|

Home
 FAQ
 The Book

Articles
 Links

Contact

|
|
Nature of the Beast: The Making
and Unmaking of Greatness
This article may be a bit controversial for
those who really love the prequels due to the critical nature of it.
If you are the type of person who does not cringe at the romantic
dialog in Attack of the Clones , you
might want to
stop reading--or better yet, I say raise your
standards.
Because although the Star Wars series is not known
for its David Mamet-like scripting,
it is an unfair escape to say that the original films had
bad dialog or lousy scripts; that, basically, the films have always been
written poorly. With Star Wars
, there was
a certain comic book-like cheese; superheroes, swordfights, doomsday
devices and space cowboys were the ingredients of the film, and so the script had
a certain flavor to it. However, the characters were well-rounded
and convincing--it may not have been Mamet, but it was a
good
script, such that it was nominated for an Academy Award for
Best Screenplay. Empire arguably had an even better
script--the broad jokiness of Star Wars was left behind in
favor of seriousness and subtle nuances, and it was a great success.
Empire is a terrifically adult screenplay, full of depth
and character and oozing with emotional subtext. With Jedi, however, things start to go
wrong, but even though the plot itself may be a bit weak, the film
retained much of the former realism--Leia and Han became boring, but
the dialog and characters, while not comparable to Empire,
were generally
still passable as far as common cinematic standards go. It
was a big jump backwards, but not as big as the
prequels.
This article will henceforth be an examination of the
working methods of George Lucas, how they affected the end product,
and how those working methods changed--and what the
repercussions were. It will be, essentially, an examination of why
Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back had much
better screenplays than all the other sequels.
This, of course, means this "academic" article
is operating on the presupposition of a particular subjective
judgement. It seems somewhat pointless for me to even try to justify
my perspective; likely, I am simply preaching to the choir, and if
you disagree with the above conclusion then I doubt a brief overview
will change your opinion (rightly entitled). Am I trying to say the prequels
had bad scripts? They certainly have their moments, and with
Revenge of the Sith we almost climb back into the
Return of the Jedi
range
of quality, but nonetheless, even many Star Wars fans seem
to agree that the characters were relatively flat, the dialog
poor, the plots often uncompelling and the drama seriously lacking. It
is not that they were guilty of these things in absolute terms--some of the characters were
reasonably developed, or at least at times they were, and occasionally
there is genuine suspense and clever plotting--but in comparison
not just to the original films but to the common standards
of what makes a good script, they were efforts that fall into the
same category as such potentially-interesting, somewhat-entertaining yet
poorly-written action spectacles such as Troy or
Terminator 3. Those films had some
interesting elements and some entertaining moments, but most viewers
do not carry the same emotional weight when watching them as they do
the prequels, which perhaps buries the necessary objectivity to
actually assess the prequel scripts in critical
terms.
Some fans may
then counter: "but the story is
so detailed." Palpatine's manipulations, the interesting political plotting,
the dense layering of themes--Lucas himself often talks about
how the prequels are
constructed in an almost symphonic
manner.
While I think this is a very pompous way
of putting the rather common and pedestrian nature of
repeating themes in a series, it is undeniable that the films are heavily
layered, full of symbols, themes and subplots. Often, prequel fans
seem to be under the impression that critics are missing all these
things, that the true depth of the saga escapes them.
While this is probably true for some, these elements are
the window dressings in any case. A viewer is not required to
analyse such subtextual elements if the text itself does
not encourage a deeper look. By that, I am talking about
the basic building blocks of a story--plot and, most importantly,
character.
The many themes and subplots, layered and interlocked with one
another, well designed as they may be, are
examples of intellectual subtext. But
what is noticeably absent from the films, and is much more
important, is emotional
subtext. Just as intellectual subtext refers to
the layering of ideas and abstract concepts and how
they are presented and integrated together, emotional subtext relates to how the
audience is affected by the emotional undercurrent of the
film; it refers to character nuance and motivation, it refers to convincing
dialog and identifiable characterisation and it refers to drama and
emotional engagement with the audience--these things are a hundred
times more important. A film can still be terrific if it is
lacking in intellectual subtext, but without emotional subtext a
film like those in the Star Wars series cannot possibly work--they
are films designed to engage the audience through drama and
character.
When critics accuse the prequels as shallow, this is
usually what they are referring to--intellectually, the prequels trump the original trilogy in
many ways, they are far more complexly composed and thematically constructed, but
this is only half of the equation, and the lesser half at that.
The original trilogy drew in audiences because they cared about the
characters; any intellectualisms beyond this was merely a nice
bonus. In writing The Secret History of Star Wars
I was confronted by these issues, and,
as I researched, a number of facts became clear that explained such contrasting
quality between the films.
