Star Wars, the saga I love and hate probably with equal measure is finally complete (unless you are a proponent of the 9 movie version that is). Even the most die-hard fans of the original trilogy must have felt just a little short-changed after the mediocre Episode 1 and the truly dismal Episode 2. However, when I came out of Episode 3: Revenge of the Sith at 3:15 in the morning, I finally felt I had closure. Here we have a movie that, despite a pretty hellish first third, actually came close to touching the coat-tails of its mighty predecessors.
Going into Ep3, I had a level of quiet confidence. Even George Lucas couldn't screw up the birth of Vader; even George Lucas couldn't distract from the truly tragic events by throwing in Ewoks or Jam Jars to 'lighten the mood'; even George Lucas couldn't come up with enough cheesy dialogue to ruin the most important moment of young Anakins life.
Thankfully, my shaky confidence seems to have paid off, as Ep3 delivers at least half a movie that is both tragic, touching and compelling.
As with the entire 'new' trilogy, the film suffers greatly from a lack of direction and genuine storytelling. Indeed, the first third feels like it is just going through the motions, full of simple filler before the real story of Vader comes to the fore. This first section sums up everything that is wrong with the prequels.
First up we are treated to a visually stunning battle between mighty Republic and Separatist ships. The culminating lightsaber duel is so lacking in feeling that it betrays the memory of those classic encounters between Luke and Vader. These scenes are supposed to set up Anakin as the conflicted mind, eager to serve his Chancellor, but determined to help people. Sadly the delivery of both his lines and actions are as wooden as ever.
From the 'excitement' of the battle we are re-introduced to Padme (Natalie Portman), now heavily pregnant with Anakins child. If there is one plot point that Lucas has failed to deliver on, it is this relationship. It is so integral to the story of the young Jedi and his fall from grace, and yet so lacking in chemistry that it is a miracle the movie flows at all.
The same could be said of Obi Wans friendship with Anakin. It is clear that the two are supposed to be close, but the director refuses to let the actors breathe life into their characters.
Despite the poor direction, dialogue and acting, the first third is rescued by Ian McDiarmid, playing the would be Emperor Palpatine. Sensing the time to conquer the Galaxy is near he begins to plant seeds of doubt in the mind of young Anakin, cruelly taking advantage of the Jedis fragile state. These scenes are terrific and offer the first real glimpses of Palpatine from Return of the Jedi.
From here the movie steps up a gear. In truth it almost feels that halfway through the film Lucas handed over the direction to, oh I dunno, Irvin Kershner!! Not only does the film suddenly become darker than Empire Strikes Back, but many of the actors start to show actual depth of character. We see Obi Wan and Anakin bidding farewell. It is a subtle moment that is clearly marked as the final time they will be together as friends and actually comes across with poignant sincerity.
Palpatine is now free to make his move, leaving Anakin with the ultimate choice. The buildup and execution of Anakins transition to the darkside is wonderful, although once he accepts his choice Hayden Christensen lets everyone down by 'acting' evil - which in his case involves staring up from his sinister cloak and speaking veeeerrrry slooooowwwwly. However, once he fires up the lightsaber again, the evil flows freely and we finally get a glimpse of Anakin, how I imagined him.
Which brings us to the final conflict and much has been written about how this fight would be the fight to end all fights, yadda yadda yadda. However, in the end the climactic coming together of Anakin and Obi Wan is stunning not for its choreography and stunts - which in my opinion are still far outclassed by the brilliant Duel of Fates - but rather by the truly emotional performances of Christensen and Ewan McGregor. After 2.5 movies of wooden acting and emotionless dialogue, Anakin and Obi Wan unleash their guilt, anger and love in a mesmerising display of martial arts, force powers and tearful dialogue. It is, in my opinion, this trilogys finest moment, and easily the best conflict since Vader spoke that immortal line to his cowering son in Return of the Jedi.
"If you will not turn to darkside, then perhaps she will"
Beyond this, there is some superb intercutting of scenes between the birth of the twins and the birth of Vader, only damaged by a return to some extra cheesy dialogue.
And then that's it. The saga is complete. Time to go home.
