Home
FAQ
The Book
Articles
Links
Contact
|
|
Nature of the Beast: De-Centralization and the Star Wars
Screenwriting Process in Critical Perspective
Much has been made over the lackluster writing in the
newer Star Wars films, which earned more than a combined ten
"Razzie" nominations and drew countless amounts of media criticisms.
After more than a decade since their theatrical initiation, no
Blade Runner-like process of re-discovery is in sight, and it
is hard to resist comparing this against the original set of films,
which were received in a very different manner and which were
arguably written equally differently. Star
Wars certainly had a comic book flair to it,
featuring swordfights, doomsday devices and space cowboys, yet in
spite of this critics found themselves charmed by the film's
cleverness, such that it was nominated for an Academy Award for Best
Screenplay; AFI currently ranks the film as the thirteenth most
important American motion picture of all time. Its sequel,
Empire
Strikes Back, arguably
had an even better screenplay, leaving behind the broad jokiness of
Star
Wars in favor of grave melodrama, sepulchral in its
approach and brimming with emotional subtext--while facing some
criticism in 1980, today it is widely considered one of the great
films of all time,[1] and remains the fan-favorite of the series.[2] Return of the Jedi,
however, has long been noted for its storytelling faults,[3] and was not received nearly as warmly, though it
nonetheless occasionally garners honourable mentions.[4]
In 2001, BBC reported that tens of thousands of voters
in a poll run by Channel 4 selected both Star Wars and
Empire Strikes Back as the two greatest films of all
time.[5] Voters in Total Film magazine voted
Empire Strikes Back as the greatest film of all time in
2006,[6] and in 2008 10, 000 readers, 150 industry
professionals (including directors such as Quentin Tarantino and Sam
Mendes) and 50 "key film critics" in UK's Empire magazine
voted Empire Strikes Back at number three in their ambitious
"500 Greatest Movies of All Time" feature.[7] Taking a survey of reactions to the films
by critics gives us a rough guide to reinforce this.[8] Using Metacritic.com, Star Wars
scores 91/100, Empire Strikes Back 78/100, Return of
the Jedi 52/100, Phantom Menace 52/100, Attack of the
Clones 53/100 and Revenge of the Sith 68/100. Rotten
Tomatoes.com has similar rankings for the films.[9]
Given the wide disparity in appraisal
between the first two entries and everything that followed, we might
ask ourselves then: what creative and temporal processes correspond
to the construction of these? If the films degraded in quality after
Empire Strikes Back, is there a historical context that can
be traced in parallel? Indeed, there is; probing deeper into the
ways the films were assembled, we discover that there are
commonalities in their construction that correspond to their
reception. This article will henceforth be an examination of the
working methods of George Lucas, 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 films in the franchise.
When it was merely the original trilogy the
aforementioned degradation might be attributed simply to bad
luck--Lucas was successful twice but then slipped for the third
entry in the series, and Jedi's tenuous reputation was still
overshadowed by its connection to the cherished previous two films
and the trilogy upheld as a classic. But when the Special Editions
of 1997 presented the same questionable material (i.e. a musical
number, Han Solo shooting second, CGI slapstick) it raised
alarms--alarms that the prequels confirmed, a few years later. 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. Much like Return of the Jedi, the prequels
were praised for their visual effects and design but harshly treated
for their lack of drama, non-existent characters, poor dialog, and
child-pandering elements, which all coalesce in the screenplay stage
of development.
A common explanation is merely that "Lucas lost his
touch" [10]--he made two great films and one
good film (the original trilogy), plus the masterpieces of
American Graffiti
and Raiders of
the Lost Ark and the overlooked gem of THX
1138, but now he's past his prime. While this is
ostensibly part of the explanation, it is too simple a view. The
research enacted for my monograph on the screenwriting of the
Star Wars franchise, however, afforded me the availability of
a number of facts which outlined a distinct division in the
processes used to construct the six films which comprise the series,
especially where the screenplays were concerned. To put it
succinctly, Lucas never really had "the touch" to begin with in this
sense. This is not to argue that he was untalented and that the
original films should be credited to everyone but him. However, on
his own, Lucas is incapable of constructing a
plot-and-character-based film which emotionally grabs the audience;
he is not a Lawrence Kasdan or a Francis Coppola, two writers he is
often connected with. One can observe that the films that are
considered his best--Graffiti,
Star
Wars,
Empire,
and Raiders--were
the most collaborative, in fact highly collaborative, in
terms of the script, and the films that are his worst--namely the
prequels, and to a lesser degree Jedi--were
the least collaborative. There is a very observable correlation
between the methods Lucas used to construct the screenplays and the
popular opinion of their quality.
