Wazzles said:
Also, I can sum up the ring theory in one word: recycling.
Oh, the ring theory...something I've always wanted to write about but never found time to do it.
First thing I'd like to say is that I completely agree with Ring theory; I totally buy it, and yes, I have no doubt Lucas deliberately put those paralelisms there on purpose.
However, there's a problem with how the theory is presented, and the fascination that derives from it; and I can't help blaming some light-minded mentality on art which supposes that everything new, or everything that has not been done before has an artistic value per se (or in this case, change "before" for "recently" given the historical precedents set for Ring storytelling). This is the flagrant translation to Art of the market-value of innovation.
Innovation, which is changing one's mindset, could be a very good value for science and economy but it's not necessarily for cinema, or drama, or music, or architecture. However it could be, supposing you can actually develop your innovative concept to a point when it paralels the effects and complexity of the previous way of thinking or paradigma.
You can relate this fascination with what's new even to the juvenile praising of plot-twists and the poor JJ Abraham's Mistery Box. There are whole studios (and viewers) that base their enjoyment of a movie (which, given a certain quality, could reach the level of being called a film) solely on the fact of being as ignorant as possible of the story. To these viewers the supposition of knowing the details of the plot would "spoil" the entire spectacle because their highest value is surprise, and because, to them the sense of fun lies in being dissoriented by the sudden rearrangement of plot-facts and questions instead of the traditional (+2000 years of history of art) extasis produced by overwhelming knowledge.
Traditional storytelling presents you a trouble, and, if the resource is used at all, Deus ex Machina helps you suddenly solve the puzzle thus generating pleasure by knowledge; even ESB works this way and even today Nolan is the Master of DeM IMHO (used this way). Nowadays is the other way round, DeM only helps bring more questions, and it gives pleasure by not knowing.
This is a different paradigma, and I'm not saying I'm against it because cinema has proven to produce great films using this plot-structure. On the other hand, mankind has proven to produce great art along history not using surprise as a value element at all. Take Aedipus and you know exactly how it is going to end, and it doesn't diminish it as a drama, and there are lots of good greek tragedies, and bad ones as well. Or take Les Miserables. Or even take any movie of Paolo Sorrentino (in my opinion the best film maker working these days); take for instance The Great Beauty: there are absolutely no big plot-twists, no innovations whatsoever and still the basic premise is developed brillantly, visually, musically and in the script as well; that movie in particular doesn't even have a plot other than presenting creatively the contradictions of life itself.
Going back to ring theory, in my humble experience related to art, the key is that every premise, basic or complex, modern or ancient, can be art. And the risk is that every single premise can be shit as well. Art quality is not about great ideas, but about how those ideas are translated and written in the physical medium the art uses: film for cinema, stone for sculpture, air for music, and space for architecture. A Plot, as a structure, is not good per se; it is a script what can be either good or bad because it has elements (lines) that can be evaluated. As someone said in architecture, God is in the details [as well].
So even if it is true and used in Star Wars, Ring storytelling doesn't mean anything. The fact that
"it's a way of thinking never used in the history of cinema"
Doesn't mean anything!!!! Certainly it doesn't mean that the prequels are "the work of a genius" and mostly certainly it isn't key to evaluate the mess the prequels are. How innovative a technique can be not only doesn't have relevance, but also is a fact that is absolutely eclipsed by the cheap way the "great" idea is developed. In fact, if you regarded ring storytelling as a great idea, the fact that the prequels were so bad even diminishes GL as an artist, because as we say in my country, he'd have crashed a Ferrari.
Prequels aren't just something far below the category of film, they're even bad movies in general, and VERY bad Star Wars movies given how they counterdict the great themes the OT, ring cycles or not. The idea is poorly implemented, and thus the opera is worth less.
You can't just promote a cultural work as you would promote your concept-product to the CEO you work for. Anyone who's seen the first MR Bean movie can remember how Whistler's Mother was promoted and laugh at it...and then watch it a second time and cry because, when it comes to cinema (which as an art can reach heights comparable to any other "orthodox" art) that's real and happening.
Strangely to people from other fields than art, "this is good because no one did it before" is not an option. Things are good globally, or they're not. And there are several parameters to evaluate a film besides innovation, and even besides the script.
Now you may call me elitist, because of all that "everything is art" and "everyone can make art" that's in the air these days in the world, but an artistic expression, no matter how simple the final product/object/performance/opera/work could be, has a huge underlying complexity which, lacking, makes the whole expression fail and crash. At some point in history we started to think the opposition Classical-New; which is a fiction. Actually the couples are Classical/Vulgar and New/Old. And "new" and "old" fit in both greater categories.
Lucas should have understood that even if it rhymes like poetry, not everything that rhymes reaches to be called poetry, and to make that happen was exactly his job if he had that idea.
Art is all about conveying in a third person a definite emotion.
Cinema, as a form of Art answers both questions "what?" and "how?" but it's normally the "how" question the one that legitimizes the product, otherwise we'd be living in a cinema culture of just stupid plot tw...oh Jesus.
So what are you, a triple agent?
Spielberg laughing at Abrahams way of thinking in Indy 4