But what exactly is the cause
of this difference? When it was just the original trilogy it was
presumed to simply be bad luck--Lucas was successful twice but then
slipped a bit for the third entry; you can't get it perfect every
time. But when the Special Editions presented the
same questionable material (ie a musical number,
Han shooting second, Luke screaming in his fall from Bespin) it raised
some alarms--alarms that the prequels confirmed. Now it was no longer an
exception but a deliberate trend--there was something inherent in the mind
and manner which was producing the material
itself.
The most common
explanation was simply
that "Lucas lost his touch"--he made two great films and
one good film (the original trilogy), plus the masterpieces of
Graffiti and Raiders and the overlooked gem of
THX 1138 ,
but
now he's past his prime; it happens often in life. While this
is certainly part of the explanation, it is too simple. In my
research, however, I stumbled across an answer, or rather many answers. The
short version is that Lucas never really had "the touch" to
begin with in this sense. I am not trying to say that
he was untalented and that the original films should be credited to everyone but
him--far from it, and I've noticed that this sentiment gets thrown around
quite a bit by some despondent fans. But, on his own, Lucas is
incapable of producing a traditional plot-and-character-based
emotional film; he is not a Lawrence Kasdan or a Francis Coppola. I
came to uncover that the films that were best--Graffiti,
Star Wars, Empire, and
Raiders
--were the most
collaborative, in fact highly collaborative, in terms of script,
and the films that were the worst--namely the prequels, and to a
lesser degree Jedi
--were the least collaborative. In other words,
the more he was responsible for the larger concepts but left the
actual construction to be distributed amongst others, the better the results were,
while the more he asserted control and made the effort a
solo project, the more the product fell
apart.
In the first online edition of The Secret History
of Star Wars I put some
emphasis on this but I think I severely underestimated the role in
which script collaboration played. I have drawn more attention to it
in the upcoming second online edition because I feel it is a
paramount
issue in terms of the scripting of the series.
Lucas' Early Methods
The longer answer to the question of "what is
the cause of the noticeable difference in quality" is what I am
now going to get into. It is not just one factor, however, but many,
often overlapping and related. One of them is that, indeed, Lucas is
probably past his prime; it happened to Coppola, it happened
to Kurosawa, and it happened to Hitchcock--it's not unusual. Perhaps
an example illustrating the difference of a twenty-year retirement on
the part of Lucas can be made between the poignant and heartbreaking
scene in which Luke discovers his murdered aunt and uncle in
Star Wars and a similar scene clumsily executed in
Revenge of the Sith
where
Darth Vader discovers he has killed his wife and cries
out "NOOooo!!" to unintentionally comedic effect.
The other factors are many but they are all related:
Lucas' own conception of the series is lacking in character depth
and nuance, Lucas lost creative control of Empire and thus
it tricked us into thinking the films would stylistically continue
to be realistic and serious, Lucas creatively collaborated in a very
heavy manner in his earlier efforts and was kept in check by more
than one person, he did not have as much clout or status and thus
was challenged more, and the films were not as much a solo effort.
On the flip side, starting with Return of the Jedi
Lucas had dictatorial control
and imposed his vision of things much more strongly, without as much
counterbalance of input from others. This was minor in that
film but in the prequels it became prominent--the scripting was
a solo effort, without much criticism, editing or input from outside individuals, at
least in the same profound and integral manner that
the earlier films were made with.
To start, we should look at THX and
Graffiti .
Lucas in fact hated writing and never wanted to get into it--he
didn't understand character and story, and he didn't want to
understand them. He wanted to just make abstract films which lacked
both of these. "I don't think I am a good writer now," he said in
1981 to Starlog
. "I think I'm a terrible writer...I went to USC as a
photographer--I wanted to be a cameraman--but obviously at film
school you have to do everything...Well, I did terrible in script
writing. I hated stories, and I hated plot...I mean, give me the
phonebook, and I'll make a movie out of it. I didn't want to know
about stories and plot and characters and all that stuff. And that's
what I did. My first films were very abstract--tone poems,
visual."
(i) Inevitably, he found
himself having to craft these two "storytelling" elements of plot
and character, and his efforts were amateurish and unconvincing--he
describes himself as "a terrible writer" for a good reason. "I'm not
a good writer," he repeats to Filmmakers Newsletter in 1974. "It's very,
very hard for me. I don't feel I have a natural talent for
it."
(ii)
With THX , Copolla forced
Lucas to write the script himself--what resulted was not surprising. "[Francis]
chained me to my desk and I wrote this screenplay," Lucas remembers in
Starlog. "I finished it,
read it and said, 'This is awful.' I said, 'Francis, I'm not a
writer. This is a terrible script.' He read it and said, 'You're
right.' "
(iii)
He then hired
a professional writer (Oliver
Hailey) to do a second draft but Lucas couldn't articulate how he
wanted the film to be and was even more distraught. Finally, Walter
Murch worked on it with him to get a filmable
script.
