Michelle Obama at the Oscars: Deconstructing America
In his often-bizarre but oh-so-brilliant analysis of the disastrous Star Wars prequels, Mike Stoklasa of Red Letter Media (video embedded below) commented on the opening sequence of A New Hope:
Compare this fecal matter [the Phantom Menace plot] to the opening of the original Star Wars. You see, a guy named William Shakesman once said, “Brevity is the soul of wit.” This just means “don’t waste my time.” You keep it nice and simple. Without saying one word of awkward, boring political dialogue that goes on for ten minutes we know everything we need to know just by the visuals. Rebels. Empire. We get a sense of how small and ill-equipped the rebels are and how large and powerful the Empire is. The low angle implies dominance and the length of the Star Destroyer implies the long reach of the Empire. This shot says everything we need to without saying one word. In fact, this is so genius I have a feeling that George Lucas had nothing to do with it and probably fought against putting it in the movie.
Having Michelle Obama, first lady of the United States, present an Academy Award was such a brilliant strategy for advancing the post-structuralist deconstruction of America, even the Obamas themselves probably didn’t realize how genius it was.
When the first lady’s name appeared in Oscar tweets I checked to see if they were posted by The Onion; it sounded like the perfect goofball story. My heart sank when I realized she was really participating, and though I am sometimes petty or partisan in spite of my best efforts, I know if Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan had been teleported to Hollywood, the sick feeling in the pit of my stomach would have been the same.
It is startling and wonderful that you can write a line like that. Looking forward to communication.
It is startling and wonderful that you can write a line like that. Looking forward to communication.
"In fact, this is so genius I have a feeling that George Lucas had nothing to do with it and probably fought against putting it in the movie."
Really?
Another disgruntled fanboy who is so enraged with George Lucas he's not even willing to give him credit for the original Star Wars movie.
"In fact, this is so genius I have a feeling that George Lucas had nothing to do with it and probably fought against putting it in the movie."
Really?
Another disgruntled fanboy who is so enraged with George Lucas he's not even willing to give him credit for the original Star Wars movie.
He's pretty thorough (the reviews are longer than the films themselves).
Stoklasa credits Lucas for the initial spark, but argues that the original trilogy's success was not solely Lucas's to take credit for. Watching other Lucas films, and reading early drafts and ideas for Star Wars, it is clear that Lucas is neither a talented director or writer. He needs other creative people to make his stuff work. Back then he had to work well with others to get everything done; now that he's a billionaire, he gets whatever he wants - and in the end, we end up with the likes of Phantom Menace and Red Tails.
He's pretty thorough (the reviews are longer than the films themselves).
Stoklasa credits Lucas for the initial spark, but argues that the original trilogy's success was not solely Lucas's to take credit for. Watching other Lucas films, and reading early drafts and ideas for Star Wars, it is clear that Lucas is neither a talented director or writer. He needs other creative people to make his stuff work. Back then he had to work well with others to get everything done; now that he's a billionaire, he gets whatever he wants - and in the end, we end up with the likes of Phantom Menace and Red Tails.
By your argument, no director should take credit for a movie - after all, lots of people were behind the effort. Ang Lee came under fire this week from some FX people because he didn't thank them in his Oscar speech. With out them, they argue, Lee would have had nothing to work with. So who gets the credit for a film or film franchise? To say Lucas has always been coasting on other peoples ideas is an insult to the man.
And yes, I actually liked the SW prequels. I know. Such a person exists despite what the internet has led us to believe.
By your argument, no director should take credit for a movie - after all, lots of people were behind the effort. Ang Lee came under fire this week from some FX people because he didn't thank them in his Oscar speech. With out them, they argue, Lee would have had nothing to work with. So who gets the credit for a film or film franchise? To say Lucas has always been coasting on other peoples ideas is an insult to the man.
And yes, I actually liked the SW prequels. I know. Such a person exists despite what the internet has led us to believe.
Stoklasa made the reviews due to viewer demand. Yes they are long, and much of it is fluff, but when he gets serious his points are very strong. He is not a film critic a la Roger Ebert - he observes where films fail to meet basic filmmaking standards one would learn in school, and stretches out the reviews with various eccentricities that he noticed. They are entertainment in their own right.
