Kubrick, Part 2

Stanley Kubrick directing 'Barry Lyndon'.

'You great star! What would your happiness be had you not those for whom you shine?'

-Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra' 

'Either you care, or you don't. There's no in-between.'

-Stanley Kubrick

Stanley Kubrick Series

Introduction (Part 2)

In my first article of the year, ‘Spinoza / Kubrick’, I have already briefly mentioned Kubrick’s approach to filmmaking. While I will discuss in detail throughout the entire series, I would like to introduce his general style and beliefs in a more subtle way. I will focus on 2 misconceptions many viewers have regarding Kubrick’s work, and the clarifications of these issues will shed light on his approach in crafting his own masterpieces.

Kubrick and technology

The first misconception is to label Kubrick as a ‘science-fiction director’. This opinion is obvious because, not only ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’ is his most famous work, this 1968 masterpiece has also reached such an iconic status that one can almost immediately associate Kubrick with ‘2001’ – the film literally influences every single sci-fi movies that comes afterwards. Kubrick did not only work in the science fiction genre – you can consider ‘2001’, ‘A Clockwork Orange’, and ‘A. I.’ (directed by Spielberg when Kubrick has tragically passed away) as hard-core sci-fi films. Kubrick worked on other genres as well – War (Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal. Jacket, Paths of Glory), Horror (The Shining), Crime / Film Noir (The Killing), Erotic Drama (Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut), and Epic (Spartacus).

Yet, it is reasonable to state that, Kubrick has advanced the technology of filmmaking throughout his long-spanning career in the 2^nd half of the 20^th century. Especially after ‘Dr. Strangelove’, every Kubrick film showed a great lap in cinematic innovation, and many of these undertakings have become legendary. In ‘Dr. Strangelove’ and ‘A Clockwork Orange’, Kubrick has built realistic models of military aircrafts and set designs to convince audience of a doomed and dystopian age. In ‘2001’, he has developed ground-breaking special effects and photographic techniques that not only enhanced the scientific realism of the film, but also captivated the audience’s imagination. Viewing from the ‘CGI-age’, ‘2001’ is still able to excite the audience with awe. What is even more fascinating, and to a certain extent ironic, is the legendary story about the 18^th century period drama ‘Barry Lyndon’. In order to film in natural lighting and even candlelight, Kubrick actually used ultrafast lenses, originally developed for NASA, for which the original application was for satellite photography on the ‘dark side’ of the moon! The result was an unprecedented naturalism for a period film, and since then many directors have been willing to undertake challenges of filming in natural light.  In ‘The Shining’, no one would ever forget the long tracking shot sequences around the Overlook Hotel and the maze. Kubrick was one of the first major filmmakers to make use of a Steadicam to afford such fluid and dynamic tracking shots, on sluggish and difficult surfaces and impossibly low camera height. Each new Kubrick film would open a door to a new frontier in cinema, and benefit those who are willing to look a bit closer.

Stanley Kubrick directing 'Dr. Strangelove'.

Kubrick's coldness

The second misconception is more critical, and indeed for some detractors, a major weakness of Kubrick’s work – his films are cold and detached. Let me be honest here – while I recommend Kubrick’s work, do not be misled by thinking that they are ‘entertaining’ films, and then walk out saying these films are boring. I love Kubrick because his films are inspiring – I love his style, his worldview and his ideas. If I want to watch a Kubrick film more than once – which I have for most of them – it is not because they have given me intense sensations or entertainment. It is because I want to look deeper into his films, I want to understand more. The reason why I have pleasure and gratifications when watching a Kubrick film is because I can connect with such an intelligent and inspiring man.

I believe the reasons many critics find Kubrick’s films cold - and even project this sentiment unfairly to Kubrick’s personality - is because his style is unsentimental, which is a more appropriate word to describe his style. It is evident that films have become more sentimental over the years, and somehow filmmakers have to make characters sound very emotional in order to gain ‘empathy’ or ‘identification’ from the audience. That is why when the audience are viewing a Kubrick film, they find the characters ‘wooden’ or ‘mechanical’. Here, I hope I can convince you that, while Kubrick’s work may seem unsentimental, we can still find an emotional connection with his work, and the motivation for him to adopt this clinical style signifies his strong commitment to his beliefs regarding the human condition.

