The Persuasion Filter and the DCEU

I know it’s been some time since I’ve posted.  The fact is, I was so disappointed about what Warner Bros. did to Zack Snyder’s Justice League that I couldn’t even write a review of the… thing… we got, and that took me out of blogging mode.  That coupled with the need to not put my entire novel online, left us with the tumbleweeds you probably notice all over this blog.

But, although I haven’t been writing, I’ve still been thinking, and not only that, but I’ve been getting a clearer handle on my worldview.  So when I posted about politics, I talked at some length about narratives and perceptions.  And what I’ve realized in the time since then, is that this is all part of a bigger picture: persuasion.  Politics has always been about persuasion, and the most persuasive candidate is usually the one who wins the election.  Simple as that.  The media, whether Fox or CNN or anyone else, has their particular bias and that can be persuasive but it also plays into confirmation bias, which is to say we all like to watch whatever news makes us feel good about what we already think.

But persuasion exists beyond politics.  In fact it exists all around us.  Sales is based on persuasion, and in business sales equals success.  So the most persuasive salesperson is the most effective; the business that manages its branding the most effectively, is the most successful.  Branding, by the way, is a type of persuasion.  It even happens with churches – especially the charismatic churches.  There’s a growing church in this area called Lifepoint Church.  We all wondered how they were growing so rapidly and I finally saw them in action the other day.  They came to my place of work to buy a bunch of food to feed the hungry.  Which is awesome, of course.  But I noticed the way the organization had arranged it, they made this simple act into an event that raised their visibility.  That is to say, the people of the church all came out in a humongous sea of humanity, wearing Lifepoint t-shirts that were red, and which bore the slogan “PAINT THE TOWN RED.”  They all came out at once, and they all had a shopping list that had been given them, and they bought whatever they were asked to buy and donate.

I had to try and figure how that fit with the gospel, where Jesus says when you do something good not to tell anybody but just do it and keep it to yourself, because it shouldn’t be about glory or recognition but just about doing a good thing.  Then I realized that Jesus in his own way was persuasive.  He didn’t just walk around preaching across the countryside, he healed the sick and the blind and raised the dead, cast out demons, and turned water into wine.  And in the end, he went to his death without uttering a word, allowed himself to be stripped and beaten, the flesh flayed off his back, and was nailed to a cross in full view of the public.  He didn’t just talk a lot.  He put himself out there, and put everything on the line.

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., understood this principle in the way he approached his wing of the Civil Rights Movement.  There was persuasiveness in being nonviolent, in letting themselves be attacked by dogs, by policemen with clubs, by men with fire hoses; there was persuasiveness in going to jail and showing that the cause was so righteous that none of these indecencies could take away their dignity.  King’s speeches were persuasive, too.  He didn’t attack people, he attacked policies, and he tried to reach hearts and minds, to appeal to the common humanity in all people.

Now, Lifepoint Church’s techniques aren’t this dramatic because there’s no danger in what they’re doing; but they absolutely are persuasive.  They make themselves visible, they show you that they are an active church that does good things for the community.  It makes people want to be a part of their organization.  That’s just excellent persuasion.  And maybe, when it’s getting people involved in something that actually IS making a difference…maybe it’s a good thing.

So, let’s bring this principle to film, or specifically to the promotion of film.  In the years since Harry Knowles and the other first-generation independent online entertainment journalists opened a pipeline between fans and the entertainment industry beyond the sale and redemption of tickets, we have seen the major film studios learn how to work that system to their advantage.  And the system has evolved, so that now it’s based as much on YouTube as anywhere else.  People are making money just making YouTube videos where they blab about stuff they know little to nothing about.

Disney, being the largest and most successful studio at this point, knows how to make this work for them.  They invite entertainment journalists – both the legitimate ones and some of the more successful internet pundits – to tour the sets, to interview the stars and the creators.  Disney treats them like they’re special.  Now, that’s just good business.  Can you see why?  If you’re a schmoe with a YouTube channel that’s really taken off and you have a couple million followers, you’re feeling kind of like a celebrity yourself.  And to have done all that work, that has to have been what you wanted.  You wanted to be a voice, to be a part of the entertainment industry, even if only on the fringes.

So, by inviting you to the set, a studio, in this case Disney, legitimizes you.  They’ve given you something you want.  They’ve given you access, let you in the door.  They’ve fed you.  They (hopefully) stopped short of the reach-around.  But the other side of that, is they’re effectively making you an ally.  When you go to write about your experience, you’ll have had fun, and your writeup will reflect that.  Or when you make your YouTube video.  Therefore, when you go to the theater to watch the finished film, you’ll feel a sense of ownership because you were there when it was all happening.  You’ll have a ton of fond memories that make you light up just watching the film.  And you’ll probably feel a bit of an obligation to pay them back for the good time, by giving them a good review.  Especially because you want to be invited back next time.

Disney, in fact, does EXACTLY what I’ve just described.  They’re known for it.  Warner Bros., on the other hand, is notorious for being very bad at this game.  Warners, to put it bluntly, doesn’t kiss nerd butts.  Now, that alone isn’t enough to generate negative reviews, obviously.  That won’t happen on its own.  But there’s this DC and Marvel rivalry that has existed since Marvel Comics came to be in the 60’s.  And it’s only natural.  DC and Marvel are competitors.  Like Coke and Pepsi.  Ford and Chevy.  Beatles and Stones.  McDonald’s and all that is good and holy.

So there’s already a pre-existing tendency to choose sides between DC and Marvel.  If you’re a blogger getting your butt kissed by Disney, and being treated as insignificant by Warner Bros., well, that’s going to decide your bias for you real quick.  If you have to pick a side, you’ll pick the side of the butt-kissing every time.  Human nature being what it is.

So the bloggers and the vloggers went out and trashed BvS because it wasn’t a Marvel picture, and nobody at Warners ever even offered them a handy.  It probably wasn’t even a conscious choice.  They thought they were doing their duty.  Now you’ll say, “but wait!  The bloggers and the vloggers and the critics weren’t the ONLY ones who hated the movie, a lot of moviegoers did, too!”  And that’s fair.

Except that a five-minute conversation with the average moviegoer who hates BvS yields, consistently one result: none of them can name a legitimate reason why they dislike the film.  None of them can describe one actual thing about the film that was bad.  And when you counter them, point-for-point, most of them just move the goal posts.  They have to make up stuff that isn’t true, to explain why they don’t like the movie.  You know what that’s a tell for?

Cognitive dissonance.

They BELIEVE the movie is bad, but they don’t know why.  And they can’t accept being wrong, or having been duped.  So they hallucinate all kinds of reasons why the movie was bad.  Which probably indicates they didn’t form their own opinion, here, they sided with their favorite internet personality, or they simply chose Marvel over DC because Marvel movies are good so DC movies can’t be.

Now, here’s Warners’ second mistake.  When they realized they had a branding problem after BvS, they pulled the rug out from under Zack Snyder and made Joss Whedon ruin Zack’s movie.  Yeah, no, that’s what happened.  They MADE Joss ruin Zack’s movie.  I don’t think Joss was like, “I’ll just piss all over everything, here.”  Joss is actually a pretty talented guy.  Warner’s told him, “Zack’s movies aren’t working well for our brand, so make the movie short and funny.”  And Joss said, “um…well I guess if I don’t my career’s going to take a hit, so, this sucks, but at least I’m getting paid.”  Probably.  I mean, I can’t read his mind.

But here’s why this was bad persuasion.  In the first place, it says, “everything we’ve done so far has been bad,” which is throwing under the bus every fan who has paid to own the DC movies and to see them in the theater so far.  It’s throwing under the bus every fan who went in prepared to love BvS and did.  It’s throwing under the bus Zack Snyder, and his wife Deborah, who worked their asses off for years, starting with Man of Steel, to get the DCEU up and running.  In short, it was brand suicide.  It did not persuade anyone who hated the DCEU already, to come see Justice League.  It displeased the diehards who love Zack’s films.  It produced a film for exactly NOBODY.  Justice League the theatrical cut, or “Josstice League,” as some are calling it, is a film for nobody.  It landed with a splat and nobody gave a damn.

Now, here’s the good news.  Warners cleaned house.  All the idiots responsible for these dumb decisions are gone.  Kevin Tsujihara (the King of the Idiots) is out.  Walter Hamada is in.  There are rumblings of many varied projects, which are not all connected.  That sounds off-putting at first, but it could potentially be a great idea.  Here’s why.

It sets up multiple paths to success.  They’ll make some darker films, some lighter films; some low-budget films, and some big-budget ones.  They’ll see which ones audiences respond to most, and then they’ll make more of those.  That’s a good strategy.  It makes me think maybe Mr. Hamada has a good persuasion game.  Maybe he’s going to right some wrongs.

This is backed up by the fact that Warners now actively kisses nerd butts.  Embargoes lifted today for Aquaman set reports.  The trailer drops at SDCC this coming weekend.  And it has been officially confirmed that the #SnyderCut of Justice League exists.  It has not yet been confirmed that it is coming, but there have been a lot of hints, both from Zack Snyder on Vero and from others as well, including Jay Oliva, Zack’s storyboard artist, and Aisha Tyler, the host of the DC panel at the upcoming SDCC.

If Hamada is the persuader and strategist I think he is, this would be a brilliant play.  The bloggers and the vloggers and the journalists have been saying for months that the #SnyderCut doesn’t exist.  For them to be proven wrong in so big a way, would jolt a lot of people out of their mental cages.  Bust some bubbles.  And it might signal the dawning of a new age.  I could be getting ahead of myself, of course.  We’ll probably have a clearer picture, one way or the other, next Saturday.

But until then, I leave you with this food for thought.

Oh, and one other thing:

#ReleaseTheSnyderCut

A good decision (left) and a bad one (right), as solutions to the same problem.

 

“THE LAST JEDI” Review – A New Hope for the Franchise

What I disliked so intensely about “The Force Awakens” was that it seemed to miss the point of Star Wars.  It looked like a Star Wars movie, but it struck me as rather soulless and empty, and the abiding feeling I had as Rey held out Anakin’s lightsaber to Grumpy Old Man Luke, and we irised out to the end credits, was, tragically, “meh.”

I remember shrugging a lot.  I remember writing several articles and various Facebook rants about why they’d gotten it wrong.  So much so that it also sparked some writing from me, on my blog, about the deeper themes in Lucas’s Star Wars trilogies.  JJ Abrams is a Star Wars fan, but he’s the kind of fan I dislike.  He obviously is no fan of the prequels and thus discounts all the wonderful ideas buried beneath the clumsy, stilted storytelling of those films.

Darth Vader: Curing constipation since 1977

But wait, you say.  I’m supposed to be reviewing “The Last Jedi.”  Well, you’re right.  And the reason I’ve spent my first two paragraphs on setup is so you understand that I’m a hard sell for Disney Star Wars.  Hopefully that adds the necessary weight when I say that I absolutely loved Episode VIII: The Last Jedi.

It isn’t a perfect film.  Some of the dialogue, particularly in the opening scenes with Domhnall Gleason’s General Hux and his bridge crew, is so tin-eared it would make even George Lucas cringe.  BB-8 is still a cartoon drawing of all the worst things about R2-D2.  But Rian Johnson did what JJ Abrams couldn’t do (and likely was forbidden from doing) with The Force Awakens: he surprises us.  The characters are actually characters now.  Things happen with purpose and meaning.  It’s a real movie.

Throughout the film’s 155-minute runtime, Johnson makes bold choices and leaves us constantly in fear for the safety of characters young and old.  Things happen that the audience absolutely does not expect.  And through it all, none of these choices ever rings false.  In fact, although Johnson breaks in various ways from what we by now think of as the Star Wars formula, he does so with the full understanding of the weight of those decisions.  Rian Johnson gets Star Wars.  This is a man who has watched all of Lucas’s Star Wars movies and, like me, has found something to appreciate in all of them, even the prequels; likely even Attack of the Clones, with its broken pace and confounding love story.

Luke Skywalker tells Rey something like, “at the height of their power, the Jedi allowed a Sith Lord to take over the Republic and turn it into an Empire.  That’s their legacy.  Hubris.”  Yeah, Luke Skywalker just explained the prequels to Rey.  Everything about that pleases me.  I’ve written before about one of the broader ideas in the original six films being that the Jedi were not so wonderful, and that Anakin, as the Chosen One to restore balance, had to destroy both the Jedi and the Sith, from within.  Although Luke never says that as such, he does confess that he believes it’s time for the Jedi to end.  A surprise cameo from a beloved character – and I won’t spoil it here – leads to the understanding that failure is the greatest teacher, that the burden of all mentors is to see their students grow beyond them, and that we must let go of the past.  It’s bittersweet, it’s wrenching, and it’s absolutely dead-on.

I echo the sentiments of my favorite entertainment journalist, Drew McWeeny, when I say that I was ready to concede that Star Wars no longer belongs to my tribe, that it’s somebody else’s now for better or for worse, and that I’d probably never really love anything new that the brand had to offer.  But Rian Johnson and “The Last Jedi” proved me wrong.  I couldn’t be happier to be so mistaken.

That’s the spoiler-free review.  If you haven’t seen the movie yet, don’t read on.  I went in totally cold and I believe the experience was better for that.  But if you’ve seen the movie, or you have no plans on seeing it and just like reading what I write (hi, Mom!) then let’s make like every customized Honda on the road in 2003 and bust out the huge spoilers.

I have detailed my thoughts on this film’s predecessor, “The Force Awakens,” here and also here.  So I won’t retread too much of that but I will say that Rian Johnson addresses most of those issues perfectly and does so almost right from the start.  When we catch up with the whiney little bitch Kylo Ren, he’s kneeling before Snoke’s throne.  Snoke, by the way, is the worst name to happen to Star Wars since Elian Sleazebaggano in Attack of the Clones.  “Snoke” sounds like something you name your pet badger.

This guy, on the other hand, is more of a Sparky.

Anyway, Kylo is back in his toy Vader helmet and Snoke says he realizes that he’s made a mistake in thinking that Kylo Ren, with those good Skywalker genes, would be another Vader.  “You’re no Vader,” he says.  “You’re a child in a mask.  Take that ridiculous thing off.”  Ren does.  And then, in the turbolift, he throws one of his signature hissy fits and destroys the helmet and a lot of classic Star Wars wall lights.  Fake Vader no more.

