Okay, it may not be the best movie ever made. It may not even be the best movie I have ever seen. However, I can safely assert that Star Wars (1977) is the movie that most changed my young life.
I
first saw director George Lucas’s blockbuster space opera when I was seven
years-old. Up to that point, I had never
witnessed a fantasy/sci-fi/monster movie crafted on such a grand scale, or one
presented with such an incredible, unshakable
sense of reality.
Unlike
many genre films of the epoch (for example, Damnation Alley [1977]) there was
never even a single moment during Star Wars when the “spell” was
broken, or the fantasy facade broke down to accommodate a bad special effect, a
lousy performance, a cheap set/costume, or some other weak production component.
Rather,
that atmosphere of reality – of a different
and fantastic reality, no less – was rigorously and impeccably sustained for two hours.
And
because of that fact, Star Wars was the most exhilarating
movie I’d seen up to that point. I
remember coming out of the movie for the first time and feeling like I had been
holding my breath for two hours. Then, over a period of several weeks, I saw the film in the theater at least three more times...and felt precisely the same way.
Last
weekend, I went back and re-watched the original Star Wars again in its first theatrical cut, the cut before it became known as “Episode
IV: A New Hope,” and before George Lucas tinkered with and updated the
special effects. My express goal was to attempt to discern what had made the film so precious and magical to me as a second
grader.
I
now understand, I believe, at least partially, the answer to that riddle.
The
great joy of Star Wars, even today, all comes down to George Lucas’s incredible ability
to ground his otherworldly “space opera” world in a reality that is immediately
recognizable to all of us. For instance, underneath
the flashy lasers and colored light sabers, or the strange aliens and robots, the film boasts
this driving, human feeling of yearning, of
almost anticipatory anxiety.
Star
Wars’ lead
character, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) gazes up at the night sky of Tatooine, and he wonders
what awaits him. Where will he go next? When does
his life really begin? When does he finally get to grow up and chart his own
destiny? What is he supposed to believe in?
Lucas
grounds the viewer in Luke’s personal “coming of age” story, yet that’s far from the
only grounding the director accomplishes here.
Without explaining in significant terms a back-story, Lucas
crafts in Star Wars a lived-in world which nonetheless points to previous
adventures, and to a larger universe beyond the main narrative.
It’s
such a big (and yet consistent…) place, in fact, that it almost can’t all fit
within the boundaries of the movie frame. Thu,s at times, it almost seems as if Lucas didn’t make it up his universe at all, or build it all from scratch. Rather, it’s as though he took a camera in-hand and
actually traveled to a galaxy far, far away, filmed what he saw there, and brought that footage back for us to enjoy.
The
film’s dialogue, filled with descriptors like “this time,” or “no more,”
captures obliquely the notion that this adventure is set on just another day
in this faraway galaxy, and that there are many, many other adventures to witness, and personalities to meet there. The film boasts many half-explored implications, from intimations about unseen characters like The Emperor, Captain Antilles and Jabba the Hutt, to tantalizing hints about the previous adventures of Han Solo, Obi-Wan Kenobi, R2-D2 and C-3P0. The scenery or set design itself possesses a kind of unexplored depth and breadth. There's a staircase leading up -- where precisely? -- beyond Docking Bay 94 on Tattooine. There's the packed-to-the-gills interior of a bustling, junk-filled Sandcrawler. There are even alligators in the sewers, so-to-speak, or rather a Dia Noga in the trash compactor.
The visual form of Star Wars reflects this narrative content in a most unusual and
resonant fashion. Specifically, Lucas
utilizes visual homage or visual tributes
to previous and well-established cinematic productions to help us -- the audience -- process quickly and thoroughly the
essential nature of life in the world of the Galactic Empire.
So even if we don’t consciously recognize or identify all the visual touches in
terms of the original source material (such as The Hidden Fortress
[1958], Metropolis [1927] or 633 Squadron [1964]), our eyes
nonetheless understand the touches as
belonging to some common “language” we all share.
Star Wars is an accomplished blend of the familiar with the
unfamiliar, the past with the present, and with the (imaginative) future. And Lucas’s choice to re-purpose imagery
from film history is one key to help us understand his universe. Underneath this technique of tribute or homage is a simple yet elegant message about man's nature, and not least of all, his spirituality. In short, Star Wars offers a renewal of movie spirituality in an era of anti-heroes, cynicism, and the personal, idiosyncratic cinema.