It is highly unlikely that this trilogy will stand the test of time like the original. The more I think about it, the more I believe that Lucas got very lucky with the original. He cannot direct actors, that much is clear, yet somehow the chemistry between Luke, Leia and Han was stunning and had real depth. Perhaps that had more to do with the actors than anything else. In this new trilogy, there was little or no chemistry, not until the final hour of the final film, and that is one of the saddest points and the reason I sincerely hope we do not see Lucas bring Eps 7, 8 and 9 to the screen.
Another key point which I only noticed last night was the poor use of the soundtrack. For me, a soundtrack is as important as any other aspect of a movie. When I look back at the original trilogy, I can recall how the music heightened the senses of each scene. Remember, the entrance of the Super Star Destroyer? That scene would have been nothing without 'The Imperial March'. What about the sublime Jedi music that follows Luke down the trench of the first Death Star? Or my personal favourite scene in all of Star Wars - the moment Luke gives in to anger and defeats his father. Everything about that scene is perfect, from the framing, to the performances and finally to the piece of music that still sets my heart racing today.
Only once in the entire of this new trilogy did the music feel perfectly balanced with the scenes, and that was Duel of Fates from Ep 1. Too often was the music over-produced and mingled so profoundly with the other sound effects that it became a garbled mess. Add to this the over-use of CGI, the poor ordering and cutting of scenes and it's not a surprise that this trilogy was unable to capture the magic of the previous one.
However, Ep 3 deserves a lot of credit. For me it has rescued a franchise in serious artistic decline and while some of the scenes between Vader and Palpatine are camp let us not forget the cheese fest scenes in RotJ!
Vader: "I have felt him"
Palatine: "Strange that I have not"
Plus, after 2 movies with far too much failed comic relief you'll be pleased to hear that C3PO hardly has a line, while Jam Jar only appears in the background. Bar the shaky first hour, Hayden Christensen finally comes of age when his full wrath comes to the surface while Ewan McGregor shrugs off Alec Guiness to delivery a poignant, new side to Obi Wan. Seeing this great leader reduced to a tortured, desperate soul, will go down as one of THE defining moments in the entire Star Wars saga.
Oh and Yoda is pretty cool too!
In summary, Ep 3 is 100 times better than Ep 1 and 10,000 times better than Ep 2, yet it still fails to match the consistency of the original trilogy. It is very much a story of 2 halves. The first 45 minutes feel like a hangover from Ep 2, save for the performance of Ian McDiarmid. But hang in there, because the final 90 minutes finally deliver a movie worthy of the name Star Wars.
"Thank the maker!"
Thursday, May 19, 2005
Friday, May 13, 2005
Beware the hoodies
I'm as guilty as everyone else. Ever since I was assaulted in the street by two hooded youths, I have tended to give groups of lads wearing hoodies a wide berth. When you break it down it's a pretty irrational fear. I mean hoodies have been around for years, so why now are they suddenly the biggest issue in British politics?
Only a week since the election and apparently the issue that warrants the highest priority is not health, education, terrorism or the economy. It is, instead, the issue of whether youths should be banned from wearing hooded tops.
Anyway, here's a report in the Guardian that might just explain the cause of this bizarre fear most of the nation has.
It seems a tremendous act of prejudice to tar everyone with the same brush like this. I may be guilty of holding that same irrational fear from time to time, but I can still see the stupidity in the likes of John Prescott supporting this rubbish.
If you want to stop anti-social behaviour, try getting to the root of the problem, rather than making radical generalisations about clothing.
Only a week since the election and apparently the issue that warrants the highest priority is not health, education, terrorism or the economy. It is, instead, the issue of whether youths should be banned from wearing hooded tops.
Anyway, here's a report in the Guardian that might just explain the cause of this bizarre fear most of the nation has.
It seems a tremendous act of prejudice to tar everyone with the same brush like this. I may be guilty of holding that same irrational fear from time to time, but I can still see the stupidity in the likes of John Prescott supporting this rubbish.
If you want to stop anti-social behaviour, try getting to the root of the problem, rather than making radical generalisations about clothing.
Wednesday, May 11, 2005
UK election
Been in Germany (convention report to follow), so watched the BBC coverage of the election dubbed in German. Hilarious, you really had to be there!
Full election result
Anyway, superb result for the Lib Dems. While the Tories made significant seat gains, their share of the vote hardly increased at all, indicating that the population still don't see them as a viable alternative.
