW YORK” should never have been set during the U.S. Civil War. It was a big mistake on Scorsese’s part. Day-Lewis’ character is based upon someone who was killed in 1855, six years before the war’s outbreak. Scorsese should have considered setting the movie during the late antebellum period, for his handling of the Civil War politics in the movie struck me as very questionable. From Scorsese’s point of view in this film, the Union is basically a militaristic entity bent upon not only oppressing the Confederacy, but also its citizens in the North – including immigrants and African-Americans. This view was overtly manifested in two scenes – the U.S. Naval bombing of the Five Points neighborhood during the Draft Riots . . . something that never happened; and a poster featuring the images of both Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass that appeared in the movie:

What made this poster even more ridiculous is that the image of Frederick Douglass was anachronistic. Douglass was roughly around 44 to 45 years old during the movie’s time period. He looked at least 15 to 20 years older in the poster.

In “GANGS OF NEW YORK”, Americans of Anglo descent like Bill the Butcher were the real bigots of 1860s Manhattan. Not only did they hate immigrants, especially Irish-born immigrants, but also black Americans. I am not claiming that all 19th century Anglo-Americans tolerated blacks and immigrants. Trust me, they did not. But did Scorsese actually expected moviegoers to believe that most of the Irish immigrants were more tolerant of African-Americans than the Anglos? Apparently, he did. He actually portrayed one character, an African-American named Jimmy Spoils, as one of Amsterdam’s close friends and a member of the latter’s newly reformed “Dead Rabbits” gang. Honestly? It was bad enough that Scorsese’s portrayal of Jimmy Spoils was so damn limited. I cannot recall a well-rounded black character in any of his movies. Not one.

Scorsese and his screenwriters made the situation worse by portraying the Irish immigrants as generally more tolerant toward blacks than the Anglos. In fact, the only Irish-born or characters of Irish descent hostile toward African-Americans in the film were those manipulated by Anglos or traitors to their own kind. According to the movie, the violent inflicted upon blacks by Irish immigrants was the instigation of Federal military policy. By embracing this viewpoint, Scorsese seemed unwilling to face the the real hostility that had existed between Irish immigrants and African-Americans years before the draft riots in July 1863. Actually, both the Irish and the Anglo-Americans – “the Natives” – were racist toward the blacks. One group was not more tolerant than the other. The movie also featured Chinese immigrants as background characters. In other words, not one of them was given a speaking part. If Scorsese had really wanted the New York Draft Riots to be the centerpiece of this movie, he should have focused more on race relations and been more honest about it.

I really wish that I had enjoyed “GANGS OF NEW YORK”. I really do. I have always been fascinated by U.S. history during the Antebellum and Civil War periods. But after watching this film, I came away with the feeling that Martin Scorsese either had no idea what kind of film that he wanted or that he tried to do too much. Was “GANGS OF NEW YORK” a period crime drama or a historical drama about the events that led to the New York Draft Riots? It seemed as if the director was more interested in his tale about Amsterdam Vallon and William “Bill the Butcher” Cutting. If so, he could have followed the William Poole-John Morrissey conflict more closely, set this film where it truly belonged – in the 1850s – and left the Civil War alone. I believe his handling of the Civil War proved to be a major stumbling block of what could have been an well done film.

Top Ten Favorite Movies Set Between 1700 and 1749

Below is my current list of favorite movies set between 1700 and 1749: 

TOP TEN FAVORITE MOVIES SET BETWEEN 1700 AND 1749

1. “Tom Jones” (1963) – Tony Richardson directed this Best Picture Oscar winner, an adaptation of Henry Fielding’s 1749 novel, “The History of Tom Jones, a Foundling”. The movie starred Albert Finney and Susannah York.

2. “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (2006) – Gore Verbinski directed this second entry in Disney’s “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” franchise about the search for the chest that contains Davy Jones’ heart. The movie starred Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley.

3. “Pirates of the Caribbean: Curse of the Black Pearl” (2003) – Gore Verbinski directed this first entry in Disney’s “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” franchise about a dashing pirate who forms an alliance with an apprentice blacksmith in order to save the latter’s beloved from a crew of pirates – the very crew who had mutinied against the former. The movie starred Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightley.

