Showing posts with label directors. Show all posts
Showing posts with label directors. Show all posts

STAR WARS EPISODE 1138: THE RETURN OF THE FRANCHISE

Lucas' portrait by, of course, the incomparable Drew Struzan
And so the latest iteration of the George Lucas Wants Your Money saga begins today - with the Blu-Ray release of all six Star Wars films in a new re-tweaked, re-tampered form.  They're his films, if he can't accept that they are finished, that's his prerogative.  Personally I couldn't care less whether or not the Gummy Bears blink or Han shoots first in these versions.  I have the original versions,.  They're the ones I like.  I won't be buying the discs - not until the price drops, at any rate - because the days of me slavishly hoovering-up everything he produces are gone.  I've been through the crisis of disappointment caused by incomplete release after incomplete release.  Been there, done that and, yes, I bought the t-shirt!

This piece was written immediately after seeing Phantom Menace for the first time - when having an entirely CGI character was revolutionary ... If annoying.

It's twelve years since I stood in the queue in Leicester Square ... Surrounded by people dressed as Darth Maul - a character they apparently loved but knew little about.  Twelve years that have seen Lucas name dragged down and kicked around by an world wide web full of commentators.  I like to think I got there first.  This piece exploring the artistic emptiness at the heart of what became the prequel trilogy.  It was published in Model Mart magazine, which published a Star Wars special to tie-in with the release of Phantom Menace and its accompanying avalanche of merchandise.

The first half is a Story So Far resume of Lucas' career for those who had forgotten or didn't know (it had been seventeen years since the previous Star Wars movie) and the second half was my consideration on that damn film

I stand by many of the conclusions I pre-emptively drew ... Now you can decide for yourself:

Have camera, will travel ...
Sometime, during his childhood in the dusty wastes of post-war Modesto, California, Young George Walton Lucas must have rolled a pebble down a slope, and watched as sticks, leaves and other pebbles joined it on its tumble towards the ground far below.

Those lazy summer days were a great time for George, a memorable time, spent cheering on his filmic heroes in run-down old flea-pit cinemas, or dreaming of the days when he would be old enough to fly hot-rod cars at break-neck speeds down the county’s long, straight roads.  At eighteen, he crashed one such car and spent three-months in hospital; plenty of time to evaluate what little life had had, and what more he wanted.

That car-crash sent a metaphorical pebble rolling which would, over the next thirty-seven years, turn into a cultural avalanche none of us can now ignore.  That car-crash caused George Lucas to enrol at film-school, and the listless dreamer became a driven story-teller.

He was an intellectual, troubled by dark and complex ideas that, in turn, became dark and complex films.   This interview - I have linked to in the past - perfectly represents who he was in these early days and where he was artistically.  This is a time when the ideas that became Star Wars had hardly formed in his mind.


I only mention all of this because it is crucial, when trying to assess his ‘Star Wars’ films, to understand that those early-years experiences have stayed with Lucas, to this day, and his exploration of them has had a profound effect on American cinema over the last quarter-century.

I suppose anyone's memories of 1963 would be a bit fuzzy now!
The world-altering phenomenon of ‘Star Wars’ really began with Lucas’ previous movie ‘American Graffiti’ (1973), a film which looked back across a decade to 1962, a time before the Kennedy assassination, before the disaster of Vietnam, before campus riots, to a time when America could still consider itself innocent and pure.

The tale was little more than a romanticised recollection of Lucas’ own adolescence, to a time when having the greasiest hair, the dumbest blonde and the fastest car were all-important ingredients in the acquisition of ‘cool’. It even featured the hot-rod race and the crash which had played such a key part in his own life.

Charting the seismic changes in America in just ten years ... With this marvellous poster by Mad Magazine's Mort Drucker.
Innumerable exploitation films of the fifties and sixties had focussed on these young, nomadic people and their live-fast-die-young attitude, but ‘Graffiti’ was the first American film to look back at this time with affection, to invite the audience to think: “Remember when we did that!?”  The film was pure, unapologetic nostalgia, and the post-Kennedy, post-Vietnam, post campus-riots population lapped it up, desperate for something stable to cling to in a rapidly changing world.

Earning fifty times its production cost, ‘Graffiti’ became, proportionally, the most successful film ever made and inspired a national taste for nostalgia exemplified by the TV series ‘Happy Days’.  To misappropriate Robin Williams’ phrase: If you claim to remember the sixties, they were probably the seventies re-runs!

‘Graffiti’s’ success made George a millionaire, and elevated him to be one of the most influential young film-makers in seventies Hollywood.  The Powers That Be were prepared to listen to any idea he came up with, however ludicrous.  So his next idea was to venture even further into his own past, back to a childhood when his major distraction was the Saturday afternoon serials.

How can you NOT love Flash!?
Initially, his plan was to film a re-make of Universal’s 1936 ‘Flash Gordon’, but he couldn’t secure the rights, so set about thinking up his own serial.  The result was ‘Star Wars’. To an industry committed to churning-out domestic dramas and grittily realistic crime-stories with small budgets and smaller audiences, Lucas pitched a big, unwieldy, space opera; the kind of simple, glossy movie Hollywood had specialised in before TV took its audience away.  He would cast actors whose faces you would never see, or whose dialogue you couldn’t understand, and required special-effects no one yet knew how to do.

Total madness.  Yet, even in these early years, Lucas’ skill as a salesman far outweighed his artistic gifts.  The Powers That Be at Twentieth Century Fox looked at the mountain of money their competitor Universal had made out of ‘American Graffiti’, and decided that, as he had already made one hit against all the odds, they would roll the dice.

