REVENGE OF THE SITH OPENING NIGHT IN HOLLYWOOD. PHOTO'S TAKEN ON THE ROOF AT THE ARCLIGHT SHORTLY BEFORE THE MIDNIGHT SHOW.

Posted on the Wild and Woolly website May 18 2005. Includes forum responses at bottom.

Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

It never ceases to astonish me how, no matter how unbelievably awful a film is, it still gets heaped with high praise and good reviews. Now the usual fandom praise on say the IMDB I could almost understand but reviewers from around the country who write for prominent newspapers? They should know better shouldn't they? Especially the older seasoned writers who should remember a time when there were actually good films being made.

But then we are in the age where anything including "XXX: State of the Union" will gain high praise from the pro's, and Ebert & Roeper will give thumbs up to absolutely anything and everything so it's not exactly surprising, It's just astonishing the degree that peoples' perceptions have changed and standards have lowered. Or the degree that professional reviewers and high profile figures (like Kevin Smith) are paid off, intimidated or deal-made to dish out praising EPK's. (electronic press kits) Probably a combination of all of the above, (leaning torwards pay-offs) film hype is not unlike the way mainstream media is controlled and manipulated, a persons perception is so manipulated they start actually accepting and believing these are actually good films. It's a slow conditioning of sensibility, A mass psychological conformity, "well gee, everyone says it's good so yea it must be good!"

Even my best friends seem to be trully "shifty" when it come's to their opinions about movies, they agree and conform to the opinion of the person at hand, always adaptable, in short it doesn't matter how "good or bad" something is now-days, just how much spurious endorsement it has, with enough collected approval you can convince anyone of anything.

There is an extreme splinterization of what I call "experiencing a different reality", and it effects and polorizes things to such a degree now there is no longer any way of knowing which "reality" is the honest, 'true' one. The reality where Revenge of the Sith is a good movie or Palindromes? The reality where Wizards is a good film or Jackson's Lord of the Rings? The reality where Exorcist 2 is a good film or Exorcist 3? (a slightly more esoteric example but those with correct perceptions will know which is the good one)

I'm repeatedly reminded of the scene in Richard Rush's "The Stunt Man" (or rather a scene which actually plays differently but for some reason I thought it played this way--) where Peter O' Toole takes a bite of the apple in the opening shot of his hand and we hear "That's your point of View" Problem is I think 'p.o.v.'s' have become horribly distorted these days. Incidentally (at the time of this writing) Palindromes is probably the only good movie out at the moment aside from some wonderful documentaries and foreign films such as "The Wild Parrots of Telegraph Hill" "Inside Deep Throat" and "Downfall" but who's going to see those?

Yet year after year, for me this is usually the case, mainstream studio-financed cinema has reached all-time lows. The only solice often come's from either foreign films or documentaries. I personally miss the bold and unique American films of the 70's, there were an unprecedented number of brilliant and challenging works, even the B-movies often had something to offer.

It was a time where you really got involved in the stories and characters, and were moved emotionally and sometimes changed forever by them. How often can you say that now? It can be said the days of true originality and creative freedoms are long gone and we're in the last, desperate, controlled, no-risk-compromise dying days of re-hashed cinema, Well, actually I was the one who said it and I think it's true.

Anyways, getting back to my Sith review, I imagine you would have guessed by now I didn't think much of it. I wanted to find something to like in this last installment of an original trilogy that shaped my childhood in the late 70's, I really did, but alas, nothing. More of the same, cartoony, silly, tedious CGI redundancy. I could go on a 2 page rant about how much I dislike CGI but suffice it to say I think it basically looks lousy. The days of models and miniatures and matte paintings and hand-rotoscoping and go-motion were so much more interesting.

There was something about the craftmanship and hard work that went into it which rubbed off on the film. There are so many things that made the originals (particularly A New Hope and Empire) so much better in so many different ways. First and foremost simply being the time in which they were made, the ripe days of fervent creativity and boundries to break and secondly engaging the writing help he did, (such as hiring Leigh Brackett to write Empire Strikes Back shortly before her death)

There were still things to say and interesting ways to say them, and still good writers around. Technically, SFX were at a turning point in the late 70's early 80's, and guys like Dennis Muran, John Dykstra, Ken Ralston, Richard Edland, Ben Burtt, they were the creative innovators. (all of whom incidentally have sold out, despite the fact they still do good work and the best they can under the circumstances, which is the very problem .."the circumstances" of the time we live in.

Even the concept of creative sound design was new and exciting, and when seen and heard in 70mm 6 track magnetic dolby stereo it was exhilarating. There was an organic excitement about it. Pretty much the antithesist of todays SW films, shot digitally, designed digitally, acted digitally. It's very cold and lifeless, there is no emotion, and that seeps through every aspect of the process, the story, characters, even the perennial genius John Williams who has rarely failed me seems to be struggling for some new inspiration.

