Why can't we just have evil villains?

[Awesome Possum]

Since when do people fail to notice how bad Natalie Portman's acting is in the prequel trilogy? People focus on Anakin because he's the alleged protagonist, but she hasn't been immune to criticism. Even Ewan McGregor gives a stilted performance in those films. It's hardly escaped the notice of most critics.

I blame the writing, because the both of them are usually good in other roles. Also it is hard to react to a green screen.

 

[Harvey]

It's a combination of Lucas' writing (his dialogue is especially bad) and poor direction. It's been well documented that Lucas doesn't like, nor is he very good at, working with actors. Even his close friends, such as Francis Ford Coppola, have said as much in public.

 

[Daddy Todd]

And as for Canadian bacon and pineapple pizza, I suspect that's a regional thing. In my experience, most New Yorkers are appalled by the very concept, but us Northwest types grew up on the stuff. Lord knows Norman Spinrad was horrified the first time he encountered it; I still remember his aghast reaction.

And a friend of mine once insisted that pineapple on pizza was the most disgusting thing she had ever heard off . . . as a tentacle of calamari dangled from her lips.

I grew up in Boise, and I remember when "Hawaiian" pizza was introduced, seeming all at once at every pizza place in town, sometime in the mid-70's. I guess the recipe was in that month's issue of "Pizzeria News" or something.

Hated it then; hate it now. I don't like FRUIT on my PIZZA!

Even though I really like pineapple, especially when blended with rum and coconut.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

I don't think the problems with the Prequels was, necessarily, concept, but rather execution. The idea of being emotionally out of control is certainly a valid one, when exploring the makings of a villain. Anakin's inability to control his emotions -- or, rather, control his actions as a result of his emotions -- is a really interesting idea to explore, particularly when investigating how a person becomes a "villain."

But, of course, the execution of that idea is decidedly lacking. You can see where Lucas was trying to get the point across -- EPI's Anakin being so young, EPII's Anakin being so petulant, EPIII's Anakin being so myopic in his worldview. But as with so many elements of the Prequels, there was a great potential was never realized.

And I enjoyed the Prequels quite a bit.

 

[Robert Maxwell]

The SW prequels were visually brilliant, but the storylines fell flat. Most of that was on account of the woeful acting and dialogue, both of which can be attributed to Lucas.

The man has amazing vision and can come up with a good story, but he cannot direct actors or write decent dialogue to save his life.

 

[Sci]

The SW prequels were visually brilliant, but the storylines fell flat. Most of that was on account of the woeful acting and dialogue, both of which can be attributed to Lucas.

The man has amazing vision and can come up with a good story, but he cannot direct actors or write decent dialogue to save his life.

Exactly. This is why the best Star Wars film, Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back, is the one that he did not write, direct, or get involved in the day-to-day production.

 

[stonester1]

Also agreed. I think the prequels get too much hate from certain sectors, and SOME of the criticism is driven by the prequels not being what some long term fans wanted them to be.

But what weaknesses they genuinely DO have are because of Lucas' weaknesses, and unlike the OT, they aren't checked by anyone else.

They are good films, but not up to the standard of the OT, for various reasons.

I'm hoping the live action TV series as well as any coming film has Lucas involved more at a distance.

 

[stj]

Since Christenson came across as petulant, self pitying, childishly impulsive, horny for Amidala, etc. I'd say he acted the role quite acceptably. And that people didn't like the way the role was written, not the way it was acted.

Portman on the other hand was supposed to be in love with Anakin and that didn't come across. As to whether people have criticized her performance, I can only say that I can't recall a single instance. Ewan MacGregor seemed to be playing an ostentatiously noble and heroic character, which comes across as formally posed, i.e., stiff.

But perhaps I'm not a good judge of acting. I thought the voice acting for Jar Jar Binks, aside from being excruciating faux Italian, basically lacked expression.

 

[Harvey]

I'm pretty sure I hated the way it was acted, too. I can't speak for anyone else, but I can provide these examples from film critics.

Here's an example from the TV Guide review of episode II:

And while it was always clear that Lucas cared more about special effects than acting, here his lack of interest has produced phenomenally wooden performances from newcomers and veterans alike: Only the imperious Christopher Lee, as baleful Count Dooku, emerges unscathed.

Here's a selection from David Ansen's review of the same movie at Newsweek:

It's not all Christensen's fault. Lucas, frankly, is a feeble director of actors. Christensen showed a lot of talent in "Life as a House." Here, stranded in flat, graceless love scenes with the utterly hapless Portman, he doesn't stand a chance. (He tilts his head and hangs his jaw like a pretty teenage Jimmy Stewart, without the charm.) But what can you do with the dialogue Lucas and co-writer Jonathan Hales supply? It defeats even the reliable Samuel L. Jackson, who intones his clunky exposition as if he had marbles in his mouth. It's no accident that a machine, C-3PO, gets the biggest laughs. The only actors who rise above the stiff B-movie style are McGregor, who adds wit and Alec Guinness diction, and Christopher Lee, who cuts a formidably villainous figure as the leader of the separatist movement threatening the Republic.

