Sunday morning my sweetie-wife and I caught an early morning showing of the latest Star Wars film and the first movie that focuses on characters not established in the main storyline or connected to those iconic people. In their bid to print endless reams of money, Disney is expanding the franchise and that is a risk.
The first of the ‘anthology’ stories is directly tied to the event for the first Star Wars which premiered nearly 40 years ago. In the opening credit crawl we were told that the Rebels striking from their hidden base have revolted against the Galactic Empire and in the battle stole the plans for the Empire’s new weapon, The Death Star. Rogue One is that story.
This is a movie that leans much heavier on the words ‘war’ than on the word ‘star’ from their sub-title. This is a grittier, darker, and more cynical view of the rebel’s revolt against the Empire. The good guys are not quite so good and their actions not always so justifiable. It does not drop down into a cynical level of ‘they are all the same’ so it is still a story with heroes and villains, but the heroes have sharper edges and are not engaged in a long form reenactment of Campbell’s mythic story telling courses. There is a hero character that when they are introduced their ruthlessness is sa cold as to make Han Solo’s original introduction very tame.
So, does this darker tone work?
Yes. This is an enjoyable and in many ways a more adult approach to the Star Wars franchise. The courses aren’t so clear and the costs of victory are much higher than in the simple fantasy fair of the first trilogy. Character death here is not checking off a box about having the mentor depart the story. Overall I enjoyed the film and the experience.
There are flaws in the film. I do not think it joins seamlessly with the very first film, but given the monstrosity that Lucas called continuity in the prequels this is a tiny quibble. A more serious flaw is the CGI human characters. There are two human characters represented by fully CGI effects and the uncanny valley prevented both from working for me. I was utterly aware that they were visual effects and not actors inhabiting the same space as their co-actors. It was a bold attempt but one that failed.
In the end this film is worth seeing and seeing in a good cinema.
Colossus is displeased with your answer!
In general I am against digital necromancy. It is one thing to use digital arts to help a performer bring to life a new character – such as the brilliant work by Andy Serkis and the digital teams around him, or to help an ator create a performance of their younger selves, but to digitally puppeteer an actors corpse, not cool. Actors make decisions, their are aware creative people. The best looking digital doppleganger of Bogart still is not Bogart and will never give you a Bograt performance, only a simulation of one.
Do you think the eventually the CGI actor substituting will work? That we will be able to have a new Sam Spade with Bogie for example.