Slashdot Mirror
Obi-Wan speaks out against franchise
Spazmoid wrote to us with (we sure don't link here often)
a Eonline story talking about an upcoming interview with Sir Alec Guinness. Guinness talks about how much he hates Star Wars, dimissing the script as "those bloody awful banal lines." Now, before people go calling him a heretic, I'd argue that TPM has shown Lucas' negative side to a great degree. The sheer franchisization of the movies is stunning, IMHO-but what do you folks think?
Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones)
Lucas is capable of making truly excellent films (witness THX-1138), but I think we should go ahead and credit Spielburg for Indiana Jones.
I should cut him a little slack, though. Conversational dialogue is, from what I hear, the hardest literary skill to master, and very few do it well. Few do it as poorly as Lucas does to such a wide audience, though.
- A.P.
--
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
"and he throws all fan letters into the trash."
:\
:-). However, I just fail to see the wisdom or benifit of tearing kids heads off because you are afraid of their "obsessive"-ness.
That's a good sport.
IMHO, if one does not like the franchise element of something, that's no reason to take it out on your throng of adoring fans. Yes, Lucas is taking all of this too far(I think
phtphtpht
censorship is a form of noise, which actively seeks to drown out content with silence - Crash Culligan
Alec Guiness is right. I love Star Wars, but frankly the merchandising is outlandish, and made TPM a much worse movie than it had to be. Jar-Jar, the Ewoks - let's face it, since Lucas got bit by Empire Strikes Back, with a challenging plot line that didn't do so hot at the box office, he's made the whole Star Wars universe into a kids' universe, with simple plot lines and no detailed exploration of character. And who can blame Lucas? He earns more on the merchandise than on the movie itself.
Whatever you do... don't read this.
But maybe he can do that bluish ghost thing to get his ideas across...
--Lenny
One thing most fans seem to miss is that Star Wars was never supposed to be a deep, filosofical, artistic film with a social/intelectual/whatever message. It's quite simply entertainement (no, I can't spell). It was a simple story aimed at the younger section of the population, by which I mean about 10-16 years. It couldn't be very complicated, mistical or obtuse or those people wouldn't be interested...
.... *CRUNCH*)
What no-one remembered is that sci-fi appeals to people of all ages, and many (more mature) people who saw the films thought : "not bad but if the plot was such and such it would be so much cooler".
Well, yes, of course, but it was never supposed to make you think, it was supposed to make kids say "Mom! I wanna play with luke/r2d2/". Lucas marketed Star Wars toys from the outset, I remember seeing those toys appear right after the second movie.
No, I can't spell!
-"Run to that wall until I tell you to stop"
(tagadum,tagadum,tagadum
-"stop...."
I am infintely disturbed by the rage that is shown in some of these posts towards Alec Guiness because he told a kid who had "seen it [Star Wars] 100 times" to "never watch it again." He also claims that he throws his fan mail in the trash.
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. They are merely the product of the trendy sexual undead. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
Creating something for young people should not be an excuse to use simplistic caricatures that insult the intelligence of a mature audience, nor should it be an excuse to use a story that doesn't make people think. Consider things like Sesame Street and Dr. Seuss which, while aimed at children, are challenging and clever. That Lucas seems to have intended to make Star Wars intellectually empty should not make him immune to criticism.
In My Humble Opinion. Find that and other wierd acronym's at the AcronymFinder. Very handy.
I am infintely disturbed by the rage that is shown in some of these posts towards Alec Guiness because he told a kid who had "seen it [Star Wars] 100 times" to "never watch it again." He also claims that he throws his fan mail in the trash.
A number of people have posted claiming that Guiness "owes something" to the fans.
I hardly think so. The notion that an actor (or a writer or a director) is a puppet who must perform in his life as "the fans" expect is painfully barbarous. Are people seriously suggesting that, if a person is popular or successful, that he must, from then on, conform to the expectations of those who made him successful? That because something he did for money (and I can't imagine that Mr. Guiness made Star Wars for any other reason) was a huge success, he no longer owns his own life?
Forget the fashionable vampires. It is hardly a revelation that humans are obsessed with sex and death. Try "fans" if you want a howling, bloodsucking, all-consuming, shreiking, soulless hunger.
A person has a right to own his or her life for themselves and they owe exactly nothing to the fans.
Let me get a few things out in the open first...
I liked Star Wars.
I liked Empire Strikes Back the most.
I didn't like Return of the Jedi all that much.
Star Wars: The Phantom Menace was the worst of the four, by a very large margin.
That being said, look back on Star Wars with adult eyes. The acting is bad, the dialog is terrible, the story is sort of weak. All of that being said It's still a classic of science fiction if for nothing else than special effects and the way it got kids into the audience with it's fairy-tale story. You'd never be able to get a 5 year old kid to understand the adult themes in Star Trek the Motion Picture or 2001: A Space Odyssey but Star Wars opened the door so that kids would be interested in sci-fi (sort of sci-fantasy?), and for that reason we continue to look back on it fondly, like a childhood memory. Who cares that the plot was weak and the characters were one dimensional? It was and still is great fun for kids.
