Star Wars review (and Comments) by
a Socialist website. Fwiw.
w
v
——————————-
Star Wars: The Force Awakens: No real awakening
By Matthew MacEgan and David Walsh
22 December 2015

Directed by J. J. Abrams; screenplay by Lawrence Kasdan, J. J. Abrams, and Michael Arndt
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/12/22/star-d22.html
see link….

……The mediocrity of The Force Awakens is not the fault of the audience, but people need to demand more. This is simply not serious or challenging filmmaking, even in the action genre. It gets tedious, repetitive. Ridley’s and Boyega’s performances make for appealing characters, and the film is not malevolent or cynical, but it ultimately serves as little more than a time-killer.

Disney and Lucasfilm plan to release Star Wars Episodes VIII and IX in 2017 and 2019, respectively, and they will also be releasing films outside the episodic series. In December 2016, Rogue One will be released, showing how the rebels obtained the Death Star plans immediately before Episode IV: A New Hope. It has been described as being more “gray” when it comes to morality and less focused on the Force or on “good” and “evi

Comments

———————————

Warren Duzak • 11 days ago

The articles noted: “For example, Variety reported, “The White House said that Star Wars: The Force Awakens will be screened on Friday for members of Gold Star families, an organization of family members who lost relatives in military combat.”

Am I the only one who finds this somewhere between bad taste and repulsive – to show mothers and fathers, children, wives, husbands and siblings of soldiers killed in combat a violent make-believe war movie.
Give up you son for a free movie pass.
Where is Country Joe and the Fish when you need them?

5
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Peter L. Warren Duzak • 10 days ago

Look, no offense but haven’t families who have “lost” loved ones (or more properly had them taken from them) been traumatized enough without forcing them to watch pseudo metaphorical films about sacrifice? Maybe an increase in veterans’ and survivors benefits might be in order?
As long as we’re on the subject of films and war how about showing young people “Hamburger Hill” (1987; Dylan McDermott and Don Cheadle) or “Go Tell the Spartans” (1978; Burt Lancaster) . Granted no film can remotely approach the experience of combat but if it helps one kid make an informed decision about whether or not to enlist it is worth it.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tony Williams Peter L. • 8 days ago

Good point Peter. Veterans and survivor benefits should be increased. Also, I ran GO TELL THE SPARTANS in my Vietnam and Film classes along with films from the other side such as THE ABANDONED FIELD, KARMA, and WHEN THE TENTH MONTH COMES. An anonymous student response (easily identifiable) accused me of running an anti-military class of an “Un-American” nature! HUAC here we come.
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Marla • 11 days ago

The Star Wars rehash is proof-positive that Hollywood is out of ideas. Like the Marval/Batman/comic predecessors, these films offer little in the way of substance cultural or otherwise. This film is in no way nowhere the level of Waterfront, Strangelove, or Mockingbird. Abrams is a terrible self-professed “director” who reflects little depth, complexity, or anything much in the way of human relations in any of his films. No wonder his Star Wars has a high poverty rate of content.

I’ll put aside all the militarized parallels to today’s societal war dances and increasing fascism and rather concentrate on the “plot/storyline” that is no different from any Aesop Fable or Grimm fairy tale you read as a kid upon which Abrams has no conscience of stealing from. The “hero” with all sorts of psychological/moral conflicts who is partly confused between the two becomes manifest in the simplest script writing form: courage is opposed to cowardice, envy to innocence, kindness to malice while renunciation and self-sacrifice to unrestrained lust and/or greed.

Evil eventually becomes punished, usually by destruction and in Abrams case, C.G.I. overkill or it is driven away until the next sequel can be shot and whored out to the masses who are gullible enough to buy into it. Of course, the good always triumphs or is saved by some ambiguous supernatural aid (i.e., the “force”). The hero or heroes attain their goals by courage, guile, humor or luck; often the evil principle condemns or does away with itself at the end of the story or unconsciously chooses its own punishment.

It’s a simple Hollywood formula. Intentional and unoriginal. Expect more of the same.

see more
5
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Matthew Richter Marla • 10 days ago

Abrams is the Hollywood director par excellence simply because he doesn’t have an original idea. There is no room for that in the profit machine.
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
cedarsagecatrina Matthew Richter • 10 days ago

Well said !
3
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Tony Williams cedarsagecatrina • 9 days ago

A friend attempted to write a book on J.J.Abrams that would have been documented with copious interviews on phone and email characteristic of his other well-researched projects. He had to abandon the project out of frustration not only because of lack of co-operation from Abrams’s office but also because virtually all of his collaborators were afraid of saying the wrong thing that would incur the wrath of “He who must be obeyed.” But to end this post in the appropriate spirit, I will wish J.J season’s greetings with the term – “May the Fart be with You!”
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Peter L. Marla • 10 days ago

