Swank’s Phantom Menace Review Rebuttal – Part 1 of 7
Wednesday, February 17th, 2010 at 1:05 pm Category: Commentary, News, Star Wars, Top
Now, I understand that a lot of people have watched the now infamous 70 minute Phantom Menace review and I had a hard time getting through part 1 the first time I clicked on it. I reacted with a little volatility to it, mainly because I thought it was a waste of time for someone to put together a 70 minute review of a film.
And, I’ll concede that some of his points are valid, but others are pretty paper thin. So, I wanted to discuss some of his points and dismantle a few of them that I thought were pretty ridiculous.
I won’t bother with arguing about the tone of the piece, which I thought was pretty obnoxious, I’ll just take on his major points in this seven part series.
Part One: The Protagonist:
The author of the video posits that Phantom Menace doesn’t have a main character or a protagonist, but the film clearly follows Qui-Gon Jinn, through his mission, his finding of Anakin, and his dilemma about whether or not he should train the boy in the face of opposition to the Jedi council. Supporting characters help fill the plot and dilemma’s in the same way Han Solo, Princess Leia, Chewbacca, and Lando fill them in in the classic trilogy.
The opening crawl text serves as the context for Qui-Gon’s mission and he goes through the film trying to serve his duty and fulfill it, but at the same time he struggles with his interpretation of the force and the will of his masters.
Queen Amidala is at the center of this as well, and her duty is to her people.
Phantom Menace’s structure rhymes quite a bit with the structure of A New Hope and Anakin arrives at about the same point in the timeline and story as Han Solo does in their respective first appearances. Though Anakin is younger and admittedly less likeable than Han Solo, he provides a pivotal lynch-pin to the story (both in aiding in their egress from Tatooine and in creating that moral dilemma for Qui-Gon) and saves the day.
I agree that there is no single protagonist in The Phantom Menace that has the strength of Luke Skywalker in A New Hope, but follows the same fractured protaganist pattern that The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi do. Each of the protagonists add their dilemmas together to create a whole picture of the story. It’s the same thing with a lot of war movies. Take Richard Attenborough’s A Bridge Too Far as an example. There isn’t any one consistent protagonist, but a dozen of them reaching for the same final goal though all of their motivations are different. Though the Nazi’s are barely characters in that film, they are much like the Sith in Phantom Menace. We don’t need the extra exposition to be told that the Nazi’s winning are a bad thing and the same is true for the Sith in The Phantom Menace.
Phantom Menace accomplishes this “super-goal for all the protagonists” structure. Never once do you watch that film without a sense of what the story is or what needs to be accomplished for our band of heroes to win the day. There are clear objectives brought on by the characters and their decisions that are affected by their actions. Naboo is in peril and through the film we’ve learned that the two indigenous people of Naboo are at odds with each other. If they don’t come together and fight the Trade Federation, the Sith will win. And while we aren’t exactly sure WHY the Sith want to win, the fact that they do makes this repulsive to the audience. Because of the goals of the protagonists and the strength of the villain, we are glued to our seats when Darth Maul arrives to prevent this from happening and we cheer when Obi-Wan finally gives the bad guy his due.
The author of the review even admits that you don’t have to follow the structure he outlined in the beginning of his video essay, but doesn’t offer any credible reason why it doesn’t work here other than some snarky remarks.
And the point that traditionally the protagonist has to win the day and get the girl is specious. As a protagonist, Qui-Gon sacrificed his life for his duty and that sense of loss permeates in the end of the film at his funeral, which is a catalyst for the rest of the Star Wars saga. To separate Phantom Menace from the fabric of the entire story is neither plausible nor fair.
In a vain attempt to prove his point about a lack of clear characters and protagonists, the author of the 70 minute Phantom Menace review asks a few of his friends to describe Star Wars characters without saying what they look like, what kind of costume they wore, or what their profession in the movie was.
My guess is he asked a bunch of people who hadn’t even really watched Phantom Menace more than once because he had to remind them who he even was. Had he asked someone like me, he would have had as full and complete a description for Qui-Gon as he got for Han Solo in the video.
For example: Qui-Gon is a venerable, older gentleman who has a habit of taking his own path and bucking both tradition and authority. He’s wise, offering constant advice and commentary on things and keeps his cards close to his chest, often to the point of befuddling and frustrating those who work beneath him. As an archetype, he’s the reserved and wisened old sword-master.
As for Queen Amidala: She has an overriding sense of duty and civic pride to her people and, though she’s thought to be young and naïve, she has a strength and courage to her that help win the day. She’s also not interested in the pomp and circumstance of royal life and instead prefers to witness and participate in events first hand. She’s eloquent and concerned, willing to fight for her people in a way that echoes the character of her daughter in the later films.
Asking people who don’t really know about the movies or don’t know enough about them to describe the basic character traits of characters isn’t much of a genuine argument. All he needed to do was ask someone who HAD seen the movie and he wouldn’t have been able to include that in his video review.
That is where Part One of the review ended and so too will I end my rebuttal of it. We’ll see what happens next time.