THX was fairly
insignificant however--the plot is threadbare
and there is little in the way of characterisation.
Graffiti
is where
the journey really starts--a specific plot and more importantly
an emphasis on complex characters. Lucas came up with
the concept for the film but the actual story was developed with
the Huycks in the form of a proper treatment, with the Huycks poised
to write the script. They were unavailable when the time came,
so Lucas had to once again do it himself--and once again the
script was weak. He also tried to hire another writer (Richard Walter) to
re-write the script but again it was not what he wanted. Lucas then
hashed out a screenplay that was graced with the fortune in
that it was entirely autobiographical and thus Lucas was able
to turn in a storyline that, while perhaps not having much in the way
of strong characters, at least felt real. "Graffiti I wrote in three
weeks...[it] was just my life and I wrote it
down."
(iv) More importantly, the Huycks were finally available to
re-write Lucas' draft and give the characters more convincing life.
"The scenes are mine, the dialog is theirs," Lucas says.
(v)
The real secret to the film was the directing--or lack
thereof. Being more concerned with camera matters, Lucas hired a
drama coach, set up the cameras and let the actors run the scenes
and improvise--having casted perfectly, the result was actors simply
inhabiting the characters, and with a script based on Lucas' own life it
came off as a wonderfully real and believable film. "[George]
had to shoot so fast that there wasn't any time for directing,"
executive producer Coppola explains. "He stood 'em up and shot 'em
and the [actors] were so talented they--it was just
lucky."
(vi) It was very
much the product of luck and collaboration.
A Writing
Odysse
Star Wars was
very much
a similar process. Lucas first wrote a plot summary
in 1973 called Journal of the Whills that was so horrible that
his agent Jeff Berg didn't even understand it until Lucas explained
to him the plot in person. Berg suggested Lucas try something
simpler so Lucas did just that, remaking Kurosawa's Hidden
Fortress . He expanded this into
a rough draft screenplay and showed it to his friends--most
of them found it poor in character and confusing in plot, so
Lucas changed it once again, writing himself into the second draft
as Luke Starkiller, giving a much more identifiable character, but again the
script was lacking. These drafts, which were entirely
the product of Lucas, were poorly written and not very
good scripts--characters were flat and stilted, the dialog was laughable,
and the plots confusing and often lacking in drama, though they
showed tremendous imagination; very much like the prequels. However,
starting here, Lucas himself began to have less of a
direct influence. His friends gave input, told him what
characters worked, what characters didn't work, where the story
needed to be improved and how to make the script more engaging; this
collaborative aspect should not be underestimated in the least--it
was an integral element of the scripting process of Star
Wars . Instead of having co-writers, Lucas would act as a
filter, taking the suggestions but then writing the words himself so
that he could make the script the way he envisioned it.
"We're all
one group of friends here: Francis Coppola, Matt Robbins, Bill
Heiken, Gloria Katz, and a friend I went to school with who works in
my production office here; we're all screenwriters. We read each
other's scripts and comment on them. I think this is the only way to
keep from writing in a total void." Lucas goes on to state, "There
are also those who, in addition to being screenwriters, are
directors and friends of mind: Coppola, whom I've already mentioned;
Phil Kaufman; Martin Scorsese; and Brian de Palma. I show them all my
footage and they give me precious opinions that I count on...I wrote
the first version of Star Wars , we discussed it, and I realized
I hated the script. I chucked it and started a new one, which I also
threw in the trash. That happened four times with four radically
different versions. After each version I had a discussion with those
friends. If there was a good scene in the first version, I included
it in the second. And so on...the script was constructed this way,
scene by scene."
(vii) Marcia also kept Lucas in check by reminding
him of the fundamental emotional resonance needed for a screenplay,
in contrast to Lucas' more technical interest: "I was the more
emotional person who came from the heart, and George was the more
intellectual and visual, and I thought that provided a nice
balance," Marcia says in Skywalking. (viii) Mark Hamill remembers, "She was really the
warmth and the heart of those films, a good person he could talk to,
bounce ideas off of, who would tell him when he was wrong.” (ix
) After a three year process of
filtering and refining his ideas, Lucas finally had a script that
was imaginative and human.
