Rogue One

TV, Rogue One (2016) film

It's taken me some time to see this first true spinoff of the 'Star Wars' saga, mainly because I was so underwhelmed by the bland Episode VII, 'The Force Awakens' more aptly known as The Force Nods Off, or The Force Rehashes. I didn't go to the cinema to see the three succeeding spinoffs and sequels, and intensely mixed reactions suggested an iffy chance on whether I'd have been right to do so. I all but lost interest in the Disney-fied version of what was once the greatest trilogy of all time (since superceded by 'The Lord of The Rings'), and didn't care if I ever saw the films I'd missed. I hadn't even bought the DVDs as they never went down to a low enough price for me to consider it a worthwhile investment, either of my time or money, so I had to wait until this one came to Freeview TV. I went in expecting it to play out one of two ways: either it would increase my apathy and lack of connection to the franchise, or it would interest me and make me think there were worthwhile films to be told outside of George Lucas' uncertain hands. Immediate impressions were mixed - for some reason I liked the opening of that Imperial Shuttle skimming across the horizon of this planet, and though it's somewhat strange not to have the booming 'Star Wars' name blazing across the screen as it recedes into the vastness of space, for the first time ever, the usual opening crawl and pulp science fiction serial scene setting wasn't missed for this story.

It did initially appear to be going down the Disney route again (though I suppose this was only the second of their films so it wasn't getting as old yet), with the starring role given to some little girl, but at least she was supported by Mads Mikkelsen as her Father, an actor I've esteemed ever since first seeing him as Le Chiffre in the best James Bond film ever made, 'Casino Royale.' While there is an element of recognisable actors taking you out of the story a little (oh, it's Mads; it's Ben Mendelsohn; it's Forest Whitaker), the same could have been said upon first viewing the original 'Star Wars' - it's Alec Guinness, it's Peter Cushing! But they've become embedded in those roles through long association, and while I don't expect the same thing will happen with these films since they aren't the genre-defining game-changer the originals were, still living off the ancient blood of those greats, it's not a problem for the film. I will say that, after getting past the little girl opening and moving into the future, it does take the film quite a time to get going. We're introduced to various characters, but we don't get to know them or penetrate into the story. The story itself is much clearer cut than the Rey trilogy, which is a big plus, but it does suffer from the same almost aimless travelling around from planet to planet and character to character for an early chunk of the film.

As much as I loved seeing the old 1970s aesthetic of what a big budget sci-fi spectacular should look like, the definitive 'Star Wars' look, the old Stormtroopers, ships and all, it wasn't until well into the film that I truly began to be engaged. Thinking back I think the moment that it first sparked something for me was when they call the stolen Imperial ship 'Rogue One,' and I realised that I hadn't even considered where the title came from, so little thought had I given the film before seeing it. So something clicked there as we realise this small band of rebels even against the Rebellion, are the crew of this ship which gave us the title. It wasn't much, but it was something, and as things progressed I found more to be interested in until it culminated in a great ending that connected strongly. I didn't know that much about the film other than it was about spies that steal the plans for the Death Star (no, not the 'many Bothan spies' who died to bring the Rebellion the information on the second Death Star in 'Return of The Jedi,' it would be easy to confuse the two), they were all going to die at the end (makes sense), Grand Moff Tarkin, Darth Vader and Princess Leia were all going to appear, and Vader had a much lauded scene of slaughter.

Before coming to the film I really didn't know if I'd even have enough thoughts or interest to be encouraged to write a review, but there were plenty of points of intrigue or discussion that prove the film was engaging mentally. One of the biggest issues the film raised was in production, outside of the universe and story: should we bring back dead actors to reprise their roles in modern films? It's a fascinating question to explore because there are the ethics as well as the technical achievement. I was undecided about it, and remain so, but I do feel they were entirely true to the original characters in this particular instance. CGI manipulation had been around for a number of years prior to this, with such films as 'X-Men: The Last Stand' attempting to show de-aged versions of Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen that was a sight to see, but mainly looked off-kilter. Technology had improved to the point where they could do a whole performance within that realm, but it was still not quite right. It's fun to have Peter Cushing back, but there's something dead about Tarkin, the eyes have no soul, maybe that's it, or the skin is too flat. I don't know what it was, but I suspect even if you didn't know the actor you'd sense things were off. They wisely didn't do anything out of the ordinary, seeing him (and Leia at the end), in the kind of setting we saw them before, doing and saying what they did in the original, and so there wasn't much to get wrong - in fact Leia's one word is a triumphant moment to end the film, perfectly judged.

