Barnes and Barnes ... And Bill

 
Bill Paxton in the criminally under-valued Frailty.  His only directorial feature.
                In a previous regeneration, I used to teach Film Studies.  Stop snickering at the back.
                Among the many other edifying and life-enhancing lessons I bestowed upon my congregation, was one about ‘Experimental Film’.  It was just a single session, so I couldn’t get too deeply embedded in Kenneth Anger or Andy Warhol, Stan Brakhage or Man Ray.
                I tried to restrict myself to films that would be ‘fun’.  Learning needn’t be painful, after all.  Please bear in mind; this was the world before the global dominance of YouTube.  You can find most anything on there now, not so ten years ago.  Indeed, because of copyright concerns, there was one year when YouTube was blocked at my college.  So, some of these shorts were being played by me off VHS copies I’d recorded off-air, usually in the early hours, back in the 80s and 90s.
                We’re talking deep cuts, here.
                And, year after year, the experimental short that went down best, was an odd thing I snagged off MTV.  It was by a couple of performance artists called Barnes and Barnes and, at that time, I knew no more about it than that.
                I continued to know no more about it until this article appeared on the wonderful No Filmschool site last week.
                It’s a memoriam to Bill Paxton.  And what fascinated me was, not the baleful ‘game over, man’ tone that informed most of the copy following his shockingly untimely death.  That’s in there, but only after they’ve looked at some of his less-obvious work.  Including his video for Barnes and Barnes.
                Wow.  Mind = blown, as I believe the young people say.
                So, I started digging.
                Turns out that Barnes and Barnes were musician Robert Halmer and actor/musician, Bill Mumy.  What’s that?  The guy out of Lost in Space (1965 - ’68) and Babylon 5 (1994 - ’98)?  That’s the chap.
                Here he is talking about how the video came about.


                Fish Heads was directed by and ‘stars’ (in the loosest sense) Bill Paxton.  Some four years before he taunted a Terminator; seven years before he was assaulted by Aliens; a full ten years before his punch-up with the Predator.
                If you want to find out what a great director Paxton was (and what a subtle, nuanced performance he was capable of) then chase down his film Frailty (2001).  Watching it, one realises that he had so much more to give and, like Clint Eastwood, could very well have had a great late career behind the camera.  We’ll never know.
                But, for now, watch this.  It’s meant to be nonsense.  It’s meant to be fun.  Experiments needn’t be painful.

... And Billy.

Turns out, there's more. 

In 1974, when he was 19 years old, Paxton was involved in an art-house homo-erotic conspiracy kidnap movie.  Shot in Wales!  Of course he was.

The plot was largely improvised and, ultimately, the film wasn't finished.  Then, years later, it was re-cut and re-written by someone else, who was stoned, and who mixed in elements of the writings of William Burroughs.  Well, why wouldn't you?

But it all goes to show that Paxton was open-minded about his craft and his creativity, and wasn't scared to explore.

The story of the film's creation is recounted here, at Dangerous Minds.   And you can watch the full movie here:




CHILDREN OF X-MEN





                This is the end.  The end of an era.
                 When Bryan Singer’s X-Men came out in 2000, it was the first expression of Marvel’s upcoming domination of the box office.  Superhero films were, up to that point, so thin on the ground that they hardly constituted a genre.  Yes, Men in Black (1997) and Blade (1998) were based on comics, but they weren’t superheroes, they were science fiction and horror respectively. Whilst far from perfect, X-Men was shamelessly superheroic and, at least for this old Marvelite, an important part of its appeal was the casting of unknown singer Hugh Jackman as Wolverine.  He just got it.  Comic-book Logan is squat and Canadian, Jackman is six-foot and Australian, but that didn’t matter, he had the attitude and the first time those claws went snikt, I was hooked.

                Well, 17 years later, Wolverine has snikt for the last time.

                He needn’t have bothered.  