Kubrick believed in, and has always been willing to, commit to a strong sense of realism in his films, no matter what topic he was working on. To be a realist is to view things in an objective manner. Thus, all the techniques he has consistently applied can ensure an objective viewpoint for the audience, and these encourage the viewers to observe at a distance. Kubrick made extensive use of long shots in many of his films, making characters, props and background standing equally in the same frame. He preferred long takes to shorter cuts, as that can provide a more realistic portrayal of a spatial-temporal sequence. Of course, these 2 techniques can potentially undermine the participation of human characters in a given shot. The long shot undermines the characters, reducing the human participants to almost like a prop; and since the long take is often a tracking shot, it can be harder to portray, for example, a humanistic interaction like a conversation, in which a reverse shot sequence will benefit by focusing the audience’s attention on the speaker at a given shot.

Yet, I believe these techniques fit very well to Kubrick’s realist worldview. As I have mentioned before, Kubrick likely shared a similar belief to that of Spinoza – that we are all part of Nature, and it is our ego that makes us feel we are above all the other living things. Thus, he represented this naturalistic worldview in a subtle manner, by using the long shot that put as much regard as the environment as the human characters. The coldness, thus, is a manifestation of man's position in an indifferent Nature. Kubrick firmly believed that, by engaging the viewers to understand the true nature of our existence in an authentic manner, we would then be able to improve our ultimate well-being.

Thus, the Kubrickian characters have to look cold and wooden for two purposes. First, a character in a Kubrick movie is merely an instrument for him to convey a broader message to his audience. So, you can analogize the character as a pawn on a chess board, and the character is a component that drives the overall mechanic of a Kubrick film. Second, this can indeed generate sympathy from the audience. As many of the Kubrickian characters are subject to some form of control, that will allow the audience to identify with the plight of these characters. Only by doing this, we can connect with these tragic figures and are able to ask whether we can change the real world we are situated in.

It is worthwhile to ask why an apparently cold Kubrick film can make me emotional? Certainly, it is not because the story or the characters are sentimental in any way. When you look at ‘2001’, the space ships obviously will not make you feel loved. Yet when you look beyond that to see Kubrick, who has devoted so much effort and time to plan every single perfect shot and give the maximal quality to the ultimate masterpiece, we can easily be touched by his passion in the Film Art. It is the fact that he is original and he always stands firm on his belief that I find extremely inspiring.

I can think of an analogy to sum these all up. A great filmmaker is someone who does a long shot, and you are attracted to that because the content fascinates and captivates you. A bad filmmaker is someone who does a close up, and employs sentiment and pretension to pull you over. I firmly believe Mr. Kubrick belongs to the former category.

Moonwatcher - willing to share his discovery with his friends, even before the Facebook age. From '2001: A Space Odyssey'.

Concluding Remarks

I watched my first Kubrick film, ‘2001: A Space Odyssey’, when I was around 13. Not only bewildered by the bunch of apes, the monolith, the ultimate match-cut, the Ferris Wheel, the HAL melee, the LSD-like Star Gate sequence, and the Star Child – I have also found someone I truly admire. I have since then developed an intense fascination with Stanley Kubrick, watching almost all his available films, reading many books and interviews about this genius. In his legendary Playboy interview around 1968, Stanley showed us his true side. He truly believed in the potential of human beings, and he felt that it had nothing to do with how absurd or meaningless the universe might turn out to be. The whole interview is worthwhile to read, yet this is the ultimate punchline:

However vast the darkness, we must supply our own light. 

– Stanley Kubrick

This is the line that has inspired me, and given me hope. Only by committing to this will provide us with dignity, and will lead us all to contribute ourselves to humanity. No matter how bleak Kubrick’s films may seem, he believes we all have the power to change and improve our current condition.

My favorite character in the Kubrick universe is the ape ‘Moonwatcher’ in ‘2001’. Because he signifies all the traits Kubrick wants us all to be – intelligent, compassionate for others, sympathetic, keen to solve problems and explore new things, and above all, inspiring. We should all contribute with an end to inspire others to do the same. Kubrick has contributed and pushed human intelligence forward. If the bunch of apes represents the microcosm of humanity, then, the Moonwatcher must be called ‘Stanley Kubrick’.    

Stanley Kubrick directing 'A Clockwork Orange'.

(2/2)

by Ed Law

26/2/2016

Film Analysis - 63

Kubrick, Part 1

Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999)

Among those whom I would call 'younger generation' Kubrick appears to me to be a giant. 

– Orson Welles

Watching a Kubrick film is like gazing up at a mountain top. You look up and wonder, "How could anyone have climbed that high?"