The original and still the best - the British poster by Greg and Tim Hildebrandt
‘Star Wars’ generated income unimagined until that time, and bombarded popular culture with its influence. ‘Star Wars’ memorabilia remains the most collectable, most hotly fought-over media-related merchandise there is, leaving ‘Star Trek’ a distant second.  Magazines like ‘Starlog’, ‘Starburst’ and ‘Cinefex’ were born or grew to prominence in the wake of ‘Star Wars’ - catering for the audience’s new-found passion for sf films. The studios were not slow in pouncing on this new-found market.


At college, the older Lucas had been introduced to more mature influences – English Lit. gave him T.H White’s ‘The Once and Future King’, Homer’s ‘The Odyssey’ and ‘The Iliad’ as well as JRR Tolkien’s ‘Lord of the Rings’ and Frank Herbert’s ‘Dune’.  Film Studies brought him to Akira Kurosawa’s ‘The Hidden Fortress’ (1958), John Ford’s ‘The Searchers’ (1956) and Leni Riefenstahl’s ‘Triumph of the Will’ (1935), all of which loaned details to ‘Star Wars’ and all of which have continued to be largely ignored in that respect.  Yet, when Lucas admitted that the writings of mythologist Joseph Campbell – particularly his book ‘The Hero Has A Thousand Faces’ - had had a profound effect on his laying out the story for ‘Star Wars’, it became compulsory reading throughout Hollywood.  In his book ‘The Writer’s Journey’, Christopher Vogler relates Campbell’s theories to both of 1977’s big SF hits:

“I worked with Campbell’s idea of The Hero’s Journey to understand the phenomenal repeat business of movies such as ‘Star Wars’ and ‘Close Encounters’.  People were going back to see these films as if seeking some kind of religious experience.  It seemed to me these films drew in this special way because they reflected the universally satisfying patterns Campbell found in myths.  They had something people needed.”

And the people had something the film companies needed – their money – so Campbellian movies became the backbone of the Hollywood production line. So it was that, in very short order, vast quantities of money was thrown at simple hero-villain movies, preferably with a science-fiction flavour: ‘Superman’ (1978) took to the skies for the first time in twenty-five years, the old-dark house movie moved out to the stars in ‘Alien’ (1979), ‘Star Trek’ (1979) finally lumbered onto the big screen, as did Lucas’ point-of-departure: ‘Flash Gordon’ (1980).  ‘Buck Rogers’ made it to the small screen in 1979, as did ‘Battlestar Galactica’.  Disney banked its largest-ever budget on ‘The Black Hole’, a thinly-disguised re-make of its own ‘20,000 Leagues’.  Even Lucas himself was caught-up in the furor, producing the clearly serial-derived ‘Indiana Jones’ trilogy, as well as the indifferent ‘Willow’ (1988) and the appalling ‘Howard the Duck’ (1986).  The list is, unfortunately, endless.

And my favourite Empire poster by Japanese artist Noriyoshi Ohrai
When Lucas came to make his follow-up ‘The Empire Strikes Back’ (1980), it debuted in a radically different market-place – one now awash with simplistic child-oriented vaguely-sf-inspired block-busters.  Every year the average cost of a movie, along with the amount it could be expected to earn, climbed stratospherically.  Every year the film companies made more noise to promote their ever-more expensive movies.  For the first time since the fifties – films were big events, the ragged remnants of Britain’s once glorious cinema industry heaved under the weight of attendance unlike any since the war.

So it was a brave decision for Lucas – the first movie-mogul of the modern age – to invest all of his time and a good deal of his own money into breaking all the rules once again.  ‘Empire’ was a solemn and mature film compared to its predecessor: the climactic show-down came only twenty-minutes in, the middle act explored this buddhist-ish religion he’d invented, then he wrapped it up with a down-beat, cliff-hanger ending where the hero didn’t win.

By this point Lucas had set up his own film studio, enigmatically named ‘Lucasfilm’, and had sunk much of his earnings into creating ‘Industrial Light and Magic’ – the first of what would become many separate companies all working under the pretentious and inaccurate ‘LucasArts’ banner.  These would come to include ‘Sprocket Labs’ the pioneers in digital editing, ‘THX’ the industry standard in audio reproduction (now available at your local multiplex) and ‘Pixar’ the first production house dedicated to CGI animation (and producers of ‘Toy Story’ and ‘A Bug’s Life’).  In a brilliant and – at that time – unique move, all of these companies were in business to provide expert services to other film companies, as well as to his ‘Star Wars’ franchise.  Thus George’s investments began to reap rewards far beyond the earnings of one mere film.  Progressively he became The Powers That Be.  He no longer needed anyone else’s assistance or permission to continue his work.

The first ‘Star Wars’ film had spawned a marketing revolution whereby even the most insignificant back-ground character could, it seemed, be turned into a toy children would pay through their parent’s noses for.  The acid-test second movie introduced new characters and new toys and the world’s appetite seemed unquenchable.  The third film was therefore carefully and cynically designed to sell such toys, games, books, stickers and comics.  Simply telling a story came a long way down the list of priorities.

Of course, power-broking his ever-growing empire meant that George had less and less time to spend at the sharp-end of movie-making. The first film had been written, directed and produced by him, the second was co-written and co-produced by him, with his old film-studies tutor Irvin Kershner handling the directing.  By the time the third movie came around – George only had time to fit in a little executive producing.  You see, George The Artist was quietly being put to sleep, to make way for Mr. Lucas The Businessman.  One could, with some justification, compare this to a sedate and liberal Republic being consumed by the greed and efficiency of a machinic Empire. The result was ‘The Return of the Jedi’ and the less said about that, the better!

Lesbian Leia in nearly-nude naughtiness ... Or just Carrie Fisher and her stunt double sun-bathing.  You decide.
To this day, every producer in Hollywood wants to reproduce Lucas’ success, and  chooses to do so by emulating his methods, rather than his original motives.  Nowadays, no film of even a medium-sized budget will be green-lighted until it has a bankable ‘star’ attached - a name of which the worthy burghers of Pig’s Knuckle, Nebraska can be reasonably expected to have heard.

