Rogue One: A Star Wars Story Commentary

Movies, Anger and Victim-hood Cycle

It has been widely understood that someone abused as a child for example may grow up to become an offender or may even be so damaged and shut down that he/she grows up to become a serial killer. Sir Anthony Hopkins has said that he learned in his research for Hannibal Lector that serial killers usually have childhood sexual abuse in their background. So someone who introduces himself/herself as a victim, even if it is ostensibly for education, social betterment, and scaring the hell out of anyone who belongs to the potential "abusive" segment of the population. It has gotten to a point where the cracks are showing and playing up the victim role is not only tacky but it is more revealing than ever in the blog-o-sphere where the air is thin. Try speaking truth to power on Facebook and you lose interest. If you burst someone's bubble it's considered vandalism. You might actually care about any wrongdoing done to the person, but by the time you have seen the dark side under the veneer, it is just not worth your attention. The status quo begins to look better and better. First World problems can roll along. Anger and victim-hood are valid reasons to regard an individual or group as a possible threat, either to a quality of life or to an art form or your own freedom from legal persecution. The con artist or embezzler who is confronted with irregularities and false claims following an audit of records may evade communication and resist owning up to deceptions and skimming of funds. This person may even go to authorities claiming there have been too many calls or e-mails regarding the matter. If a lawsuit is pursued and won, the individual may revert to the same process of evasion to avoid paying the judgement. This con artist may even portray those he or she has wronged as guilty of harassment. It would be reasonable to expect that those who have been wronged will want redress. Where it gets complicated is with groups and racial heritage issues. Historically, African Americans have been kept down by a system that knows that slavery will never be redressed. Anger can be visited upon Caucasian peoples alive today who have not participated in slavery but grew up watching Roots and Norman Lear sit-coms. It can also be visited upon Portuguese descendants of those who in 1526 first put the slaves onto ships, or those African chiefs who at the time waged war upon each other and captured and sold their own people as described in 1998 by then President of Uganda Yoweri Museveni, who called the descendants of those chiefs traitors. If someone is saddened that there are not enough rom-coms with heavyset heroines, they are more than free to take an HD camera and go make as many as they like with willing actors. But the anger has more to do with the idea of money being invested in something and profit being reasonably expected and status being earned by someone who is hired. There seems to be an intense and somewhat naive campaign for affirmative action movies and TV, and something called “The Diversity Problem” comes up on the internet lot as established successful creative people are confronted by people who wish to use a forum or spotlight for their own issue. In the Twitter age, there is rampant expectation of immediate gratification. If you want Hollywood – that non-existent place – to do your bidding or increase the stock market value of your experience and your look, or if you are angry that a celebrity said a word you find offensive and you want that career ended forever, there is a childish impatience and an empty demand. The anger behind it is real, so it should be taken seriously and the best defense against it is a strong offense. What fuels the Diversity issue? Look at the under-reported aspects. China owns a considerable portion of Sony. In 2008, there was news that Spielberg’s Dreamworks received considerable investment from Bollywood. American Movie fans were braced at the time for an influx of obligatory nods to India on the Domestic movie screen. Action movies especially are able to achieve a profit thanks to the Foreign box office, now more than ever. The specialness with which movie stars were regarded as far back as the Nineteen Eighties or Nineties has dropped off, and the role of the Director has been in question depending somewhat on the name. Sam Raimi has said in a Spider-Man 2 commentary that if someone from his team of storyboard artists thinks up their own shot, he will usually let that person direct it like a second unit. He says, “People are looking for someone to give them a chance. You have to prove that you don’t need a chance, and then people want to work with you.” Even so, the key scenes from his films bear the Raimi imprint and there is no doubt where an efficient sequence of shots comes from. Jon Favreau has occasionally hired the likes of Genndy Tartakovsky (Samuri Jack, Holtel Transylvania, Tele-Toon Clone Wars) to design a sequence because he doesn’t “come from action films.” He has lamented that sometimes Marvel would give him storyboards and said, “Just shoot this.” In cases where a director is merely running the set and making sure to remember Tiara