Daaaaaamn the freewheeling, associative playfulness of your language makes such a nifty contrast with the rigor of your analysis. I dig the end notes, too. And the J. Wright shoutout! Subscribed!
Been so long since I've revisited Willow. Like you say, it's filed in my head under "Semi-charming George Lucas-Being-George Lucas late 80s fluff." Never really something I thought of interrogating more deeply.
But what's truly fascinating to me about the aspect of myth-making you're getting at -- how individually chaotic, random, and often stupid events are then post-facto strung together, sanded of their rough edges and endowed with meaning and significance in light of whatever outcome they happened to lead to -- is honestly how far back the awareness and interrogation of that process goes in our collective storytelling history. Meta-textual questions feel like such a postmodern phenomena, but its really been a part of the whole thing nearly from the start.
There's one particular line in Book I of The Aeneid that I've been sort of obsessed with for this very reason ever since I first encountered it. It's part of Aeneas' speech to his men after they've been shipwrecked fleeing the ruin of Troy:
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" // "One day, perhaps, even these things will please us to remember"
Which 1) was shocking to me to discover that the idiom "One day you'll look back on this and laugh" is over 2000 years old and virtually hasn't changed at all, but 2) it's insanely interesting to me that, even in a project of overtly nationalistic myth-making for the Roman Empire, Virgil has his hero urge his men to carry on not because the gods will them to or because of some great destiny, but because of the Story their suffering will one day create.
It's sort of the opposite pole from Willow, where comedic events become serious by virtue of the myth they create, but the way in which the meaningless and horrific suffering endured by Aeneas and his Trojan refugees -- surviving the destruction and genocide of their entire culture, diaspora to strange and hostile lands, etc. -- is transfigured into something meaningful and important because of where the adventure will ultimately lead -- the foundation of the bloodline that will go on to found great and holy Rome itself -- and, that Aeneas himself is to some extent aware of how this will be done -- is just totally fascinating to me.
And so it's super cool to see that kind of lens applied to work that I otherwise somewhat disregard in Willow.
Music to my brain right here; thanks so much for sharing this, Salty! To somewhat quote the Daniels' Swiss Army Man, everything everywhere has always mattered to everything; it's always just been a case of how long it takes for us to become conscious of any/every given thing.
Ah, Swiss Army Man. What a film. I think end of day I’d still stay ride or die for Everything Everywhere, but I’d be more than prepared to at least entertain a case for Swiss Army Man as the superior film.
-"And let’s not forget, by the way, that this is a George Lucas movie." No problem there- he's clearly credited as the executive producer and the guy that came up with the story, and his last name is in the production company's. The plot inconsistencies may be the result of Bob Dolman not being able to completely turn Lucas' story into something coherent for film.
-It's a well-produced film (Lucas had the good sense to hire Ron Howard, who typically does solid work, even if this type of film is rather out of character for him), but "Star Wars" this ain't. Nor for that matter is it even "Labyrinth", which Lucas had executive-produced three years earlier, but he stood back in that case because Jim Henson was clearly in charge there- more than Howard was for "Willow", it seems.
-The weirdness of the film even has extended to its distribution. We clearly see that this is supposed to be an MGM film because of that studio's logo being first, followed by the Lucasfilm one. But the viewing of the film I remember was the result of a videocassette viewing on RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video (Huh?) and now it's available for streaming on Disney + since they bought Lucas out.
-If anything, the fanboys never complain about this being "ruined" by Disney the way they did with "Star Wars"...
Daaaaaamn the freewheeling, associative playfulness of your language makes such a nifty contrast with the rigor of your analysis. I dig the end notes, too. And the J. Wright shoutout! Subscribed!
SARAH 🤩 thrilled to have you aboard! Wouldn't have become the critic I am today without your guidance ❤️
Been so long since I've revisited Willow. Like you say, it's filed in my head under "Semi-charming George Lucas-Being-George Lucas late 80s fluff." Never really something I thought of interrogating more deeply.
But what's truly fascinating to me about the aspect of myth-making you're getting at -- how individually chaotic, random, and often stupid events are then post-facto strung together, sanded of their rough edges and endowed with meaning and significance in light of whatever outcome they happened to lead to -- is honestly how far back the awareness and interrogation of that process goes in our collective storytelling history. Meta-textual questions feel like such a postmodern phenomena, but its really been a part of the whole thing nearly from the start.
There's one particular line in Book I of The Aeneid that I've been sort of obsessed with for this very reason ever since I first encountered it. It's part of Aeneas' speech to his men after they've been shipwrecked fleeing the ruin of Troy:
"Forsan et haec olim meminisse iuvabit" // "One day, perhaps, even these things will please us to remember"
Which 1) was shocking to me to discover that the idiom "One day you'll look back on this and laugh" is over 2000 years old and virtually hasn't changed at all, but 2) it's insanely interesting to me that, even in a project of overtly nationalistic myth-making for the Roman Empire, Virgil has his hero urge his men to carry on not because the gods will them to or because of some great destiny, but because of the Story their suffering will one day create.
It's sort of the opposite pole from Willow, where comedic events become serious by virtue of the myth they create, but the way in which the meaningless and horrific suffering endured by Aeneas and his Trojan refugees -- surviving the destruction and genocide of their entire culture, diaspora to strange and hostile lands, etc. -- is transfigured into something meaningful and important because of where the adventure will ultimately lead -- the foundation of the bloodline that will go on to found great and holy Rome itself -- and, that Aeneas himself is to some extent aware of how this will be done -- is just totally fascinating to me.
And so it's super cool to see that kind of lens applied to work that I otherwise somewhat disregard in Willow.
Music to my brain right here; thanks so much for sharing this, Salty! To somewhat quote the Daniels' Swiss Army Man, everything everywhere has always mattered to everything; it's always just been a case of how long it takes for us to become conscious of any/every given thing.
Ah, Swiss Army Man. What a film. I think end of day I’d still stay ride or die for Everything Everywhere, but I’d be more than prepared to at least entertain a case for Swiss Army Man as the superior film.
Love this interpretation! I always feel like I read one of your pieces and leave smarter than I was before. Truly a gift
Much love, Staci!
-"And let’s not forget, by the way, that this is a George Lucas movie." No problem there- he's clearly credited as the executive producer and the guy that came up with the story, and his last name is in the production company's. The plot inconsistencies may be the result of Bob Dolman not being able to completely turn Lucas' story into something coherent for film.
-It's a well-produced film (Lucas had the good sense to hire Ron Howard, who typically does solid work, even if this type of film is rather out of character for him), but "Star Wars" this ain't. Nor for that matter is it even "Labyrinth", which Lucas had executive-produced three years earlier, but he stood back in that case because Jim Henson was clearly in charge there- more than Howard was for "Willow", it seems.
-The weirdness of the film even has extended to its distribution. We clearly see that this is supposed to be an MGM film because of that studio's logo being first, followed by the Lucasfilm one. But the viewing of the film I remember was the result of a videocassette viewing on RCA/Columbia Pictures Home Video (Huh?) and now it's available for streaming on Disney + since they bought Lucas out.
-If anything, the fanboys never complain about this being "ruined" by Disney the way they did with "Star Wars"...