Why?  Because ‘Star Wars’ brought back the personality cults that had pretty much died out with Marilyn Monroe and Jimmy Dean.  The public began to look up to ‘stars’ again, and therefore make the effort to go and see their films.  Schwarzenegger and Stallone were among the first to capitalise upon this, by being the first to earn ever-more outrageous amounts of money for effectively re-making the same film over and again.

Hand-in-hand with this, a world-wide industry has evolved around the pursuit of celebrity - not just in producing fanzines, posters, ‘their own story’ books etc, but now informally through the ever-present paparazzi and, increasingly, the instamatic rumour-mill of the Internet.  Every single column inch (including this one) whether good, bad or indifferent, is free-publicity and therefore money in the bank for Hollywood.  Star’s faces have become a permanent fixture on every magazine cover and chat-show sofa.

Then there’s the merchandising question.  Learning from ‘Jedi’s’ example, big budget summer movies must generate spin-offs.  This can be seen particularly clearly in Disney films where every single character is specifically designed so it can become everything from a cuddly toy to a screen saver.  This Spring saw ‘A Bug’s Life’ re-telling ‘The Magnificent Seven’ with ‘cute’ bugs – each one targeted squarely at your disposable income.

Increasingly, the celebrity-obsession of the media, and the telephone-number figures paid by merchandising companies, have met in the middle – with innumerable magazine and newspaper articles over the last few months under the inevitable witty heading ‘May the Market Force be With You’, discussing the billions that the new ‘Star Wars’ had earned before a single frame of it played to a paying punter.  The US premier of the ninety-second ‘The Phantom Menace’ trailer actually made headlines in the UK, and it wasn’t even a slow news day!

Of course, bigger special-effects and ever-more grandiloquent ‘stars’ mean bigger budgets.  Consequently, the drive to be bigger, faster and louder than last year’s hit is sending the financial band-wagon racing completely out of control.  Now Jim (King of the World) Cameron has successfully spent $300 million of somebody else’s money to make the completely backward-facing ‘Titanic’.  This film became the first ever to earn over $1 billion worldwide.  After video and TV sales have been added in, it will have very probably crested $2 billion.  Does this mean we can expect more films about sinking ships?  No, it means we can expect more films to cost $300 million plus!

Let's bankrupt Hollywood!  Hell, yes!!
This means that no one dare risk making a movie unless they know it’ll be a hit, and how do they know that?  By copying something that already is a hit – and hits have never come bigger than ‘Star Wars’.

The overwhelming belief in Hollywood - founded on nothing more secure than Lucas’ fondness for the films of his childhood - is that if it hasn’t been a hit already, it won’t be a hit now.  It is an obsession which William Goldman, in his delightfully clear-eyed view of Hollywood: ‘Adventures in the Screen Trade’, calls simply ‘Past Magic’.  Hollywood lives to evoke past magic!  

This is madness.  The first ‘Star Wars’ cost less than $10 million to make.  This resulted in Lucas having to leave certain ingredients out, or find cheaper, more creative alternatives.  He managed to ‘correct’ some of these details with the recent wash-and-brush-up job: ‘Star Wars – The Special Edition’, which cost another $10 million.  Even so, almost $1 billion have been earned from a, by comparison, minuscule investment.  The new ‘Star Wars’ installment has apparently cost $130 million – and is considered relatively cheap given the number of expensive special effects crested 1,900, almost three times as many as in any other film … ever.

The entire movie-making industry of the United States has come to be about numbers, not about telling stories.  The truly sad thing is that this has come about almost entirely because one single film-maker never fully got over the disappointment of not being able to make a living driving fast cars.  This is evident from even a cursory analysis of the content of the ‘Star Wars’ films:

The past is a supremely important place to Lucas and to the characters he creates.  Famously, ‘Star Wars’ begins with the motto: ‘A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away …’.  This not only serves, as intended, as a sort of  ‘Once upon a time …’, thereby giving the film instant legendary or mythical status, it also tells us that the past is still a relevant and exciting place.

See, you have to imagine yourself as Ewan MacGregor ... Only twenty years older.
He weighs his dialogue down with hinted-at back-story, and most of the weight of this was shouldered in the first film by Alec Guinness’ Ben – Obi Wan – Kenobi.  This is why in only his third line of dialogue, he confesses: “Obi Wan?  Now that’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time.”    It is Ben who first mentions –  in passing – the Knights of Jedi.  Luke then goes on to ask if Ben fought in ‘The Clone Wars’, during which, he believes, his father was killed.  This early exchange was to prove crucial in the development of the whole ‘Star Wars’ myth.  Since that all-too-brief mention, the Clone War saga has gone undiscussed in official ‘Star Wars’ circles, until now.

Similarly, Darth Vader’s appellation ‘Dark Lord of The Sith’ goes by in all three original films, without comment, only to be raised once more – and partially explained - in the new film.

The serials didn’t generally have time to indulge in these sorts of red-herrings, there was too much derring to do on the way to the next cliff-hanger.  Cliff-hanger episode-endings (still a staple of genre television … I saw one in ‘The X-Files’ only last week) were a vehicle designed purely to bring the paying-public back next week.  Anticipation was everything.  Watching Flash Gordon struggling in the clutches of the mildly ridiculous crab-monster, on your own, at home, on TV, dilutes the experience.  You need the group hysteria of an audience of your peers to fuel the suspension of disbelief which will get you over the holes in the plot.