“If there's a bright center to the
universe, you're on the
planet that it's farthest from.”
While being pursued by the Emperor’s minion,
Lord Darth Vader (David Prowse), Princess Leia of Alderaan (Carrie Fisher)
hides the tactical plans for an Imperial battle station called the Death Star
with a small droid called R2-D2 (Kenny Baker).
With his counterpart, protocol droid C-3PO
(Anthony Daniels) in tow, R2-D2 escapes to the desert world of Tatooine with the goal
of finding former Jedi Knight, Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) and soliciting
his aid.
On Tatooine, however, the droids are captured by scavengers called Jawas and sold to the Skywalker farm. There, a young man, Luke (Hamill), hopes to leave his dreary life working at the moisture farm, and tender his application to the Academy. But his uncle resists. He doesn't want Luke to go. He doesn't want Luke to grow up.
Soon, Luke and the droids meet up with Kenobi, an old man who urges the young man to help him
reach Alderaan with R2 and the technical schematics.
After his aunt and uncle are murdered by Imperial Stormtroopers, Luke
agrees to join Obi-Wan's quest. They book
passage to Alderaan aboard the Millennium Falcon, captained by Han Solo
(Harrison Ford) and co-piloted by a Wookie named Chewbacca (Peter Mayhew).
Unfortunately,
the commanding officer on the Death Star, Grand Moff Tarkin (Peter Cushing)
plans to make Princess Leia reveal the location of the secret rebel base, and destroys
her home planet of Alderaan to coerce her cooperation.
When the Millennium Falcon arrives in the Alderaan system from Tatooine, it finds not a
beautiful planet, but the Death Star.
Now,
Luke and his friends must rescue Leia, Ben must confront his old student,
Vader, and they all must get the plans to the rebels, before the Empire and the
Death Star carry the day…
For over a thousand generations, the Jedi Knights were the
guardians of peace and justice in the
Old Republic. Before the dark times...
before the Empire.
When
you stand back and gaze at Star Wars from a good distance, you can detect that the film
tells a very old story: the hero's journey. But it tells that tale in a new way, and in a new (final?)
frontier: outer space.
Rather, it is the explicit details of the narrative that are new to audiences, from the history of the Jedi Knights and The Force to the explanations of such things as snub-nosed fighters, T.I.E. fighters, tractor beams, hyper-drive, Wookies, land-speeders and droids. The way to make all these people, concepts, and ideas immediately understandable, Lucas understands, is to mine much of film history for visual antecedents, ones that make the story graspable for audiences, even though they don't know the precise details of the Old Republic, the Galactic Empire, or the Clone Wars.
Rather, it is the explicit details of the narrative that are new to audiences, from the history of the Jedi Knights and The Force to the explanations of such things as snub-nosed fighters, T.I.E. fighters, tractor beams, hyper-drive, Wookies, land-speeders and droids. The way to make all these people, concepts, and ideas immediately understandable, Lucas understands, is to mine much of film history for visual antecedents, ones that make the story graspable for audiences, even though they don't know the precise details of the Old Republic, the Galactic Empire, or the Clone Wars.
From
the film’s opening crawl, this is the very technique Lucas regularly
deploys. In particular, the crawl that appears
immediately after the film's title harks back to Flash Gordon (1936), and
the title cards used in each serial opener. In Flash Gordon, such screens conveyed important information about
previous episodes in the thirteen installment production. This crawl is actually our first visual indication that Star
Wars is a pastiche, or a work of art imitating and honoring the work of
previous artists. It also sets the jaunty, almost retro tone of the picture. By recruiting this technique from
the Flash Gordon films, Star Wars announces, specifically, its intention to be pulpy,
lighthearted, swashbuckling fantasy and fun.
This
was not a small detail in the 1970s. The disco decade was an era when such swashbuckling adventure films were not in vogue. In terms of the sci-fi genre, Dystopian-styled films
dominated the landscape (The Omega Man, Soylent Green, Logan’s Run, and Damnation Alley, for example.). Not coincidentally, the same decade was
the age of growling, violent anti-heroes like Dirty Harry and Paul Kersey (of the Death Wish
films).
