Slashdot Mirror
Spielberg Denied Crack at Star Wars
loonix_gangsta writes "The BBC is running a blurb on the disclosure of Star Wars helmsman George Lucas not allowing Spielberg to direct one of the Star Wars movies. According to Ananova Steven had actually begged George for the job."
There's a really fun essay called "Not Exactly A Knight" written by Susan Aronstein. I got my copy online a while ago, but since it doesn't seem to be posted anymore, here's the hard-copy reference instead. [Aronstein, Susan. (Summer 1995). "'Not Exactly a Knight': Arthurian Narrative and Recuperative Politics in the Indiana Jones Trilogy." Cinema Journal].
A couple of interesting quotes to give the flavor of the piece:
Temple of Doom
In Temple, Indiana appears as an individual, a knight without a court, whose services are for sale in two currencies, the monetary currency offered by Lao Che and that of "fortune and glory" found in the quest for the Ankara stones. This Indiana, far from being the ideal subject, is adamantly nonconstructed, dangerously individual. His sole ideology seems to be the one he reminds Lao Che of as he presses his knife into Willie's side: "anything goes," a code that leads to the chaos of the opening vignette. This vignette shows Indiana for what he is -- a mercenary out for his own gain, uninterested in "right" and uncontrolled by any sort of chivalric or cultural code, as evidenced by his treatment of Willie. The Temple of Doom is an Arthurian romance without Arthur and without a court; the story of an uncontrolled knight, like the Red Knight of Chretien's Perceval, bashing other knights, of a knight, like Perceval, in need of a court.
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Yet, as the film explicitly identifies Marian with the various "objects" that Indiana must acquire, the two plots merge in the film's exposition of its thematic center: the need for Indiana to change his attitude toward the "objects" he seeks and accept his cultural responsibility as a citizen of a vindicated and privileged moral authority. In the beginning of the film, his attitude toward both the ark and Marian is that of a plunderer, a careless acquirer of objects who is unwilling to accept any responsibility for them. While Marcus and the American Army Intelligence recognize the ark as a symbol of both privilege and responsibility (the quest for the ark is the quest "to get a hold of [it] before the Nazis do" and to defeat Hitler and keep the world safe for democracy), Indiana sees things quite differently. His values are still the values of the Indiana Jones who set out to possess the South American idol. His motivation stems neither from dreams of America's glory nor nightmares of Nazi victory but from the simple assurance that the museum will get the Ark, an object that he defines as "a find of incredible historical significance," scoffing at Marcus's tales of the "bogey man." Similarly, his attitude toward Marian, as delineated by her own accusations when they are reunited and his initial reasons for taking her on, illustrates his code of take-as-take-can-and-consequences-be-damned: anything goes.
Quest for the Holy Grail
As the film progresses, the need for books, old wisdom, and careful thought becomes increasingly apparent as the Nazis' book-burning party explicitly identifies "evil" with the destruction of old traditions. The knowledge of those same traditions saves the two Joneses' hides more than once and, finally, allows Indiana to achieve the Grail. The first instance of the power of books occurs when it looks as though the villains in the plane are going to succeed in running them down. Indiana is at a loss; Dad, however, comes to the rescue, using his umbrella to shoo the seagulls up into the propellers, thus bringing down the plane and destroying the enemy. His explanation: I suddenly remembered my Charlemagne, 'Let my army be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky.' " In this case, reading and knowledge yield answers when wit and strength have none. As Jones, Sr., replies when the Nazis demand of the Grail diary, "What does this tell you that it doesn't tell us?" "It tells me that goosestepping morons like yourself should try reading books instead of burning them." And when he uses his fountain pen to stave off the German army, Marcus quips, "The pen, the pen, you see, is mightier than the sword."
I actually don't think the author succeeds in her point: arguing that the Indiana Jones trilogy stands as Arthurian legend: most of the themes she identified (correctly) can be attributed mostly to character development, etc. without invoking the Grail legend, etc.
That being said, to the extent that there IS any substance of this sort to the films, it seem much more likely to have been due to Lucas than Spielberg. As much as Slashdotters may enjoy trashing AOTC, it is one probably one of the most interesting intellectual films to be released in the last year for those familiar with film symbolism, etc. Spielberg has never even come close to the kind of stuff Lucas pulls off there - not even in AI.
This is against popular myth, but Kasdan was brought in as a writer for Empire Strikes Back to revise Leigh Brackett's draft after she took ill (and later died of cancer). Leigh provided the real heart to Empire and deserves the bulk of the credit, not Kasdan.
Need proof? Just look at Kasdan's treatment of Return of the Jedi. Is Jedi in the same league, writing-wise, as Empire? Heck no!!!
Tom
What you describe as being both "'evil' and 'good' at the same time" is a much older concept than Tolkien's time. Basically, that describes a liminal character. (It could be a liminal hero or a liminal villian.) Meaning that the hero or villian lives in two worlds at the same time - He lives at the threshold or gateway between two worlds. This dates back to Greek Mythology (Heracles) and has been ripped off in almost every story since. Dirty Harry, Jon McClean, Don Corleone -- all liminal characters.
"There's been quite a bit of confusion among critics, especially about the final 20 minutes, which aren't Spielberg being sentimental (his main addition was the cruel, brutal Flesh Fair), but are exactly what I wrote for Stanley and exactly what Stanley wanted." - Ian Watson (http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue268/interview.html)
Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
According to the Inetrnet Movies Database (http://www.imdb.com)'s trivia sections: A group of aliens resembling E.T. (from E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)), and a group of reatures resembling the aliens from Alien (1979), can be seen in the Galactic Senate chamber shortly after Queen Amidala calls for a vote of no confidence in Chancellor Valorum. There are also rumors of a Elliot's shape flying with his bike in SW:TCW.
Regardless of the original intent, the end felt tacked-on. Up until the third act, I thought that the point was that artificial intelligence never *could* become real intelligence, and if that had been the message, the result would have been a better picture. Having "aliens" come in just to make the unnatural point work doesn't do much for the film's credibility. They should have stopped it when David jumped into the sea.
You look beautiful! Incidentally, my favourite artist is Picasso.