Old Man Logan.  You can pass on these future days.
                His cameo in X-Men Apocalypse (2016) closed the circle on the character, preceding (albeit by some distance) the cage-fighting scene which introduced him in the first film.  That would have left the fans satisfied, yet wanting more.  Logan left this fan regretting getting more.
                Okay, the disappointment set in early when it became clear that they couldn’t actually make a direct adaptation of Mark Millar’s comic book Old Man Logan (2008) because, as usual, Marvel and Fox were bickering about rights.  The lawyers won’t let Wolverine appear in the same film as Hulk and Hawkeye, who were major players in OML.  I understand that, but it would not be beyond the wit of man to adapt the story with the assets they do have.
                That said, they still can't summon the gumption to give screen credit to Len Wein, John Romita and Herb Trimpe, who created the character of Wolverine ... But that's another story. 
                The original OML was set in an America that has been divvied-up between super-villains.  In the film version, the only authority seems to be the private army of Alkali Transigen, the loosely-sketched-in corporation (which takes its name, in part, from the military installation where Wolverine was created).
                Logan really is an old man (knocking on 200 years, if you recall the opening of the first solo Wolverine film) and, in this story, he starts out weary, with a limp, infected wounds on his knuckles that no longer heal properly, an alcohol problem and, the ultimate indignity, a part-time job: the Übermensch has become an Uber driver. 
                These early scenes give us a few firsts: it’s the first time Wolverine is allowed a proper 15 certificate potty mouth and it’s the first time we really see his ‘berserker rage’, when his violence becomes unrestrained and prisoners are not taken.  We also get to see Jackman doing the best, deepest, most emotionally exhausting acting of his career.  Unfortunately, we don’t get to see any of the humour that he usually brings to the role.  Boy, does this film need humour.

Proper grown-up 'berserker rage' violence.  This fella had the death sentence on twelve systems.
                It starts bleak and proceeds through bleaker, with just the occasional pit stop at grim and hopeless, before arriving at bleakest-of-all.  The central performances of Logan and Xavier (played once again by Patrick Stewart, on positively Beckettian form, here) are key to the viewer’s involvement with the film, and here they are both weak, embittered and cynical.  It doesn’t work when they are both like that, there needs to be some light and shade.  The little girl, Laura, is added to the mix and, whilst the performance of 12-year-old Daphne Keen is excellent, she isn’t given much to do, save scowl a lot.
                Even Stephen Merchant’s Caliban, who essentially serves as mother in their twisted little family, doesn’t get the chance to be the comedy relief one would expect.  His character is just as worn-down and haunted by events (which we haven't seen) as the others.  Yes, this really is a laugh riot this one.

Bruce Spence wasn't available to revisit his Gyro Captain persona, so Stephen Merchant stepped in.
                Richard E Grant returns to the world of English-character-actor-playing-villain-in-Hollywood-movie and, to his credit, gives a relatively calm performance (I still haven’t forgotten his eye-rolling, foaming, scenery chewing in Hudson Hawk in 1991).  The problem is that his role is one of the many things in the film which are sketched or hinted at, but not fully explained.  His authority seems to be all-encompassing and, in his one dialogue scene with Logan, it seems that he’s the son of someone that Wolverine killed - but that isn’t his motivation for pursuing Logan.  So why mention it? 
                I felt that all of these back-stories were more interesting than the on-screen story.  Apparently no new mutants have been born for 25 years (which put me in mind of 2006’s vastly-superior Children of Men).  Furthermore, Xavier’s developed a mental illness which led him to commit some hinted-at heinous act, which resulted in a lot of mutant and human deaths, hence why he and Wolverine are on the run.  I wanted to know why there have been no new births.  I wanted to see the end of Westchester school and the fall of the mutants.  Either of those stories would have been more energising than this story.
                There are also plenty of lost opportunities here.  There are suggestions that Professor X is the really dangerous one - Grant refers to “a degenerative brain disease in the world’s most dangerous brain”, but this isn’t fully developed.  The brief moments where Logan and Laura fight side-by-side are electrifying, and immediately put me in mind of Lone Wolf and Cub (not to mention Big Daddy and Hit Girl), but the fight scenes are messy and poorly-resolved.  They’re like real fights, in that sense, but I don’t watch superhero movies to see the real world, I watch 'em to bask in the possibility of a world where problems are easily resolved and heroes actually exist.  There is an elegant, epic aesthetic to superhero comics, and the best films based on them.  This film lacks that.

