PT State why you love the Prequels!

Someone just read my last post!!!

But yes..... good post, xezene!



I certainly recognize the sentiment of your last line, too.

 

The scene with Anakin inside the empty Jedi Temple room where the masters sat *before* he makes his mind up to side with Palpatine is really haunting. It's a future glimpse at the soon to be extinct Jedi Order. And what's even better is the fact this scene takes place during a sunset. The sun was also setting on the Jedi.

 

Another reason I love them is that out of all of Lucas's work, for me the PT most feels like him channeling the creative mindset that brought about THX. And this despite working within the bounds of his hugely commercial franchise. Makes me think the number one requirement for being a Star Wars director is not to have grown up worshipping Star Wars.

 

Absolutely. It can't ever be about "Star Warrssssssss". It has to be about something else -- a strong aesthetic engagement with the world; an intimate understanding of sound and image; and ultimately having something to say.

The fact that the PT, in my opinion, has such a firm intellectual grounding, never mind its breathtaking fusion of gorgeous spectacle and intimate character exchange, makes it a true artistic wonder, in my opinion.

Also, in terms of basic technique, another thing I couldn't love more about the PT is the way the camera is used. To paraphrase someone else on this forum, Lucas' camera is never in the wrong place. And, I might add, Lucas always positions his camera, real or digital, to convey the maximum of clarity and impact.

This, to me, is something almost no-one gets about Star Wars under its maker: the amazing precision of all the camera placements and framings. Every image could be hung in an art gallery. Your eye can always follow what is going on; and so many of the various shots have a wonderfully objective, punctuated (even lofty) sense of spaciousness about them.

Never has a filmmaker, in my opinion, been more generous with his framings than George Walton Lucas. His fine sense of crisp composition is the best in the business. The awesome architectonic might of SW under Lucas rightfully overwhelms the viewer (even if many don't know it) with a formidable sense of expansive ballast and immersive poeticness.

 

Two words—Stanley Kubrick.

Makes George Lucas (and virtually every other director in the world) look like a kindergarten doodler.

EDIT: I’d argue that Lucas’s real strength lies in editing and juxtaposition, rather than in framing and composition.

 

Well, I could easily give you Kubrick; and maybe David Lean and a handful of others.

I just think, of this genre of filmmaking, Lucas really has no rival. The closest would probably be Spielberg himself.

But there is just such great, solid cinematography across the whole saga, and given the scope of the saga, how many worlds and happenings it takes in, that's quite an achievement, in my opinion. It may just be, however, that I am addicted to Lucas' opulent transparency. He's never jamming the camera anywhere weird, or being flat and uninteresting, or depriving the viewer of more than one thing to notice at any given moment. He very cleanly delineates each environment, each scene; but always in a generous, highly spacious way, in my opinion. I just love that about these movies.

That's fair. He really has incredible strengths in those areas. His framing and juxtasposition are certainly brought much more fully alive, in my opinion, through the more cinematic mechanism of editing and juxtaposition. However, I felt like I should spotlight the extreme clarity and beauty of Lucas' compositional style; since it seems a bit underrated still. All in all, it's the transition from one composition to the next, and how they are all stacked and unstacked, that is one of the most transcendent things when watching SW, in my opinion.

 

Honestly, my view of Lucas in this regard has always been that he’s a mediocre photographer but a very good editor. Remember that Lucas always wanted to be an editor and that was always his primary interest.

Kubrick, on the other hand, actually got his start as a still photographer, and I’d argue that no other director in film history has ever matched his eye for composition and detail. A few others come close, such as Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, and Orson Welles, but none quite equal him. Also, Kubrick does happen to be my favorite director. To my dying day, I’ll always insist that EYES WIDE SHUT is one of the most misunderstood and under appreciated films of all time (I think it’s a masterpiece).

