I won’t pretend that I have the fullest insight into what the film critic profession is all about.  I write this blog mostly for my own expression and I’m grateful to the handful of you who take time out of your day to read my opinions.  But, I also run this by myself and fund my own way; meaning I still buy my own tickets and attend events along with the rest of the general public.  Professional film critics have the privileges of private screenings and press passes that give them special access and that is just part of how the business works.  Those who have a wider base of readers have the special access, and that’s how it should be.  But, in the end, what matters most is that a person is allowed to express their opinion about a movie whether they write for a major publication, publish their own private blog (like me), or are just giving a rating on their Flixster app or Cinemascore after leaving the theater.  And that’s the sign of a healthy interaction between the consumer and the people making the movies; the fact that public reactions matter.  But, for as long as there has been film-making, there has also been the presence of film critics, and the relationship has not always been a comfy one.  In fact, the interaction between Hollywood and the film criticism world can be a schizophrenic one where at times the studios go out of their way to highlight critical praise for their films (critical quotes often being used on trade ads for example) and then there are other times when the studios try to circumvent the opinions of the critics when they are seen as negative.  For the most part, audiences can take or leave a critics opinion depending on what they’re interested in seeing, but an unfiltered critical expression is still important to have in today’s society.  But, that’s a right that’s also abused and attacked in some dangerous ways as well.

Recently there has been controversy surrounding the reception given to the new Ghostbusters remake.  Because of the change in casting, making the titular team all female instead of male, there has been a complaint by the filmmakers who made it saying that criticism of their movie is due to sexism.  In particular, Paul Feig, the director, revealed hateful backlash that he’s received on social media, as he stated in a recent report.  And while it’s true, the internet and especially social media can be terribly sexist towards women, it shouldn’t also be lumped together with legit complaints about the movie.  I for one am not happy with the upcoming film, as I’ve made clear before, but my complaint has more to do with the fact that I think that this is a shameless cash-grab by a studio and not a earnest comedy project like past Ghostbusters were.  And yet, the specter of accusation over a supposed misogynistic bias against the movie has totally clouded the discussion of the film and it seems that anyone who now has to review it must also watch what they say.  Feig may be genuine about his concerns, but I feel that some of this controversy has been drummed up by Sony Pictures (the studio behind the movie) as a way to safe guard themselves against negative reviews.  It makes it much easier for them to wade their way through critical reception if they can simply say that all the naysayers against their film are speaking from a sexist point of view.  This is a dangerous misuse of legitimate issues purely for a self-serving purpose and it tells me right away, without having seen the movie, that it will indeed be bad.  The studio has become defensive and they’re willing to marginalize their critics.

Of course, the misuse of critical opinion has also factored into this story as well.  The sad reality of media today is that it’s so heavily intertwined with social media and that now anybody can have their opinion heard; even the dumbest among us.  For someone to have such a narrow minded reaction to the gender swapping of characters in Ghostbusters is really hitting a low bar for film criticism.  This and the fact that many of these same trolls are so rabid with their opinions and will harass the filmmakers regardless of the end result is also a sickening aspect in our culture.  But, we are a society that can’t censor someone for just having an opinion.  Unfortunately, these idiots cast a bad light on the rest of us film critics, and it is what Hollywood is increasingly trying to spotlight as the state of film criticism in today’s media.   The broad span of opinions on the internet has created this load mess of things in the critical world and the thing that gets lost in the shuffle is the sense of trust from those on the outside just looking for some guidance.   Audiences look to critics for helpful opinions, but when a few bad apples give out thoughts that are so off-putting, it makes the whole critical world look foolish and less trustworthy.  And that’s when the studios can trick the public into thinking that critical opinion doesn’t matter and that they are the ones worth listening to.  Now, I don’t honestly think that every studio is trying to eliminate criticism altogether; they certainly need critical praise for marketing purposes.  But when a studio is pointing a finger at the critical community saying that it is poisonous as a way to avoid negative reaction for itself, there becomes a dangerous tilt toward suppressing dissent in our culture.

Sadly, the horrible opinions found on social media are all too common, and they are really not a good indicator of what film criticism can be.  Film criticism is much more than just a simple star rating or a twist of the thumb up or down.  In fact, some of the greatest examples of film criticism that we’ve ever seen have not been on any webpage or newspaper column, but in film essays written over the years by scholars and students alike.  That’s what I learned from my years in film studies, and this blog where I give editorials in addition to reviews is a manifestation of this philosophy.  Film critics don’t just react to a movie; they deconstruct them as well.  A great film analysis often looks at movies beyond whether it is good or bad and makes you think of the larger issues inherent within the content itself.  There are so many different ways you can read a movie, and these criticisms all have their own classifications; structuralist, post-structuralist, deconstructionist, humanist reading, feminist reading, queer reading, class reading, auteurism, the list goes on.  This is film criticism as an art-form and it can be accomplished by anyone who takes a strong critical stance on something and is able to back up their opinions.  When film criticism is intellectually stimulating, that’s when it’s able to broaden an appreciation of the art-form itself.  Film journals like Sights and Sounds as well as trade magazines like Empire and Entertainment Weekly all understand that opinion pieces are a valuable part of their business and they include them as part of their publications.  It’s an important aspect of the film industry to inspire a thoughtful look into the world of cinema, because entertainment without purpose has no long lasting impact in our society.