Lucas' Early
Methods
Describing why there exists such a gap in writing
quality between originals and prequels requires a more detailed
probe into the manufacturing of the films. It is not to be
attributed to one factor, however, but many, often overlapping and
related. First is that, indeed, Lucas is perhaps past his prime;
like Orson Welles or even performers like Paul McCartney, who in
their youth produced acclaimed works of art, this freshness cannot
always be sustained into old age, even if later works are of merit
nonetheless. Perhaps an example illustrating the difference
manifested by a twenty-year retirement on the part of Lucas can be
made between the poignant scene in which Luke discovers his murdered
aunt and uncle in Star
Wars and a similar scene in Revenge of
the Sith where Darth Vader discovers he has killed
his wife and cries out "NOOooo!!" to unintentionally comedic
effect--in fact, an entire web meme developed around the accidental
humor in this.[11]
Other factors are numerous but related: Lucas' own
conception of the series is lacking in character depth and nuance;
Lucas lost creative control of Empire
Strikes Back, creating the false expectation that
the films would stylistically continue to be mature and
character-driven; Lucas creatively collaborated in a very heavy
manner in his earlier efforts; and he did not have as much clout or
status and thus was challenged more. Conversely, beginning with
Return of
the Jedi a process of centralization occurred, where
Lucas assigned himself dictatorial control and imposed his demands
much more strongly, without as much counterbalance of input from
others. This methodology was comparably minor in that film but in
the prequels it became all-pervasive--the scripting was a singular
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
1138 and American Graffiti
in order to understand the origins of Lucas the writer, and
understand the entry point from which his later space adventure was
approached from. Lucas, in his early career, detested both
storytelling and scripting and never intended to participate in
either, preferring to make abstract art films bearing influence from
the formalistic experimentations of Arthur Lipsett.[12] Lucas remarked to Starlog
magazine in 1981:
I don't think I am a good writer now. 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 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.[13]
He was able to escape the emotional involvement of a
movie with narrative and identifiable characters when he was in film
school, but once he began making professional films he could not
postpone confronting this for long. "I'm not a good writer," he
repeated to Filmmakers
Newsletter in 1974, whilst writing Star Wars.
"It's very, very hard for me. I don't feel I have a natural talent
for it...When I sit down I just bleed on the page and it's
awful."[14]
Preparing his first feature, THX
1138, producer and close friend Francis Coppola
mandated Lucas write the script himself, arguing that he had to
learn to write if he wanted to direct.[15] What resulted was not surprising.
"[Francis] chained me to my desk and I wrote this screenplay," Lucas
remembered in a Starlog
interview. "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.' "[16] A professional writer (Oliver Hailey) was
hired to do a second draft but Lucas, poor at interpersonal
communication, couldn't articulate how he wanted the film to be and
was even more distraught.[17] Finally, his film school friend Walter
Murch stepped up to the typewriter to produce a useable
script.[18]
THX
was a very light first step into the world of writing--the plot is
threadbare and there is little in the way of characterization; this
was a criticism sometimes leveled at the movie, but it was also
intentional design that allowed Lucas to avoid confronting his
limitations as both a filmmaker and a person, forever emotionally
blocked. American Graffiti
is where the journey really starts--a slightly more involved plot
and more importantly an emphasis on complex characters. With
encouragement from his wife and his friends to get away from cold,
abstract filmmaking and do a more emotional sort of
movie,[19] Lucas came up with the concept based on
his adolescence but the actual story was developed with his friends
the Huycks (Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz-Huyck) in the form of a
treatment, with the Huycks poised to write the script as
well.[20] They were unavailable when the time came,
so Lucas hired another writer (Richard Walter) but yet again the
draft was not what he envisioned.[21] Lucas then hashed out a screenplay on his
own that was graced with the fortune in that it was
autobiographical, and thus Lucas was able to turn in a
storyline that, while perhaps not having characters as strong
as the Huycks might have given, at least felt emotionally honest.
"Graffiti
I wrote in three weeks...[It] was just my life and I wrote it down,"
he once remarked.[22] More importantly, the Huycks were finally
available to re-write Lucas' draft and give the characters more
convincing life. Lucas says the scenes are his, the dialog is
theirs.[23] This form of relationship would be
fundamental to his later successes as well.
Also integral to the success of the film was the
directing--or rather lack thereof. Being more concerned with
cinematography, Lucas hired a drama coach, set up the cameras and
let the actors run the scenes and improvise.[24] "[George] had to shoot so fast that
there wasn't any time for directing," executive producer Coppola
explained to author Peter Biskind. "He stood 'em up and shot 'em and
the [actors] were so talented they--it was just lucky."[25] It was very much the product of
chance and collaboration, and Lucas' next project--an action-packed
Flash Gordon homage he was calling The Star Wars--was
no exception. It is this process that must be understood as a
crucial underpinning to how any of Lucas' early films were
made.
A Writing
Odyssey
In contrast to the image of Lucas as the
master-planning storyteller, he stumbled for some time in trying to
first write Star Wars. He once referred to it as "a good idea
in search of a story," [26] the idea being a revival of the 1930s
space opera pulps and adventure serials. After failing to secure the
rights to remake Flash Gordon, Lucas was compelled to invent
his own sci-fi storyline;[27] in 1973 he wrote a plot summary called
Journal of
the Whills that was so impenetrable that his agent
Jeff Berg didn't even understand it until Lucas explained to him the
plot in person.[28] This is understandable considering the
story opened with a line as convoluted as: "This is the story of
Mace Windy, a revered Jedi-Bendu of Opuchi, as related to us by C.J.
Thape, padawaan learner to the famed Jedi." Berg suggested Lucas try
something simpler so Lucas did just that, remaking Akira Kurosawa's
1958 adventure fable The Hidden
Fortress
into a fourteen-page treatment.[29] By 1974, a whole year later, he had
expanded this into a rough draft screenplay and showed it to his
friends for feedback--most of them found it poor in character and
confusing in plot,[30] so Lucas changed it once again, writing
himself into the second draft as Luke Starkiller. This provided a
more identifiable character, but again the script was
lacking.
These drafts, which were almost entirely the product
of Lucas, simply weren't very good scripts--characters were flat and
stilted, the dialogue was laughable, and the plots convoluted
and often deficient in drama, though they showed tremendous
imagination, very much like the prequels. His attempts at humour
were often off-target as well, as this line of Aunt Beru's from the
second draft shows: "Luke, you've hardly touched your dinner. Have
some bum-bum extract. It's very mild." However, starting here, Lucas
himself began to have less of a direct influence, instead
orientated by a circle of collaborators, whom had already been
integrated into an informal feedback loop.