Oh, she's as cute as a button.  And she's got her father's knives.
                With one or two exceptions, every plot development is telegraphed well in advance.  Logan has an adamantium bullet, which is the only kind that will definitely kill him.  One might call it Chekhov’s Bullet.  He has a persistent cough.  Well, we all know what that means in a movie.
                Something else that annoyed me is the (oh so common) problem that anyone who crosses the path of our protagonists inevitably get killed.  Guilty and innocent alike.  Have we learned nothing from Joss Whedon?  But then, I suppose, any film that takes its cues from Alan Ladd’s 1953 horse opera, Shane (the really soppy bit at the end) and the wrong bit of 1985’s Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome (the bit with the kids) has got fundamental problems.
                The film does touch on some thought-provoking themes, but doesn’t explore them.  So, families have essentially ceased to have any value in corporatised America, they are simply inconveniences, obstacles in the march of corporate progress.  They are unAmerican!  Children are no longer the focus of the American dream; they are manufactured “things with patents and copyrights”.  There’s a heavy-handed metaphor about taming wild horses at one point,
                Also, all of the new genetically-engineered mutants are Mexican, and their story is one of them fleeing across America towards Canada.  So, the racial difference of mutants has now been made more overt and America has become a place that minorities travel through but in which they are not welcome.  That’s a massive theme that could have been fruitfully developed further (especially in view of political events of the last year in the real States) but America barely features in this film, save as an indistinct back-drop for the action.

Hugh Jackman doesn't just carry the film.  He carries most of the cast too.
                The tone of despair and despondency at the film’s beginning would be far more effective (and affecting) if Logan’s actions made any difference to it but they don’t.  He isn’t Wolverine anymore, he isn’t a hero anymore, he’s just a beaten old man, and he stays that way.  I found myself wondering why are they all struggling so hard to stay in a world that is so unrelentingly awful?  It feels like the characters who die are well shot of the world, which does tend to undermine the tragedy.
                I appreciate that Mangold and Jackman tried to do something different, a grown-up superhero film which deals seriously with some grown-up issues.  I appreciate that Jackman and Stewart have purposefully given subtle, layered and pain-filled performances.  But the drama is miss-handled throughout; from its loooooong and poorly structured first act, to its inevitable second act and its confused, unsatisfactory conclusion.  Sadly, this is a disappointing end to Logan’s run.

LOGAN
Dir: James Mangold
Script: Scott Frank, James Mangold, Michael Green
Dur: 137 mins
Cert: 15 

Postscript:  In the interest of balance, it's worth noting that pretty much every other reviewer out there is of one mind.  The film's a masterpiece, apparently.  Obviously, it's one of those occasions when I didn't see what others saw.  That's fine.  Worth mentioning, though, that the film gets Len Wein's seal of approval.  Fair enough.





ROGUE ONE - A Star Wars Tale


                Rogue One is the best Star Wars film in 36 years.
                There y’go.  If you read no further, you know everything you need to know.  Rogue One is the best thing to come out of the Star Wars universe since Empire.
                You still here? 
                Right, well, in that case, you probably want me to elaborate, to explain why I’m so blown away by the film.  Why did I wait ’til I’d seen it twice before putting finger to keyboard?
                Well, a large part of my appreciation lies in the way that this is a grown up Star Wars film.  It’s still only a 12A (or PG13 for you colonials) like every big budget film has to be to stand a chance of earning big profits.  It also suffers somewhat from the modern malaise of having thousands of people killed at a stroke - all off-camera.  But you don’t need to have blood, sex and swearing to be a grown up.  You need to treat your audience like adults, expect them to be able to keep up, to follow complex plots, and to understand deftly-sketched emotional character traits.
                The characters in it are not children.  But, y’know, when I was a kid, I didn’t need all my protagonists to be my age ... I liked the sensation of bigging up, of getting a glimpse of the adult world through the eyes of an adult hero. 
                Apparently some younger viewers have been complaining that this film is too slow and too dark for them.  Good.  It hasn’t been made just for them.  Star Wars wasn’t made for children back in 1977; it was made for adults who were nostalgic for Flash Gordon.  Rogue One has been made for adults who are nostalgic for Star Wars!
                So, this film is perfectly safe for kids ... It just won’t talk down to them or wait for them to catch up.  If that’s not what they’re used to ... Well, it’s about time they learned.  Once or twice it explains more than it needs to (like why the droid K-2SO has a sarcastic personality) but mostly it trusts the writers, actors and audience enough to leave them to fill the unspoken gaps.
                When Star Wars came out, I was eleven.  There was none of this A New Hope malarkey then, it was just Star Wars.  I, like everyone else, needed guiding through the Hero’s Journey because I, like everyone else except George Lucas, was unfamiliar with it.  But Star Wars (A New Hope) changed all that; and pretty much every big budget movie released since then has taught us the lesson afresh.  So, do we really need to have everything explained to us?  No.  We know this territory now; we can find our own way.

