Scan barcode
jakeynorris's review
3.0
Very interesting read into the production and analysis of one of the greatest films of all time, from a feministic and queer perspective which provides some completely fresh takes for me.
claire60's review
4.0
Interesting and thought provoking critical look at the celebrated sequel to the cultural phenomenon that is Star Wars. There are also important explorations of race and gender in the film and how they were viewed and reported on by film critics at the time. I like that she connects that to the way some white men have become so attached to the films that they are resistant and in later years hostile and abusive towards characters that represent otherness. I really enjoyed the different gaze that she brought to the film being female and queer. This is a short essay that is well researched and it was good to be reminded of the social and political climate of when the film came out. I wanted more of her thoughts about the early and later trilogies, although I guess those films have benefited from having a different gaze and she is filling an important gap by examining one of the original films in this way.
With thanks to the publisher and netgalley for providing me with an ARC in exchange for a review.
With thanks to the publisher and netgalley for providing me with an ARC in exchange for a review.
jlynnelseauthor's review
2.0
Sorry for the long review, but I speak from a perspective of growing up in the 80s and watching the trilogy throughout my life. I can practically quote all the lines. Thus, I had a heavy Star Wars background going into this critique.
This novel puts into perspective the impact of the film on a cultural and social level. It highlights the anticipation, the reviews, the impact on sex, race, and sexual orientation. However, while compelling points were raised, they weren't always followed through on and thus came across as half-formed ideas. And some analogies were based on incorrect scene choreography which rendered the analogy false. Harrison states that she loves this film and watched it growing up, but the startling inaccuracies of how scenes and dialogue played out caused her arguments to lose validity in my eyes.
For example:
(1) According to Harrison, in a clash of old versus young, there is a moment when Luke attempts to wrestle away a torch from Yoda symbolizing "a tug of war between the generations." This is simply not true. Luke swipes for it, but Yoda holds it away from him. Then it is R2 that struggles to get back the torch with Luke reprimanding R2 (twice) to "let him have it." If anything, its a battle against 'man/alien' versus machine or organic versus synthetic.
(2) After Leia "remonstrates" Lando for giving away their location to the Empire, according to Harrison, Lando reassures Leia that "Vader is only interested in Luke and Han." This is to reinforce the argument that the black-coded male villain only wants men and is queer. However, that's not how the scene plays out at all. Lando responds to Leia that Vader is after "someone called Skywalker" (which, ironically, does include Leia after the ROTJ reveal). Leia's response is "And we're the bait." We're. Lando agrees. Vader isn't after Luke and Han, only Luke. That's why they are both being tortured, to lure Luke to their rescue. If Vader wanted Han, why wouldn't he just take him away instead of keeping him at Cloud City? The argument doesn't hold water.
Harrison also proposes this is due to the idea that the Dark Side is coded as queer with two homophobic stereotypes, "the two Sith Lords are notably older men who seek to lure the young handsome Luke to the Dark Side--the queer side--of the Force." Thus, Han and Luke are thrust by the Empire into 'queer time.' Sadly, I was completely lost at this point. Harrison didn't convey this point well, and I'm unsure what the disrupted 'queer time' and 'queer greed' mean. I don't see a strong argument of her point at all. To clarify why, let's sort this out.
The Jedi (the light side) have been eradicated by Vader and the Emperor (Order 66)...or so they thought. The light side of the Force is growing stronger, which can upset the balance of power. Notably because its Anakin Skywalker's, aka Darth Vader's (sorry if that was a spoiler), son. Vader until this point was under the impression that he had killed a pregnant Padme. Now he finds out his son is alive and learning the Force. (If he learned this earlier in a graphic novel or new-canon novel, apologies for my inaccuracy) Who's teaching Luke and how powerful is he?
