Warning: This review contains spoilers!
The Star Wars franchise has been an incredibly fun venture
to follow. I have loved the Star Wars films, from Episode VI: A New Hope to
Episode I: A Phantom Menace, to Episode VII: The Force Awakens.
However, I do not like Rogue One: A Star Wars Story. It is
my least favorite Star Wars film for a couple of reasons. Before getting to why
I did not like the film, let’s look at some of the positive aspects of Rogue One.
Rogue One surpasses expectations in many respects. The
graphics and costume designs are amazing. The physical scenery and scenery
generated through blue screen are artfully blended in such a way that the
difference is almost unnoticeable. At no point do I doubt whether an item or a
character was out of place. There will likely be a number of articles
highlighting the gaffes found in Rogue
One in the near future. In my opinion, these gaffes are not noticeable at
first glance.
In 2015, a lot of buzz swirled around whether Gareth Edwards
(the director), George Lucas and the rest of the Rogue One crew could pull off
creating a film situated in between the events of Episode III and Episode IV
smoothly. After watching the film, I believe they successfully achieved this
goal. The plotline is very well strung between the two episodes. If George
Lucas were to create the films and release them, one at a time from 2008 to
now, in chronological order, fans would not be able to tell the difference ---
at least not in plotline. The only clue that would hint fans to the actual
creation of each film would be the visual discrepancy between the first three
episodes and the second three episodes. Episode I, II and III were miles beyond
Episode VI, V and VI in terms of graphics.
The other thing that the movie does well, outside of
graphics, design and plot, is emphasizing on situations where certain
characters are at a clear disadvantage. I remember a scene where Darth Vader
entered a ship full of rebels, and completely bulldozed his way through the rebels
in an attempt to recover the plans to the Death Star. For a couple of seconds,
he was invincible. It was terrifying to watch. Magnificent, but terrifying.
With all these wonderful positives, why in the hell do I
consider this film the worst of all the installments? One reason for my dislike
of the film is also the reason why the film is so good---the graphics. In my
opinion, the graphics act as a double-edge sword. At least psychologically,
anyway.
As much as the graphics were awesome, they also caused me to
feel uncomfortable at certain moments. Why? I believe the use of graphics to
“resurrect” long-passed actors, though brief, opens the flood gates to some
unintended consequences. I touched on this when I commented on Ms. Carrie
Fisher’s condition while she was in the ICU (That was before she passed. R.I.P
to her and her mother, Debbie Reynolds). Grand Moff Tarkin, who was played by
Peter Cushing, was resurrected on screen 20+ years after Peter Cushing’s death.
If the CGI did not convince you, great. For me, however, it seemed all too
real. At moments, I had to convince myself that Peter Cushing has been dead for
decades. If we have gotten to where we can resurrect dead cast members, what
stops Hollywood from sticking actors/actresses who have long passed into films
without their consent? Or worse, what stops directors from mimicking
actors/actresses who they cannot get into a film for whatever reason? All one
needs is a good computer graphic sequence and permission to use sound bites. If
a director cannot get his/her hands on sound bites, he/she can hire an actor
who can easily mimic the voice of the character. This is what happened in Rogue
One where Grand Tarkin’s voice was done by Guy Henry.
I also hate how much
of the story was plagued with acts of self-sacrifice and suicide. Given the
moment we live in, where people are finding reasons to throw their lives away
in cowardly acts, I do not feel like this is a good direction to take.
In many cases, one can consider self-sacrifice resulting in
death as a suicidal act. So why differentiate these two points? When I say
self-sacrifice, I mean self-sacrifice for the greater good. When Chirrut Imwe (played by Donnie Yen), the
blind monk who helps Jyn Erso to get the plan, walked through the blaster
crossfire to turn on the switch for the plans to be transmitted to the rebel
ship, he sacrificed himself for the greater good. There were no other options
available to get those plans across. At least, not as far as the audience was
concerned. When Jyn’s mother decided to abandon Jyn to help Jyn’s father, I
considered that suicide. She did not have to do it. Jyn’s father had already
given Jyn and her mother enough time to flee to the safe haven that Jyn
ultimately remained until Saw Gerrera, the resistance fighter and friend of
Jyn’s parents, found her. No storm troopers knew where they were and Jyn’s
mother was not backed to a corner. However, she decided not to fight. It’s like
she gave up living, leaving Jyn without a father or a mother.
