Author Topic: Star Wars: The Force Awakens  (Read 26237 times)

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #160 on: January 11, 2016, 10:20:47 PM »
It's really not at all like Luke's journey in A New Hope, which has Luke lose three people in a row then have to build up confidence throughout his narrative. His succumbing to the force is him accepting death and - once he does - he is able to metaphorically destroy death by blowing up the death star. The allegory for A New Hope is pretty clear in this regard.

There is no allegory for The Force Awakens. It's appropriation of the allegory with no idea of how the allegory works.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #161 on: January 11, 2016, 10:31:43 PM »
Remember the "(though not entirely)" part of that post you quoted, well, that's what I was talking about. I'm not as angry nor as in love with TFA as this guy is, so some of his invective goes too far for me.

I don't buy that stuff about A New Hope because I don't think that Hamill was a good enough actor to convey any of that subtextually, and since none of it is actual text, it falls flat as a driving force. I much more buy Rey's determination (plus whatever background will be later revealed) because Daisy Ridley is a good actor and can sell subtextual elements and emotions and shit.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #162 on: January 11, 2016, 10:44:22 PM »
I don't buy that stuff about A New Hope because I don't think that Hamill was a good enough actor to convey any of that subtextually, and since none of it is actual text, it falls flat as a driving force. I much more buy Rey's determination (plus whatever background will be later revealed) because Daisy Ridley is a good actor and can sell subtextual elements and emotions and shit.
This is what worries me about the next film. It's built up for Hamill to play a major role, but I'm not sure he's qualified.

Melvil

  • Godfather
  • *****
  • Posts: 9977
  • Eek
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #163 on: January 11, 2016, 11:24:35 PM »
Neither was Ford, IMO. I have slightly more hope for Luke at least feeling like an evolution of his character rather than a caricature of it, but I guess I haven't seen Hamill do anything non-campy recently to confidently judge his acting capabilities.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #164 on: January 12, 2016, 05:37:38 AM »

I don't buy that stuff about A New Hope because I don't think that Hamill was a good enough actor to convey any of that subtextually, and since none of it is actual text, it falls flat as a driving force. I much more buy Rey's determination (plus whatever background will be later revealed) because Daisy Ridley is a good actor and can sell subtextual elements and emotions and shit.

What?

Actors can't deliver allegories. Writers deliver allegories. Actors deliver lines of dialogue. You could see this allegory in the script. It's as plain as day.

Totoro

  • Guest
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #165 on: January 12, 2016, 05:42:27 AM »
Also, Hamill is fine? His character is annoying - he whines a lot and has a lot of "gee whiz" style dialogue - but there's nothing atrocious in the performance. Ford is excellent. A lot of charm there. The comedic timing is VERY on point. The Force Awakens used him heavily in the promos and for a reason - that role DEFINES him, even more than Indiana. And it defines him because his performance is memorable in the ways of Humphrey Bogart and Katharine Hepburn. It's a true star-making turn in every sense of the word. He never was as good again and he never made as lasting an impression. Iconic. I'd argue that he was a primary reason as to why the film has lasted so long in memory.

The only truly bad part of A New Hope is Fisher and she's worse in The Force Awakens.

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #166 on: January 12, 2016, 09:47:47 AM »

I don't buy that stuff about A New Hope because I don't think that Hamill was a good enough actor to convey any of that subtextually, and since none of it is actual text, it falls flat as a driving force. I much more buy Rey's determination (plus whatever background will be later revealed) because Daisy Ridley is a good actor and can sell subtextual elements and emotions and shit.

What?

Actors can't deliver allegories. Writers deliver allegories. Actors deliver lines of dialogue. You could see this allegory in the script. It's as plain as day.

No, that's called a book. For the allegory to transfer from the page to the screen, it needs to be translated via the acting and directing. In this case, neither element is good enough to make the allegory that may have been in the script come to life in the film.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

Badyuyu

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 1
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #167 on: January 12, 2016, 11:02:08 AM »
No, that's called a book. For the allegory to transfer from the page to the screen, it needs to be translated via the acting and directing. In this case, neither element is good enough to make the allegory that may have been in the script come to life in the film.

That's nonsense if actors were all that made movie every movie with Tom Hardy would be good. And every Tarentino movie would actually be a Samuel L. Jackson movie. Of course the script dictates what is conveyed and how we percieve it. the actors can bring a character in the script to life or fail to do so. But if teh script is crap the actor can act his bullocks off and the movie will still be bad. Daisey Ridley is good, most of the actors in FA are. If you would WANT me to reduce the many reasons of why I don't like the movie to a single source it's cause J.J. Abrams crafts his worlds with the subtelty of a sledghammer wielded by a demolition worked minutes before 5 o clock on a Friday.

I do get criticism of the original movies, i truely do. But I don't get how that excuses shortcomings of the current movie...

Junior

  • Bert Macklin, FBI
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 28709
  • What's the rumpus?
    • Benefits of a Classical Education
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #168 on: January 12, 2016, 11:25:25 AM »
I didn't say that actors were the only important element in a movie. What I said was that they ALONG WITH THE DIRECTION were the conduits for the script because that is quite literally what they are. Allegories that might be present in the script can be lost in translation because it is the work of a director and actors to bring a script to life. If they screw that up because of a lack of skill, things visible in the script might disappear on screen. See The Revenant's muddled mess for another example.
Check out my blog of many topics

“I’m not a quitter, Kimmy! I watched Interstellar all the way to the end!”

1SO

  • FAB
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 36128
  • Marathon Man
Re: Star Wars: The Force Awakens
« Reply #169 on: January 13, 2016, 02:00:04 AM »

I'm loving the attention this character is generating at the moment. Like Boba Fett in Empire, there's no telling who fans are going to latch onto. After the tease of Captain Phasma turned out to be a fizzle, we have FN-2199 (dubbed TR-8R by fans for his shout of "Traitor!" to Finn before ditching his gun and shield for that thing on his arm.) Never mind that this guy seems to have weapons nobody else has, it's a brief moment that seems to shout, "You want Star Wars!?! We Got All the Star Wars You Can Handle!"

There is currently no merchandise on this character, but it's only a matter of time.