My Defense of George Lucas

So this has been building for a while and of course, has come to a head with Indy 4. So I've decided to be the devil's advocate and actually like George Lucas. Because I don't think everyone is giving him a fair shake. I don't have time to cover all issues in detail but I want to address three major conversations I've had recently and Joe's blog entry.

Nostalgia

The main reason everyone is miffed with the current incarnations of Star Wars and Indy is because their memories are colored by nostalgia. It's like when your grandparents tell you how great it was "way back when" and how it was safer and nicer and uphill both ways. It wasn't better then, it's just your memory is faulty and you had less experience and even reference.

I defy the idea that you could watch these new, having never experienced them and enjoy them the same way. It's impossible to prove. You can't divorce yourself from the faulty judgment of nostalgia.

Case in point, I never saw Goonies growing up. I watched it for the first time last year. I found it kind of goofy and ridiculous. It's fun but I have no reason to watch it again. It holds no nostalgic value for me and no place in the canon of movies that make up my childhood. If I showed you any Indiana Jones or Star Wars now, I guarantee you'd find them quaint and low tech, very cheesy and filled with outrageous stunts. You might enjoy them but I doubt you'd enjoy them as faultless masterpieces.

Another major problem with these new movies is that they aren't a reaction against the movies of the time. The original Star Wars was released on the heels of The Godfather, The French Connection, and other gritty reality movies full of anti-heroes and messy lines between good and evil. These new films aren't updated enough I feel. They try to keep with the old and not react to the new.
Here's the current state of movies that makes Lucas's latest incarnations dated:

1. This is a post Die Hard, Matrix, Lord of the Rings, Bourne Ultimatum era of action movies.
2. The delightfully fanciful movie era of the 80's is over. It has been replaced again with grittier, more realistic filming and teen romantic comedies.
3. The fanciful era was ushered in by Lucas. He's responsible for people being ready for movies like Neverending Story, ET, Legend, and Willow. Also, TV shows like Small Wonder and Alf. But the 90's were a reaction against Lucas.
4. The original movies were new and fresh. These new movies are released in a Post-Lucas era. We've already seen him, evolved away from him, and now he returns with throwbacks. Every Indy movie as we watched it was a mix of the old and the new. Now we just have the old. The only new part is the same effects are being done with CGI.

Now I'm not saying that we can't watch any old movie and not enjoy it. Obviously not. But Indy and Star Wars are part of our nostalgic youth. They aren't judged the same. And it's not just nostalgia we're fighting but the sum of experiential movie data in our brains.CGI

This argument to me is ridiculous. The reason for effects is to create spectacle on screen. To keep someone in the reality of it, the effects artist uses the best he has at the time. CGI is the best today and that's what people use. To rebel against it is to argue for your outdated technology. No one raises a shout for washboards when we have washing machines.

We're kidding ourselves if we think that the old stuff looked better. The melting face in Raiders? It's ridiculous, campy. No one would argue for its authenticity. But we like it because it was the best back then. The Rancor in Jedi? Stupid. It's pathetic looking. Even as a kid I was taken out of the movie by the obvious fakeness of it.

If we're arguing against CGI, what are we arguing for? Do we want claymation back? Like Jason and the Argonauts? Should we put keep using puppets? Godzilla suits? Inadequate models and ships on strings? You're saying that you'd rather all chase scenes today looked more like the speeder bike scenes in Jedi? With sloppy effects on a green screen? The seamlessness of CGI is yet to come. But we've seen glimpses of it.

I'm not saying that some of the effects aren't over the top and used to excess. The prairie dog in Indy 4 was not my favorite. But I would have been pissed off it was a puppet! Better it was never there, sure, but better than going backwards.

From George Lucas's standpoint, he was embarrassed at some of the scenes in the original Star Wars trilogy. He envisioned a universe full of diverse creatures that he wanted to portray. Instead of the Star Trek lameness of "Aliens Just Have Different Head Bumps" route he tried to portray it in makeup and puppetry. And it wasn't fully realized. He could not create the vision he wanted.

So he spent the next 25 years developing the technology to realize his vision. These were for his new series of stories. Unfortunately, he felt it necessary to patch up his old movies. I don't enjoy ALL of the patches. I like some. But I understand his want to fix the things he was embarrassed of. The things he just didn't have the technology for originally. Are they perfect yet? No. Was his technology in the 70's and 80's perfect either? No.

The biggest mistake of the new movies is that he let himself direct. Lucas is not a director. He's a story teller and visual artist. The acting and dialogue was just as bad in the original three Star Wars and Indy movies. It just had more likable bad actors. Mark Hamill was at least charismatic. Hayden Christiansen is just whiny.

Aliens Instead of Religion

It's been done! Another religious object? It would have been boring! The movie would have been panned so much more if it went the Christian/Judaism route again. It would have been seen as a paltry shadow of the originals and everyone would have yawned with, "Seen that. Done better."

Name one religious object that would have been good. But it would have to raise the stakes. It would have to be bigger than the Holy Grail. I challenge anyone to name one piece of religious iconography that would have topped the Ark or Grail and be rooted enough in Western culture that we could immediately identify with it. The cross? A piece of Jesus's clothing? It would be the same as the Grail not better. The staff of Moses? The Golden Calf? Maybe they could have done the Garden of Eden, the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. But what then? That would have debunked Christian mythology not supported it like the other two movies. It would be the Da Vinci Code or National Treasure not Indiana Jones.
There were only three major archaeological things popular in Western mythology that might have been used. El Dorado, Atlantis, and the Fountain of Youth. They had actually played around with an Atlantis movie until about 8 years ago. The Fountain of Youth was just done. So El Dorado then. But with the right MacGuffin.

I thought that the theme of the movie was much more Indy than The Mummy or National Treasure or Da Vinci Code or all those other rip offs.

Over the Top

Yes, the waterfalls, the refrigerator, and the vine swinging was ridiculous. But so was the huge stone marble and the hand insignia melting in Raiders, the plane scene in Doom, not to mention the poison and antidote debacle, and the seagulls in Holy Grail. The only reason we're more sensitive now is again, the fact that we're not nine years old.

Because we can't believe now that someone can survive three waterfalls but we can believe in a long buried snake pit full of hundreds of snakes with nothing to feed on. Oh, and Aliens are a more of a stretch than let's say, Immortal Grail Juice.