Star Wars - A Review of the Sequel Trilogy

A summary of my review: Well that didn't work 

Spoilers for all of the Star Wars films dotted throughout 

You will notice that that summary is very similar to what I said about Rise of Skywalker. 

Many of my complaints are very similar. 

The main problem is lack of coherence. There's no one artistic vision bringing everything together. 

I'll give an example: 

The prequel trilogy is "the rise and fall of Anakin Skywalker" 

The original trilogy is "farm boy uncovers the mystery of his family, meets a scoundrel and a princess, and saves the galaxy" 

The sequel trilogy might be "man escapes servitude, joins the Resistance, and ?", or "woman runs into resistance plan, turns out to be a Force user, trains as a Jedi, turns out to be the Emperor's granddaughter and ?" or "..." Actually no, Poe has no character arc. 

(I remain convinced that Poe was supposed to be killed off in the first film but everyone was so in love with Oscar Isaac that they kept the character alive. The reason for my belief is that, after the first film, there are no Poe-specific character parts. Everything he does could have been done by another character.) 

There is no overarching theme to the series. 

I think that's because there was no one visionary in charge. George Lucas; far, far away from perfect, but he definitely had a plan. I'm not even sure who the Lucas-equivalent would have been for this because Disney were there for money and none of JJ Abrams's films have ever been anything but derivative schlock. 

The lack of one clear vision is most apparent in the way there were so many interesting things that they lightly touched on and then just dropped. Not in a "we chose to drop it" way but in a "we have no idea where the other person who wrote that bit was going with it" way. 

Like Phasma, who could have been interesting (on behalf of L, who really wanted them to do something with her), or Finn, and what it is to choose freedom (which they keep touching on and then doing nothing with), or DJ, who chooses neutrality and what that means in this sort of situation. 

Because they made these films a direct follow on from the original trilogy and JJ Abrams's endless daddy issues, the sequel trilogy suffered from the same thing a raft of follow on films to films made in the late 70s and 80s suffered from - destroying the legacy of those original characters by making them terrible fathers. The other big example is Indiana Jones, where Indy, having had a terrible father, turns into a worse one. Now I get the whole, generational trauma spreads downwards thing, but I don't need my heroes getting dragged into that. 

While I can maybe believe it for Indiana Jones, who even in Raiders of the Lost Ark is "man who makes really poor decisions in his personal life", I don't believe it of Luke. Or rather, I can imagine him being terrible at leading the Jedi, or training other Jedi, but I can't see him being useless in this way. 

Because they didn't seem to know where half the characters were going, you have to rely on people liking the way the characters interact. The Force Awakens gave them a good start in this. I liked all three of the new lead characters.  The problem is that after The Force Awakens there were very few scenes with our leading trio together, or indeed combinations of them together, so we don't get to have that feeling either. 

On the other side, while Phasma gets nothing to do, Adam Driver and Domhnall Gleeson ring every bit of character out of what they get given. 

I was legitimately surprised to find out Adam Driver was 32 when The Force Awakens was filmed because he is so good at whiny teenage boy. We have all known boys like that so it's easy for the audience to fill in the gaps - and really hard for us to believe he'll suddenly convert to the side of good like the trilogy obviously wants us to believe he can, and hope that he will. 

Hux is such a gloriously cowardly space spiv. If you ask me to name my favourite part of the sequel trilogy, it would be the Rey and Kylo vs the Imperial guards fight scene towards the end of The Last Jedi. Partly it's the staging, but really it's the bit at the end where Hux could have killed Ren and is too scared to do it. It's a marvellous bit of business. 

I'd still love to know where Rian Johnson was going to take it next because while The Last Jedi wasn't necessarily good, it was the most interesting of the films. Possibly because although it does have moments of being weighed down by being a Star Wars film, it is the one that comes closest to wearing it well. 

I think that's the problem - JJ Abrams is a huge Star Wars fan and it shows. He wants to have a redemption arc because the original did. He also wants characters with Daddy Issues because ... (waving at every other piece of media he has ever had anything to do with). He's built these half-characters made from bits of existing characters to carry out his story, but then given them away for one film. In that film, they change, and they no longer fit the shape of the intended story, and rather than change the story, he's squished the characters to try and fit and it doesn't work.

Duchess of Malfi 2000 - Theatre Review

Part of L’s attempts to introduce the mad scientist to culture.

Spoilers throughout.

The details of the production can be found here - The Duchess of Malfi | Almeida Theatre

It was a modern dress production featuring a stark set design with tiling, heavy use of black and white, and a video screen to highlight key messages. I really liked the set design - it was clean and effective without overwhelming the acting. L was less kind, wanting to know “if the 90s had called, and asked for their Avant Guarde ideas back”.

I didn’t like the climactic fight scene. I understand the message they were trying to convey, ‘blood begets blood’ and so on, but there is a fine line between “over the top” and “silly” and the end fight fell over that line. My main thought after a tragic finale shouldn’t be “how on Earth do the costume department handle matinees?”

Which is unfortunate, because the acting was good. My favourite bit of business was Antonio telling Delio about one of the later children, and Delio said “congratulations” and his body language said “you do it to yourself, you do.”

L did think the villainous brothers were a bit underdone, and we both noticed the play lost steam after the Duchess was murdered. However, that might be a structural flaw in Webster’s script rather than this specific production; as this is the only version I’ve seen, I have no point of comparison. [L here, it is the play, Act 5 is famously a mess]

If you want to see what actual theatre critics thought, there are links here -
What's On Stage
The Guardian
Time Out London
Londonist
City AM

The Londonist article has the best pictures of the set and cast, even if it’s the least positive review.

It was a good way to dip my toes into theatre that isn’t Shakespeare.

Leonardo: Experience a Masterpiece - exhibition review

"Leonardo: Experience a Masterpiece" was an experimental exhibition at the National Gallery that ran in winter 2019/2020. Full details can be found here. 

It was centred around the Virgin of the Rocks. Reading that article, do I find it hilarious that the National Gallery exhibition said nothing about the Louvre version generally being regarded as the “more made by Leonardo” one? Of course I do. 

L took me following previous Leonardo-related adventures. 

The exhibition had four distinct parts. 

The first put the Virgin on the Rocks in context. Lots of stuff about the why and the background, interestingly presented in some mirrored cubes in multiple languages. 

The second, and least successful to my mind, was the “Studio” section, which I think was supposed to be about the how. The problem for me, was that it seemed to reflect mid-Victorian views on what an artist’s garret was supposed to be like, rather than a renaissance studio. I’ve always imagined Leonardo’s studio as a massive, bustling space full of students and materials, rather than the dark quiet empty space presented here (I have no idea if this is actually true, but still.) 

I really liked the third section, which was all about shadows and how they look. Like most people, I dabble in drawing, and I find shadows and a sense of depth to the objects I draw to be the most difficult thing (don’t worry, no terrible sketches will be shown). I found this section to be really good at showing (not telling) how light and objects interact. 

The final section was the painting itself. The curators did a very good job of keeping the crowds down here and letting the audience sit peacefully and enjoy looking at the painting. The CGI used to simulate the altarpiece the painting may originally have sat in was a little distracting, but once you’d got used to the rotation of potential altar pieces, it was also quite soothing. 

Overall, I’d say it was an interesting experiment in setting an exhibition around a single painting, but with some flaws.