Then there’s Luke and Rey.  The most depressing aspect of “The Force Awakens” was, for me, that they turned Han and Luke into assholes.  I hate to say assholes, but jerks just doesn’t cut it.  When his son turns evil and murders a bunch of people and runs away to conquer the galaxy, what kind of guy abandons his wife and returns to a life of crime?  An asshole.  When you make a mess and turn your nephew evil and you’re literally the ONLY PERSON IN THE ENTIRE GALAXY who can stop him, what type of guy runs away to stand on a cliff and cry for thirty years?  An asshole.  There’s just no other way to say it.  For a guy whose name literally means “Bringer of Light” in Hebrew, that’s a bitter pill.

It’s too late to do anything about Han, but the way Rian Johnson solves for Luke Cliffsulker was to walk the only possible line that he had.  He owns it.  When we rejoin them, Rey is still standing there like Little Lord Fauntleroy and Luke is still scowling at her, and then what happens next?  Luke takes the lightsaber from her, throws it off the cliff and growls at her to “go away.”  So.  Luke IS an asshole.  I mean as long as we’re owning it, I’m fine with that.

“Let me get this straight. You came all this way and you didn’t bring beer? How the hell am I supposed to cope with everything sucking?”

In the second place, we discover that Kylo Ren actually is, at least partially, Luke’s fault.  And as I’ve said before, one of the defining aspects of Luke is that he screws up almost constantly.  Actually, sulking is in character for him, too.  So it turns out that once I see it in action, it works.  I have to admit, though, I was still bummed out about mean Luke for a while.  Then Yoda’s Force ghost appears, and it’s a puppet, and it’s Frank Oz, and Yoda laughs and smiles and calls Old Scraggly Luke “Young Skywalker” and winds him up some, pointing out that he’s being a jerk and that the truth is, failure is the greatest teacher of all, and the burden of being a teacher is that your students outgrow you and you have to let go.  It’s the most perfectly Yoda thing, and I was smiling from ear to ear and my eyes were leaking or something, and “The Last Jedi” won my heart.

I had also been worried about Rey.  I didn’t want her to be a Skywalker or a Solo or a Kenobi or any of the other silly fan theories.  Why?  Because there’s no version of that that doesn’t turn a character I like into a monster.  After all, who abandons their kid on a desert world with no guardian?  Not Han and Leia.  Not Luke, or Kenobi.  Even Emperor Palpatine personally went and picked up Anakin when Kenobi left him looking like an exploded hot dog on Mustafar.  You can’t make Luke or Han or somebody into a bigger dick than Palpatine.  And here comes Rian Johnson, explaining that Rey’s parents are nobodies, that they were junkers who sold their child for booze.  If JJ Abrams retcons that in Episode 9, I’ll probably drive to his house and knock him out.

“No, Rey… *I*… am not your father.”

Like “The Empire Strikes Back,” this is a story where the Force-using hero leaves to go on a journey of self-discovery while the other heroes run for their lives and embark on a side quest.  In that sense it’s familiar.  But it’s handled differently, and structured differently, and the choices Rian Johnson makes in the storytelling are consistently surprising, and surprising is exactly what Star Wars needs right now.  So why are “Star Wars Fans” angry?  I put that in quotes because I’ve been a Star Wars fan all my life and I’m not angry.  Maybe it’s the theories.  If you’ve spent the last couple of years theorizing whether Supreme Leader Snoke is anyone important, this movie might piss you off when Kylo Ren cuts him in half and assumes his role as Supreme Leader.  The audience I saw it with cheered, though.  Snoke sucked, let him go.  The Star Wars guy, I mean, not your pet badger.  Although if you have a pet badger, what the hell is wrong with you?  Let him go, too.

“Now I will reveal to you a terrible truth: secretly…this entire time… I have been ENTIRELY unimportant to the plot! Maniacal laugh… MANIACAL LAUGH!!!”

If you’ve been married to the idea that Rey’s parentage has to be a surprise because Luke’s was a surprise, well… yeah this movie probably made you want to go stand on a cliff and cry for thirty years.  Because that’s just the kind of thing you’re into.  But not me.  This movie hit all the notes I needed it to hit, to keep me interested in Star Wars at a time when I was prepared to walk away.  Well-played, Rian Johnson.

Geek Salad: Fandom and the Business of Film

I talk a lot about the art of filmmaking.  Or I suppose I give critiques of movies the way I learned to do with art pieces during my art training years ago, looking at the positive and the negative and trying to be fair and honest in my assessments.  Which for me means I am treating films as an art form, which I think is fair since film is an artistic medium.

However, filmmaking is also a business, and when we talk about the decisionmaking process behind the movies, quite often it’s the business that informs it.  For instance, when we look at the recent announcement that Ron Howard is replacing Phil Lord and Chris Miller in the director’s chair for Lucasfilm’s latest Star Wars Anthology film, the currently untitled Han Solo project, it raises questions about the artistic integrity of the film, even as we understand that this was a business decision.  Scuttlebutt is that Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy and screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan had a difficult relationship with Lord & Miller.

Han Solo Cast
Woody Harrelson’s face makes me wonder what the hell everybody is grabbing.

Lord & Miller are, after all, known primarily as comedic directors.  But likewise we have been told that the Anthology films are meant to be different from the Saga films, to really let directors explore new kinds of Star Wars stories.  Let us also remember that Kennedy and her team at Lucasfilm hired Lord & Miller to direct this movie.  Nobody foisted the directors on them, they didn’t inherit the duo, this was a hiring decision they made, knowing who these guys were.  Now, last year’s “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” directed by Gareth Edwards, wound up getting heavily re-shot by someone not named Gareth Edwards.  The film was restructured in the 11th hour, apparently to make it more like the saga films, and now Kathy Kennedy has fired Lord & Miller from the Han Solo picture.

Kennedy has a responsibility to protect the legacy of the Star Wars brand, but my read is that she’s somewhat conflicted between wanting to explore what a Star Wars film can be, and making sure that she protects the model of what a Star Wars film already is.  The result is almost guaranteed to be another safe and familiar, if entertaining, film.  I have not seen a single film that Lord & Miller have made, but these are the guys who cast Alden Ehrenreich to play young Han Solo, and Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian, and damn if I didn’t want to see the movie they were making, good or bad.  Now nobody ever will.  That feels a little tragic.

On the other hand, there’s also a rumor going around that Lord & Miller, who previously met with Warners and DC about directing “The Flash” before stepping away to do the Han Solo picture, met again with the DC films people during a recent hiatus from filming their Star Wars project, suggesting a possible return to DC.  For a DC comics guy like me, that’s an interesting prospect.  The mostly unfounded stigma against the DCEU is finally lifting, with the success of Wonder Woman, and a good Flash movie, free of all the soap-opera garbage of the CW show, would be a welcome addition to the lineup.

the-flash-suicide-squad-2-210259
Actual photograph of Ezra Miller in the vault where Warners is keeping him until they find a director for his movie.

Shakeups like this are still more common than I’d like to think.  Look at how many of the Marvel films have lost directors, for example.  Before she directed Wonder Woman, Patty Jenkins was up for Thor 2:  The Dark World, but departed the project because Marvel Studios had certain requirements that a Thor sequel needed to meet and Jenkins wasn’t going to be able to tell the story she wanted to tell.  Before Ryan Coogler came onboard for Black Panther, Ava Duvernay was attached to that project.  Peyton Reed replaced Edgar Wright on Ant-Man.  Joss Whedon quit Marvel after Avengers: Age of Ultron because hitting a checklist isn’t as fun as telling a story.  I think this has a lot to do with the reason Marvel mostly hires TV directors these days to do their movies.  It’s about having workman directors who are cheap, controllable, and who can’t afford to let ego get the better of them.  It’s like the time George Lucas hired Richard Marquand to direct Return of the Jedi.  In the end none of the Marvel movies are bad, but none of them are great, either.  They are entertaining and provide a reasonable ROI, and as long as that is true they are going to keep making them the same exact way.  Same with the new Star Wars movies.  If there’s money in it, Kathy Kennedy will keep pushing for more of the same.

DC has had their share of directorial shakeups too, of course.  Patty Jenkins actually replaced Michelle MacLaren on Wonder Woman, and The Flash has had numerous directors attached at various points.  Franchises are tricky, they’re not solely about a director’s artistic vision, they are also about building a brand and making money, and studios work hard to find directors they like, who they feel have a vision that suits their needs.  In other words, the art takes a backseat to the business.  As expensive as these movies are to make, that can’t be a surprise to anyone.

We can reach back even further, to the Salkinds ditching Dick Donner for Superman II, or Warners booting Tim Burton off Batman Forever.  What sets the modern age apart is guys like Kevin Feige and Geoff Johns, whose job it is to balance between the studio’s need for bankability, and the legacy of their respective brands.  But Geoff Johns, the DC guy, is a fairly recent addition to the staff at DC Films, and what I think a lot of the fans forget, is that while DC Films is pretty new, Warners has been in the business of making DC films for a long time, and while most of those films are not in DCEU continuity, there’s another kind of continuity at work: it is, after all, the same studio that has been making DC films since 1978.  The reality is, that’s a continuity of business decisions for them.

batman-robin-movie
Unfortunately, this was one of those decisions.

Essentially, every DC film from Superman: The Movie to Green Lantern, informs the genesis of the DCEU.  Take Batman ’89 for example.  It was a fight for Michael Uslan to get a serious Batman movie made at Warners at that time, and landing Burton to direct was crucial to making that happen.  Warners loaded the film with big-name talent to try and trade on star power, a tactic the entire 90’s Batman franchise would repeat to increasingly comical effect.  That’s a practice that Dick Donner and the Salkinds employed with Superman; although Christopher Reeve wasn’t a big name, that film had Marlon Brando, Gene Hackman, Glenn Ford, Jackie Cooper, and Ned Beatty.

Batman was a huge success, and Warners greenlit a sequel and re-signed Burton and most of his cast.  Since dark, serious Batman had worked out for them, they let Burton do what he wanted, and the result was Batman Returns, a film that even a lot of people in my generation don’t like.  It didn’t do as well ast the box office, and Burton was booted for Batman Forever.  Michael Keaton walked away soon afterward, and we wound up with Joel Schumacher and Val Kilmer.

Batman Forever was fun, and tried to strike a balance between camp and the drama inherent to the character.  It was also extremely toyetic, stuffed full of colorful characters with lots of costume changes so that action figures could be sold.  The result is a movie that was fun in the summer of 1995, but is often cringeworthy in revisits, and squarely of its time.  However, it was a huge success, bigger even than Batman ’89, and that prompted Warners to rehire everybody for its sequel.  Val Kilmer dropped out, though, having other commitments, and was replaced by George Clooney.  Batman & Robin took all the worst aspects of Batman Forever – the cheesy jokes, the camp, the over-saturated color palette, the gratuitous redesigns and alternate costumes in order to sell toys.  The hiring of big name actors had devolved into getting Arnold Schwarzenegger to portray a tragic villain.

Arnold Freeze
What killed da dinosaurs?  DIS MOVIE!

It’s worth noting that all of this happened at a time when the internet was just arriving as the seat of all fandom, and Batman & Robin became the first casualty of internet fan rage.  It was totally deserved, the movie was awful, and the internet pounced on it like sharks on chum.  Warners retired Batman for some eight years.  DC Superheroes mostly retreated to television, the realm of animated series and CW melodramas.  But Warners, and every other studio, began using the internet as an access point to the fandom, hoping in this way to keep a finger on the pulse.

In the interim, Warners looked at bringing Superman back to cinemas, and hired Tim Burton to do it.  That’s a strange pairing, and one that resulted in Nicholas Cage being hired to play Superman.  Thank God that never came to pass, but it’s one of the stranger chapters in this history.  Brett Ratner and JJ Abrams took a pass at making Superman.  The studio also considered doing Batman: Year One, and even began developing a Justice League movie to be directed by Mad Max’s George Miller.

george-miller-justice-league-movie-megan-gale-wonder-woman
Megan Gale’s costume test for George Miller’s Justice League.  This is a thing that almost happened.
the-death-of-superman-lives-what-happened
Unfortunately, so is this.  Nicolas Cage costume test for Tim Burton’s “Superman Lives.”

When Batman returned in 2005, or, more specifically, Began, Christopher Nolan made it easy for audiences to believe a man could dress up like a bat and punch bad guys.  Nolan cited Superman: The Movie as one of his references, saying Donner’s approach to using big names in key supporting roles was a strategy he appreciated, and that thinking gave us Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as Jim Gordon, Liam Neeson as Ra’s al Ghul/Henri Ducard, and Ken Watanabe as Ubu/Decoy Ra’s.  Nolan also wasted no opportunity to take moments that were some of the greatest failures of the Burton-Schumacher films, and invert them.

Note, for instance, that in Batman Forever, Riddler and Two-Face ambush Alfred and beat him over the head with a cane before blowing up the Batcave and trashing Wayne Manor; in Batman Begins, when Ra’s al Ghul and the League of Shadows set fire to Wayne Manor, it is Alfred, armed with a golf club, who beats a goon over the head and makes his way through the burning mansion to save Bruce.  As a second example, just to prove that I’m not making this up; at the end of Batman ’89, Batman tethers Joker by the ankle to an apotropaic figure using his grapnel, which ultimately results in Joker’s death.  In the Dark Knight, Batman tosses Joker out of an incomplete skyscraper, then uses his grapnel to catch him by the ankle and leave him for the police.  The DK trilogy is full of these little mulligans.

In 2006, following the success of Batman Begins, Warners heisted Bryan Singer away from Fox’s X-Men franchise (where he was replaced by Brett Ratner) and gave him the keys to Superman.  Superman Returns, while a decent Superman movie, was a love letter to the Salkind-era Christopher Reeve movies.  It told a story that amounted to a remake of Superman and Superman II, pitting the Man of Steel against Lex Luthor yet again.  Fans complained that the film was boring and there was nobody for Superman to throw a punch at.  The film underperformed at the box office.