This act of cowardice was a common theme throughout the
movie. From the willingness of Saw Gerrera to die on Jedha to the willingness
of the Rogue One soldiers to march to their deaths, there was a little too much
focus on senseless killings and suicide than a respect for life and self-preservation.
In my mind, all life is precious. So I do hope the next Star Wars film will
focus more on self-preservation than suicide/self-sacrifice.
After contemplating all these points, I believe I need to
include two ratings for this particular movie because of its nature. The first
rating is a bare rating based on how I view the film through neutral eyes. No
politics, no religion. Just on how well the director and crew deliver the film
in both quality and intent. The main intent, from what I gather, is to introduce
a set of characters who are bound to a plotline that better explains how the
plans that would take down the Death Star, got to the hands of Princess Leia.
In this area, I give Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, a 10/10. I think the movie
perfectly satisfies this goal.
The second rating, which speaks more to my bias, addresses
my feelings about the movie. Was I engaged throughout the story? Did my
feelings conflict with the intent of the director at certain areas? As far as
engagement goes, I was fully immersed in much of the movie. I was frustrated in
parts of the film where people had to die. Senseless killings do not normally
intrigue me. I can likely bare it in a snuff horror movie, because of the
nature of those kinds of films. They are made to give a sense of hopelessness
and glorify the 8 million ways a person can meet a gruesome end. However, this
film is not a horror film. So I put more emphasis on the placement of character
deaths. Much of the deaths were not, in any way, strategic. In my opinion,
characters threw their lives away for the sake of throwing their lives away. In
my mind, these kinds of deaths are an act of cowardice because it shows that
the characters gave up too willingly without considering other options. As a
result, I give Rogue One a 6.5/10.
In this day and age, suicide/self-sacrifice is a very
dangerous area to try and arouse a sense of pride. Most of the time, nobody
wins.
Michael Giacchino - The Imperial Suite (From "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story"/Audio Only)
Special thanks to DisneyMusicVEVO for sharing audio to “The
Imperial Suite” by Michael Giacchino. Please follow the link and like the song
on its You Tube page. Until next time……
Related Posts:
Christmas 2016 is Over, On To New Year 2017!
The Force Be With You, Carrie Fisher: Passed at 60
Related Posts:
Christmas 2016 is Over, On To New Year 2017!
The Force Be With You, Carrie Fisher: Passed at 60
So after reading this review I have some counter points to your main 2 criticisms of this movie:
ReplyDelete1. Using actor's likenesses through CGI without consent-
I believe this is fine for movie studios to do, and here's why. When an actor agrees to play a part in a movie, they are playing a character. A character that is not them, and not owned by them. This is why on many occasion, they have new actor's play the same role as other actors. So in using CGI to recreate a dead actor's likeness, it is not really different than having a different actor who just similar to the original one. You can never know how the deceased actor would have played that role for that movie. The studio then just has to try to stay true to that character in the portrayal you see in the movie.
Also, as a secondary point, I don't think you will ever see an dead actor's likeness appear in any movie outside of the special case that they would need to exist based on past movie's timelines. This is due to the large cost of trying to create a believable CGI human actor for any amount of time in a movie. This indeed might not always be the case in the future, but if the cost does come down, why would a movie studio not instead create a brand new artificial human, similar to what they already do for video games. Why would they want to copy an existing actor's likeness, when they can just create something that is exactly what the director or creator wants?
To summarize, I disagree because:
-They are not recreating a person, but a character
-They would never use a deceased or alive actor's likeness if they could make a brand new one
2. To your point about glorifying suicide. IMO many of the death's in the show were in attempt to make the death's of others not be meaningless, such as the blind force users death. This, in addition to trying to prevent the death and suffering of future people of the galaxy.
Now in your other example, with the mother dying when her husband was being taken away. I think she did actually believe there was a chance that she could save her husband from the misery of knowing that his forced work would end up killing million if not billions of people. She was again trying to spare her husband and the galaxy unimaginable suffering for a cause that neither her or her husband agreed with. Yes it was very unlikely that she would have succeeded, but she was also probably so blinded by grief and fear that she wasn't thinking about the odds.
All this being said, I think your review was very good, and very thoroughly thought out.
