ESB: Division of authorship between Kerschner and Lucas

Whenever ESB is toted as the most beloved SW films by fans, one of the major reasons given for its quality over the others is the work of director Irvin Kerschner. However, I've always had doubts about just how involved Kerschner was in realizing every element of the film's quality, and suspect that Lucas probably had much more to do than he's credited for in some respects.

Most likely, I believe that there was probably a very simple division of labor: Lucas paid attention to the film's visuals, and Kerschner the film's acting.

Whenever Lucas praises Kersch's work on the film, it's almost always regarding his work with the actors. Except for one brief mention of a specific shot Kerschner designed for the duel (a short one just prior to Vader's forcing Luke onto the bridge, in which with some nifty lens work their figures are made to look flattened and monumental), Lucas never mentions Kerschner in a capacity as a visual stylist, at least in no instances that I'm aware of. Furthermore, whenever Kerschner talks about ESB, it's about his contribution to the film's performances.

As for Lucas' contributions, it's always been widely speculated that he did "unofficially" direct segments of the film, just as it's more or less been established that he "unofficially" directed the entirety of ROTJ (even in the commentary Lucas very slightly hints that he was much more hands-on with the final episode: he begins his discussion by asserting that in a longstanding, extensively previsualized serial work such as Star Wars it is very often the Executive Producer who works as the dominant creative force; Michael Mann has said very much the same thing about his work on television series such as "Miami Vice" and "Crime Story"). The segments of ESB which Lucas directed, though, are always in contention-- likely candidates are scenes involving Yoda and Vader, including the duel. While it is difficult to find solid proof of his on-set work in these portions of the film (day vouchers and hevy binder "Bibles" are often the best indicators as to who was in authority in any given schedule, and while some have pointed towards Lucas' involvement, nothing is absolutely trustworthy), it is likely that these would be weighing heavily on Lucas' mind, as they involved several elements which were risky for the series (the quality of the Yoda puppet's performance and the secrecy behind Vader's true identity) that potentially could have sunk the franchise if handled incorrectly. Furthermore, these scenes visually contain more of Lucas' grainy, immersive, pesudo-documentary style punctuated by dense foregrounds, sharp camera movements, and the use of curvature-inducing anamorphic lenses than does the rest of the film (moments on Hoth, the Falcon and some of the early portions of Cloud City in particular), which are altogether dominated by sharper and colder cinematography (from Peter Suzchitsky, the film's DP-- but he's a whole other story).

Lucas' heavy involvement in the film's pre-production is also a pointer towards his visual authorship of the film. Remember, each of the Star Wars films is heavily storyboarded, with each and every shot planned down to the last detail if possible. Lucas' work during this period with artist Joe Johnston predates any amount of Kerschner's involvement in the film. Again, remember the power of an Executive Producer, especially a Writer-Executive Producer, on a project of this scale.

In short, I believe that a proper regard for ESB's quality lies both in the talents of Kerschner and Lucas-- a figure who tends to be lost in the considerations of many in the question of this film. However, I in no way mean to slight the contributions of Kerschner to ESB and the Star Wars series at all. Indeed, part of the rich emotional complexity of the films are tied to his careful attention paid to the performances of the actors, and how they shape a film's pacing, atmosphere and rythms. Still, I hold this as a distinct, overwhelming probability:

If Lucas had fully directed ESB instead of Kers

 

I am sure this thread will become a basher/gusher flamewar very soon, so I'll just quickly add my 2 cents:

Kershner deserves a lot of credit for ESB being good. However, so does Lucas.

 

Stuff I forgot--

As per Lucas' role as the supervisor of pre-production and general previsualization of the film, one can look to the many shots of the film whose angles and characteristics were dictated by their matte paintings. Here, the filmed elements would be minimal, and the majority, if not nearly all of the image during these moments created before the scene is shot. Two very clear examples of these types of shots occur directly before the duel, in which we see Luke walking through Cloud City with Artoo from a high vantage point in the midst of a blue tinted hallway (an image evocative of Lucas' camera angles during the chase of Robert Duvall by chrome-robot cops in THX), and at the very end of the duel, in which Vader forces Luke onto the bridge upon which he will slice off his son's hand, again from a somewhat high vantage point and with an anamorphic curve to the surroundings painted into the image, an artificial attempt to achieve the natural effect of the lens. These shots are very resonant throughout the oevure of Lucas, as opposed to the more flattened, utilitarian look used by Kerschner and other more performance driven directors.

