Star Wars retrospectives – DaveGladow.com

The Rise of Skywalker retrospective: The kids are alright

It’s been two full years since “The Rise of Skywalker” hit theaters on Dec. 20, 2019, and boy howdy have a few things changed since then.

COVID-19 made its smashing debut a few weeks after that (well, not technically, but we became conscious of its impact at that point), and we continue to work our way through dealing (or not dealing) with that.

One of those impacts has been a decided lack of blockbusters making a gagillion dollars in theatrical runs. “Spider-Man: No Way Home” got a ton of butts back in seats in recent weeks (to the tune of $627 million domestic), but if you look at a list of the biggest money makers in the U.S. from December of 2019 until now, the list looks like this:

No Way Home
Rise of Skywalker
[end]

Rise made $515 million during its theatrical release, an objectively huge number. That figure ranks it fourth among Star Wars movies, about $100 million behind “The Last Jedi” and $17 million or so behind “Rogue One.”

Those numbers are meant to offer some context. A movie that was highly polarizing, much like its immediate predecessor, nevertheless made significant bank.

So, the natural follow-up question to that might be this: What made the movie appealing to such a large number of people? And why might it be worth revisiting today?

Let’s dive into that!

Solo retrospective: Crawling out of the sewer

“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.”
― Henry David Thoreau

Star Wars — since the very beginning — has been completely intertwined with the concept of rebellion. George Lucas, himself rebel-minded when it came to the existing shackles of the day in the Hollywood system, set out to not only tell HIS story in HIS way with the original “Star Wars” in 1977, he also burned the candle at both ends to ensure he would be able to continue to do so into the future. He then laid all of those threads of rebellion into his “space fantasy” film in as overt a fashion as possible.*

* Notably, his previous film, “American Graffiti” was overtly rebellious as well.

Indeed, strip out the magnificent world building and brilliant riffs on epic storytelling done in Star Wars, and what are you left with? What is the point?

Well, in a global sense, the conflict is the point, and said conflict arises from the yin and yang of oppression and rebellion.

As I’m fond of saying, it’s called Star WARS for a reason.

However, looking beyond the black and white conflict of the Rebellion and the Empire, you’ll still see this theme at play within the character of Han Solo, the handsome roguish smuggler who plays by his own rules and doesn’t adhere to societal conventions. Moreover, he actively seeks to avoid being trapped into situations that threaten his “freedom,” and in the process, he becomes one of the most iconic characters in modern film history.

If you decide, as a company, that THIS character’s back story is worthy of its own feature film (as Disney did), you also decide that themes of freedom, subjugation, slavery, conflict and rebellion are going to be a major part of said film.

The Last Jedi retrospective: Why we’re still here

Do you like “Star Wars” or do you not like it?

It seems like a simple question to me.

I mean, if you’re sitting here reading this, chances are, you like this stuff, right? At minimum, you like some of it. But then again, that doesn’t preclude you flaming the hell out of some of the rough bits … or at least fairly critiquing said rough bits (I certainly engage in the latter).

It just seems like a fair question to pose when some people have been so enormously hostile toward some of the films in the series (particularly lately). Because if you’re still on board with some of this material, it doesn’t make sense to me to try to ruin some of the rest of it for others.

Common ground = being a Star Wars fan.

Opinions about the entirety of that universe will differ widely from person to person, so it stands to reason some people will enjoy what you don’t. Some people like the prequels. Some don’t. Some find the teddy bears in “Return of the Jedi” revoltingly offensive. Some love them to pieces. Some people HATE the Disney era. Some of us love it. I don’t think we’re ever going to reach a consensus here on any of it. So, it just doesn’t make any sense to me to devote hours upon hours of dedication to an angry YouTube channel to tear down that which you claim to love.

Do you like “Star Wars” or do you not like it?

“The Last Jedi” — maybe more than any other film in the series — will put you on the spot and demand you answer that question one way or the other.

Continue reading The Last Jedi retrospective: Why we’re still here

Rogue One retrospective: Sacrifice and inspiration

Disney’s foray into the world of Star Wars with its first major motion picture under the banner, “The Force Awakens,” was an outstanding success, garnering near-universal positive critical reviews while becoming the greatest North American box office money-maker … ever.

If it had a failing, it was its tepid steps into the realm of being called a “rehash” or “retread.” Without a doubt, it was a joyous experience for many (and deemed a “return to form” by many more), but there is also no denying particular calculated decisions that were meant to call to mind the original trilogy — from style/design work to practical effects to actual plot elements to character development.

Hey, in this case, it was obviously proven wise. Nostalgia works.

Perhaps in an effort to combat the “rehash” criticism somewhat (but more likely just to keep Star Wars relevant in the inevitable production gaps between its main “saga” movies), Disney made the interesting choice to stagger its saga films with stand-alone stories meant to explore the universe in different ways.