4. “Kidnapped” (1960) – Peter Finch and James MacArthur starred in Disney’s 1960 adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1886 novel about family betrayal in 1740s Scotland. Robert Stevenson directed.

5. “Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End” (2007) – Gore Verbinski directed this third entry in Disney’s “PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN” franchise about the Pirate Lords’ alliance and their stand against the East Indian Trading Company and Davy Jones. The movie starred Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, Keira Knightley and Geoffrey Rush.

6. “Against All Flags” (1952) – Errol Flynn and Maureen O’Hara starred in this swashbuckler about a British sea officer who infiltrates a group of pirates on behalf of the government bring them to justice. George Sherman directed.

7. “Rob Roy” (1995) – Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange starred in this adventure film about Scottish chieftain Rob Roy McGregor and his conflict with an unscrupulous nobleman in the early 18th century Scottish Highlands. Michael Caton-Jones directed.

8. “The Master of Ballantrae” (1984) – Michael York, Richard Thomas, Fiona Hughes and Timothy Dalton starred in this second adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1889 novel about two estranged Scottish noblemen, who are also brothers. Douglas Hickox directed.

9. “Swashbuckler” (1976) – Robert Shaw starred in this adaptation of Paul Wheeler’s story, “The Scarlet Buccaneer”, about a early 18th century pirate who forms an alliance with the daughter of a disgraced judge against an evil imperial politician. James Goldstone directed.

10. “The Master of Ballantrae” (1953) – Errol Flynn, Anthony Steel and Roger Livsey starred in an earlier adaptation of Robert Louis Stevenson’s 1889 novel about two estranged Scottish noblemen, who are also brothers. William Keighley directed.

Moral Compass and the STAR WARS Fandom

 

MORAL COMPASS AND STAR WARS FANDOM

The more posts and articles that I read about the STAR WARS saga, the more I begin to wonder if a great deal of the franchise’s fandom would have preferred if Lucas had allowed the saga to maintain the black-and-white morality of “STAR WARS: EPISODE IV – A NEW HOPE”.

All of the STAR WARS films have their flaws. And although “A NEW HOPE” had its moments of moral ambiguity in the character of smuggler Han Solo, the moral compass presented in the 1977 film seemed more black-and-white than ambiguous. I can even recall one guy complaining on his blog that “A NEW HOPE” was the only film in the franchise that he liked, because the other films that followed had too much ambiguity. I also noticed that when discussing “STAR WARS: EPISODE V – THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”, many fans tend to ignore or make excuses for the questionable actions of the major characters in that film.

Fans made excuses for Chewbacca’s assault upon Lando Calrissian in the 1980 film, because the latter had sold them out to Darth Vader and the Empire in order to prevent the deaths of the Bespin colony’s citizens. They also made excuses for Princess Leia Organa’s support of Chewbacca’s assault. Yet, very few fans and critics have seemed willing to criticize Chewbacca and Leia’s actions . . . or the fact that neither of them ever considered the possibility that their arrival at Bespin had endangered Lando and the citizens. And when I had once questioned why Han never noticed bounty hunter Boba Fett shadowing the Millennium Falcon during its long journey from the Hoth system to Bespin (without an operating hyperdrive), many either dismissed my question or refused to even ponder on that situation. I had also discussed Luke Skywalker’s willingness stop his rage-fueled assault upon his father, Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader in “STAR WARS: EPISODE VI – RETURN OF THE JEDI”, many saw this as an example of Luke’s moral superiority. No one ever pondered on the possibility that Emperor Palpatine’s verbal interruption may have stopped Luke from killing his father.