My $.02
-Rich
Spielberg directed Indiana Jones, he didn't create it. Lucas has writing credits on all three Indiana Jones films and exercises creative control of the character. If you want to get really picky, then quit blaming Lucas for the Star Wars movies. He didn't direct Empire Strikes Back or Return Of The Jedi, either, and people are still bitching about bad acting, poor characters, and shoddy writing. Lucas appeared for writing credits on these films as well.
So desu, it was a Salon article. Here is the original:
/ 15/brin_main/index.html
http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/1999/06
To seek, to strive, to find, and not to yield.
Actors are routinely given scripts ahead of time before they decide to take on a role. I assume that Sir Alec was afforded the same. Being sixty-something at the time, he certainly can't claim the "young and naive" defense.
He is right about the lines, I cringe after hearing Vader/Emperor utter "turn to the dark side/it is your destiny" over and over and over and over....
However Star Wars is still enjoyable, and I'm sorry that he's come to hate it.
Of all the comments I've ever posted, this is definately one of them
One day Sir Alec was accosted in the street by a woman and her 12-year old boy.
"He's seen Star Wars over 100 times" she said proudly. "Can you give him some of your wise advice?"
Guinness walked over to the boy, bent down and looked him in the eye and slowly said "Never - watch - it - again"
I still think is best films are 'Kind Hearts and Coronets', 'The Lavender Hill Mob' and 'The Man in the White Suit' - a nerd parable if ever there was one.
It's easy to call him an heretic, but I don't think we should. I disagree with him that the dialogue sucked; granted, it wasn't Shakespearian, and certainly not the best lines he had been given. I'm not sure how this piece deserves news, other than it acts as counterpoint to the hype. But this type of comment comes along for every majorly successful movie series. Star Trek's Shatner is another example.
Hey, that's fine. When the 6 movies are done filming, we'll remember McGregor as Obi-Wan, not Sir Alec Guinness. Not to say the first three movies will be better, but McGregor would make a convincing Jabba the Hut if they cast him as that!
"There is no surer way to ruin a good discussion than to contaminate it with the facts."
TPM is about as banal as movies can get. The plot was recycled from previous movies with:
An immaculate conception
A slapstick plot "resolution"
ten billion annoying CGI creatures
ten minutes of screen captures from a mediocre video game
thrown in for kicks. Cmon, yousa thinkin, yousa people gonna die? Just read the abridged script:
http://ter.air0day.com/phantommenace.shtml
Can your IM do this?
It seems these days that Lucas is merely the extreme of what has become the norm. With few exceptions, if I want to enjoy a movie it seems that I have to leave the room or cover my ears and eyes whenever a commercial for it comes on the tube. Some of the toys they come out with and advertise are simply silly (although I love the fact that you can get a "Fat Bastard" action figure from Austin Powers II).
Fast food and soft drink tie ins just inundate us with movie images and they do detract from the movie. Sometimes they even ruin the movie altogether.
But as for the complaints of Guinness and Neeson, well I don't think they should complain about being meat puppets. After all, they are actors and are paid to do a job.
On the other hand, Lucas's writing seems to have gone down hill since the first trilogy. Hopefully, the quality of the dialogue and plot will increase with practise.
btw, anyone see the Southpark with strange female critter who talks like Jar-Jar?
anyway...
J:)
Oh well, no point in steering now.
The first movie (ANH) and the original trilogy suffered from their own success. There had been nothing like them before, in their scope and extent, with brand new special effects, fantasy space-mythology, new, unheard of actors, and the like. At the risk of sounding trite, ANH was the Blair Witch of SciFi. (avoids pack of rabid trekkers)
Now, anything that Lucas does with SW is going to have to deal with that which came before. It's like being the child of an incredibly famous person...who am _I_ if not a reflection on that which came before? Yeah, the dialog in TPM was weak, and some of elements were crummy as all heck (guess who, the name rhymes with links), but it was a Good Movie. I'm not looking for the solutions to life's problems or even a tale by which to live my life, just something that's entertaining and to which I can relate.
As for over-hyped, Heck Yeah TPM was over-hyped. But from the economics standpoint, it was brilliantly so. No TV advertising was necessary! That's UNPRECEDENTED for a movie.
Ultimately, SW exists to make its backers money, same as any other brand. Yeah, that's crass, but it's true. And it's been incredibly successful at that while also being quite entertaining and a common bond among geeks.
Trite dialog seems to be a pretty minor critique in light of that.
IMHO.
TPM bit...
1 232&mode=nested 8 232&mode=nested
The original movies, although a bit corny, still had some zen in them...TPM is just pure pop-culture trash...
See David Brin's articles:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/06/15/141
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=99/07/04/204
It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
Sir Alec Guinness, one of the finest actors of this century, is essentially saying that the movie is not worth the obsession that millions of fans have developed. I'm a big Star Wars fan, and yes, I even have an Obi-Wan calendar here in my cubicle. But I can't say I've seen the movie 100 times like the 12-year-old mentioned in the article. If a youth is that interested in movies, or mythology, or science fiction, that's great -- but widen out a little bit!