By commencing Star Wars with a 1930s-era, serial-like crawl, George Lucas effectively renounced contemporary cinema, and reached back to an older tradition, a “golden age” of more innocent fantasy fare. Not incidentally, the screenplay seems to share his point of view, describing the light saber of the old Republic as an "elegant" weapon for a more "civilized time." In other words, the past inside the Star Wars universe, and the past of Hollywood history outside Star Wars were both more elegant and civilized than the present of the Galactic Empire/anti-hero cinema.
By commencing Star Wars with a 1930s-era, serial-like crawl, George Lucas effectively renounced contemporary cinema, and reached back to an older tradition, a “golden age” of more innocent fantasy fare. Not incidentally, the screenplay seems to share his point of view, describing the light saber of the old Republic as an "elegant" weapon for a more "civilized time." In other words, the past inside the Star Wars universe, and the past of Hollywood history outside Star Wars were both more elegant and civilized than the present of the Galactic Empire/anti-hero cinema.
Our invitation to adventure in a more elegant and civilized time: Flash Gordon (1936). |
Our invitation to innocence in a cynical time: Star Wars (1977). |
After
the opening crawl, Star Wars very much begins to deliberately ape elements and details from Akira
Kurosawa’s film, The Hidden Fortress. That
film also used “wipes” as visual transitions between scenes, but more importantly,
involved two pseudo-comic individuals, Tahei and Mataschici, who escaped a
pitched battle, wandered for a time in a wasteland, and were then captured and enslaved. They then became involved with the rescue of a Princess and the exploits of a General.
This familiar sequence of events is repeated with the droids R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars. Two likable (and funny) robots escape from the rebel blockade runner battle, become lost in the Tatooine desert, and unwittingly become involved with the rescue of a princess and the exploits of a Jedi-Knight. The point in both films is to highlight two unassuming, even “common” individuals who become caught up in huge, important events beyond their control, and even their understanding. It's a ground's eye view of world-shaking incidents, of history unfolding.
In terms of Star Wars, the first twenty minutes of the film or so mostly revolve around the droids and their exploits, and this kind of “macro” focus is one way to introduce the Star Wars universe without inundating audiences with tech-talk and difficult-to-pronounce names or sci-fi concepts. Matters of galactic import (like the Death Star), can wait, and Lucas introduces his core concepts one at a time without risk of sensory overkill or confusion.
This familiar sequence of events is repeated with the droids R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars. Two likable (and funny) robots escape from the rebel blockade runner battle, become lost in the Tatooine desert, and unwittingly become involved with the rescue of a princess and the exploits of a Jedi-Knight. The point in both films is to highlight two unassuming, even “common” individuals who become caught up in huge, important events beyond their control, and even their understanding. It's a ground's eye view of world-shaking incidents, of history unfolding.
In terms of Star Wars, the first twenty minutes of the film or so mostly revolve around the droids and their exploits, and this kind of “macro” focus is one way to introduce the Star Wars universe without inundating audiences with tech-talk and difficult-to-pronounce names or sci-fi concepts. Matters of galactic import (like the Death Star), can wait, and Lucas introduces his core concepts one at a time without risk of sensory overkill or confusion.
Two common men get caught up in world-changing events, in The Hidden Fortress (1958). |
Two lowly droids get caught up in galaxy-changing events, in Star Wars (1977). |
A trek through the wilderness, their future uncertain. |
A trek through the desert, their future uncertain. |
The first
hour of the Lucas film is, on retrospect, my favorite portion of the film. After things settle down a bit, there's a quiet yet vital
scene set in Ben Kenobi’s desert home. What Star
Wars accomplishes here, again, is revolutionary, if in an unassuming kind of
way. Kenobi quietly and steadfastly introduces us to his faith. He describes the Force as the
thing that “gives
a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It
surrounds us and penetrates us; it binds the galaxy together.”
Again
dismissing the tenets of the contemporary and cynical 1970s Hollywood, Star Wars thus reintroduces “spirituality” to a cinema that had asked, explicitly, “Is God Dead” in films such as 1968’s
Rosemary’s
Baby, and also, to some degree, Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973). Certainly Lucas's film is not a strict re-assertion of Christianity, necessarily, but rather a non-denominational acknowledgment of man’s
inherent spirituality and interconnection.
The Force, like belief and faith in Jesus Christ, is a promise of immortality
in the Star Wars universe. We see this quality of belief depicted in Ben Kenobi’s heroic death – or disappearance
– after his duel with Vader.