Lucas did not create the empire to be 'queer' and turn people away from the 'straight path' in a disruptive way (and thus illustrates the empire as being "deviant"). This is about power and holding onto that power. And could Vader be turned back to the good side and thus turn against the Emperor now that his son is alive? The Emperor is on RED ALERT! So of course they're going after Luke instead of Leia and Han. They want the bigger fish who could potentially use the Force to take them down.
(3) I agree on the points of gender, sexual orientation, and racial inequality. There's an especially disturbing amount brought forth in 1980s movie reviews. However, to illustrate the film's racism, Harrison uses a scene on Cloud City where Leia takes Han's proffered arm over Lando's, which "makes her appear safe rather than endangered" in keeping with "white stereotypes of black men threatening racial purity."
In fact, the scene plays out with Leia taking Lando's proffered hand at first. When Han offers his arm, she takes it. Why? Probably because they're in a relationship. She also states with suspicion how "very friendly" Lando is acting and thus doesn't fully trust him yet. Additionally, Lando's attempts to garners Leia's attention is a way to illustrate Han and Lando's old rivalry. You can see it in Han's face too. He's not disturbed as this is just his old buddy Lando.
(4) Harrison points out that Leia's dialogue about kissing a Wookie and calling Han a scruffy-looking nerf herder are examples of racism and upper-class elitism as she attacks a racially 'other' species (meaning Wookies) and low-class laborers.
Yet, what about when, in that 'nerf herder' scene, Leia kisses Luke instead of Han? Which is extremely disturbing as they end up being siblings. This point is not touched upon. To that end, ignoring the odd sibling kiss but pointing out that Leia is elitist in itself disrupts Harrison's own argument. Yes, Leia tried to offend Han by calling him names. They've got sexual tension that's so thick you could cut it with a lightsaber. She's deflecting, just as Han does. Leia's good in political situations. In more personal situations, its difficult for her. So isn't this just an example of being an awkward human? Don't we all, as humans, call each other names at times? I struggle to see the argument here when so many things that can be easily explained are being minutely picked apart.
In summary:
Harrison's ultimate goal is to celebrate the fandom's diversity. That point is appreciated. It was also sad to read about the censoring of queer fanfic by Lucasfilm. Its not entirely surprising though as George Lucas had to approve all novelizations and adaptions of his work in the 80s and 90s.
For me, the first movies I saw in the theater were "E.T." and "Return of the Jedi." After that, I couldn't understand why so many women stood around and screamed while waiting for a man to rescue them. Carrie Fisher's role as Leia was groundbreaking for young girls like me. She gave many girls a look at a future where men and women could be on the same stage equally. I always wondered why Leia was the only strong female in the series, but she was groundbreaking for me and many others.
When "She-Ra" was being produced, writers and animators were told She-Ra could not punch anyone. The male characters could, but the women could not do that on TV. Thus, they invented She-Ra's famous roundhouse kick. This is just another example if 1980s sexism. And yet, look how far we've come since then. I had action figures of women not just male characters! Why do I bring this up? Because many arguments against "Empire" were not counterbalanced with a positive impact. Looking at and analyzing how far we've come is a great way to demonstrate why this film has been classified as a classic despite its flaws. This is absent in the book.
As a whole, Star Wars does offer a lot of diversity in its varied characters, both alien and human. While ROTJ did delete scenes of women in the space battle flying x-wings, the fact they were filmed was a small step in the right direction.
Overall, the book has a good foundation in historical mindsets and setting details. However, I found the points to be very loosely supported and not always based on correct movie scenes or dialogue. Thus Harrison's validity fell short for me. I learned a few things, but I don't believe this critique will stick with me.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for the opportunity to read an early copy of the novel. This has no way affected my review.
This novel puts into perspective the impact of the film on a cultural and social level. It highlights the anticipation, the reviews, the impact on sex, race, and sexual orientation. However, while compelling points were raised, they weren't always followed through on and thus came across as half-formed ideas. And some analogies were based on incorrect scene choreography which rendered the analogy false. Harrison states that she loves this film and watched it growing up, but the startling inaccuracies of how scenes and dialogue played out caused her arguments to lose validity in my eyes.