Sir Guinness would, I'm sure, prefer to be remembered for his truly great roles, such as in Bridge on the River Kwai and Lawrence of Arabia. The fact that another fine actor, Liam Neeson, feels likewise about the series lends support to the view that maybe we're taking Star Wars just a little too seriously.
"You can never have too many elephants on your team."
Well, the problem is that it was a poor kids' movie. After seeing Episode I again, I realized that Lucas doesn't know how to make movies, actually. For example, he simply doesn't understand comic relief in the same way that Spielberg does. His attempts at comedy were at best childish, and at worst annoying and occurring at completely inappropriate times.
Yes, there's a lot of whining about how we shouldn't complain about "George Lucas's personal vision", but you know, I pay my money to watch movies, and I demand good stuff. George Lucas is always willing to wax poetic about the "power of myth" in his movies, willing to put together mind-blowing trailers, but woefully short on delivery, with the feeble, "but it's only a children's movie" when someone points out the shortcomings.
There are those who said that, "look, Episode I was just a movie." It was _not_ just a movie, it was somewhat _less_ that a movie. If it had been "just a movie", it would have been great.
-Dean
I happen to think that space balls had far better dialog than any star wars movie ever. "Water my ass! Get this man some peto-bismal!"
-matt
The truth is, he made Episode I the way he wanted to and that was as a children's movie. George Lucas has children. He made this movie for them. He threw in some adult-candy (Darth Maul) and some teen candy (hey that Natalie Portman is some queen). Still overall, it was a kid's movie. So cry about it.
Finally, the light-hearted idiocy of this movie fits with the story. Nothing really big is happening right now. Naboo is a small silly place divided up between a seventeen year old girl and an obese frog-man. Barely worth the Jedi's notice. What this will build to is a good love story and finally a horrible tragedy. The third film will not be a "kid's movie." It will be serious, like Empire was serious. This series is not the trite EVERY MOVIE IS THE END OF THE WORLD that Star Trek is. It has levels, and broad strokes of color. Yes, Jar-jar sucks, but I laughed anyway. You should too.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
I think Mr. Guinness has every right to be scared by the fact that a fan has seen his movie 100 times. That scares me. What is there in star wars that is so fundamentally true that it needs to be watched 100 times? There was something wrong with that kid. THe movie I have watched the most was Trainspotting, and I saw it 4 times, and most of the time I was renting it again to show my friends because I thought they would realy like it. But 100 times? I wouldnt even watch that movie more than 8 or 9 times in my whole life. I have had friends that know every single little fact and detail about who is who in star wars, why he is like that, or why something happens. The only explanation I can think of for this is that they are substituting for something else they are missing in their life. I'm sure this is exactly how Guinness feels, except it must be worse on him becaues HE was an actor in the film. Whenever someone bashes star wars, people defend it by saying that "it's just a story". I agree, it's just a story, and obsessively watching it and decoding it, and finding out everything about it, is a sign that something is wrong. Now dont get me wrong, I like star wars. They're fun movies. I liked all 3 originals, and the phatntom menace, but that is where it stops. Were I ever forced to watch a movie 100 times, I would choose something that is at least worth it, maybe Apocalypse Now - where there ARE subtelties that you can discover. Anyway I'm off to have a 100 bowls of ice cream. -Laxative
I guess I will just have to agree to disagree with you. The choice to make Star Wars a huge hit was not Alec Guiness' choice. My concept of individual liberty does not permit a mob to take over my life because I do something the mob worships. If the fans resent Alce for this, stop going to his movies.
I've read essays by many popular writers about the difficulty and stress in their lives caused by the incessant demands of the mob for "the next book." While I can see your argument, and agree that the love of the public for one's work is something for which one should be grateful, I think the artist owes something to the text -- to tell a story in a compelling, perhaps even an illuminating way, and that is the sole obligation. If there is no audience, the work was still honorable. If there is a mass audience, the work was still honorable. If the artist sets out with a duty to the mob instead of a duty to the text, well, whatever the work is, it is not art.
The labor of the artist is for the art, not for the audience. If the art is good, if it is human, if it is truthful and compelling, the audience will come. If it is not, there will be no audience.
Why should an actor, writer, or director be a slave to an audience?
By buying a ticket to Star Wars you do not buy firendship from Alec Guiness. Period.
Did anyone notice how everyone was praying that Jar-jar would die, and then suddenly John-John bites the dust. Creepy. Geek Mojo, bad aim, horrible combination.
--
(sourceCode == freeSpeech)
It's a space western, folks. Lots of people like John Wayne's movies, too, but that doesn't mean he didn't have to wrap his mouth around some of the lamest, most pretentious dialogue ever written. At least Alec Guinness has the presence of mind to take himself less seriously than the Duke.
Sure, Star Wars is entertaining. Many children's movies are. I enjoyed all four. But people who think they're high art need to get out more often.
Jamie McCarthy
Jamie McCarthy
jamie.mccarthy.vg
How is he showing "genuine class" by making a little kid cry or throwing his fan mail in the garbage? Fine, he thinks the movies are bunk, but that doesn't mean he should take it out on his fans.