So, how do you discern the good criticism from the bad.  Well, first of all it should be obvious that everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But, when it comes to expressing that opinion, a person should take into account their ability to back it up with facts.  This is especially important for those of us who write our reviews for public digestion.  You can’t just simply say you hated or loved a movie and just stop at that.  People want to know the reason why.  Think deeply about exactly what drove you towards your opinion.  And it can’t be stressed enough; have some knowledge about what you are talking about.  I know I’ve been guilty of prejudging things before I see them (I was especially wrong about Edge of Tomorrow), but when I set out to critique something, I try to give it a fair examination before I tear it apart.  It helps to look at some of the positives first before going into the negatives, and this is a good way to gauge how your ultimate reading of a film will turn out.  Every bad movie has a silver lining and every great film has some nagging nitpick that prevents it from reaching perfection, and it’s finding those interesting distinctions found in each that helps to craft an interesting film analysis.  It at least helps to make the reader feel more informed as they take your critique in.  Distilling a film criticism down to a simple good or bad is not worthwhile criticism because no movie is ever that simple.  So anyone who looks at the opinions given on social media and sees that as legitimate film criticism clearly doesn’t understand the medium.  And yet, social media is carrying more weight in the critical world now than it really should be.

Much like in the realms of politics and sciences, it’s better to listen to people who actually sound like they know what they are talking about rather than just the random person talking nonsense on the internet.  I know that I am just another random person to some people, but I try my best to sound informed.  Not that you have to be a scholar in all things in order to be able to speak you mind online, but just know that when you opinion matters, you better not abuse that authority by spreading nonsense out there.  What I often recommend is that people should read up on all sorts of film criticism from multiple points of view in order to gain a different appreciation for the medium as a whole.  If there is a film you love, read what a negative review had to say and discern from it why you disagree.   Your defense may actually teach you something new you never realized about a movie.  I especially like looking at how a historical context informed the creation of a movie and how the reception of a film changes over time.  Looking at film criticisms from years ago is also interesting.  Some of the most interesting essays written about the subject of film culture have come from legendary film critics like Pauline Kael and Roger Ebert, and their writing often gives cultural perspective on a movie’s significance as well as judging it based on it’s quality.  Constructive film criticism even finds it’s way into film-making too .  Cahiers du Cinema, a French film journal, included contributions from critics like Jean Luc-Godard and Francois Truffaut, who were so driven by their opinions on cinema that they began to make movies themselves.  And the movies they tuned out were self reflexive and movie reference heavy such as Breathless (1960) and The Last Metro (1980), which helped to create what we now know as the French New Wave.  Other self-knowing cinematic films like Robert Altman’s The Player (1992) or the Coen Brother’s recent Hail Caesar (2016) also play with this idea of dissecting and critiquing the art of film within the medium itself and it shows the positive effect that criticism can have on movies as an art-form overall.

But, criticism can be a movie’s worst nightmare and that’s why there’s the often tumultuous relationship that Hollywood has with it.  Film criticism is a powerful tool in the industry, and it’s one that they fear when it turns against them.  Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert hit a cultural touchstone when they patented their thumbs up or down meter for grading a movie.  The thumbs rating proved to be so effective that it became a part of the culture.  Soon, it became common to see a movie promote in their advertisements that they received “two thumbs up.”  Though not uncommon in Hollywood’s past, this use of critical praise within a movie’s promotion became much more prevalent, especially with the rise of home entertainment, where critical reviews became just as common on the box art.  At the same time, Hollywood tried other ways to work this to their advantage.  Siskel and Ebert were too independent in their profession, and their votes were hard to sway, but there were many other attempts to coax better critical reception for a movie made within the industry.  Sometimes this would include highlighting the most obscure critic out there just because they were the lone positive voice in a sea of negativity, or sometimes a critical statement would be taken out of context and re-purposed to make it sound like a positive review.   And then there was the scandal of David Manning, a film critic completely fabricated by a major studio just for the purpose of positive reviews, and was later exposed as fraudulent.  All of this shows us why an informed and independent critical forum matters in our society, because without it, an audience can be easily manipulated into believing the wrong thing.

That is why I believe it to be dangerously self-serving on Sony’s part to be dismissive of the critical reaction to their Ghostbusters remake.  Yes there are some idiots complaining about gender on social media, but there are just as many if not more genuine arguments to be made about the movie as well.  Now there’s nothing that can be done to stop the movie now; it’s in the can and ready to premiere, and at after that point all the complaints beforehand will be moot when we finally see what the end result will be, good or bad.  But, what I believe is that things aren’t looking good for your movie when you choose to brush away complaints by labeling them all as a misogynist conspiracy against your film.  Marginalizing a critical community and making them feel afraid to give a honest opinion for fear of being labeled sexist is a bad precedent to make.  My hope is that the critical community doesn’t lose focus and judges the movie fairly, but given the threat they face, I don’t know if the final verdicts given to the Ghostbusters remake will be as genuine as they should be.  If the studio succeeded at deflecting criticism with this as it’s tactic, it would be a disgustingly petty way to do it and a clear violation of the critical community’s freedom of speech.  Film critics need their independence to tackle a film without interference, and it would be a disservice to the medium as a whole to paint all of them into such a bad company as misogynists, even if a small minority of them are.  I value film criticism as a valuable tool in the appreciation of film art as a whole and anything that would taint that as a means to avoid negative press would be a terrible mistake to make.  Film critics can be wrong, they can even go too far sometimes, but they should also never be afraid to say whether or not they loved or hated, hated, hated a movie.

One thing that you can always use to describe a summer movies is big.  Big action, big names, big effects; all that.  But, what most audiences tend to ignore as they watch a movie in the theater is the big cost attached to making a big movie.  Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing for most film companies.  It works to a films advantage sometimes when no one is taking notice of a movie’s budget, because sometimes filmmakers don’t want the public to know.  It’s not that they want to hide something shady in a films budget; it’s just that depending on the movie that’s being made, it’s better for the film to not look like it was over-budgeted for the necessities of their story.  There’s a stigma in the film industry related to movies that are too expensive, and it’s a kind of bad press that filmmakers would like to avoid.  It’s a kind of bad press that may not affect an audiences perception, but it does affect one’s standing in the industry.  But, this is a worry that is becoming increasingly prevalent in Hollywood as the nature of the business is changing.  Cinemas are now having to compete with streaming services and alternate forms of entertainment and that has caused many film studios to up their game by taking bigger gambles.  Some gambles pay off, but many others don’t, and those failures tend to overwhelm the rest because they generate negative press, which industry journalists love to report on and dissect.  Even still, investing in large scale film-making has it’s rewards alongside it’s faults, but few if any people in charge of investing in film view that as worth the risk.  The only thing that actually keeps the industry going at all is when expectations are exceeded, and that’s a result that only comes about through chance.

