ray245 wrote: 2018-02-18 08:20pm
Effie wrote: 2018-02-18 06:51pm
You're not saying that at all. You seem to largely be jumping around from point to point without ever actually settling on a meaning for the things you say. I suppose, though, that Rian Johnson obviously doesn't "know the rules", having only directed two widely-respected films and several extremely acclaimed television episodes, plus a lesser-known film, plus several shorts, plus editing Lucky McKee's directorial debut...
Rian Johnson is known to do a deconstruction of tropes or established narratives in his films, with Looper being a prime example. The issue is what works for a standalone movie might not work for a franchise film.He has successfully weakened the foundation of the film and deconstructed the myths and legends that a sizeable segment of the audience no longer sees SW as a mythic story.
The whole point of SW is meant to be escapist in nature, a world where a simple good can win over simple evil at the end of the day. A world where the heroes don't give up and etc. In other words, it's the wrong franchise to do a deconstruction, because he was the boy that said the emperor was naked and not wearing any clothes. When that happens, it makes every follow-up more difficult.
First, we need to be clear that "deconstruction" is not synonymous with "darker/more cynical". Nor is there any reason why deconstruction cannot work within a larger ongoing series, rather than a stand-alone. For example, Buffy the Vampire Slayer did partial deconstructions of itself frequently- and they were often among the best, most memorable, and most acclaimed episodes. But you are right that what works for one franchise may not work for another- so let's look at Star Wars specifically.
Star Wars is at its best when it tells a simple, idealistic good vs evil story,
with a twist that shows it in a new light. Such as "I am your father" transforming a simple hero defeats villain story to a story of the hero trying to avoid making his father's mistakes, and winning by redeeming rather than killing his enemy. Or the Prequels taking a Sith vs. Jedi war and having it ultimately be a ruse by the villain to play both sides against each other (which is actually a far more cynical deconstruction of Star Wars than anything TLJ did).
I also think that what TLJ
attempted (and only partially accomplished) was not just a deconstruction, but a
reconstruction. It is not however, in its ultimate conclusions, a cynical film, nor at odds with the idea of a universe in which there is good and evil, and good can triumph.
It tries to relate Star Wars to the political/cultural cynicism and apathy so widespread today. It asks those questions, directly or implicitly: are there still heroes? Can good triumph over evil? Is there a point to anything we do? Do the old legends and myths still have power and meaning today? It tries too hard sometimes to misdirect the audience with cheap deceptions and twists rather than just telling its story (I remember my exasperation at the film's ending trying to make us repeatedly think Luke and Rose were dead/not dead over the course of ten minutes or so, before finally coming down on "Yes" and "No" respectively). But its ultimate answer is that yes, there
is still hope, and there are still heroes.
DJ's whole character is also an obvious and direct shot at the "both sides" narrative, for example, which should have tipped everybody off to what this film is doing.
Why should audience give a crap about the next generation when Rian Johnson showed heroes are limited in what they can really do for the Galaxy?
If the film challenges the arrogant conceit that because our victories are not permanent and universal, that there is no point in trying to make the universe a better place- then that's a damn good thing.
What's stopping the next generation of directors from creating a story where Finn, Rey, and Poe are failures because SW is a franchise of eternal war and good guys must always be the underdog? Why should anyone give a crap about the New Jedi Order under Rey when they will simply be destroyed the next time Disney ran out of ideas?
You might ask- why should we give a damn about the defeat of Hitler when their are still dictators and Nazis and genocides? Why should we give a damn about abolishing slavery if there is still racism? Why should we give a damn about anything if history doesn't stop?
That's no doubt what a lot of cynics would say. It is also the mindset that this film is quite rightfully challenging.
Rian Johnson might know the rules of creating a good movie that stands on its own, but that's different from being part of a building block for a cinematic universe. Directors or producers who may be good at producing good movies might not be good at building a cinematic universe. If anything, the failure of everyone else other than Kevin Feige in building a cinematic universe showed just hard it is and how different it is from simply making good individual movies.
I will acknowledge that TLJ (somewhat deliberately, I think) fits awkwardly with the rest of the franchise in some respects. I do not think that that necessarily makes it a bad film. And if there are continuity issues, I am inclined to put the blame more on the lack of firm editorial guidance and oversight, than on any individual writer or director or film.
Edit: In short, I think that on the whole, Rian Johnson knew what he was doing making this film. I'm not yet sure Disney/Lucasfilms management knows what
its doing, or what it wants from this franchise, other than "Make money by appeasing whichever group of critics is complaining loudest at the moment."