This is an analysis paper I recently wrote for my Intro to Film class. We each got to pick a film to analyze or film(s) to compare and contrast ... take a guess which series I picked.

It got an A and I was so pleased with myself I decided to repost it here to share it with the world -- that and I couldn't think of much else to put in the blog.

I just pasted it in here wholesale without modifying it for the fan audience, so keep in mind that's why it goes into a little heavier level of detail explaining things that most of us here take for granted -- for example, if I was writing for this audience I could simply refer to "Dooku in AOTC" but for school purposes I needed to elaborate "Christopher Lee's Count Dooku in Episode II" and so on.

Without further ado:

The Acting in the Star Wars Prequel Films

Rightly or wrongly, the quality of the acting is one of the most maligned aspects of the Prequel Trilogy. Some defenders say the acting in the Original Trilogy wasn't anything to write home about either, but in general I disagree. In particular, I think the best performance is the wise Jedi Obi-Wan "Ben" Kenobi, played by Alec Guiness. He took dialogue that was pretty silly if you stop to think about it and managed flawless delivery, with complete seriousness and conviction and with the right amount of humor.

As far as the Prequel Trilogy, I've watched several of these actors in other films, in which they do much better. For example, veteran actor Christopher Lee does a great job as Saruman in Lord of the Rings to name the most recent example, but in Episode II: Attack of the Clones his performance as Count Dooku is comparatively lackluster. It's not because these actors lack skill, so I can only come to the conclusion that it's something in the prequels' filmmaking. Some say Lucas is a better conceptual, Idea Man than nuts-and-bolts writer and director; I think he should have brought in outside writer(s) and director(s) for the prequels. I've also frequently wondered if he just isn't good at choosing the best take for the final edit. It's no coincidence the best episodes of the Original Trilogy (Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back and VI: Return of the Jedi) were co-written and/or directed by others. However I've read a rumor that Steven Spielberg supposedly assisted on a few scenes in Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

An important factor to take into account when evaluating the prequel acting is the extensive use of bluescreen environments in these films. This is a process whereby an actor or group of actors are filmed in front of a blue or green screen which is removed in post-production and replaced with a background like a futuristic cityscape. Most scenes in the prequel trilogy (hereafter referred to as "the PT") use at least a little bluescreen, and many sequences were shot completely with bluescreen and not even partial sets. In the factory chase sequence in Episode II, the actors ran on a blue functioning mockup of an obstacle-laden conveyer belt, which was later replaced by CGI conveyer and machinery. In some scenes, actors were filmed completely alone, to be surrounded later by alien environments or digitally rendered creatures. My point in all this is that even the best actor is going to have some difficulties emoting when they're all alone surrounded by great expanses of green or blue. That's a key difference between the PT and the OT.

Another important factor is the quantity of dialogue that had to be replaced in Automatic Dialogue Replacement (ADR) due to on-set conditions, such as wind machines, that rendered the audio track unusable. Therefore an actor must have the ability to recreate reactions and emotions after the fact in a recording studio, without the stimuli from other actors, interactive props, and even the costumes which often help them get into character.

When Episode I: The Phantom Menace came out in 1999, Jake Lloyd (9-year-old version of Anakin Skywalker) was heavily criticized for wooden acting. (The performance has been dubbed "Mannequin Skywalker".) I don't think it's all that bad. I still say he could have done better, but maybe this is the best you can get with an 8-year-old actor. Some specific thoughts: the initial scene in the junkshop (wherein he meets Natalie Portman's Padmé for the first time) is pretty good, as is the part where he mentions he is the only human who can fly Podracers. Then there are a couple of lines where his delivery is flat, such as "Only Jedis carry that kind of weapon" to Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson), and "Let me show you my protocol droid" to Padmé. The scene on the Queen's vessel where Anakin gives Padmé the "japor snippet" necklace is by far the worst for Lloyd, and probably also for Portman. And here they don't have the excuse of bluescreen, since the scene takes place in an enclosed set of a starship interior.

I think Natalie Portman's acting (Padmé Amidala) was the worst of all the performances in the first two Episodes. It's just flat and artificial. I've only seen her in a couple of movies that I barely remember, but by all accounts she does well in most of her films. Before seeing Episode III I was concerned that her acting would be the weak link that brought down the entire credibility of the film (since her character is central to the plot's conflicts). But her delivery is so improved it's very nearly like watching a different actress. The performance is much more naturalistic and believable.

Ian McDiarmid's performance as the evil Chancellor Palpatine is the best acting in Episode III and perhaps the whole PT. He does a perfect job of playing this seemingly goodhearted politician who is really plotting to establish himself as galactic despot and corrupt Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader. The casting of McDiarmid is one of the great, successful "accidents" in modern film. He was something like 30 when he played the elderly Emperor under heavy makeup in 1983's Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, and when the prequels were made he was precisely the right age to play Palpatine at 50-60 years old. The performance was understated in Episode I when he was just a "mild-mannered" Senator scheming to get elected Chancellor. But 13 years later as his varied plots approach climax and he cements increasing executive control over the crumbling Republic, he grows more confident in gradually letting his true nature rise near the surface. (In real-world terms, McDiarmid also has to bridge the gap to the cackling, scenery-chewing Emperor he depicted in Return of the Jedi.) There were times in this film-before he declares himself Emperor so he's still pretending to be a "good guy"-where he has such a smug, oily, creepy, self-satisfied air that I just wanted to reach into the screen and wring his neck. That's a testament to the quality of McDiarmid's portrayal and how much it got under my skin-in a good way because it means I completely "bought" the performance. Some say he ought to be nominated for an Oscar for this role. I can't say I disagree but there's little chance because sci-fi and fantasy films are typically overlooked in favor of dreary, pretentious dramas and period pieces. (Even though one can successfully argue that it requires more talent to imagine fantastical worlds in your head and often play to things that won't exist until months later in post-production.) The only reason The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King cleaned up 11 Oscars was because of great public and media acclaim and the not-unjustified feeling that the first two were neglected. Still, none of the three Rings won any acting awards, despite some nominations.