As for Lucas "coasting" I never said such a thing. Considering the health problems he encountered making the original trilogy, I would never use the word "coasting." I prefer the phrase "Art from adversity." It isn't hard to look up and read Lucas's early drafts and ideas for Star Wars - they were... (show more)
Stoklasa made the reviews due to viewer demand. Yes they are long, and much of it is fluff, but when he gets serious his points are very strong. He is not a film critic a la Roger Ebert - he observes where films fail to meet basic filmmaking standards one would learn in school, and stretches out the reviews with various eccentricities that he noticed. They are entertainment in their own right.
As for Lucas "coasting" I never said such a thing. Considering the health problems he encountered making the original trilogy, I would never use the word "coasting." I prefer the phrase "Art from adversity." It isn't hard to look up and read Lucas's early drafts and ideas for Star Wars - they were terrible. Being flexible with his project allowed for a better result in the end. Now, Lucas no longer has to be flexible, now he can get whatever he wants without compromising his ideas (and freely admits that such is the case).
When I was referring to flexibility I was mainly focusing on the story itself. I haven't seen Life Of Pi but if the FX were as crucial to telling the story as is claimed then those artists have a valid point; if not, then they don't.
It's fine if you enjoy the prequels - to each his own. I don't hold your opinions against you, yet you cry "disgruntled fanboy" when somebody references Stoklasa. Some people don't like the prequels and think that Stoklasa's points are valid - get over it. (show less)
How empty-headed has America become when they can't even get a whiff of how manipulative this couple is? Bill and Hillary Clinton are mere pikers to these pros.
And between the fawning adulation of this entitled and angry woman and the sheer, continual emptiness of her message, I was mad at myself for watching. Dear Leader had struck again and I was voluntarily in attendance.
One thing that cannot be debated anymore. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put this country back together again. That is the legacy of Barack and Michelle Obama.
How empty-headed has America become when they can't even get a whiff of how manipulative this couple is? Bill and Hillary Clinton are mere pikers to these pros.
And between the fawning adulation of this entitled and angry woman and the sheer, continual emptiness of her message, I was mad at myself for watching. Dear Leader had struck again and I was voluntarily in attendance.
One thing that cannot be debated anymore. All the kings horses and all the kings men can't put this country back together again. That is the legacy of Barack and Michelle Obama.
But maybe that would have been ok, because it is about personal initiative in the face of very difficult circumstances.
Anyway, if you believe... (show more)
But maybe that would have been ok, because it is about personal initiative in the face of very difficult circumstances.
Anyway, if you believe that the movies are about illusion, whereas politics are about cold, hard facts and the two never should mix, then you obviously have you own illusions. (show less)
Believing themselves wise, they have become fools.
Believing themselves wise, they have become fools.
PJMedia - I am impressed.
PJMedia - I am impressed.
Such artists will make projects like "Big Love," something completely irrelevant to our society but the right target. What is relevant is ignored though a tempting, juicy and nearly endless stream of targets presents itself almost daily.
Employees at the USDA chanting against themselves in a racial Two Minutes Hate, the NAACP sending 6 Los Angeles Chapter members to hold a press confererence about a racist Hallmark card they say says "black ho'"... (show more)
Such artists will make projects like "Big Love," something completely irrelevant to our society but the right target. What is relevant is ignored though a tempting, juicy and nearly endless stream of targets presents itself almost daily.
Employees at the USDA chanting against themselves in a racial Two Minutes Hate, the NAACP sending 6 Los Angeles Chapter members to hold a press confererence about a racist Hallmark card they say says "black ho'" rather than "black hole," an anti-racist President who spends 20 years in an anti-white racist cult, parents sending their 5 yr. old boy to school as a girl, GLAAD taking down Kobe Bryant for a gay slur in the heat of a basketball game and then 2 weeks later endorsing the 30th annual R-Rated festival of hateful slurs against Christians called the "Hunky Jesus Contest" - the list is endless. (show less)