Labour meanwhile, seriously underestimated the strength of feeling on issues like Iraq, foundation hospitals and tuition fees. As is traditional, they fought solely on the back of a strong economy and it was their undoing. That a government in power for 8 years couldn't find one other significant success to fight this election on is astounding.
The Lib Dem share of the vote is a tremendous and my only hope is that this is the start of something special. I guess my biggest fear is that the vote rise is solely because of Iraq, in which case we could see people returning to the Labour fold in 2009. However, for the timebeing things are good.
Personally, I feel that Tony Blair will be ousted by Christmas. His position is becoming untenable and I think he will face a hostile crowd come the September conference season. Howard meanwhile is trying to promote a young image for the Tories by selecting a 33 year old as shadow chancellor. I honestly don't know what the tories can do to win back power. Their negative politics did nothing to help their cause in the election.
For Charles Kennedy, a lot of work lies ahead. He needs to strengthen the policies he has created and work to remove the label that the Lib Dems are just the anti-war party.
And finally, the Independent has started a campaign to have our electoral system reformed. As in my recent blog (Time for PR?), the argument that our first past the post system does not accurately reflect the voting intentions of the people seems to be gaining momentum. With only 36% of the vote, Tony Blair has a third term. Perhaps if everyones vote mattered (instead of just those in marginals) we would get higher turnouts in places like Brightside (my constituency) where only 36.9 of the electorate bothered to vote.
Full election result
Anyway, superb result for the Lib Dems. While the Tories made significant seat gains, their share of the vote hardly increased at all, indicating that the population still don't see them as a viable alternative.
Labour meanwhile, seriously underestimated the strength of feeling on issues like Iraq, foundation hospitals and tuition fees. As is traditional, they fought solely on the back of a strong economy and it was their undoing. That a government in power for 8 years couldn't find one other significant success to fight this election on is astounding.
The Lib Dem share of the vote is a tremendous and my only hope is that this is the start of something special. I guess my biggest fear is that the vote rise is solely because of Iraq, in which case we could see people returning to the Labour fold in 2009. However, for the timebeing things are good.
Personally, I feel that Tony Blair will be ousted by Christmas. His position is becoming untenable and I think he will face a hostile crowd come the September conference season. Howard meanwhile is trying to promote a young image for the Tories by selecting a 33 year old as shadow chancellor. I honestly don't know what the tories can do to win back power. Their negative politics did nothing to help their cause in the election.
For Charles Kennedy, a lot of work lies ahead. He needs to strengthen the policies he has created and work to remove the label that the Lib Dems are just the anti-war party.
And finally, the Independent has started a campaign to have our electoral system reformed. As in my recent blog (Time for PR?), the argument that our first past the post system does not accurately reflect the voting intentions of the people seems to be gaining momentum. With only 36% of the vote, Tony Blair has a third term. Perhaps if everyones vote mattered (instead of just those in marginals) we would get higher turnouts in places like Brightside (my constituency) where only 36.9 of the electorate bothered to vote.
Wednesday, May 04, 2005
Time for PR?
As with every election, there is a lot of talk about proportional representation. In an effort to get a better understanding of what effect PR would have on a UK general election I have taken a look at the 2001 results (source: Parliamentary Library). Yes I am a very sad geek sometimes!
I decided to assume the most basic form of PR were all seats in Great Britain are decided solely on the percentage of votes each party gets nationwide.
The results of the 2001 election were as follows:
Labour - 412 seats
10,724,953 votes
42% share
Conservative - 166 seats
8,355,193 votes
32.7% share
Lib Dem - 52 seats
4,814,321 votes
18.8% share
Other - 11 seats
1,662,542 votes
6.5% share
Total - 641 seats
Total votes cast in GB: 25,557,009
Note, that there are actually 659 seats in parliament, but I have excluded the 18 in Northern Ireland as these are not contested by the three main parties in Great Britain.
Now if we simply take the percentage share that each party received and awarded the entire of GBs parliamentary seats accordingly the result would have been.
Labour - 269
Conservative - 210
Lib Dem - 120
Other - 42 (60 if we add Northern Irelands seats to this figure)
Of course, the biggest thing of note here is that no party has an overall majority. In fact no party has claimed over 50% of the share of the vote in the post war years. The closest any party has come to this was in 1950 when Anthony Eden took 49.6% for the Tories.