 – Martin Scorsese

Stanley Kubrick Series

Part 1 : Introduction

This may seem like an all-too-familiar story. A young kid who was not paying attention to school and having poor grades. Nothing really fascinated him in school, with the exception of chess and photography. When his grades meant that he could not be admitted to a university, he decided to go to evening courses, played chess to earn money in the park, and frequently visited the cinema. Sounds familiar, right? It is where the story starts to be unique. After serving as a staff photographer for some time, he earned a chance to enter the movie industry. He went on to make a couple of films. Often at the time of the release, some critics would castigate his films as ‘cold’, ‘detached’, ‘mechanical’, ‘wooden’ and even ‘misanthropic’. Yet, the nasty comments from these critics did not send these films to oblivion. Almost all these films have stood the test of time, and they have become modern classics. The images in these films have become so ingrained into modern culture that, you are likely to have encountered them before even knowing where these are all from. This great man has influenced so many subsequent filmmakers, and his spirit still loomed over in today’s cinema. He is my favorite filmmaker of all time – Stanley Kubrick (1928-1999) !!

Kubrick’s place in the movie universe

You may not have heard of Stanley Kubrick before, yet you are likely to be watched, to have heard of, or at least to be aware of any one of his films. 2001: A Space Odyssey. A Clockwork Orange. The Shining. Dr. Strangelove. Full Metal Jacket. Eyes Wide Shut. Spartacus. Lolita. Barry Lyndon. These are all powerful titles that do not require further descriptions. Kubrick has worked in many of the film genres, yet due to his originality, his films would almost always come out as the Number One in the genre or become the most iconic one in the respective genre.

Kubrick has influenced so many great filmmakers of today, including Steven  Spielberg, George Lucas, James Cameron, Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese, Quentin Tarantino, the Coen Brothers, Christopher Nolan, David Fincher, Paul Thomas Anderson, Guillermo del Toro, Alfonso Cuarón and many more. These masters of cinema certainly know who they should look upon in order to pursue cinematic excellence.

Kubrick’s spirit still finds presence in many of today’s films. Fight Club, There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, The Dark Knight, Avatar, Inception, Wall-E, Toy Story (indeed, most of Pixar movies), The Tree of Life, Gone Girl, Gravity, Interstellar, Mr. Robot – they are some of the most popular and well-regarded films of our era, and one thing in common for all – they are all somehow inspired by Kubrick’s style and ideas. Kubrick has passed away 17 years ago, yet we can still feel his power in so many facets of modern culture. Therefore, it is still totally relevant to discuss about Kubrick’s legacy nowadays.

The School of Kubrick is certainly well-established. Yet a more fascinating question may be – who and what influenced Kubrick in the first place? Kubrick’s many influences were all icons of modern cinema and art – Sergei M. Eisenstein, Max Ophüls (fluid camera movement), Charlie Chaplin, D. W. Griffith, Orson Welles (composition and camera style), Konstantin Stanislavsky (approach to actors), Bertolt Brecht (clinical detachment).  In terms of worldview, Kubrick was clearly influenced by Friedrich Nietzsche – to be honest, a number of his films can be considered the cinematic version of Nietzshe’s ideas, and thus they serve as great introductions to Nietzsche’s philosophy. He was also influenced by other titans like Charles Darwin, Sigmund Freud and Albert Camus.

Kubrickian Style

Kubrick’s films are iconic because they all follow a very consistent style. That means one can easily recognize the ‘Kubrickian’ elements from his various work. Kubrick almost adapted the screenplay from other sources in his major films, and he consistently made use of classical music in many of his films – from ‘Also Sprach Zarathustra’ and ‘The Blue Danube’ in ‘2001’ to Beethoven’s 9^th symphony in ‘A Clockwork Orange’. He used consistent imageries and motifs in his films. Examples include parallel or duplicity elements in terms of imageries and also narrative, the symmetric and geometric perspective, and his iconic ‘Kubrick stare’. They are so memorable and lasting that subsequent film directors have ripped off all these elements numerous times. Kubrick believes in his original ideas, and he is a stunning filmmaker with a unique vision and style.

Theme 1 - The Dark Side

The 2 major themes of the Kubrick cinema can be summarized by ‘D & D’ - The Dark Side and Dehumanization. Most of Kubrick’s films are very dark, and very different from the subsequent filmmakers he has inspired. Kubrick’s films present a bleak and pessimistic view of human nature, and while they are highly popular -  just look at the number of the Kubrick films on the IMDB Top 250 - they are very different from the more positive and hopeful films like that of Spielberg, Lucas, Cameron and Scott. In a number of these films, like 2001, A Clockwork Orange and Path of Glory, they are also existential in nature. While Kubrick has no reservations to expose the worst moments of the human condition, he shows the audience that our dark sides come hand-in-hand with dehumanization and control.

