On Episode IX and J.J. Abrams
In 16 weeks, Episode IX—the conclusion to the final trilogy in the trilogy of trilogies that the Star Wars saga has become, not to mention the other stand-alone films and the new live-action TV show—will be released. The new teaser made available earlier this week generated a lot of discussion and speculation about plot lines and, above all, the direction the script will take and, ultimately, how it will wrap up the story.
Up till now I've tried to be realistic but hopeful about the possibility that J. J. Abrams might actually stick the landing, if not perfectly, than satisfactorily. What he did in VII was a combination of good and bad, but Rian Johnson took the hand he'd been dealt and did something masterful with it in VIII. Could Abrams have something equally excellent up his sleeve? Could he surprise us all by finally overcoming his worst tendencies and producing truly original, brilliant work?
The truth is that we have no reason to think so.
Consider the other films Abrams has written and/or directed in the last 15 years: Mission: Impossible III, Star Trek, Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness, and The Force Awakens. The Rise of Skywalker is only the sixth film he has directed—and, if you begin in 1998 when he began to "be" J.J. Abrams (i.e., with the release of Armageddon and the premiere of Felicity), he's also only written six films.
Of those he has directed, only one was an original property, and only two, strictly speaking, were not a sequel. Three were expansions of TV shows. And as for each considered individually:
–M:I:3 is a polished 2-hour TV movie that is clearly a "first film."
–Star Trek is a retelling of the original Star Wars in Gene Roddenberry's universe, with an altered timeline and some yadda-yadda-ing of plot to get the Right Characters in the Right Place sooner rather than later.
–Super 8 is E.T. for millennials, with CGI.
–Star Trek Into Darkness is—as you know—a semi-remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The less said about this one the better.
–And then there's Episode VII, which simultaneously re-launched Star Wars for a new generation and, in the structure of the whole film but especially in the final act, came close to being a beat-for-beat remake of Episode IV. A reboot that's also a sequel, somehow.
And now we come to Episode IX, which features the return of Lando Calrissian and, inexplicably, Emperor Palpatine. What could go wrong?
* * *
Now, I'm underselling Abrams' talents in the way I've presented his work. He has real strengths. He may be second only to Spielberg in his ability to cast, both knowns and unknowns. His direction of actors draws out the best of them. He can write and direct both dialogue and rapport with the best of them. And his films move: for all the flaws of the rest of the film, the opening 45 minutes of The Force Awakens is blockbuster filmmaking nonpareil. Oh, and his actual technique, in terms of frame and composition and color and so on, is underrated. Each of his films has improved substantially in that respect.
But Abrams' chief vice, his fatal shortcoming, undermines each and every one of these virtues: namely, his affinity for nostalgia, for telling and re-telling the stories he grew up with and whose essential beats, he knows, his audience yearns to see in only slightly dressed-up form.
Had he made only one or two different decisions in VII—say, having Starkiller Base fail in its attempt to destroy the New Republic, or having the Resistance's attempt to disable and destroy the Base fail, thus resulting in a lack of catharsis and non-replay of IV—things could have gone differently there, because it's clear that Abrams was trying to comment on his own, which is to say his generation's, inability to move beyond the past, to play dress-up in Boomer Glory even as a decadent empire falls apart. Kylo Ren is, in that respect, a perfect pop culture creation.
But he didn't have the courage or the imagination or the awareness or the studio support to go fully revisionary in his Star Wars entry, and thus here we are.
* * *
So: Might Episode IX be good?
In fact, that's not the right question, because it will without a doubt be good, because Abrams doesn't make bad movies. The problem, rather, is that he may only make Good Movies.
Rephrasing, then: Will Episode IX be more than good? Will Abrams upset our expectations beyond the mystery box and a couple "shocking" surprises?
The answer, unfortunately, is no. Every sign points to it. There will be funny rapport and lovely images and stirring character beats and some fantastic action. But Abrams won't be able to resist the siren song of nostalgia. The nods and winks to the prequels and original trilogy, the recycling of old themes and narrative devices and literal resurrected characters: they're all going to be there, in full, without apology. And that'll be the end of that. Best to accept it now rather than manufacture unfounded expectations for a writer-director who has been nothing if not consistent for two decades of TV and film work.
