Film Review: Limelight

 "Limelight"

*** (out of ****)

Charlie Chaplin's "Limelight" (1952) is a testament of a great artist's views on mortality, love and art.

"Limelight" wasn't Chaplin's final film but it has the makings of a final statement. Of an artist taking his last bow before the curtain closes.

Naturally such a statement was met with derision in America when the film was released in the 1952 - it didn't even receive a wide release. It turned out to be Chaplin's last American film as he was condemned to a 20 year unofficial government exile for being believed to be a communist. But even today the film continues to be greeted by those that ridicule it and judge it as nothing more than sentimental hogwash.

Chaplin has created a kind of visual diary - a thin plot with the sole objective of allowing the great artist the opportunity to philosophize on the issues of love, life, death and art. I don't use the word "philosophize" in a derogatory way as some may interpret to mean Chaplin expresses his views with a pompous, pretentious attitude. I can somewhat understand that viewpoint but first of all, by 1952 Charlie Chaplin had more than earned the right to take a moment and self-reflect on his career in any damn way he pleased! It has been said of Chaplin he was at one time the most recognizable figure in the world! His character - The Tramp - was beloved world-wide. As for charges of being pretentious, "Limelight" is a poetic piece of work. It is not meant to be a "realistic drama". The dialogue isn't meant to have a naturalistic quality to it - having characters speak the way "everyday people" do. If you can't accept that, you'll never be able to embrace the film and merely believe all Chaplin is doing is "moral preaching". But does "Limelight" have any more "moral preaching" than what is found in the works of D.W. Griffith or Cecil B. DeMille? Does it have any more "moral preaching" than American films made during WW2 meant to inspire patriotic pride within us?

I'm of a different breed than most American movie audiences. I like self-reflective character studies. "Limelight" is made from the same cloth as films like Ingmar Bergman's "Wild Strawberries" (1959) and Anthony Asquith's "The Browning Version" (1951) or great works from filmmakers like Michelangelo Antonioni and Theo Angelopoulos - reflective films commentating on man and his relationship to his surroundings and the importance of art. By the very existence of The Tramp, Chaplin too made commentaries on the human condition. The character was symbolic of the lonely outsider. A reminder of poverty and the downtrodden. Watch "The Immigrant" (1917), "The Kid" (1920) and "Modern Times" (1936) as examples. As sound movies became unavoidable - Chaplin resisted making "talkies" - he used dialogue not so much for comedy - writing funny one-liners - but to comment on the issues of the day. "The Great Dictator" (1940), "Monsieur Verdoux" (1947) and "A King in New York" (1957) are statements about WW2 and its aftermath and the promise of what America can be. The dialogue in those films is just as "preachy" as "Limelight".

"Limelight" is a tale of two damaged souls - one a comedian known by the name Calvero (Chaplin) and the other a young dancer named Terry (Claire Bloom). Calvero was a once famous music hall comedian known for playing a Tramp character. His star has faded as alcoholism has taken over. He believes he simply can't be funny without having a few drinks before a performance but now no one wants to work with him. His agent informs him his name is poison. Calvero has become what all performers fear most - an artist that has lost his connection to the audience. This is perfectly illustrated in a dream sequence with Calvero performing one of his routines to an empty music hall. When he realizes the situation Calvero looks out at the empty seats with a facial expression filled with panic, anxiety and dread. The camera gets a close-up of Calvero's face and dissolves to present day Calvero awaken from his nightmare with the same facial expression. How the mighty have fallen!  

Terry was a ballet dancer that was diagnosed with rheumatic fever. When Calvero meets her she has attempted to commit suicide in her apartment. It is a drunken Calvero - who lives in the same building - who rescues her. She has sworn off dancing claiming she is too sick. It is Calvero who will nurse her to health thus creating a story of two weak people who will find strength through each other. By meeting Terry, Calvero stops drinking and begins to think about making a comeback, formulating comedic routines in his head.

In another dream sequence, Calvero, after meeting Terry, dreams of the two of them in a skit together about spring and love. I don't interpret this sequence as suggesting Calvero is falling in with with Terry but I do believe it is meant to suggest a new vitality has been awaken in Calvero. He now has something to live for. However, in a kind of reverse Florence Nightingale syndrome - transference - Terry believes she has fallen in love with Calvero. Younger viewers needn't fear. "Limelight" doesn't become a love story between the two of them. Although their age difference is meant to signify a kind of rite of passage, as indicated in the film's opening intertitle - "The glamour of limelight, from which age must pass as youth enters." In  "A Star Is Born"-ish fashion, as one of their stars begins to rise, the other begins to fade and must rely on the other's strength. When Terry is finally strong enough to start acting she tries to get Calvero a job in a ballet she has the starring role in. 

We can see how all of this may be somewhat autobiographical. The movie takes place in 1914 London. That year is significant in the life of Chaplin because that was the year he made his first film appearance - "Making a Living" - and of course Chaplin was English not American. He grew up in poverty and started off as a music hall comedian before touring in America as part of Fred Karno's troupe. Unfortunately, as sound movies became the normal, Chapin did begin to slowly lose his audience. While "The Great Dictator" - his first complete sound film - did garner much box-office success and critical support - it earned five Academy Award nominations - his following films began to divide audiences. By this point Chaplin had "retired" his Tramp character, no longer playing baggy pants characters. This may have been too much for audiences to accept in addition to his social commentaries. 

I, however, enjoy Chaplin's commentaries in all of his movies. It helps audiences understand Chaplin the man and how his worldview influenced his films. This is insightful. And as for the way Chaplin expresses himself - meaning his choice of dialogue - it is pleasurable, if at times heavy-handed - to listen to. Chaplin has great wisdom to share. If some social circles don't find him to be eloquent or intellectual, at the very least Chaplin proves himself to be a great humanitarian. As for his intellect, I find him more profound to listen to than most other comedians ranging from Jerry Lewis to Jerry Seinfeld.

"Limelight", perhaps more directly than other Chaplin films, demonstrates how dark his movies could be. I often feel alone on an island when I tell people part of Chaplin's genius was his ability to find humor in human tragedy. "Limelight" shows us the relationship between laughter and tears. Just beneath the joke is suffering. Go back and watch "The Kid", "The Gold Rush" (1925) and "City Lights" (1931). Pay attention to the desperation of the characters. There's a belief among some that only when you suffer do you have truly have something important to say as an artist. Look at what Chaplin spent a career commenting on - the working class, poverty, love, war, peace, greed and the ideals of American values. Compare that to Seinfeld telling jokes about Superman and cereal. The difference is obvious. Seinfeld, whom I do admire and saw perform in person - came from a nice suburban middle-class life. What about the human condition can he comment on?

If "Limelight" is known for anything it would have to be for the only on-screen pairing between two silent comedy legends - Chaplin and Buster Keaton. The two men perform a skit near the end of the film as two musicians who bungle their musical duet. Keaton, sitting at the piano has great difficulty arranging his music sheets and keeping his piano in tune while Chaplin is not only breaking his violin strings but amazingly finds himself shrinking on stage! Appropriately, outside of some sound effects and background music, the sequence is silent. 

Much has been written about this sequence and some of the Hollywood myths and rumors have been dispelled such as Chaplin harboring jealousy towards Keaton and left his funniest moments on the cutting room floor. And contrary to popular belief the two men were friendly. Keaton even acknowledged Chaplin was the greatest comedian in his autobiography. And by even casting Keaton in role - Keaton's career had sadly fallen on hard times - could be viewed as a sign of friendship on Chaplin's part.

While much has been written about Keaton appearing in the movie, what I haven't come across in any review is mention of the fact Snub Pollard also appears in this movie. While I concede the fact the appearance of Buster Keaton is a far more momentous occasion for critics to write about I must admit the old Hungarian cynic in me believes critics also didn't mention it because they don't know who Snub Pollard was! For a movie blog focused on film history and given my appreciation for silent screen comedy, it would be terribly neglectful of me if I didn't mention Pollard's appearance as one of the street musicians (the pianist). Pollard was a comedian - known for his trademark moustache - whose work dates back to 1911 when he appeared in Keystone Kops comedies for producer Mack Sennett. He and Chaplin shared the screen in "By the Sea" (1915) and would also appear with Harold Lloyd. Much like the Calvero character in "Limelight", comics like Pollard, Chester Conklin, Ford Sterling and Ben Turpin, achieved fame in the early days of screen comedy only to become completely forgotten. You can see them sometimes in small bit roles often uncredited in films from the 1930s and 40s.

