I must confess that...wait a minute. Why confess? Star Wars was a part of my life from 1977 to 1983. I collected the numerous action figures, the ships, the Topps collectible cards, the posters, the bedsheets, etc. I want to say that Martin Scorsese, Ingmar Bergman and Akira Kurosawa were the backbone of my collective filmic childhood, but why lie about it? When I first saw "Star Wars" in 1977, it not only shaped and framed my childhood - it pretty much represented it. When I finally saw Return of the Jedi in 1983, it was pretty much over me. The Star Wars universe came to a close and I already discovered Ingmar Bergman and Luis Bunuel at the now defunct Biograph in New York. Besides, I have always been a bigger Indiana Jones fan than a Luke Skywalker fan.
Therefore, to hear complaints from the elitist film snobs on the Internet and abroad that Lucas is responsible for the declining quality of American cinema, the dumbing-down of cinematic blockbusters, offends me because he is not responsible for making films dumber. The filmmakers who decided to copy Lucas's formula (which was already borrowed from Tolkien and Kurosawa, to name a couple) and create their own versions of sci-fi spectaculars are partly to blame, as is the audience who clamored for pure entertainment and nothing more.
But let's go back to 1977 for a moment. "Star Wars" was more than just a movie - it was an event. It transcended everything we thought was fun about movies. It was also the first true blockbuster that became a powerhouse of a phenomenon, more so than even The Wizard of Oz or Jaws, the first official blockbuster minus the merchandising. Even those who disliked George Lucas's first space opera opus would be remiss if they didn't admit they knew who Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, Chewbacca, Princess Leia and Obi-Wan Kenobi were. For better or worse, thanks to intense marketing and merchandising, "Star Wars" was a ubiquitous hit. It also became the controversial name of a missile program spearheaded by the late former President Reagan. And to no one's surprise, the film spawned two sequels, a prequel trilogy and several rip-offs. (Ice Pirates, anyone?)
But something else happened in 1977. At a time when the country was just getting over Vietnam and Watergate, socially conscious Hollywood films became something of a hindrance to the box-office - why spend millions on an independent director's personal vision when you could have mega escapist entertainment instead that would satisfy the child in all of us? Of course, George Lucas was already an independent filmmaker prior to "Star Wars." He scored a direct hit with American Graffitti and failed to attract an audience with one of his most profound, experimental films, THX-1138. "Star Wars" was seen as a gamble, and yet it is a personal vision by Lucas. The difference was that it was a populist vision, one that could attract the mainstream. It was about the old-fashioned ideals of good and evil. It was the world we could dream of, not an existential vision where good and evil were difficult to separate. No, Lucas made an updated, operatic version of the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon Republic serials of yesteryear. Unfortunately, this meant the demise of the New School of Thought as perpetrated by distinct directors such as Martin Scorsese, William Friedkin, Francis Ford Coppola, Hal Ashby, John Milius and many more - directors who sought to inform us with their personal visions of the corrupt world they live in. By the time the grand folly that destroyed a studio arrived, Michael Cimino's Heaven's Gate, it was the end of the independent vision backed by Hollywood. How ironic that Lucas financed his own "Star Wars" movies and made them the way he saw fit with the help of distributor Twentieth Century Fox. Many kill for financial control - Orson Welles suffered seeking it - and so Lucas was, by his own admission as self-financier, an independent film director.
So did George Lucas destroy cinema? I wouldn't say that is correct - I believe the audience did. There's nothing inherently wrong with an astoundingly entertaining movie like "Star Wars" but there is more to film than to just entertain. The audience fell for the idea that escapism should inform their Friday night experience, not socially relevant films or Scorsesian outlooks on the mean streets of New York. No, since the advent of "Star Wars," the audience got hooked on happy endings, explosions in THX sound format, bullets ripping through the air while Stallone or Schwarzenegger flexed their muscles and bared their chests, simple, uncomplicated romances, and so on. These statutes of limitations informed the 1980's and went on through the politically correct 1990's. The audiences got spoiled - a happy ending for Pretty Woman was accepted, a dark ending wouldn't have been. Bruce Willis fought terrorists and saved his wife and his marriage in the process as John McClane in the Die Hard series. Just when you thought that 1994's groundbreaking Pulp Fiction would reawaken the action film genre to new heights, we got the same old song the following year with Die Hard With a Vengeance and a slew of Steven Seagal flicks. Summer action blockbusters continued (don't forget director Michael Bay and the return of James Bond as Pierce Brosnan), comedies levelled their humor with gross gags such as There's Something About Mary and Austin Powers, and teenagers flocked to Scream and the numerous knockoffs, as well as American Pie and their own kin. Are we still blaming Lucas?
