Andor series: observations

My immediate reaction to your raising of the admittedly dour ("Must everything be boring and sad?") nature of this series is the saying "Take the bitter with the better." Although I'm now following this show from week to week, I've accepted that it's far from Lucasian in many fundamental ways. I mean, there's virtually no irreverent humor or levity in the damn thing! No comic sidekicks, no clever one-liners, no side-eye glances. It's a paragon of stone-cold austerity! It's sorta what Lucas cited as one of his concerns about certain fans' wishes - turning the property into "The Terminator"! But ya know what? I'm still enjoying it and maybe it's smart enough not to assume or attempt former glory. Still, I see your point - but again, bitter with the better, bitter with the better...

Also, if the makers of Andor dare to even touch the wellspring that is unadulterated, Lucas-styled SW, they need to make their scenes a sizable fraction of the length that they are in this show. Compared to the Lucas films, there's a gaping disparity of storytelling economy!

It's just something I've observed about the series that hasn't been aired in this thread. I also find it true of much of Disney/LFL film and TV content, for what it's worth.

EDIT: Cryogenic has talked about the narrative scope possible within the relative runtimes of this series and Obi-Wan Kenobi vs. the saga films but I'm referring specifically to scene length.

LOL. He may dress smartly and enjoy the finer things in life, but he's an impotent Robin to Mon's Batman/Catwoman. Who'd have thunk we'd have seen the elegant and classy Mon Mothma paired with angry bum of a husband? Mon and her bum. Her beau is a bum. (And her bum -- I'll bet -- is just beau!).



In one way, I'm resigned to the dour, pouty nature of the series. It's a nicely tailored suit that fits the series well. On the other hand, for all the storytelling potential, maybe that's all it is: potential. In other words, the show really isn't very Star Wars-like; more like someone that has broken into that gleaming mansion and re-arranged the furnishings to their own tastes and bulldozed the land around it, erasing much of the colourful aesthetic we've all come to know and love -- and for what? To tell a story of rebels rebelling? At least the other Disney shows still have kind of a spoofy, spunky, clunky "edge". Whereas "Andor", by stark contrast, is edgy in that much more trite and predictable modern vein of grimdark storytelling and the seriousness of it all being the point: the foreplay, the sex, the orgasm. It's cleverly written and brilliantly produced, but like pretty much all Disney Star Wars content, it also feels like just a little samba built upon a single note...



Anyone who wants the whole show
Re mi fa sol la si do
He will find himself with no show
Better play the note you know



There is. George Lucas understood the comic book speech bubble modality of storytelling and exploited it perfectly. His scenes were always crafted with wonderful concision for maximum conveyance of information and emotion (or detail and feeling). "Andor" has fallen into the trap of mistaking the weeds for some profound cathexis. But Lucas thought very musically (and graphically); able to contour and condense appropriately at all times and never forget the wider story he was telling. And he was perhaps buoyed to greater heights by knowing he had John Williams in his back pocket, allowing him to pay particular attention to how scenes would play in the final cut once the music had been scored, recorded, and edited. He could write and use his imagination to creatively comport his writing to conform to a general musical outcome. Perhaps the might of John Williams gave him the confidence to know the music would do a lot of the heavy-lifting where needed and he could keep moving the story along and not dwell too much on any moment; least of all begin inadvertently constructing an insipid telenovela. More simply put: The music of John Williams allowed Lucas to make his Star Wars Saga into a well-oiled machine (or an "intricately made clock" as GL himself once said).



I don't think that's what Somny was driving at. Well, maybe he was. But from my point of view (and to repeat myself from the "Obi-Wan" thread): It's not length that matters per se, but rather, it's what you do with it that counts (that's what she said). Scene lengths in "Andor" are of a typical size/duration for this type of production. Are they longer than a typical prequel/saga scene; or, say, a scene in "The Mandalorian"? Maybe they're a little longer in places, but they don't strike me as being particularly protracted or ornate. It's not scene lengths that disclose the rhythm of the plot. Rather, I believe it's got more to do with editing, how much story/plot detail is covered in any one scene or scene-block, and other matters like how quickly an episode within the series snaps to action (rarely, as it turns out), or some abrupt but chromatic tonal shift (also rarely), or has moments of absurdist digression (mini-narratives, as Ingram once elaborated upon, being one of the staples of the Saga films).