Although "Limelight" didn't initially receive a wide theatrical release, in 1972 there was a Chaplin retrospective underway as the Academy Awards was going to honor Chaplin with a Lifetime Achievement Award. It would mark the end of Chaplin's 20 year exile as he agreed to accept the award in person. "Limelight" would finally get a proper release and was even nominated for an award for its musical score. Which it won!

"Limelight" is a tender and yes sentimental film that audiences should find rewarding. Chaplin, as usual, is able to create that delicate balance between comedy and pathos. This is an insightful film that I believe has aged quite well. And what a pleasure to see Chaplin and Keaton on-screen together!

Film Review: You Can't Cheat An Honest Man

 " You Can't Cheat An Honest Man"

*** 1\2 (out of ****)

As noted by the late former Chicago Sun-Times movie critic, Roger Ebert, "W.C. Fields is the most improbable star in the first century of the movies". Born William Claude Dukenfield in 1890 - W.C. Fields created an utterly unwholesome yet undeniably funny comedic persona of a drunkard, who long before Rodney Dangerfield, never got any respect. His characters were often in loveless marriages with nagging wives and disrespectful children. He hated animals and preferred not to work a day in his life. He was a big idea man, always searching for the next get rich quick scheme. And yet, despite Hollywood's strict moral guidelines, his characters succeeded. 

"You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" (1939) isn't a great W.C. Fields comedy partly because it doesn't focus exclusively on Fields' persona a la "It's A Gift" (1934) but it does showcase many of the typical Fields traits that made the character so endurable to Depression era American audiences.

In the film Fields plays Larson E. Whipsnade - a dishonest circus owner on the run from the law for non payments of debt. Not only are creditors after him but his own employees are dissatisfied with him for not paying their salaries as well. One of the circus acts includes a ventriloquist, The Great Edgar (Edgar Bergen) and his dummy, Charlie McCarthy (credited as playing himself!). They - or he - hasn't been paid either. At the insistence of Charlie, Edgar is contemplating leaving the circus. Those plans are put on halt when Edgar meets Larson's daughter, Victoria (Constance Moore) and Cupid strikes.   

Victoria however hasn't just come to pay dear old dad a friendly visit. She is being pursued by a wealthy, stuff shirt gentleman, Roger Bel-Goodie (James Bush). She doesn't love him and on numerous occasions has turned down his marriage proposals much to the irritation of her brother, Phineas (John Arledge). According to Phineas his sister is throwing away a fortune. What does it matter if she doesn't love him! Victoria accuses her brother of only thinking of himself - a cushy bank job might be offered to him - but perhaps in an attempt to lay on the guilt, Phineas pleads with Victoria, if she won't get married for his sake, think of dad, who is in a financial burden. And so it is the case of the age old question - to marry for love or money? What's a girl to do? In order to confirm Phineas' statement, Victoria decides to visit the circus.

The story by "Charles Bogle" - a pseudonym for Fields - doesn't take this plot serious and understands the story is merely a string to hang a series of jokes on. There is no great chemistry between Edgar and Victoria. There are no scenes were we see romance bloom between them. There are no clear signs Victoria is even in love with Edgar. "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" doesn't even properly sets-up this Depression era concept by having both men actively compete against each other for Victoria's hand.

The primary function of the movie was to capitalize on a popular "radio feud" between W.C. Fields and Charlie McCarthy, which began in 1937 on the radio program "The Chase and Sanborn Hour". The feud helped re-establish Fields, who had fallen on hard times due to ill-health (the heavy drinking wasn't limited to his on-screen characters). To this day the feud remains one of Fields' career highlights. Some claim however "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" never fully captured the chemistry Fields and Bergen had on the radio.

It's easy to understand how that could be. On radio Fields, Bergen and McCarthy could trade barbs for 10 minutes and get plenty of laughs and be entertaining. Radio, after all, is a purely audio medium. You couldn't get away with that on film. "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" has to create sequences exclusively focused on either Fields or Bergen and McCarthy, to allow each man the opportunity to engage in their comedy style and then  bring the two sides together. But "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" never gives us minutes long battles of the wits between Fields and McCarthy as that would be too "theatrical" for film. Only Abbott & Costello it seems to could away with doing radio routines on film. For me however the movie proves a nice balance between the two men's comedy styles. Aficionados of either Fields or Bergen can find something to enjoy.

You can make the case "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" is as much an "Edger Bergen / Charlie McCarthy comedy" as it is a "W.C. Fields comedy". Edgar Bergen - a fellow Chicagoan - may not be very well remembered today but he was at one time the most famous ventriloquist in America! His decades long career included stops in vaudeville, television, movies and radio. In fact his radio program - "The Edgar Bergen - Charlie McCarthy Show" was rated the most popular radio show in 1937 - 1940 and again in 1942 - 1943. Practically throughout its entire run - which ended in 1957 - it was one of the highest rated shows. That's a heck of a feat when you consider at the same time comedians like Jack Benny, Bob Hope and Red Skelton all had shows. Bergen - and his famous dummies including Mortimer Snerd - appeared in several comedy shorts and feature films like "Charlie McCarthy, Detective" (1939), "Look Who's Laughing" (1941), "Here We Go Again" (1942) and "The Goldwyn Follies" (1938) - which features the last musical score George Gershwin would work on before his death. Bergen also inspired generations of ventriloquists that came after him like Paul Winchell - another forgotten name in comedy - and Shari Lewis.

Bergen and Charlie McCarthy do have some funny moments in the movie like their introductory scene where Bergen as The Great Edgar tries to perform a disappearing act with his assistant McCarthy. The joke being the mischievous McCarthy purposely causes their act to go haywire by never allowing Bergen to properly complete a magic trick. This leads to a re-occurring gag involving Mortimer Snerd who never quite understands why he appears in a scene when he does. He repeatedly confesses to Bergen, it was all Charlie's idea. These moments between Bergen and McCarthy show them at their best. None of their interactions with Fields by comparison are ever quite as funny.

And can we take a moment to discuss Charlie McCarthy? On one hand the movie acknowledges McCarthy is a dummy as Bergen gives an explanation on how ventriloquism works. And yet there are moments when the movie wants us to believe McCarthy is a real person. We see him talk and move without the assistance of Bergen behind them. I've never been quite able to figure out if McCarthy was supposed to be  teenager or a bit older. McCarthy however always has his mind on chasing ladies. It makes me laugh but what a strange persona for a puppet. It has become the standard persona all ventriloquists would apply to their own dummies. The dummies often say the things polite society would never say out loud. 

Whereas Bergen and McCarthy are funniest when by themselves, Fields on the other hand is consistently funny throughout the movie. Much of the movie seems tailored around the Fields persona. Some of his best moments include when he meets the Bel-Goodie family. To the extent "You Can't Cheat An Honest Man" makes any commentary, it would involve class with Fields and his children representing the working class and the Bel-Goodie family representing high society. Their collision resembles a Three Stooges comedy like "Hoi Polloi" (1935). In these scenes Fields plays up his persona of being a foremost authority on any given subject as he pretends to be a big game hunter.

But Fields' annoyance with every other character at the circus is a joy to watch too. His combative nature with a young man (Grady Sutton) he is swindling with a phony apprentice position is funny. Fields flat out tells the young man, I hate you. Of course that doesn't stop Fields from accepting $15 a week from the young man to observe how to run a circus. Fields also has some nice verbal barbs with Eddie "Rochester" Anderson - the "Rochester" is left out of the credits.

It all paints a portrait of a man distrustful of life, a potential victim of their scams and yet he believes he can take advantage of society as summed up by some famous last words of his grandfather - "Never give a sucker an even break or smarten up a chump." This would seem to contrast the movie's title, "You Can Cheat An Honest Man" - deception and honesty all mixed together! Initially many of the characters are dishonest - Victoria leads on Roger, Larson is well...Larson, Charlie McCarthy is willing to resort to theft to get his back pay, Edgar lies to McCarthy about his plans, Phineas wants his sister to lie to Roger. And yet everyone learns the importance of honesty by the end of the movie (well maybe except Fields). Are we supposed to think of Oscar Wilde?

Along with Edgar Bergen, W.C. Fields is also a comedy force society has forgotten. Like Jerry Lewis or Woody Allen there is a blurry line between fact and fiction. Where does the screen persona end and the real man begin? But the persona was one that society can always relate to and should never be forgotten. As with so many of the great screen clowns there is pain and sadness just beneath the laughter. Like Chaplin's Tramp, Fields too is a loner. The difference is Fields prefers it that way and yet enjoys the opportunity to brag to a crowd. He engages in polite societal greetings but mutters disparaging remarks immediately. He is seemingly joyful and happy, singing to himself but the words are crass - "I'd rather have two girls at 21 each than one girl at 42!". There is defeat and the illusion of contentment in the character.