Just so were clear (for later on) this photo is obviously a publicity shot, not a frame cut from the fillum.
                The film knows this from its opening scene where Jyn is (apparently) left orphaned.  We know these characters need to be orphans.  Them’s the rules.  But, when your audience knows the rules, that gives you the opportunity to play around with them.  To confound expectation, to surprise and delight.  And this film does - from its first frame.
                There’s no Star Wars fanfare.  But, there wouldn’t be, those legendary themes are associated with Skywalker and the rest, and this isn’t their story.  There’s no slow crawl telling us the story so far.  But there wouldn’t be, this film doesn’t present itself as a myth.  We’re not on Tattooine anymore!
                This film comes across as a gritty, contemporary war film featuring a bunch of desperate characters thrown together by circumstance and who are given little or no time to get to know each other, they just have to work together and trust each other or die trying.  I’ve asked around and a lot of the people I saw this with have no idea what most of the characters are called.

Now don't tell me ... There's the blind kung-fu Jedi, and his mate and ... Forrest Whitaker? 
                This is partly because clumsy names like Chirrut Îmwe, Baze Malbus and Saw Gerrera don’t exactly trip off the tongue - and they are as unfamiliar to most viewers as Obi Wan Kenobi and Grand Moff Tarkin were 40 years ago ... But that doesn’t matter.  The characters are visually distinct, the actors sufficiently charismatic and the relationships between them so deftly written that we know them and like them even if we can’t name them. 
                Do you know the names of the characters in The Magnificent Seven (the proper 1960 version, not this year’s remake nonsense)?  All of them?  I don’t; but I know their strengths and weaknesses, they are memorable, charismatic and (that much over-used term) iconic and, partly because of this, the actors who weren’t already famous (which is to say pretty-much everyone except Brynner) went on to become stars.
                In the heat of battle, alliances are forged out of people’s actions and loyalties, not their names and races.
                And what races there are.  In-keeping with Lucas’ original vision, this is a patchwork galaxy made up of a diversity of races, from the Cthuloid creature Jyn shares a cell with at the beginning, to the Wampa in the rebel army in Jedha, to various throw-forwards to Star Wars (like the walrus faced Ponda Baba who will soon pick a fight with a kid in a bar on Tattooine ... with messy results).  
                These bits of fan service are unnecessary but - with the exception of the obviously-grafted-on-at-the-last-minute cameo from R2D2 and C-3PO - they don’t jar (jar) and they don’t interrupt the narrative.  This film doesn’t really require prior (or subsequent) knowledge.  It tells you what you need to know as you go along.  There’s an oppressive military Empire, there’s a disorganised but well-meaning rebellion, there’s lots of different planets with daft names and some people believe in this defunct religion called ‘The Force’ ... That’s really all you need.  Everything else is just gravy.
                I was impressed by the casual diversity of the film too.  In common with Force Awakens, it makes a damn fine fist of compensating for the sausage fest that most of the existing Star Wars films have been (Carrie Fisher often mentions that she was the only girl in the boy’s club - although recent revelations suggest she made the most of the opportunities this offered to a young liberated woman).  So here we have a young female protagonist, one who can fend for herself, who casually takes out several stormtroopers with a stick (shortly before Îmwe makes a meal of doing much the same with his bigger stick).  She doesn’t need rescuing (although Cassian insists on doing so towards the end anyway) and her team is made up of a Mexican Han Solo, a couple of Chinese warriors (which will be money in the bank when the film opens there next week) an English Pakistani pilot and a Texan robot who thinks he’s Big Bang Theory’s Sheldon.  That’s pretty bloody diverse!

