Review: The People vs. George Lucas

A word of warning to begin: Given the nature of this film and my own perspective, this will be a kind of combination of a film review and a discussion of my own personal thoughts on the subject dealt with in the film, rather than just a straight-up review. So if I start to rant, well, deal with it. This is a subject I’m very passionate about, and this is the only way I can really tackle this film.
 

There can be little dispute that George Lucas is responsible for at least two (and in my opinion at least three, if not four) great “Star Wars” movies. For this, “Star Wars” fans should forever love him. However, “Star Wars” fans, especially the diehard ones, are a particular lot, who don’t much like their beloved franchise being fucked with. I’m a fan myself, so I understand at least some of the gripes people have with what Lucas has done in the decades since the original trilogy were released. This 2010 documentary from filmmaker Alexandre O. Philippe pretty much documents all the criticisms in one 90 odd film full of hilarity, legitimate criticism and insight, and well, some petty nerd bullshit too. Heck, it even manages to find some affection and appreciation for what Lucas has given us over the years, warts, Jar-Jar, the “Star Wars Holiday Special” and all. It’s a must for “Star Wars” fans current and lapsed, and film buffs in general.


I suppose in any discussion about this film from a partisan point of view it’s important to let the reader know where one stands. So for the purposes of full disclosure, I was born the same year that “Empire Strikes Back” came out (1980), have the ‘original trilogy’ sitting at #3 on my Top 200 Films of All-Time list, “The Phantom Menace” sits at #5, and even the other two (“Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”) occupy #81 and #157. Yes, I’m one of the few people who will defend the prequels, even though they (especially the latter two) are inferior to the ‘original trilogy’. Inferior to those films or not, they’re still greater entertainments than those of other directors. They’re still “Star Wars”, after all. I’m not a fan of Jar Jar, but understand why George included him in the films. I wholeheartedly support a CGI Yoda, especially when he turns into a wuxia arse-kicker. The acting and dialogue in these films are a bit wooden, especially in the latter two, but let’s face it, Carrie Fisher wasn’t exactly Oscar-worthy in the originals was she? I absolutely loathed General Grievous (still do), and I think all of us would really like to erase ‘Nooooooo!’ from our memories forever, but for every flaw in the prequels, the fact is, they’re still great entertainments, especially for the young. Do you remember entertainment, people? Do you remember you used to be young once? If you think “Attack of the Clones” is a genuinely bad film, you’ve clearly only ever seen about five films in your entire life. Hell, I’d suggest if you thought it was anything less than ‘good’ you’re cinematically undernourished as well. I’m also mindful that I was watching the prequels with different, far more mature eyes than when I first saw the originals, which I would then see over and over again throughout my thus far 32 years of life, something that I think a lot of so-called “Star Wars” fans have forgotten (And understandably so. You can’t possibly watch the films from the same perspective because you’re not the same as an adult as you were as a kid. It’s just a fact of life, nor is it easy to look back on the original trilogy that we love, and see some of the wooden acting for what it is). So while I found the anecdotes about fans seeing “The Phantom Menace” at midnight screenings and their subsequent disappointment to be interesting and amusing, I think a lot of these people weren’t looking at things the right way. Yes, the opening crawl seemed kinda jarring and unlike anything we’d seen in a “Star Wars” film, but for fuck’s sake, it’s an opening crawl. Get out of your mother’s basement and get a life, people (Yes, I live with my mother. Your point?). It’s entertainment. Great entertainment, actually.


I do not consider George Lucas to have raped my childhood in making these films, though it’s kinda fun to throw that line out there. I do, however, understand such criticisms of his tinkering with the ‘original trilogy’ over the years, and my review of “The Clone Wars” at Epinions.com was essentially a long, angry rant that ended with ‘Fuck you, George. I’m out!’. I might’ve even accused him of raping my childhood in that review, but I was seriously pissed at the time (and I really loved that episode of “South Park”). “The Clone Wars” was an appalling, shamefully bankrupt money-grubbing exercise. Being the hypocrite I am, I was one of (presumably) many cautiously pleased with the news that the series is set to be resurrected by Disney (This documentary, however, was released before that announcement was made). Why? Because it’s “Star Wars”, and I just plain love it.


So while my stance on George Lucas and his space opera saga might be slightly different from what is discussed in this documentary (I also liked “Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull”, so bear that in mind too), I definitely understood a lot of the sentiments here. I even found it insightful, as I had never even considered what Lucas was really doing when tinkering with the FX in the Special Editions of his ‘original trilogy’. By replacing some of the FX work with up-to-date CGI, not only was he creating something rather jarring to many viewers (including me, to a certain extent), but he was also replacing the hard work (Oscar winning, I might add) of the original FX team. Considering Lucas didn’t even direct “Empire” and “Jedi”, he’s also tinkering with the work of two deceased directors, and that doesn’t quite sit right with me, especially for a filmmaker who once decried the colourisation of B&W films, from what I’ve heard.