-matt
It seems a little strange here. Guinness claims he persuaded Lucas to kill him off and make him a ghost, yet he couldn't exercise enough influence to change his lines a little? I'm a big Alec Guiness fan (including his Star Wars role), but this sounds a bit fishy.
On the other hand, he's not the only unsatisfied Star Wars actor. There's a link to David Prowse's comments, but also I've read that Denis "Wedge Antilles" Lawson didn't enjoy making the movies. I suspect that any time you have a director who is also the creator (such as Lucas, but also JMS of Babylon 5), the director is going to want to exercise more creative control in creating his "vision."
Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Oh, that's a real useful invention.
Not to mention that I'm *still* seeing occasional ads for the movie itself, like with Shmi doing the "he's growing up so fast" thing. And K-Mart seems to just be getting geared up with their TPM Anakin clothes and back-to-school crap...
---
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
"'Is not a quine' is not a quine" is a quine.
Quine "quine?
I donno about Alec Guiness. good actor, but wow, he's been on a personal crusade for the last several years to let everyone know how much he dislikes Star Wars.
...Even though it unfortunately honed us on the art of cheesy dialogue and Way Too Simple Action Movie Plotlines (tm). :)
:) Hopefully Carrie Fisher will bring a nice touch to the 2nd movie when she ghost writes the dialogue for several characters.]
He does have an excellent point - obsession over a story is a dangerous thing. Watching a movie 100 times at such a YOUNG age is ridiculous... I think he gave the kid good advice.
Alec Guiness seems to feel that Star Wars is destructive for youth (according to an old interview I read with him). I disagree here. Almost all fantasies are constructive, especially for young people. The mind grows through play & imagination. Star Wars has opened the imaginations of many kids, and inspired many of us...
[Tangent:
Looking at the original Star Wars, it was *JUST AS BAD* as TPM plot-wise... but we had never seen ANYTHING like Star Wars before it came out, so it was such a novelty. Now, 22 years later, our taste for involved plots & good dialogue has risen... Apparently, Lucas' hasn't.
What I *don't* like about this article is the way it throws in Liam Neeson's decision to quit acting and David Prowse's complaints in order to paint a "dirtier" picture. Journalistic FUD at its best. Neeson's decision has little to do with Lucas' specific treatment of him (I read that Redbook article), and if Prowse's story sounds way too left-field.. (a "black" voice? Why did you wait 2 decades to bring this up?)
-Stu
When you've had the kind of career he has, doing all the serious acting he has, and suddenly you're remembered only for playing a Jedi Knight -- and the role has you speaking a whole lot of mumbo jumbo that is, at times, very trite -- you're going to be bitter.
"Hi Obi-Wan!"
"My name is not Obi-Wan."
"You're a great actor!"
"What have you seen me do?"
"Uhh... Obi-Wan Kenobi!"
*sound of molars grinding and head striking wall repeatedly*
Actors just can't help being upset about things like that. It may seem stupid to the casual observer, but when you spend your entire life doing theater full time and then in the later stages of it you're remembered only for one role -- in a movie that's admittedly cool, but definately NOT your best work -- it will get to you.
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
Sir Alec briefly touches on it when he says, "I throw away all fan mail." The real problem here isn't that the movie was so awfully bad. It was that it was so damned popular. Hell, you could say that same thing about Godzilla and Batman & Robin. The thing is, for some reason, fans continue to flock to Star Wars. How many of you 20-30-year-old geeks went and saw Star Wars opening night, despite the bad lines and awful characters found in Return of the Jedi and the pre-release denunciations of the movie? Any other movie with acting as bad as TPM or ANH or ROTJ would've flopped, but Star Wars has a mythic stature to it that generates a market for it. Everyone bitches about how it doesn't live up to their expectations, but everyone continues to watch the movies. Why? Because it's a simple story with lightsabers.
Star Wars isn't over-hyped. The populace is over-enthusiastic. Alec isn't pissed off at Star Wars. He's pissed off at the people who raise it to a platform it shouldn't be on. Lucas is perfectly capable of making truly excellent films (witness Indiana Jones), but Star Wars doesn't need to be. He's marketing that towards the kids and the middle-age and parents come along for the nostalgia and the excitement.
Sir Alec is pissed at you and me.
Surely he's right in what he said. The dialog in Star Wars films is hardly Restoration comedy. But it's kind of rude of Sir Alec to be so blunt about it. He has every right, of course, but I kind of wish he hadn't...
Hiawatha Bray
Tech Reporter
Boston Globe
One of the great triumphs of advertising, which is the only art left to us.
Now excuse me while I take a break to suck on a battery powered Jar-Jar-Binks themed tootsie pop twirler/noisemaker.
support gun control: take guns from cops
I know I'm in the minority, but I think it's too childish for adults. I did like it when I was a teenager though.
I think this may be the crux of the matter in comparing ANH and TPM. Your critical judgement changes as you get older, and the same stuff that knocks your socks off as a teen becomes infantile, predictable and obvious as an adult.