Theme 2 - Dehumanization

Kubrick truly believes in Nietzschean freedom. Yet, he urges us to philosophize – what prevents us from being free, and hence makes us less human? Most of the key characters in Kubrick films are tragic figures, because they are somehow controlled or conditioned by some sort of authorities or forces they cannot escape. Be it conditioning, technology, paranoia, psychic, rules and customs, or even plain fatalism – these are the underlying powers that push the Kubrickian characters to their limits. Kubrick’s universe is a bit like that of Spinoza’s – it is a deterministic system that the characters find themselves to choose and find the right way. Yet, more than anything, Kubrick wishes to convince that the inability to choose freely is more likely due to authority’s control, which is often instrumental to selfish motives and will effectively wipe out the traces of human dignity.  Thus, no matter how dark or cold Kubrick films may appear, Kubrick is certainly not like this. Because, he simply shows he cares.

(1/2)

by Ed Law

20/2/2016

Film Analysis - 63

The Hateful Eight

I have recently watched Quentin Tarantino's 'The Hateful Eight'. Call me the Hangman -  when that sun comes out, I'm taking this article to publish online! There anybody here committed to stopping me from doing that? Just spoofing Kurt Russell’s great line from the film! :-D

The Hateful Eight (TH8) is a controversial film, and it is even more so because Quentin Tarantino, who I have always been a huge fan of, has unfortunately stated some rather inconsiderate opinions before the release. This is really sad because this will definitely mislead and distort the audience's view on TH8, which I believe is one of the films closest to his own signature style, and at the same time reflects the brutal reality we are now situated in. 

This film is highly influenced by his 'Reservoir Dogs', John Carpenter's 'The Thing', and to me, many of Anthony Mann's 'psychological Westerns' of the 1950s (which are all highly recommendable films in their own right). All these film are pervaded with a strong sense of paranoia, and a realistic portrayal of human's dark side. TH8, like 'The Thing' (1982), is about the distrust among individuals, and the paranoia that someone else has 'second thoughts' regarding the group’s well being. And the fact that all individuals are locked in a claustrophobic environment does not help much for survival, too. Because it is not the blizzard, but the individuals in the cabin room that will lead to body counts. It is the prejudice and deception that will eventually destroy everyone. I believe Quentin has not attempted to make any judgments on the characters in the film - as he has made every key character 'hateful' in a sense - yet this 3-hour epic nicely defines his insightful perspective on human interactions. 

'The Hateful Eight' is a tough and intense film, yet I recommend you to release your political assumptions and go and watch it, because, don't be surprised TH8 may become a modern classic some day!

The Hateful Eight is a deep film, and it is scattered with insightful ideas throughout the 3-hour thrill ride. Yet, I plan to do a more in-depth discussion of this film in later articles, as I plan to do a series on Quentin Tarantino, and I feel that it will fit better into the big picture when I discuss TH8 along with ‘Reservoir Dogs’, ‘Pulp Fiction’ and his other iconic work, probably after the Oscar. Give me that guitar... Music time's over!

by Ed Law

18/2/2016

Film Analysis

浮雲

<浮雲.>是成瀨巳喜男最著名的作品, 在日本電影史上有着舉足輕重的地位。 

生於亂世的情感, 諷刺地在安穩的盛世中煙消雲散。 是女方自作多情, 還是男方視情如浮雲? 塞外短暫的歡愉時光, 在回到了平實後又不能夠美滿地續寫下去。 成瀨不懂得濫情, 他卻動人地描繪了男女主角心底裏的無盡情絲。 沉重的結局, 印證着世事的無情。標誌着真摯感受的晴光, 難道都要被那變幻無巨常的巨嘯所湮沒, 被冰凍的冷雨所嘲笑?