And could Lucas' direction be more bland, I really feel the new films were more suited as a TV mini-series. Sith feels like it was cut and chopped together as if giving confusing highlights from an 8 hour story, there didn't seem to be any real 'pacing' to the film, no emotional build-up to anything. And all this cartoony CGI made the film into another Pixar producton, characters leaping through the air, plunging into impossible dangers, there was absolutely no sense of reality, conflict or danger. why should you care about any of the characters or situations? This pretty much describes every big budget SFX comic book fiasco these days. Un-exciting, cartoony, loud, dark and empty like a hollow shell. I would also like to point out, I'm possibly the only person on the planet who feels "The Phantom Menace" is still light years better than Clones or Sith, mind you their ALL terrrible I'm just stating it "if I HAD to choose!".

The reasons are clear, at least Phantom had a couple of slightly, barely redeeming qualities in it for me, for one The Pod Race, two the saber duel at the climax, three, it was shot in 35mm not video, and four, Williams had a couple of nice themes going, particularly "Duel of the Fates". By far the best piece he's created for any of the new films. Also, they were still using a few models and miniatures here and there, not many but some. And the sound mix for the Phantom was the best, the Pod Race in particular. Again I'm stating only if I HAD to choose between the three.

I think this is an important point to make being that I have not heard of ONE single person who feels this way about TPM compared with the other two, everyone seems to think each one is a 'slight improvement', I disagree, I think each one is a degradation. I'm not even sure I can think of one single redeeming element in "Sith".

For the life of me, I don't even know why Lucas felt it was necessary to make 3 more SW films, aside from the fact the he 'oiginally invisioned it as a 6 (or 9) part epic-saga. The whole thing feels overly contrived and lifeless, as if he's straining to simply fulfill an obligation and "tie all the story elements up neatly in a knot" Did he really feel genuinly inspired to start working on it back in the late 90's or just get bored and feel he needed to direct again to keep himself from going crazy around his 8 adopted kids?

I don't know the answers but I can tell you it was a sad moment when walking out the Mann's Village Theatre in Westwood, hearing Williams' epilogue of recycled themes for the familiar blue credit roll, the beautiful and haunting Lea's Theme. the original suite for A New Hope, it was a lamenting reminder of a time when things used to be exciting, and had real magic.

D Packard May 19, 2005

_____________________________

Reply #1 on: Jun 5th, 2005, 4:59pm

Although I don't agree with every facet of Mr. Packard's review, he has still managed to put together all the problems with the new films (macro and micro) as well as make a statement about our cultural ills. (When's the last time you over head at the videostore that "a film was great", versus hearing that it "was number one at the box office" or "made a hundred million"? I haven't heard the first example since the 20th Century (and I'm not exaggerating). It brings to mind an old Albert Brooks quote lamenting his lack of success (box office wise): When someone tells him Adam Sandler films are popular, so they must be good; he responds with (and I'm paraphrasing here, so don't give me too much shit): "A lot of people get cancer. it must be very popular too. It doesn't mean it's good." When people review Sith, they seem so desperate to want to like/to fill in the (overabundant) blanks in the story/themes/characters/pacing -- that they don't even seem to have enjoyed the movie. Even my friends that love it (shame on them) feel the need to apologize. Yes. there are good things in it (few and far between), but it is neither an enjoyable film, a good film, nor a necessary film. Three cheers to Packard for bringing this all to light. Perhaps people will find a way to form their own opinions in the not-too-distant future, if they haven't been legally adopted/co-opted by the corporate entities that make the products/films we go to see every week. Logged

Paul Trainor Guest Reply #2 on: Jun 7th, 2005, 10:30pme ------------------------------------------------------------------------ In reading Damon's article, I'm impressed at how strong his convictions are regarding the degeneration of cinema in America. I, however do not agree. I'm not saying that all the studio films that have come out in recent years are brilliant. But I don't feel that way about everything that came out in the seventies or eighties either. There was plenty of crap that came out then as well. Ê I think that the real problem isn't necessarily that American cinema is dead, but that it's going through a period that doesn't interest Damon. That's not to say that Damon isn't in good company, there are a plethora of people out there who feel the way he does. But there are plenty more who don't. I think that the problem I have with Mr. Packards article is that he supposes that since he hates something that other people liked (for what ever reason) those peoples perceptions must be wrong. I understand that, that is his opinion and he's welcome to it. But isn't that a little narrow minded?