Well, let’s look at what I consider the most visually poetic scene in any film that Lucas has ever directed:



The framing isn’t bad by any means, but the scene really gains its power from a combination of the editing and that evocative John Williams score (I’ve always believed that Williams deserves at least half the credit for the success of STAR WARS). That combination of editing and Williams also carries through to the prequels:



Kubrick, on the other hand, is much more interested in precise photographic framing:



And here’s actually a scene from one of my least favorite Kubrick films that nonetheless shows his ability to use precise framing to achieve a truly unnerving and unsettling effect:



I’d also argue that Spielberg is a more interesting photographer than Lucas is, although with Spielberg, he absolutely loves playing around with light, shadows, and reflections (which makes it unsurprising that he chose to shoot his most intensely personal film in black and white). Probably the most interesting image in any Spielberg film (at least to my mind) happens around 2:15 in this clip:



You obviously see Spielberg’s love of reflections here, but the framing allows for an interesting little bit of visual symbolism as you literally see the humanity in Oskar Schindler’s heart being rekindled.

Of course, Spielberg would probably make my Top 5 directors, along with Kubrick, Hitchcock, Kurosawa and Scorsese, although Spielberg has disappointed me over the last dozen or so years (I think MUNICH was his last really great film, and, as with EYES WIDE SHUT, I’ll forever argue that MUNICH is a vastly underrated masterpiece). Spielberg’s also kind of unique in that he’s equally adept at the big escapist action blockbuster like RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and a serious, brutal and profoundly moving drama like SCHINDLER’S LIST. I actually saw SCHINDLER’S in the theater when it came out. Never has a movie theater has been so silent than it was after that film ended. You could hear a pin drop. People just quietly walked out of the theater and nobody made a sound. I’m not sure any director in film history has ever had a better, more intuitive sense of how to connect with and reach an audience than Steven Spielberg (at least in his prime). Lucas, by his own admission, has always struggled with that, but with Spielberg, it seems to be second nature to him. Honestly, the most disappointing thing about Spielberg’s recent output has been that he just sorta seems to be playing it safe and coasting on his laurels at this point in his career. He no longer has the playful energy and adventurousness of his youth (JAWS, RAIDERS) nor does he seem to have the willingness to dive into truly disturbing and unsettling material that he had in his middle age (SCHINDLER’S, MUNICH).

 

Not to criticize Kubrick, he was a great filmmaker and 2001 may arguably have been an even greater milestone in SF movies than ANH. But he made completely different types of movies. Lucas' style works well enough for the SW saga. I don't think Kubrick could have made better SW movies. To give an example, Kubrick's style is more "static", which works very well for 2001, The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut... but would not have been so suitable for a SW movie. I would say Lucas' style is more "dynamic", without overdoing it. I never had issues with bad framing or composition in any SW movie. Can you give examples?

 

With all due respect, Kuro, this is meant to be an appreciation thread, and we risk capsizing it, going on at length in order to "prove" which filmmaker is better.

It isn't what the thread is intended to be about; and while I enjoy a debate about aesthetics, I don't think it's too helpful, at the end of the day, comparing different filmmakers, with different fascinations and approaches. Nevertheless, I'll attempt a brief response here:

To reduce Lucas to simply being a good editor, or to say that he always wanted to be an editor, or even that editing is his primary interest, is to massively oversimplify, in my opinion. Yes, Lucas has said he is something of an editor at heart, and that he prefers the editing side of filmmaking the most (Kubrick also said he saw editing as the most pure form of cinematic expression), but there is an awesome tonnage of visual materiality and visual gorgeosity in all of Lucas' films; especially the Star Wars saga. Kubrick may have been masterful in his own way, working within different genres, fastidiously crafting his films to the point of near-perfection, and creating deceptively surreal cognitive experiences from "2001" onwards, but that doesn't necessarily mean he outdoes Lucas or other filmmakers in every way. Personally, I doubt he could have quite come down to the level of the creative child as Lucas did in Star Wars; let alone extracted the hidden artistry and appeal of "lesser" forms like "Flash Gordon" and "Buck Rogers" serials, or comic books (there was a time they were barely tapped; unlike now), and re-woven an array of disparate sources into a finely-done avant-garde pastiche with mass appeal. But who knows? I guess the ultimate proof is that he didn't; while Lucas did. Different filmmakers, different personalities, with different aims.

I think Kubrick's early career as a still photographer served him well. But Lucas was also interested in photography and visual art from an early age; and it has remained with him his whole life.

I'll let Camille Paglia sum up (since I think she does such an outstanding job), and follow her summation up with a few additional links (a reasonable admixture I hope you'll agree):


"Everything is visual," George Lucas says of his filmmaking.