The very fact is that film-making is an expensive art-form.  Even a modest budget film today sports a eight digit figure price tag, and that’s seen as responsible.  But anyone who doesn’t work outside of Hollywood doesn’t see how movies can become so expensive.  Paying the salaries of the cast and crew takes up a significant amount, even when those salaries can sometimes be obscene based on the talent involved, but the vast majority of a film’s budget goes into the visual development and physical construction of a movie.  When a film calls for extravagance, it will be costly.  Now, if the studio believes in the project well enough, they will approve of the budget, believing that it’s worth the risk because they have faith in their audience.  But, a lot of factors can also cloud the judgement of the filmmakers and it ends up leading to movies that don’t match their expectations, becoming instead money traps that are out of their control.  Things like unforeseen accidents, clashing egos, and even the very fact that some filmmakers are out of touch with what their audience wants can all lead to films that fail and underwhelm at the box office, and it’s only then when the bad press about an out-of-control production begins to take hold.  That’s why so many film companies fall back on the safe and predictable; because they are more reliant.  However, for the film industry to survive, it cannot solely survive on small pieces; it needs to take risks in order to stay ahead in the game.  Unfortunately for them, risks are not an easy sell when you’re in the need for more money.

Perhaps the thing that causes the industry to take pause more often than not is when they see one of their own suffer a loss even in the face of overwhelming success.  Disney, for instance, just recently announced their quarterly earnings for the first quarter of the year, and they shocked the industry by declaring less than expected profits, even despite having a great start to 2016 season with successful movies like Zootopia and The Jungle Book, as well as the carry over box office of last year’s Star Wars: The Force Awakens.  Yet, that’s what happened; even Star Wars couldn’t stop Disney from losing money.  Now, of course the blame for this can’t be solely put on the film division alone.  Disney is a wide-spread multi-national corporation with their hands in all kinds of different industries; not just film.  What other media company do you know of that has their own cruise ship line?  Yet, when some part of the company begins to suffer, it drags the rest of the company down with it, and I’m sure that this is what will be happening to Disney in the short run.  They have already gutted their Interactive games division, and I’m sure their Motion Picture department will also see dramatic cuts.  At the same time, I don’t think that Disney will be stuck in the mire for long; I just hope this one bad quarter doesn’t lead them to doing something drastic.  In the long run, it has actually benefited Disney to take risks.   From Snow White to Pirates of the Caribbean, they have gambled and won many times over.  Even Disneyland looked like a foolish idea in it’s development, and now it’s the most visited theme park in the world.   But, at the same time, they are also the company behind Tron (1982), The Black Cauldron (1985), John Carter (2012), The Lone Ranger (2013), and Tomorrowland (2015); extravagant movies that even despite their quality all lost a huge amount of money for them.  In order to be the biggest media company in the world, you have to take big risks and in turn, your failures will look bigger as a result.

But, given their deep pockets and the strength of their brand, Disney will still prosper.  It doesn’t quite work out as well for smaller companies when they suffer a crushing box office failure.  There’s a long history in Hollywood of flash in the pan upstart companies that fell victim to their own success.  The independent market especially sees this a lot, when one company suddenly sees one gamble pay off big and then they squander their profits chasing after a chance to compete with the big studios.  This has been the case with companies like Orion Pictures, Miramax, and Revolution Studios.  You see a pattern with these companies where they start of big and then fade into obscurity or non existence; usually gobbled up by larger studios.  Golan/Globus’ own Cannon Pictures in fact still own the record for biggest money loser in Hollywood history with Cutthroat Island (1995), a costly gamble you can only find from a company working outside of the Hollywood system.  But, perhaps the biggest fall from grace ever witnessed in Hollywood would be the collapse of New Line Cinema.  New Line looked like it would be the first mini-major studio to climb to the next level in decades after huge, record-breaking success in the early 2000’s with the Austin Powers franchise as well as The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  But, some poor corporate choices, including not paying Peter Jackson his full share of the Rings profits which then led to a lawsuit, as well as costly gambles like The Golden Compass (2007) and New Line quickly fell into the red, eventually becoming swallowed up by Warner Brothers for a fraction of their initial worth only a few years prior.  It’s a sad reality when failure becomes more pronounced when you can less afford to tolerate them.  It takes a history of gambles paying off to let the occasional ones that don’t work go by unnoticed.  Sadly, independent companies remain in the position of having to suffer a loss in order for them to have any real shot.

But, why do so many films fall victim to bloated budgets.  Competition is the key factor.  When Hollywood smells money in the water, they chase after it feverishly, despite many of those same players being ill equipped to take on the challenge.  This is the case with many copycat films that arise after a breakout success.  But, for every Titanic (1997), there’s a Pearl Harbor (2001).  For every Gladiator (2000), there’s a Troy (2004); and so on.  The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005) was a rare copycat that succeeded in the wake of The Lord of the Rings, but it was a lucky one amid so many failures, and it too saw fleeting success in it’s follow-ups.  Suffice to say, just because one film achieved success doesn’t mean that it will translate across the board.  And yet, so many failures come out of this sometimes foolish attempt to make success repeat itself.  If there’s one thing that Hollywood has never been able to figure out is how to manage a fad.  Audiences tastes change rapidly, and what once looked like a sure bet a year ago will be old hat by the time the film is ready to be released.  The smart thing for Hollywood to do is to not look at one success and view that as the wave of the future.  There are few constants in Hollywood, one being adaptations of already established materials, hence why Comic Book movies have remained popular.  If Hollywood chooses to throw caution to the wind and try to capitalize too much on what’s popular now, then they run the risk of a short shelf life for their movies.  One risk that currently could prove troublesome for future films is the belief that R-rated content in a Superhero movie equals big money.  It may have worked for Deadpool, but that film was an exception.  What worked for it may not work for Superman, or Iron Man, or any other beloved superhero, and yet some naive studio exec will try to force the same formula into where it doesn’t belong and it will end up spoiling something good as a result.

