Star Wars

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

He is often thought of as "emotionless", which I hands down reject. How could anyone who has seen his films think this...???? It is beyond me, I could never wrap my head around it....In his films, contemplation preceeds emotion in the spectator, the exact opposite of Spielberg say. That is why so many people have intense "re-actions" to his narrative. Most people aren't used to this reversal of the intellectual/emotional process....You reinvest into a Kubrick picture days after you are exposed, not just when exposed. Tarkovsky, as you know, is very contemplative...

 

The fact is Kubricks "camera" is cold. His exacting style leaves some audiences confused and bewildered. After all, Kubrick is a surgeon and the camera is his scapel. Did I spell that correctly? You know what I mean...

 

As for Tarkovsky on DVD, I feel your pain. Will Criterion please put out his catalogue? They've been promising us Ivans Childhood for, what?, two years now...?

 

Let us know when you find anything out about that, Max. It would be much appreciated. :rolleyes:

[David Sweetman]

anyway you're joking right,

 

Hah, yeah 'course. But it does kind of suck that Modesto's only claims to fame are George Lucas and Lacey Peterson.

[Thomas Bays]

I think there are a lot of jealous people out there who are just mad Lucas can pretty much do what he wants when he wants. He is brilliant.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Tim,

 

Spartacus is nothing but soul. A slave fighting for freedom, of thought of body, etc. Yeah, that scene at the end when he's crucified and finally sees his baby,...cold! Brrrrr.... :blink: What was Kubrick doing, filming an industrial? sheesh...

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

yes, yes, this was covered in all the books about Kubrick, however, Kubricks clashes with Douglas didn't stop him from excising dialogue and firing actors. He also deserves the oscar for photograghy...But I guess the cinematography is "insincere"...?

 

"Quickly churned out"? I suppose a 167 day shooting schedule is a "quicky"....? Exploitation Bible epic? It had a budget of 12 million, in 1960! 10,000 people employed, yeah this was crap film to begin with....Jesus Christmas! What have you been watching? His problem was the dialogue, its simplistic, sacarin delivery of the moral.

 

Of course it had to be filmed within certain conventions(this is where you must get artificial?) and Kubrick knew this, for it was a calculated attempt to make a financially successful film, hence enabling him to make the personal pictures he so wanted to do, as you elude to...

 

What do you think? He took the job and then "found out" working for the studio was disheartening? I think he knew just what he was doing, and, BTW, he doesn't reject this film as part of his ouvre. FEAR AND DESIRE...? Thats another story...Too much Eisenstein.

[David Sweetman]

I think there are a lot of jealous people out there who are just mad Lucas can pretty much do what he wants when he wants. He is brilliant.

 

I love directors who do what they want when they want. I'm not sure Lucas has made enough good movies to qualify for "brilliance," he's really only got one, A New Hope, and it was't primarily his input that "made" that movie. Empire and Jedi were directed by others and written by others, with Lucas taking some kind of "Executive Producer" credit. I hope we can all agree episodes I to III which Lucas directed (I hate how he's numbered the films) don't come very close to decent cinema. He's trying to be on the "cutting edge" again, with CG and digital cinema, and it just ain't working for him. It would have been much more bold and said something far greater if he'd stuck with old-school motion control. Probably would have revived the technique.

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Not to mention groundbreaking angles never seen before in a studio epic....Turn the car off and get out of the garage quick!

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

Hey David. I respect your opinion but Lucas also did AMERICAN GRAFFITI and THX-1138. Both better than A NEW HOPE, to me at least... :) Genius, maybe not. I'd say no....

[Jon-Hebert Barto]

"SPARTACUS is certainly a competent SOS job, but as an auteur piece in a celebrated body of work? Not in the slightest."

 

 

Yes he also said as much in Baxters bio. And I agree with the above quote. However there is still soul to be found in SPATRACUS, and the cinematography is above other such pictures regarding its place as a story element. Mediocre is just a hard word to swollow for me....Opinions, of course. Yours and mine...

 

Still, Douglas was the biggest star then and "exploitation" was not in his canon at the time...And this is the best film to ride the coattails of Wylers BEN-HUR. As for the script, a commie wrote it....a book made for propaganda....

 

Also, my ideas of how calculating he was were a bit overdone, afterall he did buy his way out of a three picture deal with Minatour(?) Films because of the compromise in this film.

 

But, alas, this is boiling down to stylistic analysis, and I am blinded by the bright lights of devotion!

 

SPARTACUS LIVES!!!

[James Steven Beverly]

Well just to put things into perspective, this is merely Star Wars we're talking about ehre, not a film by Andrei Tarkovsky or Stanley Kubrick.

 

MERELY STAR WARS????? Need I remind you what a historical, groundbreaking film Star Wars is? This simple morality tale revolutionized the film industry. What in the world make you think Kubrick of Tarkovsky were more important to film history that Lucas? Why not merely Van Gogh or merely Rodan or merely Stienbeck? I mean what is Stienbeck when compaired with Hemmingway, what is Rodan when compared with Michealangelo, What is Van Gogh when compared with Rembraunt. You comparison of Lucas with Tarkovsky and Kubrick is just as abserd. This kind of statement is condesending and ellitists and more important dismissive of a great, great peice of art as worthy of preserving as ANYTHING ever made by the other gentlemen you mentioned. Merely Star Wars......unbelievable.