When one reads the term "friends" one must keep in
mind the referent, as this includes some immensely talented and
important filmmakers such as Francis Coppola, John Milius and
Haskell Wexler, among others, whom had already been distributed
Lucas' first draft.[31] This circle of mutual collaborators gave
input, told him which characters worked, which 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 hired writers or co-writers,
which had thusfar failed on his previous films (i.e. Richard Walter,
Oliver Hailey), Lucas for this very reason consciously decided to
write it himself from the beginning,[32] re-orienting his collaborative
approach--he would act as a filter, taking the suggestions of others
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," Lucas expounds in a 1977 interview with Ecran.
"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.[33]
We see here that Lucas did not simply gather input the
way writers typically might do so, but instead had systematically
instituted the critique process into the structure of the
screenwriting. Lucas' wife Marcia, herself an Oscar-winning editor
who had cut Taxi Driver and Alice Doesn't Live Here
Anymore, also kept Lucas in check by reminding him of the
fundamental emotional resonance needed for a screenplay, in contrast
to Lucas' more technical interests.[34] Mark Hamill remembered, "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."
[35]
Finally, following Lucas' last draft, the Huycks
rewrote the script (uncredited) to improve the dialogue and give it
better snap,[36] a crucial final polish considering Lucas'
self-admitted weakness in this area. After a three-year process of
filtering and refining his ideas in collaboration with others, Lucas
finally had a screenplay that was imaginative and human; though it's
cover page only stated, "written by George Lucas," this does not
begin to tell the full picture.
Moreover, the rest of the film was an
occasion when everything came together in spite of
difficulties--Industrial Light and Magic miraculously beat the odds
and developed the most dynamic effects ever put on the screen, Ralph
McQuarrie and John Berry designed a plausibly weather-beaten world,
the actors gave the film needed chemistry, John Williams crafted one
of the most rousing scores of all time, Ben Burtt gave the picture
weight with his immersive sound design, and Lucas was able to
somehow tie these all together. None of these achievements could
have possibly been foreseen--they simply happened. Like many forces
in popular culture, a film as great and impactful as Star
Wars can only be the unlikely product of
serendipity.
The Post-Star Wars
Years
Moving on to the Indiana Jones series without delay,
Lucas continued in the collaborative spirit that had built his
previous releases. Lucas devised the concept for Raiders of
the Lost Ark in 1975 and he and director Philip
Kaufman had developed the story together, but Kaufman was called
away by other duties.[37] As Lucas vacationed the week Star
Wars was finally released, Steven Spielberg and his wife joined
him and Marcia in Hawaii where Lucas brought the idea to his
friend's attention, finally enabling the project to move forward.
Spielberg recommended budding screenwriter Lawrence Kasdan, someone
he knew could create complex characters and a rich story.[38] Spielberg, Kasdan and Lucas conferenced on
the general plot and personality of the script,[39] drafted a brief treatment,[40] and then Lawrence Kasdan set out to write
the script.[41] "I was on my own for six months,"
Kasdan says in an interview with Scott Chernoff, "and had to go off
and write this whole thing by myself."[42] Lucas
had finally found a writer-for-hire that suited his style, who would
later be put to use twice more. We see, then, that the
de-centralized creative framework didn't just apply to the films
Lucas directed during this period. While this was going on, however,
Lucas was also starting to write the much-ballyhooed sequel to
Star
Wars.
Lucas had conceived of the Star Wars franchise
as a co-operative one even before the film was released, as he had
initially hired sci-fi author Alan Dean Foster to write sequel
novels in 1975,[43] with the possibility of adapting them into
screenplays should there be the commercial impetus.[44] This creative model continued into the
post-release period, as the film became a critical and commercial
hit in the summer of 1977; Foster had already written the first
sequel novel, which was soon released as Splinter of the Mind's
Eye, but Lucas chose a more elaborate direction for their
cinematic incarnations, owing to the unpredictably wild success of
the film, and wanted to include more than just Foster in the shaping
of the franchise. In an interview with Rolling Stone
published in August 1977, Lucas asserted that he'd like to have a
different director for every sequel to give them each a different
personal touch, the franchise set at unlimited possibilities (later
to be limited to twelve films). He says in the interview:
I think it will be interesting, it is like taking a
theme in film school, say, okay, everybody do their interpretation
of this theme. It's an interesting idea to see how people interpret
the genre...I've put up the concrete slab of the walls and now
everybody can have fun drawing the pictures and putting on the
little gargoyles and doing all the really fun stuff. And it's a
competition. I'm hoping if I get friends of mine they will want to
do a much better film, like, 'I'll show George that I can do a film
twice that good.' [45]
Only a few months later, in November 1977, he began
preliminary writing work on the first sequel to Star Wars,
indicating the mindset he brought to its construction.
In this, we come to the great divide of the Star
Wars franchise--Empire
Strikes Back. Being the second act in a narrative
trilogy, executive producer 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
breathless, and action would overrule introspection, he
insisted.[46] After persuading Irvin Kershner,
independent filmmaker and his former film school prof, to direct the
film, Lucas then hired aging sci-fi author and Howard Hawks scribe
Leigh Brackett to write the screenplay, a seemingly perfect match.
He held script conferences with Brackett in November where they
developed many ideas and concepts for the film and the rest of the
series, which Lucas then took and wrote into a story
treatment.[47] Following this Brackett wrote her
screenplay--but once again, the result wasn't quite in the style
that Lucas envisioned.[48] She passed away the next month, and so
Lucas rewrote the script himself, bringing it closer to the way
he had imagined. With enough on his plate as it was, he sought
someone else to take over writing duties; Lawrence Kasdan soon
turned in his first draft of Raiders, and was hired on the
spot.[49] Once again, a process of creative
de-centralization was at the heart of the film's
construction.