And David Edelstein, then of Slate, now of New York Magazine:

For better because: Can you imagine dialogue like this without the whooshy distractions? Consider the admonition of Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) to his teen-age charge, Anakin Skywalker (Hayden Christensen): "We will not exceed our mandate, my young Padawan learner." This is how characters talk in pseudo-Brit historical epics of the '30s and '40s. Apart from campy interjections during action sequences ("This is why I hate flying!"), the tone throughout is solemnly portentous, the diction public even in private, the characters aquiver with a patrician sense of duty. The love duets between Christensen and Natalie Portman as Sen. Padmé Amidala, the former Queen of Naboo, are of a high twittiness. I cannot imagine a crueler thing to do to an actor than give him a declaration like, "You are in my very soul, tormenting me." It could only work in the fey tones of Marlon Brando's Fletcher Christian. It doesn't at all in Christensen's peculiar Canadian singsong—although there's something searching in the young actor's woodenness, as if he's chafing, like his rash apprentice Jedi, against the constraints of his role. His readings are dead (his voice sounds as if it dropped yesterday), but his eyes are angrily alive. And he's all by himself on screen. Portman is madly sexy in her stretchy white, navel-baring warrior get-up (she's unencumbered by the curly horns of her Naboo queenship), but that robotic monotone would ice down the most erotically fevered suitor.

The quality of acting is, of course, subjective. I had a professor some time ago who insisted that Keanu Reeves was a brilliant actor in the tradition of German expressionism. YMMV.

 

[Kegg]

The quality of acting is, of course, subjective. I had a professor some time ago who insisted that Keanu Reeves was a brilliant actor in the tradition of German expressionism. YMMV.

What, Keanu Reeves?

He's not, well... theatrical enough, for lack of a triter word. Not arguing whether or not he's a good actor, but 'German Expressionist' is just about the very last phrase that would ever enter my head watching his movies. He lacks the body language. But of course I'm an unlettered imbecile - anyway, I just don't see it.

 

[stonester1]

I put Keanu Reeves in the same category as Arnold Schwarzenegger. They are good, but only within a narrow range of characters. As long as they are given material which plays to their strengths, and a director who understands this, they turn in good work. Get out of that...you are taking chances.

 

[Harvey]

The quality of acting is, of course, subjective. I had a professor some time ago who insisted that Keanu Reeves was a brilliant actor in the tradition of German expressionism. YMMV.

What, Keanu Reeves?

He's not, well... theatrical enough, for lack of a triter word. Not arguing whether or not he's a good actor, but 'German Expressionist' is just about the very last phrase that would ever enter my head watching his movies. He lacks the body language. But of course I'm an unlettered imbecile - anyway, I just don't see it.

Yeah, what I said. Or would have, if this woman wasn't so threatening to my grade point average. I know, I know, total cowardice.

 

[Agenda]

Wow, didn't know this thread would have the life of an Energizer battery. Anyways...keep going...

 

[zakkrusz]

I prefer gray area villains personally. I like things complicated as complication adds depth and unpredictability. Simplistic, "evil" villains are often too predictable and it's boring and not as fun.

 

[Awesome Possum]

I put Keanu Reeves in the same category as Arnold Schwarzenegger. They are good, but only within a narrow range of characters. As long as they are given material which plays to their strengths, and a director who understands this, they turn in good work. Get out of that...you are taking chances.

He's great in anything that doesn't require emotions for the most part.

 

[DevilEyes]

The quality of acting is, of course, subjective. I had a professor some time ago who insisted that Keanu Reeves was a brilliant actor in the tradition of German expressionism. YMMV.

What, Keanu Reeves?

He's not, well... theatrical enough, for lack of a triter word. Not arguing whether or not he's a good actor, but 'German Expressionist' is just about the very last phrase that would ever enter my head watching his movies. He lacks the body language. But of course I'm an unlettered imbecile - anyway, I just don't see it.

Yeah, what I said. Or would have, if this woman wasn't so threatening to my grade point average. I know, I know, total cowardice.

Yeah, I think that expressionism requires actors to be... expressive.

 

[stj]

Whoa, dudes! A most excellent partay of critics slamming heinously untheatrical and unexpressive actor. I am downcast that I didn't realize action scenes had no body language.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Since Christenson came across as petulant, self pitying, childishly impulsive, horny for Amidala, etc. I'd say he acted the role quite acceptably. And that people didn't like the way the role was written, not the way it was acted.

The writing was definitely the problem if that stuff was intentional. I'm just not convinced Christenson could have handled the role if it had been decently written. I guess we'll never know.

Portman on the other hand was supposed to be in love with Anakin and that didn't come across.

It's completely implausible that any female with a functioning brain could fall in love with a puerile brat like Anakin. Meryl Streep couldn't have given a convincing performance of material that unconvincing.

 

[Awesome Possum]

Since Christenson came across as petulant, self pitying, childishly impulsive, horny for Amidala, etc. I'd say he acted the role quite acceptably. And that people didn't like the way the role was written, not the way it was acted.

The writing was definitely the problem if that stuff was intentional. I'm just not convinced Christenson could have handled the role if it had been decently written. I guess we'll never know.

Portman on the other hand was supposed to be in love with Anakin and that didn't come across.

It's completely implausible that any female with a functioning brain could fall in love with a puerile brat like Anakin. Meryl Streep couldn't have given a convincing performance of material that unconvincing.

My only guess is that she had a fetish for genocidal maniacs.

 

[stonester1]

It's completely implausible that any female with a functioning brain could fall in love with a puerile brat like Anakin. Meryl Streep couldn't have given a convincing performance of material that unconvincing.

Did you even go to high school?