The Huycks then re-wrote Lucas' last
draft to
improve the dialog, the wonderful cast was able
to make
the film seem alive, and the edit was
salvaged by
a team
of editing experts, among them Marcia Lucas. The result was the terrific
film we know, full of emotion and wonderful characters and stirring and
suspenseful drama. It was an occasion when everything came together--ILM completely beat
the odds and developed the most advanced and dynamic effects
ever put on screen to give life and energy
to the story, Ralph McQuarrie and John Berry created a surprisingly
plausible world, Lucas' documentary-like matter-of-fact filming kept the movie grounded, the actors
all breathed incredible life to the characters and made
them seem real and convincing, the editing all came together and
re-moulded the film to be even more dramatic, John Williams
ended up crafting one of the most moving scores of all time,
Ben Burtt revolutionized the sound industry with his organic and densely-mixed world
of audio, and Lucas was able to somehow tie these
things all together along with his heavily-developed script. None of these were
planned on--they just happened. A film as great and revolutionary
as Star Wars
can
only be the product of serendipity.
The Sophomore Years
Moving on to the Indiana Jones series, Lucas had come up with
the concept for Raiders sometime in 1975 and he and Phillip Kaufman worked together
to developed the story, but Kaufman was called away by
other duties and the project shelved.
When Spielberg came onboard in 1977 he recommended screenwriter
Lawrence Kasdan, someone he knew could create wonderful characters
and a rich story; Spielberg, Kasdan and Lucas conferenced
on the general plot and character of the script, drafted a
brief treatment, and then Lawrence Kasdan went off on his own for a
number of months and returned with an incredible script which became
the film we know (in fact Kasdan complains that Speilberg cut out a
number of crucial character scenes to simplify the film
(x)
). Credit for
Raiders should be given almost exclusively
to Kasdan, who was allowed great freedom and basically wrote
the film on his own from the basic plot developed
in the story conferences and treatment, crafting an exciting story filled with
his signature wit and character-centric perspective, oozing with
period details and a Bogart-esque
stylisation that
is actually quite slow and character-oriented compared to the sequels.
Lucas receives much credit for this film but it mostly was the
product of Kasdan and Spielberg--Lucas just got the
ball rolling with the larger concept of a 1930's treasure-seeker. While this was
going on, Lucas was also starting to write the much-ballyhooed sequel
to Star Wars.
And now we come to the great divide--Empire
Strikes Back. Being the second act in a three act trilogy,
Lucas envisioned the film as somewhat darker and more heavy-handed
than Star Wars but still maintained it
to be a quick-paced serial adventure; characters would be swiftly
developed, the pace always moving and action would
overrule introspection. He held script conferencing with Leigh Brackett where
they developed many ideas and concepts for the film
and the rest of the series, which Lucas then took and wrote into
a treatment. After this she wrote her screenplay--but once again, it wasn't
quite in the style that Lucas envisioned. She passed away the
next month, and so Lucas rewrote the script himself to get the plot
closer to the way he had envisioned and then hired Lawrence Kasdan
as the new co-writer--unsurprisingly, Kasdan says that Lucas' draft
left a lot to be desired, that some scenes were "terrible" and the
characters thin and awkward. “There were sections of the script,
which, when I read them, made me say to myself, ‘I can’t believe
George wrote this scene. It’s terrible,’ ” Kasdan
recollects.
(xi)
An
example of Lucas' dialog for a scene wherein Han flirts with Leia:
"Don't worry, I'm not going to kiss you here. You see, I'm quite
selfish about my pleasure, and it wouldn't be much fun for me now."
Shades of Attack of the Clones, indeed. Had this
script been filmed, you can bet that fans would be complaining about
the poor scripting of Empire--but, somehow, Empire ended up evolving into another
first-rate screenplay. How did that happen? How did lightning not
only strike twice but produce a better
-crafted script than the original? That is what we now come to
and it would be a defining moment in the
franchise.
In late 1978,
nearly a year after the first conferences with Brackett,
Lucas gathered up
Kasdan, Kurtz and Kershner and together
the
four of them re-developed the
screenplay. Lucas maintained that the script be short in
length, light on character and heavy on action but everyone else
saw it differently--Kasdan and Kershner thought the film should be
slower and could hold more character, and Kurtz backed them. The
script was slowly built, developing characters, slowing the pace and
introducing nuance and subtext, despite Lucas' protest that it
be quick and superficial. Kershner embraced the darkness of
Empire
, seeing it
as a gloomy fairy tale that could tap into the subconscious
fears of children like the tales of the Brothers Grimm. With
the smart, mature writing of Kasdan and the guidance of seasoned
veteran Kershner, the screenplay emerged as a much different animal than
the first film.