Of course, the only way to test this hypothesis is to get a few samples of children (preferably under 2), let them grow up in a non-Star Wars contaminated environment, and then expose one set to TPM and the control set to ANH, and see which one they prefer.
Now if I could just get a grant for this, or maybe we could grab a few Amish teens.
George
I have inside information that Lucas saw The Blair Witch Project and was very impressed. He feels that the Star Wars movies have become huge money-wasters and wants to try a different approach. Here is the plan for Episode II:
:)
Episode II will take place entirely in the Dagobah swamps. There will be only three characters -- Jar Jar, Yoda, and Jedi-in-training Anakin Skywalker.
Yoda is recording Anakin's progress on a Sony Handycam. Most of the film is shot from this perspective.
Here is a portion of the script:
Anakin -- "I kicked the map into the swamp."
Yoda -- "Kicked the map into the swamp, did you? Why you kick map into swamp? Map we need!"
Jar Jar -- "Oh no! Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "You're a Jedi master! Just use the force and get us out of this!"
Yoda -- "Powerful is the force, but map we need! Foolish you are!"
Jar Jar -- "Weesa gonna die!"
Anakin -- "Wait! What was that? Did you hear that?"
Yoda -- "Do not change the subject. Map you lost!"
Anakin -- "Where's Jar Jar?"
Yoda -- "Standing here he was. I know not where he went."
Then again, I could just be making the whole thing up because I'm bored.
Save the whales. Feed the hungry. Free the mallocs.
He's right to some extent too, it's a movie. It's fun and exciting but some people take it a bit far. As one of the greatest actors around it's got to sting a little to have done some amazing roles and then be primarily remembered by some younger generations for a bit role in a pop movie.
Falling down the detonator and blowing up the bridge was a little over the top though also..
This is my signature. There are many signatures like it but this one is mine..
What's this idea so many people seem to have about shielding twelve-year-olds from anything that might make them sad? Is it some sort of child abuse to tell them what you believe to be the truth?
And don't give me that "do it for the children" schtick, or I'll find you wherever you hide.
--
Some keywords for the NSA in the Lord of the Rings universe: One Ring bind find Sauron quest Nazgul freedom
"Star Wars" despots vs. "Star Trek" populists
... Adolf did save the life of his own son!"
... and even logical! Common folk got almost as much chance to be heroic as the demigods. Clichés were few and terrific surprises abounded. There were fine foreshadowings, promising more marvels in sequels. It was simply a great movie. Homeric but great.
Why is George Lucas peddling an elitist, anti-democratic agenda under the guise of escapist fun?
"But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot."
-- George Lucas (New York Times interview, March 1999)
Well, I boycotted "Episode I: The Phantom Menace" -- for an entire week.
Why? What's to boycott? Isn't "Star Wars" good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.
Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four "Star Wars" flicks.)
Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?
One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.
By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four "Star Wars" films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.
Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames?
* Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.
* "Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.
* Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.
* True leaders are born. It's genetic. The right to rule is inherited.
* Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.
That is just the beginning of a long list of "moral" lessons relentlessly pushed by "Star Wars." Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like "Star Trek." (We'll take a much closer look at some stark divergences between these two sci-fi universes below.)
Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian Übermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike super-beings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.
Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest "Star Wars" film at all?
Because I am forced to admit that demigod tales resonate deeply in the human heart.
Before moving on to the fun stuff, will you bear with me while we get serious for a little while?
In "The Hero With a Thousand Faces," Joseph Campbell showed how a particular, rhythmic storytelling technique was used in almost every ancient and pre-modern culture, depicting protagonists and antagonists with certain consistent motives and character traits, a pattern that transcended boundaries of language and culture. In these classic tales, the hero begins reluctant, yet signs and portents foretell his pre-ordained greatness. He receives dire warnings and sage wisdom from a mentor, acquires quirky-but-faithful companions, faces a series of steepening crises, explores the pit of his own fears and emerges triumphant to bring some boon/talisman/victory home to his admiring tribe/people/nation.
By offering valuable insights into this revered storytelling tradition, Joseph Campbell did indeed shed light on common spiritual traits that seem shared by all human beings. And I'll be the first to admit it's a superb formula -- one that I've used at times in my own stories and novels.
Alas, Campbell only highlighted positive traits, completely ignoring a much darker side -- such as how easily this standard fable-template was co-opted by kings, priests and tyrants, extolling the all-importance of elites who tower over common women and men. Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again. Those who praise Joseph Campbell seem to perceive this uniformity as cause for rejoicing -- but it isn't. Playing a large part in the tragic miring of our spirit, demigod myths helped reinforce sameness and changelessness for millennia, transfixing people in nearly every culture, from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes.
It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition -- a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games -- and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions.
And a compulsive questioning of rules! Authors like Greg Bear, John Brunner, Alice Sheldon, Frederik Pohl and Philip K. Dick always looked on any prescriptive storytelling formula as a direct challenge -- a dare. This explains why science fiction has never been much welcomed at either extreme of the literary spectrum -- comic books and "high literature."