When it comes to the moral ambiguity of the characters in the Prequel Trilogy movies, a lot of fans tend to scream “bad writing”, instead of exploring the possibility that even the good guys are capable of bad or criminal actions. They reacted at least three ways in regard to the actions of the Jedi characters. One, they tend to accuse Lucas of bad writing when major Jedi characters like Yoda, Mace Windu or Obi-Wan Kenobi made bad decisions. Or they would make excuses for their questionable actions – especially Yoda and Obi-Wan. Or . . . the only Jedi characters they are willing to criticize are Mace Windu for his attempt to kill Palpatine in “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE JEDI” and Qui-Gon Jinn for insisting that Anakin Skywalker be trained as Jedi in “STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE”. Yet, hardly anyone seems willing to question Yoda for his own attempt to deliberately kill Palpatine or Obi-Wan’s willingness to leave a seriously wounded Anakin to slowly burn to death on one of Mustafar’s lava banks in the 2005 movie. Why? Is it because both Yoda and Obi-Wan are considered heroic favorites from the Original Trilogy? Who knows?

Speaking of Anakin, many fans seemed to be upset that Lucas had not portrayed him as some adolescent or twenty-something “bad boy”. Many fans have also expressed displeasure that the Prequel Trilogy had began with Anakin at the age of nine. Why, I do not know. Either this has something to do with the “cool factor”, or they cannot deal with the idea that a mega villain like Darth Vader began his life as an innocent and rather nice boy. Most of all, many fans and critics seem incapable of dealing with Anakin giving in to evil for the sake of his love for Naboo senator Padme Amidala . . . despite the fact that Original Trilogy characters like Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa and Chewbacca have either done or nearly done the same.

Once the Disney Studios had acquired LucasFilm from George Lucas, they seemed bent upon returning to the black-and-white moral compass of “A NEW HOPE” with their 2015 film, “STAR WARS: EPISODE VII – THE FORCE AWAKENS”. The Finn character seems to be another version of Han Solo – starting out as an ambiguous character and emerging as a heroic figure. Aside from one moment near the end of the film, Kylo Ren seemed more like a one-dimensional villain. Perhaps director-writer Rian Johnson will allow the character to break out of this shell in the upcoming “STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII – THE LAST JEDI”. As for the 2016 stand-alone film, “ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY”, many critics and fans had complimented the film for its exploration of the main characters’ ambiguity. Yet, the Jyn Erso character is already being unfavorably compared by the media to the more ideal Rey character from “THE FORCE AWAKENS”. And by the last half hour of “ROGUE ONE”, the main. characters had ditched their ambiguity and embraced being heroes. Not even the current LucasFilm production company, Disney and director Gareth Edwards would allow the main characters to remain ambiguous.

Lucas had started the STAR WARS saga with an entertaining and well done tale with very little ambiguity in 1977 and developed it into a complex and ambiguous saga that I believe did a great job in reflecting the true ambiguous nature of humanity. And yet, it seems that a lot of people remain angry at him for daring to explore our ambiguity in the first place. Some have claimed that STAR WARS is the wrong movie franchise to explore moral ambiguity. Personally, I do not see why not.

The “STAR WARS” Prequel Movies . . . and Mace Windu

THE “STAR WARS” PREQUEL MOVIES . . . AND MACE WINDU

I came across this article on the RETRO ZAP website about the “STAR WARS” Prequel movies called “Beyond Good & Evil in the Prequels”, written by Michael O’Connor. And while I had no problems with most of the article, I had a problem when he centered his focus on Mace Windu.

In a passage from the article, Mr. O’Connor wrote:

“Mace Windu, in particular, is a scowling character who seems fond of putting fools in their place, whether it’s a fellow Jedi like Qui-Gon Jinn or Anakin Skywalker or an adversary like Count Dooku or Chancellor Palpatine.

But the most telling moment for the character may come in Revenge of the Sith, when he insists to Anakin that Palpatine is ‘too powerful to be left alive!’ It can’t be a coincidence that Lucas has him parroting a line Palpatine said to Anakin earlier in the film after Skywalker insists that killing an unarmed Dooku is not the Jedi Way. ‘He was too dangerous to be kept alive’, Palpatine casually notes in that moment.”