In 2008, “The Dark Knight” crushed it at the box office, and Marvel launched the MCU the same year.  By 2009 Warners killed Bryan Singer’s sequel to Superman Returns, and began developing Man of Steel.  Then 2011 gave us Green Lantern, which looks for all the world like DC’s attempt to replicate the Marvel Formula.  It didn’t replicate it successfully, though, and the result, though entertaining, was a total misfire.  The following year saw Nolan’s third and final Dark Knight film, and then Man of Steel in 2013, produced by Christopher Nolan and his wife Emma Thomas, along with Debra Snyder, Zack’s wife.  It was a clear reaction against the failure of Green Lantern and Superman Returns.  It was also the film that finally launched the DCEU: a Superman movie made in the style of Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy.  They even did the thing where they cast a mostly unknown actor in the lead role and surrounded him with veterans like Russell Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, and Laurence Fishburne.  Yet, audiences were divided.  Finally Superman had somebody to punch, and Henry Cavill was perfectly cast, but the film was misunderstood by many.  Where Returns had been accused of not having enough action, Man of Steel was castigated for having too much.  Where people reacted against Returns being too much of a Donner retread, Man of Steel was reproached for not having the tone of the Salkind films.

batman-v-superman-trailer-screengrab-4
Superman bearing the weight of fanboy bitching.

I have to believe that at this point, Warners was feeling like nothing they could do would make a Superman movie successful, which is probably why the sequel to Man of Steel was a Batman movie.  Audiences seem to like Batman better, if you’re looking at the numbers.  The tone of both MoS and BvS, that so many people reacted negatively towards, I would say was a simple decision for a studio that had just had success with the Dark Knight Trilogy, and failure with Superman Returns and Green Lantern.  They just followed the money.  BvS underperformed too, but it did much better than MoS.

At this point, David Ayers’ Suicide Squad was reshot to emphasize more humor, and was turned into what amounts to a feature-length music video.  And then there’s Wonder Woman.  As I wrote in my review last week, Wonder Woman definitely feels like a reaction to the general audience reception to MoS and BvS, and while I think Wonder Woman is a good movie, I also think the balancing act that it has to do is awkward and lets it down a little bit at the end, though not enough to ruin the film.  Warners and DC, though, have spoken openly about trying to create an environment where directors are free to work and to put their stamp on their films.  When they let Michelle MacLaren go, it was because her vision wasn’t the one they wanted, but once they brought Patty Jenkins onboard, they knew they were all on the same page and they mostly stayed out of her way.  That’s probably what puts Wonder Woman above the average Marvel film for me.  I hope that approach continues.  I’d rather have movies, whether hugely successful like Wonder Woman or underperformers like MoS or the BvS Ultimate Edition, that are good, well-made films the directors stand beside and are proud of, than have a gaggle of garbled messes like Suicide Squad cluttering up the theaters.

In the end, this is why I end up writing so much about movies, and why I have a long history of arguing with people on the internet:  I know the studios are listening, and if I like a movie I’m not going to keep it to myself.  Arguing with a random stranger probably won’t change that stranger’s mind, of course, but for people reading the comments section, seeing a reasoned argument about why BvS is great, for instance, may be the incentive for some who had avoided it, to check it out.  And maybe some of those folks will enjoy it.  So when I debate, when I argue, when I converse… it isn’t necessarily for your benefit, or for mine, but for other people.  For studios and directors I think have done a good job.  For people who might like the movie but haven’t seen it yet due to something their friends said.  The internet has given us all a certain amount of power.  Let’s use it responsibly.

REVIEW: Wonder Woman

For the nearly the last decade, we have been in a new era of filmmaking.  Superhero films are the new Westerns, they’re everywhere, everybody is making them, and even prime time television is full of superheroes.  Whether or not this is a good thing, though, is a subject of some debate, and the reason for that is the concept of the “shared universe.”  Since Disney bought Marvel in 2009 and set them up with a filmmaking branch called Marvel Studios, the game has changed.  The Marvel Cinematic Universe, with its deep bench of power-hitters and bullpen overflowing with colorful second-tier characters who flesh out the cast of every new MCU picture, superhero movies have become, well, comic books.   The model is so lucrative that everybody wants in on the action.

KingKongvsGodzillaFeature
“You will go to him, and you will fight him.  To the death.  Brown and Green: FIGHT NIGHT!  The greatest gladiator match in the history of the world!  Lizard versus Ape, Day versus Night.  Gojira of Japan versus Kong of Skull Island.”  

Projects like “Kong: Skull Island,” and the recent Tom Cruise “The Mummy” relaunch, are examples of how shared universes are the new standard that studios are chasing.  Kong belongs to the “MonsterVerse” along with Gareth Edwards’ “Godzilla” from 2014, while “Dracula Untold” and “The Mummy” are meant to launch Universal’s new “Dark Universe,” returning to their roots as the big horror studio.  Last year’s all-female “Ghostbusters” remake was Sony’s attempt to kick off a new franchise that would encompass several different Ghostbusters series with different casts, and share continuity with “Men in Black” and “21 Jump Street.”  Nobody wanted that, however, and Sony, a studio notorious for making bad decisions, misfired on the whole thing.

This brings us to “Wonder Woman,” the latest from Warner Bros. in their line of DC Comics films, or the DC Extended Universe as it is officially known.  Now, I grew up reading comic books, and in the early 1990’s I collected comics, complete with bags, boards, longboxes; the whole apparatus.  My friends and I used to dream about what great movies these intellectual properties would make if Hollywood could only see the value of the storytelling in what was, at the time, only just becoming a somewhat respected medium.  I wore out my VHS tape of Tim Burton’s 1989 “Batman” film in the early 90’s.  I can still quote the entire film in my sleep.  I’m an artist, a writer, a reader, and a comic book guy.  Naturally the last decade has been particularly exciting for me, as the culmination of a growing interest in comic book movies that began around the turn of the century with the Blade trilogy, the Sam Raimi-directed Spider-Man trilogy, and Bryan Singer’s X-Men films.

But no franchise has done more for comic book movies than Warner’s Christopher Nolan-directed “The Dark Knight Trilogy” from 2005-2012, which showed that comic movies could be serious, mature in tone, and address heavier themes in the storytelling while staying true to what the characters represent.  However, despite the DK Trilogy being a Warner’s property and a DC franchise, the DCEU did not begin until 2013’s Man of Steel, which introduced Henry Cavill as Superman in a film that was heavily inspired by Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy.  That film was divisive, as for some reason, many people who loved a mature, thoughtful take on Batman, didn’t like Superman receiving the same kind of treatment.  I did, though, and this makes me one of the people who loved both Man of Steel and last year’s “Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice,” an operatic revenge tragedy starring three of my favorite superheroes, Batman, Superman… and Wonder Woman.  That film was also very divisive and did not perform to the studios expectations (although it made an impressive $855 million worldwide) and is regarded by many filmgoers as “dour” and “depressing.”  Speaking as someone who knows the inside of depression, I find that film far from depressing.  To me it shows that even in the darkest moments, there can be hope.  But then I also like “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom,” and “The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers,” so maybe I just appreciate the value of a good, dark, middle chapter.

Wonder_Woman_attacks_Doomsday
Wonder Woman in last year’s “Batman v Superman,” getting ready to put a hurting on Doomsday.

It is into this climate of strife among fans that Patty Jenkins’ “Wonder Woman” is delivered, and for a guy like me, who has spent the last year arguing the merits of the DCEU films, it was important that the film not sell out the more thoughtful and mature tone of the DCEU, while also finding success not only to cement the future of the DCEU, but to prove to an overwhelmingly sexist Hollywood that women can direct, and lead the casts of, blockbuster movies.  It has, after all, been common practice for studios to hedge their bets in this regard.  Note, for instance, that the only female superheroes in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far are Scarlett Johansson’s Black Widow and Elizabeth Olsen’s Scarlet Witch, neither of whom has headlined her own film, or is in any way scheduled to do so.  Fox’s X-Men films have plenty of women characters, but again, as part of an ensemble, the only characters to headline their own films being Wolverine and Deadpool.  Last year’s “Ghostbusters” misfire also set the cause back.

Perhaps Wonder Woman’s greatest success is in proving that action movies with ladies, by ladies, can be profitable.  Budgeted at $150 million dollars, the film is going to pass $500 million worldwide in its third weekend and looks to finish its theatrical run in the $700 million range.  That’s more than Man of Steel and less than BvS, but more profitable than either one, as those were budgeted at $225 and $250 million, respectively.  And how is the film?

On my first viewing, I came away somewhat disappointed, but this was owing largely to my love of MoS and BvS, which films are both heavier and I think more complex in their thinking.  Subsequent viewings have brought me around, however.  Wonder Woman, as a character, has to stand apart from Superman in more ways than just her gender, and what we have here is a representation of the DC Comics “trinity” that should be a powerful ensemble: Superman, a kind-hearted alien in whom people seek a savior, and who thus feels the crushing weight of his inability to save every single person every single time, for he is not a god; Batman, who embraces the darkness because he lost his innocence at a young age, yet who clings to the notion that mankind is basically good, if given the right inspiration to act; and Wonder Woman, a compassionate, optimistic, yet indomitable warrior, a literal demigod who fights for love.

wonder-woman-movie-trailer-screencaps56-600x248
The Lariat of Hestia isn’t just a Lasso of Truth; it’s also a weapon.  Imagine the Hulk wielding Indiana Jones’ bullwhip…

Wonder Woman’s first solo film tells her origin, and it does this in a way that intentionally recalls Richard Donner’s “Superman: The Movie,” but is still thematically linked with the DCEU.  After three viewings, I still get choked up when Diana drops her cloak and climbs out of the trenches in full armor, charging across no-man’s land to the German line, deflecting artillery with her shield and bullets with her vambraces, leading the British and American troops from a place where they were pinned down, without hope of advancement, to liberating the small village of Veld.  That is powerful stuff, and it’s the moment Gal Gadot’s Diana really becomes Wonder Woman.

The place where the film sometimes falters for me is in the juxtaposition between Patty Jenkins’ take on an optimistic, unsinkable hero who acts out of love and compassion, and the film’s attempt to continue the overall moral complexity of the DCEU, which can best be summed up in a quote from William Bradford, the long-standing governor of the Plymouth Colony in Massachussetts: “All great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.”  Or, as put simply, and perhaps most eloquently, by Jack Kennedy some three-hundred years later: we choose to do these things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”

Wonder Woman enters the world of men as an adult, but one who has been sheltered by her mother, who has lived a lifetime on an island still in the Bronze Age, believing that all war is the fault of Ares, the Greek God of War, and who is thus somewhat overwhelmed by the notion that people have both light in dark in them, and that saving the world isn’t as simple as killing Ares and watching a cloud lift from the hearts and minds of mankind.  Her victory in Veld is soon followed by a very dark defeat, and her victory at the end of the film comes with a terrible price.  This absolutely fits with the established DCEU material, and Diana’s childlike version of morality takes a beating; yet I never feel like the film draws a clear conclusion from it.

Diana believes that Ares is responsible for World War I, during which the film is set, and she believes that if she kills the God of War, mankind will be free of his influence and they will all stop fighting and be good and honorable and compassionate again.  After the climactic battle with Ares, German troops are shown standing up and putting their arms around not only each other, but also Wonder Woman’s friends who have accompanied her on this mission.  It’s as if she was right, but of course we know that a second World War occurred, and then Korea, and Vietnam, and the Gulf War, and 9/11, and the War on Terror.

At the end of “Batman v Superman,” Gadot’s Diana told Ben Affleck’s Bruce Wayne, “a hundred years ago I walked away from the world of men.  From a century of horrors.  Men have made a world where working together is impossible.”  Putting the Wonder Woman solo film into that context, it ought to be the story of how she got there.  It just never quite feels like it is.  More confusingly, this Wonder Woman believes that people are essentially good when not being compelled by Ares, yet she mows through German troops like a reaper in a wheat field.  I don’t have a philosophical problem with killing in battle, and indeed I paid good money to watch Wonder Woman kick every possible butt.  I’d have been upset if the film hadn’t delivered.  But if she believes Ares has simply corrupted these people, then why kill them?  Especially when the movie makes so much hay about her being loving and compassionate.

I feel like there’s a philosophical question to be asked there, but perhaps it’s as simple as, Diana is an Amazon, a warrior raised among warriors, trained by them, destined for one job, and she sees killing in battle as an honorable exercise if it allows her to save more lives overall by reaching Ares and stopping him.  I would have liked for the film to take some time to reflect on what Diana has learned by the end, or indeed to demonstrate that she has learned anything at all.  In the film’s postlude, Diana has a voiceover where she says, “I used to want to save the world, to end war and bring peace to mankind. But then I glimpsed the darkness that lives within their light. I learned that inside every one of them there will always be both. The choice each must make for themselves – something no hero will ever defeat.”  It’s fine that she says it, of course, but I’m not sure that the movie really shows it, which makes the words ring somewhat hollow.

wonder-woman-movie-7
“You’re probably not a terrible person, but I am totally wrecking you anyway.”

We live in a time where our country is extremely polarized, and the way that occurs is by people taking too stark of a worldview, dehumanizing people who don’t agree with them, and insisting that one point of view is the only correct one.  That’s what makes people unable to answer defeat with grace, victory with humility, injury with forgiveness, and strength with mercy.  It’s also the reason for war, as every side believes they’re right.  Because of this, the message of Wonder Woman is a timely one, but one that I wish had been explored in more depth.  This film, however, seeks not to deconstruct Diana but simply to put her on a journey and invite us to follow, and to see the conflict through her eyes.

On a nuts-and-bolts storytelling level this means we don’t get much insight into the villains, something I miss since villains can be compelling, and as conflict is the heart of drama, and villains are the source of conflict, the better the villain the better the drama.  This isn’t to say we don’t learn about the motivations of the villains in this film, but we never quite get to see them as people, something that supports Diana’s initial, stark worldview but does little to support her eventual declaration that everyone has both light and dark in them.  It also unfortunately forces some very talented performers to constrain themselves to one or two notes, hardly representative of the palette available to them.