Although the movie was released in that most magical of years, 1939 - which saw the release of "Gone with the Wind", "The Wizard of Oz", "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington", "Wuthering Heights" and "Stagecoach" - "You Can't Cheat  An Honest Man" isn't really a cinema classic but it succeeds on the strength of Fields and Bergen. At times the movie seems heavily edited but enough laughs remain to entertain audiences. 

p.s. - W.C. Fields, like Groucho Marx, spent his film career playing characters with absurd names. While it is fairly easy to catch the joke concerning his character's first name here - Larson E. - a play on the word larceny - the character's last name, Whipsnade may actually draw its inspiration from Whipsnade Zoo in the U.K. The connection may be both a zoo and a circus deal with animals. Though the zoo was in the U.K. a young Fields may have heard about it since his father was born in England.

Film Review: Return of the Jedi - 40th Anniversary

 "Return of the Jedi" 

** (out of ****)

I was greatly looking forward to re-watching the conclusion to the original "Star Wars" trilogy, "Return of the Jedi" (1983) in honor of it's 40th anniversary. I was about 12 years old when I discovered the world (or Galaxy) of the "Star Wars" movies. I loved all three of the original movies and would watch them repeatedly. I expected re-watching "Return of the Jedi" would take me back to my childhood and I could recapture the excitement I experienced when I first saw this movie. Unfortunately, it wasn't so and the experience became an awkward one.

How could a movie that was so special to me as a child and into my teenage years be such a miss for me as an adult? Many movies that I enjoyed in my younger years are still favorites of mine today. I re-watched the first "Star Wars" movie a couple of years ago, "A New Hope" (1977) and still enjoyed it. Was "Return of the Jedi" simply not as good as the other movies in the trilogy? I gave "Return of the Jedi" a fighting chance. I watched it twice before writing this. I watched the original VHS version and the updated "special edition" version Lucas released prior to the release of  "The Phantom Menance" (1999). Neither version was able to engage me. I finally had to sadly admit "Return of the Jedi" doesn't hold up for me.

One of the most noticeable issues I had with "Return of the Jedi" was how similar it seemed to "A New Hope". While there are some new elements to "Jedi" and new characters introduced much of the movie feels like a retread with the Rebel Alliance once again attempting to destroy the dreaded Death Star. Been there, done that! In the first movie the mission provided the objective of demonstrating our young Jedi-in-waiting, Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) has heroic qualities and much like his unknown father, possesses excellent pilot skills. This mission however doesn't serve the purpose of elevating any character really.

Another noticeable issue is the lack of a strong villain. Yes, Darth Vader (voiced by James Earl Jones) is in this movie but he is not presented as a serious threat anymore. "Return of the Jedi" uses Luke Skywalker and Vader to comment on the internal struggle between good and evil within us. Will Skywalker succumb to the Dark Side? Can Vader find and embrace the goodness within him? Thematically this is an interesting concept but in its presentation it makes Vader look weak. The "main" villain in "Jedi" is The Emperor (Ian McDiarmid), the ruler of the Galactic Empire. This character however lacks the imposing presence of Darth Vader as introduced to us in "A New Hope", where he appeared to be the most powerful character within the movie. This makes "Jedi" operate on an almost philosophical level but at the most amateurish level. 

The final thing I noticed was the comedic, childish tone of the movie. Instead of the "Star Wars" series maturing at the same level of its main character, the series was regressing! There is a lot of unnecessary comic relief provided by our favorite droids - R2-D2 (Kenny Baker) and C-3PO (Anthony Daniels) and the introduction of the infamous Ewoks - whom are never referred to by such a name. They are the "Star Wars" version of Care Bears.

The best creation in "Jedi" is Jabba the Hut - in the original VHS versions, Jabba was first seen in this movie - an imposing, giant looking mafia slug. The first 40 -ish minutes of the movie prominently features Jabba, who still has Han Solo (Harrison Ford) frozen in carbonite. Luke sends R2 and C-3PO to Jabba's palace to negotiate a trade deal - Solo for the two droids. When Jabba refuses it becomes more than evident to the viewer this is all a guise and is really a rescue mission as each member of the Alliance somehow finds themselves in the palace.

While Jabba is a fascinating character to look at, I must admit as I watched my VHS version, Jabba, his guards and the musicians playing in the palace all look like Jim Henson puppets, which I doubt was the look George Lucas and director Richard Marquand had in mind. They all look slightly better in the "special edition" version. Which may be the only positive thing I will say about the "special edition".