This famous Time cover set the tone for the late 1960s and early 1970s American cinema. |
But Star Wars re-introduces spirituality in the form of "The Force..." |
And the film even promises "eternal life" for those who believe in its precepts. |
As Star Wars continues, the film spends more time in
space, and indeed, in space combat.
Again, George Lucas chooses to make his “space opera” one that
visually resonates in terms of film history.
When Luke and Han take to the guns of The Millennium Falcon to destroy
several pursuing TIE fighters, Lucas explicitly references combat visuals from Twelve
O’Clock High (1949), a film about American flying fortresses in aerial combat
during World War II.
Once more, viewers may not exactly recognize the specific reference, but they absolutely "get" the allusion to a previous global conflict, and a previous form of warfare. We may not understand how lasers work, or what powers TIE Fighters, but we do understand the settings and dynamics of aerial combat, even translated to space.
Once more, viewers may not exactly recognize the specific reference, but they absolutely "get" the allusion to a previous global conflict, and a previous form of warfare. We may not understand how lasers work, or what powers TIE Fighters, but we do understand the settings and dynamics of aerial combat, even translated to space.
The underside gun of a flying fortress in Twelve O'Clock High. |
A view on the inside looking out (from the same film) as a gunner targets evading fighters. |
The battle to destroy the Death Star follows the same
film making approach. Only this time, Lucas re-casts a critical set-piece from
the 1964 British film 633 Squadron as his point of origin and point of audience recognition. In that film, several
Allied Bombers make a run against a Nazi base lodged between two mountains
(essentially in a trench...). As the
bombers make their attack run, they attempt to avoid blistering anti-aircraft guns. There is also an initial false start, and a false
detonation at the target site. Additionally, enemy fighters swoop in to challenge the bombers and pick them off as they
focus on their quarry on the ground. If you’re at all familiar with
Star Wars, you will recognize the setting, sequence, and outcome of the Death Star trench scene as
being very similar indeed to 633 Squadron.
The point isn’t that Lucas stole anything. The point is that when “you’ve taken your
first step into a larger world,” to quote Obi Wan Kenobi, elements of that
world need to be understandable immediately, so that other important concepts
can be grasped. In other words, if you’re
focusing on something like how a tractor beam works, or what is hyper-drive is, you’re not paying attention to the details of Luke’s quest,
and Lucas’s story.
By updating old
cinematic imagery, Lucas conveys his story -- and his message about spirituality -- in a way that we visually accept and
understand, almost at once.
From Star Wars: The Empire Strikes back at attacking rebel spaceships. |
On the horizon, enemy fighters swoop in for the kill (in 633 Squadron). |
TIE Fighters swoop in for the kill (in Star Wars). |
In the trench, planes avoid blistering gunfire. (633 Squadron). |
In the trench, rebel X-fighters avoid blistering gunfire (Star Wars). |
I suspect this is the reason why, seriously, that George Lucas altered the dynamic of the Han Solo/Greedo sequence. In that scene as it was originally crafted, Han fires his blaster, and
Greedo doesn’t shoot at all. It’s an
almost anti-hero, Dirty Harry-esque moment for the Solo character.
I believe that’s precisely the kind of aesthetic Lucas wanted to eschew and avoid, and so on retrospect, did just that by making Greedo shoot first. Han’s act was thus transformed from one of preemptive murder to self-defense. I’m not arguing that his selection was the right one,
or that Lucas should have tampered with the scene, only that some of the changes Lucas has forged
in terms of Star Wars tend to play into this very notion of Star Wars as pastiche, of a call-back to an earlier, more innocent generation of film productions.
Even the idea to title his Star Wars films numerically and with melodramatic sub-title fits in with this tradition of the crawl concept of Flash Gordon which boasted titles such as “The Unseen Peril.” That sounds a lot like The Phantom Menace, doesn’t it?
The two concepts I have discussed most frequently in this review are:
1.) how Lucas grounds the reality of Star Wars by creating a lived-in,
recognizable universe and 2.) how Lucas attempts to hark back to a more
innocent, swashbuckling, spiritual age of movies. If you link those two concepts, you will arrive at my unified theory of Star Wars, and at the very essence of the film itself. Star Wars presents a
universe so authentically-rendered and well-thought out that you can truly believe
in it. The careful forging of the world discourages cynicism or disbelief.
