Greg, I make it a point never to make complete sense. I have let Lucas go in that I no longer have interest in his upcoming projects. I didn't bring the subject up, but I did feel that exposing an alternate view was important, since you seemed to be saying that the"whining" of fans was unjustified. I think your "move on with your life" comment in response was personal, gratuitous and uncalled for, which was a surprise, given the general positive and professional tone of your posts.

I'm not sure that it is even possible for a large business to be socially responsible anymore. The posterchild for social responsibility, Ben and Jerry's, drove one of their small suppliers to bankruptcy, messed up rainforst crunch's social benificence bigtime, and later sold to one of the mega-corporations.

As for Lucas's bank account and kharma, don't look at me, he indicted himself;

"Mercenary Han tells the Princess that his job is finished:
Han: It is (over) for me sister. Look, I ain't in this for your revolution. I'm not in it for you Princess. I expect to be well paid. I'm in it for the money.
Princess: You needn't worry about your reward. If money is all that you love, then that's what you'll receive."

An interesting review of a Lucas biography and Lucas is here

Joe, I'm trying to remember the film where screenings were outlawed. It wasn't E1 and it was a while back. "Return of Jedi" maybe?

On a personal note, I watch Steven Spielberg's career through a personal filter which sees him as a formerly great filmmaker who has been a corporate sell-out for the last decade... and who lets his work get over-run by the liberal politics an other idealogical influences of his wealthy, famous friends. He no longer speaks for the common American whom he seduced so successfully in the 1970s and 1980s. Plus, he was the inventor of the "Special Edition with never-before-seen footage." I don't know why he gets a pass while George Lucas takes all the heat.

Months before "Episode One" was in theatres, Lucas screened it for his good friends, including the likes of Ron Howard and Steven Spielberg. And, according to the rumors I heard, Spielberg was the only one brave enough to offer specific suggestions about the film. For all I know, we need to blame Spielberg for what was wrong with Episode One!

Having said that, I don't look forward to Mr. Spielberg's next project and I'm officially commanding myself to move on with my life. But I'm not going to spell his name $teven $pielberg or come up with other clever ways to make fun of him. It's just over between me and Mr. Spielberg. So what?

I'll agree with you that Speilberg has been over-hyped by the Hollywood advertising and promotion machine. To me, "Saving Private Ryan" was a good film but not great. "Schindler's" was very very good for a commercial film, in part because it was a personal agenda for Speilberg. I think seduction is probably an excellent choice of words to describe his "Jaws" series. "Jaws" was an intentional playing with and manipulation of the vulgar emotions of the audience that made it intensely popular (and in a way cleared the way for the glut of low budget slice and dice films that followed).

Spielberg plays to a particular audience and always has a certain amount of schmaltz and family orientation in his films, so much so that I sometimes consider him the Lester Lanin of the director set. To his credit, he has over the years attempted to tackle increasingly difficult subjects and worked his way from biting swimmers to subjects of merit. How well he has succeeded is open to the interpretation of the individual viewer.

Lucas, in contrast, brought attention to himself by providing the both the first nostalgia film for baby boomers and the first science fiction film of any value in over 14 years. It is hard to imagine that the entire genre of science fiction was ignored after Kubrick's 2001, but it was, and Lucas tapped a huge audience of die-hard sci-fi fans that were well educated and starving for something visual to match what they had read for years. He followed through with Empire, but when reviews weren't as good for Empire as Star Wars, he switched tactics and brought in the teddy bear Ewoks in Return of the Jedi, focusing more on marketing than on vision. His personal product over the years has not appeared to "grow up" in any way, and remains targeted to the younger audience with only token innuendos for adults watching his more recent films. To me, he seems to have bought into the fallacious idea of a "dumbed down" audience for movies.

Most directors find a niche; Tim Burton, Hitchcock, David Lean come immediately to mind as well as Spielberg and Lucas. In this group a creative genius shows from the beginning, but as each made more films he became not only more polished, but more institutionalized.
This worked better for Hitchcock than the others (exception Family Plot), with Lucas arguably towards the low end of the list.

The particular "vision" of each director is what makes him interesting to me. Burton's dark and brooding undercurrents, Hitchcock's sense of hidden terror and obsessiveness, Lean's fantastic visual and timing sense that blows away Kubrick's plodding "art" are all examples. In the beginning of his career, Lucas was an immensely talented and creative person who I believe had a true vision when he made Star Wars, as evidenced by his naming it "Episode IV" from the outset. The nagging question to those who appreciated the original Star Wars was "How much of that vision was just a reworking of the E.E. Doc Smith stories with a better plot line supplied by Joe Campbell, and how much of it was the creativeness and vision of Geo. Lucas?" The issue was important because if Lucas had used Campbell's mythos as a starting point, then developed upon it and gone beyond it he could have been considered THE great visionary of cinema. If there is a place where Lucas fell, that is it, and the height of that fall is tremendous.