And then came 1999's Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace, which was a huge success and a major disappointment for fans. Lucas created such a backlash with the return to his popular universe that it was assumed to be the biggest disappointment in cinema history (Didn't Scarlett, the TV sequel to Gone With the Wind, qualify as a bigger dud?) Never mind the much maligned Jar-Jar-Binks character, considered the biggest and most inexcusable flaw in the film, or a young Darth Vader/Anakin Skywalker screaming "Yippee!" every two seconds or the appearance of far too solemn Jedi Knights, including Samuel L. Jackson as the wise Mace Windu, or the occasional creature in Tattoine that would fart or step on feces. "Phantom Menace" was seen as troubling because fans and presumably audiences were expecting a state of nirvana that would return them to 1977. Except this was 1999 and perhaps many of us who were tots in the 70's outgrew "Star Wars" - we all became adults since those days and wouldn't have expected Lucas to make this universe so new and groundbreaking all over again. Of course, Han Solo, Princess Leia and Luke Skywalker didn't return because the new movies were prequels - our favorite characters weren't even born yet! Somehow, the audacious sight of seeing Yoda holding a lightsaber or the knowledge that Darth Vader built C3PO or that the future Vader was slightly wimpy was considered sacrilegious. And I thought the Ewoks were offensively inane and that Harrison Ford looked quite stoned in "Return of the Jedi." I don't think I am alone in saying that The Empire Strikes Back is not only the greatest "Star Wars" film ever, but also one of the finest action-adventure films ever made. Obviously, those who held the original trilogy (Episodes 4, 5 and 6) as the Holy Trilogy were not going to have their high expectations met in any regard.
Special-effect fantasies set in space have multiplied since the original "Star Wars," both on television and in theatres. From TV's Battlestar Galactica to movies like Stargate and Alien and beyond, almost every year has spawned numerous sci-fi space operas, sci-fi adventures and sci-fi dramas. For every new Star Trek series and "Star Trek" sequel, there's been Blade Runner, Dark City, Independence Day, I, Robot, Minority Report, Terminator trilogy, Moonraker (the only Bond film set in space), heck, even The Matrix trilogy. Aliens of all sizes and shapes have appeared on screen and CGI technology has sparked the illusion of newer and denser worlds. How the hell can "Star Wars" compete with all that except to utilize what has already been deemed old-hat? CGI effects don't have the grandeur or sense of nightmarish intensity that handmade sets do - Lord of the Rings trilogy is an exception.
Many erroneously assumed that "Star Wars" worked because of the special-effects. Others will contend that the characters were what made it so memorable. And so to accuse the new "Star Wars" films of having stilted dialogue, wooden characterizations and too much (or too little) plot is to forget that the original film trilogy is no less guilty of the same charges. The reviled "Phantom Menace" spends its time developing its origins of Anakin Skywalker and some of it is pure fun to watch, including the Pod Race. Attack of the Clones spends time on the developing romance between Anakin and former Princess Amidala. I suppose that was too dull a romance for many, preferring action, spectacle and last-minute rescue attempts every two minutes. Amazing that the original "Star Wars: Episode IV" was considered too fast-paced in 1977 - now, it is a model of narrative storytelling. MTV and remote controls have had an adverse effect on cinema, not George Lucas.
I like the prequel trilogy, and consider "Episode II" and "Episode III" to be the best damn "Star Wars" films since "The Empire Strikes Back." I think George Lucas is a fine filmmaker and hope he makes those experimental films he's been planning all along. "Star Wars" will never go away (a TV series is planned as well as 3-D IMAX versions) and Lucas may fiddle and tinker with his original trilogy until the day he dies. But he is no destroyer of cinema - someone who embraces it shouldn't be charged with destroying it. We can't blame him for the remakes of Dukes of Hazzard, Amityville Horror, Guess Who, The Honeymooners and the rash of wannabe brainless blockbusters, can we? (We can blame him for Howard the Duck.) We shouldn't blame him for unwarranted happy endings and the dumbing-down of cinema, should we? No, the audience is to blame. For better or worse, Scorsese, Friedkin, Bogdanovich and many other 70's brats are thankfully still working in the Hollywood industry. I've learned that there's more to life than "Star Wars" - as of now, it is more nostalgia for me than anything else. It might be for George Lucas as well.
Number of Star Wars fans
Review of EPISODE I: PHANTOM MENACE
Review of EPISODE II: ATTACK OF THE CLONES
Changes in the 1997 Special Editions of STAR WARS
TAXI DRIVER VS. BRINGING OUT THE DEAD
ROGER EBERT: OUR BELOVED CRITIC
INDIANA JONES AND THE WEB OF GOLD SYNOPSIS