Somehow, in the end, I don’t mind, and I will give credit to Gal Gadot for that, because this is her first leading role and she absolutely crushes it.  She’s engaging, charming, and so earnest that you will follow her on any adventure, and that’s the capital upon which the film trades.  Clearly, Zack and Debra Snyder knew what they were doing when they hired her, and Patty Jenkins obviously knows how to get great performances out of her leads – it was Jenkins’ 2003 film, “Monster,” after all, for which Charlize Theron won her Academy Award.  Gadot – with a hard T, she’s Israeli, not French – got her start as a model and a beauty queen before breaking into acting.  She’s had supporting roles in some of the Fast and Furious movies, and appeared as Wonder Woman in last year’s “Batman v Superman,” but before landing the role, she was ready to quit acting and study law.  As an Israeli national, she served her mandatory term in the Israeli Defense Force, where she was a weapons instructor, something that makes her absolutely convincing as a warrior.  Patty Jenkins has said that she was upset when she learned that Wonder Woman had been cast before she came on board as director, but was relieved when she met Gal because she understood immediately that they had found the perfect person for the role.

There’s room to challenge the character further in other films, and I hope they do.  After all, true drama comes from challenging your characters, really putting the screws to them, and the problem with most superhero films is that there’s no real drama, no stakes, no chance for failure; and it takes the chance of failure in order for victory to mean a damned thing.  I grew tired of the Marvel films a few years ago because they have a formula, they adhere to it strenuously, and they don’t challenge either their heroes or their audiences with the choices they make.  What sets the DCEU apart from the MCU, in my mind, is that they have the guts to structure a superhero movie like an Elizabethan revenge tragedy, or in the case of Wonder Woman (rather appropriately) a Greek heroic epic, and to trust the audience to be mature enough to understand the grey tones of real-world morality.  In a landscape populated almost exclusively by films that want to be comic books, it’s refreshing to see comic book movies that function as classical films.

One of Wonder Woman’s great victories is what the film says about men and women, and what we can accomplish together.  Chris Pine, as Wonder Woman’s sidekick and love interest, Steve Trevor, doesn’t have to make a complete ass of himself in order to make his leading lady look good; instead she’s just already inherently amazing, and he gets to be awesome too, and they accomplish great things by working together.  He learns of course that he doesn’t always have to protect her, that she can not only take care of herself but can also protect him, and that the two of them have skills and knowledge that compliment each other.  It isn’t a competition with them, it’s pure harmony, and it’s a breath of fresh air for an action movie.  Indeed, the more Trevor gets out of Diana’s way, the better she shows herself to be, and the better he is, too, because she brings out the best in him.  Yes, a healthy relationship in a superhero movie.  We need more depictions of healthy relationships in any medium.

Wonder-Woman-still-Steve-Trevor-Chris-Pine-and-Princess-Diana-Gal-Gadot

My favorite thing about this movie, though, came in my third viewing, when I saw it with my parents.  My mom’s reaction to seeing a woman mopping the floor with all these bad guys, and doing it convincingly: my mother leaned over to me and said, “she’s sort of everything I’d like to be.”  I imagine a lot of women out there are feeling that, watching this movie.  I imagine now there will be an entire generation of girls who grow up with this movie and this character, this version of this character, close to their hearts.  And that is, if you’ll forgive the expression, a wonderful thing.  In the end, there’s no greater justification for this film’s existence exactly as it is, and none other is needed.  It’s a movie I’m proud to support, and will be proud to own when it is released on blu-ray.  If you haven’t seen it, get out there and do so.  And take at least one of your favorite ladies with you.

REVIEW: Kong: Skull Island

Kong: Skull Island surprisingly isn’t a bad movie.  Big, loud, ridiculous, all of these apply, sure.  But it’s got more going on under the hood than I expected walking in, and that made it work for me, overall.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s not like my beloved Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice.  There is no Shakespearean drama surrounding this skyscraping monkey, and that’s probably for the better considering the phrase “skyscraping monkey” may be seriously applied to the central figure of this film.

I know Kong’s not a monkey, he’s an ape.  Don’t go bananas.  That’s the succinct review, for those of you avoiding spoilers.  Stick around if you want to be like last month’s milk, because from here on in there’s nothing but spoilage taking place.

The movie opens in 1944, in the air above the South Pacific.  We don’t get a clear look at what happened, exactly, but two pilots, an American and a Japanese, both are forced to ditch their fighters and wind up on a deserted island, locked in hand-to-hand combat, when a third set of hands, large, hairy, and black, comes up over the cliff edge beside them, and a large, simian face regards them balefully through the smoke and mist.

The title sequence flashes us forward to 1973, where John Goodman and Corey Hawkins (Straight Outta Compton’s Dr. Dre) are seeking to mount an expedition to the recently discovered Skull Island.  The writers have to make up a lot of goofy pseudo-science to justify an unknown island in 1973, but the brush it off just as quickly, making it clear that all respectable scientists and politicians think Goodman’s character is a total crackpot.  With groundwork laid, we’re off and running, meeting an air cav battalion at Da Nang, led by Samuel L. Jackson’s Colonel Preston Packard, on the last day of the war in Vietnam.  The Colonel feels that the US’s withdrawal from the conflict betrays the sacrifices of so many brave men, and he simply isn’t ready to go home.  When his men are tapped to support the mapping expedition to Skull Island, he’s just glad to have a mission.

[Insert cliched reference to Pulp Fiction here indicating an inability on the part of the writer to differentiate between Sam Jackson the actor, and the various memorable roles he has played]
Other key players are Tom Hiddleston’s SAS Lieutenant, James Conrad, and Brie Larson’s combat photographer, Mason Weaver.  Conrad’s father went off to fight in WWII and never came home; Conrad himself isn’t ready to leave Southeast Asia, though he isn’t a commissioned officer any longer.  He’s still searching for something, perhaps the father he lost.  Sensing danger all over the mission, he triples his asking price to lead the expedition.  Weaver, for her part, got wind of the mapping expedition but smelled BS all over the answers she got back, and having a journalist’s instinct she signed on for the mission.

It’s an interesting setup, rife with thematic riffs and surprisingly layered characters.  While the film doesn’t give all of those characters as much development as I might have liked, they do have basic arcs and remain generally believable.  Some of the action is rather cartoony, but in a movie about a gigantic ape stomping around a mysterious island in the south pacific, I’m inclined to forgive a lot of that.  Skull Island is full of wonderfully designed creatures, from giant bugs and spiders, to gargantuan octopi and water buffalo.  Then there are the two-legged lizard things, more Kaiju than dinosaur, which are genuinely terrifying.  The costumes, and the set design, are all very satisfying.  I’ve read a few complaints about some of the technology being slightly anachronistic (a given monitor was apparently a 1978 model and not a 1973 model or older) but it’s all very satisfyingly 70’s and everything from John Goodman’s neckties, to the Senator’s office, to the airbase at Da Nang, scream 70’s just as hard as a thing possibly can, and it works for me.

For me, the film’s only major misstep is the casting of John C. Reilly as Marlow.  When the expedition arrives at Skull Island, they drop “seismic charges” supposedly as part of their science experiment, but it turns out, it’s really to draw out whatever monsters may be lurking on the island, the ones that only John Goodman and Corey Hawkins believe in.  Of course, this disturbs the jungles and angers Kong, who swats all of the Hueys out of the sky and rips the Chinook in half.  Again the film stretches reality with the number of people who survive violent helicopter crashes in this movie, but whatever, there’s a giant monkey so this isn’t meant to be entirely realistic.

Our heroes get separated, into two main groups with a few other scattered survivors (a large number of them DID die in the attack).  Various of the survivors get killed by whatever nasty creatures they encounter along the way.  The main group, led by Conrad and Weaver, finds stone walls obviously built by humans, and then meets the Iwi, the natives of Skull Island.  With them is John C. Reilly, in a WWII US airman’s flight suit, complete with a leather jacket and a hat like the one worn by my grandfather in some old photos, floppy to fit under a headset.

Remember the downed pilot from the opening of the film?  Yep, this is him, 28 years later, bearded, pop-eyed and half-mad.  Apparently this role was originally going to Michael Keaton, and I wish to God it had.  Although Keaton’s background is in comedy, he is also an accomplished dramatic actor, something that John C. Reilly cannot claim.  Keaton has a madness in his eyes and a darkness in his smile that I think would have made Marlow just the right amount of off-putting while still being funny and lovable because Michael Keaton.

Reilly tries it, he really does.  And he’s not bad, mostly, but he doesn’t have the range, and the moments that are meant to make you wonder about his sanity just become broad comedy, out of place and unwelcome in the strange jungle of horrors they are navigating.  If the names Marlow and Conrad sound familiar, you probably read “Heart of Darkness” in high school, or maybe college, and you know that it was famously adapted for the screen, changing the British in Africa for Americans in Vietnam, and changing the title to “Apocalypse Now.”

I love the smell of napalm in the monkey.

Heart of Darkness was written by a man named Joseph Conrad, and his protagonist was Marlow.  But the Marlow in Skull Island is supposed to make you think about Kurtz, to make you wonder if he’s the good guy or the bad guy.  With Keaton that would have worked, and it would have made a good red herring keeping you partly distracted from Colonel Packard’s spiral into insanity; because in the end it isn’t Kong who is the villain here, nor is it Marlow; it’s Samuel L. Jackson.  The Iwi worship Kong.  They know that as long as they leave Kong alone, Kong will fight off the Kaiju that love to eat them for breakfast.  Kong is their King.  But he is also the last of his kind, and he’s not yet fully grown.  As with 2014’s Godzilla, Kong is the hero here, the one who comes to fight off the Kaiju and actually saves human lives.  But Colonel Packard wants to kill him.

I mentioned themes, earlier.  The film has themes.  Basically they can be summed up by a few lines from the movie.  One of the Army men, Cole, carries an AK-47 instead of an M-16.  He says he took it off a farmer in ‘Nam.  The farmer told him that until the Americans came, he’d never seen a gun at all.  Cole says the gun is a reminder to him that sometimes you don’t have an enemy unless you make one.

The second one comes from Conrad, talking to Weaver, telling her about his father not coming home from WWII.  He says, “He never came home from the war.  But I guess nobody does.  Not really.”

There are the men who were killed by Kong: an enemy they made, not one they had going in.  There’s Conrad, who went to war, and stayed after the war was over rather than going back home, because he never found what he was looking for.  There’s Marlow, who was MIA and presumed KIA, trapped on Skull Island for 28 years.  Turns out Marlow and his Japanese counterpart became good friends, but Gunpei has since passed away.  “Take away the war, and the uniforms,” Marlow says, “and we found out we could be brothers.”

There’s Colonel Packett, who may have physically left Vietnam but in his heart he never did.  Packett who could no longer recognize right from wrong.  And Weaver, the anti-war combat photographer, does her part to bring down the Kaiju.  She knows there’s a time to fight.  The experience changes everyone.  Yeah, it’s not Shakespeare, it’s not even Apocalypse Now (even though it wants to be).  But it’s more than just a giant monkey movie, and I appreciate that.  It’s not great, but it’s more fun than I expected, and smarter than I expected, so I give it points for that.  I don’t normally give letters grades, or star ratings, so what’s my verdict here?  See it, but don’t strain yourself.  It’s good fun, it’s not totally devoid of value as a storytelling exercise, and despite John C. Reilly’s best efforts, it isn’t totally stupid.

“…Ashes, ashes, we all man in suit!”

Oh, and stay after the credits.  There’s a scene teasing the forthcoming Godzilla vs. King Kong, which is the only reason this particular movie exists to begin with.

How Bill Paxton Made Me A Better Writer

I know I’ve been somewhat delinquent in updating.  The truth is, it takes many hours to write one of these.  Multiple days if I wanted to do it better than I have been so far.  But I have a day job and more than once I’ve gotten home from work at 8pm, gotten something to eat, and started one of these articles only to finally post it at 5 or 6am before taking a shower during which I fall asleep multiple times, then crawl into bed and log about four hours of snooze time before I have to get up and start getting ready for work.  And then my employer wonders why I don’t seem to have any energy.

So I worked seven days straight last week, and then spent three recovering, and spending a little time with friends and family.  Yesterday at work it felt like my only speed was reverse.  Anyway this is a long way of saying, this article is a week overdue but I’ve known all week that I wanted to write it.  This is the story of how Bill Paxton made me a better writer.

No, I never met him.  This story goes back to my years studying Art at Longwood University (or Longwood College as it was then known).  After a tumultuous freshman year during which I experienced a bit of culture shock while steadfastly refusing to sell out my personal values, I settled into a kind of rhythm in my sophomore year that carried me all the way through to graduation.  I found my people, and surrounded myself with them, and I always knew that no matter how crappy a given day was, it would end with time spent among friends.  It is friendship that got me through.

That sophomore year that established this structure, I was sharing a dorm room with a guy named Wayne, whom I had known from my freshman hall.  Wayne is absolutely one of my people, and he helped me find the others.  Sophomore year we shared a suite in Frasier hall with two guys named Nayan and Mikee.  Nayan was a science major, who also happened to be an incredible guitarist with a love of blues and alternative rock, and Mikee was a skater who was studying commercial art.  Two of the nicest guys I ever knew, and the four of us, though we had different interests, were united by our love of movies.

Now as a kid, I didn’t get to the theater all that much.  My earliest memories of the movie theater are seeing “Stir Crazy” in the movie theater on base in Dahlgren – making the “we bad” scene a part of my personal head canon that none of my friends ever understood – and the Robert Redford baseball movie “The Natural.”  I remember seeing “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Back to the Future,” but my parents have never been big on going to the movie theater, and until I was old enough to go to the movies myself or with my friends, I only got to go once in a while.

So in college, I had a lot of catching up to do as far as seeing movies I’d missed out on in my childhood.  Wayne and I would rent a few movies on a Friday night and often they were ones he liked and that I had never seen.  The ones I liked I’d end up buying for my collection and then we’d watch them often.  I’d put a movie on while I worked on a painting, maybe we’d have “Empire” in while we were doing homework.  We communicated almost exclusively in movie quotes.