And Shelley-- That's pretty much my point. I'm just interested in figuring out what components of the film each man is chiefly responsible for.

 

Kershner deserves a lot of credit for ESB being good. However, so does Lucas.

That's probably the best way to sum things up.

 

Listen to the DVD commentary for more information. It clearly defines each of their roles in the film's production. They are both men of genius which really brought this film into what it was.

-Seldon

 

Oh, I have listened, of course. However, when you're dealing with films that have rather volatile relations with the Director's Guild of America (I think everybody knows about this), one can sense how some of the commentary-- especially from Lucas and Kersch-- is somewhat in code (like the Executive Producer allusion mentioned above). I find a very good indicator to be listening for what areas in the film Lucas or Kersch give their perspective commentary. It's rather mixed on the duel scene, for example (Kersch talked about how he and Lucas wanted the fight's visuals to be more "abstract", and Lucas talked about the importance of the duel's multiple locations and how he talked to psychologists before shooting the sequence in order to make sure it wouldn't be too disturbing for children), which is more or less a sign to me that they worked very closely together on this sequence, as true collaborators (think of the writer-director team of Michael Powel and Emeric Pressburger).

 

I saw this thread title and knew I'd find my friend Shelley in here.

Kershner deserves a lot of credit for ESB being good. However, so does Lucas.

I concur.

 

It's a balance, like has been stated above. Kershner expanded and rose above previous expectations, but none of it would have been possible if not for the base Lucas had provided and his own attentions to the movie. And, really, it goes beyond the two of them. I listen to the commentary, and I am absolutely shocked at how much work was put into these movies. Really, everyone who worked on the set is to thank for it being such a fantastic trilogy.

 

To me, the relationship between Irvin Kershner and George Lucas is similar to that of Tobe Hooper and Steven Spielberg over 1982's Poltergeist. Both Kershner and Hooper directed the films, but it was Lucas and Spielberg who "pulled their strings", as they were the ones to come up with the story and concept.

Do not get me wrongo, though, Kershner deserves endless praise for his work, but so does GL.

 

Besides improving on the acting and really working on building everyone's emotions, Kersh also made inhuman creatures seem more human. He did little things to R2, Chewie, 3P0 and Vader which gave them more human-like qualities. He knew the story and improved upon it.

George is an excellent story teller, Kersh is an excellent directer. That combination is what makes TESB great.

-Seldon

 

Actually, the case of "Poltergeist" is another example of where it's difficult to tell where exactly the executive producer's role as a "string puller" ends and where his influence begins to be exerted as a full fledged director. There was for a while a longstanding legal conflict between Hooper and Spielberg concerning whether the latter, who apparently was constantly on-set and dictating camera-angles etc., would be credited as a director of the film. Some sources, such as IMDB, still occaisionally list him as an "uncredited" director. While sources such as these rarely question the authorship of ESB's direction, I believe that the question is entirely valid, and most likely results in a similar act of collaboration between Kerschner and Lucas.

Remember, instances in which executive producers act as directors to their films while their credited directors do little more than just sit by the sidelines are not new. David O. Selznick was a notorious for this type of behavior, and as a result it is the opinion of many scholars that he most likely directed at least a majority of 1939's "Gone With the Wind", and not Vincent Minelli, a notion which is somewhat supported by the facts that Minelli had been suposedly brought on to replace two directors, including George Cukor, whose work had not met Selznick's demands, and that in 1939 Minelli also worked on the technically demanding "The Wizard of Oz", making it difficult for him to fully realize both projects at once. Howard Hawks is fully suspected to be the true director of "The Thing From Another World", even though that film is attributed to Christian Nyby. And as has been evidenced above in the board, people still aren't really sure who directed "Poltergeist".