Mace seemed “fond of putting fools in their place” . . . including Anakin Skywalker and Qui-Gon Jinn? What exactly was Mr. O’Connor trying to say? That Master Windu, one of the senior members of the Jedi Council, had no right to put others in their place when they stepped out of line? Why? Was it because the character was not featured in the Original Trlogy? Or was it because Master Windu was portrayed by an African-American actor? Had Mr. O’Connor really forgotten that other Jedi characters like Qui-Gon, Yoda, Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ki Adi Mundi had done the same?

And why did Mr. O’Connor point out Mace’s attempt to kill Palpatine in “STAR WARS: EPISODE III – REVENGE OF THE SITH”, yet failed to point out Yoda’s murder attempt on the same character? In the same movie? Was Mr. O’Connor trying to say that as a character portrayed by a black actor, Mace did not have the right to step out of line in such a manner? Only Yoda was allowed? He pointed out that Yoda had not only accepted the Clone Army on behalf of the Republic, he also led them into battle on Geonosis in “ATTACK OF THE CLONES”. He also pointed out Yoda’s lies to Luke Skywalker or withholding of the truth about Anakin/Vader’s true identity. But he failed to point out Yoda’s attempt to murder Palpatine. Why?

Mr. O’Connor also pointed out Obi-Wan Kenobi’s condescending attitude toward beings he considered as lesser being – like Jar-Jar Binks and nine year-old Anakin Skywalker. Yet, he failed to point out Obi-Wan’s capitulation to rage after Darth Maul had struck down his Jedi master, Qui-Gon Jinn in “STAR WARS: EPISODE I – THE PHANTOM MENACE”. Mr. O’Connor failed to point out Obi-Wan’s attempt to convince the older Anakin to spy on Chancellor Palpatine (whom the Jedi believed had a Sith Lord within his circle), even when the younger man felt uncomfortable about the suggestion. And he failed to point out that Obi-Wan had left a disabled Anakin to slowly burn to death on a lava bank, following their duel on Mustafar. Many claim that Obi-Wan could not bring himself to quickly kill his former apprentice . . . as if his lack of action was something merciful. As far as I am concerned, it was not. Leaving someone to slowly die in agony does not strike me as merciful.

I admire Mr. O’Connor’s attempt to point out that the “STAR WARS” saga was not one painted in a black-and-white morality. Well, most of it. And I admire his willingness to appreciate the moral ambiguity in George Lucas’ tale – especially in the Prequel Trilogy. What I did not appreciate was his willingness to use Mace Windu as the main scapegoat for the mistakes of the Jedi Order. Or paint the character as the worst offender within that organization. If he was so willing to point out the worst that Master Windu had done, he could have done the same for not only the other Jedi characters, but other characters within the Prequel Trilogy as well.

“SHINING THROUGH” (1992) Review

 

“SHINING THROUGH” (1992) Review

Many years have passed since I saw “SHINING THROUGH”. Many years. But after reading several reviews of the film over the years, I found myself wondering why I had enjoyed it in the first place. Why? Not many people really liked it.

Based upon Susan Isaac’s 1988 novel, “SHINING THROUGH” told the story of a woman of Irish and German-Jewish ancestry named Linda Voss and her experiences during World War II. The story begins when Linda applies for a job as a secretary at at prestigious Manhattan law firm. Linda is initially rejected, due to not being a graduate of a prestigious women’s college. But when she reveals her knowledge of German, she is hired on the spot. Linda serves as a translator to an attorney named Ed Leland, who is revealed to be an O.S.S. officer after the United States enter World War II. They also become lovers. Despite personal conflicts and separations, Linda and Ed resume their working relationship, until she volunteers to replace a murdered agent in Berlin on short notice. Much to Ed’s reluctance, Linda heads to Berlin and eventually becomes the governess to the children of a high-ranking Nazi officer named Franz-Otto Dietrich.

