Posted on 05/31/2002 4:33:13 AM PDT by Richard Poe
DESPITE ITS HORRORS, the 9-11 attack had a bright side. It temporarily transformed New York into a city so wholesome and normal, it almost seemed to have become part of America. Stars and stripes festooned every street and storefront. Hillary Clinton was booed off the stage at Madison Square Garden. Cops and firemen were lionized as heroes.
But it was too good to last. New York’s cultural elite have struck back. Once more, New Yorkers have given our countrymen reason to pity, hate and despise us. Once more, we have defecated in America’s proverbial livingroom.
I refer to the perverse and inexplicable hostility with which New York film critics have greeted George Lucas’s Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones.
"…it is not really much of a movie at all," snorts critic A.O. Scott, in the May 10 New York Times. "…Mr. Lucas seems to have lost his boyish glee. As the [special] effects have grown more intricate and realistic, their ability to yield pleasure and astonishment has diminished…"
Scott continues.
"Mr. Lucas… is, at best, a haphazard storyteller… Yes, the battle scenes and the monster rallies are superior to anything in The Mummy, The Mummy Returns or The Scorpion King, but that lowbrow franchise at least has the good sense to acknowledge its silliness. Attack of the Clones, in contrast… lumbers along in the confining armor of bogus wisdom."
At this point, most readers who have seen Attack of the Clones are probably wondering if Mr. Scott watched the same movie. It appears that he did. But New York intellectuals are not like the rest of us.
The key to Scott’s perverse analysis lies in the word "lowbrow." Among New York’s cultural elite, "lowbrow" is synonymous with "popular," "entertaining," "engrossing," "brilliant," "cathartic" and "beautiful." Attack of the Clones is all of these things. Therefore it is "lowbrow."
Had Scott lived in Elizabethan London, he might have called William Shakespeare a "lowbrow." After all, Shakespeare’s plays reached a mass audience. They made money too.
Homer composed his Iliad not to glean praise from The New York Review of Books, but to perform – for pay – before crowds of lusty, half-literate warlords in wine-soaked banquet halls.
Like George Lucas, Homer worked with simple themes that his audience could understand. In the Iliad, he managed to write 15,673 dactylic hexameter verses about a pair of jealous warlords brawling over who gets to sleep with a female captive.
It was lowbrow material, to be sure. But Homer reached deep into his soul and charged his simple tale with magic.
George Lucas has done the same.
In 1964, my parents took me to see Michelangelo’s Pietá at the New York World’s Fair. I was five years old. Before that somber mass of stone, I felt as if I had stepped into the living presence of the Mother of God.
Michelangelo did not carve the Pietá to tickle the jaded tastes of New York art critics. He carved it for the masses, so simply and frankly that even a five-year-old could grasp it.
Attack of the Clones is filled with memorable scenes, but one stands out with special grandeur, as powerful, in its way, as my first glimpse of the Pietá.
Our heroes are brought in chains to a vast, hive-like coliseum, a structure as weirdly imagined as a Gaudi cathedral. What happens next cannot be described. Suffice it to say that an epic, digitized battle breaks out between Jedi knights, battle droids and a menagerie of beasts so hideous they can evoke only the laughter of the damned.
In the midst of this carnage, along comes poor C-3P0, his head accidentally welded onto the body of a battle droid.
"Die, Jedi dogs!" he cries, in his faux British butler accent, as he blasts away at the good guys.
I laughed so hard, I thought my ribs would crack and my eyeballs would pop from my skull. It wasn’t just the joke about C-3PO. It was the sheer hallucinogenic splendor of so much beauty, terror, shock and absurdity crammed into so small a mental space – an outpouring of insanity as mind-bending as a thousand Dali canvasses sprung to life.
That is art, Mr. Scott. It doesn’t get any better than that.
Scott says that the film "lumbers along." Well, it held me spellbound for two hours and twelve minutes straight. When the final credits flashed on the screen, I could hardly believe it had ended so soon.
I guess I’m just one of those lowbrows.
_____________________________
Richard Poe is a New York Times bestselling author and cyberjournalist. His latest book is The Seven Myths of Gun Control.
Well, Mr. Author, you wrote a really stupid piece. Imagining that some New York Times movie comentator speaks for 'New York' is a funny thought indeed.
And, by the way, Pieta was done for the Pope, not for the 'masses'. And the Illiad is not about 2 people having sex with a captive.
They try everything from calling him a racist to insisting that because the story line isn't as deep as "War and Peace" the movie is a flop.
Bottom line. They're mostly a bunch of sour-puss losers and nobody gives two craps what they say because every SW flick goes on to make a gazillion dollars despite all of their insignificant whining.
Why is it that when someone disagrees with a given position they are retards, anarchists, communists, libertarians and other such name calling.
I get the same "insults du jour" from the Bush followers because I disagree with his and republicrats embracing the domestic spending programs of the democrats.
I do not hate Mr. Bush. He is my President, but, I disagree with his domestic programs, that's all. Can you not accept that as an honest opinion without attaching a hate message to it?
I do not hate George Lucas. I just not have fully enjoyed his last two movies. Can you not accept that as an honest opinion without attaching a hate message to it?
FReegards
In other news: Pope Expounds Catholic Doctrine, Bear Defecates In Woods.
I do not hate George Lucas. I just not have fully enjoyed his last two movies. Can you not accept that as an honest opinion without attaching a hate message to it?
D00d, lemme straighten you out. First I don't just disagree with Bush's domestic policy. I think it's a total disaster and he's become a typical spendthrift idiot politician. So I have no idea where you're coming up with this stuff.