Lucas made some bold story choices in his draft, such
as writing in Darth Vader as the father of Luke, and he also
cemented the narrative skeleton of the final film, but nonetheless,
Kasdan unsurprisingly says that Lucas' re-write left a lot to be
desired, especially in the character department. "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 in John Baxter's Mythmaker.[50] 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
been filmed, critics might be lashing 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 arguably produce
a better-crafted script than the original? The answer comes
with the relinquishing of control Lucas enacted, allowing his
screenplay draft to be transformed into something far beyond any
abilities he had on his own.
In late 1978, now nearly a year after the first
conferences with Brackett, Lucas gathered up writer Lawrence Kasdan,
producer Gary Kurtz and director Irvin Kershner, and together
the four of them re-developed Lucas' screenplay.[51] Lucas maintained that the script be short
in length, light on character and heavy on action, and no more than
105 pages,[52] but everyone else saw it
differently--Kasdan and Kershner thought the film should be slower
and could hold more character, and Kurtz agreed.[53] Kasdan complained that Lucas rushed
through scenes at the expense of their emotional content, to which
Lucas replied, characteristic of his storytelling philosophy, "Well,
if we have enough action, nobody will notice."[54] Yet, Kasdan, Kurtz and Kershner gradually
eroded this mindset. The script was slowly re-built, developing
characters, slowing the pace and introducing nuance and subtext.
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.[55] With the smart, sophisticated writing of
Kasdan and the guidance of seasoned veteran Kershner, Lucas' story
took on new life and the screenplay finally emerged as a much
different animal than the first film.
However, while the script was in this respect not the
way Lucas initially 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 immensely over budget but simultaneously
resulted in engrossing drama.[56] An infuriated Lucas hounded Kurtz to
restrain Kershner and speed up the production[57] but Kurtz found the additional expenses
"worth it," [58] defending Kershner.[59] When Lucas finally flew in from
California and saw the rough cut he was horrified and scrambled to
re-edit the film to be more like the way he
envisioned--action-oriented, eliminating subtlety and moving from
scene to scene as fast as possible;[60] again, very much like the editing of the
prequels. His cut was a unanimously decreed disaster.[61] Kershner then recut the film with Lucas
and it finally became we entity we know.[62] Kershner, however, still feels that the
film moves too fast,[63] while Lucas seems to have an understated
distaste for the stylistic choices Kershner made.[64] With Lucas picking up the bill at the end
of the day, he complained in 1983's Skywalking, "It was just
a lot better than I wanted to make it."[65]
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.
The production model of the third and final film in
the trilogy, Return of the Jedi, then must be seen as a
reaction against this incident, with Lucas shifting his approach to
safeguard his ability to control it to his own whims and desires.
However, as Empire's follow-up the material necessarily
continued in the more sophisticated manner of that film. And, while
Lucas wrote the rough drafts of the film himself, he still passed
them on to Lawrence Kasdan, who wrote the final three drafts,
precursed with story conferences involving Kasdan, director Richard
Marquand and producer Howard Kazanjian, all of whom worked to
maintain characters and a believable tone in the re-writes.[66]
Kurtz and Kershner, of course, weren't invited back,
but nor were they interested themselves, alienated by the Lucas'
increasingly corporate-influenced approach that shunned his peers.
Here, Lucas began to take a more dictatorial approach to the
film--Empire
would not happen twice. "You're working for George--it's his story,
his baby," said Jedi's
producer, Howard Kazanjian, in a 1983 article for American
Cinematographer. "You're representing his wishes."[67] Such was the guiding principle of the
production. Gary Kurtz stated to IGN Film Force in 1999: "On
Jedi,
[Lucas] was determined to find a director who was easy to control,
basically, and he did. And that was the result, basically--the film
was sort of one that George might have directed if he had directed
it himself."[68]
What was more, unlike Empire where Lucas only
visited the set a handful of times, Lucas was permanently on the
shoot, and uncreditedly served as both second-unit director and at
times even directed portions of the main unit;[69] though Marquand helmed the majority of it,
the film is, as Kurtz has suggested, one that belongs to Lucas first
and foremost.
With Lucas growing tired of the series and hoping to
walk away from it,[70] vowing to never make a Star Wars
film again,[71] and pushing the film in a simpler,
more kid-friendly direction (perhaps because he had just adopted an
infant daughter), the material ultimately sacrificed much of the
dramatic potential of Empire's
conclusion and left many critics bored, but with checks and balances
from Marquand and Kasdan the script and film were kept stronger than
Lucas himself would have achieved
alone.
Method Changes After the Original
Trilogy
Constructing the prequels, the process of
collaboration that had characterized most of the precedings ceased.
Even in 1981, in the midst of pre-production on Jedi, Lucas
expressed doubts that anyone but himself 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
Starlog asked if he would ever allow anyone to write the
prequels. "I'd love to. But I don't think it's going to be
possible."[72] As we will see later, it seems Lucas
believed, perhaps 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. In 1983, seeing the growing 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."[73]
The prequels were faced with more challenges that just
Lucas' inability to write naturalistic dialogue and
three-dimensional characters--even on Star Wars, Harrison
Ford famously said of the techno-talk, "You can type this shit,
George, but you sure can't say it."[74] Lucas saw the Star Wars series as
quick-paced, without much character development and presented in a
simple manner. He was denied constructing Empire in this
fashion but began to successfully integrate the aforementioned
characteristics back in the series with Jedi.