After the Jabba scenes, Luke heads back to the planet Dagobah to finish his Jedi training with master Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz). Yoda informs Luke there is nothing more he can do for him. At 900 years old, Yoda feels the end is near. Luke must face Vader to complete his Jedi training. But Luke can't and won't fight and kill his father. Adding a Freudian element to the plot.

Meanwhile Princess Leia (Carrie Fisher), Han Solo, Lando Calrissian (Billy Dee Williams) and the rest of the gang head for the forest moon of Endor to destroy an energy shield protecting the Death Star. If they can lower the shield, they can destroy the Death Star.

With the exception of the moral dilemma Luke finds himself in, none of the other human characters seem to serve much of a purpose and appear to be afterthoughts. I understand the Alliance wants to defeat the Empire but what is personally at stake for these characters? What purpose does Lando serve to this story? Could this story have been told minus that character? I think so. Han Solo was originally presented to us as a kind of Humphrey Bogart character - a tough exterior with a vulnerability underneath it. He says he is only in it for the money but we know he is a hero. In "Jedi" all of Solo's personality is gone. What purpose does the Princess serve? Again  I ask, could you have told this story minus that character? None of these characters are driving the story forward. Their only function seems to be to stand here and look there.

Whatever was new, fresh and exciting about the first two "Star Wars" movies is solely missing here. Perhaps the issue wasn't so much the plot and dialogue but the direction. Lucas directed the first movie and Irvin Kershner directed "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980). Both men had a better visual eye than Marquand. Marquand seems to have zapped the life out of the actors. Everything in "Jedi" has a monotone pacing to it. The action sequences - especially one in a forest involving flying motorbikes - has a video game quality to it - this was before that was even a thing!  

I understand what "Star Wars" is suppose to be and the inspirations behind the series. I love movie serials like "Buck Rogers" (1939) and "Flash Gordon" (1936) but very few things in "Return of the Jedi" are as fun as those movies. Only the Jabba sequence and some of the flying motorbikes sequences would have ever appeared in a movie serial. Only they would have been more thrilling! "Jedi" is kind of glum. Some people refer to "The Empire Strikes Back" as a thematically dark movie, I don't agree but lets assume that is correct, the movie was still full of energy and created an emotional investment for the audience. Watching "Jedi" I kind of felt like "lets just get this over with". They try to tie a bow on this trilogy and explain everything. Marquand directs this movie with a "lets just cross the finish line" mentality.

As someone who constantly talks about film history and its preservation, I naturally must address the issue of the "special editions" of the original trilogy. As I have alluded to, I own the VHS versions of these movies. For many years I refused to watch the newer versions. In fact, I still haven't watched the "special edition" versions of "A New Hope" or "Empire". It is a shame Lucas never allowed those VHS versions to be released on DVD and now is a shame Disney doesn't allow those versions to be available for streaming on their site Disney+. They are purposely erasing film history. Future generations will never be able to see those VHS versions. I may very well be the last person alive that still has a VCR and watches movies on VHS. What will the rest of you do?

And lets talk about the differences between these two versions. One glaring difference that leaped out out me takes place in Jabba's palace. Jabba is seen in a kind of tug of war with a slave. Jabba licks his lips and yanks the chain around her neck and she violently fights for her life. Jabba activates a trap floor which all but plunges the girl to her death. In the new version the band now has a vocalist singing a song while this fight between Jabba and the girl is going on. It serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever! And there are multiple slight differences in camera angles and points-of-view. Again, for no reason at all. These changes in no way enhance the story. I emphatically prefer the VHS version of "Jedi". That is the only version you should watch. Lucas managed to ruin to his own movie!

"Return of the Jedi" was nominated for four Academy Awards and presented with a Special Achievement award. It was the highest grossing movie of the year taking in more than 300 million in the U.S. alone. Reading some contemporary reviews from 1983 - Roger Ebert and Pauline Kael - it seems it was always understood Lucas intended to make "Star Wars" a nine movie series.

I've previously mentioned in other reviews, this year, as I celebrate my 40th birthday, I was going to take a look a various movies that were not only important to me growing up but movies specifically made in 1983, in honor of their own 40th anniversary. With that said, I couldn't have ignored "Return of the Jedi" but what a disappointment!