I mean, rhythm is very important in Star Wars, and in life, but rather difficult to pin down in many cases. Funny, too, because I was just watching this clip, not long before I read your post:



Quoting Frank himself:

"The subject for tonight's lecture is rhythm. The beat. The driving force that holds our lives together ... Without rhythm, music would kinda wander off into nowhere: without direction, without moods, and without shadings."

Is "Andor" bad for doing things differently? Well, no. But it does feel a little reductive at this point, I have to say; and I'm left wondering how much clout the last five episodes will have, now we're already into the second half of the first season (there would appear to be a long wait for the second and supposedly concluding season). Where's the series going? What's it doing? Will it really amount to anything at the finish? It has some commendable qualities, but right now, I think "The Mandalorian" is actually the star attraction of Disney Star Wars TV shows. Mando gets gold, Andor silver, and Obi-Wan bronze (I haven't seen "The Book Of Boba Fett" as of this writing). Let me clarify that I've now seen both seasons of "The Mandalorian" (I started watching the season season over the weekend). There's a sense of rollicking fun and a meaningful minimalism to the way each episode of "The Mandalorian" is done. Virtually every episode is a blast to watch; and boy, can "The Mandalorian" do action. It offers a lot more of the earnest pulpy brio of Star Wars that the films have. Even "Obi-Wan" has some of Mando's flair. "Andor" is very solemn and slow-moving by comparison. Yes, it's dense and purposeful in its own way, but it's like a sandcrawler versus a speeder bike. There's such a difference in tempo and feeling. If you take too much Star Wars out of Star Wars, have you really got Star Wars anymore? This is a question "Andor" is really getting me to ponder. 

Good eye. While the subterranea of THX 1138 along with the cloning facilities on Kamino may seem the obvious allusions here, there is indeed a touch of Czech-Jew futurism as re-imagined in the last minutes of Golden Age Hollywood, and I dig the standout caramel uniform by Syril's earlier criticized choice amidst a monochrome stannic. It's a fitting way to paint the very idea of a "Bureau of Standards" as that which is tasked with resetting the entire galaxy in all things to the Imperial metric. Perhaps, then, the simplest and most immediate in-house connotation at work is the Death Star itself: codding and destruction visually as one.

I've been wondering that, too. But after the somewhat underwhelming and borderline-bullshit way the last episode pulled its big action caper off, I'm not so certain anything BIG is gonna suddenly emerge. It might do, of course. However, this is still Disney Star Wars we're talking about, where a killer crescendo is far from guaranteed. Hasty, half-cocked endings are kinda the norm with them; it's almost their watermark. Even "Andor" may not be able to break the mould here.



I'll grant you that "The Mandalorian" seems made to be liked, but I've never had a problem with populist entertainment done right. It's just, so often, so little of what passes for entertainment these days does all that much to impress me. I've always been a curmudgeon that belongs to a different age. "The Mandalorian", however, is unpretentious entertainment that reminds me of growing up watching "Power Rangers". It's like a slightly refined version of the same concept: it has a similar verve/vibe. It's not particularly deep or dense in theme or scope, and I overall look at it as side-order Star Wars, regarding it (at least so far) as relatively inconsequential.

Oddly, though, that's where "The Mandalorian" wins out against the other Disney offerings. It has a certain vibrancy and pop panache that the other shows lack, and many of the technical qualities it exudes are very respectable. It looks good, for one thing, being both cleanly lit and crisply composed. It is probably the closest of all the Disney things (along with "Solo") to a George Lucas-approved production. I mean, sure, not a great deal necessarily happens, but every episode is classy and well-managed. Also, if they go on to make five or six seasons, it may grow in weightiness over time.

More importantly, it engages my inner ten-year-old like nothing else Disney has done with Star Wars these past ten years. It's immensely fun; and you can feel the creatives having fun as you watch. I hear where you're coming from, but Mando is quite novel in its own context, and I can see why the hype exists. It's sort of the lovable, goofy, warm "trading card/wrestling sticker" version of Star Wars and I love it for that; as I'm sure many others do. I'm now eagerly anticipating the third season. 

Somny
As I said Earlier some fans want Star Wars to be a Serious Drama!

