3. Gripping Combat
Whether its hand to hand or A-wing to Star Destroyer bridge, there are a few things which decide whether physical conflict may be more than mere spectacle. Of course, that isnt to say that spectacle is a bad place to start, but that it has far more to offer than merely dazzling the eye. A fighting style can tell us about a character, for instance. The Sith fight to kill in the least risky and most efficient way possible, using ranged electrical attacks, manipulating heavy objects to crush or stun or intimidate, and mixing up their sabre attacks with chokes and pushes. Its not particularly sporting, and contrasts with the importance the Jedi place upon honour and elegance in combat, resorting to cruder methods only when necessary. The theme of ruthlessness backed up by vast power, versus courage and elegance, is extended to the various ships and vehicles. The opening scene of Star Wars, for instance, featuring the Tantive IV being pursued by a Star Destroyer at least ten times its size, is a beautiful symbol of the entire conflict between The Rebellion and The Empirein fact, the very nature of the star wars. Like any other element of cinematic drama, however, combats capacity to become more than simply amusement or diversion is governed by how well the stakes of its outcome are conveyed; how much we care about them. The best two fights in The Saga are The Battle of Yavin, in which the first Death Star is destroyed, and Luke Vs Vader I, in The Empire Strikes Back. In the first instance, the entire journey weve been on, watching the seven central characters unite to face off against The Empire, culminates in a do or die battle. Its only because of the sympathy the characters have generated that watching some plastic models fly around on mechanical rigs reaches such nerve-racking intensity; that R2s damage makes our eyes widen with concern; that Han Solos timely return makes us whoop for joy; and Lukes faith in The Force makes us ride those proton torpedos all the way home. To take the second example, when Luke faces off against Vader both characters are extremely conflicted. Luke has committed to a virtual suicide mission, against Yoda and Obi-Wans advice, in order to save his friends, and Vader is faced with the difficult prospect of either convincing Luke to join him in order to defeat the Emperor, killing him, or being killed. How a battle between a lumbering giant and a skinny boy with cardboard sets and matte paintings outstripped all of the fights between fully fit and able Jedi and CGI aliens and droids in Trilogy II is a lesson in context. It doesnt matter
what is happening nearly as much as it matters
why it's happening. Get the why right, and the rest will follow. Trilogy II did
not get the why right, though, rendering its combat either dull or inexplicable. Watching Jedi gracefully slice their way through battle droids makes
logical sense, but soon becomes tedious. On the other hand, Darth Maul caught napping as Obi Wan somersaults over his head and chops him in half makes a mockery of Sith aggression and power. Other things: Given their talent for reflexively deflecting thousands of blaster beams (often directly at targets), how can Jango Fett simply
shoot a Jedi to death? Why dont Anakin and Obi Wan use The Force to simply
crush the animals on Geonosis, or
throw them into the crowd? If Jedi cant fight Droidekas due to their shields, why not use Droidekas to wipe out the Jedi? Why an army of
clones? You can practically see the monofilament in Trilogy Is combat, but its tight, passionate, and it makes sense. Combat without context, and attention to what needs to be expressed through it, is a fireworks show. Unless youre five years old, or plastered at midnight, nothing to get excited about.