Apart from competition, some films end up going over budget purely due to conflicting egos behind the scenes.  Sometimes it becomes too easy to point the finger at the director himself for letting a production get out of control, but it’s not always the case.  Sometimes it comes down to a lack of substance in the overall production, and the inability to recognize the problem early on.  There are some movies that you look at in retrospect and wonder why they went forward at all when they are flawed to their very core, and it’s usually because there were people involved who refused to pull the plug despite all the problems.  A movie like this usually starts out fine, but inadequate oversight by the producer or too many notes by the studio heads or a lack of control on the set by the director, and you’ve got a overblown mess that just hemorrhages money.  And where the egos compound the problem is when nobody wants to accept a share of the blame, preventing any of these problems from getting resolved.  A perfect example of this would be the comedy sequel Evan Almighty (2007).  The Jim Carrey comedic hit Bruce Almighty (2003), turned a profit and it was only natural for Universal Studios to want to explore sequel options.  Unfortunately, the premise was weak from the beginning (using Noah’s Ark as a reference point instead of the clever “power of God” premise of the original) and Jim Carrey refusing to return didn’t help as well.  The film eventually wrapped with a whopping $220 million price tag (the most ever for a comedy), and there was no way for it to possibly make up that budget, even if it matched the grosses of the original.  Egos got in the way of Wild Wild West (1999) as well.  We all know of producer Jon Peters’ obsession with giant spiders (thanks to Kevin Smith’s own insight after working with him), but why did it need to show up in a Western of all places costing untold millions in CGI effects.  It eventually tanked at the box office and became another in a long line of cautionary tales in Hollywood.  But, this was also a case where an ability to take some blame and cut losses early on could’ve saved some headaches down the road and instead, the egos of those involved just compounded the problem and turned what should’ve been simple films into monumental disasters.

A movie being too big for it’s own good can also be a factor in crating an unnecessary bloat of a film’s budget.  Now, Hollywood has benefited from showing off scale before.  Whether it be the sweeping vistas of a David Lean epic, or the majesty of James Cameron’s full-scale recreation of the Titanic, or the wonder of Peter Jackson’s visual extravagance in the special effects in The Lord of the Rings, going big has often paid off at the box office.  However, it also takes smart money management to make sure that these extravagances don’t overwhelm the rest of the budget, or at the very least get accounted for ahead of time.  It usually takes the most expert filmmakers to pull off extravagance without going over budget.  People like Steven Spielberg and Christopher Nolan have managed to deliver films that constantly put their budgets to work without worrying their studios, and the results speak for themselves.  As long as their projects are on time and on budget, then the studios that make them won’t balk at $150 million to make War of the Worlds (2005) or $190 million to make Inception (2010).  But, there are other cases where going big only led to unnecessary risks.  The floating atoll in Waterworld (1995) is a perfect example of throwing too much money behind a film that didn’t need it, because it was a costly set that was featured very briefly in a long movie, allowing the audience to see very little of the actual work put into it.  The same goes with the extravagant sets of Cleopatra (1963).  The money is there on screen, but are we engaged enough to even care.  If there is a risk to take, the filmmaker must ensure that it is worth every cent, and not every filmmaker has that ability.  Sometimes knowing the best way to use the money helps to keep the budget from going overboard.  Christopher Nolan has managed to do that by trying to capture as much as he can in camera before it’s handed over to visual effects.  Peter Jackson manages to do it by working almost entirely in house and shooting close to home in his native New Zealand.  Unfortunately, that’s a luxury that few other filmmakers are capable of having.

In the end, is it worth the risk of investing hundreds of millions of dollars into a movie.  In many ways, it’s very beneficial.  The higher budgeted a movie, the more likely it creates a lot of jobs for the crew and post production team.  A big budget is also beneficial for spurning innovation in the industry.  Would you believe that the single most expensive movie of the last decade wasn’t from Marvel, or Michael Bay, or from Christopher Nolan.  It was the movie Tangled (2010), an animated fairy tale from Disney which cost them $260 million to make.  The reason for that huge budget came from building the infrastructure needed to support it’s creation, like an updated and expanded animation facility, which has since been responsible for huge hits like Frozen (2013) and Zootopia (2016).  That’s an investment that paid off in the long run.  But, as we’ve seen, a failure to control an expanding budget causes some fractures that can’t be mended in the Hollywood system.  And this usually results from inexperience of people who are way in over their heads or from people who let their own egos get in the way.  When the fault falls on you for a failed, over-budget movie, it can even damage your future in the business.  The fall of filmmaker Michael Cimino after the failure of Heaven’s Gate (1980) is a perfect example.  The collapse of the visual effects industry also proved that cost overruns had long reaching consequences, as many of those studios shut their doors after pricing themselves too far.  In the long run, we do love it when Hollywood takes a risk and doesn’t rely too much on old tricks.  But, knowing the expense that each studio has to deal with every year with their entire slate of films, some of which they know ahead of time will fail, it does become understandable why some studios choose to be more careful with their money.

Cinema has never had a series of films that has touched the lives of so many people around the world as much as Star Wars has.  Since it’s premiere in the summer of 1977, George Lucas’ creation has gone on to become one of the most profitable and influential films in the last half century.  And it’s influence extends far beyond just the big screen.  With sequels, prequels, published extended universe novels as well as merchandise and product tie-ins, Star Wars has continued to remain relevant in our culture at large and will remain so for some time.  No other series has managed to cross the generations as well as it has, to the point where older audiences are now sharing their Star Wars memories with their grandchildren.  And it’s that broad appeal that has helped the series grow over the years and continue to find new stories to tell.  With the acquisition by Disney in 2012, Lucasfilm (the company behind the series) has promised to open the flood gates, not just continuing the beloved story that we all know, but expanding the broad scope of the universe to tell all kinds of new stories in the same setting.  This bold plan started off perfectly with the release of Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (2015), which is now the highest grossing film of all time domestically.  But, that was just the beginning.  Coming this December, we will be getting the first of the extended universe spin-offs in the form of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story.  The recently released teaser was universally praised (and rightly so), but it was also met with controversy, which unfortunately addressed an issue which shouldn’t be all that important in the first place; that being the gender of the main character.

The Rogue One teaser introduces us to Jyn Erso (played by Oscar nominee Felicity Jones from The Theory of Everything) a rebel spy who is recruited by the rebellion to help a band of rebel fighters steal the blueprint files for the Death Star away from the Imperial Forces of the evil Empire.  As we see in the trailer, Jyn is somewhat of an enigmatic figure who may or may not be the most trustworthy person for this task.  It’s an intriguing introduction for the character, and I for one am very interested in learning more about her and how she fits into the Star Wars universe.  And that’s a sentiment that’s shared by the vast majority of fans who are just excited to see more Star Wars anyway.  But, some people have foolishly complained online that Star Wars is making too many movies with female characters at it’s center, and that it’s a betrayal to the Star Wars franchise as they see it.  This is presumably in response to this movie coming on the heels of The Force Awakens, which also centered around the character Rey (played by Daisy Ridley), who’s also female.  The assumption that focusing on female protagonists is against what Star Wars is about is wrong on many levels.  For one thing, who says that Star Wars was only meant for boys?  There are just as many female Star Wars fans out there as male, and they’ve never once complained before about all the male heroes in the series.  Secondly, it doesn’t matter what gender the character is; it only matters what part they have to play in the narrative in this universe.  And thirdly, Star Wars hasn’t just suddenly awakened to the notion of gender equality in their narrative; it’s been a part of Star Wars from the very beginning and both The Force Awakens and Rogue One are continuations of that principle.  Jyn Erso and Rey aren’t just filling some gender mandate for the franchise; they are continuing the rich legacy set from the beginning by one Princess Leia.

Leia Organa of Alderaan holds a special place in the hearts of Star Wars fans, and it has more to do than with just her place in the story.  Leia was never your average damsel in distress, because not once in the story does she ever in distress.  She is fiesty, independent minded, resourceful, and above all else, a natural leader.  A lot of her personalty certainly derives from the equally independent minded actress playing her, Carrie Fisher, and her portrayal can’t be understated.  Up until the 1970’s, Science Fiction was not exactly a gender neutral genre in Hollywood.  For the most part, female characters were either potential victims of spaced-based monsters needing to be rescued by the hero, or the exotic object of desire that our hero aspires to claim for his own.  You can see a strongly minimized role for female characters in many B-movie Sci-Fi films of the 50’s, with many of them basically in there to scream as the giant monsters come their way.  And Science Fiction films that did center on a rebellious female character would usually turn them into the monster themselves like The Leech Woman (1960) or Attack of the 50ft. Woman (1958).  Basically, 50’s Sci-Fi reinforced outdated gender roles as opposed to breaking them and their rebellious 60’s counterparts didn’t help much either. 1968’s Barbarella did feature a female protagonist who was liberated, but mostly in a sexual sense, which merely just fetishised the sci-fi heroine in the end.  After all of these, Princess Leia was a huge step forward for the presence of a heroine in the Sci-Fi genre.  No longer would the girl be a bystander to the heroics of her male counterparts; she would stand out on her own and be the hero herself.

Of course, Star Wars (at least in the original trilogy) is Luke Skywalker’s heroic journey for the most part, but Leia carries a captivating arc of her own.  She’s a vital member of the rebellion against the empire, entrusted with delivering the secret plans for the Death Star to her base.  It is through her resourcefulness that the plans stay out of the hands of the villainous Darth Vader, who captures and imprisons her.  The remarkable thing about her character throughout the whole movie, which marked a big departure for female heroines in the overall genre to that point, is that not once does she feel helpless in the face of her predicament.  She’s defiant towards her enemy, even dissing her captor by saying “I recognized your foul stench when I was brought on board.”  Even being rescued gives her no pause, as she reacts sarcastically to her rescuer Luke by saying, “Aren’t you a little short for a stormtrooper?”  All this shows that she’s a woman who determines her own fate and is not waiting for her prince to sweep her off her feet.  And it’s not as if George Lucas set out to rewrite the books on how to create a compelling heroine in Science Fiction.  Leia is a product of her environment.  In a conflict between an Empire and a rebellion, a woman at it’s center would indeed be defiant and independent as well as resourceful, and that’s what makes her so appealing a character.  She plays a part in the story that only she can fill, and it’s far more complex than just filling a female quotient to the cast.  She’s on a mission just as much as Luke or Han Solo or any other male character.  So, by giving her that complex role, Lucas was able to change the Science Fiction heroine forever.

Leia would begin an era in science fiction that changed the role that female characters played in each story-line, though probably not by design.  Lucas merely made her equally important as her male counterparts because it was essential to the plot.  But, that simple act of elevating her purpose paved the way for Hollywood to accept more of a female presence in the genre.  The influence of Leia perhaps played a part in the casting of Sigourney Weaver in the role of Ripley in the classic Sci-Fi thriller Alien (1978).  Had Star Wars not been a success, I don’t believe Fox would have gone forward with Ridley Scott’s dark take on the genre, and had Leia not been such standout in the movie, I don’t think the studio would’ve comfortably gone with a heroine at the film’s center.  Amazingly, Ripley was originally written as a male character and it was only later that the decision was made to swap genders, with little to no change to the script.  That decision would propel the presence of female characters in the genre even further and through much of the 80’s, it became more frequent to see films with heroic women in big Hollywood productions, especially in the Sci-Fi and Fantasy genres.  James Cameron in particular made the heroic female character archetype a special trademark of his writing style, with Sarah Connor of the Terminator series being one of Science Fiction’s most iconic characters, as well as one of it’s toughest.  Princess Leia may not have much in common with these other heroines, but her influence can be felt in a lot of them.  Had Leia not been such a hit with fans, female characters in the Science Fiction genre would probably be very different today.

At the same time, Star Wars doesn’t flaunt the fact that it’s rewriting gender roles into the genre.  When George Lucas wrote the character, I don’t think he had it in his mind to make a statement about gender politics.  His upbringing probably gave him a more progressive view of the role of women in society in general and it’s that worldview that just ended up being reflected in his creation of Leia.  Leia Organa is not written to represent the idealized, women’s lib poster child; she is just who she is and that’s what makes her essential to the story.  I think it would be a mistake to say that Leia only exists because of some greater statement on gender roles in society.  Certainly the women’s liberation movement came into it’s own around the time of Star Wars premiere, but I don’t see it reflected in the characterization of Leia.  The reason she stood out was because the genre itself had been stuck in the past and George Lucas was merely writing his story with a mindset caught up to the present.  Leia was both timely and timeless, and that accounts for her enduring appeal.  She was modern in design, but still belonged within the world of the setting.  I think it would have spoiled the character for her to have been too much of a winking gesture to the gender politics of the day, because that would have dated her character and limited her legacy.  Such a “white knight” gesture to female audiences would have diminished the film’s appeal too because it would have come across as cynical and disingenuous.  It nevertheless is beneficial to the series to have had an up to date sense of women’s roles in society and by making that an underlying subtext in the story, it has helped to make Star Wars both influential and revolutionary to audiences of all genders.

That legacy continues in the series, though not without some minor missteps.  Though I don’t think it was intended to be such a big deal, the Leia “slave girl” outfit has become a contentious point of interest for both female and male fans.  In Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi (1983), Leia’s attempt to rescue Han Solo from the clutches of Jabba the Hutt results in her own capture, and she is forced to wear a revealing, gold-patted bikini outfit for Jabba’s pleasure.  For male fans, this turned Leia into a “sex idol” and many claim that this endeared her to them as their first big screen crush.  Meanwhile, female fans complained that this reduced Leia’s character to a sexual object and that it was a big step backward for the character.  There is merit to the last point, and it is sad to think that some only find Leia appealing because of this version of her.  But, at the same time, I don’t feel that the character was ruined by this either.  Story-wise, you can tell that Leia wears the costume under protest and her only satisfaction in the sequence is at the end is when she uses her own slave chain to choke the life out of Jabba.  Still, it’s unfortunate that a sensationalized aspect of the character’s overall story has turned into such a contentious point and that the progress made with regards to gender roles in the series was overwhelmed by the preoccupation over what Leia was wearing.  Honestly, it matters little how she dresses; she certainly was not any different a person in her slave outfit as she was with her bun-haired get-up in the first movie. But, doing this probably diminished the idea that gender roles were meant to be equal in this story-line, as the studio perhaps saw an opportunity to capitalize on a little sex appeal with their heroine.  This certainly didn’t help much in the prequel trilogy either, where Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) is diminished in the story to just being a love interest and mother of Luke and Leia, as opposed to a genuine force in the story overall.

That is why I am glad to see more focus on female protagonists in the Star Wars franchise today, because it feels like a nod to the overall legacy of Princess Leia in the series.  It’s especially great to see Carrie Fisher return to the character as well, showing that this renewed focus has the full blessing of the one who started it.  I especially like the fact that having strong central female characters in Star Wars only feels natural at this point and that the large majority of Star Wars fans accept that fact.  Anyone who complains that Star Wars has too many girls in it and has been taken over by a feminist agenda clearly doesn’t understand Star Wars at all.  This has always been a part of the the franchise from the very beginning, and it all comes from George Lucas’ own choice to not reduce his heroine to strict gender constraints and instead make her an active force in the story.  Princess Leia is rightly held up as one of Hollywood’s most iconic heroines, and she has achieved that status by never compromising who she is, even when put into compromising situations.  How can you not love a character who tells her potential love interest that he’s a “scruffy looking nerf-herder.”  The fact that she’s still a present in this series today, handing off the reins to the new generation while still being the face of the Rebellion, is a treat for every Star Wars fan.  I also can’t wait to see the future Jedi training that awaits Rey in Episode VIII, as well as learning what intriguing role Jyn Erso plays in this universe.  I like the fact that Disney and Lucasfilm are choosing to put strong characterizations to the forefront and that the genders of the characters are becoming more of an afterthought.  It’s a reason why Star Wars is as relevant today as it was nearly 40 years ago, because it stays relevant with the times and values that we live in.  The force is still strong with the ladies of Star Wars, and may it forever be so.

When we watch movies, we for the most part accept it all as good escapist fun.  If the story is strong enough, and the characters are likable, then the movie will stand on it’s own.  But, we also must know that behind every story is a storyteller, and they have real lives of their own that sometimes turn out to be more compelling than fiction.  While the Hollywood industry is built around entertainment in storytelling, it’s also built around the ability to sell and promote talent as well.  Publicity, marketing, and celebrity journalism is just as much a part of Hollywood as actual production, and in some cases, they tend to outweigh the other costs in the long run.  Hollywood is just as involved in creating a positive fiction about itself than any of the films it produces.  For the most part, it’s not hard to see why.  When you are spending so much money making a movie, you want to create enough goodwill with the audiences to see a return on your investments, and that involves making sure that no bad press circles around your projects.  Most of the time, a film company can spin a good outlook on a troubled production, but one thing they have less control over is the behavior of the players involved, which can sometimes derail a project at the worst possible moment.  We tend to forget that some of the people in film-making are only human in the end, and like all humans they carry their own behavioral baggage.  The most professional of talent in Hollywood is usually able to separate work from real life, but there are others who have so much baggage, that it tends to overshadow the good work they do and as a result, it casts a bad light on everything else.

Hollywood has always had a longstanding battle against scandal and negative press.  Like many other high profile professions, Hollywood is held to a higher standards than normal.  Actors and filmmakers are considered role models to many in society and because of that, moral standards affect them more than usual.  Only politicians who work in government face as much scrutiny as celebrities do, but unfortunately for Hollywood, the press in their industry is far more intrusive and is less concerned with the consequences of invading the privacy of their subjects than their Beltway counterparts.  The sad thing is that the public feeds this animal more.  We concern ourselves far more with what’s going on in Tinseltown than we do with any other part of the world, and for the most part, it’s a whole lot of nothing.  But, sometimes the higher standards we hold celebrities to also exposes bad behavior that shouldn’t be tolerated at all and it causes us to question whether or not the person responsible is still worthy of our goodwill in the end.  For some, evidence points to the fact that there are some celebrities that are very bad people despite being very talented in front or behind the camera.  Usually it’s from a pattern of terrible acts or just committing an inexcusable crime in general, and despite the person’s attempts to undo their past deeds, it sadly casts a dark pallor over everything else that they do.  This also tends to be compounded by media that feeds on bad press.  In Hollywood, there is an unfortunate confluence between the work that people do and the way they live, and this often takes it’s toll on the art of film-making, because despite what a person does in the public eye, they still are capable of creating great art as part of their job.  So the question is raised, can an artist’s bad behavior really condemn the work that they do forever, or is it possible to separate the two?

What is interesting about the way we react to a celebrity’s bad behavior is that it tends to be a different reaction for different people.  Take for instance, some of the more recent celebrity controversies that have erupted in recent years.  A perfect example would be the string of incidents surrounding actor/director Mel Gibson.  When he self-financed his religious passion project The Passion of the Christ (2004), claims of antisemitism arose based on the reading of the shooting script used for the film, which the A-list star was able to escape partially due to his goodwill with audiences that he built up for years; and the movie became an overwhelming success.  Cut ahead a couple years and those rumors of Antisemitism became less rumored and more fact due to a drunken rant that the actor went on during an arrest for drunk driving (the infamous “Sugar Tits” incident).  He apologized, but the shiny veneer of his celebrity status was forever tarnished, because his bigoted statements were now publicly known.  Still, he hoped to revitalize his image through better roles and with the help of his close industry friends, but those efforts were again undone by his messy divorce and disastrous relationship with a new woman who also exposed more inflammatory statements in recorded tapes of their private conversations.  Of course there’s absolutely no doubt that Mel is responsible for his own downfall, but is everything he has done capable of making him un-hire-able in Hollywood today?  For some people, that’s absolutely the case, and if they are repulsed by Mr. Gibson’s behavior, it’s within their right to reject him.  But, what about the close friends that still stand by him?  Are they in the wrong, or do they simply want to allow the talent that still exists within him to flourish and possibly give him a chance to redeem himself?  That’s ultimately the question we ask ourselves as an audience when we judge the movies and the man separately.

Gibson’s case is interesting because while what he has done is clearly wrong and bigoted, he at the same time has not broken any laws.  His only crime is acting like a narrow-minded jackass, something that he might even fess up to on his own.  But, is that something that makes everything he has done before and since toxic?  It asks us to consider if a piece of art is forever tied to the individual that made it.  That can all depend on the audience member who carries their own prejudices with them depending on how they view the individual.  I for one try to take perspective into account, and while I can’t excuse Mel Gibson for what he’s done, I’m still able to divorce his behavior from his work, because despite it all, he still makes great films.  Braveheart(1995) is still a favorite of mine and I believe he still deserves those Oscars.  The Passion is more of a mixed bag, but his follow-up Apocalypto (2006) is an astounding and underrated piece of film-making that does deserve a second look.  Also, bad behavior aside, I feel that he’s still capable of great things and I am eager to see what he’s capable of doing next.  In Hollywood, there sometimes comes a point where the industry is able to put a person’s past behind them, as has been the case with amazing career turnarounds like Robert Downey Jr.’s (who coincidentally is one of Mel’s longest friends) so there may come a day when that will happen to him too.  I think it’s been his string of bad choices that have compounded his situation, so it’s up to him to make the move towards redemption.  Certainly making good use of his talent will help, but we’ll need to see more of a public commitment out of him for it to seriously stick within the eyes of the audience.