Lucas was born and raised in the small town of Modesto in the flat farmland of the San Joaquin Valley in Northern California. His father was an exacting owner of an office-supply store who expected his only son to inherit the family business. Small, shy, and socially maladroit, Lucas was a daydreamer who had trouble reading and writing at school and who gravitated toward mechanics and the visual arts, in which he showed early talent. "I was more picture-oriented," he says. He liked woodworking, tinkering, and taking photos, mostly of objects rather than people. He sculpted and did watercolors and ink drawings of landscapes and sports cars, some of which he sold. Comic books were a passion: He collected so many that his father built a shed for them; Lucas later called them his primary model for terse visual narrative. At the movies, he liked vintage westerns and pirate swashbucklers, then declining genres; on TV, he never missed the old Flash Gordon serial, broadcast nightly. In his teens, cars as high-powered, girl-attracting status symbols were "all-consuming" to him. He entered races and won trophies at speedways around California. He already viewed hot rods (brightly painted customized cars with souped-up engines) as populist works of art—a theme he would recast in Star Wars's ingenious spacecraft and sleek land speeders, which are steered casually and repaired impromptu like cars.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/Why-George-Lucas-Is-the/134942


Quite a diverse resume. A resume which I think is borne out in the Star Wars saga; especially the visually and thematically rich prequel trilogy under discussion here.


Next are some words of Lucas' own, backing up what Paglia says above:

(NOTE: I've re-arranged these paragraphs from how they appear on the page linked-to below. I think they read better this way.)


I grew up in a small town in Central California; it was a farming community. We had a couple of movie theaters, and you'd go to the movies once in a while. I didn't get a television until I was 10 or 11 years old. I had lots of interests. I liked woodworking, I liked to build things. I liked cars. I liked art. I really wanted to be an illustrator, and I liked photography. I didn't really discover any interest in film until I was a junior in college.

I was a terrible student in high school, and the thing that the auto accident did — and it happened just as I graduated, so I was at this sort of crossroads — but it made me apply myself more, because I realized more than anything else what a thin thread we hang on in life, and I really wanted to make something out of my life. And I was in an accident that, in theory, no one could survive. So it was like, “Well, I’m here, and every day now is an extra day. I’ve been given an extra day, so I’ve got to make the most of it.” And then the next day I began with two extra days. And I’ve sort of — you can’t help in that situation but get into a mindset like that, which is you’ve been given this gift and every single day is a gift, and I wanted to make the most of it. Before, when I was in high school, I just sort of wandered around. I wanted to be a car mechanic, and I wanted to race cars, and the idea of trying to make something out of my life wasn’t really a priority. But the accident allowed me to apply myself at school. I got great grades. Eventually I got very excited about anthropology and about social sciences and psychology, and I was able to push my photography even further and eventually discovered film and film schools.

I decided to go to film school because I loved the idea of making films. I loved photography and everybody said it was a crazy thing to do because in those days nobody made it into the film business. I mean, unless you were related to somebody there was no way in. So everybody was thinking I was silly. "You're never going to get a job." But I wasn't moved by that. I set the goal of getting through film school, and just then focused on getting to that level because I didn't -- you know, I didn't know where I was going to go after that. I wanted to make documentary films, and eventually I got into the goal of -- once I got to school -- of making a film.

http://prodloadbalancer-1055872027.us-east-1.elb.amazonaws.com/autodoc/page/luc0int-1


Lucas' path in life essentially went from a cornucopia of early interests, that themselves were a mixture of artistic and practical, to briefly wanting to be a car mechanic and racer, to a more "focused" interest in photography, to becoming a documentary filmmaker, to making short experimental films, to slightly abstract documentary-fantasy features (THX, AG, and Star Wars are all this), to a private funder, producer, and film mogul in the mid-80s between SW trilogies, to the "total" filmmaker of the prequel trilogy (a significant achievement in its own right), to eventually selling his companies and now pursuing an art museum dedicated to visual art, and potentially a maker of advanced experimental movies that aren't necessarily intended for public consumption. That's quite a path; but one that reveals someone totally obsessed with the art and craft of visual storytelling and visual expression.

Lucas being both an imaginative/dreamer and a practical/likes-to-build-things kind of guy perhaps deserves a tiny bit more emphasis; as I think it's really at the core of everything he does. Much like Star Wars itself, Lucas acknowledges having a dualistic nature, and claims it has been there since conception. From his Charlie Rose interview that originally aired December 30th 2015:



Time Index: 19:22


Lucas: I'm a unique blend of a practical person, a pragmatic person, and a fantasy, completely-daydreaming guy who's not very practical at all.

Rose: And you combined those two?

Lucas: Well, I didn't, but the DNA, or we can say whatever, the Force was at work there...

Rose: Whoever created George Lucas gave him those two skills?

Lucas: Yes. And they're the opposites. And I've always been that way.


So there's more to Star Wars than merely cinematography or editing; as important as those things are. Lucas had to set everything up and secure all the necessary funding, work on building his film companies, then work on running and maintaining them; and, critically, in every Star Wars movie, completely imagine a cohesive world, approving a myriad of designs and design-tech, and making sure everything fused together and interlocked correctly, without losing people's attention or overwhelming any of the delicate narrative threads interwoven therein. Plus, in each one, he expanded the arena of the possible, pushing the technological envelope with each new film, and showing how dense and interesting a two-hour action movie with operatic character threads could be.

People have noticed a lot in these movies over the years. Of course, much of it speaks to the power of human imagination, and seeing what one wants to see; but how interesting that something that is only six movies long (in terms of the Lucas movies) should inspire so much debate and devotion. I present a few examples below. But each also places a good deal of emphasis on the visual nature of the films; and I hope it can be seen just how dense and clear Lucas' compositional style, his deep-focus photographic method, actually is:

Firstly, a neat celebration of ROTS, using hand-picked frames to express general truths and pleasures about all the SW movies:

http://checkingonmysausages.blogspot.co.uk/2009/05/examining-star-wars-saga-via-revenge-of.html

Second, an intense examination of the "Duel of the Fates" lightsaber duel in TPM:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111006...om/2010/11/01/notes-on-the-duel-of-the-fates/

Third, a Tumblr blog that collates various frames primarily from the six movies and isolates symmetries and visual rhymes:

http://starwarsverses.tumblr.com/

Fourth, another Tumblr blog that celebrates the prequels as an integrated piece of storytelling art in their own right (run by TFN member Samnz):

https://swprequelframes.tumblr.com/

Fifth, a kind of popcorn-munching demotic blog that "bashes" the films (mostly), but features some amusing commentary and a handsome selection of sequentially-incorporated stills in PNG format. This entry, for example, essentially looks at the "Confronting Grievous" passage of ROTS, starting with the reveal of Kashyyyk after the opera scene and finishing with Obi-Wan standing over Grievous' smouldering ruin. What I love about the included batch of images is how designed ROTS appears; with all the visual intensity and clarity I alluded to earlier. The compositional soundness of Star Wars, in my opinion, is wondrous to behold; and all a method of communicating reams of extraordinary tableaux of epically delectable proportions:

https://bplusmovieblog.com/2013/07/...dy-like-amy-adams-and-philip-seymour-hoffman/

Sixth, a cogent analysis of Anakin and Obi-Wan saying goodbye in ROTS, before the cataclysmic events that will see them having to confront each other in "hell" in the final act. The author of this blog seems to have a very fine eye and a good feel for the subtle beats occurring which really *are* the story itself unfolding. By giving the scene such a close reading, the author makes a good case, in my opinion, that Star Wars showcases a very strong storytelling framework and engaging visual sensibility of its own (even if, yes, it is reliant on editing and intercutting for the story to really work):

https://smittysgelato.wordpress.com/2016/05/21/prequel-posts-1-brothers-farewell/



Lastly, just to underscore the fact that Lucas is something of an all-rounder in the visual stakes, here is an article about his forthcoming art museum, intended to display a broad array of visual art. It is clearly an ambitious undertaking (very "George Lucas" one might say). Extract and link:

While Lucas Museum of Narrative Art will become home to George Lucas's highly valuable personal art collection that extends far beyond Star Wars props and memorabilia (it also includes, for example, original paintings from Edgar Degas and Pierre-Auguste Renoir), it's primary goal is to introduce the history of storytelling in a unique, all-encompassing way, through a broad range of media, including oral, written, performed and visual. "Narrative art is visual art that tells a story. It manifests itself in every kind of medium, in every culture, in every form that you can imagine," explained Don Bacigalupi, Founding President of Lucas Museum of Narrative Art.