Comics treat their superheroes with reverent awe, as demigods were depicted in the Iliad. But a true science fiction author who wrote about Superman would have earthling scientists ask the handsome Man of Steel for blood samples (even if it means scraping with a super fingernail) in order to study his puissant powers, and maybe bottle them for everyone.
As for the literary elite, postmodernists despise science fiction because of the word "science," while their older colleagues -- steeped in Aristotle's "Poetics" -- find anathema the underlying assumption behind most high-quality SF: the bold assertion that there are no "eternal human verities." Things change, and change can be fascinating. Moreover, our children might outgrow us! They may become better, or learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. And if they don't learn, that could be a riveting tragedy far exceeding Aristotle's cramped and myopic definition. "On the Beach," "Soylent Green" and "1984" plumbed frightening depths. "Brave New World," "The Screwfly Solution" and "Fahrenheit 451" posed worrying questions. In contrast, "Oedipus Rex" is about as interesting as watching a hooked fish thrash futilely at the end of a line. You just want to put the poor doomed King of Thebes out of his misery -- and find a way to punish his tormentors.
This truly is a different point of view, in direct opposition to older, elitist creeds that preached passivity and awe in nearly every culture, where a storyteller's chief job was to flatter the oligarchic patrons who fed him. Imagine Achilles refusing to accept his ordained destiny, taking up his sword and hunting down the Fates, demanding that they give him both a long life and a glorious one! Picture Odysseus telling both Agamemnon and Poseidon to go chase themselves, then heading off to join Daedalus in a garage start-up company, mass producing wheeled and winged horses so that mortals could swoop about the land and air, like gods -- the way common folk do today. Even if they fail, and jealous Olympians crush them, what a tale it would be.
This storytelling style was rarely seen till a few generations ago, when aristocrats lost some of their power to punish irreverence. Even now, the new perspective remains shaky -- and many find it less romantic, too. How many dramas reflexively depict scientists as "mad"? How few modern films ever show American institutions functioning well enough to bother fixing them? No wonder George Lucas publicly yearns for the pomp of mighty kings over the drab accountability of presidents. Many share his belief that things might be a whole lot more vivid without all the endless, dreary argument and negotiating that make up such a large part of modern life.
If only someone would take command. A leader.
Some people say, why look for deep lessons in harmless, escapist entertainment?
Others earnestly hold that the moral health of a civilization can be traced in its popular culture.
In the modern era, we tend to feel ideas aren't inherently toxic. Yet who can deny that people -- especially children -- will be swayed if a message is repeated often enough? It's when a "lesson" gets reiterated relentlessly that even skeptics should sit up and take notice.
The moral messages in "Star Wars" aren't just window dressing. Speeches and lectures drench every film. They represent an agenda.
Can we learn more about the "Star Wars" worldview by comparing George Lucas' space-adventure epic to its chief competitor -- "Star Trek?"
The differences at first seem superficial. One saga has an air force motif (tiny fighters) while the other appears naval. In "Star Trek," the big ship is heroic and the cooperative effort required to maintain it is depicted as honorable. Indeed, "Star Trek" sees technology as useful and essentially friendly -- if at times also dangerous. Education is a great emancipator of the humble (e.g. Starfleet Academy). Futuristic institutions are basically good-natured (the Federation), though of course one must fight outbreaks of incompetence and corruption. Professionalism is respected, lesser characters make a difference and henchmen often become brave whistle-blowers -- as they do in America today.
In "Star Trek," when authorities are defied, it is in order to overcome their mistakes or expose particular villains, not to portray all institutions as inherently hopeless. Good cops sometimes come when you call for help. Ironically, this image fosters useful criticism of authority, because it suggests that any of us can gain access to our flawed institutions, if we are determined enough -- and perhaps even fix them with fierce tools of citizenship.
By contrast, the oppressed "rebels" in "Star Wars" have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it's not their job.
In teaching us how to distinguish good from evil, Lucas prescribes judging by looks: Villains wear Nazi helmets. They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon. On the other hand, "Star Trek" tales often warn against judging a book by its cover -- a message you'll also find in the films of Steven Spielberg, whose spunky everyman characters delight in reversing expectations and asking irksome questions.
Above all, "Star Trek" generally depicts heroes who are only about 10 times as brilliant, noble and heroic as a normal person, prevailing through cooperation and wit, rather than because of some inherited godlike transcendent greatness. Characters who do achieve godlike powers are subjected to ruthless scrutiny. In other words, "Trek" is a prototypically American dream, entranced by notions of human improvement and a progress that lifts all. Gene Roddenberry's vision loves heroes, but it breaks away from the elitist tradition of princes and wizards who rule by divine or mystical right.
By contrast, these are the only heroes in the "Star Wars" universe.