Hollywood’s view of war as exemplified in the current Star Wars “package” is really an indication of how America has devolved as a nation and as a society. For example back in 1940 when the American public was deeply divided about whether to get involved in World War 2 by actively supporting England against the Nazis MGM released “Northwest Passage”. The film focused on a raid by American colonial soldiers led by Major Robert Rogers on an hostile Indian Village in what was then French Canada. It was set during what the Americans call the French and Indian War. The film dealt with the brutality and viciousness of colonial war with an honesty that is remarkable even by today’s standards. It was equally honest about the racist attitude held by Rogers; his men and by the English Crown officers commanding Rogers towards most if not all American Indians.

King Vidor directed the film. He was a political progressive and based on America’s experience in World War 1 non-interventionist. Yet both he and his studio were honest enough to create a film which addressed the realities and necessities for war in a form which the American public could use to think seriously about those issues for itself.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
CW Peter L. • 4 days ago

Your post reminds of great English director Michael Powell, who in his own words made several “propaganda” films for the British government, The 49th Parallel (writer: Powell/The Archers collaborator Emeric Pressburger) being the most relevant. Even there: a good German!
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Martin Jukovsky • 11 days ago

I disliked “Star Wars” when it came out in 1977 because it was bad science fiction, of the most juvenile sort. Science fiction had moved on from the bad pulps and space opera of the 40s and 50s, and George Lucas did his best to undo all of that and drag it back. I’ve seen all of the series — mainly out of curiosity and to know what’s in the air — but I remain indifferent. The great actor Alec Guinness quickly grew weary of his role in the films and looked forward to his character being killed off so he would no longer have to spout pseudo-spiritual mumbo-jumbo.

3
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Peter L. Martin Jukovsky • 10 days ago

Respectfully, I hope you are not including “Forbidden Planet” in the category of “bad pulps and space opera of the 40s and 50s”.
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
sleepd • 11 days ago

Hilarious. “The scenes between Ford and Fisher are rather awkward, and one feels bad for both of them”. I can’t wait to show this around on imperialist Facebook.

3
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
George Gonzalez • 11 days ago

A powerful aspect of the movie is how the lead female character couldn’t eke out a living collecting scrap parts. Suggesting that among the poor there are immensely talented and selfless people (she refuses to sell her android friend to a rapacious trader, even though she’s sorely in need of a hearty meal).

2
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Charles • 11 days ago

Before the movie there were the requisite recruitment ads for the US Army and Air Force. Be All You Can Be: a Stormtrooper for the Empire!

2
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Matthew Richter • 11 days ago

We’re asking too much of Hollywood and the Disney money-making machine if we expect them to actually turn out serious art. The profit system, in cinema as well as visual art, literature, music etc will see to it that whatever is produced will be the lowest common denominator. That way, it ensures that it has the broadest possible base to milk.

As for TFA itself… it seemed like little more than a remake of the original. As far as action movies go, I can’t tell the difference between them anymore. They all look the same. The use of music is the same. The approaches are the same – usually a non-stop barrage of action interspersed with bad dialogue.

The greatest disappointment in TFA, though, was the music. The score was one of the few things that was done intelligently in the original. The new themes added little and the use of music during the film did not exceed the way that music is used in the average comic book hero movie. After 40 years the scoring seems horribly cliched, but that is a good thing in the eyes of the industry… Lucas had worked closely with Williams for the first Star Wars, and I think that that was one of the few things that they got right, even if most of the music is stolen from other sources (in one scene, Williams literally lifted an entire section of Le sacre du printemps). But there did seem to be a more intelligent use of music in old films. Again, we’re asking too much of the powers that be to get even that.

One final point: the business news networks have been running stories for most of this month on how to “play” Star Wars. That should demonstrate that the real motives behind TFA are economic, not artistic.

3
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
cedarsagecatrina Matthew Richter • 10 days ago

Dorothy Parker spent an year of culture shock in Hollywood doing screenwriting for Samuel Goldwyn . He called her into his office once to berate her for not adding a happy ending to the script she’d just submitted . She refused on the grounds that it obviated the point of her whole story . “But people WANT happy endings!” , Goldwyn objected . “They won’t pay to see unhappy endings.”
“Has it ever occurred to you , Sam ,” she retorted , “that of all the millions upon millions upon millions of people who’ve lived on earth , that not one of them has had a happy ending !”
After she left the office , Goldwyn turned to his associates visibly puzzled and asked ,”Can anybody tell me what she just said ?”
1
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
Matthew Richter Matthew Richter • 10 days ago

I forgot to mention that the political setup makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. If the Resistance is fighting for the Republic, why is it portrayed as having absolutely nothing to do with the Republic. Are their First Order sympathizers in the republic? If so, why all of the senseless destruction of republic planets? None of it made any sense, but it is Star Wars after all.
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Andy H • 10 days ago

Perhaps I’m being pedantic, but Star Wars has never been Science Fiction; it’s Fantasy, with elements of Science Fiction.

