"...the acting is...from the 30s..."

I don't know if any of you who know me can vouch for this, but I will bet that you can, I get irrationally angry and defensive when someone tries to say that Hayden Christensen can't act. To me this statement is absurd on its face. It is not that I don't know the difference between a good actor and a bad one. I think that I know the difference quite well. It is that I know the difference between somebody acting in the 30s silent film method and some one who is using method acting techniques that are dominant in today's cultural landscape. Almost everyone doesn't get this difference. That is because nearly everywhere they look to compare the performances in these films, they see a method performance to compare it to. In this process they are comparing apples to oranges. It is an unfair and inaccurate comparison that doesn't help you get to the truth of the matter.

I have heard the argument that Lucas "should" use the method acting style in order to appease his audience, "afterall" they say, "we don't live in the 30s anymore." To take the style that a movie series is built on and start moralizing on it is both absurd and counter-productive. If you want to know what is beautiful about Picasso's painting, you have to attempt to understand the assumptions and rules that he was using, otherwise you end up thinking that he was nothing but a bad painter. In reality, he could paint the more traditional methods with the best of them, but his voice, his spirit, was to be found when he learned to paint like a child he would say.

Somewhat like Picasso, Hayden Christensen has proven his ability to act effectively in the method style. The critical acclaim that he recieved for his roles in "Life As a House" and "Shattered Glass" was almost as universal as the declarations of "wooden delivery" or "bad acting" that he recieved for Episode II. Therefore, he does know how to act for those of you who might be unaware of that fact. And what is more, of all of the actors in the series, he and Mark Hamill are the ones who are the most purely 30s-esque in their delivery. They hit it dead on the nail. For their troubles, they get whined at and universally mumbled about by the crowd.

For George Lucas, the 30s style of acting is the most appropriate method to convey the meaning of this opera set in space. In the mid-70s he was looking at an increasingly cynical America because of the unbelievable events of that era. He wanted to create not a science fiction film, but a space fantasy. In order to make it more other-worldly, he chose a style of acting that would be foreign to his audience, but simultaneously help them hearken back to a simpler world view. There is more to it, but that is the thumbnail version.

The 30s style that the saga is based on is a very showy sort of acting. Rather than being governed by natural rules as in the method style, the actor puts every thought and every emotion on their face as though they are making an emotion painting. They are living by imaginary rules that apply only to the theatre. When you enter this system of communication, the theatre is marked as clearly seperate from the real world. It is extremely appealing if you understand it.

This is the way that the greats acted in yesteryear. This is the way that Humphrey Bogart, James Cagney, and Orson Welles presented their memorable characters to the world. Mimicking that style is what has called the fury of hell upon Hayden Christensen's head, not to mention Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher. How many times have you heard it remarked, "s/he is such a bad actor" with the conviction of a saint . As a counterpoint, Harrison Ford gets away with it because he was able to sell his 30s style in a way that method-conditioned viewers were able to comprehend. This is because Ford is much smarter than most people.

One glaring exception to this rule is Liam Neeson. For some reason unknown to me, he was given the leeway by Lucas to do what seems to me to be a purely method style of acting when he played Qui-Gon Jinn. However, even that part was played in a more showy style than Neeson usualy does, so maybe that was the best he could do. Ultimately, I think it effectively establishes his character as the misfit in the cast of characters that we meet in Episode I (which as you will see later is perfect for what his character is about in this saga).

I have heard complaints about Samuel L. Jackson's delivery in these movies. Again, such complaints make me cringe. Here is an actor that in movies like the ones he has done with Quentin Tarantino has proven he can play the method game well enough. Yet, it is assumed that he just all of the sudden stopped knowing how to act when he signed up for Star Wars. NO! His delivery is perfect for the genre. The over use of facial expression is just what the style calls for. The way that he seems to commit his entire presence to each word is again just right. You can sense his sincerity in the role through his over-commitment. Again, the over part is based on method as the standard. If the standard were the same as in the 30s, he would be well within the perameters of what is considered good acting. It is otherworldly acting, it is operatic showy acting that tells everything the person is thinking visually because it won't be told in the dialogue. Lucas designed it that way. And it works beautifully if you know what it is you are looking for.

And that brings us to Jar Jar. If there has not already been an inordinate level of eye rolling going on, there will be now. But please hear me out. Let's assume for the sake of our discussion that the acting in these movies is in line with the type of acting done in the 30s and 40s. You probably won't want to go back and check on my story unless you are a big fan of the old movie classics, however, assume for the sake of conversation that I am right about the acting in Star Wars. If I am right, wouldn't it make sense to include a character that is patterned after the zany antics of pure comedy actors of that era? And what kind of comedy dominated that era? Of course it was slapstick physical humor. If George Lucas is going to make a more purely serial-esque movie in Ep I, it would follow that he would include a character that matched up with the Buster Keaton or The Three Stooges style of comedy. We will discuss later how Ep I is supposed to represent the innocence of the Republic Era. But for now, ask yourself what better context to introduce a slapstick character if you are going to do so? If you are looking at Jar Jar in that light, I promise you he is very amusing. His cartooniness becomes an asset instead of a liability. I always look forward to seeing Lucas' contemporary incarnation (Binks) of these comedy greats. Ahmed Best really delivered a high quality performance.

So the next time you feel the urge to declare one of these people's acting "bad", perhaps you can reconsider and wonder what it is you are missing in their performance instead of assuming that it was some mistake on their part. Note that the main characters in the prequels are played by noted art house actors. That is, actors who are at the cutting edge of the contemporary method acting movement. The art house genre of film is about capturing the intimacy and realness of everyday life into a movie. These people know what they are doing. Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, and Hayden Christensen have all paid their art house dues so to speak. And with Hayden and Natalie, besides Star Wars they seem to prefer little else to acting in the art house.