9:08 p.m. - 2018-06-06
THE KESSEL RUN IN 12 PARSECS
I watched "Solo," the latest Star Wars entry the other night. My expectations were not all that high, given some of the critics I had read and the poor box office numbers so far. But I enjoyed the movie for what it is: another fast-moving space western with Solo, Chewbacca, Solo's sometime girlfriend Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke), and Beckett (Woody Harrelson basically in Woody Harrelson mode), a veteran space pirate who serves as both mentor and nemesis to young Solo. The ragtag bunch and some of the action put me in mind of the TV series "Firefly," as the team, aided for a while by Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) get involved in a high stakes poker game, several chases, gunfights, and even a train robbery.

When I saw the first Star Wars movie (episode 4 in George Lucas's new math) I was mildly disappointed after all the hype. I was expecting something either high intellect science fiction (e.g. "2001, A Space Odyssey') or perhaps something less ambitious scientifically but using a futuristic story to explore basic human values (think "Star Trek"). But "A New Hope" was more like a space western (or space samurai armed with light sabers), and not very demanding of the audience. Then a friend pointed out that "Not everything has to be ambitious and uplifting. It can just be good entertainment." So I lowered my expectations and learned to appreciate the "Star Wars" franchise solely as a diverting form of storytelling. Until Jar Jar Binks, of course, and the tearstained emergence of Sad Sack Anakin Skywalker.

So I don't always get it when "Star Wars" fans feel let down by a reasonably well done action fantasy like "Solo." Apart from the pseudo-Shakespearean posturing involving betrayal within the dysfunctional Skywalker family, I think the fans should be content to accept what they've been accepting for the past 41 years. If you want Sophocles, read Sophocles and stop complaining when mass-marketed space adventures don't measure up to the classics.

One of the problems a lot of science fiction fans have had with "Star Wars" is that there never seemed to be a commitment to the science fiction genre itself. Space vehicles and explosions don't make noise in airless space. Lasers don't stop a few feet from their source. Parsecs are a unit of distance, not time. And if you're going to use a term like "parsec," at least take a few minutes to look up its meaning. "Star Wars" always seemed like a quick once over approach to science fiction. In the immortal words of Dr Ian Malcolm:"You read what others had done and you took the next step." (Or maybe I should have saved that quote for a look at all the "Jurassic Park" sequels?)

"Solo" does try to correct the Kessel Run/parsecs quote from episode 4. Han wants to pilot the Millennium Falcon somewhere that is 20 parsecs (about 60 light years) away, but by flying closer than anyone else would dare to a black hole, he cuts the distance to 9 parsecs. So 41 earth years later we have a more or less acceptable explanation of that case of careless writing in the original script.

Anyway, I think you should go see "Solo" if you haven't already. Don't worry about Freudian psychology or hidden symbolism or comments on the human condition. Watch the action, enjoy the special effects, eat some popcorn.

previous - next