Can't other people enjoy a movie and that be OK? Not an issue of right or wrong? I looked online for about a minute at the films of 2004 and found a number of them that I enjoyed some of them put out by big studios and even one (gasp) put out by Pixar. In no particular order Finding Neverland, Shaun of the Dead, The Incredibles, Kill Bill (at least party in 2004) and Spiderman (at least partly in 2004) among others. These were films that I emotionally enjoyed as well as just generally being entertained. Well written, character driven, excellent believable effects, good scores and everything one might look for in good cinema. American and british (in the case of Shaun of the Dead) cinema is alive and well in the new century. Now on to Revenge of the Sith. Not a brilliant piece of cinema to be sure and I agree that it's entirely devoid, as were the last two films, of any emotional connection. However, I thought the CGI effects were cool even in there comicy way. I thought the film was a good ride and took Return of the Jedi's place in my top 3 Star Wars film list. I enjoyed Anakin's decent to the dark side. That's all I actually have to say about the movie. My feelings about it are simple and are not needing a whole lot of explaination. Damon is a brilliant filmmaker and a great friend, I hope he understands that I simply think that some times he's too close the technical stuff to see films for what most of them are. ÊOccasionally something comes along that's brilliant and awe inspiring and becomes a cultural icon Star Wars perhaps is a good example of something that goes beyond simple entertainment, but by and large most films throughout the history of cinema both domestic and foreign are simply for entertainment. ÊA couple hours of diversion nothing more

. Logged Clayton Dodd Guest Ç Reply #3 on: Jun 17th, 2005, 1:55pm È Quote Modify Remove ------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Packard: I appreciate many of your comments about the deterioration/blandization of movies over the last generation and I'm particularly with you on hating CGI. You could have chosen a better movie to rant on, e.g., "Sky Captain" (well, maybe, like me, you avoided it like the plague). My two cents: the 1st (or 4th) Star Wars was great. I left the theater back when it first came out feeling pumped up. It was exciting and new and funny and the characters made an indelible impression. The next episode, IMHO, was the rare sequel that's better than the original, sort of in the sense of Alien and Aliens. The first one is fiecely original but done on a shoestring budget. The second movie was bigger, better FX, carried the story forward and also very exciting. Now, I thought the Ewok movie sucked. What a hokey ending! Then, after the long wait, I was very disappointed in the Phantom Menace. I assumed the plotline only made sense to someone who had read the novelization or some internet leaked info. I also thought the whole movie seemed like a grand promotion for the Pod Racer video game. I will agree that it was superior to: Clones. This struck me as TV miniseries material. No excitement. Very little story development. I can hardly remember seeing it but compared to The Empire, it was a frigging MTV video. Sith I would rank after New Hope and Empire. It has the largest scope since Empire. It ties up many of the story lines and, IMHO, make a nice conclusion. I would dock it for not being the BEST. That would have atoned for haing to endure the previous 3 movies. Still, I found it exciting and left the theater happy. I thought the CGI was impressive, nearly seamless. I agree with your coments about impossible dangerous situations, although I think that was more of a writing problem than CGI. The Jedis seemed to be able to call on 'the force' anytime Lucas wrote them into a corner. In any event, I respectfull think you were a little hard on the old Sith Logged

D Packard Guest Reply #4 on: Today at 12:32am Quote Modify Remove ------------------------------------------------------------------------Ha! Interesting of all the strange ironies the post previous to the above (Paul Trainor) is a good friend of mine who starred/collaborated on many of my early Super8 films from early-mid-late 80's. Now our perspectives and opinions have seperated violently to the point where we are enemies. JUST KIDDING, we're still good friends. Incidentally I never said because I like something and someone else doesn't this means "their perception is wrong". If you noted closely the very subject I was going over in detail was that of "differing perceptions" and how there is no "right or wrong" just a lot of differing opinions and perspectives and perceptions of reality. Which in MY opinion is, well, yea..wrong most of the time but does that mean their wrong? Well HELL YES it does, people are being brainwashed into perceiving and believing things the way they ARE NOT. This is a WAKE UP CALL, the end of the world does not come by mass destruction or armageddon it come's by the brainwashing of perceptions. This is Phillip Kaufman's Invasion of the Body Snatchers, I feel like Jeff Goldblum trying to shake some sense into Leanord Nimoy.

Damon, Much food for thought here; you cover much aesthetic ground about the art and philosophy of filmmaking and perceptions of same--all very nicely woven around your review of the film. I largely agree with your POV here, and admit being guilty of the "shifting" opinion syndrome when in the presence of others (as you discuss in part 3 of your review). ÊI think I'm succeeding lately in overcoming that, though; sticking to my opinions, even when unpopular, and explaining them and persuading others as best I can. -Kevin Rayburn Logged Dave Tremonti Guest Re: Damon Packard's Exclusive Review Pt2 Ç Reply #2 on: May 30th, 2005, 1:07am

Quote Modify Remove ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Packard..... you bitch!~ I'd be getting drunk before star wars 3 aswell....... It's that bad you'd have to. 1 and 2 were boring as fuck What are you doing packard!!? WHAT ARE YOU DOING? Posting reviews on the internet. That shit is not real man packard I've got money to invest in one of your projects. Just not some lame Lord of the Rings Rip off i saw the preview for on the reflections of evil dvd. Good movies of the last few years! Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Kung Fu hustle was alright Ong Bak was wicked Old boy was OK I ap Guest Re: Damon Packard's Exclusive Review Pt1 Ç Reply #1 on: May 30th, 2005, 12:59am