While I accept that a hung parliament can act as a serious ball and chain, preventing real policy movement as the parties fail to agree, I would still argue that such a system would promote more coalitions over key issues and guarantee that even the small parties have a voice in parliament.
Of course, there are many problems to work out, such as ensuring that MPs are still evenly and fairly distributed throughout the nation. A PR system would also need to take into account the various regional parties in Wales and Scotland.
However, I feel that in this election, many people have come to the realisation that the importance of their vote is directly related to whether the constituency they live in is a key marginal. In my local constituency (Sheffield Brightside) there has been little or no campaigning. The incumbent, David Blunkett, has spent most of his time travelling the nation bolstering support in key marginals. Blunkett knows that his seat is safe, so why bother campaigning there. Is that right? Is it fair?
Even more critically, the last election saw only 59.4% of the electorate turnout. With more and more people realising that their votes are almost meaningless in some places, a new system needs to be considered. Labour promised to look closely at the pros and cons of proportional representation, but as with the Tories before them, once in power they are unlikely to do anything that might remove their commons majority.
It's time for a change. In a PR system, EVERY vote would matter, and I can't think of anything more democratic than that.
I decided to assume the most basic form of PR were all seats in Great Britain are decided solely on the percentage of votes each party gets nationwide.
The results of the 2001 election were as follows:
Labour - 412 seats
10,724,953 votes
42% share
Conservative - 166 seats
8,355,193 votes
32.7% share
Lib Dem - 52 seats
4,814,321 votes
18.8% share
Other - 11 seats
1,662,542 votes
6.5% share
Total - 641 seats
Total votes cast in GB: 25,557,009
Note, that there are actually 659 seats in parliament, but I have excluded the 18 in Northern Ireland as these are not contested by the three main parties in Great Britain.
Now if we simply take the percentage share that each party received and awarded the entire of GBs parliamentary seats accordingly the result would have been.
Labour - 269
Conservative - 210
Lib Dem - 120
Other - 42 (60 if we add Northern Irelands seats to this figure)
Of course, the biggest thing of note here is that no party has an overall majority. In fact no party has claimed over 50% of the share of the vote in the post war years. The closest any party has come to this was in 1950 when Anthony Eden took 49.6% for the Tories.
While I accept that a hung parliament can act as a serious ball and chain, preventing real policy movement as the parties fail to agree, I would still argue that such a system would promote more coalitions over key issues and guarantee that even the small parties have a voice in parliament.
Of course, there are many problems to work out, such as ensuring that MPs are still evenly and fairly distributed throughout the nation. A PR system would also need to take into account the various regional parties in Wales and Scotland.
However, I feel that in this election, many people have come to the realisation that the importance of their vote is directly related to whether the constituency they live in is a key marginal. In my local constituency (Sheffield Brightside) there has been little or no campaigning. The incumbent, David Blunkett, has spent most of his time travelling the nation bolstering support in key marginals. Blunkett knows that his seat is safe, so why bother campaigning there. Is that right? Is it fair?
Even more critically, the last election saw only 59.4% of the electorate turnout. With more and more people realising that their votes are almost meaningless in some places, a new system needs to be considered. Labour promised to look closely at the pros and cons of proportional representation, but as with the Tories before them, once in power they are unlikely to do anything that might remove their commons majority.
It's time for a change. In a PR system, EVERY vote would matter, and I can't think of anything more democratic than that.
Friday, April 29, 2005
Downfall
On Saturday, it will be 60 years to the day since Adolf Hitler and his wife Eva Braun committed suicide in their Bunker near the Reichstag. It seems fitting that, as the last survivors of one of the bloodiest periods in human history enter their twilight years we are delivered a film that actually deals with those final days in an objective manner.
Past movie incarnations have been bland and unrealistic. Der Fuhrer we see on television and in the movies is more of a caricature of evil. He has no depth, no substance, no soul. However evil a person is, they still contain the qualities of other people. They still feel affection, show love, have hopes and fears. Hitler is no different, and Downfall sets about trying to accurately depict Hitlers final days in a way we've never seen before.