Tuesday or being an “inspiration” to people, frankly that isn’t the director that inspires film students and those who want to feel their credit is authentic. But the mad rush for folks other than the infamous white straight male to be hired as director has come with accusations that the word “merit” is just a term invented to keep the status quo. It is difficult to argue this if TV series are actually run by producers and writers and any guest director will most likely be paired with one of the regular Cinematographers who keep the schedule and look somewhat consistent. Presumably the one thing an incoming director might bring is a visual style or an interesting way to motivate the use of the frame, but even that might be kept in check. When Steven Spielberg started in television, he was frequently over schedule and in conflict over shooting in a way that was not rote or generic. Being distinctive is a risk. When Vincenzo Natalie had a credit on Hannibal, it was worthy of taking notice. But even then, the decision to assign him the more artsy and abstract episodes robs the viewer of seeing simply his command of the frame when it might not be so obvious to all. When Cube was made, it had to be fought for since it was not the kind of film the Canadian Film Center was doing with its Feature Film project. Yet, it has been the most financially successful and it helped kick off the career of an important Canadian director who actually does direct the attention of the audience – the most important element a director directs. The Film Center can point to founder Norman Jewison as the reason for social issues playing a big role in content they want to support, but it should be remembered that Jewison’s own films were first-of-all good and well-directed. Some writers and filmmakers hide behind virtue signalling and social or political content while merely covering the material and relegating the camera to a recording device that documents inoffensive mediocrity. With that as the standard, it is no wonder that some people have ants in their pants and pathologically talk about “developing the script” instead of getting past that. The tired old saw is, “Once the script is right and the casting is appropriate, Ninety percent of the director’s job is done.” While script and cast are vital, that supposed ten percent should be 100% of the conversation about directing. I find directors intent on re-writing the script for the writer tend to be people with no vision about the actual directing. A cinematographer may be happy to serve as de facto co-director designing the shots, and actors may be happy to call a director who stays out of their way and doesn’t say much an “actor’s director” and an editor might be delighted to “find the film” in post and hope this “director” keeps getting hired and making everyone feel creative and fulfilled. But it also has a ring of fraud. If the director of mostly low budget comedy Safety Not Guaranteed made a leap frog to Jurassic World and then a coveted job helming Star Wars IX, and another went from relatively modest Monsters to Godzilla and then his own Star Wars project, and the lady who made character-based tragedy Monster goes through a few TV movies and series gigs to take over Wonder Woman, it catches our attention and imagination. If also is bound to leave countless established cinema stylists wondering how they have been passed over. It also suggests that someone who needs this kind of break to make a name for themselves will also not rock the boat with executives. If Patty Jenkins has a huge hit with Wonder Woman, people will say it was heavily storyboarded by others. If it is anything less than a blockbuster, the survival of the Extended DC universe can be blamed on her and by extension her gender. Hopefully it will do strong business and she can prove herself with on other projects in the future. John Landis told Kevin Pollok’s Chatshow that he actually did ask an executive once why he was not getting the bog tentpole movies anymore. He was told, “We’re afraid you’ll just go and make the movie.” Historically when the studio “suits” are focused on other projects during a busy time, that is when a good movie was able to slip through the cracks and get made either because it was overseas or too long a drive from the studio, or just under the radar. Executives trying to justify their jobs with useless input may be the biggest expense in the bloated carcass of cinema. Now as for feedback from people who don’t care about the craft of cinema nor its future, this brings us back to social issues, activism, and anger. Suppose you have the State of Israel with people in Gaza starving outside the wall. The knee-jerk reaction is to tear down the wall and let all who are needy inside and spread the wealth. The reality is that Hamas – an elected body – could take responsibility for the care, feeding and shelter of any Palestinian suffering in Gaza. They could afford it. But they WANT to sacrifice the health and wellbeing of their own people so that emotional manipulation can happen to pressure Israel. Hamas, on the other hand, does not speak for all Arabs nor all Muslims. They can’t enter into an agreement that would be honored by all