Yes, "Trek" can at times seem preachy, or turgidly politically correct. For example, every species has to mate with every other one, interbreeding with almost compulsive abandon. The only male heroes who are allowed any testosterone are Klingons, because cultural diversity outweighs sexual correctness. (In other words, it's OK for them to be macho 'cause it is "their way.") "Star Trek" television episodes often devolved into soap operas. Many of the movies were very badly written. Nevertheless, "Trek" tries to grapple with genuine issues, giving complex voices even to its villains and asking hard questions about pitfalls we may face while groping for tomorrow. Anyway, when it comes to portraying human destiny, where would you rather live, assuming you'll be a normal citizen and no demigod? In Roddenberry's Federation? Or Lucas' Empire?
Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, "That's sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it's a big human who can get past that."
In other words a royal figure or demigod, anointed by fate. (Like a billionaire moviemaker?)
Lucas often says we are a sad culture, bereft of the confidence or inspiration that strong leaders can provide. And yet, aren't we the very same culture that produced George Lucas and gave him so many opportunities? The same society that raised all those brilliant experts for him to hire -- boldly creative folks who pour both individual inspiration and cooperative skill into his films? A culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange? It what way can such a civilization be said to lack confidence?
In historical fact, all of history's despots, combined, never managed to "get things done" as well as this rambunctious, self-critical civilization of free and sovereign citizens, who have finally broken free of worshipping a ruling class and begun thinking for themselves. Democracy can seem frustrating and messy at times, but it delivers.
Having said all that, let me again acknowledge that "Star Wars" harks to an old and very, very deeply human archetype. Those who listened to Homer recite the "Iliad" by a campfire knew great drama. Achilles could slay a thousand with the sweep of a hand -- as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button -- but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod's personal drama is important.
Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader -- nee Anakin Skywalker -- in "Return of the Jedi."
To put it in perspective, let's imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler's defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:
"But, your honors
Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. "We didn't know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!"
The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.
It may sound silly, but that's exactly the lesson taught by "Return of the Jedi," wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son.
How many of us have argued late at night over the philosophical conundrum -- "Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a boy, if given a chance?" It's a genuine moral puzzler, with many possible ethical answers. Still, most people, however they ultimately respond, would admit being tempted to say yes, if only to save millions of Hitler's victims.
And yet, in "The Phantom Menace," Lucas wants us to gush with warm feelings toward a cute blond little boy who will later grow up to murder the population of Earth many times over? While we're at it, why not bring out the Hitler family album, so we may croon over pictures of adorable little Adolf and marvel over his childhood exploits! He, too, was innocent till he turned to the "dark side," so by all means let us adore him.
To his credit, Lucas does not try to excuse this macabre joke by saying, "It's only a movie." Rather, he holds up his saga like an agonized Greek tragedy worthy of "Oedipus" -- an epic tale of a fallen hero, trapped by hubris and fate. But if that were true, wouldn't "Star Wars" by now have given us a better-than-caricature view of the Dark Side? Heroes and villains would not be distinguished by mere prettiness; the moral quandaries would not come from a comic book.
Don't swallow it. The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems. We should find it chilling.
Remember the final scene in "Return of the Jedi," when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told. But that's me. I'm a rebel against Homer and Achilles and that whole tradition. At heart, some of you are, too.
This isn't just a one-time distinction. It marks the main boundary between real, literate, humanistic science fiction -- or speculative fiction -- and most of the movie "sci-fi" you see nowadays.
The difference isn't really about complexity, childishness, scientific naiveté or haughty prose stylization. I like a good action scene as well as the next guy, and can forgive technical gaffes if the story is way cool! The films of Robert Zemeckis take joy in everything, from rock 'n' roll to some deep scientific paradox, feeding both the child and the adult within. Meanwhile, noir tales like "Gattaca" and "The 13th Floor" relish dark stylization while exploring real ideas. Good SF has range.
No, the underlying difference is that one tradition revels in elites, while the other rebels against them. In the genuine science-fiction worldview, demigods aren't easily forgiven lies and murder. Contempt for the masses is passé. There may be heroes -- even great ones -- but in the long run we'll improve together, or not at all. (See my note on the Enlightenment, Romanticism and science fiction.)
That kind of myth does sell. Yet, even after rebelling against the Homeric archetype for generations, we children of Pericles, Ben Franklin and H.G. Wells remain a minority. So much so that Lucas can appropriate our hand-created tropes and symbols -- our beloved starships and robots -- for his own ends and get credited for originality.
As I mentioned earlier, the mythology of conformity and demigod-worship pervades the highest levels of today's intelligentsia, and helps explain why so many postmodernist English literature professors despise real science fiction. When Joseph Campbell prescribed that writers should adhere slavishly to a hackneyed plot outline that preached submission for ages, he was lionized by Bill Moyers and countless others for his warm and fuzzy "human insight."
Indeed, his perceptions were compassionate and illuminating! Still, a frank discussion or debate might have been more useful than Campbell's sunny monologue. As in the old fable about a golden-haired king, no one dared point to the bright ruler's dark shadow, or his long trail of bloody footprints.
I admit we face an uphill battle winning most people over to a more progressive, egalitarian worldview, along with stirring dreams that focus on genuine problems and heroes, not demigods. Meanwhile, Lucas knows his mythos appeals to human nature at a deep and ancient level.