With the prequels he finally had absolute power, able to make the
series precisely as he envisioned, stating that while Star
Wars was 50 percent how he intended, 1999's Phantom
Menace was 90 percent;[75] as he would boast in interviews, for the
first time in his career he had total control over the content of
his films.[76] This was especially meaningful now that he
was directing them as well. Consistent with his approach on the
previous sequels, Lucas apparently didn't mind that the characters
were only mildly developed, that the pace was erratic, and the
dialogue clumsy--seeing the series as Saturday matinee material he
accepted these as allowable aspects of the films, and perhaps even
regarded them as part of their charm.[77]
The result was that there was no strong desire to
clean up the scripts in any significant way. His initial Star
Wars screenplays were considered equally weak but
his friends helped orient him enough to make the final piece
engaging, 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,
but Marquand and especially Kasdan could at least put it on paper
and on screen in a way that was dramatically passable most of
the time. Thus we come full circle to my original preposition--in a
sense, Lucas never really had "the touch." He didn't lose it--quite
the opposite, it was hidden all along, compromised on Star
Wars and Empire, prefigured
in Jedi, and then allowed full exposure on the
prequels. The prequels are actually a pure example of George Lucas,
free of any storytelling mediators. Most critics simply didn't
realise how much collaboration alleviated the inherent flaws in his
earlier work.
This can be argued alongside the popular contention
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--for example, Kurtz was with Lucas since the days of
THX
and hence did not see him as a powerful mogul--a more significant
element to this argument that underlines the differences in approach
is that Lucas chose to script the prequels on his own.
Lucas' obstinate his-way-or-the-highway attitude is legendary,
whether in 1977 or 1997, but the crucial difference between the
original trilogy and prequels is that it was Lucas himself who
removed the checks and balances. The original trilogy had additional
input only because Lucas consciously created such an
environment.
During the time of Graffiti
and Star
Wars Lucas took a rather humble view of himself, and
frequently had his concepts challenged by others--and he let them do
so. Being self-avowedly mediocre at writing and directing, he was
open to what others had to say. Alan Dean Foster, who wrote the 1976
Star Wars novelisation and was initially hired to write the
two following sequel novels,[78] once remarked to Starlog his
amazement at Lucas' ability to simply listen to the feedback of
those he worked with.[79] Star Wars can be viewed as the
result of Lucas recognizing his own limitations: having never wanted
to write from the beginning, he sought out writers for THX
and Graffiti,
but inevitably found himself involved in their scripting, so he
experimented with a different method for Star
Wars where he would just script it himself from the
start--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 was built
around collaboration, which is why the film ended up the way it did.
Even on Jedi, he had hired Marquand to direct, and held story
conferences with him, Kasdan and Kazanjian before Kasdan wrote the
final drafts of the screenplay.
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 could no
longer venture outdoors, only leaving Skywalker Ranch to go to the
movies,[80] 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
he still operated with the pre-Star
Wars mindset. "It'll be your film," he assured
Kershner, who was concerned about maintaining artistic
control.[81] It is not until Jedi,
written starting in 1981--after Star
Wars, after Empire
and after Raiders,
cumulatively worth over a billion dollars in worldwide
grosses--that the change becomes apparent. Checks
and balances were removed--Kurtz left, he found a director
(Marquand) that would essentially act as his personal avatar, found
a producer (Kazanjian) that would tow the company line, controlled
the project strictly and was constantly on set co-directing[82]--and he wondered aloud that no one but
himself could script the prequels.[83] In 1983's Skywalking he states, "If
I have any more success, it's going to be obscene...I'm beginning to
impress even myself."[84]
This entire transformation can be traced in parallel
to the creation of Skywalker Ranch, which has taken on the informal
monikers of "LucasLand" and "Fortress Lucas,"[85] a fenced compound that Lucas lives and
works in, completely isolated from the hustle and bustle of the rest
of the world. This facility arguably has its roots in the late '60s,
where it began under a very different philosophy as American
Zoetrope, a collaborative union of hippie filmmakers who strove to
make films together. The first and only film made for it during its
formative stage 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 Zoetrope collapsed following THX's
unsuccessful release, Lucas continued the dream in the form of
Lucasfilm: he bought a house in the San Francisco suburbs and turned
it into an office, renting office rooms to his friends, such as Hal
Barwood and Matthew Robbins. There, they shared ideas and inquired
into their respective projects--Lucas was writing a script
called The Star
Wars, which must
have made it easy to gather feedback from them. There
were cafes and restaurants down the street where they would often
gather and discuss their scripts.[86] Later, Lucas purchased additional houses
on land nearby and turned them into screening rooms and storage
spaces[87]--the commune was growing in scale, and
here it began to transform from American Zoetrope to Skywalker
Ranch. After Star
Wars, Lucas too began to change, purchasing a
multi-million dollar piece of land in the country. 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 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 the Ranch 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;[88] 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 said of the implosion of the New
Hollywood in the early '80s. "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."[89] This observation did not escape
Francis Coppola either, as he explained in Cinema by the Bay:
"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."[90]
After some years of living distantly together Lucas
divorced his wife in 1983 just as the Ranch was complete, and in the
end it became the $20 million Lucasfilm office, with Lucas left
alone--Marcia had been an integral part of keeping Star
Wars grounded in character and her departure would
be felt in his future films. "You can see a huge difference in the
films that he does now and the films that he did when he was
married," Mark Hamill stated to Walter Chaw in 2005. "He's like
William Randolph Hurst or Howard Hughes, he's created his own world
and he can live in it all the time." [91] Lucas remained this way, in his own
self-created world, while the facility and Lucasfilm corporation
expanded more and more, and his status as the preeminent mythmaker
of modern times grew with them. When he returned to Star Wars in
1994[92] it is little wonder that he chose to
write the films on his own, and direct them as well. With the media
upholding him as an enigmatic god-like figure, with legions of
devotees and billions of dollars at his disposal, it is unsurprising
that in his isolation he believed that he was capable of doing it
all himself.
