Of all 3 sequel films, The Last Jedi most closely resembles what the trilogy should have always been about: Luke's fall from grace.
[For a quicker read, jump to the bits in bold]
Having seen The Rise of Skywalker I have become more and more desperate to know what George Lucas had in mind for the sequel trilogy canon. I want to know how Luke rebuilt the Jedi and the struggles he faced.
Yes, there are some awful scenes in The Last Jedi, and it does little to develop a coherent trilogy, but I don't agree with the notion that Rian Johnson simply inverted expectations or did the opposite of what key characters would do. First, some background...:
The Original Trilogy and Prequel Trilogy both had start and end points that were totally black & white. They depict the Light Side going from a position of dominance to the Dark Side taking over - and vice versa. Each trilogy is a story of the galaxy switching political control.
There is also a long gap in time between each trilogy, but everything in between makes sense. It is no surprise that the Empire are in charge during Episode 4, given the events of Revenge of the Sith.
THEREFORE, we can say that the sequel trilogy was always going to depict how Leia's New Republic and Luke's Jedi Order went from a position of relative strength to a more weakened and uncertain state. Given the events of Return of the Jedi and Luke's heroic journey, we know that this increased strength (however strong) would be the starting point for Episode 7, from which it would tell its own story.
Of course, a movie doesn't have to depict massive change on this scale - but I don't see any purpose for a sequel trilogy if it were simply about how Luke and Leia lived happily ever after throughout. There has to be a challenge to 'the return of the Jedi' in which an adversary tries to take power.
Enter The Force Awakens, which depicts the Empire (First Order) still in charge and no sign of the 'returned' Jedi. This apparent change warrants an explanation in its own episode, since it is a key part of the story, but instead J.J. Abrams told us that the heroes have to start all over again.
Rian Johnson was left with a decision: 1) Accept the premise of Episode 7 and create a film that delivers continuity and coherence for this new trilogy. OR: 2) Tell the story of what he believed Episode 8 - as the middle part of a 3-part story - should have always been.
Here's the key bit: Rian Johnson started developing Episode 8 BEFORE The Force Awakens had told its part of the story.
This means that Johnson was working with his own understanding of what the Sequel Trilogy should be. His job was to tell the middle part of that story - not the beginning or end. As with Episode's 2 and 5, and most other trilogies/TV seasons, the middle section of a plot is always a transitional phase for the character, and a link between the task (the beginning) and the resolution (the end).
So when Episode 7 came around, Johnson was justified in seeing no narrative value to what it set up. Whether he should've basically trashed it in the overt way he did is another matter - though he obviously did continue some unavoidable facts set up by J.J.: the First Order and this person called Rey (who was all but a vessel for any character he wanted to develop) meeting Luke.
The Force Awakens told us that Luke and Leia failed to defeat the Empire, and it made no attempt to explain how the contrived plot points came about: namely Ben Solo being on the dark side; and Rey coming out of nowhere as the new mysterious superhero. If 7 were to lay the groundwork for a coherent and logical trilogy in the Skywalker saga, we needed to see precisely how Luke failed; how Kylo fell; and (at some point in first half of the story, surely) who Rey was.
Instead, we got 'mystery boxes', as if the essence of Star Wars can be reduced down to a simple "guess who?" about our main characters. In Empire Strikes Back, Vader's reveal to Luke meant something to our character's story. In the sequels, it panders to nostalgic ideas of hidden parentage, and I can't hate Johnson for dismissing the idea and saying that Rey is a nobody.
Whatever direction Episode 8 was taken in, it would have faced massive logical plot problems. It either had to spend its time trying to explain hugely illogical and contrived plot points, such as Snoke, Rey, Luke, Kylo, and the First Order - or it could accept that they simply lacked explanation and instead try to tell its part of the story.
I think Johnson tried to do aspects of both. Episode 7 did not explain Snoke (oops), and because that is not the purpose of Episode 8, I can see why he didn't waste time doing so and instead killed him off. Johnson's story was how Snoke dies, J.J.'s was how Snoke exists. One managed to tell his story, the other didn't.
He did spend a lot of time showing flashbacks to the pre-Episode 7 events (how Kylo fell to the dark side) that should've been the first part of this trilogy because they are so significant to the story. Simultaneously he also told us what was happening a whole TWO episodes later in the middle part of the story. The Last Jedi is essentially both Episode 7 and 8, because it is the only one that provides narrative for either. The fact that 8 spends so much time giving narrative value to Episode 7 is an inherent flaw of The Last Jedi - distracted by a story which is different to its own - but the alternative of offering no explanation would continue to leave the trilogy and each movie devoid of any meaning at all.
I cannot totally excuse the extreme take Johnson had on this storyline, but the general direction in which it travels (Luke dealing with the consequences of his challenge to power) is a sensible one. It's just that Episode 7 should've done its job of explaining how we got there.
Johnson's extreme and unexpected depiction of Luke's fall from grace received criticism and influenced the direction of Episode 9, for sure. Whilst George Lucas's Episode 9 was probably about how Luke/his allies eventually overcame the threat that should've been depicted in 7 and 8, J.J. returned to give people more of the characters they got in Force Awakens. Rey went back to being somebody, Luke became a hero again, and Palpatine was inserted to give this trilogy an actual (yet different, again) story to tell. The result is that The Last Jedi seems out of place in the trilogy, opposed to both its adjacent episodes. However, I hope I've shown how it is actually 7 and 9 that are further from what this trilogy should've been, because they contrived nostalgic plot ideas and character moulds that suited some people's perception of the characters in the Original Trilogy, rather than developing them down an original path.
In summary, at some point in the sequel trilogy Luke was going to face a problem. A darkness was going to emerge; someone was probably going to defeat him or come close to doing so. The Last Jedi might have taken a very extreme take on this, but doing so made it still more logical in the overall trilogy - and saga - than the two episodes that sandwiched it.
Fans, understandably, did not recognise this version of Luke as their former hero - partly because he was so extremely un-optimistic, but mostly because we had no extended explanation of what his character arc was in Episode 7.
I don't know if Johnson got to see Lucas's story ideas, but I believe his Episode 8 most closely resembles what it should have always been: about the challenges faced by Luke Skywalker and his Jedi.
There are so many things that prevent this from being a good movie: it's internal plot about hyperspace, Holdo, Finn and Rose, the awful humour, Leia, and the salt planet battle. These faults run throughout the trilogy, but the one thing I think TLJ has on Episodes 7 and 9 is its thematic nods to how this trilogy should have gone. All I'm really talking about is a few lines of dialogue from Luke about the Jedi and his difficulties - but these seem like an echo of what we might have been given had this trilogy been thoughtfully executed from the start.
Comments