on the Palastine side of the debate. Reuven Rivlin President of Israel, or Benjamin Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel could arguably make agreements on behalf of Jews but one-way agreements would not be in their best interest. If their responsibility is to look after those who live inside the borders of Israel, they may understand the anger of those outside the gates but they would be naive to drop their guard. World Cinema is not stopped from existing because Hollywood movies exist. But there is a naive willingness to erode mainstream film with input from the fringe. There is a book of essays called “The Case Against Schindler’s List” and it boils down the belief that the point of view that gives a screenplay its structure and emotional investment is doing a disservice to history. Supposedly, although anyone watching the film knows about the gas chambers made from converted showers, to spend screen time only on the exception to the rule – the time water came out – erases what actually happened by the millions elsewhere. This is a theory that can easily be rejected. The movie shines a spotlight on the Holocaust and it also led Spielberg to create The Shoah Foundation which documented testimonies from survivors which is still available today. At its core, what this book of essays has in common with Twitter activists now is that it disregards what is good for the film, for its narrative focus and thus its power to move people. A more documentary approach with plain coverage of events and all available statistics would not only be long it would commit the greatest sin: It would leave the audience not caring except in the abstract. It is easy to say, “Yes, it is terrible so many people died,” but can also mean people won’t sit through the information session in lieu of a movie. If to be the “Director” merely means to be the boss and to be a “star” means merely to get a paid job in a current pool of talent, that can all backfire. There are many people in offices who have “director” in their job title. If the person directing a movie or TV show is no different in character or approach to the job, and hasn’t got a talent for deciding how the frame itself can aid in telling the story, that person is diluting film language. Spielberg is the director who is most fluent in that language, which has evolved through Hitchcock and is always in danger of being devolved thanks to movies being watched on smaller devices and the overpowering reliance on “pictures of people talking” or talking heads of dialogue scenes over-explaining the content. If it is an imposition for a director to specify a shot or placement of an object, or if storyboards are regarded as a crutch, then the crew has the wrong mindset. If everything is art, then art is a meaningless distinction. If there is a ruling from the top down that each culture on the planet earth must be represented in a movie, Chinese viewers will be alert for the “flower vase” character who is just there to represent Asians. The role most actors would want – the criminal or bad guy or John Bender in an updated Breakfast Club with a chip on his shoulder – had better not be played by someone who actually is expected to hold angry attitudes or a lobby group will piggy back on the publicity and make it about them. If you like Bollywood movies, those are readily available. There is no shortage. If a movie is going to get release in China, there are strict controls. It is surprising that a Star Wars movie could play there despite the supernatural element. There was American fan outcry when it was revealed that the Chinese poster for The Force Awakens used a smaller size for John Boyega as Flinn in proportion to the white actors. But each culture will have its prejudices and even if a market has a regressive stance on something cinema will still want them as an audience. There are strict conditions about co-productions with China and what they want for their investments. It would be naive to think that you are seeing more of one culture or another in Hollywood productions merely because the USA is a melting pot or because Canada is a cultural mosaic. The great Meryl Streep herself stated at an event for women that, “Young heterosexual males are not interested in seeing a movie about a woman.” We can only accept her authority in this matter. I can say that as a long-suffering straight man in his forties I still have yet to see The Devil Wears Prada, even when it is at the Public Library for free. Women doing “guy things” may be a genre in and of itself, which can draw an audience but not to the degree that the industry might want to invest in. Yes, Star Wars has Rey, and Princess Leia before that, but the stakes in their lives are compelling. Yes, Thelma and Louise is a great movie, but it is also a car chase / get-away buddy picture. The screenwriter Callie Kourie went on to make movies that had less of the grit and more what we expect: women talking about relationships. Devine Secrets of the Ya Ya Sisterhood seems to be the title that comes to mind when imagining what women might want to see take over the cinema from the mean white male coasting on privilege. Sex and the City made money, and then its sequel