Consequences of the Prequel
Methods
While Lucas ceased working in the model that had
characterized his early period once he returned to writing in 1994,
he also instituted a number of new techniques into the screenwriting
process, which also must be examined to fully explain the
manufacture of the prequels and underline the difference in approach
Lucas took to filmmaking.
Firstly, the visual- and effects-centric perspective
of the prequel construction should not go unexamined. Lucas is
famous for having once said "a special effect without a story is a
pretty boring thing,"[93] and it is tempting to throw this back at
him--but the prequels did have a story, and a very compelling one at
that. Issue is instead to be taken with the aforementioned factors
which simply allowed the characters and plotting to
become weakly written while the visuals more or less
continued to uphold their excellent standards, thus disrupting the
balance. Commentators have widely criticized Lucas' recent
preoccupation with computer effects; this should not come as a total
surprise given that Lucas has stated that he waited to tell the
prequel stories until he had the technology to let his imagination
run free.[94] He certainly seems to show the biggest
interest in the new technology, like a kid with new toys to play
with[95]--preoccupations 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 telling that Lucas 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
concept, a scene or a character, see what their visual
interpretation of it was, and then write the script from
there.[96] 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,
dialogue or plot.
Another divergent factor that has contributed to the
prequel scripts and should not go unnoticed is a crucial one: time.
It is often not considered. Attack of
the Clones is a prime example, a
potentially-entertaining story tarnished with writing described by
some of the most reputed publications in the United States as
"irritating gibberish" and "inducing projectile vomiting."[97] Comparing Clones to the process of
the original trilogy may illustrate why. While George Lucas ended up
in 1976 with an Oscar-nominated 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 story 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, 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, though not quite as
prolonged, chronology. Attack of
the Clones exhibits an altogether different
scenario. While the situation was not assisted by the fact that
Lucas was writing it himself, his rough draft--not yet even
a proper first draft--was completed in March of 2000,[98] typed up as he was boarding the plane to
leave for the studio since production would begin in June.[99] Can we really be surprised that a script
is considered lacking when the rough draft is finished a mere three months before cameras
rolled,[100] in contrast to the year-long intervals of
the original films?
The process of writing the first pass at
Clones' screenplay had been dragged out as far as Lucas
could get away with but there literally was no more time--he was
also the director and executive producer of the mammoth $115 million
film, being shot on the other side of the world in Australia, and he
had other duties as production geared up, which is why co-writer
Jonathan Hales was brought in shortly afterwards;[101] it was a matter of necessity. However, the
sets were already built and the schedule on its way to being locked,
a situation producer Rick McCallum described to as like trying to
build a skyscraper without a foundation. He added, "Do you know what
it's like to budget a film without a script?" [102] Hales therefore had little room to
maneuver, and the situation was limiting to all involved in the
film. As the final product shows, either Hales' influence is minimal
or his writing ability isn't much beyond Lucas' (his only subsequent
credit is for 2002's Scorpion
King, starring wrestler The Rock). Lucas also
re-wrote Hales' last polish, making his contributions even more
tenuous.[103] The script was delivered to cast and crew
just three days before filming began; no one had seen a draft of the
screenplay prior.[104] Curiously, Ben Burtt's editing seems to
have exaggerated the film's faults, as the screenplay to
Attack of
the Clones is slightly better than the final film
would suggest, with many of the script's best character bits cut out
(though one suspects Lucas' hand is responsible for this as
well).
This time-crunch re-occurred yet again on Revenge of
the Sith, with the first draft completed a mere two
months before filming,[105] which explains why Lucas re-wrote and
re-filmed the central arc of the film so intensely after production
wrapped (completely changing Anakin's turn to the dark side, the
central issue of the six-film franchise)[106]--he never had enough time to come up with
these story changes during the actual scripting period. The writing process of the original
trilogy demonstrated that ideas need to incubate and simmer, and
then be explored and slowly refined, rather than torn out and rushed
onto film. On the other hand, Phantom
Menace'
s two and a half year scripting period does not seem to have made a
huge difference either.
Conclusion
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, desperately trying to get by 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 divorced billionaire who has been a businessman for
twenty years and does not venture out in public nor exist as an
integrated part of society is less capable of writing convincing or
captivating characters. Star
Wars had the ring of truth because Luke Skywalker
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.[107] 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.
The films of George Lucas have had a wide range of
reception, but it is quite conspicuous that his earliest efforts
have received so much acclaim, while his second phase of films--the
prequel trilogy--faced an equal amount of slander. These criticisms
are rarely articulated in terms of historical processes, beyond
vague sentiments that Lucas "lost his magic." Inquiries into the
construction and methodology of the writing process of his films,
however, reveal corresponding consistencies that show that the
concept of collaboration, above all else, was responsible for those
successes, caught in a larger matrix of social integration and
power-checking that, once fallen away, led to the critical failures
which began with Return of the Jedi and surfaced in full
force with the prequels.
Sith was at least saved in part in
that it had the best dramatic material—in fact, Lucas states that
Episode III is eighty percent of his original story material,
calling Episode I and II “padding” that he had to make up as he
went. See Empire
magazine, June 2005; similar sentiment is expressed in “Director
George Lucas Takes a Look Back—and Ahead,” by William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer,
May 12th, 2005. Lucas also had Tom Stoppard do a polish,
focusing on humanizing characters, according to Christensen in a
2005 Playboy
interview.