-Kevin
Hello Kevin,
DeleteThank you so much for not only reading my article, but also taking the time to write such an insightful critique. I made this blog for three reasons: 1) to celebrate the artists of the past and present in the music/movie industry who inspire countless other aspiring artists, 2) to recognize artists who contribute empowering works but do not gain the kind of recognition they deserve, and 3) to bring attention to issues in the industry that should not, but do play an integral part in the success of artists both on a domestic and international level.
I also apologize for not replying to you sooner. I was so moved by your analysis, I could not respond with a half-baked answer. I wanted to make sure I had as many of my points laid out, so I waited for the DVD release to watch the movie again. With that said, let’s get into the points you raised.
In the perspective of an objective movie-goer, you brought some wonderful points. Actors do agree to portray a character they do not own. It is how they express themselves that bring the characters they portray to life. However, I believe some roles fit better for some actors than others. Even when movie studios recast actors to fill vacated roles, these actors may fall short in how well the audience receives them. From what I have seen, the act of replacing an actor for a role is a lot trickier for live-action films than it is for animated films like Kubo. In animated films, the actors are only required to lend their voices. The facial expressions and movements are, in most cases, the responsibility of the graphic animators and designers.
That said, the theatrical version of Star Wars, though largely CG, consists of characters played, on camera, by real people. Even though a character is not owned by an actor, can the same be said about the actor’s natural, facial features? In effect, how much of the actor does that actor own and how much of the actor does the movie studio own? That’s something I would like to know.
This brings me to another point you raised. “If costs go down, why would movie studios not instead create a brand new artificial human?” Two words ---“star power.” You referred to video games. Don’t forget the main idea of video games is to get you to play it. I don’t think video games are required to have a good movie story. At least, that was not true when video games first started. Maybe it is different now. In any case, you can never underestimate the effect an actor has on a large group of movie-goers. If a studio can get one or two big names on the cast roster, they will likely push to create their own artificial human. However, for more obscure, smaller-budget companies, if it is cheaper to imitate an actor whose name can attract a large pool of buyers, why would they want to create an artificial human played by an equally obscure actor? I am not saying it is not possible for a smaller company to become successful creating an artificial human, voiced by a lesser known actor. My issue is this: by the time animation becomes so cheap that creating an artificial human for a full-length cinematic film is better than casting an actual person, so many of the bigger companies will have perfected it. That leaves the smaller/start-up companies thinking of ways to attract potential buyers. If they cannot afford an A-list actor, my worry is that they will choose to graphically create one. Some may call it the consequence of a free-market, but I think that greatly reduces the worth of existing actors of all levels of recognition.
DeleteTo your second point, I agree with you that certain self-sacrificial acts were necessary, given the circumstances, for the greater good. I am happy that you agree with my assessment that the blind force user’s (i.e. Chirrut Imwe’s) death was one of them. I still do not think Jyn’s mother’s death was necessary or justified to be considered as “for the greater good.” Firstly, Jyn’s father had given Jyn’s mother ample time to run and hide from the Imperial soldiers. There was no reason for Jyn’s mother to go back and confront Orson Kremic. If she wanted to stop her husband from finishing the plans to the Death Star, she would have aimed the blaster at him with the intent to kill him. Instead, what she did was aim the blaster directly at Orson Kremic in full-view of the storm-troopers. To me, it seemed like she thought she could save her husband and kill Kremic in front of an overwhelming number of well-trained Stormtroopers with limited experience with a blaster and a shaky resolve. It was her death that disappointed me the most because it had so many implications to the other characters. Had she survived (or at least died later on), Jyn’s death would have likely had more of an impact. Jyn’s mom would have supplied that familial support structure to better define Jyn’s character development. I could see Jyn’s mom’s prolonged death setting the stage for a more honorable death for Saw Gerrera. Instead, I was left wondering whether the only purpose of the main cast was to die.
One more thing I want to point out is, I did not say that this movie glorifies suicide. I just feel like there are too many deaths in this film that are not justified. The message I am trying to portray is that life is precious and given the current context of what is happening all around the world, the director and writers of this film should have put more thought into many of the character deaths to make them not seem pointless. This is especially true for Saw Gerrera and Jyn’s mother who had a direct impact in Jyn’s character development.