We've talked about several of the important distinctions that set Star Wars apart from the rest: the struggle between Good and Evil, the mixing of fantasy and science fiction, and the creation of a internally consistent mythology. But one of the most important differences is structural.
Sequels are big business in Hollywood. If you can make a successful film, the next stage is to capitalize on the franchise by creating sequels. And examples abound, from Spiderman to Pirates of the Caribbean, to Oceans 11.
When you talk about a Star Wars trilogy, however, you are referring to something different from a series of sequels. Empire Strikes Back is not a sequel to Star Wars in the way that Home Alone 2 is a sequel to Home Alone. Star Wars is presented in trilogies because the story continues throughout all three films. The three films of the trilogy tell a single story in three acts, three complex movements. The original Star Wars trilogy not only shares a single universe and a single myth arc, it also shares a closely linked continuity, where each of the three narratives contribute to a larger story.
This is a structure that is almost never replicated in Hollywood. Mostly, sequels may follow in the same universe but always tell a different story. It is a shared universe rather than a continuation of the narrative. One reason is that it is very difficult task to sustain a continually evolving story with ever-increasing complexity. The last time we saw something like this was from Phillip Jackson's adaptation of the Lord of the Rings, and much of the work was done for him by the author, Tolkien. Although they were released as three films, Fellowship, Two Towers and Return were all telling different phases of the same story.
As a counter-example, the Star Trek franchise has always been built around an episodic storytelling experience that finds itself right at home in Hollywood. We can tell endless, unrelated stories in this universe because Star Trek invests very little in mythology and story arcs. This is also clearly the appeal of the innovation Disney introduced of telling stand-alone stories like Rogue One. These are much easier to write, and should be easier to appeal to new audiences.
So when a producer takes up the mantle of the Star Wars franchise, they are embracing this very difficult task. And in fact, that was the way that the first installment of this trilogy was set up as well. The Force Awakens did exactly what it was supposed to do, create a trajectory for the entire trilogy. It introduced the bad guys, it created new characters that we would follow throughout the three films, and it introduced character arcs for each of them. the first film of the trilogy has to create the basic parameters of the story and sets all the important arcs of the larger narrative.
The second film of the trilogy, in many ways, has the hardest job to do because it is driven almost entirely by characterization. It is meant to convince us of the power and menace of the antagonist. and it gives the heroes a chance to grow.
Finally, the third film pays out on all the story elements that the first and second set up. It's challenge is to bring all the disparate threads together and find a meaningful and coherent way to resolve them all.
But it felt as if the second film didn't want to participate in the trilogy. The Last Jedi closed down all the arcs that were set up in Force Awakens, and it subverted all the character development that had already taken place. And then it failed to establish any new arcs or develop any new characters to carry on to the third film.
The odd thing was that it wasn't a great stand-alone film either. It didn't really have a cohesive narrative on its own, with a conflict that resolves or a hero to follow.
Why?
So I have three possible theories as to what happened to destroy the integrity of this second film.1. Death by Committee. The crux of the idea is that there were a number of people who needed to have input in the making of the film and that they basically got in each other's way. Of course we had Rian Johnson who was given a writing and directing credit. But we know that Disney takes a very active role in directing their directors, and firing those who don't comply. Episode IX is on its second director and the Han Solo movie is on its third, citing irreconcilable creative differences. So the most obvious suggestion is that Johnson, perhaps, wrote a better movie but Kathleen Kennedy and others at Disney made edits or contributions that ultimately brought down the film. Too many cooks spoiled this broth.
2. Death by Execution. In this scenario, Rian Johnson was brought in as a hit man to disrupt the Star Wars universe. What we're seeing now is a conscious effort to break up the preconceptions by the fans about what a Star Wars movie is, and why it's enjoyable. According to the powers that be, it was time to "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to." This means kill off all the old characters, Luke, Leia, and Han, of course, but also to kill off the old preconceptions about the nature of heroes, the myth of the Jedi, and the clash between good and evil. These all need to be swept away to make room for the new direction that the franchise is going to take.
3. Death by Incompetence. Rian Johnson made a film following all the modern philosophies of Hollywood. Among his peers, this was a triumph of subtlety of narrative, nuanced characterizations, and a hip, irreverent wit. Rian wants to be socially conscious and to make a clear break from the patriarchal narratives of the past. Good and evil are childish concepts. Heroes like Luke are one-dimensional, and trite. Deadbeat-father Han, and cowardly Luke are more realistic portrayals of the modern struggle. We need strong female leaders bashing their male counterparts, we need to do away with outmoded male notions of heroic sacrifice, we need to embrace the idea that success doesn't always mean winning, and that saving what you love is better than fighting what you hate.
I think that the third theory is closest to the truth, but with a healthy dose of the first two also present at the scene.
Let's ask the next question: why do people like The Last Jedi?
1. Some people, particularly people coming late to a tradition, like iconoclastic experiences. They like the thought of turning smug pretension and hidebound dogma on its head. And I think this film delivers that experience.
2. Some people are not invested in the greater Star Wars myth arc. They aren't compelled by the dictates of The Original Trilogy, nor even of the current trilogy. They want to participate in a self-contained, stand-alone movie with high quality graphics and sound. They want to go to the theater and experience a modern Disney blockbuster with vivid tableaus and tense scenes. They are reacting to the structure of the film, rather than the story.
3. I do think that modern filmmaking has entered a post-narrative phase, where storytelling as a tightly woven tapestry of narrative threads has given way to it being a collection of dramatic and highly visual scenes. In the Last Jedi, we move from one visual high point to another, with little concern for how or why we moved from one to the next. We transition from hyperspace Holdo to Kylo's AT-AT line up without any intervening story. It is the striking imagery that is important, and the accompanying emotions that carry the impact of the movie.
This is not a new trend for Disney, either. Most of the Pirates of the Caribbean movies have very little in the way of a storyline, for example. Instead, they are a sequence of striking scenes that visually capture your attention.
When you consider the myriad of screenwriting guides and aids, many of them make no reference to story. They are all about presenting a particular moment or beat in the story, (see Something Startling Happens). When the beats line up in the proper order, the audience will leave the theater with the experience of having been entertained, regardless of whether or not the plot conveyed a deeper meaning.
This was exactly the experience that many people talked about with the Last Jedi. As they were leaving the theater, they felt like it was a good film. Their immediate reaction was positive. But as they reflected on it for several days they grew to become less and less satisfied.
