Its no secret that I had a lot of problems with the film (see comment's section), and that I didn't enjoy it. But, one thing about the film even on the list of things I didn't like, seemed out of place, and that was the the 'bombing run' scene on the dreadnought. When I first talked about it on facebook, I said:
That was over six months ago now, and still that one scene bothers me, not only in that I felt like it didn't work, but that I have a huge problem wrapping my mind around why it didn't work for me.Okay, I get that George Lucas loved WWII war movies, and I get that his dog fights were largely scripted off of those films. That being said, I felt like the bombers here were *too* 1940s, and the staging was *too* "this isn't in space". The writers here should seriously have rethought that scene. I mean, I get where the scene is going, and I understand, but I feel like we could have accomplished the same thing without completely taking away the fact we *are* in space for this battle, which is what the bomb run scene does if you think about it.
In the mean time, TLJ had been taken apart and put back together a hundred times over as fans, commentators, academics, and reporters argue the thematic, dramatic, social, political, cinematographic and writing merits of both this film on its own merits, and those same concepts as part of the movie continuity. Its not secret I actually enjoy listen to some of the more critical reviews, and I admit it feels good to know that I'm not the only one who feels like these movies let him down.
But still, why did this scene sit so badly with me?
I think it took me most of these last six months to fully process this scene and understand why I don't like it, and in the end, the reasons themselves are about as complex as the movie should have been, but wasn't (but that's another story).
First, lets talk about the vehicle itself. The bomber (fleshed out as a MG-100 StarFortress SF-17 online) is shown as a lumbering, heavy craft built like a super heavy snub fighter rather than a star ship. It uses turreted guns to protect most, but not all angles of attack on the craft, and while I (as a Star Wars fan) can assume it had some measure of shields, none were shown or mentioned in the film. The two most striking characteristics of the vehicle while it was on screen was its slow speed, and its heavy payload.
The influences for this, as I mentioned originally, are clearly 1940s' heavy bombers. Even the name, "SF-17 Star Fortress" is an overt nod to the American B-17 Flying Fortress. Movies such as "12 O'clock High" and "The Memphis Bell" all clearly spell out the physics and challenges of an American high altitude bombing mission over a heavily defended, enemy occupied Europe.
The B-17 bristled with fifty caliber heavy machine guns, and later models had three electrically operated turrets, and up to six hand operated mounts across its length.
Historically, the favored anti-fighter tactical for American pilots, especially in the early parts of the war, was to mass together in tight "boxcar' formations, allowing ten, twenty, or even thirty machine guns to be brought to bare on a single incoming fighter. During the war German pilots were said to write back to their loved ones that flying into was like 'making love to a burning porcupine'.
The boxcar formation was also something else that was given a nod in the film with the single line "Bombers, keep that tight formation".
Honestly, this comparison doesn't diminish the scene at all for me. The reality of the first film is that the famous trench run itself is based on the British film the Dam Busters (1955), which itself is based on the British low-altitude bombing mission to destroy 4 damns in the Ruhr river valley. Lucas himself used, (and some would say ripped off) many of the script and camera elements of the film to help make the climactic assault on the Death Star the stuff of movie legends. Also, many of the camera angles used in the overall during star fighter combat in the original trilogy were reminiscent of previous movies depicting famous air battles like the Battle of Britain, and the 1940's air war over the Pacific. As a cinematographic convention, Lucas made it work with his narrative style and high production valuers.
The other bit of history that is reflected well here, even though I didn't like it, was how effective the boxcar tactics weren't in practice. American losses over German, both to flack, and enemy fighters were deviating throughout the early parts of the war.
The turning point in the air war was the US Army Air Force's decision to begin pushing for long range fighters that could escort the bombers all the way to their targets. P-38 Lightnings fitted with drop tanks were among the first fighters to deployed this way, and then the much heavier, but more durable P-47 Thunderbolt. The final stage in this was the deployment of the P-51 Mustang, which could famously follow American bomber formations for over twelve hundred miles, form London all the way to Berlin and back, engaging German fighters out, away from the bombers the whole way in.
Both of these reality inspired points are conveyed well in the movie's four minute long scene. After Poe Dameron's impromptu 'wild weasle' attack, the resistance star fighters cut into the First Order fighters, but even the escorts are overwhelmed and are able to mob the eight bombers with devastating effects. Some bobmers are lost to enemy fire, others suffer the other consequences of tight formation flying in combat.
