I still don't get it, although if you do, I'm optimistic that you'll be able to put it into words I understand. I'm familiar with intent as a factor in, say, art, but I don't think I've ever drawn the distinction with entertainment. If it was produced entirely by the random action of the wind, if people pay to see it, I'm not sure "not entertainment" is a useful distinction.
Further, I think that if you made a commercial film, you are inherently trying to be entertaining at least a bit, because (a) at a minimum, you need someone to produce it and (b) most people (I guess) even if they're doing something else, would LIKE people to appreciate it. Even if the primary purpose is something else, if you're trying to be entertaining too, I'd think that was entertainment.
But my core objections are (a) I find it really hard to believe he was NOT trying to produce an enjoyable film -- that ought in principle to be settled by evidence (b) many of the best stories are produced by someone essentially for their own enjoyment. People normally think that being non-populist gives a work a stamp of literary authenticity :) It seems bizarre to suddenly criticise an immensely popular film for not trying to be popular.
How about if we rephrase. Is it "an entertainment"?
And he's not criticising it for not trying to be be popular. He praises Lucas for getting his vision out there and doing what he wants. He's just pointing out that at least some of the flaws in it can be seen as the result of a creator whose prime focus is world-building/mythology-building, not entertainment.
*shrug* Maybe. I'm not sure the word makes a difference.
I think I sort of see, but still not really. The set-up of the first film is pure fairly-tale: the evil emperor, the good princess, the good-hearted farmboy, etc, etc. I assume this is what people mean by creating a mythology: creating a story which lives on outside of the medium that created it.
But it seems entertaining BECAUSE of that, not despite it.
It's possible that Lucas really enjoyed episodes I-III. (I thought they were good fun, if not very outstanding.) But I didn't think they were boring because they tried to tell the story of how Vader came to be: I thought they were boring because they didn't do it very well.
The point here being that they did a good job of doing _what Lucas wanted_ - which was to tell the story of how it happened. He had no interest in any of the other stuff (like good dialogue), because that wasn't what he wanted out of them.
And yes, the first ones were entertaining, but nobody is disputing that.
Well, Scalzi agreed they were entertaining, but seemed to think that it was mostly by accident?
they did a good job of doing _what Lucas wanted_ - which was to tell the story of how it happened.
It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Rand had a fairly good idea of the story she wanted to tell, and the morals she wanted it to have. And she had a good tone for some of it, but much of it was lamentably turgid.
It seems reasonable that Lucas was more attached to the story, and for whatever reason didn't make the film tell it in an entertaining way. But he obviously tried at least a bit -- there's much in the films that are obviously supposed to be enjoyed by viewers and don't have anything to do with the plot. It seems up in the air whether he didn't care and put in a token effort, or tried and failed, or tried, but without the drive of a young and still-to-be-proven director didn't try hard enough, etc.
But I still think "not entertainment" is a ridiculous measure to describe it. Most authors love things about their books more than "are they popular", and many make them enjoyable anyway, and some don't, and no-one says they're not entertainment.
Scalzi is clearly talking about the principle purpose of the work. The principle purpose of, say, Toy Story 3, is to be entertainment. It does a fantastic job of this, and includes morals, good dialogue, wit, humour, etc. to that end. However, it could have been good entertainment without the morals, if they'd decided that putting the morals in was contrary to their purpose (entertain the audience).
Star Wars is myth building. It happens, sometimes, to be entertaining too, but that's not its purpose. When it's at its most entertaining (Empire), it's because other people have been handed the myth framework and been given enough leeway to make it entertaining. But its primary purpose is not to be an entertainment, and if that got in the way of the myth-making, the myth-making won.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Further, I think that if you made a commercial film, you are inherently trying to be entertaining at least a bit, because (a) at a minimum, you need someone to produce it and (b) most people (I guess) even if they're doing something else, would LIKE people to appreciate it. Even if the primary purpose is something else, if you're trying to be entertaining too, I'd think that was entertainment.
But my core objections are (a) I find it really hard to believe he was NOT trying to produce an enjoyable film -- that ought in principle to be settled by evidence (b) many of the best stories are produced by someone essentially for their own enjoyment. People normally think that being non-populist gives a work a stamp of literary authenticity :) It seems bizarre to suddenly criticise an immensely popular film for not trying to be popular.
no subject
And he's not criticising it for not trying to be be popular. He praises Lucas for getting his vision out there and doing what he wants. He's just pointing out that at least some of the flaws in it can be seen as the result of a creator whose prime focus is world-building/mythology-building, not entertainment.
no subject
I think I sort of see, but still not really. The set-up of the first film is pure fairly-tale: the evil emperor, the good princess, the good-hearted farmboy, etc, etc. I assume this is what people mean by creating a mythology: creating a story which lives on outside of the medium that created it.
But it seems entertaining BECAUSE of that, not despite it.
It's possible that Lucas really enjoyed episodes I-III. (I thought they were good fun, if not very outstanding.) But I didn't think they were boring because they tried to tell the story of how Vader came to be: I thought they were boring because they didn't do it very well.
no subject
And yes, the first ones were entertaining, but nobody is disputing that.
no subject
Well, Scalzi agreed they were entertaining, but seemed to think that it was mostly by accident?
they did a good job of doing _what Lucas wanted_ - which was to tell the story of how it happened.
It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Rand had a fairly good idea of the story she wanted to tell, and the morals she wanted it to have. And she had a good tone for some of it, but much of it was lamentably turgid.
It seems reasonable that Lucas was more attached to the story, and for whatever reason didn't make the film tell it in an entertaining way. But he obviously tried at least a bit -- there's much in the films that are obviously supposed to be enjoyed by viewers and don't have anything to do with the plot. It seems up in the air whether he didn't care and put in a token effort, or tried and failed, or tried, but without the drive of a young and still-to-be-proven director didn't try hard enough, etc.
But I still think "not entertainment" is a ridiculous measure to describe it. Most authors love things about their books more than "are they popular", and many make them enjoyable anyway, and some don't, and no-one says they're not entertainment.
no subject
Star Wars is myth building. It happens, sometimes, to be entertaining too, but that's not its purpose. When it's at its most entertaining (Empire), it's because other people have been handed the myth framework and been given enough leeway to make it entertaining. But its primary purpose is not to be an entertainment, and if that got in the way of the myth-making, the myth-making won.