Responses to “Swank’s Phantom Menace Review Rebuttal – Part 1 of 7”
Two of my favorite pieces of fiction ever have no main protagonist: The Right Stuff and The Wire.
Well, I have seen the movie, a few times..and i thought the 70 minute review was hilarious and most of the time pretty spot on. I admit he did get a little pedantic at times but that was all in the name of good comedy value for me. TPM was a piece of shit. There is really no other way it can be looked at for me. Even when i went to see it for the first time as a young, eager to love it 16 year old, I still just sat there thinking..”This can’t be the actual movie..”. Swank, your description of Qui Gonn is fairly accurate from one perspective but it still doesn’t exactly scream excitement does it? Of course you can describe a characters appearance and basically what they do in the movie..but your still making him sound a lot more interesting than he actually is to watch. And the Amidala description is moot since for the majority of the movie we are actually supposed to be watching he servant decoy and not the Queen at all! I understand Star Wars fans need to defend this movie..I am one after all, but there comes a point when you have to just admit that it wasn’t up to scratch..thats putting it mildly. I’ll refrain from even mentioning Jar Jar.
I think it’s cute how Rormachine thinks he can use logic and reason to change Swank’s opinion of Star Wars. Absolutely adorable.
And when I say “logic and reason”, I don’t mean compelling arguments as to why Swank shouldn’t like it, but the kind that are like, “Oh, come one, we all have terrible movies that we love, TPM is yours.” He won’t even admit to THAT.
I, on the other hand, will not refrain from mentioning Jar Jar. He was a completely functional addition to the film and filled a necessary role. The lack of Threepio meant we were missing a vital part of the comedy duo. Who’s Laurel without Hardy? Abbott and no Costello?
In Artoo we have our classic straight man. The protocol droid was the foil in the OT. Jar Jar fills the gap left by Threepio’s limited role. You’ll note Binks fades to the background in Eps. 2 & 3 as Threepio plays more into the story.
Is he annoying? Somewhat, though no more annoying than Wicket IMO.
@Rormachine: You are correct that we don’t HAVE to defend SW. But people don’t need to assault it either. The 70 minute review was pedantic, rude and insulting. That’s just unnecessary and if someone who loves the film wants to rebut I applaud. Everyone defends the things they love. If we didn’t there would be no AM Talk radio (tho that might be a good thing). Try religion as an example. If you believe it, you don’t have to defend it. But when someone tears it down and insults you for your belief you’re not really defending the religion (or movie) you’re defending yourself. I appluad Swank on standing up for what he believes. Although, I think the defense would be better based on the merits of the films rather than slinging mud with the other critic.
Sure, comparing religion to movies. THAT makes sense.
HAH! Either baldassbat IS Bryan, or you were both molested by the same protocol droid as a kid. Comparing Star Wars to religion? “Only you could be so bold.”
No, I’m not Bryan. But we have run into each other a few times at Star Wars Celebrations.
@Jesus: Of coruse it makes sense. They’re both just stories made for entertaining the masses.
I would agree they are “entertainment” for the masses, and both Star Wars and Religion promote morality to the masses. Even though I may not agree with how they all handle it.
But no one is waiting to meet Luke Skywalker after they die, they’re waiting to meet me or my Dad.
I can freely admit that Phantom Menace is the least of the Star Wars movies, but I had a long conversation with Clang! Boom! Steam! about this yesterday and heres the thing: You’re more willing to overlook flaws the more you’re entertained. I was incredibly entertained by Phantom Menace so all the stupid, nit-picky flaws didn’t mean anything to me. The movie accomplished it’s job and I was entertained.
That doesn’t mean all of the arguments in the 70 minute “review” were invalid, but it doesn’t mean they were all cohesive, either. I think I did a good job at deconstructing part 1, we’ll see how the others go.
This is the first I’ve heard you admit the movie had flaws. I think you’re well on your way to becoming a real human, Swank! And I agree, the more you’re entertained by something, the more you’re willing to ignore its flaws. I just didn’t find TPM entertaining.
I thought the 70 minute review was funny. Especially with the tied up girl in his basement. I found it great that the author of said video even put in actual footage of George Lucas saying “Hmm, maybe I went a little overboard with this one” and “… the problem is, I infused these too much and now we can’t cut around it.” and of Lucas cringing at the movie he had just made. Fascinating stuff.
I don’t find Phantom Menace to be entertaining either, but Mormonism I always find fascinating.
Loves you Budgetron.
Sincerely,
Pencilbot
I’ve told him this before, but I’m totally in Swank’s camp on this issue. I loved Phantom Menace when I saw it five times in the theaters– and still do.
@Rormachine: His description of Amdala is not moot. She still has plenty of interaction with Anakin and the Jedi as Padme.
Nicholas, I forgot to mention, I find you comparing Phantom Menace to The Wire and The Right Stuff absolutely uncalled for and reprehensible. I find it shocking that one with fine taste could have no discerning taste at all when talking about Star Wars. I guess it is the one flaw in your pallet.