I eventually learned that “SHINING THROUGH” has developed quite a bad reputation over the years. Many consider it inferior to Isaac’s novel. It is even part of the “100 Most Enjoyably Bad Movies Ever Made” list by Golden Raspberry Award founder, John Wilson. This low opinion of “SHINING THROUGH” has led me to avoid it for years after I had first saw it. In fact, I became even more determined to avoid it after reading Isaac’s novel. Then I recently watched the movie again after so many years and wondered what was the big deal. I am not saying that “SHINING THROUGH” was a great movie. It was not. But I found it difficult to accept this prevailing view that it was one of the worst movies ever made. More importantly, my opinion of the novel is not as highly regarded as it is by many others. Basically, I have mixed feelings about the novel and the film.

The technical crew for “SHINING THROUGH” did a first-rate job. Production designer Anthony Pratt did an excellent job in re-creating both the eastern United States and Germany during the early 1940s. He was ably assisted by cinematographer Jan de Bont, whose photography struck me as particularly rich, sharp and colorful. I found Peter Howitt’s set decorations particularly effective in the Berlin sequences. I especially enjoyed the late Marit Allen’s costume designs for the film. I thought she did an excellent job in ensuring that the costumes effectively reflected the characters’ nationalities, gender, class and positions.

Before I discuss the movie’s virtues and flaws, I have to do the same for Isaac’s novel. I was very impressed by how the writer handled Linda Voss’ relationships with attorney John Berringer, his wife Nan Leland and the latter’s father, Ed Leland rather well. I found Isaac’s handling of Linda’s private life very romantic, complex, detailed, rather messy and very realistic. In fact, I remember being so caught up by Linda’s personal life that by the time the story jumped to the Berlin sequences, I realized that this segment had taken up over half of the novel. But once Isaac’s moved to the story to Linda’s wartime experiences as a spy in Berlin, I found myself feeling very disappointment. It seemed so rushed and unfulfilling. I was also surprised by how my feelings for the novel seemed to be the complete opposite of my feelings toward the movie.

Unlike Isaac’s portrayal of Linda’s private life, I was not impressed by how David Seltzer handled the character’s romance in the movie’s first half. I had no problems with Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas. They had a decent chemistry, if not particularly spectacular. But the Linda/Ed romance lacked the detailed complexity and realism of the literary romance. Instead, I found it turgid, somewhat simple-minded and a bad rehash of clichéd World War II romances found in many past movies. I even had to endure a rendition of the old wartime standby, “I’ll Be Seeing You”, while Linda and Ed hash over his disappearance during the war’s first six months. I also noticed that Seltzer eliminated the John Berringer and Nan Leland characters, which reduced Linda and Ed’s romance into a one-note cliché. All I can is . . . thank God the movie shifted to Linda’s experiences in Berlin. I realize that many fans of Isaac’s novel would disagree with me, but I feel that Seltzer handled the story’s second half – both as the movie’s director and screenwriter – a lot better than Isaac. I realize that this revelation might seem sacrilege to many of the novel’s fans, but I stand by my opinion. Seltzer’s screenplay seemed to go into more detail regarding Linda’s mission in Germany – from the moment when the elderly, German-born Allied spy called “Sunflower” escorts her from Switzerland to Berlin; to Linda’s search for her Jewish relations; and finally to when Linda and Ed’s attempt to cross back into Switzerland. This entire sequence was filled with exciting action, drama, surprising pathos and some first-rate suspense – especially between Linda and two particular characters. My three favorites scenes from this entire sequence were the development of Linda’s friendship with Sunflower’s niece, Margrete von Eberstein; her outing to Berlin’s zoo with the Dietrich children; and her showdown with a Nazi spy after escape from Dietrich’s home. I found Linda’s developing friendship with Margrete fun to watch. The entire sequences regarding both the visit to the zoo and Linda’s showdown with a spy two very suspenseful, yet fascinating sequences.