Fantasy and Science Fiction, along with Horror, are sub-groupings of Speculative Fiction. Fantasy clearly has an element of the supernatural, whether it is overt or not. It can include many fantastical elements, such as magic, bizarre landscapes, talking animals, creatures that simply do not exist, and so forth. There is no rational explanation for the fantastical elements.

Science Fiction, on the other hand, is always based on some sort of science. The science may be highly speculative, with no actual basis in reality, but, within the context of the story, all of the events can be explained rationally, as having material causes.

Star Wars, with its reliance on The Force, is clearly fantastical. In fact, at the end of the 1st Star Wars film, when the disembodied voice of Obi-Wan Kenobi tells Luke to turn off his torpedo guidance system and “use the Force”, it takes a very anti-scientific position.

There is nothing wrong with fantasy. I have always loved it and Science Fiction. However, I think a big problem with the Star Wars franchise stems from this basic distinction, and the fact that it is considered Science Fiction, when, in fact, it is not.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
drforbin • 11 days ago

Yes more junk from Hollywood. It’s amazing that during such series times all that American “Film” making can pump out is mind numbing dribble.
As pointed out in the article, there was a time when at least there was an attempt at intelligent engagement. I watched Mephisto a few nights ago and it struck me how similar the status of German film making during the Nazi era and our own have become.

Both served to distract and cut off debate within a echo chamber of mono ideas which only purpose was the strengthening of existing power structures. America has become a disgrace.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
John Ellis • 10 days ago

Using fiction to transport the mind — Sucker-bait from the rich

To introduce new and unknown knowledge into a mind, first you must anchor the mind to knowledge that is known, before you try and transport the thoughts to knowledge that is unknown.

LAW OF ABSOLUTE LOGIC
Two things known to be real, will establish an unknown as equally real.

For example, to establish that a democracy without socialism is impoverished slavery for the lower half of society, just state two facts that have never been made public by either government or corporate media, to wit:

(1) In a capitalist democracy, the upper half of society owns all the wealth.

(2) In a capitalist democracy, the upper half of society is always the voting majority.

Bingo.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
CH • 11 days ago

I’m just an occasional sci-fi fan, if and when a specific story is somehow brought to my attention. I liked the original 1977 movie precisely because it was kind of juvenile! It reminded me of the Saturday-morning adventure serials of my childhood, the ones where we could get in free by presenting an empty milk carton from a local dairy at the box office. But the second and subsequent movies went downhill fast. The 4th-6th (in order of their original release) I never bothered with until last year, when I watched them in a sort of weekend marathon (binge?). My heavens, were they bad! Ew! Now I only wish for them to be done, once and for all. Rotsa ruck on that, right? if there are still billions to be made on unexploited future generations.

Which points out another reason I’ll be steering clear of this execrable project: it’s now a Disney franchise. Talk about the falsification of history! Future children will grow up thinking the whole Star Wars project came out of Uncle Walt’s brain. And Disney has a whole, new, updated “product” to release and re-release for the newest batch of kiddos every five years from here on out. Just in time, too: Snow White and Fantasia and The Jungle Book are all getting long in the tooth. It’s long past time for them all to go into the public domain, along with Mickey, Donald, and Pluto.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Matthew Richter CH • 11 days ago

Don’t forget the endless rolling out of new lines of action figures, games, theme parks etc…
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Mark • 11 days ago

The franchise owners obviously took criticism of the prequel trilogy to heart. Given the lack of widespread criticism for the current film, I see little hope for improvement with the next instalment.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
George Gonzalez • 12 days ago

The new Star Wars movie is a direct (and effective) critique of the
Cheney/Obama government. The political entity of the “Dark Force” is
called the “First Order” (remember the New World Order). A leader of
the First Order is referred to as the “Supreme Leader” (a direct
reference to Hitler — who was called the Leader [in German]). The Supreme Leader (before Nazi-like symbols) declares the end of the “Republic”, and his troops give him a Nazi-like salute.