Among the movies Wayne introduced me to, and that I loved and added to my collection, was the Alien Trilogy (for at the time, three is all there were).  If I remember correctly, it was Nayan who knew somebody who had the director’s cut of Aliens, a VHS tape dubbed from a laser disc, which not even Wayne had seen.  And “Aliens” is one of the movies that most influences me as a storyteller.  It’s on the short list with RoboCop and the Star Wars Trilogy in terms of movies that taught me about storytelling, and as quotable as the original “Ghostbusters,” or “Die Hard,” both of which I would easily place alongside “RoboCop,” “The Empire Strikes Back,” and “Raiders of the Lost Ark” on the list of 80’s movies that are among the most perfect films ever made.

Everything about “Aliens” functions beautifully as well.  You may remember this article that I wrote recently about how the audience can accept almost anything if they have a good surrogate among the main cast who echoes their own feelings and perceptions.  “Aliens” is a movie that understands that.  It opens more or less where “Alien” left off, with Ripley and her cat Jones, in cryogenic sleep aboard the escape pod after destroying the Nostromo and blowing the Alien drone out of the airlock.

She’s discovered by a deep salvage crew, and wakes up in a med bay to learn that she’s been adrift in space for 57 years, and everyone she knew, including her daughter whose 11th birthday she had hoped to be home in time for, has died.  Haunted by the memory of her ordeal aboard Nostromo and buried under two layers of survivor’s guilt, Ripley has taken a job as a dockworker, and sees a therapist regularly.  She is miserable, and probably suffering from PTSD, though I would say this last piece is only clearly demonstrated in the third film.

Then, of course, the Weyland-Yutani corporation loses contact with the colony “Hadley’s Hope” on LV-426, and deploys a squad of space marines to investigate.  LV-426 is the planet where the wrecked spacecraft was discovered by the Nostromo crew in the original film, with its chamber full of eggs, where John Hurt was attacked by the facehugger that planted the embryo in his body, which so dramatically burst out of his chest in that first film’s most iconic scene.

In the director’s cut of “Aliens,” of course, we’ve already watched as a family in a rover discovers the same wreck, and as the mother frantically drags the father, with facehugger attached, back to the rover in full view of the children, her daughter screaming hysterically as she radios for help.

Paul Reiser, who plays a Weyland-Yutani officer named Burke, recruits Ripley to join to the expedition to LV-426 as she is the closest thing they have to an expert on the aliens, being the only known survivor of an alien attack.  This also gives her a chance to face the thing that haunts her nightmares, and to try to reclaim control of her life.

Throughout the beginning of the film, Ripley is the outsider.  Nobody believes her about the alien until Hadley’s Hope goes dark.  Even then they’re skeptical.  And we, as the audience, have seen the first film and know that Ripley’s telling the truth.  But moving forward, we’re going into territory that’s going to be familiar yet horribly difficult for Ripley, and James Cameron knew that there would be people who watched his movie who never saw the first one.  So, while Ripley is a fine surrogate for those of us who know what happened to her in the first movie, the newcomers will need a new surrogate.

Enter Bill Paxton, as Private William Hudson.  PFC Hudson is mouthy, emotional and erratic: in short he’s the guy the rest of the squad probably wishes were not with them, because a guy like that can get you killed in combat.  But from a storytelling perspective he’s crucial.  The reason is simple.  Watch every scene that Hudson is in, particularly when we first meet the marines.  By being the wise-ass who torques everybody, he gives the rest of the characters a chance to show us who they are.

Whether it’s Sergeant Apone (above) or PFC Vasquez, Hudson’s antics are the catalyst for them to show their personalities and attitudes.  It’s simple and effective.

Hudson is also the conduit by which we find out that Lance Henriksen’s character is a synthetic – which freaks out Ripley given what happened between her and Ian Holm’s character Ash in the original.

Then, as the action ramps up and the film intensifies, Hudson’s attitude creates levity for the viewer, which keeps everything from getting too heavy, something that would probably make a film about phallus-headed cockroach aliens collapse very quickly into the realm of farce.  He keeps the audience laughing no matter how horrible things get within the context of the movie itself.  He’s a joker, a cynic, a wise-ass.  In short, if you want new audience members to buy into this kind of madness, you need Hudson.  I learned that lesson, about audience surrogates, from watching this movie until I could just about quote it end-to-end.

It’s telling, I think, that when Hudson finally exits the film, it’s at a time when the number of characters has been scaled back to just a few, where the time for joking has passed, and where if the audience is not now onboard, they never will be.  It’s just Ripley, Corporal Dwayne Hicks, Newt, and Lance Henriksen’s synthetic, Bishop.  It’s also important to note that Hudson never upstages Ripley as the main character.  Hudson’s moments are standouts, but he’s almost entirely unmanned when the drop ship crashes on the way to pull them out, and it’s Ripley who settles him down.  It’s Ripley who, having lived through the nightmare aboard the Nostromo, never loses her wits in the horrors of Hadley’s Hope.  She’s a mama bear, she takes charge and in the end, it’s Ripley who takes out the Alien queen and gets Newt, Hicks, and what’s left of Bishop to safety.

Ripley is absolutely the hero of the film, but Hudson gets the job of making her show us why.  In many ways it’s a thankless task, playing the ass, but Bill Paxton did it so well that he’s remembered for it, probably more than any other role he played.  I was always happy to see him in anything I was watching.  The fact that he was Hudson made him a favorite of fanboys like me.  It was upsetting to hear that he had passed away, but I am truly thankful for the work that he did.  My life would not be the same without PFC Hudson and his smart mouth, and I would not be the storyteller that I am.  So, Bill Paxton, thank you for the good work, sir.  Godspeed.

Star Wars and Economics, Part Two

NOTE:  This is Part Two of a two-part series.  If you haven’t read the first part, you can find it by clicking this link.

Last time, we took a look at the clues in the Original Trilogy of the Star Wars Saga to determine as much as possible about the economic situation in the First Galactic Empire, and came to the rather obvious conclusion, which I hope we all already were aware of, that the Empire is a military dictatorship.  Hopefully we have added to that, the understanding that in a dictatorship the government controls the production and distribution of goods and services.

To be clear, this means there are no private businesses.  All business is state business, and therefore Imperial Subjects would all work for the state, and be paid by the state.  In this model all money not only originates with the state, but returns to it as well, as there is literally nobody else to trade with.  Money in this context is little more than a government voucher.  As stated in part one, this is just slavery by another name.  That should give you a pretty clear picture of what the Rebel Alliance was fighting to get free of.

Here in Part Two we will examine the Prequel Trilogy to see what new information we can gather from those films.  This will be fairly illuminating as the prequels are very political in their focus, and as we will soon see, Palpatine’s rise to power is predicated almost entirely on economic factors.  From the opening crawl of “Menace,” we are told that the taxation of trade routes to outlying star systems is in dispute, and that a group called the Trade Federation has created a blockade to stop all shipping to the planet of Naboo.  We are given to understand that this is somewhat unprecedented, and that the Galactic Senate is doing an awful lot of talking about it and not much acting to settle it, so Supreme Chancellor Valorum has dispatched a couple of Jedi Knights, aboard a small diplomatic vessel called Radiant VII, to mediate the conflict.

The Trade Federation would be a massive conglomerate, a number of huge shipping companies and possibly other mercantile operations, joined together for shared security.  The Galactic Republic has no standing army, but apparently it is legal for each member civilization within the Republic to have its own military organization and its own unique system of government, and it seems that huge conglomerates like the Trade Federation have similar rights, so they have a fleet and an army in order to protect their interests – hence the blockade, which they make sure to remind the Jedi and their escorts at the beginning of the film, “is perfectly legal.”

We can surmise that the trade routes are being taxed by the Republic, and that the Trade Federation is obviously unhappy about it because it’s cutting into their profit margins.  The text of the crawl also paints the Trade Federation as “greedy,” – Lucas’s exact word choice – which is a clear signal to the viewer that the Federation are the bad guys here, bullying this little planet over profits.

Likely this shipping tax has already raised the price of goods and services for the people of Naboo (and other worlds for which trade is affected by the tax) but depending on the needs of the Naboo, they may simply decide to reduce the amount of importing they do.  This would not be solved with a blockade, unless some measure of imports are necessary for the survival of their civilization, or if they are a planet whose economy is supported by a healthy export business, which would obviously also be affected by the tax.

George Lucas is the master of visual clues (my main man Zack Snyder is masterful with them as well), so what can we deduce from what we are shown of Naboo?  The planet is populated by at least two civilizations who have had limited contact – first, the human inhabitants, who identify themselves as “the Naboo,” and the amphibious Gungans, who are a technologically advanced race living within a tribal system.  They Gungans are insular and reclusive, preferring to remain mostly in their submarine home of Gunga City.

The Naboo, however, are spacefarers, whose ships are elegant, shiny and chrome, and they live in classically styled renaissance-type buildings, their cities resplendent with canals and massive statuary.  This is an intentional choice by Lucas, and not just because he wanted to film in Italy and Spain.  This choice shows us that the Naboo are artists, poets, and philosophers.  Remember that in Star Wars, planets are one thing: Desert, Jungle, Blizzard, Swamp, Sky, Redwood forest… Naboo is the Liberal Arts Planet.  The Renaissance Planet.  This is supported by even the smallest details, like the Queen’s kabuki makeup and the Gungan chief basically calling them a bunch of pointyheads.  And damn if the people in the Queen’s court aren’t dressed like they’re in a play about Christopher Columbus and Queen Isabella.

Probably they export a lot of art and craftworks, and the blockade would be a serious issue because despite what people think, artists do what they do for more than just the sheer enjoyment of it.  Artists like eating and living in houses as much as anyone.  It takes time to create anything worthwhile, and it’s much more satisfying, as well as conducive to the overall quality of the product, if you can make enough money from your art to survive on it.

At any rate, it’s fair to say that there is mostly free trade in the Galactic Republic.  I say “mostly” because the tax on the trade routes represents a form of regulation.  The question, and probably an unanswerable one, is how much regulation there is besides that.  The fact that a little old tax has led to a situation described in the opening crawl as, “turmoil has engulfed the Galactic Republic” probably suggests that regulation has previously been next to none.  Apparently, also fairly rare is armed conflict, as Sio Bibble is fond of pointing out that “there hasn’t been a full-scale war since the formation of the Republic!”

Of note is the fact that one man has played both sides of this.  The Senator from Naboo, Sheev Palpatine, is also a Dark Lord of the Sith, who goes by the name of Darth Sidious.  This isn’t revealed until Episode III, but if you’re a fan (or really good at recognizing chins) you knew it from the beginning.  The Trade Federation is shown to be in league with Darth Sidious, even as Senator Palpatine is advising Queen Amidala of the Naboo.

He advises Amidala to accept Federation control of Naboo, knowing full well that she won’t, while he works to spur the senate into action; meanwhile under the guise of Sidious he tells Federation Viceroy Nute Gunray to assassinate the two visiting Jedi and invade Naboo, occupying the capital city of Theed.  He even tells Gunray that “Queen Amidala is young and naïve.  You will find controlling her will not be difficult.”  He’s looking to escalate the conflict in the hope of generating enough sympathy in the senate to challenge Chancellor Valorum’s seat.

I don’t think he necessarily intended for the Jedi to survive the Federation’s assassination attempt, nor for them to break the blockade and escape offworld with Queen Amidala and her entourage, but the delight on his face when she arrived on the Republic Capital of Coruscant and rushed straight to his office to discuss their next move was probably genuine.  After all, he gets to play the gentle soul while Amidala, in all her fiery, youthful glory, appears before the senate and demands that they resolve the conflict swiftly.  “I was not elected to watch my people suffer and die while you discuss this invasion in a committee!”

Palpatine has stacked the deck, though; Chancellor Valorum has, by Palpatine’s account, “little real power.  He has been mired by – baseless – accusations of corruption.”  Soon afterward, as Queen Amidala asks for the senate to act, several senators refuse to believe that the invasion is really taking place, or that there have been any deaths at all.  The Trade Federation has representation in the senate (which is fairly alarming) and denies any wrongdoing.

Now, as the pressure mounts for the Chancellor to lead the way, the bureaucrats step in and talk him down, and suddenly he shrinks back, buckling under pressure from the special interests to form a committee and investigate the veracity of the Queen’s claims.  She can’t wait for a senate committee, of course, it’ll be a year or more while her planet remains occupied by the Federation.  Palpatine, ever the master persuader, suggests they could take it to the supreme court, and the Queen is disheartened, knowing that this will likely take even longer than waiting on some useless senate committee.  So, with masterfully played reluctance, Palpatine suggests that the queen could call for a vote of No Confidence in the chancellor, and watches with satisfaction as she does exactly that.

The senate votes Valorum out of the chancellery and, in a sympathetic reaction to the conflict on Naboo, the senate elects Palpatine to replace him.

By Episode II, entitled Attack of the Clones, ten years have passed and a separatist movement has sprung up.  The opening crawl says that a number of star systems have announced their intentions to leave the Republic, but we’re not told why.  However when we meet the separatists, they seem to largely be made up huge conglomerates like the Trade Federation.  The others we meet have names like InterGalactic Banking Clan, the Techno Union, the Hyper-Communications Cartel, the Commerce Guild.

The separatists are under the leadership of a former Jedi with political ambitions, who goes by the name of Count Dooku.  Dooku is actually Darth Sidious’ new apprentice, Darth Tyranus, and he’s a plant because the Trade Federation knows that Sidious played them.  In order to continue to manipulate them, Sidious needs a middle man.  Since Palpatine/Sidious is always playing two sides, and since the separatists are all massive conglomerates with interests in the production and distribution of goods and services, we can safely conclude that as chancellor, Palpatine has applied a very liberal helping of trade regulations.  This would serve him well as it shows clearly that he is not like the feckless Valorum, and makes perfect sense as a platform for a chancellor whose homeworld was famously victim of a bloody invasion by a militant trade conglomerate.  In effect, this is what he was elected to do.

His dual identity has allowed him to continue escalating the conflict, by pitting the people against big business; in effect turning the common people against the rich, driving a narrative of regulation vs. corruption and greed.  The Separatist Union, being comprised of mostly giant businesses and their supporters, has the resources to mount an army, and begins doing so, quietly, on the strength of the Trade Federation’s droid army and its manufacturer, Geonosian Industries.