 

I'm wondering: could anybody procure some random screenshots from some of Kerschner's body of work, so we could compare them to ESB? I don't think it is necessary to do so with Lucas' films (we've all seen THX and "American Graffiti", yes?). I think this could help show what I'm talking about: the difference between being an actor's director and being a visual director.

Also, I reccomend people to look at (and, if possible, also provide screenshots) of DP Peter Suschitzky's work as the cinematographer of director David Cronenberg's work. Throughout ESB there's a distinct look that Suschitzky brings to the film that is echoed throughout his work with Cronenberg (who coincidentally was one of the directors Lucas reportedly pursued to be the director of ROTJ, like David Lynch, who didn't want to get involved in a project that was "totally George's thing"), and I think it would also be helpful to compare those as well.

 

Well, I think Kersh had something to do with the visuals in TESB, else how do you explain how different TESB looks compared to other films in the saga? TESB has the best visual tapestry of any of the films.

L8r

 

If you can get your hands on the out-of-print Behind the Scenes Making of ESB journal, you'll get what I would percieve as the best sense of who did what on Empire. Kershner was meticulous with every shot, to the point of blowing schedule and budget. Gary Kurtz was right along with him for the ride blowing schedule and budget. Lucas got videos of each day's work sent to him in the states and only occassionally visited the set.

I think one of the biggest unsung heros of ESB is Lawrence Kasdan. George had the story, but Kasdan gave it an eloquence that I don't think has been matched in a SW film.

 

I think there were other factors in Kershner "blowing the schedule and budget" other than being meticulous. But yeah, I had the impression that for the bulk of TESB Lucas was in the States working on sound, editing, and visual effects.

L8r

 

I doubt that Kerschner's influence in the visuals was that in-depth. Remember, ESB was a film made mostly in England, with English crews and with Suschitzky, a cinematographer who belonged to the British system of lighting photography. The British system is very different from how American films are shot: unless the director of a film happens to be very highly skilled in the technical process of filmaking and cinematography (as is George Lucas, and others like Ridley Scott and Stanley Kubrick), then a film's cinematographer more or less becomes its de-facto director in visual terms. The best that he most visually accomplished directors ever seek for in England is a good, balanced collaboration with their cinematographer, and the camera operator who also holds much more power in the British system than in America. Therefore, a more theatrical, performance driven director such as Kerschner probably wouldn't have had much to contribute to Suschitzky's work, unless somehow a performance in the film dictated a different visual.

Also to be considered is the fact, again, that every scene, shot-by-shot in the film was meticulously previsualized in storyboards created long before shooting ever began on the film, a process which was overseen strenuously by Lucas. Besides being a prudent way to plan every expensively designed effects sequence in a contestedly budgeted project (and remember that nearly every single shot includes at least some element of effects work, most often seemingly incidental background activity), it's very well known that Lucas is a perfectionist when it comes to crafting a film's storyboards. Most of these storyboards are even in color, and those that are in black-and-white at the very least make very clear demands as to the required color scheme. Therefore, if Kerschner really was as visually attentive as some have said, and that the long periods of time he spent setting up shots was indeed the cause of the production delays, then it is most likely that this is due to the absolute faithfulness with which he approached Lucas' original storyboards. Notice that in the film, wherever a scene takes place in an environment we've already seen before (mostly cockpits of Rebel craft and just about every scene in the Falcon) the camera angles being employed are ones which were already used in the first film. If Kerschner really was being as visually careful as some suggest, it's probably because he wanted to direct the film precisely the way Lucas wanted him to, as shown through his previsualization work.

Finally, those days when Lucas visited the sets of the film were during the Yoda and Vader scenes, and it is in those that, upon multiple viewings, one can find subtle differences between Suschitzky's deliberate, sculptorly lighting and the a more gritty, "location source" lighting that is common in Lucas' work from the time.

Also, as per Kasdan's contributions: Didn't he say somewhere that most of his work concerned the dialogue between Han and Leia? He's said in a few sources that the majority of the script is Lucas' work, especially when dealing with the spiritual aspects of the Force.

 

Well, I think Kersh had something to do with the visuals in TESB, else how do you explain how different TESB looks compared to other films in the saga? TESB has the best visual tapestry of any of the films.

I disagree.