OT: Anyone see the George Lucas interview?

Discussion in 'Leica and Rangefinders' started by ray ., Sep 10, 2004.

  1. One of the best interview guests I've seen on the Charlie Rose show on
    PBS (KCET here in so Cal). Don't know when it plays in the rest of
    the country, but if you get a chance, don't miss it.

    In this interview, Lucas relates his personal journey as an artist, and
    in the
    process gives
    his insight on the relationship of art to technology, and the reasons
    for the need
    to have education in the
    humanities in addition to math and science. There
    is also a brief clip of a student film he made in which he used
    black and white still images taken from press photojournalism-
  2. Lucas is an excellent example of the corrosive and corrupting power of Hollywood. The guy started off with talent and a voice and ends up making digital space robot movies.
  3. I Didn't mean to sound quite so grumpy, Ray. I'd still like to see the interview and especially his early work.
  4. I agree with Kevin's (first) post.
  5. Kevin, I'm not a huge Star Wars fan, but I think you're way off base with that one. Digital robot movies? Unfair and inaccurate reduction I'd say. If you see the interview you'll find out also that his ambition has always been to be free to express his own vision outside the Hollywood money establishment.
  6. ...I'll admit that I did find the interview almost more interesting than one of his movies- you should see it regardless of your opinion about what he's produced...
  7. There's nothing unfair about slagging the latest round of Star Wars films. Abysmal dreck. Whatever artistic ambitions and talent Lucas had in the 70's, it's a very distant memory now.
  8. tru dat
  9. "Lucas is an excellent example of the corrosive and corrupting power of Hollywood." Huh? Lucas is the best example of someone succeeding (at least monetarily and creative control wise) OUTSIDE of the Hollywood system. George Lucas is a completely independent film maker, with total control over his work. His only ties to Hollywood for his films is his distribution deal. George does what he wants to do.
  10. "George does what he wants to do."

    I think that has been his biggest problem. Too much control, at this stage of his career,
    and no one giving him honest responses to the ridiculous string of garbage he's been
    tossing out to smaller and smaller audiences. One could make the comparison to Michael
    Jackson. Both are similarly isolated: Ranch versus Neverland. Both have enough money and
    power that all they could possibly have around them are 'yes'-men. They are both, simply,
    out of touch.

    Maybe he was an 'artist' at one point. THX certainly represents the kind of film that
    demonstrates vision, without commercial aspirations. The early Star Wars episodes were
    classics. But, (the recent) Episodes I, II, and III are tragedies. [Isn't Jimmy Smits in one of
    them? I fully expected, next, to see Corbin Bersen emerge as a Sith Lord....]

    Sorry, Ray - i didn't want to add my rant to your thread. I'm really just responding to the
    responses. In fact, i would still be interested in seeing the interview, as Lucas and his
    companies have contributed a lot to cinema over the last 30 years. But, i will be cringing
    as he tries to justify his latest 'works.' Jar-Jar Binks, and an army of ElectroLux vacuum
    cleaners? This stuff just makes me angry and sad.
  11. "The early Star Wars episodes were classics."

    Not to me they aren't. They seem really like kids' stuff to me and poor old Alec Guinness consigned to being thought of always as insipid old Obiwan when his earlier acting was so superb. Everyone loves Star Wars but me. I think it is because I was not a kid when the originals appeared so I don't have my rose tinted glasses on.
  12. Kids' stuff? The stuff I read when I was a kid had a bit more subtlety than the single Star War I suffered. Horrible stuff. I was in the cinema with kids, so I couldn't walk out; I couldn't fall asleep because of the incessant, loud, and rather ghastly music. Not that I have anything against Lucas personally. Meanwhile, I enjoy Jack Hill's films (or those that I've seen) -- and he uses a Leica.
  13. I've never seen Star War ever.
  14. ...nor do i care to. Dune and Blade Runner are kinda cool
  15. I find it interesting how a guy who has a complete control over his movies turns out similarly predictible, shallow character and 'dialog-poor' movies just like the Hollywood junk we are seeing in these days.
  16. I still think the biggest irony of Lucas' career is that he made his fortune with a lead character who was compelled to put aside technology and "use the force," yet he himself ends up a mountaintop hermit making his characters out of ones and zeroes. But as we live in a society that unquestioningly worships all things technological, that won't get much play.

    I didn't really mean to piss on your thread, Ray, and I appreciate the heads up on the interview. I'd like to see it myself.
  17. Wow everyone is an anti-digital big artiste!
  18. I'm not "anti-digital." But, i don't understand how filmmakers can expect an audience to
    'invest' any manner of emotional response to characters that are completely digitally-
    created. It's too much like watching a cartoon. I don't feel anything when the coyote falls
    from a cliff, nor do i feel anything when one army of digital robots defeats another army of
    digital creatures. At least, with actors (even in silly suits/prosthetics), there's something
    organic and human about them. Suspension of disbelief can only go so far.

    Lucas' use of effects in both of the most recent two episodes has been heavy-handed and
    without observable innovation. I don't much care how his effects are achieved - there may
    be a great deal of technical invention behind them. What's onscreen, though, is wholly
    uninteresting. He seems to feel a need to fill the screen with 'stuff.' It's technology instead
    of content. Lucas has never been any good at directing actors or writing/directing dialog.
    For him, at least now, the computer is more important. His early films were successful
    because there was a simple story at the foundation. The special effects, at that time, were
    auxiliary and supplemental, but they were new and wondrous for the time period. Now,
    though, one can find equivalent graphic effects on network television. Lucas just doesn't
    have a clue about what really is important, or what is impactful in cinema.
  19. I agree w/Derek Stanton. Lucas's work has gone downhill ever since he's monopolized his own writing.
  20. I managed to catch a brief piece of the interview. My previous opinion (formed after the most recent Star Wars installments) was that Lucas was essentially a blundering idiot and had lost his touch. I still feel like he's past his prime, but he certainly came across in the interview as normal and lucid, not some entertainment caricature (unlike MJ).

    I'm not sure where all the distaste for Star Wars comes from. It seems like people who dislike a large percentage of movies just dislike the entire media of film (motion pictures). I watch a lot of "bad movies" because they have good schlock entertainment. I read "good books" because they have all the things people lament that films don't: characters, dialogue, plot, imagery, etc. Oddly enough, popular fiction seems to have it a lot easier than pop film. Dan Brown writes books that lack even disposable entertainment, he still seems to be successful.
  21. <<I didn't really mean to piss on your thread, Ray,>>

    I was aiming for your sock.

Share This Page