StarChewyWar said:
Mithrandir said:
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, changing one's mindset, could be a very good work for science and economy but it's not necessarily for cinema, or drama, or music, or architecture, though it could, supposing you can actually develop your innovative concept to a point when it paralels the effects and complexity of the previous way of thinking.
You can relate this fascination with what's new even to the juvenile praising of plot-twists and poor JJ Abraham's Mistery Box. 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 its story. To these viewers the supposition of knowing the details of the plot would "spoil" them the entire spectacle. Exactly 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 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 Nolan is the Master of DeM IMHO these days (used this way). Nowadays is the other way round, DeM only helps bring more questions, and it gives pleasure by not knowing.
Which is a different mindset, and I'm not saying I'm against it because cinema has proven to produce great films using that technique. On the other hand, mankind has proven to produce great art 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 good greek tragedies, and bad ones. Or Les Miserables. Even take any movie of Paolo Sorrentino (in my opinion the best film maker working these days), there are absolutely no big plot-twists, no innovations in the plot of, for instance, the Great Beauty and still the basic premise is developed brillantly, visually, musically and in the script as well.
Going back to ring theory, and in my humble experience related to art, the key is that every premise, basic or complex, modern or ancient as well, can be art. And 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 a physical medium: film, stone, air. A Plot, as a structure, is not good per se but 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, Ring storytelling doesn't mean anything. The fact that
"it's a way of thinking never used in the history of cinema"
So fucking what? That doesn't mean anything!!!! Certainly it isn't key to evaluate the mess the prequels are. How innovative a technique can be not only doesn't have importance, but also 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
You can't just promote a cultural work as you would promote your concept-product to the CEO you work at. Anyone who's seen the first MR Bean movie can laugh at it. It's good because no one did it is not an option. Strangely to that people "it's good because no one did it before" is not an option. Things are good globally, or they're not. And there are several parameters in a film besides innovation, and even besides the plot.
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, not matter how simple the physical result could be, has a huge underlying complexity which, lacking, makes the whole expression fall. At some point in history we started to think the opposition Classical-New; which is a fiction. Actually it's Classical/Vulgar and New/Old. And "new" and "old" both fit the greater categories.
Lucas should have understood that even if it rhymes like poetry, not everything that rhymes reaches to be called poetry, and that was exactly his job if he had that idea.
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
I agree completely.
Then I'm afraid you're either trolling me, or maybe you didn't understand a word I said.
To be clear:
Palpatine is an average-minded politician profitting the rest of the people in the galaxy behave as idiots.
Padmè is not the protagonist.
And Star Wars is NOT poetry.
Ring Theory is bullshit, it's a balloonic rationalisation of something that's obvious to anyone above 15 years old. The use of Ring Composition doesn't make the movie neither good, or smart, or unique, or memorable whatsoever, it's just VISUAL LANGUAGE ENTROPY, only that with a few footnotes and academic references like the guy who wrote it uses, he can make it seem like something serious or worthy when it's only natural, specially given that 4 of 6 movies analized come from the same f*cking director, who could and would obviously repeat himself.
And even conceding you some truth, even if Palpatine was a genius and padme was the protagonist, the movie is still shit. It's an awful work, which fails to convey the emotions it obviously tries to convey. Anakin has a hanging poster saying "I'm cute, like me", Maul saying "I'm badass, fear me", but no one does, because everything is so underlined in the movie that causes rejection to the premise that the viewer is, indeed, as idiotic as the characters in the screen.
Movies don't need to be explained, they success or fail in conveying an emotion.
This one fails horribly, even if it's the most star wars looking of the prequels.