The first and most successful of these attempts was “Rogue One,” which made no bones about its desire to also tap into our nostalgia as directly as it possibly could within its plot and setting, but simultaneously brought us several brand-new characters, a darker, grittier tone, and fleshed out the lore in ways that were often surprising.

The end result? Anyone craving a more “adult” Star Wars finally had something to hold onto — a film they could justifiably declare was meant for them.

Indeed, ask most any kid which Star Wars movie is their least favorite, and most will point to this one.

The folks who were kids back in the early 1980s had been demanding a film tailored to their more adult-like sensibilities for decades. Here, finally, they had it. “Rogue One” was simply a different film for a different audience.

(Tangentially, I wonder what reaction George Lucas might have received had he released THIS in 1999 instead of the much-maligned “The Phantom Menace” … hmmmmm.)

The Force Awakens retrospective: We’re home

“Let me show you something, that will make you feel young, as when the world was new.”
— Carol Marcus, “The Wrath of Khan”

Aging is a motherfucker.

One of my favorite aspects to the Star Trek movie franchise featuring the original cast members was how it dealt with aging. I mean, by necessity it had to, as the series predated the films by over a decade. The actors got older. We couldn’t very well ignore that. These were still our favorite characters, except further weathered by the experiences around them.

(I find this more and more relevant as I, myself, age.)

“Wrath of Khan” in particular did a masterful job of incorporating the theme of aging and wrapping a narrative around it. In that movie, our main protagonist, Captain James T. Kirk, must come to terms with his own physical breakdowns, face the demons (and angels) he’s created in his former life, and ultimately come to grips with death in a very personal way. The lessons are simple and, well, ageless. To wit:

As we get older, we have to come to terms with how we have been unable to “fix” the world or live our lives in quite the way we might have wanted to.
We have to see the people we love leave us.
And we have to endure.

When Disney announced it was making more Star Wars films following its purchase of the property from George Lucas in 2012, thoughts immediately turned to reuniting the “big three” — Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, and Carrie Fisher — on screen once again. Miraculously, within months it had been confirmed: the fans’ primary wish was coming true. More adventures for Luke Skywalker, Han Solo and Princess Leia were on the way!

Getting our favorites back after thinking it would never happen again (particularly with Ford, who had notoriously been luke-warm at best on his character for years) was a bit like Capt. Kirk cheating death throughout the runtime of “Star Trek II.” It was a thrilling thing to witness.

The downside to this should have been obvious, thanks again to the lessons learned in that previous sci-fi classic. With aging characters, you’re left with things like disappointment and loss as your major themes.

In short, The happy ending of “Return of the Jedi” could not last.

Revenge of the Sith retrospective: Gratitude

Over the course of the late spring and summer of 2005, as “Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith” hit theaters to conclude George Lucas’ epic six-movie story, Star Wars-mania took hold of me and wouldn’t let go.

This movie, which was to be Star Wars’ swan song (but actually ended up being Lucas’ instead), represented the end of an era and could have realistically been the end of Star Wars in movie theaters … forever.

That thought motivated repeat viewings in a way no other movie had before or since, at least for this writer. Four in-theater viewings remains my record for a single film to this day.*

* This total, high by my standards, but low by some Star Wars fans’, I am comfortable with. I like that this film holds the record … and also that I never got up to five.

Given what we knew at the time, that this movie could be the last of the series, it was a time of great reflection and celebration … but only for those who were still bought in (like me). Many fans had by that point been disillusioned by “The Phantom Menace” or couldn’t recapture the magic through “Attack of the Clones.” And to their point, “Revenge of the Sith” didn’t exactly break the mold of the other prequels. A sudden turnaround on the prequels at large just wouldn’t be engendered by this movie.

Non-fans were more impressed, whether because they wanted to be more charitable coming into it or they simply didn’t feel burned in the same way. Regardless of the reasons, the box office rebounded significantly from Clones, while the Tomato-meter bounced up from 54% to 66% and finally to 80% as the prequels went along.

Many non-fans (and many fans as well) were grateful to have the series go out on a relative high note.

Attack of the Clones retrospective: Swinging for the fences

In the game of baseball, an almost infinite amount of outcomes can occur whenever a hitter steps up to the plate. It is one of the most charming things about the game in general, that the potential for seeing something you’ve never seen before exists on every single pitch.

The strategy involved, by all parties, can wildly affect different outcomes. But right or wrong, it’s the hitter’s mentality that often receives the most scrutiny by observers. Is the hitter swinging for the fences? Is he putting a little extra pop into his swing, risking the biggest of whiffs in the process, but also giving him the opportunity to change the game in one swing with a deep shot? Or is he “playing it safe,” hitting for average and just trying to get on base?

The sport is littered with guys who took that “swing for the fences” mentality to extreme levels, guys like Sammy Sosa and Andres Galarraga retiring with a stat line full of both homers AND strikeouts … the ultimate feast or famine hitters.

There are many coaches who try to drill this out of guys, preaching the classic “don’t be a hero” line, and certainly the sport has plenty of space for different schools of thought on this topic. No one is exactly right or wrong, per se.