The question of whether it's right to do this is something else, and is a serious quandary. I don't want to see a young William Shatner as Captain Kirk, spouting swearwords and doing things he wouldn't have done in the original 'Star Trek,' and that's the danger: that filmmakers misuse the likenesses of actors against either the original character or the attitudes of the actor. There's also something to be said for an actor's career having an end, as everything does. Who are creatives to come along and decide that they're going to resurrect a popular figure of the past, to exploit them as novelty value? Would I go and see a new John Wayne film that had been shot today? I can't say that I wouldn't, but it would be a novelty and I suspect such things would be abused, with political motives, whether to deal with minorities, the environment or any other current issue, and by the nature of modern storytelling, probably be untrue to an actor or the characters they played. That's the big trouble with this stuff, even if the estate of the actor concerned sells the rights, it's a dangerous path to tread. It also leads me on to a point that was a negative for this film, and for most modern films that aren't set contemporaneously: modern sensibilities, especially in speech.

Now granted, there was no swearing, no gore, no romance in this film, and it was all the better for it, but at the same time the characters do use turns of phrases or patterns of speech that you wouldn't necessarily expect from a film made in 1977, and so I do wish that as closely as they aligned the visuals to the period of the first 'Star Wars,' I would have liked it a lot more if it had been made, directed and shot in the same way, and written as it if was a period piece, Shakespearean and staged. I know it's really a misconception on my part, and that the ideas I have of westerns or war films are largely a 1940s-1960s version of the past, which use the language and sensibilities of those decades rather than an accurate representation of the period they're portraying, and that films have generally always been made to be identifiable to the audience of the time in which they came out. I understand that, but it also lessens my appreciation of modern films when they portray a period, yet talk in the same way as the current generation, or ignore the style of the past. 'Star Trek' is the perfect example - for so long it had a developing aesthetic that was beholden to the design history of each series that came out, but in the current films and 'Discovery,' that was abandoned in favour of remaking an old era with modern visuals that don't fit the established history, and current speech patterns. It's frustrating and a slap in the face to people that have followed the unfolding future history, but this film was an antidote to that, a balm that showed you can play in an era that was created in the past without needing to completely overhaul it!

They managed to extrapolate from the production design of the Original Trilogy (OT), and paint a world of the Empire and alien worlds that fit with what had gone before, and we even get to revisit character or locations. I really liked how they bridged both the hated prequels and the loved OT with things like the Yavin base, the little cameo from C-3PO and R2-D2 that was completely unexpected (though they probably have as much, or more, time together here than the whole current trilogy did, which is sad!), and the small roles for both Bail Organa ('King' of Alderaan, I suppose), and Mon Mothma! But you cannot live on cameos alone, and if the new characters had fallen flat, the film would have been as average and dull as Rey's films. So it was fortunate that, though they weren't instant classics, this little band of rebels worked well enough that you bond with them, and their deaths are meaningful, unlike the main characters in the new trilogy, any of which could have died and it would have been of no consequence to me! Almost immediately this gang are more likeable and interesting than those dullards, and Tarkin's subordinate is less annoying or a figure of fun than General Hux was. I was unsure about the droid (K?), who was a droll, casual version of 3PO, and throughout the film I never trusted him, expecting this reprogrammed Imperial droid to be a plant by the baddies who would turn on them when they least expected it. Instead he gets as heroic a death, defending his friends, and we see a mini arc conclude when Jyn shows her trust in him by handing him a Blaster.

One digression: I did wonder at the logic of this Empire who can build droids that are this strong and accurate and don't use them as their army rather than the consistently poor shots of the flesh and blood troops. I like how accurate that is with the OT, but this one droid can take out loads of them before he's dispatched, and that wasn't the only flaw I noticed in what was a generally tight story: how could they take down even one AT-AT with blasting weapons when they're supposed to be 'too strong for Blasters,' yet that's exactly what happens when one of the legs is targeted and they bring it down. Perhaps this skirmish forced the Imperials to toughen the armour to what it was at the Battle of Hoth. There are always going to be holes or mistakes in a film, the important thing is whether you can forgive them and move on, or come up with an explanation as I just have, and if you like a film it's more of a boon than a mistake as it forces you to think about what this may mean in-universe, which gives you more investment therein. One other rather large question that hovers over not just this film, but all of them, is just how much the ordinary mortal can have dealings with the Force. This was prompted by the blind monk-like character who has a strong belief in it, but isn't a Jedi.

The Jedi were wiped out, we saw that in Episode III, and in the OT I always got the impression that such beliefs were generally long dead, nor was it ever really explained what it took to be a Jedi, that was the mystery and myth of it all that made those films such a draw. If it was as simple as trusting in the Force and allowing it to work through you then why did we need Luke? That's where the problem lies: whatever you do, if you're going to do it by using parts of the other films, since that's what 'Star Wars' is, then it undermines those originals. How do you make something that is part of an ongoing mythos, yet don't rely on the parts of it that need to be unique to the other films? In most cases you don't, so in most cases these films fail. Not financially, giving the people more of what they want is the easy option (as much as making a film can ever be an easy option!), but giving them something that builds on the other things they like, but is significant in its own right? That's tough. There's an appetite to learn more about this world, the Force, the Empire, the heroes, that's why we want more 'Star Wars,' after all, but ever since the prequels explained so much and took away the mystery, and narrowed the time period, the settings and what you could expect, it took away from the speculation and the joy of discovery and potential in the OT. More is definitely less. But if you are going to do more you need to find ways of adding something without taking away, and I took this blind character as an attempt to do that.