 
Which brings us to the most interesting point in this documentary; Lucas’ stubborn insistence that “Star Wars” is his project to do whatever the fuck he wants to do with it, and no one else has any say whatsoever. Not the fans, certainly, given he has never really listened to us when we’ve raised concerns about wanting to see the original trilogy released on DVD, pre the 1997 Special Editions, something Lucas has never been willing to do. That’s the only part of the discussion where the ‘George Lucas raped my childhood’ line really holds any weight beyond being a cute, snarky line. You won’t hear me using that line in reference to the prequels, because even if you don’t like them, you don’t have to own copies of them, do you? And for the record, I could give a rat’s arse whether Han or Greedo shot first. The argument is getting pathetic guys, real pathetic. I do, however, have misgivings about Lucas tinkering with the earlier films to make them match up to his prequels. It’s a cute idea in theory, but it plays out awkwardly (I’m not even sure I could ever own a copy that features ‘Noooo!’. Having it in “Revenge of the Sith” is bad enough). It’s much easier to criticise Lucas for this frankly cold-hearted attitude (that “Star Wars” is his and his alone to do whatever he wants with it), in regards to him not releasing the original theatrical versions of the ‘original trilogy’. Basically, the guy’s been a bit of a prick in recent decades (I’ve heard he’s not always been supportive of fan-made “Star Wars” films either, because he can’t own or control it), and I, like many, don’t quite buy the studio’s line about no longer having the negatives to the original films, pre the 1997 updates. One interviewee in this film outright calls bullshit on it, in fact. Lucas’ stubborn insistence that it’s his vision and therefore he owns it, will forever dog him, even now that he has handed things over to Disney. I, like many, believe for the most part that once a film reaches audiences, it leaves the filmmaker’s hands and enters our realm. It’s no longer just George’s film, it’s ours too. That doesn’t mean he can’t alter the films to his liking, but Ridley Scott (“Blade Runner”, “Alien”) and many others will tinker with their vision without completely denying the existence of the originals. George don’t roll like that, and he has probably lost many fans over it. I feel like George was that kid who always had to share his toys with a younger sibling, and so when he grew up and started making movies, he became possessive over them. Most of us are a pretty forgiving bunch, though. We’ll criticise the films, but you can bet most of us will be lining up for midnight screenings to whatever “Star Wars” film comes out next (Unless it’s a sequel to “The Clone Wars”. I will not endorse that).


The film, although mostly a critique on Lucas, does not entirely stack the deck against him. That said, it’s interesting that one of his best friends, Francis Ford Coppola even laments that Lucas’ artistic talents may be left untapped due to his obsession with a financially lucrative film franchise (This from a guy who spends more time sipping wine than making films, but nonetheless...) Everyone interviewed has at least some affection for the movies, if not the man whose imagination spawned them. Yes, they don’t like his recent attitudes or the prequels, but he made these three wonderful films. I’d even go so far as to suggest that since the ‘original trilogy’ are 99.99% the same films as they were on original release, anyone who completely dismisses their merits based solely on some pretty damn minor changes (Han is still a rogue, whether he shoots Greedo in self-defence or not, you morons!) is quite frankly not a true “Star Wars” fan. You’re just a petty geek. I also appreciated that some of the interviewees in the film were self-aware enough to make the suggestion that although it’s a tad simplistic to defend the prequels by saying “Star Wars” is kids stuff, there are many kids out there who didn’t grow up with the ‘original trilogy’ and to them, the prequels are awesome and they even love Jar-Jar Binks. And when people complain about the oversaturation of “Star Wars” merchandise, they quickly need to remind themselves that...well, they willingly bought it, after all.


So although the film has a deliberately antagonistic title to grab our attention, and although it certainly spends a good deal of the film complaining, it’s not an entirely hateful hatchet-job. It’s also frequently funny, interesting, insightful, affectionate, and entertaining. And a lot of what is said is pretty valid. Well, except for the attack on the Ewoks. How can people not love the Ewoks? I’ve never understood that one. You’re all heartless! Meanwhile, one of these days, I’m gonna have to track down that “Star Wars Holiday Special”. It looks stupendously awful.

 

Rating: B-

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Review: Hellraiser (2022)

Review: Cinderella (1950)

Review: Eugenie de Sade