was considered a bomb. Where was the solidarity among women wanting to see themselves represented? It would cost less to make a feature-length version of The View. There could be a story focusing on the time Star Jones lost weight and was promptly fired for not putting the overweight viewers at ease with her fat. (This last example comes from someone who himself struggles with weight and knows intimately why it is about much more than looks – gout, sore backs, type 2 diabetes, and loss of energy are among the burdens that cause empty talk of “positive body image” and “acceptance” to ring hollow.) If you want more Native movie directors, encourage the Native Robert Rodriguez. When I hear propaganda looking for new voices, I expect a Native director to generate bitter pills about glue sniffing and suicide and tainted water and the trail of tears or residential schools and the demon white man. So it goes into the, “glad it’s being made, good for society” bottom drawer and not on my must see list. What I’ve learned from Robert Rodriguez all these years is nothing about the plight of Mexico or Latinos, but that the Mariachi is cool, the Cortez Spy Kids are cool and their uncle Machete is cool and that Cheech Marin remains cool. There is a kinetic energy and whimsical flair to the style of Rodriguez, above and beyond the idea that he makes movies at a reasonable cost. He could make a big budget movie and vest it with a mastery lacking in some of the committee-made fare. He would have the right shot for the right moment. The filmmaker who gets into directing because he/she loves movies can come from any walk of life but hopefully will not be content to make arbitrary choices and accept what is there instead of manifesting magic and charm. The fact that you hired someone does not make their work your “direction.” You either had a vision or you did not. What may happen is that fans of non-directing (Robert Altman’s way of describing what he did), where the camera adds nothing to our proximity and identification with characters, a relaxed muscle that frustrated the viewer, will still get work and make social connections and show up at events and be part of the “community” generating limitless content when there is already far too much to wade through. That is bad news for cinema. Hiring a director with affirmative-action as the primary reason can result in even more mediocre sludge to market. Suppose your mission is to stop the darn Male Gaze dominating photography and cinema. It is said that the Male Gaze reduces people to Tits and Ass, while the Female Gaze notices your shoes. That would line up with males having a physiological imperative and women having a political imperative. If you thrive on discussion of attraction, for example, that is taking something organic or analogue (attraction or lack thereof) which is not a choice and therefore not to be judged and not political and synthesizing or digitizing it into a conversation which is a series of choices and therefore vulnerable to judgement or politicization. Therefore it follows that issues such as leagues and busybody terms like “trophy wife” come into play as a way to artificially steer and control what had been innate or to devalue and throw shade upon something that works well for someone else’ life. It comes back to devaluing the stock of someone’s experience or artificially inflating one’s own. In cinema, there are many gay and lesbian viewers who can watch a romance between a man and a woman without being repelled. So pandering to 10 percent of the audience at the expense of the other 90% trying to generate more gay themed films for the sake of those who follow statistics reads like an empty mission. The Dallas Buyers Club was described as important by Oscar host Ellen DeGeneres the year it was nominated. But you can’t please everybody. Bret Easton Ellis on his podcast has talked about how the Trans character was invented for the script and the main character in reality had been bisexual but that producers figured a straight man getting AIDS was more compelling and marketable. Maybe the truth would have been off message and less important. There are directors who get work because they are willing to be de facto producers. Maybe they get a cinematographer who has talent because that person is simpatico with the idea of building up the director but also discretely coming up with great shots he/she can call “directing.” Maybe the editor is on board because there will be so much opportunity to turn a sow’s ear into a silk purse. And maybe the producer is happy only as long as the under-funded make-work project is on time and under-budget. And meanwhile, those of us drawing storyboards followed by floor plans and making sure we have our clever shots planned may be regarded as the a-holes who think we are Kubrick and as the Farrelly Brothers warn, a crew will make that kind of director’s life a living hell. But such is life. That is the stacked deck of cards being dealt. Some of us would rather keep crews very small and not worry about the industry as a whole. Others want to see larger crews, concern themselves about the industry, and maybe not care so much what is happening to the craft of direction.