縱使在二月二十日的重映場次已經滿座, <浮雲>依然是一部值得從其他途徑再看的電影。如果您是真心支持電影的話, 那, 請先作出有品味的選擇!

by Ed Law

16/2/2016

Film Analysis

Star Wars : The Force Awakens

A few days ago, I have finally gone to watch ‘Star Wars: The Force Awakens’ (IMAX version), which is the 7^th episode of the space opera saga. While ‘Star Wars’ may not be my favorite science-fiction film of all time, I have already cited it as an exemplary candidate of a great film. If Steven Spielberg has stated that George Lucas has put the butter back to the popcorn through the first Star Wars movie, then I would compliment by saying that Lucas has also put substance into the film, as well. ‘Star Wars’ is the ultimate example to show us that an entertaining blockbuster does not necessarily have to be a brainless flick. Inspired by ‘The Searchers’, ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, ‘The Godfather’ and many of the Kurosawa films, the ‘Star Wars’ saga is a cautionary tale about ambition, redemption, family relationships and what it takes to be good and honorable. It is great to see that J. J. Abrams, who has taken over the project, has the Force with him and has delivered a decent episode of this modern classic. Of course, I will definitely recommend anyone to watch the previous 6 episodes, as they are all great and have stood the test of time. ‘Star Wars’ is such a deep film that deserves a mention in the film blog, and this time I will only focus on ‘The Force Awakens’.

‘The Force Awakens’ has served an important mission as it is the episode that introduces the cinematic phenomenon known as ‘Star Wars’ to the young people of our era. It is gratifying that Mr. Abrams has been able to capture the spirit of the old ‘Star Wars’, without submitting to fast tracks such as random punch lines and cheesy one-liners, which has almost flooded the popcorn flicks nowadays (and they are not that funny to be honest). Although, I have to admit that I had a rush of euphoria when I saw the old Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill showing up – they are the ones I watched when I was young – we need to pass the baton to the young, right? Yet, I do encourage the young ones nowadays to look beyond the CGIs and the hideous monsters that seem to pour out endlessly from the film stock, and really give some thoughts about the moral behind the story. If the Jedi Master is to pass the knowledge to the young apprentice, it is not merely the light saber skills – it is the philosophy and the ideas behind that which is essential.

To me, every trilogy of the Star Wars series is about family business. There are scores to be settled in the family – Darth Vader / Luke Skywalker, Anakin / Obi-Wan, and now Han Solo / Kylo Ren. I believe Lucas’ original genius is to create this tension between father and son, and the desperation for both parties to get a bit closer. For course, this reminds me of John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’, which is about a not-so-perfect male character, Ethan Edwards, who has to redeem himself for his past mistakes and prejudices. Certainly, the two films are different, yet in the ‘Star Wars’ movies, many of the male characters have fallen into a state of redemption, as they believe they are the culprit  of ‘screwing some good things up’. They believe that they are responsible for ruining the potential of some gifted individuals (e.g. Anakin, Ren and the Jedi Order), and lead these young guys to the Dark Side and chaos. Thus, they are often consumed with guilt and regret, and in some case they attempt to turn away from the problem – which is the case for Obi-Wan Kenobi in Episode 4 and now Luke Skywalker, and again remains me of the drifter Edwards in ‘The Searchers’. The great thing about the characterization of ‘Star Wars’ is that not only there are heroic and courageous characters, there are also complex and realistic characters, as exemplified by Darth Vader and the many males with regret.

Since ‘The Force Awakens’ is a new round of trilogy, the new and young characters in the film are all starting to face challenges – both good and evil sides – and preparing to face something big. The young stars are able to deliver their mindset in the film, which I believe this can lead to a better identification with the young audience, and hopefully inspire them with a life lesson through entertainment. All the young characters – Rey, Finn, Poe, and Ren – have started to show some intelligence in their trade. Rey can catch up with the experienced Han Solo’s technical knowledge; Finn and Poe are already quite skillful at combat and pilot techniques, and Ren, the bad guy, shows extraordinary mastery at light saber, force field, and um – mental torture techniques, too. Yet, the key issue for all young characters is that they are not quite ready yet. These characters in the film have shown, with much emphasis, that they are not mature, autonomous and original enough yet. They are all consumed with fear and confusion, in a number of ways. Certainly, for the good ‘trio’, they know that they are about to do something real big, and it is totally overwhelming for them that they want to give up and run away, as they cannot really take it. For Ren, his mind is so confused as he is just not so sure whether he should go one step further to the Dark Side, though, tragically at the end, he has committed to do so by carrying out an unforgivable crime. And, when fighting Rey, Ren even states, ‘you need a teacher’ and claims he can be the one. These scenarios remind me of ‘The Empire Strikes Back’, when Darth Vader praised Luke Skywalker of his light saber skill, but stated clearly to the young man, ‘You are not a Jedi yet’. Even more, this reminds me of an older trilogy, which I would recommend to anyone interested in Samurai films – Hiroshi Inagaki’s ‘Musashi Miyamoto’. I have before talked about Inagaki’s ‘Samurai Banners’, and ‘Musashi Miyamoto’ series is another of his classic. The reason is because the young Musashi Miyamoto, portrayed by Toshiro Mifune, was quite similar to the young characters in ‘The Force Awakens’. Musashi had courage, he had the basic sword-fighting skills and some battle experience, yet he was a rowdy and mean man, who was urged on success. In a sense, he was compared to a beast. Only when he understood the Tao of swordsmanship, and grasped the philosophy behind these ideas, he became in control of himself, and he became a refined and respectable swordsman. In ‘The Force Awakens’, the young guys have shown the first signs of genius, yet they still have a long way to go. They have to be committed and show their courage to the insurmountable clutches of The First Other, and more importantly they have to learn to be in control of their skills and not resort to brute forces and single-mindedness, which they will develop in the following episodes.