Well, funnily enough, the episode in which Boba is introduced in "The Mandalorian" ("Chapter 14: The Tragedy"), looks and plays a lot like an episode of the original "Power Rangers" TV series. Boba, Fennec, and Mando may as well have been battling Putties in some rocky area of Angel Grove. It was just lacking a bit of the series' addictive 1990s rock music by Ron Wasserman. Co-Co-Co-Combat! 

Okay, fine. There are several fallacies in that article, though.

Here is the most conspicuous and the most significant (from the start of the article):


If we read the fuller quote in the linked article, this is what we have:

(I'm using an older, archived link, because the article is now -- irritatingly -- broken into more pages than before and behind a paywall).

Source: web.archive.org/web/20130227051318/http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/news/the-wizard-of-star-wars-20120504?page=3

"The Wizard of Star Wars" (Rolling Stone's 1977 cover story on creator George Lucas)

By Paul Scanlon, May 4th, 2012 (Original publication date: August 25th, 1977)


Now...

In the archived Rolling Stone interview, Lucas is clearly talking about a communitarian fantasy of his where talented director friends expand on his vision, but in the guise of other films that serve as sequels to the one he just made (ANH).

Yet the writer of the Mashable article goes on to assert:


The "experiment" that the writer thinks Disney is conducting actually started with J.J. Abrams and "The Force Awakens", and then was taken in a more vigorous direction with Rian Johnson and "The Last Jedi". We can personally love "Andor" all we like, but it doesn't align with the fantasy scenario Lucas outlined above. It's a television production that doesn't adhere to the basic grammar of the films or expand joyfully on the mythic coming-of-age narrative that Lucas set up with the original film. Lucas would probably not have allowed a project as bleak and pessimistic and real-world in its vibes as "Andor" to corrupt his Campbellian Saga. Yes, his friends were into self-conscious, gritty filmmaking, but Lucas was likely hoping he could use his space fantasy to inspire them to push their own creative boundaries and try something different. In any case, it remained a fantasy, as the writer concedes, because Lucas ultimately took control of his franchise and remained its lodestar and Commander-in-Chief for the next thirty-five years. 

Of course, in 2012, Lucas sold to Disney (we're almost at the ten-year anniversary, in fact). Lucas was shut out of the creative process for the Sequel Trilogy and left feeling hurt and betrayed, but he got on with his life and set sail in a new direction. Everything is very different now. While I have previously used those same Lucas quotes to argue, to some extent, in favour of the extant sequel installments, it was because -- as I see it -- those quotes first and foremost apply to the sequel movies, not to the spinoff movies or the television shows. The sequel movies still follow the basic grammar and form of the first six films. The other material does not. Moreover, Lucas was obviously stiffed over the sequels, not so much the other content that has sprung up since. The latter is all quite separate. It doesn't take a genius-level intellect to see that his heart, if it was anywhere in particular, was really in the remaining feature films intended to fully complete the main narrative of the Star Wars Saga/The Tragedy Of Darth Vader; but since he got screwed over those, his fantasy is no longer valid -- reality went a certain way and what's done is done.

That said, it is certainly possible to look at the television shows and see them as an ongoing validation of Lucas' fantasy, if you prefer. I just think we need to be careful about accepting clickbait doctrine as having any kind of nuance or approaching the underlying facts of a matter. In this regard, it sometimes behooves us to take something literally (within a GL quote), as a basic litmus test. For instance: Is Tony Gilroy a personal friend of Lucas'? If not, then "Andor" cannot possibly live up to the quote, where Lucas clearly indicates not just other filmmakers, but friends of his as suitable -- even idealised -- candidates for developing his vision. Also, Lucas expresses a desire "to do the last one"; and we know this hasn't happened, either.

Even the writer invoking Lucas' planned "Star Wars: Underworld" series at the end is fallacious misdirection. Based on the leaked test footage released in 2020, we can see that Lucas' and Gilroy's conception of an "adult" Star Wars series are quite different from one another. There's a more colourful quality to Lucas' "Underworld" show, and a pulpy sense of sneaking/sleuthing largely absent from "Andor". The scrapped/never-made "Underworld" series is more comic book noir along the lines of stories and characters appearing in publications like Detective Story Magazine. "Andor" has more in common with modern television social-realist series depicting harsh events like "Band Of Brothers" and "Chernobyl". I miss George.  

Just wanted to say, at this point, the most rewarding thing about Disney Star Wars is you guys talking about it.