For example:
(1) According to Harrison, in a clash of old versus young, there is a moment when Luke attempts to wrestle away a torch from Yoda symbolizing "a tug of war between the generations." This is simply not true. Luke swipes for it, but Yoda holds it away from him. Then it is R2 that struggles to get back the torch with Luke reprimanding R2 (twice) to "let him have it." If anything, its a battle against 'man/alien' versus machine or organic versus synthetic.
(2) After Leia "remonstrates" Lando for giving away their location to the Empire, according to Harrison, Lando reassures Leia that "Vader is only interested in Luke and Han." This is to reinforce the argument that the black-coded male villain only wants men and is queer. However, that's not how the scene plays out at all. Lando responds to Leia that Vader is after "someone called Skywalker" (which, ironically, does include Leia after the ROTJ reveal). Leia's response is "And we're the bait." We're. Lando agrees. Vader isn't after Luke and Han, only Luke. That's why they are both being tortured, to lure Luke to their rescue. If Vader wanted Han, why wouldn't he just take him away instead of keeping him at Cloud City? The argument doesn't hold water.
Harrison also proposes this is due to the idea that the Dark Side is coded as queer with two homophobic stereotypes, "the two Sith Lords are notably older men who seek to lure the young handsome Luke to the Dark Side--the queer side--of the Force." Thus, Han and Luke are thrust by the Empire into 'queer time.' Sadly, I was completely lost at this point. Harrison didn't convey this point well, and I'm unsure what the disrupted 'queer time' and 'queer greed' mean. I don't see a strong argument of her point at all. To clarify why, let's sort this out.
The Jedi (the light side) have been eradicated by Vader and the Emperor (Order 66)...or so they thought. The light side of the Force is growing stronger, which can upset the balance of power. Notably because its Anakin Skywalker's, aka Darth Vader's (sorry if that was a spoiler), son. Vader until this point was under the impression that he had killed a pregnant Padme. Now he finds out his son is alive and learning the Force. (If he learned this earlier in a graphic novel or new-canon novel, apologies for my inaccuracy) Who's teaching Luke and how powerful is he?
Lucas did not create the empire to be 'queer' and turn people away from the 'straight path' in a disruptive way (and thus illustrates the empire as being "deviant"). This is about power and holding onto that power. And could Vader be turned back to the good side and thus turn against the Emperor now that his son is alive? The Emperor is on RED ALERT! So of course they're going after Luke instead of Leia and Han. They want the bigger fish who could potentially use the Force to take them down.
(3) I agree on the points of gender, sexual orientation, and racial inequality. There's an especially disturbing amount brought forth in 1980s movie reviews. However, to illustrate the film's racism, Harrison uses a scene on Cloud City where Leia takes Han's proffered arm over Lando's, which "makes her appear safe rather than endangered" in keeping with "white stereotypes of black men threatening racial purity."
In fact, the scene plays out with Leia taking Lando's proffered hand at first. When Han offers his arm, she takes it. Why? Probably because they're in a relationship. She also states with suspicion how "very friendly" Lando is acting and thus doesn't fully trust him yet. Additionally, Lando's attempts to garners Leia's attention is a way to illustrate Han and Lando's old rivalry. You can see it in Han's face too. He's not disturbed as this is just his old buddy Lando.
(4) Harrison points out that Leia's dialogue about kissing a Wookie and calling Han a scruffy-looking nerf herder are examples of racism and upper-class elitism as she attacks a racially 'other' species (meaning Wookies) and low-class laborers.
Yet, what about when, in that 'nerf herder' scene, Leia kisses Luke instead of Han? Which is extremely disturbing as they end up being siblings. This point is not touched upon. To that end, ignoring the odd sibling kiss but pointing out that Leia is elitist in itself disrupts Harrison's own argument. Yes, Leia tried to offend Han by calling him names. They've got sexual tension that's so thick you could cut it with a lightsaber. She's deflecting, just as Han does. Leia's good in political situations. In more personal situations, its difficult for her. So isn't this just an example of being an awkward human? Don't we all, as humans, call each other names at times? I struggle to see the argument here when so many things that can be easily explained are being minutely picked apart.