And so, here we are, a desperate, last minute attack with slow moving, heavily armed bombers against a massive vessel armed with some of the most powerful cannons ever deployed. A fight for the very existence of the resistance itself, and against a determined and capable foe.
This should be the stuff of legends, a scene easily on par with the trench run, or at least a worthy successor to it.
What went wrong?
- Timing. The trench run of the final film was the final act, and lasted just under fifteen minutes. This let the movie tell a very tight, but solid story, showing us the dynamics of the different craft involved, the pilots, the mission, and the enemy. We have dialogue, perspective, several different musical scores, and even critical changes in pacing and strategy. None of that is present here, however. The whole scene last less than four minutes, and about half of that does not actually show the bomber crews. There is perhaps twenty lines of dialogue in the whole scene, and most of that is from the fighter pilots, or the main characters. We have no dynamics, no chemistry, and no real time for emotions other than the perhaps excitement or urgency.
- Pacing. The problem with the timing is that some of the scene work against the four minute length. From a story telling standpoint, while I know the scene has to happen fast, the physical pacing of the actual characters themselves clashes with the scene's breakneck pace. Crews flying into the teeth of a monster that is about to eat them whole are walking, not running, to and from their posts. A gunner quickly, but smoothly climbs out of her turret, while the cuts around the scene suggest she should be doing a mad scramble. We see dramatic pauses that feel too, too long in between seconds long clips of bombers being cut to ribbons. I get where the director was coming from, this is actually how a crew of professionals should act in a combat situation, but framing those actions, which are cold, methodical, and deliberate, in the middle of seconds long cuts of actions around them either undercuts the action, or makes the crew look too slow for their own good. If you're going to show the quiet professionals, you need to give the scene the space it needs to give their actions proper perspective.
- Strategy. As much as I tried, I truly did, not to overthink this scene, so much of it clashes with the very nature of the rebellions that preceded the resistance. The rebels built their tactics around small, fast, survivable fighters capable of pinpoint precise attacks on under defended enemy positions. Craft like the X-Wing, and the Y-Wing, which took on the Death Star, and later the B-Wing and A-Wing were all built around the common theme of nimble, accurate, and durable craft with one pilot and able to hit quickly and get out. In many respects, these craft, as a concept. served as the science fiction extension of a knight's horse, carrying the hero off into battle. But the very presence of bombers, let alone something that channels a B-17 Flying fortress, invokes the ideas of great nations clashing across continents, with massive military industrial complexes feeding the engine of war. A "bomber" is a strategic weapon, a tool to be used by a conventional military, not something that fits into the mindset or metric of a 'resistance'. And even going past the thematic issues here, the actual act of ordering a lumbering, heavy, slow craft into what they had to know would become a hornets nest of enemy fighters was foolish at best, and idiotic at worst. Its not that the attack wasn't called for, in fact I think it was, but that was exactly the type that the rebellion of old would have reflexively send in a swarm of star fighters to do. Yes, it worked, but only barely, and a pilot as skilled as Poe clearly is has to know that the life expediency of those craft is measured in seconds.
- Value. What does this do to further the story? The fact of the matter is that it does a lot, but none of it is 'good' from the heroes' perspective. The order to send in the bombers was cited by Leia as insubordination on the part of Poe, resulting in his demotion and creating a conflict between him and Leia, and later him and General Holdo. Never mind that we never see Leia try and order the bombers back directly, or the fact that those same bomber crews, and the star fighters that escorted them in sided with Poe and not Leia. Its also important to note that the attack on the dreadnought's turrets, and the order to send the bombers in amounts to three quarters of Poe Dameron's character development for the first half of the movie, the remainder of his time before the final act is an ongoing head butting competition between himself and Holdo, and I have to say that the writing there does not carry the gravitas needed to do justice to the depicted losses of the opening battle.
Yes, I know Rose's sister was onboard the last bomber, but really so what? Other than being her sister, what does the character do for the story, and what did Rose do in the narrative that made that loss significant. I liked the character of Rose a lot, actually, and I felt she added a good 'everyman' character to the story. Still, the loss of her sister was never given the emotional weight in Roses story that its screen time suggested it should get.
In the end, at least for me, Star Wars was about good verses evil, with clean cut, uncomplicated narratives and compelling action sequences with strong characters. The bomber scene, for me, failed on all of these points, quickly becoming too complicated for its own good, to short to be effective, and to vague in its relivance to interest the Star Wars fan in me.
May the Force Be with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment