George Lucas: Low-Budget Eye-Candy

Yea, the American film industry devotes too much to budget and casting, rather than story and performance.

Great job; well done Boone.

Lucas makes sparing use of musical score in two key sequences from the first two prequels: the pod race in The Phantom Menace and the arena battle with the creatures in Attack of the Clones. The first one works, the second one, not so much - a gladiatorial arena simply calls for boombastic score. I am not the biggest fan of the pod-race sequence (it goes on forever), but it is a brilliant technical achievement nonetheless.

The original cut of THX-1138 (not Lucas' later "needs more CGI" version) is one of my favorite films of all time. Really stunning.

I'm glad the "original Star Wars" was mentioned in there, because - from the get go - the whole sequence reminded me in a myriad of ways of the whole Death Star culmination sequence in Star Wars. It's clear that Lucas used a lot of the same concepts.

Having read a number of Lucas biographies, it saddens me sometimes to think about the filmmaker that we lost because of (ironically) his greatest success. I love Star Wars and it's pre/sequels, but I would loved to have seen more from the man who crafted American Graffiti.

I hate to defend George Lucas because he doesn't need me to do it for him, but I think you are being just a little bit unfair. I caught THX-1138 on TV late one night and I have NEVER forgotten that chase in the tunnels, especially the final motorcycle cop flipping over and smashing into the car.

You are quite correct that the sequence has an austere beauty that Lucas has never come close to matching since. But almost all film directors, when they are starting out, are forced into being more creative with fewer resources than they will ever have to be again in their careers.

I tell all the young filmmakers I meet that there is great "production value" to be had for free almost anywhere. Stage your scenes next to an ocean or by a particularly geometric confluence of bridges.

But Lucas has done that already. It's hard, if not impossible for him to go back to that cheap kind of guerilla filmmaking.

To paraphrase a great truth, "it's hard to keep the boys down on the farm after they've seen Paris". I imagine that once you have made a film with all the power of a movie studio behind you and I don't mean just money but with any kind of film technician you could ever want; to go back to driving around in a van carying your minimal equipment and stealing shots on locations where you have to run away just two steps ahead of the Security Guards where the craft service table is the nearest McDonalds would be a very hard adjustment.

Still, Lucas needs to be taken to task for his work. I recalled one scene in Phantom Menace where Haydn Christensen is talking to Amidala (sic) and outside the room they are in I could see all the traffic flying past.
Flying vehicles of all kinds (none fixed wing if I remember correctly), but I immediately wondered, who was controlling all that traffic? I was an Air Traffic Controller in the Air Force; someone has to be keeping these things from colliding with each other.

My point is, I was so concerned with the special effects outside the window; I didn't care one whit about the characters talking to each other.

That's when I knew the film sucked. Actually, I knew that earlier when it seemed every character had to enter the room making a complicated flip. Doesn't anyone enter a room by just walking in in the future?

As much crap as Lucas takes, and he'd be the first to admit he's not great with dialogue or actors, he knows well enough to keep the camera in one place for more than 3 seconds at a time when the occasion calls for it. He's a good visual storyteller and deserves credit for that if nothing else.

I would really like to hear from the filmmakers who do take the ultra-jumpy-blurry approach. Do they think they HAVE to do things that way? That the audience will get bored otherwise? Or is it an artistic statement?

Mr. McGonigle said: "But Lucas has done that already. It's hard, if not impossible for him to go back to that cheap kind of guerilla filmmaking."

I respectfully disagree. Visual restraint and dynamic use of the frame are tools of the great filmmakers, not just the broke ones. Rosemary's Baby and Jaws absorb audiences in the same way that their cheapjack elder siblings Knife in the Water and Duel do: They move the eye around the frame and across cuts in service of a deeply subjective, suspenseful narrative. They ride time and space like a wave. Today's crowd-floggers hogtie, herd and abuse time and space like a, like a...

I think the latest Indiana Jones film is as much an emblem of the shabby state of the art as The Dark Knight: For much of the film's first half, it's as if Spielberg (who hasn't lost his feel for time and space all these years) is fully in charge. The opening action sequence is the usual graceful, propulsive Spielberg dance. Then it appears as if neo-Lucas and his digital minions hijack the rest of the flick, with endless green-screened frippery, weightless throwaway shots, cartoon physics, monkeys.

Its not about money or necessity or an individual director's decline. It's about how corporate prerogatives have overtaken film grammar in the past 25 years. Technological advances like non-linear editing, which have the potential to liberate the filmmaker, have instead been used to maximize a kind of storytelling "efficiency" that gives less and less regard to film's sensual, temporal powers. Today, the big movies are cut like network newsmagazine segments. They fill up time slots with a checklist of content.

Anybody who learns the software can cut a contemporary Ho'wood movie.

Experiment: Watch The first two Alien films, then watch the recent Aliens vs. Predator flicks. See how subjectivity, sensuality and suspense have given way to shock and brutality. And I am not talking about the content. It's all about the visual flow.

Re: Michael McGonigle,

I'm not entirely sure what "Phantom Menace" film you purport to be describing. I certainly don't recall any "Star Wars" films that starred Cirque du Soleil, as your vitriolic hyperbole suggests...

Ell Jay -

Michael McGonigle is describing earlier scenes from Attack of the Clones, the second prequel (and fourth sequel), namely the sequence in Amidala's apartment that leads to the Coruscant chase after the failed attempt at her life.

Je suis un nerd.

What a great analysis! I think it captures what Lucas has lost perfectly.

I'm a big fan of Star Wars, the prequels included, but I very much miss the atmospheric - almost documentary-like - aesthetic Lucas once embraced. We see the same in American Graffiti, and of course in the battered look and wall-to-wall sound of the original Star Wars. Who could forget, for one, the expertly evocative radio chatter between the fighter jocks at the Death Star battle? Alas, his new films simply overdo it; he has also developed an ethic that CGI is not "less real" because all movies are essentially fake. Well, the THX-1138 sequence above perfectly articulates the often-spare "realness" the CGI-bashers so yearn for these days.

Thanks for posting this Jim,
I've been championing this film as Lucas' best for a long time. It's still one of the finest examples of science fiction since 2001: A Space Odyssey. In many ways, it seems to highlight how Lucas began as a mature, minimalist filmmaker and regressed to the boyish techno-geek of today.
I sure miss those spare, long-lensed, well-composed shots. Action directors today seem to forget that objects can move within a frame without the camera moving along with them.

I recently watched THX-1138 for the first time. Editing, pacing, sounds, the general look; very good. The atmosphere of opression was first-rate.

But the 2001 nerd in me got waylaid by pretty clunky dialogue, acting, and some seemingly misfired technological decisions. To name but one, I recall while THX is doing whathaveyou with some dangerous metals, he's being spoken to in an earpiece, and the audio is constantly scratching and distorting. I would imagine a human speciman capable of creating seemingly functional robot-cops could create a decent audio connection through headphones.

Devil, details, etc. Reminds me of Roger Ebert describing the aliens in Battlefield Earth: "The Psychlos can fly between galaxies, but look at their nails: Their civilization has mastered the hyperdrive but not the manicure."

H

Lucas' greatest gift (as a serious filmmaker, read: young/angry) was to interpret the New Wave European films for American audiences. Of course, an argument could be made for a higher intelligence quota and more open-mindedness among audiences at the time, we're talking late '60s and early '70s, but I do think audiences try to enjoy what they are given. Lucas made movies with a slide rule and magic tape; just about the only high tech process was developing, then after that, going through the frames by sight, making cuts with a pair a scissors and a razor blade, then free-form music and spoken word tracks - Walter Murch must have influenced him more than any film school professor.

So his style was influenced by the technical process and the movement of movies in Europe, France, specifically. Can you imagine movies being made this way now? No mass audience would tolerate it for very long.

Ironically, H Man, one of the things I most love about THX-1138 is the thing that annoys you: the sound. I've always liked the quirky, layered, ambient quality of the dialog and sound in this movie. The best way I can describe it is a kind of Sci-Fi Robert Altman.

One of my favorite scenes in this regard is the one in which we see a man being tortured by the "police" on jittery TV monitors. In the "foreground", we hear, but do not see, the unperturbed, business-as-usual, discussion of the event, and some irrelevant side talk. (This sort of reminds me of the Scene in the fist Star Wars ("A New Hope") where Obi-Wan is sneaking around the Death Star and distracts a pair of Storm Troopers with a slick "voice throwing" Force use. A slight "click" on the soundtrack, the StormTroopers say "What was that" and then, finding nothing, start talking "guy talk" about some vehicle.

Meanwhile, back in the THX-1138 dystopia, the "thwack" of the police hitting the victim and his cries are muted by the intervening technology.

One of the reasons I hold Steven Spielberg in such regard is that I believe that he still brings some of his excellent filmmaking acumen to big-budget productions. I agree with one of the previous posters who mentioned that "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" was a huge disappointment because it didn't provide the moments of compositional and editing mastery that we've come to expect from Spielberg (early in the film, particularly the motorcycle chase, Spielberg flexed his muscle, but as the film dragged on, it became clear that he had lost interest).

The thesis of this excellent visual essay seems to be that throwing money at the problem isn't a solution, and while I agree, I think that we also shouldn't assume that just because a film has a huge budget, it can't have moments of filmmaking craft that approach the sublime. Again, I return to some of Spielberg's recent work for a supreme example of big-budget filmmaking at its best: the revelation of the first tripod in "War of the Worlds", the chase down an alleyway and then into an auto factory in "Minority Report", or even (going a little further back), the first appearance of the T-Rex in "Jurassic Park". These sequences have beats, they have a rhythm. I once described to a friend what I see as the problem in current mainstream action filmmaking: its like an orchestra of all drums, or all tubas...instead of ones with violins, flutes, drums, tubas, etc. Action should have punctuations and payoffs...modern filmmakers construct sequences of nothing but them (it'd be like telling the following joke: "To get to the other side. Why the long face? No, but that's a nice monkey you have with you." It's nonsense!).

I recently re-watched both "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (which I think is almost the equal of the justly-lauded first film), and what I realized is that the joy that comes from them is not too different than the joy that comes from watching a beautifully-executed sequence in a musical: we know what we're watching is shallow artifice, but it is given profundity by the sheer craft and wit that is going into its creation. That recognition creates a bond between the audience and the filmmaker that makes us willing to forgive whatever flaws the films may have. And it is definitely part of what is being lost in contemporary American films.

JE: Alex, I couldn't agree with you more about the pervasive too-many-punchlines and not-enough-set-up approach to filmmaking. Why is it accepted, I wonder? Since the mid-'80s ("Top Gun" stands as a landmark of incoherence) I've seen so many "action sequences" that have bored me to distraction. Slathering music over a sequence doesn't hold it together. I just don't understand the appeal of the aesthetic.

Brad Hoehne: Thanks for that. Interesting take. Do you think it was Lucas implying mans creation (i.e. technology) working against its creator? If so, I have to defer to my fore-mentioned 2001 nerd. Kubrick pretty much drilled that. Unfair to Lucas, probably, but thats my reaction. I was merely distracted by it.

Jim: regarding your reply to Alex Murillo, when I think of intelligent and effective action sequence I think of the bank heist/shoot-out in Heat. That nailed me to my chair the first and few other times I watched it. Absolutely convincing, and with no added soundtrack BS. So good it inspired two nutcaps to emulate the shoot-out part in real life.

H

Aside from obvious candidates who are already held in fairly high regard (i.e. the Coens, Paul Thomas Anderson, David Fincher, Quentin Tarantino), one filmmaker that could carry hope for a younger generation of genre filmmakers is Neil Marshall, whose excellent "The Descent" was a great example of steadily rising tension and payoff. I didn't see "Doomsday", but maybe Marshall, along with Tarantino (who did action very well in both the "Kill Bill" films and "Death Proof") can remind people of what we love in action movies. Paul Greengrass, on the other hand, doesn't provide much hope.

Alex -

Then I have a feeling Doomsday would leave you not just disappointed, but also disillusioned.

So am I the only one who doesn't view Lucas as some kind of grand apostate who betrayed the sacred art of film to become a soulless hack? Seriously, the magnitude of the backlash against the guy seems... kind of extreme.

re: " Do you think it was Lucas implying mans creation (i.e. technology) working against its creator?"

Well, the movie is "dystopian".

I think the film might be a cautionary tale- a warning that machines can be a tool to put distance between us. The world of THX-1138 seems contrived to take away all human feelings and contact- the characters are on mood altering drugs, the "police" have inert mechanical faces, affection is literally proscribed, the world itself is a blank, colorless white void etc,. The blank white void- not unlike the color of a predator drone?

Re: "So am I the only one who doesn't view Lucas as some kind of grand apostate who betrayed the sacred art of film to become a soulless hack?"

I think the intensity of the backlash is due to disappointment. Right out of the box, THX-1138, American Graffiti, and the first three Star Wars movies, were three completely engrossing entertainments. Since 1983, Lucas seems to be riding on momentum- the echo of the charm of his earlier work being the main attraction.

My take on what happened to Lucas, is that once he got everything he wanted, he had nothing to push against and this nothing to achieve. I recall Igor Stravinsky saying that art only takes off when the artist puts himself in chains first. Lucas's chains were, early on, his budget, the studio system, and the state of special effect technology. Having to push against these factors, he came up with novel, charming solutions, that added warmth and interest to his movies. These limitations also served to temper some of his more ambitious, but less well formed, ideas.

Once his budget became unlimited and he was freed from the constraints of technology, he claimed he could then make "the movie he always wanted." The first result of this was the "remastering" of the original three Star Wars movie- every element of which, without fail, seemed to detract from the rollicking thrill and charm of those movies. Then, of course, with the next three SW movies, he could throw in everything and the kitchen sink, and the result is a mess.

Lucas needed his chains.

Hey, nice to see that this video has prompted something of a discussion. Thanks for such thoughtful comments, fellas.

To jump back a-ways, to David Lawler's comment: "So his style was influenced by the technical process and the movement of movies in Europe, France, specifically. Can you imagine movies being made this way now? No mass audience would tolerate it for very long."

The short answer to that is: Pulp Fiction grossed over $100 million.

But leaving it at that glib response would only encourage what I consider a false argument. In the video, I'm not championing any period-specific style or artsy affectations (i.e. the use of theater group improvs to provide much of the film's disorienting (some say annoying) texture). I'm making the much broader, simpler argument that Lucas and Murch are effective on THX because they trust the power of cinema's basic cutting tools. '60s Europe held no patent on that there. Understanding the power of the frame, the cut and the passage of time belonged equally to Welles, to Ford, to Ophuls, to Frank Tashlin, to the guys who directed Perry Mason episodes, to frickin Jack Hill... This understanding was once entry-level and crossed all genres, borders, schools, styles. This understanding has simply vanished over the past two decades. In Ho'wood, your Wes Andersons and P.T. Andersons and Soderbegrhs occasionally surface to remind us what's been lost, but generally audiences have been battered into accepting the current glancing, jabbing newsmagazine style.

I might be in a strange minority that figures cinema hasn't really lost an ounce of literary or dramatic smarts but has become incredibly picture-and-sound stupid. It's not about Lucas, but Lucas does offer himself up as the perfect whipping boy. But but but, as Ali says further up, the pod race sequence in Phantom Menace is a nice reminder of the old Lucas powers-- just as the elegant chase sequence in The Dark Knight is a thankful respite from the battering-ram flow of the film proper.

Brad Hoehne says much that I agree with 1000%, especially this: "Lucas needed his chains."

Alex Murillo says everything thing I have to say on this subject, but better, more succinctly: "I recently re-watched both "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade" (which I think is almost the equal of the justly-lauded first film), and what I realized is that the joy that comes from them is not too different than the joy that comes from watching a beautifully-executed sequence in a musical: we know what we're watching is shallow artifice, but it is given profundity by the sheer craft and wit that is going into its creation. That recognition creates a bond between the audience and the filmmaker that makes us willing to forgive whatever flaws the films may have. And it is definitely part of what is being lost in contemporary American films."

Somebody chisel that onto a courthouse.

This video-essay was very enjoyable. For someone such as myself who is not schooled in film, it is very interesting to watch in real time an explanation of the techniques that make a film good.

That motorcycle gag at the end was wicked awesome.

You are all tragic victims of movie culture.