However, while the script was not quite the way
Lucas wanted it, once filming began Kershner let the material drift even more--performance
overruled action and spectacle, and scenes were re-written and improvised
in order to let character and performance lead the film, which led the
production behind schedule and over budget but simultaneously
resulted in engrossing drama. An infuriated Lucas hounded Kurtz to
restrain Kershner and speed up the production but Kurtz found
the additional expenses "worth it," defending Kershner and backing him up. When Lucas
saw the rough cut he was horrified
and scrambled to re-cut the film to be more like the
way he envisioned--fast and action-oriented, cross-cutting between scenes very quickly and eliminating
subtlety and moving from scene to
scene as fast as possible; again, very much like the editing of
the prequels. His cut was a unanimously decreed disaster because the
material simply wasn't shot that way, nor was it appropriate--Kershner recut
the film with Lucas and it finally became we entity we
know. Kershner, however, still feels that the film moves too fast,
while Lucas seems to have an understated distaste for the stylistic
choices Kershner made.
Thus we see the answer: Empire was a
sort of accident. It was never supposed to turn out the way it
did--Kershner stole the film from Lucas, Kasdan was on the same page
as Kershner, and Kurtz allowed them to get away with it
all.
Lightning struck with Star Wars and then,
amazingly, it struck again--by complete fluke. Graffiti was basically the same sort of
"lucky accident" as Star Wars
, where everything somehow came together;
Raiders was such a well-crafted,
character-based period-adventure because Lawrence Kasdan was allowed
great freedom and wrote an incredible script, and Steven
Spielberg, being one of America's finest directors of both
actors and action, made it even better.
With Jedi, Lucas took back control, but
the material had to continue in the manner of Empire and thus
be more serious, and Lucas still had Kasdan penning the script, along
with story conferences from Kasdan, Richard Marquand and Howard
Kazanjian. With Lucas tired of the series, and pushing it
in a more kid-friendly direction (likely because he had just adopted
a daughter), the material ultimately was mediocre in places and
sacrificed much of the dramatic potential of Empire's
conclusion, but the checks and balances from the above kept the
script alive as a reasonably well-written piece. Here, Lucas began
to exert a more dictatorial manner of control over the
material--Empire would not happen twice. "You're working
for George--it's his story, his baby," says Jedi 's new producer, Howard Kazanjian.
"You're representing his wishes."
(xii) Such was the
guiding principle of the production.
Lucas' conception of the
series was fast-paced and simpler, more kid-friendly, and here this
aspect crept back into the film, but, as stated, he was kept in
check to at least some degree by the script collaboration with
Kasdan and Marquand--but in twenty years time, these checks would
fall away, as we will see.
Method Changes After the Original
Trilogy
With the prequels, this process of collaboration ceased. Even
in 1981, Lucas expressed doubts that anyone but he
could write the second set of films--the vision in his head was
too specific to allow anyone else to "compromise" it. "I don’t know,”
he replied in 1981 when asked if he would ever allow anyone but
himself write the prequels. “I’d love to. But I don’t think its
going to be possible.”
(xiii) As we
will see later, Lucas believed, undoubtedly due to the mega-success
of his recent projects, that he was capable of such a feat,
forgetting or not fully realising the impact that collaboration had
played in achieving those successes. Even in 1983, seeing the
Lucasfilm kingdom boxing Lucas in, his old friend Willard Huyck
remarked, "When you're that successful and you've been proven right
too many times, you don't give people an opportunity to argue
with you because they can't argue with success."
(xiv)
Thus, for the
prequels, Lucas chose to do it all himself. This goes in
direct contrast to the process that led to the creation of the original
film--the drafts that were all his were stilted and unconvincing, but after
it had been critiqued, been edited, passed around and re-written by
well over a half dozen different friends and filmmakers, it was the
film the world fell in love with. Lucas realised his own limitation
as a writer--he frequently would lament that he was "a
terrible writer." And he is. His solo writing efforts just aren't very
good, nor is he any better at directing--Lucas' biggest
strength is as a conceptualist, as an idea man, which is why his
great successes (Graffiti, Star Wars,
Empire, Raiders ) were ones where he developed the
concept, where he steered the project and directed the overall
picture, and where he greatly collaborated on the actual story and
character material--story and character being his own self-confessed
weaknesses.
But on the prequels he took control of
everything--he wrote it all on his own, which first of all
produced weaker scripts, but secondly, and perhaps most
unfortunately, such perceived-weaknesses were to a degree
intentional design. Lucas saw the series as quick-paced, without
much character development and presented in a simple manner. With
Star Wars he was able to overcome
these obstacles, largely due to the collaborative influence, but with
Empire the franchise was taken away from him--he tried to
make the film like this but in a bizarre reversal of power, he was
denied. He began to successfully instigate the above characteristics
back in the series with Jedi and with
the prequels he finally had absolute control and was able
to make the series exactly as he envisioned, as he would boast
in interviews that for the first time in his career he had absolute control
over the content of his films--which is to a degree the source
of their weaknesses. Lucas didn't care that the characters were only mildly
developed, didn't care that the pace was erratic and not
introspective enough, and didn't care if the dialog was clumsy--seeing
the series as saturday matinee material he accepted this
as an allowable aspect of the scripts, and perhaps
even regarded them as part of the charm. Thus there was no strong
desire to clean them up in any major way. With Star Wars,
his original scripts were much like this but his friends helped
orient him enough to make it work, while Kasdan and Kershner muscled
him out for Empire and wrote the script as if a serious
drama. Lucas had much more input in Jedi, which is why there are some
of these clumsy aspects to it, but Marquand and especially Kasdan could
at least put it on paper and on screen in a way that
was halfway passable. Thus we come full circle to my original point--in
a sense, Lucas never really had "the touch" in this manner. He
didn't lose it--quite the opposite, it was hidden all along,
compromised on Star Wars and Empire
but then allowed full exposure on the prequels. The
prequels are actually a pure
example of George Lucas. We all just didn't realise
how much the collaboration with others elevated what would otherwise be
awkward and flawed films into terrific character
dramas.
This all goes hand in hand with a
much-ballyhooed theory that Lucas has become so revered and powerful
that there is no one willing to challenge him. While this is
undoubtedly true to a large degree--Kurtz was with Lucas since the
days of THX and hence did not see him
as a powerful mogul or god-like figure and thus treated
him more objectively--the more significant element to this aspect is
one that is related to the first point I raised, that Lucas
chose to script the prequels on his own. Lucas' stubborn his-way-or-the-highway
attitude is legendary, but there is a crucial difference
between the original trilogy and prequels in that, not only
were there no checks and balances, but it was Lucas himself who
removed them. The only reason the original trilogy had additional
input was because Lucas consciously set up that type of
atmosphere--he brought Star Wars to his friends for
opinions, asked them to edit and re-write it, had story conferences
with other writers for he sequels, had Lawrence Kasdan write the
scripts and Kershner and Marquand direct the films. He realised that
he could not do it all himself, and he realised that the material
might benefit
from additional help--they
were collaborative efforts because they were set up
that way.
With Graffiti and Star Wars Lucas was basically unknown, and
frequently had his concepts challenged by others, be it friends or
studios, while his friends would often criticise and critique his
work as well--and he let them. He was just another struggling
filmmaker, and he knew that
he wasn't superman, that he was
bad at writing and not even the greatest at directing, and
was open to what others had to say, and more importantly others weren't
afraid to say if something wasn't working--something that rarely occurs
today, as happens with any super-star in the
entertainment business.
He
recognized his own limitations;
he never wanted to write from the beginning, seeking
out writers forTHX and Graffiti
, but inevitably found himself involved in the scripting, so he
experimented with a different method for Star Wars where he
would just script it himself from the beginning--anticipating that
he would end up writing regardless--but had indirect co-writers in
the form of a circle of friends. Although Lucas thought he would
have more control over Empire than he did,
he still set up the project in a way that encouraged collaboration,
which is why the film ended up the way it did. But, irritated
at the troubles and power struggling on the film and perhaps
believing he was capable of doing it himself, he began to remove the
checks and balances--Kurtz left, he found a director (Marquand) that
would essentially act as his personal avatar, found a producer that
would tow the company line, was more controlling about the project
and was constantly on set
co-directing.
The contrast of his early days to his
later days is enormously significant and deserves the attention I am
giving it here. It may be argued that this transformation was
largely due to hubris. After Star Wars, Lucas
became such a celebrity that he couldn't venture outdoors anymore,
and he was praised as one of the greatest filmmakers of all
time--but Empire was made so soon afterwards, with writing
commencing in 1977, that success had not yet affected his psyche; he
still operated with the pre-Star Wars mindset. "It'll be your film," he told Kershner, who was
concerned about maintaining artistic control.
(xv)
It is not until Jedi
, written starting in 1981--after Star Wars,
after Empire and after Raiders
--that the change
becomes apparent. Checks and balances were removed, Lucas wondered aloud
that no one but him could script the prequels, and he controlled
Jedi with an iron fist. This entire
transformation can traced and gauged in parallel in the creation of Skywalker
Ranch, which has taken on the informal monikers of "Lucas Land"
or "Fortress Lucas," a fenced compound that Lucas lives and works
in, completely isolated from the hustle and bustle of the rest
of the world, a self-contained and self-created island. This actually has its
roots in the early '70s, where it began as
American Zoetrope, a collaborative union of hippie filmmakers who
would all make films together, working together and sharing
ideas--it was a filmmakers commune. The first and only film made for
it was the directorial debut of the company vice-president--George
Lucas' THX 1138 . Hence we see how the
collaborative nature of his own early films was apparent in the
workplace he immersed himself in.