As I had earlier stated, Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas did not exactly burn the movie screen as a romantic couple. But I thought they managed to create a solid romance . . . enough to rise above Selzer’s turgid writing that seemed to mar the movie’s first forty minutes or so. Griffith did a first-rate job as Linda Voss by conveying both the character’s passion and clumsy skills as a spy. My only problem with Griffith’s performance is that she did not seem to make an effective narrator. Her voice was too soft and Seltzer’s words struck me as over-the-top. Michael Douglas portrayed Ed Leland – Linda’s boss and eventual lover – and gave a very good performance. I thought he was very effective in conveying Ed’s no-nonsense personality. But in my opinion, the best performance came from Liam Neeson, who portrayed Linda’s second employer – Franz-Otto Dietrich. First of all, I have to give kudos to Neeson for portraying Dietrich without the usual negative overtones usually associated with on-screen Nazi officers. Neeson portrayed Dietrich as a soft-spoken and charming man, who also seemed to be a devoted father and very observant man. At the same time, Neeson took care to convey to audiences that Dietrich could also be very ruthless with great skill and subtlety.

“SHINING THROUGH” was the second time I had become acquainted with Joely Richardson. I was very impressed by her portrayal of Linda’s only Berlin friend, Margrete von Eberstein, who happened to be Sunflower’s niece and also a spy for the Allies. Richardson gave a particularly effervescent performance as the very charming Margrete. She also clicked very well with Griffith on screen. John Gielgud probably gave the most crowd pleasing performance in the film as Sunflower, the German aristocrat-turned-Allied spy. Gielgud provided some memorable zingers, while his character delivered scathing criticism of Linda’s skills as a spy. The movie also featured brief appearances of veteran character actors Wolf Kahler and Thomas Kretschmann, who later became a rather busy character actor in the U.S. It also featured solid performances by Patrick Winczewski, Ronald Nitschke, Sheila Allen, Sylvia Sims, Francis Guinan; along with Anthony Walters and Victoria Shalet as the Dietrich children.

Do I believe that “SHINING THROUGH” deserved the movie critics’ contempt, along with the numerous Razzies awards it acquired? No. Not really. It is not the greatest World War II melodrama I have ever seen. And I certainly would not have placed it on a “best movies” list of any kind. “SHINING THROUGH” is basically a mixed bag, much like the Susan Isaac novel upon which it is based. Like the novel, the movie is a study in contradiction. Writer-director David Seltzer’s handling of the Linda Voss-Ed Leland romance could be called a cinematic embarrassment. It is only a miracle that Melanie Griffith and Michael Douglas’ performances were not marred by such bad writing. On the other hand, Seltzer did an excellent job in writing and directing the sequences featuring Linda’s adventures in Germany. If you are not expecting a cinematic masterpiece, I would suggest watching it . . . even if it means enduring the movie’s first forty minutes or so.

“The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga” – Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi

Here is the fourth article on moral ambiguity found in the STAR WARS saga:

“The Moral Landscape of the STAR WARS Saga”

Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi

If examining the moral ambiguity of Jedi masters and knights such as Yoda might be considered controversial, then focusing upon the well-liked Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi could be viewed as a mine trap on my part. Aside from the main three protagonists from the Original Trilogy, there is no one more beloved by many STAR WARS fans than Master Kenobi.

As far as these fans are concerned, Obi-Wan is the ideal Jedi Knight/Master. Or close to being the most ideal. He is not viewed as the most powerful. I suspect that Master Yoda holds that honor in STAR WARS fandom. But I have noticed that many view Obi-Wan as noble and pure. He might as well be the Sir Galahad of the Jedi Order. And while these fans are willing to allow Obi-Wan being capable of a few mistakes, the prevailing attitude seemed to be ideal. However, not all STAR WARS fans harbor this view of Obi-Wan. Some see him as an individual with good intentions and plenty of flaws. And I count myself as among the latter.

The phrase “the road to hell is paved with good intentions” could have been created for many of the Prequel Trilogy characters – especially with Obi-Wan Kenobi in mind. Before one accuses me of viewing the Jedi Master as ineffectual . . . I do not. Obi-Wan had his moments of great wisdom and common sense. But like many other characters in the saga, Obi-Wan had his flaws.