Hell, it appeals to part of my nature! Which is why I knew I'd cave in and see "The Phantom Menace," after my symbolic one-week boycott expired. In fact, let me confess that I adored the second film in the series, "The Empire Strikes Back." Despite Yoda's kitschy pseudo-zen, one could easily suspend disbelief and wait to see what the Jedi philosophy had to say. Millions became keyed up to find out, at long last, why Obi-Wan and Yoda lied like weasels to Luke Skywalker. Meanwhile, the script sizzled with originality, good dialogue and relentlessly compelling characters. The action was dynamite
You already know what I think of what came next. But worshipping Darth Vader only scratches the surface. The biggest moral flaw in the "Star Wars" universe is one point that Lucas stresses over and over again, through the voice of his all-wise guru character, Yoda.
Let's see if I get this right. Fear makes you angry and anger makes you evil, right?
Now I'll concede at once that fear has been a major motivator of intolerance in human history. I can picture knightly adepts being taught to control fear and anger, as we saw credibly in "The Empire Strikes Back." Calmness makes you a better warrior and prevents mistakes. Persistent wrath can cloud judgment. That part is completely believable.
But then, in "Return of the Jedi," Lucas takes this basic wisdom and perverts it, saying -- "If you get angry -- even at injustice and murder -- it will automatically and immediately transform you into an unalloyedly evil person! All of your opinions and political beliefs will suddenly and magically reverse. Every loyalty will be forsaken and your friends won't be able to draw you back. You will instantly join your sworn enemy as his close pal or apprentice. All because you let yourself get angry at his crimes."
Uh, say what? Could you repeat that again, slowly?
In other words, getting angry at Adolf Hitler will cause you to rush right out and join the Nazi Party? Excuse me, George. Could you come up with a single example of that happening? Ever?
That contention is, in itself, a pretty darn evil thing to preach. Above all, it is just plain dumb.
It raises a question that someone should have asked a long time ago. Who the heck nominated George Lucas to preach sick, popcorn morality at our children? If it's "only a movie," why is he working so hard to fill his films with this crap?
I think it's time to choose, people. This saga is not just another expression of the Homeric archetype, extolling old hierarchies of princes, wizards and demigods. By making its centerpiece the romanticization of a mass murderer, "Star Wars" has sunk far lower. It is unworthy of our attention, our enthusiasm -- or our civilization.
Lucas himself gives a clue when he says, "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away."
Right on. "Star Wars" belongs to our dark past. A long, tyrannical epoch of fear, illogic, despotism and demagoguery that our ancestors struggled desperately to overcome, and that we are at last starting to emerge from, aided by the scientific and egalitarian spirit that Lucas openly despises. A spirit we must encourage in our children, if they are to have any chance at all.
I don't expect to win this argument any time soon. As Joseph Campbell rightly pointed out, the ways of our ancestors tug at the soul with a resonance many find romantically appealing, even irresistible. Some cannot put the fairy tale down and move on to more mature fare. Not yet at least. Ah well.
But over the long haul, history is on my side. Because the course of human destiny won't be defined in the past. It will be decided in our future.
That's my bailiwick, though it truly belongs to all of you. To all of us.
The future is where our posterity will thrive.
---------------
By David Brin
June 15, 1999
-- You are in a twisty maze of passages, all alike.
Ever notice that when throngs of fans scream for blood, Lucas claims that it's a simple line of kids' movies, but when a reporter asks him to explain such and such themes of Empire, he's all too willing to sing his heart out?
---
Silly rabbit. Sleep is for class!
Sorry to burst your bubble, but Sir Alec Guiness was / is famous , not for Star Wars, but for being one of the greatest Shakespearean actors of our era.
... well, history will have its say, but as for now he has a point.
Comparing the dialogue and longevity of Shakespeare to that of Lucas
The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist.
First: Shatner said that on SNL, and it's one of the funniest things ever done or said on that show. He was, in part, making fun of his own continued popularity in the face of his incredibly cheesy acting. The devotion of hard-line fans of *anything* be it Jane Austen, Trek, Star Wars, is interesting, amusing, and, I'll admit it, a little frightening. The degree of obsession displayed by hard-core Trekkies is worth making fun of. Repeat after me: "it's only a TV and movie franchise". Now do the same with Star Wars, only leave out the "TV" part.
Not that this excuses Guinness for being rude to a young child; but I don't blame him for trying to shock the kid out of his obsession with what are, after all, movies that only scratch the surface of what can be done with the medium. If I saw a kid that obsessed I might not "harshly rebuke" him, but I'd sure take steps to ensure the kid gets some kind of life.
Finally: "Alec, you made your bed. It made you famous. Now, you have to lie in it." (a) it didn't make him famous. He was the only 'name' actor in the original movie. Check out his filmography on IMDB if you don't believe me. Yes, yes, it may have made him more famous, but it's not like he appears to have wanted the extra fame, and it's not like he got lots of work out of it (it happened at the tail end of his distinguished career) (b) what the heck do you mean by that anyway? Guinness has every right to complain about the movie or its effects on him after making it.
"Oh, I hope he doesn't give us halyatchkies," said Heinrich.