The story is told predominately from the perspective of Traudl Junge, Hitlers final stenographer. The film opens in 1942, as half a dozen giddy young women wait for an interview and the chance, to not only meet their idol but, to become a part of his inner circle. The scene profoundly illustrates just how revered this man was. He was loved, and not just by the Germans. He had a charm that won over nations and world leaders. This is a man who, before the war, was viewed as a template for a better tomorrow; trumpeted by American Presidents and British Prime Ministers. There was clearly more to him than just evil.
Following Junges successful application we fastforward to April 1945. The Russians are only 20 miles from central Berlin and the daily aerial bombing is now mixed in with artillery bombardment. Berlin, the heart of Hitlers brave new World, is in ruins. As Hitler surveys the beautiful models of "new" Berlin, with his friend and architect Albert Speer, he remarks on how much easier the reconstruction of Berlin will be, now that the Russians have demolished the city for them. It is a simple piece of detached wit, and yet its delivery seems to offer more of an insight into Hitler than any other film I have seen.
Downfall is as much a story about the end of National Socialism as it is the demise of Hitler, and through some excellent performances the many faces of Nazism are brought to life. From Himmler to Goebbels, the look, personalities and mannerisms of all of he characters are superbly reconstructed.
As the plight of the Nazi cause becomes more desperate, the lives of those in the bunker become more surreal. Conversations about how best to commit suicide become common place, while Eva Braun continues to throw wild parties in the ruins of the Reichstag, even as the shells explode outside.
Hitler, whose deterioration is now well advanced maintains his belief that the might of Germanys armies will come to their rescue. His final realisation that what armies the Nazis have left are crippled and in disarray is haunting. His rants are renowned as being fierce, but as a beaten man, blaming everyone from his Generals to the German people, he is truly pitiful.
The endgame is well over an hour long and to see it from the perspective of the losing side is so rare that it brings the horrors of war home in far more realistic fashion than any movie I have seen. There is no reprieve here. You know that many of these people are going to die. Are they all evil Nazis? Were they all just following orders? Are the civilians as guilty as their masters? They are questions that have dogged the last 60 years and no answer can ever bring comfort. In the end it is hard not to feel compassion for many of the German soldiers and their families, as they choose their fate.
For others though, it is hard to show mercy. As Magda Goebbels, so obsessed with Hitler and his ideals professes that she cannot live in a World without National Socialism, she decides that her family must be spared that future too. As she murders her young children, I could only feel a sense of sorrow that these innocents had to die for one womans obsession. This whole section further illustrates the captivating effect that Hitler had on people, particularly women. If there is one flaw in the movie it is that the portrayal of Magda and Joseph Goebbels is somewhat one sided. Magda is painted as the evil one, obsessed with the Hitler ideal. Only at her end does she appear remorseful. Joseph meanwhile, is painted as a somewhat weak and tormented man. It is a minor flaw in an otherwise flawless movie.
Downfall is a tremendous piece of work. It drags a little in the middle, but still remains riveting, purely because we have never had such a stark and realistic view of the War from "the bad guys" perspective. Bruno Ganz is a revelation and I can only hope that this movie gets exposure outside of Europe. It isn't anti-Semitic to like this movie. It doesn't paint Hitler and his minions as "nice" guys, it purely illustrates the desperation of war.
For me I came away with a stronger sense that the only way we can prevent such things from happening again is to try to understand what drives people to commit such hateful crimes. Rather than pigeon-hole people as evil, we need to get to the heart of the problem. In this time of increased fear of terrorism that is driving people to war, maybe that message is more important than ever.
In summary, I recommend everyone to see this movie. It is quite simply, the most important movie to ever come out of Germany and possibly the most significant war movie ever made.
Downfall - 9.5/10
Dir: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Main cast
Adolf Hitler (Bruno Ganz)
Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara)
Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch)
Joseph Goebbells (Ulrich Matthes)
Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler)
Albert Speer (Heino Ferch)
Prof. Dr. Ernst-Günter Schenck (Christian Berkel)
Past movie incarnations have been bland and unrealistic. Der Fuhrer we see on television and in the movies is more of a caricature of evil. He has no depth, no substance, no soul. However evil a person is, they still contain the qualities of other people. They still feel affection, show love, have hopes and fears. Hitler is no different, and Downfall sets about trying to accurately depict Hitlers final days in a way we've never seen before.