But…

I like home runs.

Therefore, I like the pursuit of home runs as well. There’s nothing quite so thrilling as a zero sum game — all or nothing — played out over the course of a couple of hours. What can I say? I respect an aggressive mentality, or perhaps more accurately, a willingness to shoot for the stars … even if failure can be the end result.

Enter “Attack of the Clones.”

The Phantom Menace retrospective: Things change

“I don’t want things to change.”

“But you can’t stop the change … anymore than you can stop the suns from setting.”

As I watched “The Phantom Menace” — George Lucas’ fourth entry in his Star Wars saga, an initial prequel tabbed appropriately “Episode I” — for the first time, late in the summer of 1999 (months after a negative backlash had already begun to take hold among some critics and fans), I couldn’t help smiling as I heard these lines of dialogue in my darkened theater.

Ostensibly, they were meant to convey and ease the suffering of one of our protagonists, Anakin Skywalker, as he must prepare to leave his mother to pursue his dreams of becoming a Jedi.

Instead, in that moment, they read as a direct warning to fans who had grown up and away from that childhood sense of wonder that had so taken hold of them as kids.

“You are different. These movies are different. Accept that and you’ll do well.”

Spoiler alert: A lot of people didn’t accept that.

Return of the Jedi retrospective: Innovation into formula

If “A New Hope” felt fresh and new (because it was), and “The Empire Strikes Back” felt bold and interesting (because it was), then surely George Lucas and the creators of “Return of the Jedi” would have to come up with something entirely different for the third film in his masterful Star Wars trilogy.

Necessity is the mother of invention, after all. Lucas had by now, famously, begun to suffer burnout. Limiting his saga to three films,* instead of the originally envisioned nine or 12 (depending on your favorite version of events), was his most obvious concession, but if you look closely, you’ll see loads of details that acknowledge this fact.

* Though I will once again acknowledge the brilliance of turning a three-act play into a trilogy of movies, regardless of how or why he came to that decision.

Observe the actors’ performances, which mostly begin to feel bored or frustrated. Their characters’ inevitable triumph feels more like a relief than a celebration.

Or consider the plot of a “second Death Star,” which even at the time felt lazy and uninspired.

Or observe our return to planets we’ve visited before in Tatooine and Dagobah.

Or notice that the entire last half of the movie is set on a “forest moon” that uncannily resembles Lucas’ backyard.

Pretty much everything signaled that this enterprise had begun to become a struggle.

Hiring on a director to take the helm in his stead (for the second straight film, this time in the form of Richard Marquand) was another clear admission that the creator himself needed help — understandable, given Lucas’ attempts to build multiple companies from the ground up while simultaneously suffering through a contentious divorce — but even the choice of director in itself reflected much. Marquand’s bonafides were more than a little lacking coming into the project. Lucas would need to remain heavily involved, which would have the benefit of allowing him to communicate his own vision, but would also require his presence on set.

While he was juggling everything else.

Burnout.

It is within that basic framework that we can begin to understand what “Return of the Jedi” actually is, and why it is the way it is.

The Empire Strikes Back retrospective: Hitting hard

In 1976, a little-known writer/actor by the name of Sylvester Stallone saw the release of his most critically acclaimed and culturally significant work, “Rocky.” Rocky told the story of a (seemingly) past-his-prime boxer being given the ultimate underdog’s title shot against the champion of the world, and it gave us all the drama one could ever hope for from such a scenario. Moreover, it had the good sense to lean into an incredible score, fast, hard-hitting imagery, a romantic subplot, and against every instinct modern Hollywood will try to bring to bear on any project ever, the hero lost.

That this movie has inspired 800 sequels/spinoffs is merely the cherry on top when trying to draw a comparison to what many consider to be George Lucas’ most inspiring work, his sequel to the smash hit “Star Wars,” “The Empire Strikes Back.”*

* This is where we note that Lucas didn’t actually direct this movie; Irvin Kershner did. While some like to use this fact as a weapon against Lucas in a personal vendetta sort of way (“Hur hur, Lucas didn’t even direct the best movie in the franchise! Hur hur.”), I think it is enough to note that Lucas was heavily involved in the making of the sequel, and that many people contributed to making Star Wars what it is today, Kershner included.

“Empire,” for short, had the unenviable challenge of trying to surpass the most popular film of all time, and it shares a weird amount of characteristics with what is ostensibly a boxing movie in “Rocky.” The most important and obvious, of course, is its total disregard for normal Hollywood endings. But I actually like the thematic comparison as well.

“Rocky,” and especially its sequels, became very well known not only for its incredible synth-scored training montages, but even more so for its over-the-top violence and depravity within the ring. Watching blood and sweat (and sometimes even body parts like teeth) sail through the air in super slow motion may not have meant much thematically beyond “this movie hits hard,” but good lord I couldn’t come up with a better description for “The Empire Strikes Back” if I tried.

This movie hits hard.

Continue reading The Empire Strikes Back retrospective: Hitting hard