In summary:
Harrison's ultimate goal is to celebrate the fandom's diversity. That point is appreciated. It was also sad to read about the censoring of queer fanfic by Lucasfilm. Its not entirely surprising though as George Lucas had to approve all novelizations and adaptions of his work in the 80s and 90s.
For me, the first movies I saw in the theater were "E.T." and "Return of the Jedi." After that, I couldn't understand why so many women stood around and screamed while waiting for a man to rescue them. Carrie Fisher's role as Leia was groundbreaking for young girls like me. She gave many girls a look at a future where men and women could be on the same stage equally. I always wondered why Leia was the only strong female in the series, but she was groundbreaking for me and many others.
When "She-Ra" was being produced, writers and animators were told She-Ra could not punch anyone. The male characters could, but the women could not do that on TV. Thus, they invented She-Ra's famous roundhouse kick. This is just another example if 1980s sexism. And yet, look how far we've come since then. I had action figures of women not just male characters! Why do I bring this up? Because many arguments against "Empire" were not counterbalanced with a positive impact. Looking at and analyzing how far we've come is a great way to demonstrate why this film has been classified as a classic despite its flaws. This is absent in the book.
As a whole, Star Wars does offer a lot of diversity in its varied characters, both alien and human. While ROTJ did delete scenes of women in the space battle flying x-wings, the fact they were filmed was a small step in the right direction.
Overall, the book has a good foundation in historical mindsets and setting details. However, I found the points to be very loosely supported and not always based on correct movie scenes or dialogue. Thus Harrison's validity fell short for me. I learned a few things, but I don't believe this critique will stick with me.
Thanks to NetGalley and the publishers for the opportunity to read an early copy of the novel. This has no way affected my review.
inkspitblog's review
2.0
Thank you to the publishers and netgalley for this eARC in exchange of an honest review.
This academic paper is pretty interesting but repetitive. As an academic myself I’m used to this style of writing, but I found explaining the plot of the movies slightly redundant. Perhaps we are to assume the reader knows nothing of Star Wars but I feel that anyone reading an academic paper about it likely knows the plot. Or this could have been included as references. References were fairly light in my opinion, and I found some of the discussion points a little of a reach. At no point did we focus much on the sexualisation of Leïa in the second movie even though we acknowledged her increased role in the series.
Either way, still thought provoking but an academic paper I ultimately found repetitive and redundant in many ways.
This academic paper is pretty interesting but repetitive. As an academic myself I’m used to this style of writing, but I found explaining the plot of the movies slightly redundant. Perhaps we are to assume the reader knows nothing of Star Wars but I feel that anyone reading an academic paper about it likely knows the plot. Or this could have been included as references. References were fairly light in my opinion, and I found some of the discussion points a little of a reach. At no point did we focus much on the sexualisation of Leïa in the second movie even though we acknowledged her increased role in the series.
Either way, still thought provoking but an academic paper I ultimately found repetitive and redundant in many ways.
riverwise's review
3.0
A bit frustrating, this one. The author fires out loads of ideas, some of which land and some of which don’t, and also teases out lots of threads for discussion. The problem for me is that most of these threads just don’t get tugged on enough. There are seeds of some really worthwhile discussion here, but it all gets passed over very quickly. It’s partly a failing of the monograph format, I guess, but I would have preferred a book of this length to concentrate on fewer things and follow through on them a bit more. It doesn’t help that the whole thing is written in an academic style, which a) brings back terrible memories of my own dissertation, and b) adds a layer of unnecessary verbiage to a book that’s already chafing against size restrictions. It's interesting, but not what it could be.
More...