Movie Profile


Directors Who Matter George Lucas

By: JENNY PETERS and ANTHONY C. FERRANTE
Date: Sunday, December 11, 2005

George Lucas

Age: 61

Most Recent Film: Star Wars: Episode III Revenge of the Sith

Best Film: Star Wars

Most Underrated Film: THX 1138

Did You Know: Had a car accident just out of high school that ended his dreams of professional race car driving -- but the life-changing experience led him to create The Force.

Why He Matters: Jaws may have defined summer moviegoing, but Star Wars shot it out of the stratosphere and made it a cultural phenomenon. With every sequel, he upped the ante for future filmmakers. He's also been the biggest proponent of shooting digitally, and his special effects house ILM continues to break new ground with every new film they work on.

Elvis. The Beatles. Star Wars. The three things that continue to endure year after year, from generation to generation. It's company that is not lost on Star Wars creator George Lucas. "They don't come around all the time," says Lucas "They come around once in a while and someone, somehow captures the imagination of the culture. And now it's the world's culture. It's hard to predict that stuff because it doesn't really have anything to do with what the work is or isn't. It just happens to be a cultural artifact that two particular forces connected in a particular time and place to create this craziness among the population."


As Lucas winds down his nearly 30-year odyssey called Star Wars with Episode III-Revenge of the Sith (which chronicles Anakin Skywalker's descent to the Dark Side and his ultimate rebirth as the insidious Darth Vader), he admits he never intended the series to take on the life it has.

"I thought it was going to be one movie, it was just going to be Episode IV," says Lucas. "I wasn't going to tell all of the back story. The three movies were quashed down and put into one movie. That was the movie. I expected that to be it, and then I'd go on and do other things. I certainly never expected this." After Return of the Jedi in 1983, Lucas took time out to raise a family. Yet fifteen years later, after his kids were grown up, he decided to go back, revisit his beloved franchise and direct again.

"I always had talked about doing my own little, personal, artsy, non-linear movies, and I never considered doing the back story [of Star Wars]," says Lucas. "I was fascinated with the back story because it was a story about Darth Vader, but it kind of got lost a little bit in terms of what it was meant to be. It didn't have the impact that it would have if you knew what transpired and who Darth Vader was."

Lucas says he was intrigued because it would change how audiences looked at the last three movies, compared to how the storyline would have been viewed as episodic literature.

"The great thing about literature is that it works completely different in cinema," he explains. "It's completely two different sorts of genres. One sort of activates your imagination through the use of words. The other is a literal visual stimuli that hits you, in that you kind of believe it's real in a dreamlike sense."

And technology finally caught up to his ideas, allowing Lucas total freedom in storytelling.

"I wouldn't have even thought of building this back story if we hadn't created the digital technology that said, 'Oh, now I can actually have aliens that can talk and act and not be rubber masks,'" he adds.

Despite Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace disappointing many fans, Lucas admits that this current trilogy of films had to be different.

"I had to figure them out tonally," he says. "I wanted it stylistically to be the same, but it was darker, and I knew that it wasn't a traditional story arc. It wasn't plot, it was character study."

As the new trilogy has focused more on creating completely digital sets and digital actor replication, Lucas cautions that CGI will never take the place of actors as many people have feared.

"We've never been able to teach a computer to act," says Lucas. "It's talent and it's a skill, something that you're born with. I don't see in the foreseeable future that computers can become human enough in their artificial intelligence to have the same crazed psychology and need in order to relate to other people and get them to emotionally express their ideas. A computer can make a perfect visual representation, but the computer cannot act, and a character is just as good as the acting. The reason that Toy Story works as well as it does is because of Tom Hanks and the great actors in there. Shrek works as well as it does because of Eddie Murphy. Yoda works as well as he does because of Frank Oz. You cannot do it without an actor."

In digital technology, Lucas points out that a lot of talented animators -- who can, in a sense, be considered actors -- are also very necessary.

"They learn the same skills, they have the same talent," he says. "They shift slightly, but in the end, what they're using to do their craft is exactly the same, and a computer just can't do that. It just can't do it."

And in some ways, Lucas is completely surprised at the path his career has taken something he would have never expected when he was that geeky guy back at University of Southern California (USC) film school in the 1960s.

"I would've never believed that I would've ended up where I am now," he admits. "I wouldn't have believed that in a million years. And I went about it completely wrong because I wasn't headed in this direction. I was actually going the other way and somehow I ended up here. That's the way life is. You go north and you end up south."

He says he's basically followed what he wanted to do and where his creativity took him, planning little out along the way, but adding that he was also lucky enough along the way to fall "into things."

"Mostly the things that I was doing that I get the most credit for were things that I was doing, if anything, to protect the films," Lucas explains. "I got sequel rights because I wanted to make the other two films, and not because I thought that the first one was going to be successful. I thought that it was going to be a failure. I thought, 'If this is a failure, they won't do the other movies. So if I get the sequel rights, I can do them anyway, regardless of whether the first films fail or not.' And they thought the same thing that I did, which was that the first film was going to fail, and so why did they care about that stuff. 'In the end all we can do is maybe stop him from doing it and maybe get a few bucks off of the top and make it harder for him.' They didn't care."