The story is told predominately from the perspective of Traudl Junge, Hitlers final stenographer. The film opens in 1942, as half a dozen giddy young women wait for an interview and the chance, to not only meet their idol but, to become a part of his inner circle. The scene profoundly illustrates just how revered this man was. He was loved, and not just by the Germans. He had a charm that won over nations and world leaders. This is a man who, before the war, was viewed as a template for a better tomorrow; trumpeted by American Presidents and British Prime Ministers. There was clearly more to him than just evil.
Following Junges successful application we fastforward to April 1945. The Russians are only 20 miles from central Berlin and the daily aerial bombing is now mixed in with artillery bombardment. Berlin, the heart of Hitlers brave new World, is in ruins. As Hitler surveys the beautiful models of "new" Berlin, with his friend and architect Albert Speer, he remarks on how much easier the reconstruction of Berlin will be, now that the Russians have demolished the city for them. It is a simple piece of detached wit, and yet its delivery seems to offer more of an insight into Hitler than any other film I have seen.
Downfall is as much a story about the end of National Socialism as it is the demise of Hitler, and through some excellent performances the many faces of Nazism are brought to life. From Himmler to Goebbels, the look, personalities and mannerisms of all of he characters are superbly reconstructed.
As the plight of the Nazi cause becomes more desperate, the lives of those in the bunker become more surreal. Conversations about how best to commit suicide become common place, while Eva Braun continues to throw wild parties in the ruins of the Reichstag, even as the shells explode outside.
Hitler, whose deterioration is now well advanced maintains his belief that the might of Germanys armies will come to their rescue. His final realisation that what armies the Nazis have left are crippled and in disarray is haunting. His rants are renowned as being fierce, but as a beaten man, blaming everyone from his Generals to the German people, he is truly pitiful.
The endgame is well over an hour long and to see it from the perspective of the losing side is so rare that it brings the horrors of war home in far more realistic fashion than any movie I have seen. There is no reprieve here. You know that many of these people are going to die. Are they all evil Nazis? Were they all just following orders? Are the civilians as guilty as their masters? They are questions that have dogged the last 60 years and no answer can ever bring comfort. In the end it is hard not to feel compassion for many of the German soldiers and their families, as they choose their fate.
For others though, it is hard to show mercy. As Magda Goebbels, so obsessed with Hitler and his ideals professes that she cannot live in a World without National Socialism, she decides that her family must be spared that future too. As she murders her young children, I could only feel a sense of sorrow that these innocents had to die for one womans obsession. This whole section further illustrates the captivating effect that Hitler had on people, particularly women. If there is one flaw in the movie it is that the portrayal of Magda and Joseph Goebbels is somewhat one sided. Magda is painted as the evil one, obsessed with the Hitler ideal. Only at her end does she appear remorseful. Joseph meanwhile, is painted as a somewhat weak and tormented man. It is a minor flaw in an otherwise flawless movie.
Downfall is a tremendous piece of work. It drags a little in the middle, but still remains riveting, purely because we have never had such a stark and realistic view of the War from "the bad guys" perspective. Bruno Ganz is a revelation and I can only hope that this movie gets exposure outside of Europe. It isn't anti-Semitic to like this movie. It doesn't paint Hitler and his minions as "nice" guys, it purely illustrates the desperation of war.
For me I came away with a stronger sense that the only way we can prevent such things from happening again is to try to understand what drives people to commit such hateful crimes. Rather than pigeon-hole people as evil, we need to get to the heart of the problem. In this time of increased fear of terrorism that is driving people to war, maybe that message is more important than ever.
In summary, I recommend everyone to see this movie. It is quite simply, the most important movie to ever come out of Germany and possibly the most significant war movie ever made.
Downfall - 9.5/10
Dir: Oliver Hirschbiegel
Main cast
Adolf Hitler (Bruno Ganz)
Traudl Junge (Alexandra Maria Lara)
Magda Goebbels (Corinna Harfouch)
Joseph Goebbells (Ulrich Matthes)
Eva Braun (Juliane Köhler)
Albert Speer (Heino Ferch)
Prof. Dr. Ernst-Günter Schenck (Christian Berkel)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)