He is faithful, despite his friend's disbelief, a Luke and Han dynamic, but anything he does can be attributed to his skill and training, his honed senses, and pure chance that he didn't get shot when he takes it upon himself to go out into the firefight and press the lever that will transmit the essential data. If you want to read it that he does have a closeness to the Force, you can, but it's ambiguous and we're spared learning any more about him or anyone else by the fact that we only have this one film to know these characters. I must admit, I'd much rather have seen this as the culmination of a new trilogy set between III and IV (just as in 2006 it was first announced that a series set in that period was going to happen), than the trilogy we got, but who knows if dragging out the characters across three films would have worked any more than Rey, Finn and Poe did? The important thing was that there was actual dramatic stakes between characters, Captain Andor (a Trek reference, or coincidence?), having the mission to kill Jyn's Dad, Galen Erso, but at the moment of truth he couldn't do it. I thought this was going to be the thrust of the film, but it occurred relatively early in the story, Galen dying anyway through the friendly fire of a Rebel attack. Andor reminds Jyn that she's not the only one to lose everything, and that was an important point, too - just as Luke would find his simple life broken when his Uncle and Aunt are murdered and the homestead burned. It shows that this horror was happening to a lot of people which in turn makes the Rebellion more real, whereas Rey, her life and her motivations were never very strong.

For these reasons, this film felt far more 'Wars' than Disney compared to the trilogy, so it was sad that everyone had to die, but then it may be that their fleeting contribution made them bittersweet characters whom didn't outstay their welcome. I really was impressed over all - you know where we're going and what has to happen, one flaw with a prequel that can be turned to an advantage because there's a melancholy to the inevitable, and while Anakin's descent was of a similar stripe, it was never logical or earned, where these people met their fates heroically. You care what happens to them, and the film doesn't let you down on the war front either, with probably the best space battle scenes of any of the new films, X-Wings, TIE Fighters, ground forces, it was all marshalled to an understandable and believable conclusion, far from the messy retreads of the trilogy. With this there's a connection that goes beyond the nostalgia for seeing old faces - the cameos fit neatly in this one and it made me think I'd have been happy if I'd gone to see this at the cinema, where the others have been disappointments. I liked that in the same way as playing the side missions away from the known battles of the OT in games like 'Rogue Leader' on the GameCube, or watching the old 'Droids' cartoon of the 1980s, this was away from the main stage, but still of importance, tragic in its impression of forgotten heroes in the Rebellion and setting up 'A New Hope' perfectly. I only wished that the Battle of Scarif was actually on Kothlis from 'RL'!

The final thing I need to mention is Vader's role. I'd had it reiterated by various people how cool his scene at the end was - I knew he was going to kill a load of people and I went into the film wondering if I was going to feel uncomfortable, as if it was going to glorify his evilness and make you want to cheer him on, which is clearly wrong since he's evil. But delighting in power, whether it's good or evil seems to be something more common now, and the impression I get with some 'Star Wars' games I've heard about is an ambivalence between right and wrong, almost as if it's a good thing to have the option to be a Sith rather than a Jedi, it's just a 'different' path. Like the vague nature of the Force and its impersonal existence, it becomes more about making choices rather than absolutes - as they openly said in one film, only the Sith deal in absolutes, which was always a worrying admission in my eyes. But far from the Vader scene being something to glorify him, it was a tense moment on a much smaller scale than I'd anticipated as the man in black stalks the Rebel ship's corridor and a rebel desperately tries to deliver the plans, then he uses all the powers at his disposal to grab guns, deflect Blaster fire, levitate enemies and slice through them with his lightsaber - it was cool, but it wasn't excessive. I'd imagined either a mass slaughter of Rebels or Director Krennic and his supporters being put in their place, a horror of fascination with the evil powers Vader possesses, but it was matter of fact and direct, with the heroes winning out, even at the cost of those sacrificed beneath the red beam of death.

The film tripped along, despite the running time, and unlike Rey's boring trilogy which often drags, and it showed how to do a prequel - indeed, you can't get more of a prequel than this, directly before IV, and its mix of a new group out on their own mission against orders, taking place off to the side of a larger world, gave it that remote feeling those OT films were so good at. I was surprised and pleased to find I liked it, and while it only just ticks across the line into my good books, the ending is what pushes it through. If I was going to rank the films I'd say this was one of the middling ones below the OT and Episode I, but better than all the other Disney 'Star Wars' films. It's probably just below Episode III, but it's hard to say without watching both of them again. The fact that I had the desire to write a review at all shows that this was a worthwhile film, and in a decade where there's been sparse comfort in viewing new films (off the top of my head I can only think of 'The Dark Knight Rises' and 'Interstellar' as being ones I really liked), it's good to have one more to add to the list. Long live the Rebellion!

***