Leonard, Penny and Sheldon, Star Wars style.
                Rogue One doesn’t really look like any Star Wars film, either.  Yes, the design elements are familiar, buildings with rounded roofs, Imperial vehicles that are all corners, characters wearing hoods and robes ... But this is all in the background, you can either notice it or not.  There are echoes of the films and stories we know - but they are distant echoes, like the sparse strains of the melodies we know which appear briefly and sparsely.  Like the chatter of foreign voices and the crowds of alien faces.  Like the shattered statue half buried in the sand, betraying the existence of a magnificent Jedi culture ... which passed away a long time ago.

Even Liam Neeson's Jedi wasn't that stony faced.

The colour palette is subdued - sandy browns and chilly blues - making the film look like most any ‘gritty’ film of the last ten years - and the camerawork is noticeably hand-held and messy - like any thriller or war film since Bourne and Private Ryan (Matt Damon has a lot to answer for) - because this is a dirty, glamour-free universe.  These characters are not designed to sell toys (even though, let’s face it, they will anyway) they are designed to tell a story.
                Essentially, what the film-makers have done is go back to first principles, to the ambitions Lucas had for this universe when he first invented it.  Don’t forget, Lucas is the one who wanted to make Apocalypse Now as a 16mm documentary rather than a sprawling epic.  He wanted to make his Star Wars film in, essentially, the same way, to show the universe as tatty and second hand.  We aren’t at the centre of the action, we’re out in the boondocks, seeing worlds that are not dwelt upon, but are quickly sketched-in.  It’s a real, vivid, lived-in universe, just as George wanted.  He didn’t want to concentrate on lingering shots of beautiful impossible vistas (as 2001: A Space Odyssey had) but instead to tell a pacy story in which most of the characters have unpronounceable names, speak made-up languages or wear masks throughout.
                Like Lucas’ vision, the universe we see here is a bit clunky and not terribly pretty and populated by a wide variety of British bit-part actors.  It is to the credit of Edwards and his team that they have slavishly copied Lucas’ process and intentions rather than his actual films.  This has made Rogue One truer to the feel of the original Star Wars.  This film reached out to my inner eleven year old, much more than last year’s Force Awakens did, that was little more than post-modern pastiche. 
                I really love the way that this film changes the way we perceive the Rebellion (and this must surely be Tony Gilroy’s input) as disorganised and riven by in-fighting.  Even though he’s on the same side as them, they see Saw Gerrera as a threat.  Even though they’re supposedly the good guys, when they send the X-Wings in to attack Eadu you find yourself wanting them to fail because they’ve been given the wrong target at the wrong time.  When they have their big council meeting, they are revealed to be cowardly and indecisive and hobbled by political posturing.  So, as always, the scrappy kid with nothing to lose has to take matters into her own hands.
                Of course, the Empire aren’t much better.  They are all so busy stabbing each other in the back and clambering over each other to attract the eye of the Emperor, that they don’t notice their catastrophic mistakes.  These are summed up in the trajectory followed by Director Krennic. 

