Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site mnetor.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!clewis
From: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Newsgroups: net.movies,net.movies.sw
Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_  (spoiler)
Message-ID: <1124@mnetor.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 2-Jul-85 17:17:21 EDT
Article-I.D.: mnetor.1124
Posted: Tue Jul  2 17:17:21 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 3-Jul-85 10:26:56 EDT
References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP>
Reply-To: clewis@mnetor.UUCP (Chris Lewis)
Distribution: net
Organization: Computer X (CANADA) Ltd., Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Lines: 142
Xref: utcs net.movies:6395 net.movies.sw:550
Summary: 

In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes:
>
>                           _Star_Wars_
>
>                        by Kelvin Thompson

Where have you been for the last decade?  Aren't you a little late for a 
review on Star Wars?  Your commentary also shows a notable lack of
understanding of what actually did happen in the movie and of how
movies with a moral statement HAVE to be presented.

> _Star_Wars_, yet another entry in the recent spate of "Space Operas," is
> a bad, morally empty movie.  Look, quick!!  It has lights!!  It has
> zooming spaceships!!  It has laser flashes!!  It has explosions!!  Look
> closer, and it has nothing.

Nothing what?  Not only is it entertaining, it has lots of moral meaning.  
In fact, it was laid on rather thick in places.

> The plot of _Star_Wars_ is certainly nothing new: a bunch of good guys

What did you expect?  There haven't been any new scripts for years.

> (_The_Blues_Brothers, _Shampoo_), an old warrior, Alec Guiness
> (_The_Man_in_the_White_Suit_, _Murder_by_Death_), a young warrior, Mark

You forgot the "Sir".

> noises as they maneuver about, and their lasers make zapping noises as
> they fire -- all despite the fact that it has been scientifically proven
> that there are absolutely no sounds in space.  

So what!  I have yet to see a Sci-Fi movie that doesn't have sound effects.  
And, I'm an addict of them! Besides, they always can claim that the battles 
were in a gas cloud which would transmit sounds.

> In another gaffe later in the movie, a robot supposedly manages to go up
> and down a staircase, even though it is quite obvious that it is
> structurally impossible for the robot to do so.  The camera cuts away
> just as the robot gets to the staircase, but the viewer is again jolted
> by the obvious impossiblity.

You are the first person I've heard that was jolted.  I don't even remember
that part.  Besides, one of the later movies did show how it was done.
 
> More important than any scientific error, however, is the glaring lack of
> any moral statement.  In a time of mass starvation in central Africa,
> terrible human-wave battles in the Middle East, repression of civil
> rights in the USSR, legalized racism in South Africa, and rampant
> terrorism everywhere, this movie just hums merrily along in its
> rose-colored glasses.  

Why is it that some people seem to think that every movie has to have
a moral statement?  The examples you give don't need movies to give 
them moral support.  The daily news covers them perfectly well enough -
AND there ARE other movies that DO have moral statements about just 
those things.  

You seem to display the same sort of knee-jerk mentality that
was responsible for the despicable treatment of the returning Vietnam
Vets.

> For example, when Hammill, the supposed hero of the movie, sees the
> burned corpses of his parents, he responds by turning his head sideways. 
> No tears, no shouts of outrage, just a crick in the neck and they are
> forgotten.  

What did you expect?  Shakespearean speaches?  Not everybody displays grief 
in that fashion.  And he did display grief - I don't think that you paid 
very close attention.  Besides, given the target audience (lots of little
kids) they could have done some real damage if they overplayed it.

> Later, when an android buddy of his is discriminated against
> in a space-bar, he accepts the wrong without a blink.  

Again, you weren't paying very much attention.  Besides, his buddy
was a robot - not a sentient being.  He also had to take into account
practicality - I'd hate to have to underwrite your life insurance if 
you are the type to take direct action in such circumstances.  Nor
would you live very long in the USSR.

> Late in the film,
> when an entire *planet* full of billions of sentient beings is
> annihilated, the good guys just sort of go, "Gosh, that's too bad."  The
> bad guys, of course, smile cruelly.  

Are you sure you were watching the movie "Star Wars"?  It doesn't sound
like you were.  You obviously didn't read the book either.

> These kinds of responses to murder,
> discrimination, and genocide certainly do not encourage the kind of
> consciousness needed to overcome today's problems.

What are you talking about?  The response was to defeat the bad guys.  
Would you have prefered that the bad guys got away with the murder, 
discrimination and genocide?  Or would you have preferred a lot of
breast-beating, wailing and retaliatary action BEFORE the good guys were
prepared?  There would have been pretty little opportunity for
morality if the good guys were killed by reacting instantaneously
to specific wrongs rather than developing their strength before
responding.  

Besides, as in all other "moralistic works" the movie had to take 
time at the beginning to show how bad the bad guys were.

> _Star_Wars_ contains a lot of action sequences, so it will no doubt have
> a strong draw on today's young people.  Nonetheless, parents should make
> every effort to keep their children away from this morally bankrupt movie
> and direct them toward a film which takes a useful stand on some of the
> issues facing our world.  

Why?  Besides, many of the films taking a "useful stand" are too strong
for children.  My children will see them eventually - I assure you of
that.  But I won't take them to such movies BEFORE they are ready for such
movies.  Many of these movies (eg: The Killing Fields, Holocaust) could inflict
serious emotional damage on young and unprepared children.

Nor is Star Wars morally bankrupt.  Particularly when seen in conjunction
with the other two movies.  The three movies promote many different
moral qualities - trust, striving to end injustices, forgiveness, and
risking your life for the lives of others to name a few.

>And, naturally, all ethical adults should stay well away from it themselves.

Crap.  Besides, you're a teensy weensy bit late - it's already made over
300 million dollars.  It's the 1st or 2nd all-time biggest money-making
movie ever.

The bad guys lost - due to the moral response to their actions - what 
more do you want?

	Whether 'tis nobler to suffer the slings and arrows of 
	outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles
	and by opposing, end them.

The movie took the latter course - pretty moral I think.

I must be following up to a joke...
-- 
Chris Lewis,
UUCP: {allegra, linus, ihnp4}!utzoo!mnetor!clewis
BELL: (416)-475-8980 ext. 321