Lucas set out to re-awaken this passion and group kinetic of group cinema-going  in a decade where the only cinematic boom-market was the porno-movie.  The seventies were marked by a cynicism and disbelief in the magical.  ‘Star Wars’ was always intended to be a group experience. Year after year the film (then films) enjoyed cinematic re-issues.  This is also why, as soon as he could, Lucas borrowed an idea from TV shows and pop-stars, and set up fan clubs – to hold on to this manufactured feeling of community. The Internet now serves his purposes very well, because people can be alone and spread out over the world, yet united in their love of The World According To George.

Although ‘Star Wars’ came to a rounded-off conclusion (the only loose-ends being the survival of the badguy, and all that pesky back-story), ‘Empire’ didn’t, it ended on a cliff-hanger.  Han Solo was lost, Luke’s hand was lost, Luke’s faith was lost, all-in-all, things were in a bad way.  The miracle was that, despite a two-year wait (as opposed to the seven-days of the original series) the audience’s anticipation didn’t leach away, it increased exponentially.

Well, it's been seventeen years since the last instalment of the ‘Star Wars’ saga wrapped everything up in a very final manner.  How do you maintain anticipation over such a protracted length of time?  The ‘Star Wars: The Special Edition’ project was a stroke of genius, it brought all the nostalgia and all the memories flooding back to the thirty-somethings who had seen it in their teens.  Now they were old enough to take their own children to see it and the message, the group experience, the consuming habit, was passed on to a whole new generation – like a light-sabre being passed from father to son.  Like a tumbling pebble gathering whole new kinds of stones into its wake as it rolls past.

Me and my Shadow ...
Now Lucas’ message is far more evolved, and he is far more confident in delivering it.  He doesn’t have to be like Ben Kenobi, trying to generate interest in his listener by hinting at the mere existence of ‘The Force’, now he has a whole generation keen to know more.  So, where do you go when you’ve finished your story off?  Well, if you’re George Lucas and you are looking for inspiration, there is only one port of call - you go back into your past:

Ben:   “A young Jedi named Darth Vader, who was a pupil of mine until he turned to evil, helped the Empire hunt down and destroy the Jedi Knights.  He betrayed and murdered your father.  Now the Jedi are all-but extinct.  Vader was seduced by the dark side of The Force."
Luke:  “The Force?”
Ben:    “Well, the Force is what gives the Jedi his power.  It is an energy field, created by all living things.  It surrounds us and penetrates us.  It binds the galaxy together.”

Such a simple notion, on the face of it, and yet this exchange contains the seed which would give rise to a whole new ‘Star Wars’ trilogy.  Also, the pseudo-religiosity of this ‘Force’, is the one thing (other than the box-office receipts) which sets the ‘Star Wars’ saga apart from all of its copyists.  It would be fair to say that it surrounds, penetrates and binds Lucas with his films.  Increasingly, Lucas claims that the preaching associated with the Force has become his primary motivation for staying with ‘Star Wars’.  The four years’ work that went into ‘The Phantom Menace’ was, he would like us to believe, a labour of love, and not at all motivated by the 100% of the opening-week’s takings that he demanded.

As he told ‘The Sunday Times Magazine’ (16 May), in his single interview with a British paper:  “Somebody has to tell young people what we think is a good person … I mean, we should be doing this all the time.  That’s what ‘The Iliad’ and ‘The Odyssey’ are about – ‘This is what a good person is; this is what we aspire to be.’  You need that in a society.  It’s the basic job of mythology.  [It tells you] This is how you fit.  This is how it works, what’s expected of you, how you define your role in society and what your obligations are.”

Giving morality back to the masses, it’s a dirty job, but George is prepared to do it; and in return, since piety is its own reward, he only asks for complete control of the associated merchandising.

As ‘The Observer’ noted (March 28):  “The American toy giant Hasbro ... [have paid] ... Lucasfilm some $610m ... [also] ... the Tri Con Restaurant Group, which owns Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and Kentucky Fried Chicken chains in the US, has bet right.  It has paid Lucasfilm a record $2bn for the fast food marketing rights.”  Companies are queuing up to pay George to promote his film for him.

So, what does he do with his billions?  ‘The Sunday Times’ article also goes on to mention that the modestly entitled ‘George Lucas Educational Foundation’ exists to reform educational policy and improve schools by encouraging use of advanced technology.  Charities are laudable organisations, and am I right in thinking that they are, coincidentally, as tax-exempt in America as they are in the UK?

In keeping with Lucas’ drive to romanticise the past – the prequel has a much plusher look to it than the original ‘Star Wars’, as if to imply that ‘A longer time ago, in a galaxy not quite so far away, relativistically speaking …’ things were better.  The first ‘Star Wars’ trilogy exists in a point of galactic history where everywhere is run down save the galactic core where the despot ruler has feathered his nest.  Our story opens in orbit around a dirty little planet out in the unfashionable reaches of an unpopular solar system, it doesn’t even hint at the breadth of experience and civilisation to be found Out There.

The buildings are a rough-hewn, little more than holes in the ground, the clothes are somewhat shoddy, the robots are rusty and the aliens distinctly low-rent.  The Millennium Falcon is a dilapidated pile, held together by inertia and its pilot’s ego.  The soldiers of the Empire are a bunch of dim-witted buffoons, only good for running into things, missing vital clues and blasting wildly and inaccurately at anything that moves.  It is a second-hand Ford Escort of a universe, with too many light-years on the clock and one careless Emperor.

The new movie is set some thirty years earlier, when the universe was ruled by a benign Republican Senate.  In this universe, the architecture is rarely less than spectacular, the clothes fit better, the robots are shiny and new and the aliens are now numerous, exotic and occasionally even convincing.  The Queen’s  Naboo Transporter is sleek and gorgeous and works first time.  The android soldiers of the soon-to-be-Empire are clean, impressive, numerous and … still unable to hit a planetoid at thirty paces.  Ah well, you can’t have everything.