Even the idea to title his Star Wars films numerically and with melodramatic sub-title fits in with this tradition of the crawl concept of Flash Gordon which boasted titles such as “The Unseen Peril.” That sounds a lot like The Phantom Menace, doesn’t it?
If Han Solo shoots first, is he Dirty Harry? |
The idea of “May the Force be With You,” not unlike the
exclamation “Go with God,” is inherently about belief; about believing in yourself
and your capacity to tap the spiritual center of existence itself. Yet no one would possibly believe in Lucas's world
or in that inspirational message if the special effects in Star Wars were unconvincing, if the
aliens looked hokey, or if the space battles were confusing.
I believe that by referencing these older films and older
visuals, Lucas was making certain that we could relate to Star
Wars. It’s a unique and intriguing
technique, and I submit it actually works very well. The later films in the franchise depend on vast, special effects set-pieces with digital backdrops and drooling creatures, and yet the greatest
emotional thrill I felt during the saga occurred here, in the original Star
Wars, as Luke and Leia swung boldly across a chasm together, and John Williams’ scored
blared heroically underneath their leap.
A boy, a girl and a universe. The thrill and appeal of Star Wars are almost literally that simple. Despite making a high-tech film filled with laser blasts, spaceships, robots, and a complex internal history Lucas directs us through this complexity and gets right to the mythic, spiritual heart of his film.
As of August 13, 2012 -- how
many years after I first saw the film?? -- that pure-hearted (but
intellectually-conceived) approach still works for me.
I was 12 years old when Star Wars came out and already a hard core science fiction fan, so my reaction to the movie was a little cooler than those who saw it at say, age six or eight. To them, this was ground zero. Nothing existed before it and it started them on a lifetime of fantasy geekdom. To me, it was a big budget version of Flash Gordon and nowhere near as impressive as Star Trek, Space: 1999, or 2001: A Space Odyssey. As I said repeatedly to one of my childhood friends, This is space fantasy, not science fiction.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I did pick up on all the points that you mentioned, even if I didn't have the film vocabulary to explain them at the time. The exhilaration one felt was especially different for the era. I went to a lot of movies in the 70s, and this was a whole new animal in its excitement and positive message. I was especially touched by the spiritual side of it, since I was going through a period of spiritual exploration during my pre-teen years. God was not a cool thing to talk about in the 70s, but here it was, even if it was toned down for public consumption. I appreciated that very much.
I have to disagree about the Han shot first thing, however. I don't think it would've been at all out of order to see a gunslinger in an old Western do such a thing, particularly one who is about to go through a process of redemption. I really believe Lucas was influenced more by modern political correctness than vintage movie tradition.
Neal,
DeleteYou make a very astute comment about Star Wars being space fantasy rather than hard-sci fi. That's a good point. I was quite taken with Stars War at my age (seven), but even then, I was also taken with Space:1999. It's still my favorite sci-fi series, though I am also a die hard Trekkie. Today, I love 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I remember that when I first saw it in third grade I had no clue what was happening, or why it was happening.
The exhilaration, as you note, is the key thing about Star Wars. The film is uplifting and exciting, and yes, there's the spiritual (not necessarily religious...) nature to the film. These are all qualities, I feel, that contribute to the film's greatness.
I don't like Han shooting first, either. It just struck me while watching this time how Greedo shooting first kind of preserves the Lucas ideal of not featuring an anti-hero. I like the original version, but this is the closest I've ever come to understanding, rationally and objectively, why that change might exist. Could be political correctness, however.
Great comment. Thank you for sharing. I really enjoyed reading about your childhood, and your experience of Star Wars in the 1970s.
All my best,
John
I love your insight on this film and Lucas' work in general. I remember as a kid that one of the things that fascinated me about this movie was the reality of the world. Like you pointed out, there is a depth to the production design that make it feel like you are really there, and that you are only seeing a small part of the rest of the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd the fact that everyone and everything seemed to have a story leading up to this moment was new to me. You really are plopped into the middle of the action with this movie, and yet it remains clear and enjoyable.
I think that this is one of the reasons why Star Wars action figures really took off. It felt natural to make your own stories with the toys, because whatever you could imagine could happen before or after the movie easily. Sure you'd recreate your favorite scenes from the films (I can't tell you how many times I recreated the skiff battle using the fire pit in the back yard as a makeshift sarlacc). But it was more fun to create new adventures leading up to the films or following up with them.