That'll be the end of the Skywalker saga, and if we're lucky, the end of Abrams' involvement with Star Wars, too—for good.
Up till now I've tried to be realistic but hopeful about the possibility that J. J. Abrams might actually stick the landing, if not perfectly, than satisfactorily. What he did in VII was a combination of good and bad, but Rian Johnson took the hand he'd been dealt and did something masterful with it in VIII. Could Abrams have something equally excellent up his sleeve? Could he surprise us all by finally overcoming his worst tendencies and producing truly original, brilliant work?
The truth is that we have no reason to think so.
Consider the other films Abrams has written and/or directed in the last 15 years: Mission: Impossible III, Star Trek, Super 8, Star Trek Into Darkness, and The Force Awakens. The Rise of Skywalker is only the sixth film he has directed—and, if you begin in 1998 when he began to "be" J.J. Abrams (i.e., with the release of Armageddon and the premiere of Felicity), he's also only written six films.
Of those he has directed, only one was an original property, and only two, strictly speaking, were not a sequel. Three were expansions of TV shows. And as for each considered individually:
–M:I:3 is a polished 2-hour TV movie that is clearly a "first film."
–Star Trek is a retelling of the original Star Wars in Gene Roddenberry's universe, with an altered timeline and some yadda-yadda-ing of plot to get the Right Characters in the Right Place sooner rather than later.
–Super 8 is E.T. for millennials, with CGI.
–Star Trek Into Darkness is—as you know—a semi-remake of Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. The less said about this one the better.
–And then there's Episode VII, which simultaneously re-launched Star Wars for a new generation and, in the structure of the whole film but especially in the final act, came close to being a beat-for-beat remake of Episode IV. A reboot that's also a sequel, somehow.
And now we come to Episode IX, which features the return of Lando Calrissian and, inexplicably, Emperor Palpatine. What could go wrong?
* * *
Now, I'm underselling Abrams' talents in the way I've presented his work. He has real strengths. He may be second only to Spielberg in his ability to cast, both knowns and unknowns. His direction of actors draws out the best of them. He can write and direct both dialogue and rapport with the best of them. And his films move: for all the flaws of the rest of the film, the opening 45 minutes of The Force Awakens is blockbuster filmmaking nonpareil. Oh, and his actual technique, in terms of frame and composition and color and so on, is underrated. Each of his films has improved substantially in that respect.
But Abrams' chief vice, his fatal shortcoming, undermines each and every one of these virtues: namely, his affinity for nostalgia, for telling and re-telling the stories he grew up with and whose essential beats, he knows, his audience yearns to see in only slightly dressed-up form.
Had he made only one or two different decisions in VII—say, having Starkiller Base fail in its attempt to destroy the New Republic, or having the Resistance's attempt to disable and destroy the Base fail, thus resulting in a lack of catharsis and non-replay of IV—things could have gone differently there, because it's clear that Abrams was trying to comment on his own, which is to say his generation's, inability to move beyond the past, to play dress-up in Boomer Glory even as a decadent empire falls apart. Kylo Ren is, in that respect, a perfect pop culture creation.
But he didn't have the courage or the imagination or the awareness or the studio support to go fully revisionary in his Star Wars entry, and thus here we are.
* * *
So: Might Episode IX be good?
In fact, that's not the right question, because it will without a doubt be good, because Abrams doesn't make bad movies. The problem, rather, is that he may only make Good Movies.
Rephrasing, then: Will Episode IX be more than good? Will Abrams upset our expectations beyond the mystery box and a couple "shocking" surprises?
The answer, unfortunately, is no. Every sign points to it. There will be funny rapport and lovely images and stirring character beats and some fantastic action. But Abrams won't be able to resist the siren song of nostalgia. The nods and winks to the prequels and original trilogy, the recycling of old themes and narrative devices and literal resurrected characters: they're all going to be there, in full, without apology. And that'll be the end of that. Best to accept it now rather than manufacture unfounded expectations for a writer-director who has been nothing if not consistent for two decades of TV and film work.
That'll be the end of the Skywalker saga, and if we're lucky, the end of Abrams' involvement with Star Wars, too—for good.