Like me; my tastes are fairly high save my affliction to watch copious amounts of midget-porn, collect 80′s soundtracks and my slight tinge of anti-semitism (“affliction” is a harsh term on that one though). So all in all, I get where you’re coming from Nicholas.
@Pencilbot So you’re comparing Ep. I to midget porn? Sweet.
I think the Right Stuff structure comparison is fair.
I think the Midget Porn comparison is fair.
I think one thing to consider is that Lucas wasn’t looking at TPM as a discreet movie – rather, it was Act 1 of his 6 Act play. . . or maybe even more the introduction to the 5 part Arc of Anakin Skywalker. And so the goal wasn’t to make TPM the most wonderful individual story with wonderful dialog but rather a fun view of the setting.
The goal of TPM was to have fun – to be visually spectacular – to show vistas and effects that were cool. And in that, it did very well. And the lightsaber combat (well before any fansaber fights) was fantastically fun.
Eric: Very excellent point. ANH was the “original” movie because of its ability to stand on its own when it was assumed there would be no sequels or prequels. Based on its success the original trilogy was completed. Had GL made EMpire first everyone would have been completely lost. In TPM he had a film that really served as a prologue for a much grander tale, not so much as a single value movie.
Swank mentions this in the main article, that taking TPM out of the context of the entire saga is absurd: “To separate Phantom Menace from the fabric of the entire story is neither plausible nor fair.” Simply, this is not a television series where each episode must be self-contained while possibly still filling the season’s story arc. In the same way you can’t appreciate the depth of Act I of Romeo & Juliet without the context of the entire play you can’t fully enjoy TPM without knowing the rest of the tale.
Um, I wasn’t trying to sway or change anyones opinion Budgetron, i was merely responding with my thoughts to the article..its called provoking debate, no need to be a dick about it.
Look, if you liked TPH then more power to you, I’m glad you thought that a barely cohesive, piss poorly acted toy showcase was a worthy follow up to the original trilogy. I didn’t. Different strokes.
You’ve misunderstood Rormachine, read it again. Budget wasn’t being a dick to you, he was being a dick to Swank, as always.
I think Swank is the only one on BSR! who likes the prequels, we’ve all tried so hard to dissuade him from this and I believe by this point we’ve all stopped trying to tell him how bad it actually is. He is viewed as Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper to us now when the subject of Star Wars is brought up, for all intents and purposes.
I can tell by what the 70 min. review author noticed that he has seen it more than once, and deconstructs its entire plot and shows that it actually makes NO SENSE… like midget porn plots are based around “how can we get these two together and bang?”, TPM plots were based around “how can we get this character we’ve seen before in the movie?”
Will this make a difference? No. There will still be Swanks rebuttal.
Hey Pencilbot! I made the same comparison to the new Star Trek and Midget Porn and you argued with me for days. Don’t misinterpret this comment for liking TPM, I hate that movie. All I’m saying is, if this is midget porn, than Star Trek was a midget gang bang.
Oh yeah,…on a second read I see you absolutely right Pencilbot..sorry Budgetron:)
[...] there were polarizing opinions on the 70 Minute Phantom Menace Review we posted a few months back, there’s no [...]
Yo, yo – who cares ’bout yo rebuttal? It was funny when he did it, now yo punk-ass jus’ sad.
Allow me to paraphrase the great lil kim:
all that nerdy bullshit you kick – masturbatin’ on the sideline.
get yo’ own shtick – why you ridin’ mine?
peace out
Was that even English?
When The Phantom Menace first came out, 90% of the people who walked out the theater was lost and disappointed. People said it was good and alright, simply because they wanted to love the movie so much. There was a huge hype about it. Everyone knows that. People blamed high expectations, but with the lack of limitations Lucasfilm seems to carry, the expectations of a new Star Wars movie 16 years later was NOT impossible to meet. The movie just failed to impress people. People simply didn’t enjoy the movie; whether they were Star Wars fans or not. Unfortunately, the reasons for the film’s disappointment lies in the basics of storytelling, which is why most people couldn’t figure out what’s wrong with it. The RLM reviews simply explained the film-making flaws and the numerous errors and explanations to us. The reason most agree with the review is because when we think about it, we actually realize that what he says is true. You can’t blame the reviews popularity on its humor or crudity. The review obviously doesn’t focus on that. If it did, do you honestly think most people would keep watching them? It’s just kind of like closure that he delivers; making us see what’s wrong with the movies from a more realistic perspective, rather than a fanboy’s perspective.
Sure, you can rebuttle and disagree and pout about the reviews all you want, as a fanboy. The main point of the reviews are that the prequels just failed as films. The inconsistencies don’t really matter; they’re just nitpicks put in for comical use and plot decomposition. If you watched the Ep III review, he closes with telling you that you shouldn’t wrap yourself around the prequels because they’re just bad movies; poorly told stories. You can agree or disagree, but you shouldn’t make extensive arguments and rebuttles. This just leads to more controversey among everyone. The guy just said what he wanted to say. Nobody’s picking a fight.