Wright-Stasko 1

Robert Wright-Stasko Dr. Michelle McDonald Art 150 C 12/03/10 George Lucas is one of our times most loved and most hated filmmakers. The mention of his name can engender these feelings of love and hate simultaneously in some of his fans; a recent documentary titled The People vs. George Lucas (2010) has a band singing George Lucas raped my childhood (Mitchell). Much ink has been spilt over the brilliance of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope (1977) and its two sequels, known as the original trilogy. Even more has been spilt over how the prequel trilogy, Episodes I-III, have disappointed fans and not lived up to the original movies. But these criticisms fail to look beneath the surface of the prequels and examine the undercurrents that make these movies a true work of art. This study will attempt to answer three major criticisms of Star Wars Episodes I through III, Lucass advancement of the medium by using digital film, the way the movies have killed off the arthouse film by creating the blockbuster film, and the much maligned character of Jar Jar Binks. Lucas was hailed as an innovator for pushing the field of special effects. He founded the company Industrial Lights and Magic (ILM) and the motion controlled camera techniques they developed for Star Wars IV revolutionized movie making. The dazzling visuals help make this

movie one of the highest grossing of all time. He started the companies Skywalker Sound and THX to improve the sound of movies in theaters and in our home (Graser A2). He continued to push the medium by founding PIXAR, the studio who created the Toy Story series, and used the CGI technology they developed in movies like Terminator 2 (1991) and Jurassic Park (1993) to

Wright-Stasko 2

produce digital images that are as realistic looking as images captured on film. But there are critics of Lucass filming techniques. Episode II: Attack of the Clones (2002) was the first movie ever shot completely on high definition digital video tape. This was a major advancement in technology that Lucas had been working together with several other companies for years to develop (Blake). Strangely enough, in the special features on the DVD for Episode II, Lucas interviews cinematographers who oppose the digital revolution. George Spiro Dibie, president of the International Cinematographers Guild said, When youre shooting on film it is like making beautiful, traditional art. Video today is like modern art, not even good modern art (Lucas). Since that time, the technology has continued to improve. Digitally shot movies, like Avatar (2009) and its breathtaking visuals, have shown that traditional film does not hold a monopoly of beauty. Also, hi-def Blu-Ray players and televisions have pervaded the market. Movies shot digitally look so much better on these than grainy film transfers. While the artistic value of the images Lucas captures may be valid, there is much more criticism of the artistic value of the subject of the Star Wars prequels. In spite of, or perhaps because of, the great success of Star Wars, there have been many accusations leveled at Lucas and his movies for reducing the artistic quality of cinema. In an article titled Why Hollywood Cannot Make Art, the reviewer says, The commercial success of these films, with their simple-minded stories and elaborate special effects, led directly to the juvenilization of Hollywood. Once producers discovered that there were vast amounts of money to be made out of visually compelling, dramatically infantile big-budget movies aimed at an audience of teenagers, it was all but inevitable that they would soon be making little else. What followed was an industrywide plunge to the lowest common denominator of popular taste. (Teachout 48) Even other filmmakers pile on the criticism. The director William Friedkin says, "What happened with Star Wars was like when McDonald's got a foothold, the taste for good food just

Wright-Stasko 3

disappeared. Now we're in a period of devolution." (Windolf) But the Star Wars films have a purpose other than selling popcorn and movie tickets. With the prequel trilogy, Lucas is making a political statement by using film and literary references to do so. As mentioned before, there are many studies on how George Lucas infused the original trilogy with the themes gathered from the work of Joseph Campbell. The mythological aspects of the original Episode IV is integral to its appeal and helps make the movie timeless. In the prequel movies, there are two main strands of plot that run through them. The first is the rise and tragic fall of Anakin Skywalker and his transformation into the evil Darth Vader of the original trilogy. The second plot strand is the rise to power of Palpatine in the Galactic Senate from senator, to Supreme Chancellor, and finally to the Emperor. There are elements of myth in the first plot thread, for example the virgin birth of Anakin Skywalker. In an article examining the mythological elements of Episode I: The Phantom Menace (1999), Anne Lancashire interprets the movie using Campbells ideas of the heroic journey (Lancashire 33-34). She touches on the political aspects, but relies too heavily on mythological comparisons. While myth is the thematic link to the original trilogy, the main emphasis should be placed on Palpatines political plays (after all, he is the phantom menace of the movies title). The mistake is understandable since Lancashire wrote her essay in 2000 before Episodes II and III had been released where the political allusions are more apparent. George Lucas definitely had a political message in mind for the prequels. When I was in school we learned about propaganda, we learned about abuse of power, and I'm not sure that's being passed on to the kids today. So I wanted to make a movie that not only deals with social responsibility and personal responsibility, but also has to do with fathers and sons, with your individual responsibility to the whole society. (Bond)

Wright-Stasko 4

There are many obvious parallels between Palpatine and Ceasar, Hilter, and other historical leaders who slowly transformed democracies into dictatorships. There are a few more subtle cues, especially in Episode II in which Lucas artistically conveys his political message. In the very beginning of Episode II: Attack of the Clones Senator Amidalas ship lands on the capitol planet of Coruscant; it slowly emerges from the fog and sets down on the landing pad. This is extremely similar to a shot from the movie Things to Come (1936). Written by H.G Wells, this movie predicts a future in which a scientist, Cabal, rules the world as dictator in a communistic society after a long,
Figure 1: Senator Amidala's Ship Lands (Star Wars: Attack of the Clones).

protracted war. Wells thought that this form of government

would form the ideal society and his movie was a failed attempt to persuade the audience to this point of view (Stover 91). An iconic image from this film shows a large, flat bomber flying out of the clouds. Lucass use of this shot in his movie foreshadows the eventual transformation of the Galactic Republic into the evil Galactic Empire. Lucas does not agree with Wells; his sympathies clearly lie with the Jedi who guard the Republic and democracy. In another subtle allusion during Episode II, this one literary, we find that Lucas has based the structure of the Jedi society on that of the ancient Persian military that Xenophon idealizes in The Education of Cyrus. Xenophon describes the Free Square where people receive their education. This square is divided into four parts. One of these is for the boys, one is for the youths, another is for the mature men, another for
Figure 2: A Basra bomber emerges from the clouds (Things To Come).

Wright-Stasko 5

those who are beyond the years of military service (Xenophon 24) He goes on to tell how at each stage the men are trained in military skills, reading and writing, and justice. The Jedi have a similar organization. They start as younglings, whom we see Yoda training in Episode II. As teenagers, the Jedi become Padawans who apprentice with a more
Figure 3: Jedi Younglings (Star Wars: Attack of the Clones)

mature Jedi Knight. The Jedi that are advanced in years,

like Yoda, are the Jedi Masters, some of whom sit on a council that governs the Jedi. This reference to an idealized society in The Education of Cyrus, coupled with the earlier reference to Wellss chilling Things to Come, shows quite clearly the political message Lucas is trying to convey. A dream democracy can easily become a totalitarian nightmare. By using images and allusions of ideas in power and politics, Lucas is trying to persuade us that his message is urgently relevant as well. Near the end of Episode II, Palpatine accepts the temporary emergency powers granted to him by the Senate. By the end of Episode III, he declares himself leader of the new Empire. This slow loss of
Figure 4: From Senator to Chancellor to evil Emperor.

freedom echoes current events like the Patriot Act. Lucas

seems to asking, How long before life imitates art? How long before history repeats itself? With his artistic allusions and state-of-the-art technological advances in the medium of film, the prequel trilogy can be seen as a grand piece of art masterfully executed. But, many would argue that there is still one blight on this canvas and that is the character of Jar Jar Binks. While the hype leading up to the release of Episode I: The Phantom Menace is unforgettable, the critical fallout that followed was unrelenting. Most of this was aimed squarely at poor Jar Jar.

Wright-Stasko 6

Jar Jar Binks is a Gungan, a completely computer generated (CG) alien character introduced in Episode I. He is the first of a line of CG characters including Gollum from Lord of the Rings, Dobby from Harry Potter, and the Navi from Avatar. But he also is accused of being a racial stereotype. Jar Jar consistently mispronounces and misuses words in telling ways: "da" instead of "the," and "yo" instead of "your." He also frequently uses the words "missa" and "youza", which sound uncomfortably like the Jim Crow "massa" ("master"), and "yowza" ("Yes, sir"). Put it all together, and you've got sentences like, "No, no, missa called Jar Jar Binks, missa yo humble servant." Add to this a slow, loping stride; pop-eyed, kneeknocking cowardliness; and a profound stupidity played for laughs, and you've got a black stereotype that hasnt been seen on the screen since Steppin' Eetchit was carried off to Beuhla Land. (Kleinman 46) This analysis is not isolated; Jar Jar is nearly universally reviled. After the release of Episode I the internet hate was unleashed. With a collective Ewwww!, moviegoers have been snapping up domain names like jarjarsucks.com and jarjarbites.com (Flynn). There is redemption for Jar Jar, and it lies not in the way he talks or acts, but in how his character develops.
Figure 5: Everyone Hates Jar Jar (Star Wars: Attack of the Clones)

First, one must keep in mind that Star Wars is first and foremost a kids movie. Missing from much of the overheated bashing of The Clone

Wars was the crucial point that it was made for kids, not the grown-ups for whom the original trilogy remains (ridiculously) sacred (Jenen). Jar Jar fulfils the role kiddie comic relief usually played by C-3PO, who for narrative reasons only has a few minutes of screen time in Episode I. (Personally, I find C-3POs incessant whining more annoying than anything Jar Jar ever says.) But Jar Jar grows beyond this role, helping to defeat the droid armies in Episode I and then becoming the Senator for his planet in Episodes II and III. The leader of the Gungans, Boss Nass, tells the Jedi that he feels the human inhabitants of their planet have sidelined and discriminated against them, also in Episode I. That Jar Jar would go on to hold such a high and

Wright-Stasko 7

important position shows the social reform that must have happened in the human and Gungan societies. Lucas is actually making an anti-racist statement. He is saying that we need to look beyond the overt differences and see the value in everybody. Without Jar Jar, the good guys would have lost. George Lucas has many critics and they are not going away. But, as shown here, those criticisms they raise can be rebutted, if not totally invalidated. The objections against filming digitally have been laid to rest over the last few years since the explosion of digital media. The artistic merits of the prequels can be seen in the political message Lucas conveys through literary and film references. And Jar Jar is not as racist as people claim; he demonstrates the potential everyone has to excel. In the end, Episode I totaled nearly a billion dollars in worldwide box office returns (Graser A2). Apparently, the critics voice is not the loudest.

Wright-Stasko 8

Works Cited
Blake, Larry. "Digital Cinema Release." Mix June 2002: 99. Bond, Jeff. "Lucas on Film." Cinefantastique June 2005: 25. Flynn, Gillian. "Jar Jar Stinks." Entertainment Weekly 08 June 1999: 85. Graser, Marc. "Lucas empire continues growth at light speed." Variety 11 April 2002: A1-A2. Here We Go Again. Perf. George Lucas. 2002. Jenen, Jeff. "DEFENDING GEORGE LUCAS AND HIS CRITICALLY TRASHED 'WARS'." Entertainment Weekly 19 September 2008: 12-13. Kleinman, Dennis. "Hands Across the Galaxy?" Cinefantastique June 2002: 46-47. Lancashire, Anne. "The Phantom Menace: Repetition, Variation, Integration." Film Criticism (2000): 2344. Mitchell, Wendy. George Lucas Documentary: Exploring the love-hate relationship with 'Start Wars' fans. 11 March 2010. 15 November 2010 <http://popwatch.ew.com/2010/03/11/george-lucasdocumentary/>. Star Wars: Attack of the Clones. Dir. George Lucas. Perf. Ewan McGregor. 2002. Stover, Leon. The Prophetic Soul: A Reading of H.G. Wells's Things to Come. Mcfarland & Co. Inc. Publishing, 1988. Teachout, Terry. "Why Hollywood Cannot Make Art." Commentary January 2007: 48-51. Things To Come. Dir. William Cameron Menzies. Perf. Raymond Massey. 1936. Windolf, Jim. "Star Wars: The Last Battle." Vanity Fair February 2005: 108-167. Xenophon. The Education of Cyrus. Ithica and London: Cornell University Press, 2001.