My Two Bits!
(Editorial)

Every Month, the Editorial Page with one-quarter byte...

April 2000's "Two Bits" are best titled :

"Phantom Menace:

How Childish is Childish...?"

Second editorial, so on to the more pressing subjects...sort of. I'm talking about all of the flap George Lucas received, for the alleged "goof" that was Star Wars, Episode 1 : The Phantom Menace. Now that it's on video, there's something I have to admit once and for all. Yes, kiddies, I personally liked it. Loved it, no, liked it, yes. Does that make me childish? Maybe.

Maybe not. 

After all, who's the more childish here?

The most accusations of childishness are aimed at Lucas himself, due to a little CGI character named Jar-Jar Binks. Agreed; he was quite a serious goof;  ill-conceived, fake-looking, and not half as good as classic Star Wars aliens. That much is certain. That's also a shame, because every other aspect of the film, I liked. You also have to give Lucas some credit as writer, when, in a story set 30 years earlier, he still finds a place for no less than half a dozen former Star Wars characters : Threepio, Artoo, Obi-Wan, Jabba, Yoda, and yes, even the Emperor. This was no easy feat; almost as impossible as pleasing all fans.

Other "fans" --or so they tell me-- didn't like the film at all, and got quite steamed (no overstatement there) about Episode 1. Here's when things became a bittersweet combination of "inane" and "a real hoot" : while out with my family at a local Toys 'R' Us, a sales clerk immediately stopped us, while buying Star Wars merchandise, to tell us how much he hated the film. If the obvious lack of salesmanship doesn't get you, consider the irony; an employee at one of the nation's largest chains of toy stores, telling me how "childish" a movie was. True story..."childish" as it is.

You can't blame this toy store clerk for an opinion, though, especially when even the likes of Newsweek agreed with him; David Ansen couldn't wait to flame the film. Oddly enough, though it wasn't because of Jar-Jar, who is only mentioned in passing in one short sentence(!). SO why did Ansen feel the film was "a disappointment. A big one"...? For this simple reason alone, friends; he's flamed every Star Wars film since Empire Strikes Back! While his Empire review (May 19th, 1980) was cynically favorable, he also made a snide remark at the trilogy-to-be's expense, claiming that both Empire and the original film "conspicuously lack: story (as opposed to action) characters (as opposed to cartoon figures) and any real emotional resonance." Return of the Jedi fared no better, which he called "downright repetitive...enough is enough." So, yep, he didn't like Phantom Menace at all. However, how childish was it to tell us this, over a week before the film was even released?

Sure, Newsweek, and Mr. Ansen, went to great lengths to gripe about how Lucas' "childlike vision...is beginning to look merely childish." However, was this maturity speaking...or hypocrisy? That same year, Newsweek praised the equally pre-pubescent Austin Powers : The Spy Who Shagged Me for its "snappy double entendres." Gosh, loved your use of the word shag, babe; you know any others? Meanwhile, Ansen himself praised South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut, no matter how much "Flatulence is central to [its] adolescent appeal." Ansen, to remind you, is the same critic who flamed George Lucas for his childishness. Then he flip-flops 180 degrees, and praises South Park for its, and I quote, "satirical poop." I'm not saying South Park doesn't have its pre-pubescent appeal; it does. As does Austin 2. However, so does The Phantom Menace. To deny this is...well, childish.

Then there was the childishness of the masses. Apparently, as Obi-Wan would say, there is a great influence of the weak minded. No sooner did sci-fanatics beg Lucas for a new Star Wars, then they start bashing the film once it's released. It quickly became the latest "chic" thing to do. The ongoing message that summer seemed to be : this film's childish, so go see the more "mature" South Park or Austin Powers instead. Why? Perhaps its South Park's flatulence. Perhaps it's Austin Powers' sexual innuendo. Perhaps Lucas should've said that "Jar" in fish speak means "sex." Gosh, that must mean Jar-Jar had sex...twice! Quick! Off to see Phantom Menace again!

Okay, enough sarcasm. A bigger question needs to be asked : What was the problem with Phantom Menace? Simply put, it was the hype. An over-ten-figure deal with major franchise chains --most notably Pepsi, KFC, Pizza Hut, and Taco Bell-- placed Phantom Menace promotional material everywhere under the sun...and the media effectively threw up. Even so, the backlash was pretty childish. Posting reviews before a movie is even out is just plain juvenile. Saying that a film is less mature than other, "better" movies with potty humor and/or sex jokes...that may not be "satirical poop," though it's certainly hypocritical B.S. 

Yes, liking Phantom Menace probably makes me childish, and it is time for me to (finally) grow up. Not now though; I'm too busy reading all the flames for George Lucas not putting Phantom Menace on DVD. It seems the same people who hated the film, desperately want the film preserved on Digital Video Disc for posterity. The maturity of the masses never ceases to amaze me...

Once again, I'm Techtite, and these are My Two Bits...

<<Back to top of page...>>

This page's entire content is created by Techtite, copyright 2000; all rights reserved.