Rewatching "Star Wars" twenty years later is like revisiting a piece of homeland in my mind. The space epic of George Lucas has already occupied our imagination. It is very difficult to appreciate it as a movie from a certain distance, because it has become a part of our memory. . It is as silly as a child's story, as shallow as the old Saturday afternoon series, as boring as Kansas in August-but it is also a masterpiece. I think those who analyze the philosophy of this film will also laugh secretly in their hearts. May the Force be with them. Like "The Birth of a Nation" and "Citizen Kane", "Star Wars" is also a technical watershed that influenced many subsequent movies. These films have little in common, except that they are similar in the following point: they all appeared at a critical period in the history of film, and the new shooting method has matured and can be integrated in the film. "The Birth of a Country" brings together still-developing shots and editing language in one place. "Citizen Kane" integrates special effects, advanced sound processing, new photographic styles, and narrative strategies that get rid of linear patterns. "Star Wars" combines a new generation of special effects and high-energy action movies. It combines space opera and soap opera into one, blending fairy tales and legends of heroes into one, ultimately creating a wild visual journey. "Star Wars" actually ended the golden age of personalized film production in the early 1970s, allowing the film industry to focus on high-budget blockbusters full of special effects. The trend it ignited is still in our lives today. middle. But you can't blame it for it, you can only look at how it does the job well. Since then, all major studios have tried one way or another to shoot another "Star Wars" ("Indiana Jones", "Jurassic Park" and "Independence Day" (Independence Day, 1996) are all descendants). It positions Hollywood's attraction center on the level of intelligence and feelings of teenagers. Nevertheless, we are likely to still maintain our previous tastes when we grow up. Otherwise, how to explain why so many people (including those who don't care about science fiction) think "Star Wars" is so good-looking? This is a kind-hearted movie, which can be seen in every frame. The whole film is shining with the talent of the director. He knows how to combine the level of technical development with a seemingly simple but powerful story. It is no accident that George Lucas was influenced by Joseph Campbell, who is an expert on the most basic myths of our world. Lucas's script draws a lot of inspiration from the oldest stories of mankind. Now, the ritual of the revival of a classic movie has been completed: people turn an older classic out of the storage room, restore it frame by frame, re-release it in the best movie theaters, and then show it on home TV. The domain is reissued. In this "Special Edition" of "Star Wars Trilogy", Lucas took another step forward. In 1977, his special effects production level was so advanced that the entire industry was independent of it, including his own Industrial Light & Magic Co. (Industrial Light & Magic Co.). ), many of today’s best special effects come from this group of computer magicians. In 1997, Lucas asked his Industrial Light and Magic to further retouch the special effects in "Star Wars", including some parts that could not satisfy him in 1977 because of a limited budget. Most of the changes are subtle, you have to compare the two versions of the lens together to see that the new version is slightly better. There are also about five minutes of new material, including a meeting between Han Solo and Jabba the Hutt, which was filmed in the first edition but not used. (We found out that Jabba the Hutt is not immobile, but gurgling forward like a undulating sponge.) The appearance of Moss Eisley City looks better (Bobwan Ken Nubby described it as "the dirty nest of the rat generations"). The scene of the climax fighting with the Death Star has also been repaired. The repair work is well done, but it reminds us how good the original special effects themselves are. If the change is not easy to detect, it is just because "Star Wars" has been very decent before. An obvious similar situation is "2001: A Space Odyssey" shot by Kubrick in 1968. It was ten years earlier than "Star Wars", but the special effects are not inferior even today. (The difference is that Kubrick is partial to realism, he tries to imagine what the world will actually look like in the future, while Lucas happily squeezes experience from the past; Han Solo’s "Millennium Eagle" spacecraft There is a manually operated turret, which would be suitable for a bomber pilot in World War II, but it is too slow for the speed of the spacecraft and may not hit anything.) Lucas’ two inspirations let the story It started as a joke: He set the background in "a long time ago" rather than in the future, and jumped directly to the middle, starting from "Chapter 4: New Hope". These seemingly