Star Wars Revisited

A couple weeks ago, while catching a few minutes of Star Wars on TV, my brother-in-law mentioned that he thinks the 3 Star Wars prequels (released 1999-2005) are superior to the original trilogy. His preference for the latter films (the prequels) is due, at least partly, to their more nuanced and complex plots and political situations. In the first three (the original trilogy...gawd this is so confusing to talk about!) it's basically good vs. evil, everything is black and white, and it's very obvious which is which. In the prequels, characters turn from good to evil, some are not what they seem, and the line of what is right and wrong is blurry.

As I'd only ever heard people of our generation deride the 3 prequels, his comment piqued my curiosity. I marathon-ed all 3 this weekend. In terms of plot interest, I'd have to agree (especially in II: Attack of the Clones and III: Revenge of the Sith) that these are more robust. However, I think the visionary aesthetic sense of the original trilogy is what makes it ultimately so powerful, and probably what drove its popularity in the first place. The prequels are somewhat of a technological relic of their times — a time when CGI was starting to do amazing things, but hadn't achieved realism. Nothing in the setting of these films has any weight, everything just sort of floats in a vacant perfection. In contrast, the original trilogy's imagery is unforgettable.

Much has been made of the visual components of those original films, but the sound design is also amazing. (The sound design is not the score, which is also iconic, but the sound effects that help bring the setting to life.) Think about just the sound of Darth Vader's breath. Unforgettable. The buzz of the light sabers, the beeps of R2D2, the wail of Chewbacca all easily come to mind too, and I haven't seen any of these movies in probably 10 years.