I am still amazed that Obi-Wan managed to have such an unconventional personality like Qui-Gon Jinn as his Jedi master and remain so conventional after so many years. More than any other character in the STAR WARS saga, Obi-Wan seemed to embody the belief in adhering to the rules and philosophies of the Jedi Order. He also seemed to be a fervent supporter of blind obedience of authority figures. Well, I take that back. Obi-Wan seemed to have no problems with questioning Qui-Gno’s authority . . . especially when the latter went against the dictates of the Jedi Order. In short, Obi-Wan seemed to demand that his Jedi master behave in a conventional manner and not question the Order’s ruling body, the Jedi Council.

Obi-Wan turned out to be one of several characters in the saga that suffered from arrogance. This was especially true in his attitude toward the Gungan outcast, Jar-Jar Binks, and the nine year-old Anakin Skywalker in “THE PHANTOM MENACE”. In one sentence, he managed to express this arrogant attitude in one sentence after discovering Qui-Gon’s intentions of bringing Anakin along with them to Coruscant:

“Why do I sense we’ve picked up another pathetic life form…?”

However, Obi-Wan’s biggest mistake turned out to be his decision to train Anakin, following Qui-Gon’s death at the hands of Sith apprentice, Darth Maul. I realize that he merely wanted to follow his late master’s wishes. Following his last meeting with the Jedi Council, Qui-Gon believed that its members would never allowed Anakin to be trained. But when the Council allowed the nine year-old into the Order following his performance during the Battle of Naboo, Obi-Wan insisted upon training him. The newly promoted Jedi Knight had allowed his feelings toward Qui-Gon to blind him from the realization that he might be too young, too inexperienced and too much of a conformist to be the right Jedi mentor for an independent thinker like Anakin.

By “ATTACK OF THE CLONES”, Obi-Wan’s attitude toward “pathetic life forms” seemed to have disappeared, as his friendship toward a short-order cook named Dexter Jettster seemed to attest. But the arrogance remained. Many fans have complained about Anakin’s arrogant tendency to ignore Obi-Wan’s teachings. I believe they had failed to notice how Obi-Wan’s own arrogance had led him to become an ineffectual mentor for the volatile 19 year-old padawan. How can I say this? I feel that Obi-Wan proved to be a lousy Jedi teach for Anakin. Their quarrel inside Former Queen/now Senator Padme Amidala’s Coruscant apartment was not only a testament to Anakin’s penchant for questioning authority. The scene also provided a strong indication of Obi-Wan’s methods as a teacher. For him, it was important that Anakin blindly accept the rules and methods of the Jedi Oder, but also every opinion or statement that left his mouth. Obi-Wan seemed incapable of teaching Anakin how to find an individual path to self-realization or the Force. Instead, he seemed determined to mold his padawan into an ideal image of a Jedi Knight . . . unaware that such a being did not exist.

Obi-Wan’s arrogance also reared its ugly head in his first confrontation with the former Jedi Master-turned-Sith apprentice named Count Dooku aka Darth Tyrannus. When the latter revealed that a Sith master controlled the Galactic senate to Obi-Wan on Geonosis, the younger man quickly dismissed the idea without bothering to consider it. Either he assumed that Dooku was trying to manipulate him, the Jedi Council would have immediately sensed the presence of the Sith, or both.

I found it ironic that as a Jedi disciple, Obi-Wan had been trained never to act as an aggressor in a conflict. Yet, both he and Qui-Gon ended up as the aggressors in their duel against Darth Maul in “THE PHANTOM MENACE”. After the Sith apprentice struck down Qui-Gon, Obi-Wan allowed his aggression and anger to get the best of him and attacked Darth Maul. His anger proved to be temporarily effective and in the end, led to Obi-Wan’s lack of control and Maul’s near victory over him. Obi-Wan’s aggression failed to serve him and he had to calm down in order to finally defeat the Sith apprentice. His aggressive behavior failed to serve him on three occasions in “ATTACK OF THE CLONES” – his attempt to arrest bounty hunter Jango Fett on Kamino, his battle against an acklay in the Geonosis area, and during his and Anakin’s duel against Count Dooku on the same planet. By “REVENGE OF THE SITH”, Obi-Wan’s aggression transformed into arrogance that he saved for combat situations. During his and Anakin’s rescue of Chancellor Palpatine from Count Dooku and General Grievous, Obi-Wan’s comment about the Sith being the Jedi’s speciality clearly expressed this arrogance . . . moments before his quick defeat at the hands of Dooku. “Pride comes quickly before the fall . . . eh?”

