When the firstStarWarsmovies were premiering in the seventies, they were not paragons of perfect cinema — and they did not need to be, as they had more than enough novelty and excitement to offer theatergoers. The prequel trilogy had a far greater burden to bear: to deliver an experience that would effectively resurrect the franchise for a new generation, while also staying true to the original movies. The trilogy did both — but it turned out that audiences required more, and thus was born an evergreen debate.Attack of the Clones, in particular, bore (and still bears) the brunt of criticism aimed at the prequels. But why?
FollowingReturn of the Jedi, viewers waited sixteen years for the nextStar Warsinstallment. Fans spent sixteen years rewatching the original trilogy (first on video, then DVD), memorizing its every detail, meme-ing it into blockbuster legend. Whatever followed could not possibly live up to the myth that wasStar Wars, but that did not stopThe Phantom Menaceachieving outsized commercial success, despite critics’ disdain. Yet the prequels faced a very different audience, once with more access to rewatch movies, and one with arguably higher standards for even their blockbuster fare. What momentumThe Phantom Menacederived from decades of anticipation would begin to wear off quickly…and continue to wear off through subsequent episodes. By the timeAttack of the Cloneswas released, viewers were too accustomed to pitch-perfect production to be easily distracted by shiny laser swords — and too savvy to be satisfied with lazy writing.
RELATED:Star Wars: Rogue One’s Production Was A Huge Warning Sign
A good movie must begin with good writing. There is only so much that actors and directors can do to redeem poorly-written dialogue — and only so much that production can do to cover weak plotting or sloppy storytelling. The short answer to the question of what makesAttack of the Clonesa bad movie is that it has bad writing. Its performers have since been lauded (by critics and awards voters alike) for their talent and skill — andrightfully so, as they are good actors. Unfortunately, their vindication requires the audience to recognize a deeper issue: no actors could have redeemed the stilted dialogue, nor enlivened the stodgy plotting. Exchanges like the romantic confessions of Anakin and Padme (in separate scenes, because what the movie really needed was more weak romance) now live in infamy, but they were only ever a symptom of the underlying problem.
That problem extends to the relationships between characters, an aspect of story which usually relies on dialogue. The romance between Anakin and Padme is the most glaring example, unfolding in a series of melodramatic confessions interspersed with less-than-witty repartee. Padme seems mainly to scold Anakin, her established earnestness undercutting any attempt to replicate the sardonic banter of her predecessor, Princess Leia. Anakin does a somewhat better job of flirting, but his general petulance and immaturity seem to justify Padme’s dismissive attitude — in case viewers needed to be reminded that there is a significant age gap, that Anakin was a little boy in the previous movie. Indeed, fixation on Padme as a maternal figure might be the only underlying motivation for their romance, as nothing happening onscreen provides an alternative explanation. Viewers might rightly wonderwhy the romance plot is foregroundedat all. It demonstrates nothing beyond the fact of Anakin and Padme’s mutual attraction, which most audiences probably already knew or guessed.
Anakin’s relationship with his mentor is somewhat better, improved by the increased playfulness of Ewan McGregor’s dialogue. Unfortunately, it does not get nearly the same amount of screen time as the romance plot, as Anakin and Obi-Wan are separated for most of the movie. It may help, here, to considerthe dynamics that were set up inThe Phantom Menace: Qui-Gon Jin functioned as the clear father figure to both Anakin and Obi-Wan, and his death should serve as a clear point of connection for them thereafter. The logic of human behavior might even entail that Obi-Wan would subsequently fill that father role for Anakin, butAttack of the Cloneseschews that dynamic to position them, instead, as brothers. Yet Obi-Wan still exudes a paternal attitude toward Anakin, leaning heavily — perhaps too heavily — into correction and caution, undermining any attempt at brotherliness. The result is a relationship untethered to either logic or emotion, a setup for a spinoff that proved more grounded and watchable than its source.
Plenty ofStar Warsviewers have attributed the weaknesses ofAttack of the Clonesto its focus on the romance plot, but the attitude thatStar Warsshould be entirely aromantic ignores the centrality of the will-they-or-won’t-they storyline in the original trilogy.The problem withAttack of the Clonesis that its romance plot lacks emotional weight; indeed, lack of emotional weight cripples most of its plotting. The action sequences are still engaging, peppered with the same cheesy repartee that turnedStar Warsinto one of the most quotable pieces of pop culture in history. Yet the movie still performed admirably at the box office, outgrossing its more-acclaimed corollary,The Empire Strikes Back. By any metric, it was still a successfulStar Warsmovie.
However, the success ofAttack of the Clonesshould be regarded as more than a footnote in any analysis of its quality. If critics accept that the movie was both thoroughly bad and thoroughly aStar Warsmovie, it begs the question:doStar Warsmovies need to be…good? WasAttack of the Clonesdestined to succeed regardless of its story or production?
Yes and no. Here, the box office numbers provide more insight: the lowest-grossing film in the franchise,Solo: A Star Wars Story, grossed 214 million domestically — not enough to recoup its cost, but a respectable showing nonetheless. On the other hand,Rogue Oneis the third-highest grossingStar Warsmovie, earning half a billion dollars domestically and more than one billion worldwide.Rogue One, likeSolo, is a standalone story, but it could not be more different fromSolo— from mostStar Warsmovies — rejecting touchstones in favor of themes, subsuming catchphrases to rich, resonant characters.Attack of the Clones, by contrast, meets the minimum requirement for storytelling. However, its relatively lackluster performance suggested that audiences were ready for a more grounded, serious-mindedStar Wars, built around authentic characters with complex relationships.