Lucas has written his idealised rememberings of imaginary things past on a huge canvas, and they look better than they ever did.  Which, I suppose, gets to the heart of nostalgia and the not inconsequential part it plays in people’s reasons for collecting memorabilia.  The past always looks better than the present.

Struzan's attempt to give the new film the nostalgic feel of the old ones.
Maybe this is why an entire generation still venerates the original ‘Star Wars’ enough to generate some 500 web-sites dedicated to the new one.  Maybe this is why The Queues outside sun-drenched Californian cinemas have been called ‘This generation’s Woodstock’.  Over the months before the Glorious 19th of May, anticipation grew into hysteria.  People flew from all over the world to attend the first midnight screening in Times Square – three hours before LA’s midnight screening.

Maybe it is all just a trick of imprecise memory, maybe they thought they had enjoyed ‘Star Wars 1977’ more than they really had.  That, at least, would help explain the howl of disappointment which reverberated around the world’s media when they all finally saw the film, and returned to their homes bereft of purpose.  The despair of their knee-jerk reactions could be likened to – to coin a phrase – “ ... a great disturbance in the Force ... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.”

What the hell were they expecting?

Well, if the mythic and religious significance which is now constantly attributed to ‘Star Wars’ is carried to its logical extreme: they were expecting The Second Coming.

What they have instead, is a re-tread of the first and third existing movies, with far, far more product placement.  As with ‘Graffiti’ and the original ‘Star Wars’ the young hero races cars for recreation.  As with ‘Jedi’ (and, of course, the Vietnam war) a primitive people fight a hugely sophisticated war machine to a halt.  As with all pulp fiction – and not, unfortunately, like real life - the heroes and villains are clearly identified (yes, I know Darth Sideous is supposed to be a mystery, but if you can’t work out who he is, you aren’t really trying!).

The REAL Dark Side
Basically, you have another bubble-gum movie aimed at kids, with a bit of spiritual sub-text to give the critics something to write about.  Nothing, in other words, that you didn’t get last time round.  The problem, from the point of view of the fans who grew-up on ‘Star Wars’, is that they are older, more mature and hopefully more sophisticated.  George Lucas design for ‘Star Wars’, on the other hand, is just older.

The problem we Brits encounter is a little different from that which faced those first-night Americans.  In the grand scheme of things Britain accounts for about 3% of the world cinema-going market.  Consequently, we don’t matter that much.  Therefore, when all of the ‘Star Wars’ merchandising burst on the market two weeks before the film opened in the States, we got it too – except for us it was three months before it opened.

For us, all those jealously guarded secrets, all the hysterical anticipation, all the pressure to be there first, is tempered by the fact that a mere glance at the back cover of the soundtrack album will give away one of the movie’s main surprises.  You can buy the comic adaptation, the entire script.  You can find out how every single special effect was constructed.  You can play the movie out on your computer as a strategy game, or simply play endless pod-races in another computer game.  Should you be suitably inclined, you can even wander down to your local car-boot sale and purchase a knock-off copy of the pirate video (although you’d be a bloody fool to try since the legit video will be out before Christmas).

Don't buy bootlegs, kids ... I did and look what happened to me!
Essentially, what you have is a finely tuned machine for mesmerising munchkins and making moolah, employing very old and well-established techniques.  Any spiritual guidance the film offers is purely collateral.  So, if you go to see/went to see ‘The Phantom Menace’ expecting anything other than a big, noisy, good-looking movie, you would doubtlessly be disappointed.  If you wanted something that would change your life, you’ve got problems.

Granted, there is, amongst the mish-mash of other mythic sources Lucas has culled to cobble together his saga – a trace of Biblical imagery here and there.  If you fancy stretching a few points.

Emperor Palpatine’s destruction of the Jedi Order can be compared to Pharaoh casting the Hebrew boy-children into the Nile (which I suppose would make Tatooine one big basket of bulrushes).  Jabba the Hutt serves a similar purpose as Pilate, which presumably makes Lando at least a temporary Judas.  Does that make the spectral threesome of dead Jedis – Ben, Yoda and Anakin – three wise men, or a holy trinity? 

And, while we're on the subject, what is one supposed to make of the insinuation that Anakin’s mother Shmi was impregnated not by a person, but by the previously unmentioned microscopic organisms ‘Midi-Chlorians’.  Qui-Gon (Liam Neeson) stands before the Jedi Council and confesses his suspicion that, since “... [Anakin’s] cells have the highest concentration of Midi Chlorians I have seen in a life form.  It is possible he was conceived by the Midi-Chlorians.”  Which, co-incidentally, would make him “The one who will bring balance to the Force.”  In other words, Qui-Gon is fairly sure that Anakin was not conceived in the normal manner and is, therefore, The Messiah.

It’s all fairly mixed up, and not a tad pretentious.  After all, you could just as easily apply the same logic to ‘Flash Gordon’s Trip to Mars’ (1938) and decide that the quakes and tidal waves caused by Ming’s earth-shattering Nitron Lamp are a metaphor for the brimstone and fire which rained down upon Sodom and Gomorrah.  Which would make Flash into Lot and Ming into God.  I think not!

Still, faith is where you find it, and for a generation which had their dreams shattered by the social and political corruption of the seventies, and then ground into the dirt by the greed and bigotry of the eighties – there were precious few heroes to cling to.  Traditional dogmatic religion was, at least in the Western World, perceived largely as a lost cause; yet the simple truths behind the tenets of most religions can seemingly gather converts if presented in a new and different manner.  Maybe superheroes are the new saints, and maybe they can be just as reassuring and inspirational as their secular forebears, if in a less obvious way.

Well, replace the pulp buzz-word ‘superhero’ with the nineties teen-cult phrase ‘jedi knight’, and the same could very well be said of ‘Star Wars’.

Maybe this is where George is going next.  Following L. Ron Hubbard’s example, maybe we can soon expect the founding of ‘LucasFaith’™.  After all, religions are tax exempt too!

Of course ... There are other theories as to why George has turned into the film-maker he has:

PETER JACKSON'S THIRD HOBBIT VIDEO


Now the photos of The Dwarf Company have been revealed, you can see them all here, Peter Jackson's Hobbit Facebook page follows with a third production video - hot on the heels of the second.

Here we see all the Dwarves in action.  It's important to get used to them because there are thirteen of them!  They've succeeded in giving them all a different look, I have no doubt they will all have their own distinct personalities.

And then you get Rivendell.

And a shot of the actors with their diminutive doubles.

And John Rhys Davis.

And make sure you stay to the end for a special treat!

Be careful, though, there's at least one moment when Aiden Turner is caught smiling.  And the fabric of the Universe was not rent asunder.

It's nice that Jackson himself can't quite believe his luck, to be re-visiting Middle Earth ... Looking at it from the perspective of a mere mortal, I know how much I want to go there!

Don't know about you but I didn't think I could be any more excited about this film ... Turns out I was wrong - I can!



AND THIS JUST IN ...

They have now released the Photoshop fix-up of all the individual photos gathered together as one group.  Nice.

So, okay, here they all are:


JED BROPHY as Nori,
DEAN O’GORMAN as Fili,
MARK HADLOW as Dori,
JAMES NESBITT as Bofur,
PETER HAMBLETON as Gloin,
GRAHAM McTAVISH as Dwalin,
RICHARD ARMITAGE as Thorin Oakenshield,
KEN STOTT as Balin,
JOHN CALLEN as Oin,
STEPHEN HUNTER as Bombur,
WILLIAM KIRCHER as Bifur,
ADAM BROWN as Ori
AIDAN TURNER as Kili

Photo by James Fisher.

Balin's Dozen (click to enlarge - a bit)

PETER JACKSON'S SECOND HOBBIT VIDEO

Back in March, I wrote here about how good Peter Jackson is at keeping his fans informed through excellent video blogs.  He gave us unprecedented access to King Kong - too much access, in my opinion - but he seems to have moderated that here.   He has released two videos, some ten weeks apart - one just as production was getting under way and another as the first block of shooting comes to an end.

Of course, as with any endeavour involving the vast sums of money in question, the film had a rocky development.  A few months before the deals were signed, there was a very real chance that the movie wouldn't even be shot in New Zealand ... Which was a horrible prospect because every lover of Lord of the Rings KNOWS that New Zealand is Middle Earth.  Nowhere else would do!  The Prime Minister eventually had to step in to make it happen - but here is a report when the result was still very much in the balance:


Interesting friction between New Zealand and Australia there!  Anyway, we now know it all worked out for the best... And the evidence is available in these making-of videos.

In between the two videos we have had various nuggets of information revealed - for example, there will indeed be dividing the book over two films, not one.  The first will be called: The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, due for release on December 14, 2012.  The second will have the original novel's subtitle: The Hobbit: There and Back Again and will be released a year later, on December 13, 2013.

We've also had our first glimpse at some of the characters.
Empire magazine has been given its traditional exclusive first look at Gandalf.  You can read the details here.  

Is it just me, or does the wizard look older?  I understand that McKellen is ten years older ... But the character is getting on for a century younger, isn't he?
The interwebs have also been abuzz this last week with these images of the first (of many) new dwarves:
Firstly we have Moe, Curly and Larry ...
... Followed by Stan and Ollie!
And, of course, there are THOSE all important videos.  Initially, the first video kept being taken down, but it seems fairly stable now, so you can watch it here:


Then instantly fast-forward three months to this fascinating view of the process.  I confess the imagery, the landscapes and Howard Shore's music gets me quite emotional.  I am SO excited about these films ... And, after you've seen this, you will be too:


ADDENDUM:
The drip-drip of information continues - we now have another couple of Dwarves, including the reason Mitchell the vampire won't be in series four of Being Human - Aidan Turner.  Actually ... Thinking about it ... Since The Hobbit crew are on sabbatical for a couple of months, I suppose he could shoot some scenes while he's back home.  Hmm.  Anyway, here they are - Dean O'Gorman as Fili and Aidan Turner as Kili.

Followed by Stephen Hunter as the voluminous Bombur, James Nesbitt as Bofur and William Kircher as Bifur:

Butch and Sundance, maybe?

Definitely Hewey, Dewey and Lewey!
FURTHER ADDENDUM:

The final couple of photos have appeared, completing the Dwarf Fellowship ...

Grandad and Del-Boy
... Including the image that Hobbit-fans have been waiting for: Thorin Oakenshield, leader of the Dwarves:

The King of The Dwarves ... is a Klingon!
And while we're on the subject ... Here's the photo of them all gathered for the first time, before shooting began.  Not surprisingly, Aidan Turner already looks miserable.  It's not like this film is going to make him an international movie star and sex symbol, or anything ...



DAVID LYNCH'S DAMN FINE COFFEE AD


See, some people think that David Lynch is strange, even eccentric. But, the truth is, he's just a man who enjoys a cup of coffee and a little Barbie bondage ... What could be more natural?


David Lynch Signature Cup Coffee from David Lynch on Vimeo.



If you feel you need to wake up and smell that particular coffee, you can buy it here abouts.

Cheers.

STANLEY KUBRICK - a filmography - UPDATED


You remember Stanley Kubrick.  He started life as a photographer and, throughout his life, if he had to be photographed, he preferred to photographed with a camera.  Or playing chess.

One affectation which I find particularly touching, however, is his occasional habit of taking self-portraits in mirrors.