Lucas waves goodbye to his franchise for now, although there will still be 3-D versions of the six Star Wars films released to theaters some time in the near future, plus a new TV animated series and a live-action TV series that is set between Episode III and Episode IV. As a director, however, Lucas plans to go off and make his abstract, non-linear art films, and he will still use digital cameras and technology to do it.

"I don't think that [my next films] are going to be FX driven the way that the movies that I've done now are," he says. "But I'm completely digital. I shoot digitally. I edit digitally. And I manipulate the film digitally, and I'm not going to stop doing that. That's like saying, 'Gee, you made widescreen color film with sound now. Are you going to go back and do a silent black and white movie?'"


More Content By JENNY PETERS and ANTHONY C. FERRANTE
Directors Who Matter George Lucas
(Sunday, December 11, 2005)
Comments/Responses
1 2 3 4 > >>
• Dec 11, 2005, 02:28pm •
How can you call this guy a director? He's more of a producer with a micromanagement problem. The last three Star Wars flicks were horribly directed as seen the acting in the latest three flicks. We've seen Portman, MacGregor, Jackson and Christopher Lee all act really well under other directors and scripts. It's obvious the guy is a hack that should have left it to the expertise of other as he did in the Original Trilogy. His choice of course but it was sad to see the trilogy end turn out the way it did.

• Dec 11, 2005, 06:56pm •
Sadly, I have to agree radone.
Lucas is a knowledable & entertaining storyteller, and he did an okay job with the first Star Wars as director. But when you take his stories, couple them with wonderful directors like Spielberg or Kershner and toss in professional screenwriters like Kasdan, the results CAN be magic. He's been so badly burned by giving others control, that he no longer seems to take a chance on anyone.
The result is our loss, and his mistake.

• Dec 11, 2005, 07:01pm •
ANYWAY!!! Losing the whining and crying for a moment!!! George Lucas literally changed filmmaking and is in no way a HACK! After all, he DID direct The first of the original STAR WARS films and you aren't complaining about that. What in the heck are you talking about? His directing skills? Okay, he's no genious there, but to call him a hack is something that requires anger management! Lucas has delivered some incredible picture to look at. his dialogue trouble aside, you could almost mute the movies and get total enjoyment out of them. As a student of film, I know he's definitely one of the most important filmmakers of all time, not just for the six star wars movies, but for his sheer capacity to put the images he does on the screen with such ambition. And, by the way, I loved the end of Revenge of the Sith. It was exactly the way it was supposed to be. that's probably the one problem. We knew, from watching the original films, how it would turn out.

• Dec 11, 2005, 08:00pm •
So are you taking that film theory class like on Scream 2 where all they talk about is pop culture Hollywood movies? George Lucas is a hack in every sense of the word. The only thing he is responsible for is the complete overblown spectacle of Hollywood today, where box office take out-weighs things like art and integrity. Where merchandising is more essential than storytelling and movies are packaged and sold before the script is even written. Giving rise to such directors as Michael "Scripts-make-my-head-hurt" Bay and others who specilize in nothing but spectacle. I give kudos to the likes of Peter Jackson and Terry Gilliam who at least attempt to keep the artistry of filmmaking alive and fresh instead of relying on heavy sfx to tell their stories. As far as George Lucas is concerned, before I suffer the wraith of the "Lucas Groupies", I base my views of him, and his hackness, through personal experiance. I was at a film convention a several years ago and he was the guest-speaker. And he went into this whole schpleal about how he is an avant garde and how "American Grafitti" is an important avant garde work. And he believed his words, wholeheartedly. He actually called it "a work". He may be, or more likely once was, a decent director but his own "delusions of grandeur" have clouded his head and apparently his better judgement. Unless you agree that AG is an important avant garde work, in which case avant garde, art in general, is in serious trouble. Even in that article about the new Kong, they said Lucas visited the fx shop and could not believe that they were still using minatures. He was like, "But you can do all of this on computers!" and they were like, "Yeah, so...". It seems that all he cares about using the biggest most expensive fx's which I'm not opposed to, but not just use them just because you can. All of this and I own two replica light-sabers and practically worship the force. I love, LOVE, the movies, the "original" originals.

• Dec 12, 2005, 12:24am •
Possum, I too own some replicas. Sometimes I sit in my room and pretend Im a jedi knight. Its to to swing those babies in doors if you have a low ceiling. I was so upset when my friends me on the council, but would not grant me the title of a master! So.. I killed them all... they had it coming. DAMN YOUNGLINGS!!!
Seriosly, Im a star wars junkie and the only thing that makes me upset about star wars is DARTH FLANEL-SHIRT. He sure can write a good story, but what the hell does he know about human interaction??
I really did not feel any love for any of the those characters, because they seemed so humanless and shallow. Were these films shot in a weeks worth time?
He could have yelled cut once and said," Uhh.. I'm just not feeling anything from you people."
Im just trying to say that some of the acting (mostly from Hayden) came out a bit forced and not very heart felt. Ewan, before his duel with Hayden, pulled of the dialog convincingly. Hayden was so cringe worthy with his, "I HAVE BROUGHT PEACE, WHINNING AND WOODEN ACTING TO MY NEW EMPIRE!!"
He makes Mark Hamill an oscar winner. These films just gave answers, a new toy line and is a showcase for great special effects. I don't blame the actors. I blame georgie-porgie.
And to you Lucas I say, "Thanks for the original trilogy and messing it up with your special edition version. Take a bow ... take a seat and take another 15 years off."
I have brought peace to this thread..