END NOTES
[1]
For example, in his 1997 review Roger Ebert opened by saying,
“Empire Strikes
Back is the best of the three Star Wars films, and the
most thought-provoking,” which seemed to be the general consensus
among commentators on its re-release. Even in 1991’s edition of
5001 Nights at the Movies, Pauline Kael, ever critical of the
series, admits that Empire Strikes Back is the best of the three and
that it displays a skill for fine performance and competent
filmmaking unfound in the other two films. U.K.-based Empire magazine’s
1999 poll listed the film as the second-greatest movie of all time
(http://www.filmsite.org/empireuk100.html) , while UK’s Film
Four listed it at number one. TV Guide’s 1998 Top
50 movies lists it at number 27, ahead of Jaws, Graffiti, Raiders, On the Waterfront and
Schindler’s
List (http://www.filmsite.org/tvguide.html). Return of the Jedi is
absent from these lists, it should be noted—Empire is in a
class of its own, as far as sequels
go.
[2] Even Lucasfilm acknowledges
Empire is the favourite, such as on the back cover
description of 2010’s The Making of Empire Strikes
Back.
[3] One only needs to peruse the
reviews upon the time of its initial release to see that, although
some critics found the film enjoyable, a great many found the film
clunky, tired and repetitive. An overview of viewer reaction from
1983 usenet internet postings, available
http://groups.google.ca/group/net.movies.sw/topics?start=300&hl=en&sa=N,
shows a similar trend. A study conducted by website Rotten Tomatoes
found that of all six films Jedi by far had the harshest of
critic judgment, and even in its 1997 re-release the general
consensus is that it is the weakest of the original three. In the
late 90s, a popular list circulating on the internet, which was
published in 1999’s Unauthorized Star Wars Compendium, was
titled 50 Reasons Why Return of the Jedi Sucks, citing tired
dialogue, inconsistent kid-friendly tone, and repetitive plotting
among other things. As mentioned in the previous footnote,
although Star
Wars and
Empire are routinely found in professional “best film” lists,
Jedi rarely if ever is.
[4] On Empire Magazine’s “500
Greatest Films of All Time” it appears a prestigious number 91,
while it also appears in compilation books such as the popular
1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die.
[5] “Star Wars Voted Best
Film Ever”, BBC, November
26, 2001,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/1676023.stm
[6] “100 Greatest Movies of
All Time”, Total Film online, Oct. 17, 2006,
http://www.totalfilm.com/features/100-greatest-movies-of-all-time
[7] see “The 500 Greatest
Films of All Time”, Empire online, 2008,
http://www.empireonline.com/500/
[8] For example, reviews as tallied by
Metacritic.com average the prequel trilogy rating as 57/100, while
Rottentomatoes.com tallies it as 56/100 (using its “Top Critic”
filter, which counts only non-website publications). This goes in
contrast to the original trilogy, in which Star Wars and
Empire are considered classics of the cinema and Jedi,
while not on the same level as the first two films, is still
accepted into the pantheon. While it does sometimes take movies a
number of years until they become considered classics, the ten years
since the start of the prequel trilogy has not seemed to undo its
reputation as disappointing series of imaginative yet mediocre
films. Even on IMDB the user ratings of the three films are close to
the critical consensus at the time of release. Revenge of the
Sith received generally warm grades, however, scoring 68/100 as
tallied by metacritic and 69 by Rotten Tomatoes; still not good, but
much higher than the other two films. It has been asked sometimes
why this film is considered acceptable by most critics but not the
first two. I would argue that the writing is not any better—what is
better, however, is the story itself, where characters have profound
arcs and the plot has immediacy and dramatic change. Lucas has
admitted that 80% of his original backstory was contained in Episode
III, calling the other two films “padding” in Empire magazine in June
2005. Poor reception of the first two films also made the contrast
of an acceptable film more favourable.
[9] There is one caveat—many of the
original trilogy reviews are recent, rather than time of release.
Rotten Tomatoes once reported that the original trilogy was reviewed
worse than the prequels when surveying reviews from the time of
release, but this is not the case, on the basis of my own research.
Indeed, that report by RT is fraught with distortions, from the low
sampling rate to the fact that the prequel ratings were taken from
websites and fan-sites, rather than legitimate critics (its “Top
critics” filter). It is indeed true that the original trilogy wasn’t
regarded as highly as it is today, however, but the difference is
not extreme; only Empire underwent any noticeable
re-appraisal in the years since, but Metacritic’s 78/100 score
includes many vintage reviews and reflects in part its reception in
1980, whereas today it is considered better than Star Wars (91/100)
by many (Metacritic’s users rated Empire 9.6/10, while they
rated Episode II 6.1/10).
[10] This sentiment, if not outright
stated, is at least implicit in most negative reviews and critical
articles of the prequels (that is, the majority of them), which
inevitably long for the days of the original trilogy when the films
were still entertaining, meaningful, or otherwise well-made.
[11] This was especially
popular at website YTMD.com, and eventually the meme was granted its
own documentary in The United States of
NOOooo!
[12] "The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry
O'Quinn, Starlog, July 1981
[13] "The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry O'Quinn,
Starlog, July 1981
[14] "The Filming of American
Graffiti," by Larry Sturnhahn, Filmmaker's Newsletter,
March 1974
[15] "The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry
O'Quinn, Starlog, July 1981
[16] "The George Lucas Saga"
by Kerry O'Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
[17] “The George Lucas Saga” by Kerry O’
Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
[18] “The George Lucas Saga” by Kerry O’
Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
[20] “The Empire Strikes Back and So
Does Filmmaker George Lucas With His Sequel to Star Wars” by Jean
Vallely, Rolling Stone, June
12th,
1980
[22] The Making of Star
Wars by Jonathan Rinzler, 2007, p.