simple techniques are actually very powerful. They give this legend a halo of ancient legends and make the audience feel that they are still in progress. As if these two surprises were not enough to prop up the opening of the movie, I was at Mark R. In a film review by Leeper, I learned that this is the first movie in which the camera rolls in a starry sky: “Before this, the space scenes were always shot with a fixed camera. That would save money because there was no need to Leave enough space to roll to create a large starry sky background.” After the camera panned straight down, a huge spaceship entered the screen from above the screen, seeming to be driving over our heads, and the surround sound further strengthened the effect. This opening is too vivid. No wonder Lucas paid the fine and quit the directors’ union because he was unwilling to use the credits of the cast and crew as the title of the film in a conventional way, as required by the latter. The movie has concise, clear-cut characters. The first ones to appear are C-3PO (overly picky and a little weak) and R2D2 (like a child, easily hurt). The evil empire controls almost the entire galaxy, but the rebels are preparing to launch an attack on the Death Star. Princess Leia (speaking directly, doing her own way, played by Carrie Fisher [Carrie Fisher]) got the intelligence to pinpoint the location of the Death Star’s weakness and stored it in the R2D2 computer; her spacecraft was captured After staying, the two robots escaped from the Death Star and landed on the planet of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill played the idealistic young man). Soon after, Luke met the wise, old and mysterious Kennubi (Alec Guinness [Alec Guinness]), and together they hired the unprofessional space captain Han Solo (Harrison Ford [Harrison] Ford] played, at the time, already reluctant to speak), the latter drove them to save Leah. The story is driven by spectacular and effective art design, props and sets and visual effects. The famous scene in the interstellar bar is like a zoo exhibition full of drunk aliens. In another scene, two robots are thrown into a cabin containing other second-hand robots, and the screen is full of fascinating details of discarded items. The scene in the Death Star trash can (there is still a head that looks like ET Snake) is also well shot. The exterior scenes of many planets are amazingly beautiful, thanks more or less to the fantasy artist Chesley Bonestell's imaginative paintings of other worlds. When finally attacking the Death Star, the battle rocket galloped at high speed in the narrow passage between the two walls. This scene is a tribute to the magical journey to another dimension in "2001": Kubrick It showed how he made the audience feel like he was flying into space without stopping, and Lucas learned this. Lucas is full of painstaking details on his screen. There are little alien mice bouncing around in the desert, as well as animal chess played with living creatures. Luke's weather-beaten speeding car floating on the sand somehow reminds me of a 1965 Mustang car. Think about Darth Vader's appearance and the details of his appearance and voice. The fangs mask, the black cloak, and the deep breath created a body for James Earl Jones's ruthless sound of destruction. The first time I watched this movie, I was so excited that I have been so excited ever since. This time I watched the restored version. I tried to take a more objective perspective and noticed that the gunfight on the spaceship was a bit too long. What’s incredible is that the sharpshooters of the empire never shot the main characters, and they were on the enemy spacecraft. The raid looked more like a computer game (although it was the movie that inspired later computer games). I am also curious about whether Lucas can design a more fascinating philosophy for The Force. According to Kennubi's explanation, the principle is basically to follow the flow of power. What if Lucas went further? Like adding some non-violent elements or the idea of intergalactic communication? (Blowing up galaxies is a huge waste of resources.) Only the simplest film philosophies that seem to be able to survive. They may be very deep, but on the surface they are as clear as the old stories loved by the audience. I know this because of the immortal stories-"Odyssey", "Don Quixote", "David Copperfield", "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn"- It's all the same: a brave and flawed hero, a journey, colorful characters and locations, surrounding partners, and finally discovering the hidden truth behind life. If someone wants me to say with certainty which films will still be widely known in a century or two, I will list " 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Wizard of Oz, Keaton and Chaplin, Astaire and Rogers, and possibly "Casablanca"...Of course, there is also "Star Wars." (Translated by Zhou Boqun)
View more about Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope reviews