• Dec 12, 2005, 12:40am •
So possum, are you taking that film class known as 'go online and read and repeat what other people and critics say'?

Hollywood is in the spot it's in today because of greedy, self-important directors in the seventies. Perhaps you'd like to think of Hollywood as an entity that produces shit movies to take in money. If so, you're almost right. Hollywood consists of human beings that have families, mortgages, and their careers to think of. Maybe you could become a producer and clean up the way they do business, but I doubt it, since if you don't make the studio money you'd get fired, and that's what this is about. Michael Cimino's self-centered 'personal film' singlehandedly killed United Artists. Do you want to be the producer responsible for destroying a studio?

As far as Lucas goes he WAS a good filmmaker. If he had any brains he'd make the original theatrical films available and his new ones (much like the Alien Quadrilogy). Regardless of what he's done to tarnish his image, his effect on cinema is undoubtedly huge, so say what you wish, but the man clearly deserves a shred of respect.

• Dec 12, 2005, 01:15am •
Yes, just a shred though. I admit that I will never accomplish as much as he, but I would have loved to sit on shoulders and change some of it. Thats just me though. Im selfish.
As for Hollywood, you have a great point bryanway. I agree that these people are under the influence of some corprate scum and are only doing their job to make a living. But rest easy, we have so many great films that if Hollywood loses all perspective on what the public wants , then we can retire to our DVDs.

• Dec 12, 2005, 02:30am •
No asshole, I don't take online film classes. I'm just addressing the fact that there is so much more to cinema than Lucas or Spielberg or Quentin Tarantino and that if I ever sat in on a class that talked about which movies won oscars and had good sequels, i.e. Scream 2, I would promptly ask for my money back. And as far as self-important directors of the 70's, isn't old George at the top of that list?!?!?! What about the good directors that came out of that era? Scorese for example, or Cassavettes, two groundbreaking and truly underappreciated individuals. Actual artists. I agree Lucas's effects on cinema are big. Star Wars was the film that started the trend of Big Opening Weekends. And using movies as vehicles to sell lunchboxes. Sure we are still feeling the effects of it today. And as far the Hollywood shit factory, you're telling me you were okay with The Fog remake, or the fact that there is a Chips movie coming out? Come on Chips?!?!?!!? Granted casting Fez as Ponch is an inspired move but still! And for your poor families just trying to make ends meet, I'm sure they'd be just as happy working on a quality picture as they are crap. I respect Lucas for giving us Star Wars, but then he took it away. So that makes him pretty much fair game.

• Dec 12, 2005, 04:26am •
Let's try to avoid the name calling for now, I'd hate for an intellectual battle like this to become petty.

In the 70's, Lucas didn't indulge in his fantasy and insist on final cut or anything like that. Scorcese survived because of integrity, but look at Hal Ashby's track record around 1980.

I'm not saying I like these Hollywood movies, I'm saying I sympathize with their efforts to make money, because that's what keeps studios running.

The problem with 'quality pictures' is that a lot of them are risky investments, for instance, no one wanted to take a chance on Traffic because it had low potential for box office gain. Why would you want to lose 25 million plus on a risky investment when you could make 50 million on a tested popular formula, like teen sex comedies? That's how they do it.

For reference, my favorite makers are Cronenberg, Lynch, Romero, Altman, Fincher, Hitchcock, Woo, Kubrick, Miike and P.T. Anderson.

• Dec 12, 2005, 05:04am •
Keeping the studios running is exactly what's wrong with Hollywood today. George didn't insist on final cut because he already had it. Star Wars was in actuality an independant movie, all of them are. Some of the first for that matter, at least some of the first that got people thinking outside of Hollywood. And that is why George Lucas should know better. He could be a real proponent for keeping things fresh and thinking and looking outside the box. Instead he opted to completely sell out, which is fine, it's his choice. But to then expect to be applauded and praising himself as an artistic genius, well that's where I draw the line. He was, was, a risk taker, now he's well, George Lucas, hack extrodinare, merchandising whore, king of the green screen. Only now are seeing how special fx can enhance storytelling, instead of relying on them to tell it for us which is apparently what he thinks computers are supposed to do. I don't mean that bullshit he's talking about up top, I'm talking about the fact that in any scene of the prequels that doesn't involve actual human beings are far superior, and those that are well, you've seen them. And that seems to be the best he can muster. Someone here even said, you could mute his movies and they would be enjoyable to watch, I say perhaps even more enjoyable to watch. If that's the case, shouldn't that fall under cinematography?

1 2 3 4 > >>
Login to post a comment!