Oooh, I'm so evil I can wear a white cape and not look camp!
                Ben Mendelsohn’s performance is pitch perfect, he comes across from his first moment as an eminently reasonable and level-headed megalomaniac.  He exudes the casual confidence of the genuinely evil yet, in the film’s opening scene, he makes the mistake that will lead, eventually, to the death of his beloved Emperor and the collapse of the Empire, oh, and to his own death.  He forces his old friend Galen Erso to come back and continue working on the Death Star.  To motivate him, he kills Galen’s wife.  This gives Galen all the impetus he needs to build a weakness into the Death Star and leave the instructions on how to exploit that in the all-important plans.
                Finally, when he has made his weapon work, and had it taken from him by the master-manipulator, Tarkin, Krennic fails to secure those plans and, in a beautifully karmic moment, is vaporised by his own weapon.
                And let’s spend a moment thinking about that weapon.  In Force Awakens, they beefed-up the Death Star idea to make it a ‘Starkiller’ which does pretty much what it says on the tin.  It sucks all the energy out of a star and it can destroy an entire solar system with one blast.  That’s too big.  Billions of people die with one shot.  It’s too much for the audience to parse.  One can’t feel the pain of that.  It’s destruction on a scale we literally can’t imagine.
                But, in Rogue One, we see tanks rolling down bomb-damaged desert streets.  That’s on image we see every day on the news.  We see guerrilla fighters taking on a vastly superior military force with improvised weapons.  Again, that is unfortunately a daily occurrence in the Middle East.  So this is a star war with which we can identify.  It feels tangible.  Believable.  Therefore, when they unleash the Death Star weapon and destroy just one city - we feel that!  We literally feel the earthquake it causes, we feel the panic of those escaping the blast and we feel the horror of it because it has a victim count which we can, sadly, imagine and understand.

The Death Star seen through an atmosphere is truly chilling.  That really is no moon!
                No, I don’t know why Saw Gerrera sends Jyn away then just stands there and waits for the blast, but I suspect it may be because he knew he’d filled his purpose in the narrative and had nothing else to do.  Either way, the piece de resistance for this sequence, is Krennic’s irony-free comment that the explosion is ‘beautiful’.  If you didn’t hate the Empire before, you just must after that.
                Yes, thousands of people die off camera, in a PG13 or 12A-friendly kinda way, but I felt their loss more keenly than the billions who died in The Force Awakens or in any of Roland Emmerich’s global disaster movies.
                This explosion makes the escalation to destroying a whole planet in Star Wars all the more monstrous.  It helps us feel Leia’s pain as she watches her home blown away, it actually improves Star Wars for us.  It ups the ante in A New Hope.


                The heart of this film is not in the star war, but the ground battle.  And, in this case, it isn’t arrogant men in cloaks jumping athletically in the air and sword-fighting; no, this is war as we recognise it ... Boots on the ground, troopers hiding from Stormtrooper blasters (although, as Îmwe demonstrates, they probably don’t need to bother), grabbing one piece of land at a time.  Then the smoke parts, and the walkers arrive.  A spine-tingling moment of cinema.

Completely impractical all-terrain vehicle - And still my absolute favourite mode of Star Wars transport.
                I confess that I was disappointed when I heard that John Williams wasn’t doing the music.  But Michael Giacchino’s score is the best he has yet done.  It has Williams’ DNA running through every note, yet doesn’t ape any of his tunes, doesn’t copy, but rather - like the film it is part of - channels the spirit and the energy without diminishing the original.  I’d go as far as to say it’s better than the work Williams himself did for The Force Awakens.  Yes, you read that right. 
                Giacchino’s music swells and lifts the emotional highs then, when it isn’t needed - such as in the slow motion Star Destroyer crash - it just gets out of the way.  It’s the best blend of sound and vision I’ve heard in a film in a lot of years.
                As gorgeous as that mournful piano-led treatment of the Imperial March they used in the trailers was - that music isn’t right for this film,  this isn’t Vader’s story.  It isn’t Skywalker’s story.  Their themes have no place here. 
                That’s not to say that Rogue One is perfect, it isn’t.  It’s third act is a little too much like Jedi.  Key cast members are thrown away once they have fulfilled their narrative purpose (most notably Chirrut Îmwe, Baze Malbus and Bodhi Rook).  The flagrant lack of health-and-safety in Imperial design continues - with data files safely stored over a bottomless drop, while the satellite dish has two controls, one of which is at the end of a narrow spit overhanging another precipitous drop.  This isn’t because it makes any sense, it’s simply so our characters have one more obstacle to overcome.
                Then there is the whole Cushing question.  Cushing’s face is first seen as a reflection, and that’s significant, as this isn’t the man himself (of course), but rather a CGI version of him.  The motion capture performance beneath the virtual skin is by Guy Henry whose physical and vocal impersonation is quite uncanny.  But uncanny is the word.  In some of the shots, Tarkin looks properly alive, but in others, especially around the eyes, his image falls straight down the uncanny valley.  And you’ll find a cogent explanation of just what that means here courtesy of Gizmodo.
                It’s interesting that a week into the film’s release, there are still no photos available of the Cushing clone.  I’ve even been to look at the official Disney publicity site and there’s nowt there.  They really aren’t letting us get a good look at that face.
                Which brings us to the subject of advertising.  There were seismic shockwaves rippling through the internet a week ago when it was realised that so much of the footage in the film’s trailers wasn’t in the actual film.  I confess, when I was watching the film, I didn’t notice.  It was only afterwards when I watched the trailers that I saw what I hadn’t seen (if you see what I mean).  I don’t think this is an attempt to create false advertising, I think this is a very mature and brave creative decision.  Editing is as much a creative process as the writing and shooting and, during the edit, things can change.  If a line of dialogue or an image doesn’t work in the film, it has to be removed or redone - even if it looks ace in the trailer.  This is why Jyn’s eminently quotable “I rebel” line isn’t there.  That’s why Gerrera’s “what will you become” speech, that the first trailer was built around, is also gone.  Like all creative writers are taught - kill your darlings.  Those lines were the definition of a darling!
                In case you, like me, didn’t actually notice the differences, here is a handy dandy edit featuring every trailer shot that you didn’t see in the actual film.