As I have mentioned, a great aspect of the ‘Star Wars’ enterprise is the complexity of the primary antagonist. From Darth Vader to Anakin Skywalker to Kylo Ren, these are all evil and yet egotistical characters that are also decorated with a sense of tragedy, regret and the need to feel love and respected. This reminds us more of Michael Corleone in ‘The Godfather’ trilogy, and his need to balance out his responsibility for whom he cares and his darker side. And, Kylo Ren has certainly illustrated a character trait of any egotistical individuals. It is nice to see that when Rey taunted him by saying that, ‘You will never be as great as Darth Vader’, that almost provided guilty pleasure for the audience, as we all shared contempt for these arrogant snobs. Indeed, the best way to destroy these ‘above-the-law’ wannabes is to project the issue to a higher level, to tell them the blunt truth – you are just not the chosen one. Think of Daniel Day-Lewis’ character in ‘There will be Blood’ – when he told Paul Dano’s character ‘you are not the chosen me, as you might assume, I am!’ How much hard feelings these can exert to these fake snobs! True, we all don’t deny the existence of genius, but you are just NOT the one. Identifying these arrogant and self-fulfilling personalities is certainly the first step to push human wisdom forward, and that does not necessarily require the use of a light saber!    

Yet, I feel there is a more subtle aspect of these black-masked antagonists, as Lucas and Abrams have certainly incorporated subtle wisdom in terms of human interactions and ‘office’ politics in many of the ‘Star Wars’ film. I suppose these are more relevant for younger audience as they cannot easily acquire these experiences at such a young age. One common character trait among these ‘Darth’ lords is that they are all egotistical, and all the same time brilliant enough to be seen as a ‘golden child’. Too often, the boss can find some special connections with one or two of the brighter workers in a team, and it may not be the good thing as those individuals will have a boost in self-confidence and start to stand too firm on their views. The spacecraft represents a term-working environment – and this is what the ‘good guys’ in all the ‘Star Wars’ film have always demonstrated. They almost work as a team, and have a decent division of labor in the group, each member focuses in the area they are good at. It is rather interesting to see, for the First Order (i.e. the Dark Side), the evil lord has 2 deputies, Kylo Ren and the other guy. The other guy seems to be more a team-player and he encourages his team to do something similar. In a sense, Ren is perceived as a maverick genius and a bit of a loner, as with the case of Darth Vader in previous episodes. He cannot fit into the team nicely, and always has second thoughts and personal reasons to do it his own way. It is rather tragic because, say this is not an evil empire, in real life when such a character screws up things, it will often end badly for him. To this end, I have to say Adam Driver has done really brilliant work to portray Ren, as he can capture the confusion and chaotic nature of the character so nicely. I hope this young actor will deliver more great work in the future! Of course, we are not supposed to be the next Darth Vader, yet Abrams have subliminally provided a cautionary tale regarding human relationships to the young audience. Except you are so sure you will work alone in your remaining life, you have to be a team-player, at least following the way those on the ‘Millennium Falcon’ are doing.

So that’s my view, yet I have a minor compliant. While I had immense pleasure when watching the dog-fights and more dynamic scenes using my 3D-spectacles, I found less pleasure when watching the Widescreen shots such as those desert scenes, clearly inspired by David Lean’s and John Ford’s classics. In those cases, I had to take my spectacles off. I enjoy both IMAX and widescreen compositions, yet in some cases they do not complement each other well enough. I suppose this is an issue future IMAX films will have to work on fast.

All in all, I believe Mr. Abrams has done a great job and passed on the ‘Star Wars’ legacy to our young Padawan audience. Finally, may the Force be with you!

by Ed Law

13/2/2016

Film Analysis