Second, my post was in no way directed at you in any way whatsoever. I was mainly talking about the usual crowd that comes out every time we have a new SW movie. It's the same friggin' scene every few years. I bunch of malcontent morons throwing accusations of racism around and finding nothing but evil in what I think are splendid examples of art/entertainment.
You have my apologies if I offended you. Seems I can't go anywhere around here lately without pissing somebody off.
<< Well, Mr. Author, you wrote a really stupid piece. >>
Dear Mr. Vast RightWing Conspirator:
You're certainly entitled to your opinion. But please get your facts straight.
The Pieta was commissioned by the French Cardinal Jean Villiers de Fezenzac in 1498, to be displayed on the Cardinal's tomb chapel in St. Peter's Basilica. A more prominent or public display for the piece could not be imagined. It was carved for the masses -- not for anyone's private viewing pleasure.
As for Homer's Iliad, its plot is precisely as I described. As the story begins, the High King Agamemnon selfishly decides to take the captive slave girl Briseis for himself, even though she had already been given to Achilles. This naturally enrages Achilles, who goes to his tent and sulks, refusing to join his fellow Greeks in fighting the Trojans.
The entire Iliad revolves around what Homer called "the wrath of Achilles" -- a wrath which was caused by the loss of Briseis. It chronicles the dire consequences of Achilles' sulking, and Agamemnon's selfishness, which sow division and ill-will in the Greek camp and undermine their ability to fight.
As things get worse for the Greeks, Agamemnon, in desperation, finally relents and returns the slave girl Briseis to Achilles. But Achilles still won't fight.
Only when his friend Patroclus is slain does Achilles finally break out of his sulk and redeem himself on the battlefield.
You also wrote:
<< Imagining that some New York Times movie comentator speaks for 'New York' is a funny thought indeed. >>
The cultural elite who make New York City their home reflect badly on all of us who live here.
I could just shrug my shoulders and say, "Hey, it's not my fault." But that's not how I was raised. That is not the attitude of a responsible citizen.
As a civic-minded New Yorker, I prefer to take action -- however small and incremental (such as writing this article) -- that will contribute in any way to the greater cause of running these charlatans and carpet-baggers out of town.
In the Iliad, he managed to write 15,673 dactylic hexameter verses about a pair of jealous warlords brawling over who gets to sleep with a female captive.
Some might consider this a minor quibble, but Homer never wrote anything.
Homer was a blind poet who transmitted his work orally. Some think that his works weren't written down until long after his death.
A complete overview of Homer and his works online can be found here.
First of all, I don't know if you have read any of Mr. Poe's books, but they are very well researched. (I also just read his reply to you and I think that he pretty much puts you in your place).
I found his article to be accurate and correct.
I don't think that Mr. Poe was arguing whether or not Episode II was the best compared to the other Episodes. Rather, he was pointing to the elitist mentality that runs rampant at the New York [SL]imes. Though this is probably an ecumenical fact here at FR, it is a commentary that is still worth making, especially when something as popular with the masses as Star Wars is.
Again, the commentary clearly demonstrates the glaring gap that exists between the masses and the elitists, especially the pointy-head liberals found at the NY [SL]imes.
Dorothy Sayers wrote this really good book years ago, The Mind of the Maker. In a way the creator of a story acts in a way "like God." He can break the rules if he wants, but when you do it too much, you do violence to the story.
By introducing this stupid "midichlorian" idea (a faux-scientific explanation for The Force), and by turning Ep I into a three-ring kiddie-pandering circus that satisfied neither kids nor adults, Lucas did violence to the integrity of his own story.
In Ep II, Lucas lays hands on his own story universe again, by introducing this really *dumb* idea that "Jedis don't get married." This is just stupid because it's inconsistent with over 10 years of Star Wars novels and back-story, as well as inconsistency even with Ep I. (One of the Jedi Council members has not only one wife but *five.*)
It's basically movie-making driven by focus group marketing. If that's not "going over to the Dark Side," I don't know what is.
My apologies also
FReegards
Did you even listen to the dialog? Wince-inducing. Who's that homo playing Anakin, anyway? He's completely incompetent as an "actor". Just a Ken Doll for the 11-year-old girls in the audience.
Expensive special effects don't carry a movie. Sharp writing, wit and creativity do. Oh, and people who can actually act a part.
His main view is that because someone wrote a Star Wars review he didn't like, New York defecated on the nation. I find this to be quite funny. As for Michelangelo sculpting for the masses... it's funny too.
I didn't say I didn't like his contribution. I like to be entertainment but, as far as bashing New York, one is always better off talking about subways, rats or cockroaches.
Why do you find that funny? Please explain.
I am eager to hear your point of view. But do try to be more careful with your facts this time around.
No sir, you explain the fact of New York defecating on America and how this was deduced from some movie review that appeared in the New York Times.
Incidentally, I'm a Star Wars fan and New York is one of my least favorite places (I lived there for 10 years so I know the facts) but making the statement that your article does is way out of line - unless you can back it with some facts, of course.
And, yes, Michelangelo, as sculptor for the masses is funny indeed but not as funny as Homer's Illiad being about sex with a captive woman. I believe the guy who brought the Greeks over there happened to be her husband. Right?
The captive woman to whom I referred was Briseis, not Helen. Had you read my earlier response, you would already know that.
You would also know how I defended my point of view regarding Michelangelo.
Scroll back and read, if you're interested. On the other hand, if you're not interested in offering an informed opinion, why offer any opinion at all?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.