What makes the movie serious cinema (in my view) is the scene when the Storm Troopers are being transported onto a desert planet. Upon landing in a village they commence military operations — round up all the villagers and order their massacre. One cannot help but think of American military operations in Iraq and/or Afghanistan. During the operation, one of the Storm Troopers visibly suffers from PTSD and decides to defect. The scene places the movie clearly in the anti-war category.

1
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Charles George Gonzalez • 10 days ago

I think you are giving the film-makers too much credit. Star Wars runs on the fantasy, total inversion of reality, that Americans are the plucky freedom fighters. It’s true that the Empire/First Order/Dark Side looks like nothing so much as the US military but I think that’s unintentional irony.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Gonzalez Charles • 9 days ago

In the 1970s the Empire could be the Soviet Union. Today, there’s only one empire (First Order) seeking to conquer desert peoples.
•
Reply
•
Share ›
Avatar
George Gonzalez Charles • 9 days ago

The creators’ intent is largely irrelevant. Literary criticism demands we interpret what’s in the work.
•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
snoopies622 • 3 days ago

The more Star Wars films I see, the more I wish George Lucas had stopped at one.

•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Robert Creech • 5 days ago

Trading good artistic sense for good economic cents.

I can’t help but be crestfallen at the thought that there are more of these money-making sequels to come. I would like to say officially say bye-bye for good, that special, tingling feeling reserved for Episodes IV-VI.

This film could have meshed so well with modern political life as this review hinted; the working class upbringing of Rey, sparking conversation on the Imperialism of the United States – what a resurgence to art that would have been! But no…not with J.J. “lens-flare” Abrams on the case! Any awakening of political force for the masses is being increasingly reserved for the ICFI.

As is usually the verdict with wsws articles, I’ll conclude in kind: The only way to save the Star Wars franchise from the artistic strangling of the profit-driven capitalist system is for the working class to form an independent political movement and set about the socialist transformation of society. Film lovers, UNITE!

•
Reply
•
Share ›

Avatar
Ron Lester • 12 days ago

It sounds more like you’re more disturbed about the commercial saturation than the film itself. Many of those films you mentioned above are classics, while Star Wars has never exactly fallen into that type of “classic” mode. I do agree, this film is a time killer. As I lost 2 hours, while not even realizing it. I also agree I was left with far more questions than answers, and never saw a true awakening. Do I like the new main characters? Yes, I actually do. Could they have been better? Absolutely. I think the error was in how they decided to start this whole film off. Opening with a character(Max Von Sydow) who knew a great deal about our previous heroes, without ever showing him in the previous entries was particularly puzzling to me. Also puzzling was the Snoke character, who made his presence known before any of this took place. Maz Kanata is another character with knowledge of our previous heroes, who also left me scratching my head. This many questions is not a good place to start in a franchise looking to build momentum for the future. I, personally, just felt like they started off in the wrong part of the story. Ugh, very similar to the original trilogy now that I think about it. Anyhow, I thought I’d share my couple cents with you.

Watch the Vid. Thats all I’m gonna say:

Collapse is coming — send money
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1095706/pg1

w
v

Agamemnon wrote:

<span class=”d4pbbc-font-color” style=”color: blue”>I always liked Kaepernik. He would be better than Foles. Do we have anybody who can catch his fast balls?</span>

I think you are confused about this whole
football thing — it is important
NOT to like 49ers.

Think of them as big ugly Sperm
whales who attack innocent
defenseless Squids.

w
v

Dak wrote:

I loved it.

I can’t get enough of the Rams dominating the Seahawks. The Rams are in their heads now. They have no psychological advantage against the Rams heading into next year. To me, this win is about the Rams vs. the Seahawks. And, it’s oh so nice to see it go down like this. Domination in the trenches. Out-physicaling the physical ‘Hawks. We’re in their domes. No doubt. And, yes, the Seahawks wanted to win just as badly. This is THEIR turf. This is the home of the 12th Man. Nobody else wins here. They can’t let St. Louis, which has been successful upsetting Seattle in STL, come in there and win.

Yet, they did. And, that meant something to the Seahawks.

It also means that the Rams CAN score against a good team in difficult situations. This was not a great offensive effort, but it was an effective one. That started with the O-line, which gives me hope for next year.

Now, what we don’t know is if the Rams can win when there’s something truly on the line. They haven’t done that, yet. That needs to come next year. Has to. Must. No excuses. ABSOLUTELY no excuses next year. The Rams should have depth at key positions, including the O-line. They should have a good game manager QB, at the least. And, they should have a great D again.

Yes, I think there’s reason for optimism.

Much depends on Quinn though, imho.

Back surgery is very very tricky.
Can he work out? Will he be the same?
Will he be in pain from now on?

Quinn is now a big question mark.

w
v