The increasing conflict has overwhelmed the relatively small Jedi Order, and Supreme Chancellor Palpatine has begun pushing for the senate to commission an Army of the Republic in order to back up the Jedi and protect the Republic’s member nations.  Senator Padme Naberrie Amidala, the former Queen of Naboo, is nearly assassinated upon her arrival on Coruscant where she would surely have voted against commissioning an army.  All of this acts as a distraction that splits up Jedi Knights Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi on separate missions – at the chancellor’s request – while the separatists are developing plans for a very familiar planet-killing superweapon.

Obi-Wan, attempting to track down the would-be-assassin, ends up on the ocean world of Kamino, where he discovers a large cloning operation, creating an army they claim was ordered by a Jedi Master whom Obi-Wan knows to have been dead at the time the order was placed.  Still, the army is for the Republic, and the Kaminoan cloners happily show Obi-Wan around the facility.  Of course Anakin and Padme’s paths intersect with Obi-Wan’s by the end of the movie, on the termite-mound planet of Geonosis, where they are all to be executed in a gladiator arena, having been captured by the separatists.

By this time, though, Jar Jar Binks, now a Junior Representative for the Gungans in the Senate, was convinced to propose the Emergency Powers Act.  When the vote passed, Palpatine, promising to lay down the powers as soon as the crisis was averted, immediately issued an Executive Order commissioning “a Grand Army of the Republic, to counter the increasing threats of the separatists.”

Yoda was sent to Kamino to pick up the first wave of Clone Troopers, while the rest of the available Jedi converged on Geonosis and tried to bail out Obi-Wan, Anakin and Padme.  Yoda arrived with the cavalry just in time to back up the depleted Jedi ranks, and the first battle of the Clone Wars raged across the planet.  By the end of the film, Bail Organa and the rest of the Loyalist Committee stood by in despair as a legion of Clone Troopers arrived on Coruscant on huge Corellian cruisers.

Now Palpatine’s Machiavellian plan is in full force.  The captains of commerce and industry are standing on one side, the leaders of the free galaxy on the other, and he controls both sides.  He effectively has two ways to win.

In Episode III: Revenge of the Sith, it’s been some three years since the Battle of Geonosis.  The Separatists are kicking some serious ass, and in a metaphorical sense, everything is on fire.  They’ve gained so much ground they’re able to kidnap Chancellor Palpatine before the movie starts.  Naturally Palpatine wanted this, it’s the natural escalation of the conflict, but it also serves to let him pit his favorite young Jedi, Anakin Skywalker, against his existing apprentice, Darth Tyranus, who is doing his existing in something of a state of decrepitude.

As Palpatine begins to make his persuasive case for Skywalker to join him, he chooses to reveal his true nature.  When the Jedi move against Palpatine, this plays directly into a narrative he has created by having the clone army ordered from Kamino in the name of a dead Jedi Master, and by having a former Jedi head the separatist movement.  As Anakin defends Palpatine against Mace Windu and his posse, this not only seals Skywalker’s fate, but allows Palpatine to finally cast the Jedi as traitors to the Republic, effectively making Anakin, the newly-minted Darth Vader, his champion and lord defender of the realm, as it were.  Using this extra layer of chaos to justify his last push for supreme power, Palpatine activates a secret piece of genetic programming in the Clones, authorizing them to use deadly force to put down their Jedi generals, and sending Lord Vader to slaughter all the children in the Jedi Temple.

With that done, Palpatine reassigns Anakin to go to the secret lair of the Separatist Council and murder them all, thus ending the conflict and bringing all means of production and distribution directly under state control.  Palpatine appears before the Galactic Senate, announcing that “the Republic shall be reorganized into the First Galactic Empire, in order to create a safe and secure society.”

There are a few takeaways from this.  The first is that this absolutely confirms my reading from Part One of this essay: that the Empire controls all means of production and distribution of goods and services throughout the Star Wars galaxy.

In your face, Randal!

It also fits Lucas’s overall theme for the prequels, which is greed.  Greed turned Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader.  But it also drove the Republic into corruption, and drove the Trade Federation into working with a Sith Lord.  Greed divides us, and love unites us, and that, my friends, is Star Wars in once sentence.

Are there lessons here for us today?  Oh, absolutely.  I can think of a million of them.  Our current president is a persuader, a trait he shares with Palpatine.  He also is creating a rather hectic tone in Washington, and is manipulating the media in ways both obvious and subtle (there are layers).

However, I don’t hold anyone blameless.  Most of the media is dishonest most of the time.  One major party wants to create conflict between the rich and the rest of us.  The other party talks about the free market but loves to wield authority just as heavily as the other.

Corruption is everywhere.  At least our industries don’t have senators, but they do have lobbyists, which nets the same result in the end.  It’s all a bit terrifying and it’s hard to know which way to turn.  However, a few things are obvious.

Both president GW Bush and President Obama, gave themselves more power than presidents had before.  And now we have this guy, who I still maintain is probably not the second coming of Hitler.  However, he is a persuader and that can be terribly effective, either in a good way or a bad one, depending solely on intent.  And the fact that trust is not something he inspires in the American people, makes it difficult for most to expect anything good.  Especially when his policies go against what half of the country apparently believes in.

So…the guy talks abut Civil Asset Forfeiture?  BAD.  Guy talks about reducing government regulation?  Good.

The most important thing, however, is the free market.  As long as we have a free market, we have the means to control our own destiny.  As long as the government does not control the flow of money, we are not slaves, but free men and free women.

I talk a lot about balance.  You hear me borrow a phrase from some of my anarcho-capitalist friends.  I’m not one, but I know a few, and I like them.  They talk about how government is literally evil.  You hear me basically lean into that when talking about liberty.  What nobody ever asks me, is if I think government is necessary.  Like I said, I’m not an anarchist.  I DO believe government is necessary.  I also believe that it is basically the opposite of freedom, since in order for government to exist, you have to give something up.  That’s just the way it works.  So we give up some freedom in exchange for security.  Taxation is theft, but it buys safety in the form of police, firefighters, and armed forces.  Yet some of these people are not very popular right now with a lot of taxpayers.  Just think about it, is all I’m saying.  You get mad when your tax dollars go to pay for stuff you don’t like.

The more power you give government, the more freedom you give up, right?  I had a liberal friend-of-a-friend recently tell me that we’re not free, and she said it like it was a good thing.  I basically stopped arguing with her after that because in my mind she’d just torpedoed her own ship.  Any impartial reader would have walked away from her side of the table after that.  Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing.

Just remember, the First Galactic Empire — like Adolf Hitler’s Nationalist Socialist movement – was all about peace, through the eradication of conflict.  Palpatine actually utters the phrase, “safe and secure society.”  He literally stole all the freedom so he could have security in power.  In his mind he really thought this was better, because there’d be no conflict he couldn’t end, no war he couldn’t win, no wrong he couldn’t right (actually no right he couldn’t wrong, if we’re being honest, but he wouldn’t have called it that way).

So, here’s my point.  Greed is bad.  Don’t be greedy.  But be careful who you give things away to.  Don’t give your power to the Sheev Palpatines of the world.  Don’t even put your power where it can be used against you.  If Trump does turn out to be evil, it won’t merely be the fault of people who voted for him.  It will be the fault of every single politician who gave the presidency more power, of every congress that undermined the checks and balances in the constitution, and of every voter who didn’t participate when they had the chance.

Don’t be greedy, but don’t cast your pearls before swine.

Don’t breed division, but don’t fear conflict.  Fearing conflict leads to the need to squash differences of opinion, which leads to a lust for power, and that IS greed.

Respect differences.  Don’t hate, don’t fear.  Talk.

Be rational dissidents.

Star Wars and Economics, Part One

Star Wars is one of those things that is applicable in nearly every area of life.  I mean it doesn’t have much useful relationship advice, I’m afraid, but apart from that it’s pretty solidly on point.  Now, I post a lot about politics and I post a lot about popular culture, and it’s always interesting to me when I can bring the two together.

As it happens, Star Wars is very much about economics.  I realize it doesn’t seem that way, crazy movies about magic warriors with swords made of lasers and super weapons with embarrassing fatal flaws, of bickering robots and annoying-ass frog aliens who ruin your enjoyment of the prequels.  But Star Wars was one of the first entertainment properties in my life that proved stories could keep on giving, almost indefinitely, when they were built properly.

I’m not alone in that.  My generation is almost defined by our love of Star Wars.  If you don’t believe me, ask Disney’s bankers.  Hell, Kevin Smith has basically made a career out of being a fan.  Remember this scene from Clerks?

It’s funny, but it’s also bullshit.  I mean, that’s okay, it can be bullshit, it’s Randal.  Randal’s hardly a bastion of reason and sanity.  And Kevin Smith was making a comedy.  Still, I always feel the need to tell anyone who will listen that there’s no such thing as independent contractors in the First Galactic Empire.  The reason is simple economics.

Don’t believe me?  Let’s begin with the Original Trilogy and try to understand, from clues in the films, what kind of economic structure the empire has.

In the first film, retroactively titled “Episode IV: A New Hope,” there are many clues about the structure of the empire.  Let’s start with life on the desert world of Tattooine.  Luke Skywalker lives with his uncle, Owen Lars, and aunt, Beru Lars (nee Whitesun).  They’re farmers, in the middle of the desert.  The landscape is dotted with these odd antenna-like structures called vaporators.  The vaporators pull moisture, either from deep in the ground, or from the air, and use it to feed the crops.

Given Owen’s talk about hiring more hands the following year, and being unwilling to let Luke leave for the Imperial Academy until next season, it seems the Lars farm is rather large, so they’re probably commercial farmers.  Seems all very familiar to our own reality, right?  Given that Luke’s landspeeder (Star Wars for “car,”) is battered, scorched, and missing an engine cover; and given also that Uncle Owen buys his droids on the black market from scavenging Jawas who sell whatever useful stuff they find to farmers and frontiersmen they come into contact with, we may deduce that the money is tight, and that this is a backwater star system, far removed from the usual business of the Empire.

Additionally, we never see how goods move offworld, or the market where goods are bought and sold.  So we don’t know for sure if the Empire controls it, or not.  It’s actually fairly unclear if Tattooine is part of the Empire, or is an independent system.  It’s referred to as being along the Outer Rim, meaning it’s a fairly remote part of the galaxy, not one of the core systems, and as far as we can tell in the movie, the only imperial presence there follows Princess Leia’s corvette, the Tantive IV, into the system during the opening moments of the film.  It doesn’t look like the Empire would have much interest in a sun-scorched ball of sand, particularly one containing nothing but farmers, nomads and scavengers.  Indeed, when Obi-Wan is trying to recruit Luke to his cause, Luke says, “it’s not that I like the Empire, I hate it, but…that’s all so far away from here.”  Likewise, Obi-Wan, as we come to learn, was trying to hide from the Empire so it makes sense he’d go where the Empire is not.

In fact Tattooine is run by the Hutts, who are notorious gangsters.  But the thing about gangsters, they have legitimate front companies to hide their illegal activities behind.  Jabba, the Hutt who seems to be the boss on Tattooine, is into smuggling.  We know this because we learn that Han Solo, captain of the Corellian light freighter Millennium Falcon, was employed by Jabba when he was detained by an Imperial starship and ditched his illicit cargo in order to avoid getting in trouble.

The best way to think about Han in this context is that he’s actually a truck driver; in fact he is what is known as an independent operator.  He has his own freighter and he hauls what he wants to haul, when he wants to haul it.  This leads me to believe that Jabba is probably responsible for the movement of goods to and from Tattooine.  In this way he can also buy and sell things under the table and use his operators to move contraband in secret, in exchange for some extra, unreported income.

Though it isn’t canon, as far as I know, it has been suggested in various peripheral materials that the shipment Han dumped was Spice.  What “Spice” is, in Star Wars, is never explained, though it’s generally understood to be something like the Spice from Dune.  However at the very beginning of the movie, as C-3PO and R2-D2 are dodging blaster fire during the arrival of the Imperial boarding party on the Tantive IV, Threepio muses that they’ll be “sent to the Spice mines of Kessel, smashed into who-knows-what!”

When Obi-Wan and Luke talk to Han and Chewie in the cantina on Tattooine, Han boasts that Millennium Falcon is “the ship that made the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs.”  As a parsec is a unit of distance and not time, this claim is nonsense, unless the ship folded space in some way, but what is clear from this is that Han probably has hauled spice.  What is also clear, from Threepio’s remarks, is that the Empire actively mines spice, and uses labor camps as punishment for miscreants.

This would seem to point to the Empire controlling production of goods and services within its own borders, and probably explains why they detained Solo, as they would probably do routine stops of freighters along trade routes.  We have scales for trucks; no doubt they have something analogous to “weighing stations” for starships, even if it’s only boarding and physically inspecting at a chosen port, like you’d do for a seagoing freighter.

Where we do see the Empire, we learn some very important things.  First, we learn that Princess Leia is an Imperial Senator who is secretly a member of what the Empire calls the Rebel Alliance (they call themselves The Alliance to Restore the Republic).  We also learn that the commander of the Death Star, Wilhuff Tarkin, is referred to alternately by his rank of Grand Moff, or the less formal title, “Governor.”  We are also present in the briefing room as Tarkin sweeps in and announces “the Imperial Senate will no longer be of any concern to us; I have just received word that the Emperor has dissolved that council permanently.  The last remnants of the old Republic have been swept away.”

When General Tagge presses the issue, asking how the Emperor will maintain control without the bureaucracy, Tarkin says something else very telling: “The regional governors will now have direct control over their territories.  Fear will keep the local systems in line.  Fear of this battle station.”

It isn’t just that the Empire governs with an iron fist; it’s that Tarkin is a regional governor, as in the Roman Empire.  He wears a uniform, he is a military officer, but he is also a regional governor who will rule over his section of the Empire and report only to Emperor Palpatine.  In other words, what was probably sort of a communist oligarchy is now for certain a military dictatorship.  The last pretense of democracy is gone.

