there is another

My likes were entirely Star Wars so I made it a blog instead. Padmé Stan™

[starwarsblr]

Star Wars: Episode II – Attack of the Clones | 2002 Star Wars: Episode IV – A New Hope | 1977 dir. George Lucas

[tatooineknights]

THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (1980) Dir. Irvin Kershner

[whereareyourightnow]

REVENGE OF THE SITH (2005) dir. George Lucas

[godzillin-art]

So this is how liberty dies…

[shattered-sky]

A gentleman 💛

[aouralune]

A tragedy across stars and galaxies

[bisexualvader]

Star Wars Episode II Padmé Amidala Naberrie on Geonosis

[tatooineknights]

STAR WARS (1977) Dir. George Lucas

[whereareyourightnow]

Huge solemn crowds line Palace Plaza in Theed, the capital of Naboo, as six beautiful white gualaars draw a flower-draped open casket bearing the remains of a beloved Senator through the Triumphal Arch, her fingers finally and forever clasping a snippet of japor, one that had been carved long ago by the hand of a nine-year-old boy from an obscure desert planet in the far Outer Rim...

Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith Novelization by Matthew Stover

[gffa]

Luke & Leia | illustrated by Phil Noto

[tcards]

[elizabethwydevilles]

Art by Jake Bartok

[reystheme]

Star Wars: Attack of the Clones (2002)

[ailesses]

PADMÉ AMIDALA MOODBOARD

[leonbutchkennedy]

this is hands down the funniest review like. ever

[hashtag-padme-matters]

[moroccanmanga]

Need for fans to understand that George Lucas shoots his movies like an old school documentarist on purpose. They're never purely that way, but it's the thing that most influences his style.

And that's why a lot of critiques leveled at his directorial style are baseless, because he's doing it deliberately. He knows a lot of his shots are static. It's the point.

He doesn't do a whole lot of moving with the camera (in non action sequences), at least compared to other directors. He lets the actors walk in and out of the frame. He even does this with CGI characters. He doesn't construct a frame around their movements (or thats how its meant to appear, because everything is obviously planned). So you get a lot of static shots that allow for us to take in the cultural context of this universe. This is also why a lot of Star Wars world building can be done without exposition. It all plays out within the static wide shots. All the information is on your screen. Including characterization and theme through the mise en scene.

Why does he do this? Because tracking shots and the like are highly choreographed and he doesn't like when it appears to be overly engineered or manufactured. It's the influence of cinema verite, where the point of the film is to portray the truth. It's the same reason he uses delayed exposition and doesn't infodump unless a story is being told by the characters (C3PO in RotJ and Palpatine in RotS). He wants it to play out and for you to observe it without too much manufactured framing.

He's not worried because he knows what he's going to say in each act of the story and what the resolution will be. He doesn't need to bombard you with all the information at once.

Sometimes the camera will track the actors, and of course there's occasionally a pan up or down. But very few times will you see him move the camera through a scene. It rarely follows the action from one set to another, and he rarely uses the camera to push in towards an actor for dramatic effect. When it does happen, it's a point of reference and meant to inform you on what that character represents at the moment. And it adds another layer of meaning. It's just more rare in his movies.

That's his thing, I'm not saying it's good or bad. It's a choice. You have to get it. I mean, he talked about this, but I feel like people forget.