“REVENGE OF THE SITH” also marked the period in which the Jedi Order finally realized that someone within Chancellor Palpatine’s circle was the other Sith Lord they had been searching for quite some time. This realization, along with the thinning of the Jedi’s ranks after three years of war led some of the Jedi characters to resort to desperate measures for the Order’s survival. One of those measures included Obi-Wan’s attempt to convince Anakin to spy upon Palpatine. He claimed that he had been initially against what he considered to be a distasteful plan. But Obi-Wan’s later conversation with Jedi Masters Yoda and Mace Windu saw him trying to convince the two Jedi Masters to accept Anakin as a spy for the Order. Perhaps many would disagree, but I suspect that Obi-Wan had lied to Anakin, so that the latter would act as a spy. Worse, he failed to heed Anakin’s warning that the entire suggestion was a bad idea.

Obi-Wan’s lies to Anakin about the spy plan proved to be nothing in compare to his actions on Mustafar. First of all, both he and Yoda had decided to take on Palpatine and Anakin in order to rid the galaxy of the Sith once and for all. Yoda failed to kill Palpatine during their confrontation inside the Senate building on Coruscant. Obi-Wan proved to be more successful . . . somewhat. He managed to track down Anakin to Mustafar, by using Padme. Despite Anakin being more powerful, Obi-Wan managed to hold his own during their duel by keeping his cool. Yet, once Obi-Wan finally defeated his former apprentice, his cool ration seemed to disappear. After ranting angrily, Obi-Wan left the badly wounded Anakin to slowly burn to death on a lava bank. Many Obi-Wan fans claimed that he could not bring himself to kill his former apprentice. I disagree. I suspect that Obi-Wan wanted to punish Anakin for becoming a Sith by allowing the latter to suffer a slow and agonizing death. Once again, I feel that Obi-Wan’s anger got the best of him . . . and failed him. Palpatine and a handful of storm troopers arrived on Mustafar in time to save Anakin from a slow death.

Aboard Senator Bail Organa’s starship, Master Yoda advised Obi-Wan to seek out Qui-Gon’s Force ghost and resume his studies in the way of the Force. Obi-Wan must have taken his advice. He proved to be a more patient and open-minded mentor to Anakin’s son, Luke Skywalker, in “A NEW HOPE”. A good deal of his advice and lessons regarding the Force seemed to reflect those views of the very flexible Qui-Gon Jinn. More importantly, Obi-Wan was willing to sacrifice his life to help Luke and the latter’s friends – Han Solo and Princess Leia Organa – to escape from the Death Star during his final duel against Anakin aka Darth Vader. As a Force Ghost, Obi-Wan advised Luke on how to use the Force during the Battle of Yavin. And in “THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK”, his ghost form advised Luke to contact Yoda for further Jedi training on Dagobah.

Unfortunately, Obi-Wan still managed to commit his shares of mistakes and prove that he had retained some of his old absolutist thinking after two decades. One, he lied to Luke about Anakin’s fate, claiming that the latter had been “murdered” by one Darth Vader. It seemed as if he and Yoda had hoped to manipulate Luke into committing fratricide before the latter could learn the truth. Some fans claimed that both had planned to tell Luke the truth when the latter finished his Jedi training. But in “RETURN OF THE JEDI”, Obi-Wan seemed very disappointed by Luke’s refusal to kill Anakin/Vader. On the other hand, Obi-Wan seemed convinced that his old padawan was beyond saving, ignoring the very words that Padme had whispered to him before her death. The Skywalkers proved otherwise during their confrontation aboard the second Death Star.

In the end, Obi-Wan Kenobi learned a very valuable lesson about the Force, his lack of flexibility and quite possibly, his arrogance. And he did so, thanks to the actions of his two former apprentices Anakin and Luke Skywalker.