When the company collapsed, Lucas held onto its remnants
and remade it in the form of Lucasfilm: he bought a house
in the San Francisco suburbs and turned it into an office, renting
rooms to his friends, such as Hal Barwood and Matthew Robbins. They
all shared ideas and checked in on what each other was doing--Lucas
was writing a script called The Star Wars .
There were cafes and restaurants down the street and they would all go
there at lunch and talk about what they were working on.
Later he purchased additional houses on land nearby and turned
them into screening rooms and storage space and whatnot--the
commune was growing in scale, and here it began to transform
from American Zoetrope to Skywalker Ranch. You can see that Lucas was
very much connected to a collaborative community of
filmmakers. After Star Wars
, Lucas began to change--Empire
began to be
written, but then Lucas purchased a multi-million dollar piece of land. He was constructing a
sprawling complex that he hoped would be like the
Lucasfilm and Zoetrope offices but on a bigger scale, a filmmaker's
Xanadu.
During
the making of Empire it was just a vacant piece of
land--but afterwards he used the profits to construct the actual
facility. As it grew in size and underwent construction Lucas began
changing his mindset on how to make his future films, believing that
he should have more control over them. By 1983 it was complete--and
the friends he formerly collaborated with were nowhere to be seen.
Everyone had drifted apart and went off on their own, and Skywalker
Ranch sat unused--unsurprisingly, most of them had their heyday in
the earlier period where they were still closely connected. “It
started out that everybody worked together, helped everyone else,”
John Milius says of the implosion of the American New Wave in the
early 80’s. “But as soon as they got money, everyone turned on each
other…Steven and George had tremendous power, and they never asked
me to do anything for them.”
(xvi) This
observation did not escape Coppola either: "You ask why there are
movements in movie history. Why all of a sudden there are great
Japanese films, or great Italian films, or great Australian
films, or whatever. And it's usually because there are a number of
people that cross-pollinated each other
." (xvii)
Lucas also got divorced just as the Ranch was
complete, and in the end it became the $20 million Lucasfilm office,
with Lucas left utterly alone--Marcia had been an integral part of
keeping Star Wars
grounded in
character. He remained this way, in isolation, in his own
self-created world, while the facility expanded more and more and his
status as the preeminent mythmaker of
modern times grew as well. When he returned
to Star Wars in 1994 it is unsurprising that he chose
to write them on his own and direct them all as
well. With the media upholding him as an enigmatic god-like figure, with legions
of devotees, it is unsurprising that in his isolation he
believed that he was capable of doing it
all himself.
One
other remarkable factor that has
contributed to the rushed, incomplete and/or
amateurish feel to the prequel scripts and should not go
unnoticed is a crucial one: time. It is one that is often not
considered. Attack of the Clones is a prime example--in my opinion,
a potentially-great story turned into a horrible movie, with some
of the worst writing and dialog I have ever seen in a blockbuster
film. But is it really all that worse than the original
Star Wars? Of course it is, but if you examine Star
Wars ' early drafts, not by a whole lot. While George
Lucas ended up in 1976 with an excellent screenplay, it had been a journey
that not only engaged the collaborative efforts of a dozen friends,
but that also had spanned the timeframe of three whole years. Each
draft was the product of six to twelve months of work. With
Empire, after the first conferences in
1977, it was almost a whole year, with three drafts in between,
before Lucas started conferencing for a second
time, now with Kasdan, Kurtz and
Kershner, which then entailed another month as Kasdan rewrote the
script, which then was revised, and then another four months as the
final screenplay was cultivated in early 1979, altogether amounting
to over a whole year since the first draft was completed; Return
of the Jedi had a similar chronology. With Attack of the
Clones, while it doesn't help that Lucas was writing it
himself, time invariably played a role. Lucas' rough
draft--not yet even a proper first
draft--was completed in March of 2000, as Lucas was about
to leave for Australia since production would begin
in June.
That
is significant: only three months before cameras
rolled, Lucas had just finished his rough draft. He had dragged
out the first draft process as far as he could but there literally
was no more time--Lucas was also the director and executive
producer of the mammoth film, and he had other duties as production
geared up, which is why writer Jonathan Hales was brought in; it
was necessity more than anything. But the sets were already built
and the schedule locked--Hales had little room to maneuver, and as
the final product shows, either his influence is minimal or he
himself is a sub-par writer (his only subsequent credit is for
2002's Scorpion King , starring wrestler The
Rock). The script was delivered to cast and crew just days
before filming began; no one had seen a draft of the screenplay
prior. Curiously, Ben Burtt's editing seems to have made the film
worse--aside from poor timing and a schizophrenic pace, the screenplay to
Attack of the Clones is actually better than the final
film would suggest, with many character bits cut out (though
undoubtedly Lucas' hand is responsible for much of this as well).