More of a problem arises when a celebrity gets involved in an actual crime, and it’s in these cases where the opinion of the public matters in how well a person is able to recover, depending on the severity of the crime.  Sometimes the audience will show sympathy and allow the person to recover their status, like the aforementioned Robert Downey Jr. (drug possession), or to another extant Winona Ryder (shoplifting), both who committed punishable but not unforgivable crimes.  The harsher reactions tend to follow after more severe crimes, such as sexual or physical abuse perpetrated by the person.  In some of these cases, there seems to be different degrees that we’ll tolerate a persons personal life in opposition to how we’ll view their work on film.  Directors Woody Allen and Roman Polanski have both run up against this dilemma, with histories of sexual crimes coming to light in the press.  In Woody’s case they’ve been limited to accusations of child molestation (though not formally charged), but in Polanski’s case he has been convicted with the crime of statutory rape and in response, he’s fled the country and lived in exile in order to avoid jail time.  Despite how guilty both men may be, they continue to make movies to this day, and many of them are still quite good.  Polanski in fact won an Oscar for directing The Pianist (2002), but because of his self-imposed exile, he’s unable to claim it.  This presents the awkward dilemma of whether or not honoring a movie is right if the person who made it has done something incredibly unlawful.  For both Allen and Polanski, they’ve managed to stay relevant even despite the tarnish to their public image.  But, make no mistake, if the evidence proves misconduct on their part, their celebrity status should never shield them from facing punishment for the crimes they’ve committed.  And in the end, even if celebrity status does help them out of a jam, a lifetime of misdeeds will still ruin a person’s reputation for eternity, as we’re seeing unfold right now in the case of Bill Cosby.

With regards to whether or not we should honor a person’s film despite their misdeeds, the answer should always be yes.  And that’s because film-making is a collaborative art.  The director has the most influence, of course, but there are hundreds of people who have a hand in the making of a movie, and dismissing a movie just because of something bad that one person involved had done outside of work would be doing a disservice to everyone else.  Some people were wondering whether the accusations against Woody Allen would hurt actress Cate Blanchett’s chances of winning an Oscar that year for appearing in Allen’s film Blue Jasmine (2013).  It didn’t, she still won and she thanked him personally in her acceptance speech, even despite the controversy.  I believe that it’s that belief that a film is more than just the vision of it’s director and instead a collaboration of many talented efforts that enables us to accept art on it’s own merits.  Film history is full of examples where influential art often comes with less than ideal baggage attached to them.  D.W. Griffith’s The Birth of a Nation wrote the language of modern cinema that we still adhere to today, but we also have to live with the fact that the same movie was a piece of racist propaganda that made the Ku Klux Klan look heroic.  The works of Sergei Eisenstein and Leni Reifenstahl also represent great artistic advances in film-making, but their films were also in the service of promoting horribly brutal dictatorships at the same time.  Even the many wartime propaganda films that were sometimes made by some of our greatest filmmakers (John Ford, George Stevens, and John Huston for example) often come across as xenophobic in attitude when taken out of context of their period.  Attitudes change over time, but celluloid remains constant, and not every artistic expression ages well.  Still, we have the ability to discern the craft from the intent, as well the cloud around their creators, and be able to respect the creation while not wholeheartedly embracing everything about it.

The worst thing that we can do is to standardize morality around art in order to prevent a shadow of controversy from surrounding it.  Sometimes controversy can be a good thing for a work of art, as long as it generates discussion.  Sadly, many can’t accept anything that challenges their world views and that leads to acts of censorship.  This has always been a struggle for Hollywood, and for the most part they’ve managed to keep outside influences from imposing their morality upon them.  Still, a self-policed standard in Hollywood has led to unfortunate overreaches by the industry, including the restrictive Hays Code that they were pressured to adopt by religious organizations, or the even more intrusive Blacklist that was created in response to the House on Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) led by Senator Joseph McCarthy.  The Blacklist was especially destructive because it put good people out of work simply for their political beliefs, or their refusal to cooperate with the committee.  This is a case where a standardized code in place to avoid controversy only creates a worst atmosphere for the industry.  Hollywood believed they were doing the right thing for itself by avoiding the cloud of controversy, but with such an unfair overreaction that put a lot of people out of work, Hollywood only made themselves look weak and untrustworthy as a result.  And the unfair standards that they’ve place on themselves wasn’t just limited to political controversies.  Actress Ingrid Bergman was forced into exile for many years because of the revelation of her adulterous affair with director Roberto Roselinni, which kept the Hollywood icon out of the limelight for many years.  Again, no one would ever have judged a person’s work in film any different had Hollywood not brought attention to it with such reactionary aversion to anything controversial.  As time goes on, we can see that tabloid scandal has a much shorter shelf-life than the work of a true artist and that censorship is not a practice that helps to secure a good audience reaction over time.

Despite the tight controls that the industry puts on it’s talent, it’s ultimately up to the audience to decide if the final product is worthy of attention or not.  Certainly, it’s hard to ignore the real life drama of an entertainer’s exploits outside of work, especially when the Hollywood press makes such a big deal out of it.  But, at the same time, a movie should be able to stand on it’s own; by it’s own merits even if it includes the involvement of some very unsavory people.  There is still value in a well told story crafted with bold artistic choices.  Despite what I think about people like Mel Gibson, Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, and other controversial figures, I am still interested in watching their films, because they are still capable of putting effort into their art.  The ones that I actually hold more disdain for me in the industry are people who have just gotten lazy and put little effort into their work, instead just coasting by on their fame.  And that seems to be what really makes someone undesirable in Hollywood; being unlikable to the point where no one wants to work for them.  Gibson, Allen, and Polanski may have done bad things in their life, but they are at least professionals when they’re on the set and that’s why people still want to work with them.  If you’re a bully on set who demands too much, as has been rumored with filmmakers like David O. Russell and Jason Reitman, or are a self-absorbed narcissist such as been reported with actors like Shia LaBeouf and Kathrine Heigl, then you begin to see a pattern where the person gets fewer options given to them.  Even though it’s always hard to appear to be a good person, especially in the oppressive limelight of Hollywood, a commitment to making good art does go a long way and in the end, art can overcome the dark shadow cast by it’s creator by just being intriguing, thought-provoking, and overall entertaining in the end.  And in turn, a person may find redemption through the good work that they do.