You will also notice visual cues within the Empire.  The interior of the Death Star, and the capital ships, are all grey and austere, bare metal, fluorescent lighting, exposed conduits and open maintenance pits.  On the bridge of the destroyers, the officers stride around on catwalks while the crewmen at their consoles sit in pits below them, forced to look up as a slave to a master.  TIE fighters are simple and geometric, no hyperdrive, no shields; they’re disposable, and so therefore must their pilots also be.  Stormtroopers wear buckets that hide their entire face.  Protection, to be sure, but also dehumanizing, faceless goons with numbers like TK-421 as their identifiers, rather than names.  As we would learn in the prequel trilogy, these are clones, human beings grown for the express purpose of being used as cannon fodder.  Serfs.  Slaves.  This is the way of the First Galactic Empire.  Even the symbol of the Empire is a cog wheel.  Think about that a minute.

Meanwhile the Alliance has rickety starfighters scorched with blaster marks, patched with mismatched sheet metal, paint jobs not maintained; but the ships have shields and hyperdrives.  The pilots are few, they have names and faces, and their lives are precious.

The only new economic information we get in Empire comes when Han, Leia, Chewie, and Threepio, aboard a crippled Millennium Falcon, come limping into port at Lando Calrissian’s tibanna gas mining colony, Cloud City, hovering in the upper atmosphere of a gas giant called Bespin, in the Anoat system.  Anoat, like Tattooine, is a backwater system and Calrissian’s mining colony is shiny and bright, a veneer of respectability across the place.

Han refers to Calrissian as his friend, but makes it clear to Leia and Chewie that he doesn’t trust Lando, “but he’s got no love for the Empire, I can tell you that.”  Almost immediately upon arrival we learn that Millennium Falcon used to belong to Calrissian, apparently put up as collateral and lost, in a card game with Solo.  This seems to still be a point of some contention for Lando, and the two have a tense reunion where all of the humor seems forced and neither man ever seems quite relaxed.  This is at least partially due to something we learn later, which is that the Empire arrived before the Falcon did – after all, the Empire has functioning hyperdrive – and Lando wanted to warn Han off if he could.  The escort shooting at the Falcon, and Lando’s line, “you know seeing you sure brings back a few things,” are subtle hints.

Still, the fact that Calrissian used to own the Falcon suggests that he was once a smuggler, too, and it begs the question, is he still?  Solo pokes him a little, teasing him for being responsible.  Calrissian shrugs it off, sort of noncommittal:  “yeah, I’m responsible these days.  It’s the price you pay for being successful.”  Like much of what Lando says in these scenes, this could easily have a double-meaning, since he’s going to sell out his friend before he’ll destroy his business.  But suppose Lando has become successful in another sense, too, having moved on from hauling contraband, to managing it?

Down in the bowels of Cloud City, there’s a facility called the carbon-freezing chamber.  Here, the tibanna gas is frozen in carbonite slabs for easy transport aboard freighters.  When Darth Vader and his minions arrive, having been summoned by bounty hunter Boba Fett who tracked Millennium Falcon to port, Vader begins making arrangements to lure Skywalker there as well, in order to freeze him in a carbonite slab and transport him, without fuss or muss, to the Emperor.  Of course he plans to test the process on Solo, in case it doesn’t work he doesn’t want to kill Skywalker.

Well, if you can freeze people safely in carbonite, you can do it with damn near anything, and if one were a former smuggler, say, with underworld contacts and a lust for profit, one might see opportunity.  After all, a lot of contraband could be easily frozen inside these slabs and moved across the galaxy with no one the wiser.  When Lando sells out his friend Solo, he says he’s “just made a deal that will keep the Empire out of here forever.”  But when that doesn’t work out for him, he makes a play to free Solo, and fails, then escapes offworld with Leia, Chewie, Luke, and the droids.

The implications are twofold.  First, the Empire will take over Calrissian’s operation.  It’s just what they do.  If there’s usefuless in this mining colony, they want it to be their own.  But, given Vader’s thought for using the carbonite to transport his prisoners, it’s just possible he suspected that Lando was up to no good, whether or not he actually was (of course he was, it’s Lando…).  In either, or both, of these contexts, it makes sense that Lando would want to keep the Empire out, and would flee when he realized that he could not.

In Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, we revisit Tattooine, and this time get acquainted with Jabba.  Depending on your preferred cut of the films, we either only know him by reputation, or have met him only briefly in Docking Bay 94 in the Mos Eisley Spaceport way back in Episode IV.  In either case, here we see his palace, a kind of science-fiction harem with alien slave girls, cruel droids, and an assortment of thieves, thugs, bounty hunters, and smugglers as hangers-on as the band bangs out a few jazzy numbers and Jabba’s girls dance for his pleasure.  Then there’s Jabba himself, a huge, corpulent slug of a thing, sucking on a hookah and swallowing frogs.  He’s done quite well for himself, and all of this begs the question: what kind of an economy creates such an overwhelming market for smuggling?  The answer is, “the kind that’s been over-regulated all to hell.”

The simplest lesson in economics is that he who controls the flow of money, has all the political power; and he who has all the political power, controls the flow of money.  That’s why the free market is a good thing, because the ability of the private citizen to control his or her own money, is that citizen’s power, and freedom.  You choose to support what you believe in, and not support the things you don’t.  That’s your voice.  Nobody should be able to make you buy anything you don’t want.

One of the things the movie “Rogue One” did so well, was it had Mads Mikkelsen’s Galen Erso, a scientist, having turned away from his work because he turned away from the Empire.  He was living as a subsistence farmer on a distant world until the Empire came and found him, and threatened him until he agreed to go back to work for them.  He isn’t hired, he isn’t offered a contract.  He is simply taken, and kept by the Empire, provided with work, lodgings, food, uniform.  It also showed us his daughter, Jyn Erso, as an inmate in an Imperial Labor Camp.  This is exactly what the Empire is in the original trilogy.

Remember, slaves don’t own property, and don’t get paid except in food and lodging.  When the state controls production and distribution of goods and services, and the people work for a share of said goods and services, that is the exact definition of slavery.  The lack of freedom leads to desperation; and when the government is hindering the people, the people will cast off the law and do for themselves according to what they know is right and good.

Well, that’s it for Part One.  In Part Two we’ll explore the Prequel Trilogy, and see if my understanding of the nature of the Empire, and the economic nightmare that is the galaxy far, far away, is corroborated by the story of how the Empire came to be.

Continue to Part Two by clicking this link.

The Bozos Local 415: Adventures in Storytelling

What do Jar Jar Binks, Yoda, and Gollum have in common?  It’s not what you think.

Now, I know I write a lot about the Star Wars Prequels, which is funny because they’re pretty unpopular as Star Wars movies go.  The reason I write about them so much, though, is because there’s so much in them, both good and bad, that they are excellent things to dissect for the purpose of studying storytelling.  Whether you love or hate them, there’s an incredible amount of stuff to get into.  That makes them more teachable in many ways than, say, Lord of the Rings, which gets almost everything right.  So the subject of this analysis will be about annoying characters, and how to make them work for a story and not against it.

We’ve all heard the complaints about Jar Jar Binks: he’s annoying, he talks funny, he does stupid things, he doesn’t add anything to the movie, he’s for kids, etc.  Those are all true, except, arguably, the one about him not adding anything to the movie.  But that is also where the problem occurred.  The role of Jar Jar Binks in Episode I: The Phantom Menace, was actually central to what George Lucas was trying to do.  And it’s obvious in the way his joining their team, mirrors Anakin’s joining as well.

This is where I’ll get into Yoda for a second.  Yoda, when he was introduced in The Empire Strikes Back, was being sort of git too.  Of course it was a test of Luke’s character; Yoda was sort of a Buddhist Jedi at that point, and his behavior was much like that of the Dalai Lama or any Buddhist priest, finding joy in simple things, delighting in nature, and in games, and in being open to experiences.  He tests Luke, not telling Luke that he is, in fact, the Jedi Master he’s come searching for, and Luke fails repeatedly, missing every opportunity to show the bizarre little guy some basic warmth, empathy, and compassion, instead being frustrated, closed off, and antagonistic,

The joy of the Dagobah sequences in Empire is in the way that it demonstrates the nature of choice: Yoda, in remaining upbeat and positive, is enjoying himself, while Luke, being combative and impatient, sulks his way through the entire experience, makes an ass of himself, bangs his head, and nearly loses his chance at training with this great Jedi Master.  All because he’s turned too far inward to see what’s right in front of him.  One of Mark Hamill’s finest moments in the trilogy comes at the instant Luke realizes the little guy he’s been fussing at all evening is Yoda: you can actually see the veil of stupidity lift from Luke’s face.

When you watch all of this for the first time, as a kid, not knowing who Yoda is beforehand, you actually side with Luke.  If you’re anything like I was, though, you figure it out before Luke does, and then you start wanting to smack the crap out of him.  Upon repeat viewings, you have fun, viewing it from Yoda’s side, knowing Luke is being an idiot.  Well, the lesson of Yoda, the lesson that you shouldn’t judge someone by their appearance, that the unlikely person is sometimes exactly the person you want to meet, is also the lesson of Smeagol / Gollum.

Gollum was a villain of course, but JRR Tolkien knew, when he wrote Lord of the Rings, that he believed in the value of all life.  Gandalf says this to Frodo in one of the most beautiful ways I can imagine.  Frodo says it’s a pity that Bilbo didn’t kill Gollum when he had the chance.

“It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand!  Many that live deserve death.  And some that die, deserve life.  Can you give it to them, Frodo?  Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment; for even the very wise cannot see all ends.  My heart tells me that Gollum has some part still to play, for good or ill, before all this is over.  The pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of Men.”

Gollum of course went on to be a truly invaluable guide for Frodo and Sam… and an immeasurable pain in the ass.  Only at the end, however, when all hope was lost, did Gollum’s true place in the tale reveal itself.  And in case you are the one person in the Western Hemisphere who hasn’t seen the movies or read the books, I shall not spoil it here, but I will say only that if not for Gollum, the quest would have failed after all.

This theme, present in both LOTR and SW, is in fact a major theme in much of the fantasy genre.  It is also a deeply Christian theme.  Jesus, after all, associated with not just fishermen, but tax collectors and whores.  He saw the value in people, saw beyond the work they did or the attitudes others had about them.  And even Judas Iscariot, that betrayer, had to play his role in getting Jesus to the cross.  Judas didn’t know he was just playing his part; the other Disciples were shocked and dismayed, but Jesus knew it was all part of the plan.

So, let’s talk Jar Jar.  Jar Jar is unique among these examples in that he isn’t as compelling or mercurial as Yoda, he isn’t a villain like Gollum, nor pitiable like Gollum; Jar Jar is just plain old annoying.  But I believe with a few storytelling tricks, he could have worked just fine as written and performed.

As with my earlier article about Anakin being a creeper on purpose, I think the main problem with Jar Jar is that George Lucas forgot to give the audience permission to be annoyed with the character.  Now, I know what you’re thinking, and you’re right:  you didn’t need permission to be annoyed with Jar Jar, you were annoyed with him anyway.  However, here’s the thing about permission from the storyteller.  It tells you that you’re SUPPOSED to have the reaction that you have, and that it’s part of the storyteller’s plan, and when you know that, you know that by being annoyed with the orange frog man, you’re still engaged with the movie.  When you don’t feel that you have permission to be annoyed, being annoyed takes you out of the movie as you assume you’re just supposed to like this floppy, derpy, spaz of a character, and you rightly feel insulted by that presumption.

Obi-Wan: “I’m not wearing a wig for this scene.” Qui-Gon: “I am.” Jar Jar: “Meesa not even HERE.”

So, where did Tio Jorge go wrong?  It’s simple, really.  He wrote himself into a bit of a corner.  Jar Jar first interacts with Qui-Gon Jinn, who, as a seasoned Jedi Knight, and follower of the Living Force, recognizes potential usefulness in Jar Jar fairly early on.  I think George knew he had a problem, because Jar Jar’s first interaction with Qui-Gon was grabbing him and nearly getting them killed, and then, amidst his goofy thank you, Qui-Gon shuts him down by saying, “you almost got us killed, are you brainless?”

“I speak!”

“The ability to speak does not make you intelligent.  Now get out of here.”

It’s funny, but it’s not enough, because Qui-Gon, as the wise mentor character, is only allowed to get a little bit cross.  He can’t show the level of annoyance with the character that some of the audience is feeling.  The other side of that is, if you show characters hating on Jar Jar enough, he will become a sympathetic figure.  It’s a win-win.  But Jedi don’t hate.  Obi-Wan comes along moments later followed by a few battle droids riding STAPs, and Jar Jar starts gushing all over again as Qui-Gon easily dispatches them.  Here Obi-Wan, ignoring him, asks Qui-Gon, “What’s this?”

“A local.”

For the rest of the film’s first act, Obi-Wan is obviously having to work to put up with Jar Jar, while Qui-Gon, if slightly vexed, does a better job of maintaining his cool.  But, Obi-Wan, though still a Padawan Learner, is, like Qui-Gon, a Jedi – and Jedi are to be defined by their compassion and understanding.  To that end neither of them gets to really speak for the audience – because the audience, mostly, is not made up of monks.

And that’s the problem in a nutshell.  The audience needs a character who speaks for them.  More than one is fine, but a minimum of one is required, and the Prequels don’t have any.  I think the beauty of the classic characters from the OT is that they all speak for us at various times.  Luke, in ANH, is any teenager on a journey into the unknown.  Han Solo is the skeptic, acerbic rogue, questioning everything and basically assuming the rest of the characters are pretty full of crap.  And then Princess Leia, wittier still, takes charge because although Han Solo thinks Luke is a bozo, Leia knows they’re BOTH bozos, and they need her to kick their butts in the right direction at any time.  Which I think is the basic nature of Han and Luke’s friendship: the bozos unionized.

“I don’t just make an ass of myself for free ya know.” “I do.”

I actually like the prequel characters.  I quote Qui-Gon Jinn as often as I quote anyone.  He basically never says anything that isn’t resoundingly true.  Anakin and Padme, as discussed in the aforementioned article, are actually fairly layered characters who never really get the chance to shine, and much like Jar Jar, it’s because we don’t have a way to access them fully.  They are knights and politicians, dignified, reserved, formal in speech and general demeanor.  While Jar Jar, in TPM, was a counterpoint to this, he doesn’t speak for the audience at all and therefore isn’t much help.  Anakin in TPM, as a kid, probably works for the younger children in the audience.  He likely is very accessible to them.  For the rest of us, he’s just some kid, and that again hangs us out to dry.