What actually got me to really notice the amazing details in this particular film was actually the Star Wars collectable card game from the 90s. There were cards for just about every piece of set and prop. It captured aliens I never noticed before even with all my viewings of the film. I'd get these cards and then rewatch the film just to see if the company was making any of this stuff up and for the first few runs of cards, they were all taken from the untouched original trilogy. It really blew my mind.
But I still can't get behind the change with the whole Greedo vs Han thing. Like you, I get the reasoning behind it, but it just doesn't feel right for the character in my mind.
Anyway, enough ranting by me. Thanks for putting some focus on an element I always admired about these films.
Roman,
DeleteYou make so many great points here. Star Wars absolutely plops you down in the middle of the action. It grabs you, and never lets go. This notion of starting in media res really works for the film, I think, and sweeps you up in the excitement.
I absolutely concur, as well, with your feelings about Star Wars figures. I remember that I had Blue Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Greedo and Walrus Man very early (from Sears). They were amongst the first figures I owned, so I could play Star Wars, but it was a kind of side-alley Star Wars, with the aliens and the exterior of the cantina. I also had a landspeeder, so I turned Blue Snaggletooth and Hammerhead into Mos Eisley sheriff and deputy, chasing Greedo (in an Eagle pod from Space:1999). You're so right about all the adventures you could have with those great action figures.
Great comment. I really enjoyed reading about how you experienced Star Wars back in the day.
Warmest regards,
John
John, like you, as a boy in 1977 we all just completed seeing the second and sadly final season of SPACE:1999(1975-1977). We were pleasantly surprised in the post-Space:1999 summer of 1977 with STAR WARS that changed my friends and my life too. George Lucas first real world personal coming of age story American Graffiti(1973) prepared him for creating a realistic galaxy far, far away for his ultimate coming of age story that we all lived vicariously through Luke Skywalker. I was a young boy, but Luke’s feeling about growing up, belief in the Force[God] and his loss of loved ones resonated with us all. George Lucas created a lived in galaxy that was both believable and made us want to visit there, some day. I believe George Lucas best depiction[use] of this galaxy was only in Star Wars(1977) and Empire Strikes Back(1980), those two films are brilliant. I would have loved to see a remake of Return Of The Jedi, because George Lucas lost his way from that galaxy after our boyhood adventure fantasies were realized in his Star Wars(1977) and Empire Strikes Back(1980), perfect films.
ReplyDeleteJohn your review of this Star Wars summer of 1977 moment of our collective childhoods is awesome, I love that you have left no stone unturned regarding this masterpiece of George Lucas.
SGB
Hi SGB,
DeleteIt has always struck me as incredibly tragic that Space:1999 was not renewed for one more season. If it had been, it would have been perfectly placed to capitalize on the pop culture's new obsession with space adventuring, courtesy of Star Wars. For me, the years 1975 to 1977 -- from Space:1999 to Star Wars -- are among the absolute best of my childhood.
I also agree with you about Star Wars and Empire being utterly brilliant depictions of Lucas's vision, and we share a deep, deep disappointment with Return of the Jedi. That is one of my first memories of sitting in a theater after a movie and feeling sad and empty, and wondering "is that it?" Bummer!
Great comment, as always, my friend.
best,
John
John, I agree that, like you, 1975 to 1977 are among the pinnacle of my boyhood memories.
DeleteSGB
Hi,
ReplyDeleteI saw the movie recently and I was struck by the interesting mix of small and grand. I liked the way they didn't explain everything. They didn't even try it. A well placed "Hmmm..." and that was it.
I always meant to ask: what is the definition of a cult movie?
Best,
J.J.
This review is one of the best things I've ever read by you, John. "A renewal of movie spirituality." Interesting perspective, which kind of dovetails with what the late great sf writer Thomas Disch had to say about the whole Star Wars phenomenon: "So, in all the talk about Star Wars, I never once heard mention of what seemed the salient feature of the storyline - that it retold, on a larger scale but quite transparently, the sperm-as-spaceman skit from Woody Allen's Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask. The film is a virtual sex manual for nervous teenage boys who need to be reassured that if they only relax a little, all will be well and the force will be with them. Perfectly sound advice, and glad tidings, evidently, to millions of viewers."
ReplyDelete