This time-crunch re-occurred yet again on Revenge of the
Sith, which explains why Lucas re-wrote the film so intensely
after it was shot--he never had enough time to come up with these
story changes during the actual the actual scripting period; ideas
need to incubate and simmer for a while, and then be explored and
slowly refined, as they were on the first three films, rather than
torn out and rushed onto film. However, Phantom Menace'
s two and a half year scripting period
does not seem to have made a huge
difference either.
This brings us to our last point.
A final aspect
to consider is that, indeed, Lucas may be past his prime or out
of touch with reality--by this I mean that a young,
struggling filmmaker in his twenties, literally broke and determined
to make a name for himself, has much to say and a very personal
connection to the rest of the world; conversely, a sixty-year-old
billionaire who has been a businessman for twenty years and
does not venture outdoors in public nor exist as an integrated part of the
world is less capable of writing convincing or captivating
characters. Star Wars had the ring of truth because Luke
was George Lucas, and the
audience felt it--they could identify with Luke's yearning to leave
home and make something of himself and it was presented onscreen by
someone who knew exactly what it felt like. The sort of awkward
distance that one gets from Anakin may parallel the same emotional
distance inherent in a reclusive, technical-minded, sixty-year-old
billionaire bachelor who runs his own private
empire.
As a sidebar, the visual and
effects-centric consumption of the prequel story should not go
unexamined. Lucas is famous for saying "a special effect without a
story is a pretty boring thing," and this gets thrown back at him
quite often--but the prequels did have a story, a very good one at
that. The issue is all of the above factors which simply let the characters
and plotting become sloppily written while the visuals more
or less continued to uphold their excellent standards. In
my view, Lucas' preoccupation with effects
and visuals is significant; he seems
to have spent more time developing Jar Jar Binks than Anakin, and he
certainly seems to show the biggest interest in the new effects
technology, like a kid with new toys to play with--pre-occupations
that seemed to have, in unison with Lucas' allowance of simple and
swiftly-developed characters, let the emotional subtext of the films
go by the wayside. It is very telling that Lucas actually wrote the
scripts from the perspective of art department--rather than
concentrating on what worked for story and character, he would give
the art department a general concept, a scene or a character, see
what their visual interpretation of it was, and then write the
script from there. While this occurred in some form on the original
trilogy as well, the importance placed on this process for the
prequels gave the films tremendous visual strength but without
a counterbalance of input with regards to character, dialog or
plot.
I hope
this piece has not come off as a list of broad generalisations
and despondent bashing. It is a somewhat touchy subject for some fans
because there has been so much criticism in this area already--criticism in my opinion rightly
felt but rarely accurately articulated in terms of an actual fact-based explanation. I only
wish to share the discoveries and observations I made in the course of researching
and writing my book because I feel I may be
privy to a sum of information that may escape most. It is
an aspect of the films that I feel must be examined and explored,
and the purpose of this article has been to a degree
to provide some sort of evidence-based explanation to aspects which many people
have observed but not quite been able to explain in terms
of the how and why.
(i) "The George Lucas
Saga" by Kerry O'Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
(ii) "The Filming of
American Graffiti," by Larry Sturnhahn, Filmmaker's
Newsletter, March 1974
(iii) "The George
Lucas Saga" by Kerry O'Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
(iv) The Making of
Star Wars by Jonathan Rinzler, 2007, p. 132
(v) "The Filming of
American Graffiti," by Larry Sturnhahn, Filmmaker's
Newsletter, March 1974
(vi) Easy Riders,
Raging Bulls by Peter Biskind, 1997, p. 237
(vii) "The Morning of
the Magician," by Clair Clouzqt, Ecran, September
15th, 1977
(viii) Easy Riders, Raging Bulls by Peter
Biskind, 1998, p. 422
(ix) "Mark Hamill Walks Down Memory Lane
with Film Freak Central" by Walter Chaw, Film Freak Central, March
20th, 2005, http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/mhamillinterview.htm
(x) "Lawrence
Kasdan" by James H. Burns, Starlog, September 1981. see
http://apartment42.com/kasdanRoLA.htm
(xi)
Mythmaker by John Baxter, p. 271
(xii) "Starlog Salutes
Star Wars," Starlog, July 1987
(xiii) "The George Lucas
Saga" by Kerry O'Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
(xiv)
Skywalking by Dale Pollock, 1983, p. 3-4
(xv) Pollock, p.
208
(xvi) Biskind, p.
421
(xvii) Cinema By the
Bay by Sheerly Avni, 2006, p. 28
05/26/07
Web
site and all contents © Copyright Michael Kaminski 2007, All rights
reserved.
Free website templates
|
|