I think in some way, Obi-Wan is supposed to be the skeptic, but he doesn’t really fit in that role as written, and Lucas knew it.  Jar Jar is supposed to make the point about the Jedi putting up with his crap because he’s there for a reason, but although Qui-Gon expresses this in some fashion to Obi-Wan, what passes for conflict is never particularly engaging, and Qui-Gon’s teaching on the matter never more than perfunctory.

The whole device mostly occurs just so that Qui-Gon can bring Anakin into the fold and we don’t think it’s as weird as we otherwise might: which is to say it tells us who Qui-Gon is and how he sees people he meets.  Without a way in for the audience, though, most viewers simply won’t care.

“What, ah, Gates is saying here — can I call you Gates? Sure I can, I’m me and you’re you. Anyway, the point our tragically unhip friend is making is that people like to have an asshole on their side. It can be me, or Chris Pratt, it doesn’t really matter. Pratt’s gonna wiggle his ass and make inappropriately tacky jokes. I think you want me. My inappropriate jokes are never tacky. But what you never, ever want, is to have to deal with a brain-damaged orange tranny frog without a guy like me in your back pocket. I’ll hate him for you. I’ll enjoy it. And, my bank account will enjoy it too. Is that too on the nose? No. Maybe? Yes. The point is, I love me. I mean you love me. I mean, hell, we both love me.  Who wouldn’t?”

What the story needed, was a Han Solo.  Not an actual Han Solo, but the archetype.  The rogue.  A character who can question Jar Jar’s usefulness much more aggressively; a character who can question Anakin more meangingfully than Obi-Wan’s “why do I sense we’ve picked up another useless life form?”  A character who can delight in actively trying to damage Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan’s calm.  This would do wonders for the film regardless of whether this character is a modification of an existing character (for instance, a less-disciplined Obi-Wan) a replacement for an existing character (in place of Jar Jar, for instance) or in addition to the existing characters.

I’d make a “Phantom Menace: Special Edition” joke here, but Lucas is retired.

Stop Defending Scrooge. Sort of.

Recently I saw an article posted by the Mises Institute defending Ebenezer Scrooge’s character.  In point of fact there are at least two.  I find the notion of defending Scrooge to be kind of disgusting, but I had to understand their point, and I appreciate Misesian Economic theory, so I had to look at what they were saying.  The premise goes something like this:  Scrooge himself has committed no act of violence against anyone, nor has he been guilty of any legal infractions.  What he does with his money is entirely his business, and by being a successful businessman he has helped to strengthen the economy of his country.

That’s all true.  From a libertarian perspective, they’re totally right.  In fact I think that any reading of “A Christmas Carol” that sees Scrooge purely as a villain is missing the point, as the story is one of redemption.  Scrooge is not meant to be hated, but rather pitied.  He is a poor, miserable creature, who is capable of being, and indeed who is worth, so much more.  “A Christmas Carol” is really a character study of Ebenezer Scrooge, and a deconstruction of an archetype.  Were Scrooge a truly bad man, there’d be nothing to redeem.  I have always felt that a proper reading of that classic tale is that Scrooge is lost, and in need of recovery.  It is not his wealth that has led him astray, it is his disconnection from other people, but as we will discover in a little bit, his disconnection is a product of his upbringing, and isn’t purely his fault.  This is why his friend Marley comes to offer him a chance at redemption.  Because Marley knows Scrooge isn’t such a bad guy, as surely as he knows that Scrooge is on a bad road.

Charles Dickens, in fact, sets up Scrooge as a nasty man but as we follow his journey with the three spirits, we see the layers pulled back and learn the depth of Ebenezer Scrooge’s character.  He is wholly and fundamentally human.  He is sad, and lonely, and has shut out all emotion as much as he possibly can in order not to face the consequences of his life choices, and the point of the journey with the three is to replay those life choices and to see the man that he truly is, and the sum of those experiences which have so fundamentally structured his being.

One of the fundamental levels upon which I judge any adaptation of “A Christmas Carol” is the success they have in building Scrooge as a complex and compelling character.  Full disclosure, I have read the book many, many times since childhood and have watched numerous adaptations, but the one I gravitate towards (and the only one I own) is the 1984 TV movie starring George C. Scott.  In fact it is one of my favorite films, which seems an odd thing to say about a made for TV picture, but I consider it the definitive adaptation and find all others to be terribly substandard in every respect.

“As soon as the loan goes through, Uncle, I am going to buy a bar in Boston and put Kirstie Alley in charge of it.”

So, we are told at the outset, by Dickens, that Scrooge is basically unbothered by heat and cold, that foul weather has no effect upon him, and that he has no great love of mirth.  He doesn’t celebrate Christmas (or likely any holidays at all) and finds the whole business to be a farce.  This is where the nastiness of Scrooge’s character is brought to bear, though, because Scrooge’s nephew Fred Holywell stops by to wish him a Merry Christmas, and Scrooge tells him where he can go.

No, really.  Per Dickens:

“Don’t be angry, uncle.  Come!  Dine with us tomorrow.”
Scrooge said that he would see him – Yes, indeed, he did.  He went the whole length of the expression, and said that he would see him in that extremity first.

The 1984 adaptation is the only one I’ve encountered that actually played that out:

“Come!  Dine with us tomorrow.”
“I’ll see you in Hell first, Fred.”

Then the two men collecting for the poor come to the office.  In the film they catch up to Scrooge at the stock exchange, which was just the film’s way of getting out of the office as quickly as possible for the sake of pacing.  In any case, they ask for donations and Scrooge tells them his tax dollars go to pay for various government programs – which of course are things like prison and workhouses, nothing that actually does any good.  Here the libertarian will probably tell you that the government shouldn’t take Scrooge’s tax dollars to fund these misguided programs, and I agree.  However, this is where we get into the fundamental flaw in Scrooge’s character.  If the government did not take Scrooge’s money, he would not have that excuse to deny contribution to the collection the two gentlemen are taking up.  But we have no reason to believe that Scrooge would treat them any differently, or give a substantively different answer.

“It’s vichyssoise, sir. It’s SUPPOSED to be cold.”

After all, he treats his clerk pretty badly, he told his own nephew to go to hell, and he has just uttered the line, “if they would rather die, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population.”

That is NOT a nice man.  Which again, is no crime.  But this is the point of A Christmas Carol.  Scrooge is not a criminal, but he is a man who is lost, who is foundering, and if we care about him as a person, then we should want him to know kindness and love for his fellow man.  Dickens in fact makes a point of contrasting the clerk, Bob Cratchit’s journey home, with Scrooge’s own:

The office was closed in a twinkling, and the clerk, with the long ends of his white comforter dangling below his waist (for he boasted no greatcoat), went down a slide on Cornhill, at the end of a lane of boys, twenty times, in honor of its being Christmas Eve, and then ran home to Camden Town, as hard as he could pelt, to play at blindman’s bluff.

Cratchit seems a fairly young man, in the prime of his life, and he still knows how to enjoy himself.  Now for his employer:

Scrooge took his melancholy dinner in his usual melancholy tavern; and having read all the newspapers, and beguiled the rest of the evening with his banker’s book, went home to bed.  He lived in chambers which had once belonged to his deceased partner.  They were a gloomy suite of rooms, in a lowering pile of building up a yard, where it had so little business to be, that one could scarcely help fancying it must have run there when it was a young house, playing at hide-and-seek with other houses, and have forgotten the way out again.  It was old enough now, and dreary enough, for nobody lived in it but Scrooge, the other rooms being all let out as offices.  The yard was so dark that even Scrooge, who knew its every stone, was fain to grope with his hands.  The fog and frost so hung about the black old gateway of the house, that it seemed as if the Genius of the Weather sat in mournful meditation on the threshold.

In his surprisingly humorous and playful way, Dickens has made Scrooge’s house a metaphor for Scrooge himself: once playful and young, it got lost and is in now in a dark and forbidding place, and most of it is now devoted to business, save for the small suite that Scrooge himself lives in.  Think about the power of that metaphor.  That’s why Dickens is regarded as a master.  All work and no play have made Scrooge a very dull boy, his presence as dour and forbidding as the “black old gateway” of his house.

It suddenly occurred to Ebenezer Scrooge that he could probably afford to live… NOT in a craphole.

Of course Dickens has another motive, as well, because the creepy old “pile of building up a yard” is the perfect setting for a ghostly encounter – or two or three – Marley’s face on the door knocker, the hearse on the broad stair, and finally Marley’s full apparition in the apartment above.  But Marley speaks, in somewhat evasive language, of having brokered this opportunity for Scrooge:  “I am here tonight to warn you, that you have yet a chance and hope of escaping my fate.  A chance and hope of my procuring, Ebenezer.”  Again proving that Dickens does not consider Scrooge a villain as such, for Jacob Marley, his friend, cares deeply enough for him to barter on behalf of Scrooge’s soul.

The journey that follows with the three spirits, tracks Scrooge’s path, like the metaphor of the anthropomorphic house, from playful child to morose adult, and the story is a sad one.  With the Ghost of Christmas Past, we learn that Ebenezer was sent away to boarding school as a child and spent his holidays there, unwelcome at his father’s house, alone with his books and his imagination as all his friends were gone home.  We also learn that, years later, as he stands on the cusp of manhood, that his father sends for him at last.  In the book he doesn’t come himself, though, he sends Scrooge’s younger sister, Fan, to fetch him in a coach and bring him home.  She tells her brother:

“Father is much kinder than he used to be, that home’s like Heaven!  He spoke so gently to me one dear night when I was going to bed that I was not afraid to ask him once more if you might come home; and he said Yes, you should; and sent me in a coach to bring you.”

That picture is rather bleak.  Ebenezer’s father clearly is none too fond of the boy, and one wonders why; and just beneath Fan’s talk of their father’s kindness is the fact that she had to ask him if Ebenezer should come home.  If she had not, perhaps the poor fellow would have been left at that school to rot.  The 1984 adaptation I hold in such high regard, elaborates on that just a bit, saying that Scrooge’s mother had died in childbirth and that his father blamed him.  This would make Fan a half-sister, but I like where it takes Scrooge because it puts an exclamation point on his father’s disdain for him, and why their relationship is broken.  And that broken relationship is so important to who Scrooge is.  The film then goes a step further, in having the father waiting in the coach when Fan fetches Ebenezer, so the moment of hope and joy is immediately trampled by his father emasculating him and telling him he isn’t coming home for long, but is to go off to apprentice straightaway.

Three Scrooges: Old Ebenezer, Young Ebenezer, and their emotionally abusive father, Silas.

Later, in another flashback, newly-minted businessman Scrooge sits talking to his fiancée, Belle.  She breaks off the engagement, saying that “another idol has displaced me; […] a golden one.”

Ebenezer emplores her:

“This is the even-handed dealing of the world!  There is nothing on which it is so hard as poverty; and there is nothing it professes to condemn with such severity as the pursuit of wealth!”

She rebukes him:

“You fear the world too much.  All your other hopes have merged into the hope of being beyond the chance of its sordid reproach.  I have seen your nobler aspirations fall off one by one, until the master passion, Gain, engrosses you.”

Or, to put it perhaps more plainly: Ebenezer was a good kid but he had a tough childhood, and as he has grown up he has been running from that childhood, from his fear of failure, from the specter of his father’s wrath.  And as we now know is so often the case with abusive relationships, the victim became like the abuser, slowly, over time; Ebenezer’s goodness was supplanted by his father’s cruelty.  Without this foundation, the journey with the spirits of Christmas Present and Future (or Yet-to-Come!) would be meaningless.

At least one of the Mises Institute articles used a quote from Fred Holywell during the Christmas Present sequence to set up its argument:  “His wealth is of no use to him.  He doesn’t do any good with it.”  However they left out the next sentence:  “He doesn’t make himself comfortable with it.”

Indeed, Fred repeatedly says that he bears Scrooge no ill will, that “his offenses carry their own punishment.”  And so they do.  Throughout his visit with the Ghost of Christmas Present, Ebenezer experiences three basic lessons.  The first is, he sees the Cratchits at home, and how happy they are despite not having much, and how one of their children is sick and lame, and Scrooge notes that he could possibly help this child with the means he has at his disposal.  Secondly, he sees other examples of this throughout England, with people he doesn’t know, doing kindness to one another, or making merry in difficult situations, understanding that happiness is not strictly tied to wealth.  And then he sees Fred and Janet, and their friends, and sees what he is missing out on by not accepting his nephew’s invitation.  He also sees that his nephew genuinely wishes him well, and that his invitations are not a trick nor an insult but a genuine desire to share the warmth and love of family.  He is also reminded that Fred bears a strong resemblance to Fan.  As it was Fan who brought him home from school, Fan who interceded on his behalf with their father, so it is Fan’s son who constantly reaches out to him.

Now here’s a guy who knows how to throw a party.

Then, of course, the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come guides him through the remains of his life after he has died, if his course remains unchanged: Scrooge’s only legacy being that people joke about him and sell his personal belongings on the black market; that the Cratchits’ son has died and a gloom has settled over their once happy home, and the strain it has placed on their marriage.  In other words, despite his success, Ebenezer Scrooge’s only legacy was one of failure, of squandered potential.  It’s that realization that changes his heart; he is, after all, not such a bad man, down deep inside.  He is merely frightened, and lonely, and how he has seen that the price of fear, is death.  Scrooge, after his redemption, doesn’t give away his riches and go live in a commune or anything.  He just realizes that he can’t take his wealth him, so he might as well enjoy it, and be a blessing to others where he can, and let happiness, rather than emptiness, rule his life.

In effect, “A Christmal Carol” was never intended to be an indictment of wealth, but rather an indictment of fear and separation.  Scrooge’s offenses do carry their own punishment.  And thus the story is not about sparing the world of Scrooge’s offenses, but sparing Scrooge of their consequences, and this can only be done by changing his heart, by awakening the basic goodness and humanity in his broken heart.

“If the phrase ‘tight as’ should be thrown about, the answer is, ‘I am about to be if you’ll direct me to the punch-bowl.'”

If you don’t agree on that count, you need to revisit the book.  Or watch a better adaptation.  I can recommend one.