The most famous of which is probably the moody photo below, betraying those intense serial-killer eyes he had as a young man (and no, I'm not suggesting he was a  serial killer ... I'm suggesting that there is something complex and scary going on in his mind).


My favourite of these self-portraits is from much later in his career ... I had this as my computer desktop for a while.  It is a warm and amusing photo of a family man having fun on the cold and imposing set of one of the coldest, scariest films ever made.

Click to enlarge and have it on your desktop.
I mention all this purely by way of introducing this lovely little animation which begins and ends with a version of the serial killer photo above.

It encapsulates Kubrick's career in a delightfully creative and attractive way.  Enjoy.


Stanley Kubrick - a filmography - from mwoutisseth on Vimeo.

Subsequent to finding that piece of Kubrick-inspired art, I have found a web page pursting with graphic designers giving their own spins on designing posters and images from his films.

Kubrick the bubble-head ... actually it's just called 'Stanley kubrick' and it's by an artist called Dan Park.
There are some fairly obvious ideas, but a lot of great, inspired and occasionally disturbing images.  It's a French site called Kubrick et le Web and you can enjoy it here.

FUN WITH THE WALKING DEAD


I'm not a big fan of the zombie genre.  It seems so reductive and repetitive.

Yes, I admire Night of Living Dead (both the original 1968 version and Savini's much-better-than-expected 1990 remake) for their political nous.  Romero's original was shocking not just in the savagery of its violence but also in that its main character was black.  Savini's remake took our deep knowledge of the original and used it as a weapon against us and added a positive, powerful feminist message - which was (and, sadly, still is) unusual.

Poster-art legend Tom Chantrell's magnificent British quad for the 1976 re-issue.  I loved this poster for years before I got to see the film (and was consequently disappointed - at first - that the film was in black-and-white)



Dawn of the Dead (1978), on the other hand, is one of my absolute favourite films.  Even given the various diluted and adulterated forms we've had to suffer over the years.  Its scope, as well as its oh-so 70s, post-Watergate, post-Vietnam political ambition marked it out as a remarkable piece of work that also happened to be remorselessly bleak and horrifying, like a good horror film should be.  Romero is one of the few writer/directors who, far from being limited by the horror genre, was liberated by it and explored new, extraordinary stories he could tell with it - rather like David Cronenberg and Clive Barker, among a select few others.

There it is, the rallying-cry the nascent sub-genre: "When there's no more room in Hell, the dead will walk the Earth!"


Then, after Romero, rather like the undead themselves, the evolution of the sub-genre pretty-much ground to a halt.  The rules were set: they eat flesh (though no-one knows why), they shamble (something to do with the ankles), they out-number the living (otherwise there's no drama) and they win (after the credits roll).  Those rules stood, pretty-much unchallenged, for nearly 25 years.

Then, after decades of being all-but ignored, zombies rose up again, initially with Danny Boyle and Alex Garland's reinterpretation of the rules: 28 Days Later.  Their zombies weren't slow, because they weren't dead.  This seemed to fire off the long-dormant imaginations of a million young men and, seemingly without preamble, zombies were everywhere.

There are vast numbers of fan-fiction zombie stories out there, in every conceivable medium (including musical theatre) but, unusually, mainstream cinema was also incredibly quick to react.  The 'Zombie Apocalypse' sub-genre was born.  Within two years we had a perfectly serviceable remake of Dawn of the Dead, we had the far superior parody of it, Shaun of the Dead and, in comic-books, we had The Walking Dead.



There is something quite special about The Walking Dead.  Maybe it is the starkness of the black-and-white art; maybe it's the change of medium from big-screen to graphic-novel; maybe it's the fact that it's really a soap-opera with the occasional zombie incursion; whatever it is, I thoroughly loved The Walking Dead comic when I discovered it a few years ago.  It was different.  Not in the sense that it was the first zombie apocalypse comic - Deadworld had that distinction back in 1986 - and it wasn't even the first comic called The Walking Dead - that seems to have been this standalone story from 1972 and they both, of course, took the title from this 1936 film by mad Michael Curtiz.

I can't explain why TWD affected me so strongly - unless it's because I bought the first fifty issues in one go and ploughed through them in two straight days - giving me a sense of intimacy with the characters which picking it up an issue a month would struggle to emulate.  The point is, I genuinely cared for these characters and there were moments when I was viscerally scared for them.  I even wept at one point.  First time in nearly 25 years a comic has moved me to tears.

Then, of course, along came Frank Darabont's TV version (only now debuting on terrestrial TV here in the UK of A).  Suddenly, all those zombie motifs, transplanted back into the medium that spawned them seemed sadly pedestrian.  Even the last couple of episodes where it deviates substantially from the comic seemed ... Familiar.

That's not to say I didn't enjoy the show, nor that I don't wish it well and won't tune in to series 2 because I do and I will.  But the TV version didn't seem as intimate nor as chilling as the comic.

I heartily encourage you to read it!

You might also enjoy visiting a typically exhaustive fan site called Walking Dead Theatre which, among other things, creates graphics like the one below to compare comic to TV show:


click to enlarge ... or don't, y'know, choice is yours.

Meanwhile, the point of this typically meandering post - a couple of pieces of Walking Dead humour that have emerged over the last couple of days.

The first is a comment on the nature the comic-book series (which is now some 80+ issues in) and explains quite why writer, Robert Kirkman, may very well get to write it until he retires, as he says he happily will:

Again, unless you have incredible eyesight, feel free to click and enlarge.  I won't be offended.
The second reason to be cheerful was reported originally, I believe, by Obsessed With Film, although it was quickly picked up by the national media and you may, therefore, have already seen it.  It was, needless to add, an excellent piece of 'accidental' viral advertising for the show's upcoming encore on Channel 5:




http://www.amazon.co.uk/Walking-Dead-Season-Blu-ray/dp/B004ASOQ6W/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1302915665&sr=8-3

PETER JACKSON'S FIRST HOBBIT VIDEO


You will have noticed I don't dedicate this weblog to posting the latest gossip and guesswork from Hollywood.  No point, there are gazillions of websites doing that already.

