Cheats and unexplained plot drivers

  • Hey, I put up with all those underwater fishes chasing a blaster-equipped ship because I thought we were gonna get a trip "through the planet's core!" Why mention it, if you're not gonna show it?

  • Uh ... will anyone please explain why the Sith Lord and Trade Federation risk everything to capture a teeny periphery planet? Can we have a clue why Naboo was important -- any hint at all? Hello?

  • If the queen can drum up so much Senate support that she's able to fire the good chancellor, wouldn't someone lend her a few fast ships with cameras, to broadcast atrocities going on back on Naboo?

  • The Republic has no police force? No news media to verify the queen's story? No big planets who are sick of the Trade Federation and hankering to pounce on the federation's big mistake? No commercial competitors of the Trade Federation, eager to do likewise in hopes of getting the franchise? No past victims of the Federation Robot-Army, eager for revenge? Everybody's a wimp except for two Jedis and some funky amphibian rastafarians?

  • Democratic institutions are always foolish or useless in "Star Wars." Even the Jedi High Council is blamed by Yoda for voting to allow Anakin to be admitted for training, over Yoda's "wise" objections. Only impulsive commands by anointed leaders have any validity in the Lucasian Universe.

  • Worst of all, Lucas forgets one of the chief lessons of filmmaking -- give your villains great lines! Remember "Die Hard"? "Blade Runner"? "The Empire Strikes Back"? Hell, even the lamentable "Return of the Jedi" featured a marvelously awful emperor sneering at the hero seductively (if illogically).

    So what do we see in this movie? Liam Neeson (Qui-Gon Jinn) gets separated from his nemesis, Darth Maul, by a force field. The adversaries pause and glare at each other before resuming the fight. What a great time for Maul to give his side of the story -- his seething need for revenge against the Jedi! Maybe some riveting mumbledy-jumble about the Jedi having crushed and suppressed one whole side of the Force for a thousand years, thus creating awful imbalance in the universe! (Maybe Neeson even half agrees! After all, he's the one wanting to restore "balance," which presumably means bringing back enough of the Dark Side to make sort of a Zen-twilight gray ... or maybe a dramatic layered, two-tone effect. Anyway, a hint about Liam's temptation could explain a lot.)

    Hey, Maul's harangue wouldn't even have to make sense, so long as it told us something about the cause that little Anakin will later adopt as his own. Less than a minute of villainous rant could have packed a lot of juice into their vendetta. But no.

Pseudoscience gimmicks

Here's an idea. Let's take the energy symbiote mitochondria inside our cells and mystify them into "midichlorians" (apparently swarms of some sort of symbiotic magical fairies inside of each of us) to give a pseudo-techno gloss to Lucas' new religion. To be fair, "Star Trek" does the same damn thing all the time.

Nevertheless it brings us back to the different ways the two traditions -- "sci-fi" and science fiction -- would treat Superman. If these symbionts empart great powers to people, can't we find a way to give common folk more of them? A blithe contentment with genetic determinism is one thread this "Star Wars" universe shares with most ancient tales -- and with the Nazis.

Still, even from this Campbellian \bermensch-hero premise -- that only a genetic elite get to share in the Force -- there is a big logical problem in "The Phantom Menace." Consider: Young Anakin acts with godlike poise and heroism at every turn, yet Yoda accuses this brave kid (packed fulla midichlorians) of being too afraid to be a Jedi? Do I sense a jealous under-plot here? Like maybe old Yoda fears competition? Could he be the hidden hand? Maybe this is the true reason he'll lie to Luke, 40 years later, about his father! Certainly no other explanation for the lie is ever given. None. Not one. Ever.

(Now here's a thought. How come we never see Yoda take on an enemy with a light saber? Come on master, fire it up and battle a Sith Lord! That's a battle I'd pay to see! His secret advantage? A long time ago, oven mitts were made of asbestos!)

Could this be Clue No. 4? Maybe Anakin's conversion into Darth has a reason darker than any hinted at, so far. It sure makes more sense than Yoda being so flaming incompetent. (He can foresee the future, but can't sense something as big as "this kid's gonna someday fry planets and kill every Jedi"? How convenient.)

Forgivable stuff -- and the rest

Perhaps the biggest torrent of Internet complaining over "Episode I" concerns something that I'm inclined to overlook: the comic relief character, Jar Jar Binks. It may surprise you to learn that I'm not going to waste any time disparaging poor Jar Jar, or dwelling on hints at "Yes, Bwana" racism. I can take at face value Lucas' assurances that he meant well. Likewise, I found the Ewoks in "Return of the Jedi" to be a bit rankling, but bearable, perhaps even plausible! Hey, what's the harm? I can dial down my mental age in order to enjoy a good Flash Gordon-style sci-fi romp. Cute-dumb sidekicks ain't the real problem here, folks.

Even simpleminded heroes can be excused. For all the faults of every other lying Jedi, Luke Skywalker is a true hero throughout episodes IV-VI -- a good dude who remembers his friends and keeps his common touch. A demigod who never lies or forgets a promise. He's not very bright -- and can't act -- but he's a genuine good guy, all the way. And he gets a lot done, whenever he forgets Yoda's advice and lets himself get a little mad.

Despite all the clichis, plot inconsistencies and other criticisms I've levelled in this article, I am not suggesting that movie "sci-fi" tales need the same level of logic and character and intricacy you find in first rate science fiction. That would be asking way too much. Anyway, there's a place in this world for eye candy. Even the tsunami of schlock "Star Wars" merchandise flooding every store and mall doesn't raise my ire. Go for it, George!

If those were my sole complaints, I would not have taken the time to write all this down.

It's when a director relentlessly tries fiddling with our cultural moral compass that we should sit up and take notice. I'll trust Steven Spielberg with such power, because he's earned it. He's proved again and again that he loves this civilization -- an open society of rambunctious citizens -- that gave him so much. He's one of us, only more so.

George Lucas, on the other hand, should stick to producing simple action-adventure films -- good clean fun -- and lay off preaching. It's simply not where his gifts lie.

Recent Stories