Intergalactic Dilemma: Will Episode 3 Really Not Suck, and Where Does That Leave Us?

A.O. Scott of the New York Times, who's writing is somewhat difficult to comprehend in general, and who's lavish praise of a movie is a rare occurrence, has written a review of Star Wars: Episode 3, Revenge of the Sith, that in rather plain English and in no uncertain terms endorses the film as a solid piece of work. Scott's review could be an honest appraisal, or perhaps, in the wake of the Jayson Blair scandal, the product of a handsome payoff from the movie industry, desperately hoping that this geeked-out Sci. Fi. adventure will jumpstart an otherwise disappointing season at the box office.

I’m skeptical. Don’t get me wrong: George Lucas has had a hand in the making of some great cinematic product over the years. THX-1138 was one of my favorite films in high school. Star Wars 4 is a classic for the ages. The Indiana Jones series is swell entertainment from start to finish (Question: Why not commission ol’ Spielberg to do a S.W. episode?). But those first two episodes… OK, the second had some slight improvements over the first, but…were absolutely abhorrent. Episode 1 is the only movie I can remember actually falling asleep in the theater to while trying to watch. Whoever signed off on the incorporation of the Jar-Jar Binks character should be serving consecutive life sentences at Sing-Sing. Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman couldn’t act their way out of a paper bag in those films. Above all, the acting and some of the characters just torpedoed those films. End of story.

Scott writes that the acting and dialogue is again lackluster, but that Lucas has the aesthetic-right this time such that all blends in. I really doubt it. The acting episodes 4-6 was goofy and at times laughable, but not objectionable. I’d rather have a root canal or shovel horse shit or spend time with Condoleezza Rice than watch Christensen on film. There’s something utterly repulsive about his complete and total inability to pull off one line—any line-- line that really strikes a nerve. That Natalie Portman was nominated for an Academy Award in the SW off-season adds insult to injury. I’ve seen the woman in Shakespeare in the Park: she runs the gamut of emotions from A to B. If she was slightly less attractive she’d be working the checkout line at Target, cus’ she’s got no skillz. And the import of Samuel L. was a monumental mistake as well: if he was on the other side of the fence and doing his Pulp Fiction shtick for the Empire that’d be one thing: his deadpan Coach Carter quips at the Jedi Council are tough to recover from.

But say these and other fatal flaws from the first two films are absent in Revenge of Sith, and Lucas is able to recover the magic of Episodes 4 through 6 in this movie. Where does that leave us? Do we just casually tell our children and foreigners who haven’t been exposed to treat the enterprise like Star Trek, to just watch the even numbered films cus (with the exception of ST:3) the odd numbers suck? Is this OK? Do we invest enough faith in Lucas close out his career with episodes 7-9, or if these turn out to be the superficial, video-game esque train wrecks that the first two were, would that further tarnish episodes 3-6 and diminished the warm an wonderful cultural and entertainment legacy that the episodes 4-6 created? Is it worth the risk?

Study Break: Scottie Doesn't Know

Audra and I just took a reprieve from studying Quant and watched EuroTrip on HBO. Contrary to everything I'd read and heard, a movie with more than its fair or expected share of hilarious moments. And you can take that to the frat party.

More Mind Meeting: Walzer and Weinberg

Rapped with Michael Walzer.. Princeton Prof., Public Intellectual, Editor of Dissent Magazine.. yesterday in the hallowed halls of Maxwell. And I must admit, the guy is a lot less 'dissent' oriented than I had expected and hoped. Here's the rub: his explication of terrorism and the appropriate response a civil society ought to give to it sounded sensible enough and is to be lauded, but its political-philosophy is underpinned by this notion of 'just war theory' which, when held up to rigorous philosophical critique, just doesn't hold water. There are more practical problems with just war theory as well from the vantage point of being an American citizen: is it a realistic assumption that young Al Qaeda recruits should not be swayed by arguments that the US Military targets civilians and civilian infrastructure in our warring endeavors? From bombing a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, the Chinese embassy in Serbia, the occasional wedding party in Afghanistan, and the killing of an Italian agent in Iraq, clarity of US intent and moral high ground might become a little murky. Not to mention that just war theory is predicated on interactions between liberal nation-states: Al Qaeda seems to escape this categorization. And while local “police work” might be the magic bullet for dealing with this terror group, are Saudi Arabia and Turkmenistan really the willing partners we need in this activity? Apart from the ‘hot wars’, is the Bush’s administrations rather candid and above board policies of adhering to Kennan’s notion that, above all, we must remain a global economic hegemon and resource hog really helping our good guy, humanitarian principals image, or not?

Contain Terrorism Globally, Ask the Tough Questions Locally