132
[23] "The Filming of American Graffiti," by
Larry Sturnhahn, Filmmaker's Newsletter, March
1974
[24] Easy Riders, Raging
Bulls by Peter Biskind, 1997, p.
237
[25] Easy Riders, Raging
Bulls by Peter Biskind, 1997, p.
237
[26] The Star Wars Souvenir Program,
1977
[27] “George Lucas Goes Far Out” by
Stephen Zito, American Film, April
1977
[31] Rinzler, Making of Star Wars, p.
24
[32] “The George Lucas Saga” by Kerry O’
Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
[33] "The Morning of the
Magician," by Clair Clouzqt, Ecran, September 15th,
1977
[35] "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
[36] Rinzler, Making of Star Wars, p.
132
[39] Rinzler, Complete Making of Indiana
Jones, p. 22
[40] Rinzler, Complete Making of Indiana
Jones, p. 23
[41] “Lawrence Kasdan Screenwriter” by
Scott Chernoff, Star Wars Insider, issue 49, May/June 2000,
p.33-36
[42] “Lawrence Kasdan Screenwriter” by
Scott Chernoff, Star Wars Insider, issue 49, May/June 2000,
p.33-36
[43] Rinzler, Making of Star Wars, p.
107
[44] “Star Wars Per-Zahn-ified” by Jeff
Carter, Echostation.com, December 19th, 1998,
http://www.echostation.com/interview/zahn.htm,
[45] “The Force Behind Star Wars” by
Paul Scanlon, Rolling Stone, August 25th
1977
[47] See Star Wars: The Annotated
Screenplays by Laurent Bouzereau,
1997
[48] Bouzereau, Annotated
Screenplays, p. 144
[56] Pollock, p. 217, Arnold, pp.
131-47
[58] “An Interview With Gary Kurtz” by
Ken P, IGN Film Force, November 11,
2002,
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p2.html
[59] “An Interview With Gary Kurtz” by
Ken P, IGN Film Force, November 11,
2002,
http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/376/376873p2.html
[61] Pollock, p. 218; Baxter, p.
293
[63] “Father Figure” by Michael Sragow,
Salon.com, May 13th,
1999,
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/05/13/kershner/index.html
[66] Bouzereau, Annotated
Screenplays, p. 231
[67] "Starlog Salutes Star
Wars," Starlog, July
1987
[68] “An Interview With Gary Kurtz” by
Ken P, IGN Film Force, November 11,
2002,
http://movies.ign.com/articles/376/376873p4.html
[69] As he says in the DVD commentary
for the film (for instance, he directed Darth Vader’s death scene).
Dale Pollock’s set visit during the film’s production described in
Skywalking (pp. 6-9) gives no illusions that it is Lucas in
command on the filming, not Marquand.
[71] Pollock, p. 274-5, Worrell, p.
175-6
[72] "The George Lucas Saga"
by Kerry O'Quinn, Starlog, July
1981
[74] Baxter, p. 189. What is interesting
is that he also took this infamous statement back after he saw the
completed film—he states in The Making of Star Wars,
p.298, “I said you can’t say that stuff, you can only type it. But I
was wrong. It worked.”
[76] Bouzereau, The Making of
Episode I, p. 105
[77] For instance, while
procrastinating on the writing of Revenge of the Sith he jokes
to Jonathan Rinzler, “I’m not known for my dialog.” Rinzler, Making
of Revenge of the Sith,
p. 53
[78] Rinzler, Making of Star Wars, p.
107
[79] Starlog, “Starlog Salutes Star Wars”, July,
1987.
[83] "The George Lucas Saga" by Kerry
O'Quinn, Starlog, July 1981
[85] Pollock, p. 233 for example;
“Fortress Lucas” is a term Baxter uses, following Lucas’ friend
Richard Walter’s use of it in an anecdote, p. 333
[86] Rinzler, Making of Star
Wars, pp. 24-25
[91] “Mark Hamill Walks Down Memory Lane
With Film Freak Central” by Walter Chaw, Filmfreakcentral.com,
March 20th,
2005,
http://filmfreakcentral.net/notes/mhamillinterview.htm
[92] His first day of writing was
November 1st,
1994, as shown in the web documentary for Episode I,
produced by Starwars.com, All
I Need is an Idea.
[93] From Star Wars to
Jedi
[94] Bouzereau, Making of Episode I, p.
105
[95] Evidence seems to
suggest as much; he is noted for being uninvolved in directing on
set, yet is shown in documentaries to be meticulously detailed in
his instructions to post-production artists. He talks much about the
visual effects and technological achievements in interviews, and all
that this allows him to do, but is generally tight-lipped on
anything related to acting. Irvin Kershner says that Lucas told him
in 1997 he was directing the prequels “because he couldn’t resist
toying with all these new techniques.”
http://www.salon.com/ent/col/srag/1999/05/13/kershner/index.html
[96] Rinzler, The Making of Revenge of the
Sith, p. 28
[97] So says the reviews by The Villiage Voice and Rolling Stone
respectively
[102] The Making of Revenge of the
Sith, p. 27. McCallum is referring to Episode III in these
instances, but the process and situation is identical as to Episode
II in terms of this issue.
[106] Kaminski, pp.
426-433
[107] Asserted by Pollock, Mark Hamill,
and Lucas himself.
05/26/07 last revised:
02/17/10
Web site and all contents © Copyright Michael
Kaminski 2007-2010, All rights reserved.
Free
website templates |
|