bittah.com!~

[Deepjay]

You once made a comment Monk that you enjoy pulling movies apart and reinterpreting them or analysing them and what not. I have nothing against that and if anything enjoy it myself- usually after a movie me and a mate would grab a coffee and chat at length about what we just saw etc. But in saying that I also agree with Bongo said above, sometimes a cigar is simply just a cigar. It's like someone standing before an image of a painted square in an art gallery and trying to convince me it's a triangle, or this red square on a blue background has infinite depth and meaning.

I guess what i'm trying to say is there's a line IMO between analysis & intepretation and wankery.

[Monk]

You once made a comment Monk that you enjoy pulling movies apart and reinterpreting them or analysing them and what not. I have nothing against that and if anything enjoy it myself- usually after a movie me and a mate would grab a coffee and chat at length about what we just saw etc. But in saying that I also agree with Bongo said above, sometimes a cigar is simply just a cigar. It's like someone standing before an image of a painted square in an art gallery and trying to convince me it's a triangle, or this red square on a blue background has infinite depth and meaning.

I guess what i'm trying to say is there's a line IMO between analysis & intepretation and wankery.

I appreciate that, though I don't recall saying that but maybe I did one night after a few.

But I really do think Jar Jar is a commentary on the American disenfranchised; he is a strikingly racial caricature. I really do believe that Leia's various insults toward Chewie tell us about her character, rather than being "simply" throwaway jokes. That robots are slaves in the Star Wars universe is fact. These things were written into the movie. On some conscious or subconscious level, for a reason. You can say a lot of things about Star Wars, but it definitely does not have much fat.

I also think that Lucas is actually a really intelligent guy (and deep down an artist who embittered by his (possibly personal) fight against commercialism) who cares about things like racism, oppression, and class inequality, as indicated by the remainder of his body of work. In a recent interview, he compared disney to white slave owners. I mean, it's crass, but it indicates his way of thinking.

Saying that Jar Jar evokes a racist caricature is not wankery, it's simply true. A lot of people called Lucas out for it, and even in this thread Lucas has been called a racist. But within the story of Star Wars, his arc is applicable to real world situations. Where is the line between coincidence and allegory? It's probably personal.

[Bongoloid]

I think you should maybe look into Lucas' personal history, the guy is an old school racist who clearly wishes he could still have slaves. Those attitudes surfacing in his fiction doesn't suggest conscious commentary, the guy just isn't that self aware (look at the context of his "white slavers" comment).

And Bay is just a dudebro who likes explosions and rock videos.

[Nasty Hobbit]

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-enter ... 22626.html

[Monk]

I think you should maybe look into Lucas' personal history, the guy is an old school racist who clearly wishes he could still have slaves. Those attitudes surfacing in his fiction doesn't suggest conscious commentary, the guy just isn't that self aware (look at the context of his "white slavers" comment).

And Bay is just a dudebro who likes explosions and rock videos.

You're talking about authorial intent. JJ this, Lucas that. I'm just looking at the movie. I don't think what JJ or Lucas "intended" really matters all that much. How many people didn't read JJ's interview?

On Bay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2THVvshvq0Q

Also, Bay's films like Pain and Gain and Transformers can definitely be interpreted as being more than just extended Linkin Park music videos. Whether Bay "intended" for this is really neither here nor there.

It's like how Aliens is often interpreted as being a Vietnam allegory, but there are also interpretations that it's a story ultimately about motherhood. Cameron cut out a scene vital to motherhood which pissed Ripley off because that's how she was playing her character. Her "intention" and his "intention" doesn't really matter to the final product. Re-insert the deleted scene, the movie changes a little, even if their respective intentions remain the same.

Take VII, re-insert a deleted scene of Leia hugging Chewie, and our reading of that scene changes. I've already said that mine does; I see it as character growth and attitudes being shunted aside in communal grief. Yours has to, as you seem placated by the knowledge that it was just an errant mistake.

Edit: With that said, it is *more interesting* the way it is currently cut, because you wonder why Leia didn't hug Chewie. Since Leia and Han's marriage fell apart due to their son murdering a bunch of kids at Luke's Jedi Training Facility, you wonder if she, in some way, blames Chewie or doesn't like Chewie. It's simply more interesting (and more consistent), and still valid based on what we see.

[dumbo]

I think it's more likely Chewie is schtupping Leia, so they avoid PDAs to avoid suspicion.

[jazzymcsleazy]

Have you ever watched a movie/show not blazed Monk?
Its the only way to explain how you read so much shit into what isnt there....

[PeTtY]

Have you ever watched a movie/show not blazed Monk?
Its the only way to explain how you read so much shit into what isnt there....

[Deepjay]

“A New Awakening” - Star Wars Episode IV and VII Shot Comparison
https://vimeo.com/160263943