                I know we’ll never know for sure why the film was re-shot and why the third act (particularly) is significantly different from the one we see in the trailers (because Disney doesn’t really like people to see too far behind the scenes) but - rather than a studio meddling where it shouldn’t - it all suggests that Disney allowed Edwards to make whatever creative decisions he felt were right.  He got to do the opposite of what Warners (apparently) made David Ayer do with Suicide Squad.  He re-shot and re-cut Suicide Squad to make it more like the trailer and, consequently, lost the plot.  Rogue One has been re-shot and re-cut to find the plot. 

The most oft-used image from the first trailer.  Not in the film.

Krennic going paddling on the beach at Scarif. Not in the film.

Jyn's close encounter with a TIE Fighter.  Not in the film.

Also not in the film.  Just saying.

                In that first trailer, Jyn comes across as cocky.  That’s what the “I rebel” line is about.  When General Draven asks if she understands her mission, she smirks at him and gives him an ironic “Yes.  Sir.”  But, if she starts off cocky, that doesn’t leave her character anywhere to grow.  In the film I saw, she isn’t cocky at the start, she’s defensive.  She’s been made cynical by life.  It’s a subtle change, but an important one.  Gradually, she finds a direction, a cause and, like Luke Skywalker before her (after her), she finally becomes radicalised when her family dies.  This means that her rallying speeches to the Alliance - and later to the troops on the transporter - are all the more effective, because she’s lost her cynicism and found hope.
                Cunningly, all this means that her story more closely follows the standard arc of The Hero’s Journey.  All the ingredients are there,  but mixed together so skilfully I didn’t find myself ticking them off the list (Here’s the bit where the supposedly dead character comes back to life ... Oh, here’s the bit where the old guy dies), instead, I just sat there and enjoyed it.
                Let's discuss the ending ... That ending ... it’s a masterstroke!  A perfect build-up to the first light sabre reveal (something that they got badly wrong in Force Awakens).  And did you notice they discuss ‘’hope’ a lot: “Rebellions are built on hope”.  Well, those closing moments suddenly make the reason perfectly clear.  The information they have snatched from under the noses of the Empire is a new hope.  Making this the perfect conclusion to this story and the perfect introduction to the next.  I still can’t quite believe they actually went all the way with this.  A $200 million movie with a sad - but triumphant - ending.  Incredible.
                It’s been a long time since I could just enjoy a Star Wars film.  Just bask in it, responding to it emotionally rather than rationally.  In fact, it’s been quite difficult writing about it, because I don’t want to dig too deep into what made my scalp tingle, in case it doesn’t happen when I go back to see it a third time.


As I'm putting the finishing touches to this piece in the early hours of Christmas Eve, I learn that Carrie Fisher has been struck down with a heart attack on her way home for the holiday.  She's a tough woman.  The Force is strong with her.  Get well, Carrie.  Here's hoping this becomes nothing more than an anecdote in the opening chapter of your next memoir.