But today is an exception because today a matter of great consequence happened with regard to a film that isn't out yet: Peter Jackson posted the first 'vlog' from the set of The Hobbit.

Peter Jackson, barely half the man he was ten years ago, making Lord of the Rings ...

So, apart from my own considerable excitememt about this film, why is this worthy of note?  Well, because of the incredible level of access Jackson granted us - the wide wired world - during his last big movie, King Kong (2005).

The website Kong is King posted 'Production Diaries', sometimes several a week throughout the entire production process from pre to post.  There was no aspect of the film that these Diaries did not delve into, no job on the movie set that they did not spotlight.  These Diaries were - and remain - an unprecedented education in how big-budget movies get made.

They weren't just hand-held goofing-about slapped on the net as though by accident; they had proper production values and stand as mini documentaries, produced to a very professional standard.

The post-production diaries are still available on-line, here, for you to watch for free.  Meanwhile, the shooting diaries were packaged up and sold as a DVD seperately from the film and, if you have any aspirations to work in the film industry or just have an interest in knowing what it really takes to make a movie - they are a must see!

But, here's the problem: Those documentarians had such unrestricted access that no aspect of the production went unreported ... Which meant that the film had no surprises left by the time it was released.

So, the video below is a wonderful appetite-whetter, you get to see Martin Freeman, James Nesbitt, Ken Stott and a very-different-looking Aidan Turner blocking out a scene.  You get to see the production being blessed by a haka - after all, The Hobbit is crucially important to New Zealand's economy, so no wonder the locals are glad to see production getting under way.

But, as I watched the video ... Part of me was thinking "Don't show me too much".  I love learning how films are made, but only after I've had chance to see the finished product and let it weave its magic spell over me.

I'm not sure if I'll watch more of these videos as they appear.  I might save them up and watch them at the end ... But that's gonna be three years away so ... I dunno.

Anyway, it is viewable on his Facebook page which is here, so make your own mind up.

HITCHCOCK AND TRUFFAUT AUDIO - FOR FREE DOWNLOAD


You know the moment ... Indy is standing in The Map Room, his wooden staff is just the right length and, as the sun rises, a beam of holy light tells him exactly where he can find The Ark of the Covenant.  John Williams' best score soars to a spine-tingling climax and, if you're anything like me, the hairs stand up on the back of your neck.

Well, last night, I was wandering through the website feeds that tumble into my Facebook account and noted one from the very excellent /Film entitled Listen to 12 Hours of François Truffaut interviewing Alfred Hitchcock.  Cue holy light.  Cue violins.

See, more than twenty years ago, when I was at college and first discovered that one could actually study films, the first film we looked at was Psycho and, upon visiting the college library and discovering a whole shelf of books about movies, the first I checked-out and read was by François Truffaut, about his idol Alfred Hitchcock.  The book was simply called Hitchcock by Truffaut at the time, although it is now known as A Definitive Study of Alfred Hitchcock (which it absolutely isn't, but still ...).

I knew Truffaut.  Or, rather, I thought I did.  I'd seen him act in CE3K (1977) and watched at least one film he'd directed: Fahrenheit 451 (1966).  I'd never heard of La Nouvelle Vague at that point, but simply to think that a maker of films could also be a fan of them was a revelation to me, and the insight one director could bring to the work of another was inspirational.  A battered, old, third-hand copy of that exact edition now has pride of place amongst the hundreds of film books that crowd my shelves.  It was my introduction to the head-swimming world of film analysis and critique.  And you never forget your first!

The book is, essentially, an extended conversation between two cinema giants conducted in 1962 when Hitch was still at the height of his considerable powers and Truffaut was just approaching his ('62 is the year Jules et Jim was first released).  I don't think either of them would have claimed that they were equals but, as time passes and Truffaut's body of work grows in esteem, the gap between them narrows.  One could only imagine what the actual conversation was like before it was filtered, edited and transcribed into the printed text.

Well, now we need to speculate no more.  The tapes have turned up and quietly, inconspicuously, they have been appearing on the internet.  Indeed, they've been sitting there since 2008 on a cultural blog with the delightful name If Charlie Parker Was a Gunslinger, There'd Be a Whole Lot of Dead Copycats, just waiting for the world to discover them.  The blog is oddball and wonderfully funny and, now I've discovered it, I'll be returning often!

It seems that these treasures were stumbled-upon by the curators of another cultural commentary site, Open Culture who discovered that the audio files had been gathered together by the editors of the Hitchcock Wiki here, and are now also available for download.

Thanks to the frenzy of interest this revelation has engendered, these download sites became massively over-loaded and crashed.  But, as I found when I visited another site carrying the story: Filmdetail, there are plenty of mirror sites so, if you want them, go hunting, you'll find them.  I did.  No Nazis, no snakes.

Twelve hours of unguarded discussion with the notoriously deceptive and mischievous Hitchcock is an extraordinary find.  It's cultural value is almost beyond calculation for students and lovers of film.  Now that this material is out there, it won't be long before someone provides a translation of the French elements, and other people will find uses for this audio ... DVD audio commentaries, perhaps?  They will certainly become an essential teaching tool for the next generation of students learning that it’s okay to study film.

I can't begin to tell you how excited I am by this.  I certainly know what I'm doing this weekend ... I'll be spending it with Hitch!

François Truffaut, Alfred Hitchcock and translator, Helen G. Scott in 1962