Edited September 9, 2006 by James Steven Beverly

[Max Jacoby]

Star Wars is by Lucas' own addmittance a film for kids. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just guys running around wearing lots of plastic. It had a big influence on the industry but in my book it doesn't qualify as an art. But it is good entertainment and there is a difference between the two that some people still fail to understand.

[Jason Debus]

Why not merely Van Gogh or merely Rodan or merely Stienbeck? I mean what is Stienbeck when compaired with Hemmingway, what is Rodan when compared with Michealangelo, What is Van Gogh when compared with Rembraunt. You comparison of Lucas with Tarkovsky and Kubrick is just as abserd. This kind of statement is condesending and ellitists and more important dismissive of a great, great peice of art as worthy of preserving as ANYTHING ever made by the other gentlemen you mentioned.

I think a better comparision would be music. Lucas is pop (ie: Michael Jackson) while Kubrick and Tarkovsky are closer to classical (ie: Mozart or Beethoven). So it's OK to like Michael Jackson, but comparing him or putting him in the same league as Mozart is kind of a leap.

[Leo Anthony Vale]

MERELY STAR WARS????? Need I remind you what a historical, groundbreaking film Star Wars is? This simple morality tale revolutionized the film industry.

...and ruined science fiction movies in the process.

 

 

It shunted off intellegent complex movies like '2001' and 'Dr.Strangelove'

and replaced them with gilded Flash Gordon serials from the 30s.

[John Allardice]

...and ruined science fiction movies in the process.

It shunted off intellegent complex movies like '2001' and 'Dr.Strangelove'

and replaced them with gilded Flash Gordon serials from the 30s.

 

 

Not to put too fine a point on it but, bullshit... you're talking as if pre '77 was some golden age of intellligent SF movies, whereas in reality for every '2001' we had a hundred "Moon Zero Two"s.

The financial success of the series gave the studios confidence to invest in SF again....yeah, we got a lot of garbage, but to quote Sturgeons Law. "Sure 90% of science fiction is crud. That's because 90% of everything is crud".

If the overall output of SF films go up, by all rights so will the number of gems..as well as the number of turds.

Without Star Wars there would have been no Blade Runner, Contact or Brazil

[James Steven Beverly]

Star Wars is by Lucas' own addmittance a film for kids. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it's just guys running around wearing lots of plastic. It had a big influence on the industry but in my book it doesn't qualify as an art. But it is good entertainment and there is a difference between the two that some people still fail to understand.

 

No mere piece of "good entertainment" could have possibly provoke the kind of cultural revolution that Star Wars did as for Lucas' admission that this was "just a kid's movie" ,there are many artists who don't recognize the gravity of thier work, Hell, Stephen King through away his first novel and his wife had to pull it out of the trash can, for Christ's sake. I don't remember which one it was but it was one of the ones we ALL know. Star Wars has created a cult following unlike any film ever made. The shear NUMBER of fan films alone should tell you what a great influence this film has had on the world. That, my friend, is art in ANYONE'S book! If YOU can't see that, I really feel YOUR the one that fails to understand the difference between art and good entertainment.

 

 

 

I think a better comparision would be music. Lucas is pop (ie: Michael Jackson) while Kubrick and Tarkovsky are closer to classical (ie: Mozart or Beethoven). So it's OK to like Michael Jackson, but comparing him or putting him in the same league as Mozart is kind of a leap.

 

You not comparing Micheal Jackson and Mozart, Your comparing The Beatles and Mozart and I'll defend that comparision any day of the week!

[James Steven Beverly]

...and ruined science fiction movies in the process.

It shunted off intellegent complex movies like '2001' and 'Dr.Strangelove'

and replaced them with gilded Flash Gordon serials from the 30s.

 

The only decent pre Star Wars Sci/fi films were The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, 2001, The Thing from Another World, Solaris, When Worlds Collide, Invation Of the Body Snatchers, Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds and perhaps a handful more. Most Sci/Fi of the pre Star Wars era was shlock. Sci/Fi began to be taken seriously AFTER Star Wars. You go back to the old days if you want to. I like modern Sci/Fi much better. In MY opinion Star Wars SAVE Sci/Fi. B)

[James Steven Beverly]

...and ruined science fiction movies in the process.

It shunted off intellegent complex movies like '2001' and 'Dr.Strangelove'

and replaced them with gilded Flash Gordon serials from the 30s.

 

The only decent pre Star Wars Sci/fi films were The Day the Earth Stood Still, Forbidden Planet, 2001, The Thing from Another World, Solaris, When Worlds Collide, Invation Of the Body Snatchers, Planet of the Apes, War of the Worlds and perhaps a handful more. Most Sci/Fi of the pre Star Wars era was shlock. Sci/Fi began to be taken seriously AFTER Star Wars. You go back to the old days if you want to. I like modern Sci/Fi much better. In MY opinion Star Wars SAVE Sci/Fi. B)

[Max Jacoby]

there are many artists who don't recognize the gravity of thier work, Hell, Stephen King through away his first novel and his wife had to pull it out of the trash can, for Christ's sake.