Speilberg didn't start out as promising, but has increasingly exposed his inner motivations in his films while Lucas has, if anything, become more hidden or shallow. Obviously, these are personal opinions. Each person interprets film in relation to his own values and life experience.

These days, the creative drive has, perhaps, been overshadowed by each man's ambition to build his personal empire... one fully intergrated into the Hollywood system and the other reflecting another course. And, perhaps, each man's personal filmmaking projects are too influenced by the people with whom he surrounds himself. Spielberg's films are too influenced by his famous, liberal friends. Lucas' films are too influenced by the people he spends the most time with: His own children and his employees who spend most of their waking hours creating digital animation.

One might also argue that Star Wars was never Science Fiction. It was always Fantasy, aimed at an audience of 11 year-old boys (of whom I was one in 1977). Most of the guys my age were soon weaned on stuff like Alien and now they crave the likes of The Matrix and The Terminator. Meanwhile, Star Wars is still aimed at children.

I also find it strange the much of what we see on "The Sci-Fi Channel" is horror. Granted, most Sci-Fi fans like horror just as much. I don't.

Science fiction can be a devastating way to outflank the mind's defensiveness against new or different ideas. One of the current subjects sci-fi authors are tackling is the nature of individual existence, using the ideas of the Star Trek transporter and cloning as jumping off spots. Cutting edge social commentary and philosophical discussion are often the fodder for true sci-fi stories.

Fantasy and alternate world stories can be little more than escapism, but when handled well epics like the Dorsai series can be formed. So much depends on the author.

Another genera is the "world story" or universal story that seems to be found in some form within multiple cultures. Creation myths, Arthurian legend, good overcoming evil, and many simple stories seem to have a life of their own. Saying that world stories are aimed at pubescent boys is a stretch, although there are elements that do appeal to a boy of that age and development.

It has been regularly argued that STAR WARS is accessing the `world story' because of the Japanese influence on it.

From the web...

"As a man `steeped' in movie lore, Lucas is at least passingly familiar with the works of possibly the greatest film director in Japan, Akira Kurosawa. Kurosawa's movies, particularly his historical samurai adventure epics, have provided inspiration for several later productions. The most famous instance would be his full length "The Seven Samurai" and its hollywood clone "The Magnificent Seven".

A less well known Kurosawa adventure, starring Toshiro Mifune, is "The Hidden Fortress". A great general (Mifune) is lost in the badlands after a terrible battle. He finds and rescues a princess, struggling his way back through enemy territory, fighting a mighty duel with the enemy commander. They also strive to save a vast treasure of gold from falling into enemy hands. The entire story is seen through the eyes of two lovable rouge peasants, who are unwilling accomplices in the rescue.

It has been observed several times by film critics that the basic story of this 1950's movie is the inspiration for the basic plotline of STAR WARS. The Princess is of course Leia. The General is a sort of Kenobi/Solo/Luke combination. The Gold is the DeathStar plans and of course the lovable rougues are the droids.

(sidebar: the plotline is more universal than this implies. Campbell points out the archetypes and embellishments of later stories based on core archetypes is common.)

Conceptual artist Ralph McQuarrie reports that the design for Lord Vader's costume was based upon a Japanes Samurai's armour, as specified by Lucas. A quick browse through the conceptual sketches for the trilogy fims reveals many Japanese design influences. The Rebel and Imperial Guard helmets are a sort of cross between a Japanese ashigaru helmet and a medieval German Salet.

Some early versions for the script call for main characters to be asian in appearance. At one stage, it is said, Lucas considered an entirely Japanese cast!

Far deeper resonances of Samurai influence are found in the Jedi.

The lightsabre, is style, use stance, grip and techniques is essentially Japanese. The weapon is clearly based upon the katana of the samurai. Even the respect with which the Jedi treats his weapon is in keeping with this tradition.

Obi means belt, a ken-obi is a sword belt! (in `pigeon' Japanese at least!)

`Yoda' is a Japanese surname!

The Force, as it is demonstrated in the movies, is nearer to a form of Zen mysticism than a set of fancy psychic powers. Despite a genetic predispisition in the Skywalker clan, the impression is that virtually anyone can `tap' into this force, by a form of meditative higher-consciousness indistinguishable from the Zen principles of Japanese martial arts. "

end quote

Lucas also had to have been exposed to the teachings of Alan Watts, the great populizer of Bhuddism in California.

I could go on about the reasons why SW is more than a kid's film, but it does take different glasses to see the under-the-surface stuff, and it can get tedious dissecting it.

Your assessment of both Lucas and Speilberg suffering from ambiton over creative drive is probably all too true. Creativity often resides in the homes of the starving artists and flees when well fed.

As a side note, I don't care for horror or gore films either, and tend to view horror as a form of pornography.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

It has been 1477 days since the last post.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged