I had a lively conversation with a coworker a few weeks ago at work. We were talking about something of vital importance. The effect this topic has on the world cannot be overstated. Here it comes. What's the deal with George Lucas tinkering with the Star Wars movies?
If anyone googles this topic, one can find endless debating. For those of you not in the know (be thankful first of all), when George Lucas released the first Star Wars movie in 1977, he was dissatisfied with the special effects in the movie. He had made his pet project on a relatively low budget, and he had to cut some corners to get the film released. Fast forward to 1997. After the enormous success of the Star Wars trilogy, George Lucas rereleased the Star Wars trilogy in a "Special Edition." In this special edition, many scenes are enhanced in order to realize Lucas' actual vision. As the movies have been released on DVD and Blu-Ray, and as the prequel trilogy added still more texture to the original 3 films, further changes were made by Lucas. Many Star Wars fans consider these changes to have ruined the integrity of the original films. There has been a movement among some so called purists to only watch the original versions of these films.
Now, I suppose by even taking the time to write on this debate, I am becoming a geek myself. Fair enough. I will admit that Star Wars has been a major movie in my life, and I know way too much about it. But what I find fascinating about the outcry I hear every time Lucas makes another change is the aesthetic questions which arise. Does an artist have the write to make changes to his or her own work? Further, does the artist have an obligation to his or her audience to not make changes to his work?
Personally, I think the answer is twofold. First, I think that any viewer of any film has the right to their own opinion regarding the quality of a film. Hence, if a particular viewer finds the new editions of the Star Wars movies to not be as enjoyable, they have the absolute right to that opinion. Therefore, it is not the fact that people don't like these new versions that prompts my reflection. Instead, my argument is with the notion that many fans have that George Lucas "should leave the films alone". If Leonardo Da Vinci wanted to cut the "Mona Lisa" in half with a machete, that's his business. He is the artist, it is his work, and as much as his action may pain his audience, he has the right to do it. The audience has the right to ask the artist to leave it alone (as the legions of Star Wars fans have), but in the end, it is the artist's work, and his or her actions can therefore be judged by his audience, but the right to alter it must belong to the artist and the artist alone. The audience can even call into question the relevance of the artist. But the decision to alter the work of art lies solely with the artist. As such, the viewer should never criticize the action of changing the work, but the viewer has every right to criticize the result of the change. Hence, if a viewer hates the new dialogue that Lucas inserts near the end of "Return of the Jedi", that is his or her right. Every viewer should remember that artists, like all of us, may have parts of their work which they wish had gone better. I know I feel that way about the work I do sometimes.
So, in closing, while I may sympathize with the critics of George Lucas, the argument as to whether or not he "should" make changes is dead on arrival. The real question that fans can debate is the quality of the changes. As far as I am concerned, that is fair game. But to criticize the action itself robs the artist of the right to control their work.
Thoughts?
I agree with just about everything you have to say about this subject. More to the point, Star Wars is owned by George Lucas. This is not just because he is the artist that created it. It is because he was smart enough to exchange his director fee in order to have an licensing rights to the movie. Which would of normally never happened, only because the studio thought it was worthless.
ReplyDeleteI say this because of your comment about the mona lisa. Leonardo Da Vinci painted and created that painting, but he was commissioned to do so by Gherardini family of Florence and Tuscany. Rumor has it, he liked it so much, he did not want to give it up, and da Vinci's apprentice was paid to bring it back to the Gherardini Family.
So there would be a problem with Da Vinci cutting his own painting in half with a machete. Because it did not belong to him.
Neither does a VAST majority of quality artwork today. In order to do creative work for a living, you must let go of it. Once you make it, it is out of your hands. It is out in the world to stay as it is. And there is nothing you can do about that. Except to make more and better work. THis ablity to let go, and move on. is what makes an individuals art so much better. To grow as artists.
This is why George Lucas changes are of perceived "lower quality". He is not growing, he is trying to make perfect, what cannot be made perfect. Nobody can do that. Trying to make things perfect is pointless. This need is based out of ego and fear. (which are qualities i am full of)
So, in closing, I would ask you to rethink your very last sentence, "But to criticize the action itself robs the artist of the right to control their work." To replace artist, with Legal Owner. Because that is the only reason lucas is able to go back and do anything to Star Wars.
Great thoughts Ryan...thanks for chiming in!!!
ReplyDeleteIn some ways, you have made my point, and also made a helpful distinction. Your distinction will cause me to clarify. I was assuming in my post that whatever artist made changes did indeed have the legal right to do so. You are more educated about who owns the Mona Lisa than I am. I wrote the Mona Lisa statement assuming Da Vinci would have had the legal right to change the work. If someone else owns the work, I would agree that he should not change it, anymore than an architect has the right to go into a home he designed and change it after the residents of the home have become the owners.
You make some great points about letting go of the artwork. In that way, since I know you are an artist, I have a lot of respect for your attitude. One of my personal feelings is that the level of control Lucas had may have affected my enjoyment of some of his work. There is a fine line in what I am writing. I acknowledge that "legal owner" may have been more clear, but in theory, most artists would like to have some measure of control over their work. Lucas is an interesting case to use here for a reason. He is an artist who has an unprecedented amount of control over his own work. That fact makes him a more interesting case about which to philosophically argue. Since many (if not most) artists don't have control over their work, you are right in saying that they may not have the right to change it. But, in theory, shouldn't they? Also, it seems that you could also make the point that there is substantial risk in changing a work of art, since any work of art is the result of a specific time and place. Since that time and place cannot be duplicated, it may rob the art work of something. But that brings me back to my original point (which you clarified) that the creation and destruction of the work is up to the artist (if he owns it). I wrote what I did because I feel that many fans have taken his changes too seriously. As I said, we have the right to say what we think of his changes, and he has the right to disregard or listen.
Thanks again for a great perspective!
I like the artist line of thinking. As a long time museum professional, art is about intrinsic value. Art actually isn't worth anything until it's sold except for the "felt" value of what it brings. When it comes to the art's value, much of it is based on the artist, their time period, their perspective and their implementation. Changes do not rob any art from these value factors, no matter who owns it.
ReplyDeleteAlong that line, any studio that owned the rights would let him make changes due to the factor that any time they get to sell a new implementation of his art, they get to reap the financial benefit of its "value" to the public.
I am a star wars fan through and through, but I haven't mixed my reality with my fantasy. The issue I've talked about with most fans is that they did the reverse of what Lucas has done. They conceived his original effort to be a slice of perfection he did not. They've built their fantasy in real life out of the animation of Lucas' fantasy on the screen. Most people don't account for their changes in their fantasy as the years roll on. When they were kids, they were Luke Skywalker, freeing the universe from the Death Star; and now as the story has progressed and maturing has set it, Darth Vader has become a less black and white agent of evil, and the casualty of multiple elements along the way.
Most of Lucas's changes are either cleaning up FX or enhancing little gaps that support his overall vision of his fantasy. I think the rub is that most altruistic fans don't like Lucas' fantasy as much as the one they have built around his original offering. His FX changes aren't low quality, as ILM is the best in the business; and his story line changes don't speak to his growth at all, they speak to his fantasy going a different way than the idealistic fans.
The sad part is that Lucas is responsible for creating the basic fantasy that an entire populous of star wars fans thread through their life. A generation of people who force wave at red lights in their car to turn the light, a group that wears brown hoodie cloaks to places like disneyland and universal studios, a group that wears body paint and has lightsaber fights at comicon; these are people who have watched these movies more times than they can count and yet they struggle with the person they've devoted much of their life to knowing through his creation only because his fantasy led a different direction than theirs.
The truth is, we all like his fantasy for certain elements of it. We all dislike some of it's elements. If his vision is tempered by public opinion, it ceases to be his fantasy and we all lose out on the adventure his resources can bring to his fantasy. I may not be considered a purist for this opinion, but if Lucas started taking opinions about his art, he wouldn't be an artist, or Lucas. Watch the bonus material on the making of Star Wars, he describes the journey of having to be free from studios opinions to make the movie he wanted to make. If he hadn't been himself, doing his art his way, we wouldn't have the adventure of his fantasy which we do...
Thanks for the thoughts Josh...great to hear from you! I really like what you had to say about the financial factors for studios...it's a win win for them.
ReplyDeleteYou are also right in saying that the fans' vision is different from Lucas'. That's a philosophical gold mine that I don't have enough time to dig in, on pan in, or whatever. What a fan brings to a work of art versus what the artist brings is a fascinating topic...
Again, great to hear from you...