Stephen King once said that his books were the equivalent of a Bic Mac and fries so I seriously doubt that he even considers himself an artist. That you do just goes to prove my point. Not everyone who paints, writes, makes films or music and is popular doing it automatically creates art. In fact I find popularity a very unreliable criteria for art.

[Thomas Bays]

I love directors who do what they want when they want. I'm not sure Lucas has made enough good movies to qualify for "brilliance," he's really only got one, A New Hope, and it was't primarily his input that "made" that movie. Empire and Jedi were directed by others and written by others, with Lucas taking some kind of "Executive Producer" credit. I hope we can all agree episodes I to III which Lucas directed (I hate how he's numbered the films) don't come very close to decent cinema. He's trying to be on the "cutting edge" again, with CG and digital cinema, and it just ain't working for him. It would have been much more bold and said something far greater if he'd stuck with old-school motion control. Probably would have revived the technique.

 

 

I think his vision is brilliant. We would be creaming over the Yoda-Sidous arena shot if it were someone else. I think people are misplacing dislike of certain characters and editing flaws over actual cinematography.

[David Mullen ASC]

In fact I find popularity a very unreliable criteria for art.

 

Well, there's "pop-art"... but I know what you are saying.

 

But I also think that "low" or "middle-brow" entertainment can have an artistic quotient. It's not easy to make good popular entertainment as even Hollywood finds out time and time again.

[Hal Smith]

But I also think that "low" or "middle-brow" entertainment can have an artistic quotient. It's not easy to make good popular entertainment as even Hollywood finds out time and time again.

I've always been entranced by just how beautiful the location photography is in many Hollywood films, regardless of dramatic content. One could take the actors out of the frame, print stills, and have photos that would win awards. There's a lot of art going on behind the action. Recently I've been training myself when shooting still film landscapes to imagine action in the foreground, it's helpful in educating my eye to see overall composition.

[Max Jacoby]

But I also think that "low" or "middle-brow" entertainment can have an artistic quotient. It's not easy to make good popular entertainment as even Hollywood finds out time and time again.

Definitely. I'm not saying that this is an either or situation. Most films are a mixture between entertainment and art, it's just that in every film the percentages are different.

[Andy_Alderslade]

Definitely. I'm not saying that this is an either or situation. Most films are a mixture between entertainment and art, it's just that in every film the percentages are different.

 

How you judge something in terms of 'what is art' also depends on who you are too, particularly your own personal interests and agendas.

 

For example, if someone who knows nothing about Kubrick, watches The Shining, the chances are the're not going to think its any better than a well made, slightly over-acted simplistic horror film. Its only when you have seen all of Kubricks other films and fully appreciate the technological advances involved that the film becomes more than simply a gory ghost movie.

Edited September 10, 2006 by Andy_Alderslade

[James Steven Beverly]

Stephen King once said that his books were the equivalent of a Bic Mac and fries so I seriously doubt that he even considers himself an artist. That you do just goes to prove my point. Not everyone who paints, writes, makes films or music and is popular doing it automatically creates art. In fact I find popularity a very unreliable criteria for art.

 

What great artist ever considered them self an artist? Most artists with any real genius make art without ever considering what other people will think. They infuse a piece of their soul into their work and that's what people respond to and even if they DID believe their work was a great piece of art, who among them is going to say that and face the hailstorm oi criticizm for being so egotistical? It's much better to stay in the public's good graces and declare one's self a hack while the rest of the world hails you a genius then be thought of as an egomanical bastard that needs to be knocked down a few pegs.

Look. We've had this discussion before as to what the definition of "art" is and as I said before, popularity does not negate art, in fact people are the ones who decide what art is, not the artist. I don't want to rehash this subject again as it's getting tedious, it sefices to say that I feel your narrow view of the definition of art sets many, far too many, unique expressions of the human soul outside the realm of it's bonderies to be viable AS a definition. Star Wars IS art, perhaps in the same way that Andy Warhol's can of tomato soup was art, but ART none the less and continuing to debate that is useless. Star Wars has survived and florished throogh generations. It is as popular now as it ever was. No mere piece of popular entertainment could have done that, only something that speaks to the human soul can and THAT is the definition of art. B) .

[David Mullen ASC]

Star Wars has survived and florished throogh generations. It is as popular now as it ever was. No mere piece of popular entertainment could have done that, only something that speaks to the human soul can and THAT is the definition of art. B) .

 

Not every movie is to everyone's tastes... but I love the original "Star Wars", flaws and all (like some clunky acting & dialogue, etc.) I think the human element that people can relate to is this young man living on this backwater planet feeling that the whole universe must be more exciting than where he is at that moment, a very common feeling in youth, and an element also in many westerns, the desire to get off the farm, join a cause, etc. There is also a genuine element of friendship among the characters, and they look like they are having fun.

 

All of these elements are either missing or badly handled in the prequels though, although I like the last one for its Wagnerian sense of tragedy even if it could have been done even better.