Celebrating the power of visual storytelling in a setting focused on narrative painting, illustration, photography, film, animation and digital art, visitors will be invited to enjoy the original works in popular mediums such as illustration, children's art, comic art and photography from many periods and cultures. Furthermore, they will be able to explore "all facets of cinematic art and its design processes, including original concept art, storyboards, set design, props, costume and fashion, animation and visual effects."

http://plugin-magazine.com/living/g...lia-to-the-exquisitely-designed-museum-in-la/

Your video links sell your point of view very well. And I agree that John Williams shares in the artistic brilliance of the saga and its embedding in popular culture. If there was one other genius apart from Lucas that deserves a high degree of credit, JW would have to be that individual, I think.

Still, in some ways, you aren't quite doing Lucas enough credit, in my opinion. He isn't exactly chopped liver (or, at least, I've tried to argue he isn't) when it comes to the visual construction of his films. Nothing may quite match the unsettling visual intensity of Kubrick, or the warm visual flow of Spielberg, but it's not as if the Star Wars movies are lacking in impactful, multi-layered, adroit camera work. From ROTS alone, one might choose to highlight the film's multifarious and eminently balletic opening shot, or some of the camera work at the opera scene, including a sustained shot of Palpatine and Anakin after Palpatine tells Anakin to sit down and instructs his entourage to leave, your aforementioned "ruminations scene" example, select shots in the Order 66 sequence including close-ups on Yoda and the helicopter shot taking the film back to Yoda who averts his own battlefield execution, and various shots in the dramatic finale, including a strong close-up of Anakin boasting of his new "Empire" while Obi-Wan rises up in the background like an angel on his shoulder, an extremely wide shot of the Senate rostrum rising into the enormous session chamber, a shot of Anakin and Obi-Wan wrestling against a deeply-saturated plume of lava flaring up behind them; and even some shots in the denouement, like a close-up on Padme still clutching the snippet Anakin gave her in TPM, or the last shot of the Lars looking out at the classic binary sunset with baby Luke. All examples of powerful composition and exquisite use of light, colour, etc.

I must say, when I watch ROTS, I do have the sense I'm watching an artist "painting" in practically every frame; much of the film could be considered a set of oil paintings come to life. And that's still to say nothing about all the beautiful framing and outstanding use of shading and colour in TPM and AOTC. If Lucas has a signature style, it might be that he often likes to show a "god's eye view" of things (e.g., shots of droids or clones amassing, generous establishing shots outside of buildings before cutting inside, wide shots of people "walking and talking" a while, the various shots of people going into battle or coming in for a graceful vehicular landing, etc.). And these wider shots are always then sweetened up and rendered more striking (validated if you will) by employing a bevvy of medium shots and some tactically-deployed close-ups where and when appropriate to "puncture" the wider spaces. The "Sidious Revealed" scene in ROTS is a good example, in my opinion, of this approach, where wider shots are the support structure for strong mediums, and two or three prodigiously well-timed close-ups on Anakin and Palpatine massively cut through the leisurely murk to lend a contained, delicious sense of the erotic and the dangerous. All in all, though, and as I can only repeat, it's the exceptionally "clean" look of Lucas's compositions and cutting that I love so dearly. I don't think any other film series (outside of, perhaps, the "James Bond" and "Indiana Jones" series) can boast such consistently great use of solid, crisp, grounded, comprehensible framing and composition.

Lastly, just to round off with your remarks on Spielberg; or, specifically, something you said about Spielberg's use of reflections. I think Lucas has his own style there. He may not use reflections in the way Spielberg might, but this is a slightly underrated aspect of the Star Wars experience, in my opinion. Consider, for example, the specular highlights gleaming over the bubble cockpit of the N-1 starfighter as Anakin powers it up and it begins to move out of frame, or the white-hot edges that glint off the hulls of the various ships involved in the opening space battle in ROTS. Kamino also shows a unique emphasis on overblown whites; lending a very dream-like, surreal edge to the enclave where the clones are "born" and indoctrinated. In a particularly striking ship-landing shot, the sunlight glints and splits off the silvered hull of Padme's dart-like ship when it sinks gently into the depressed circular docking bay on Tatooine. And, once more, in ROTS, there is a stunning wide shot of Padme's more meaty-looking eagle-like ship on that open landing platform on Coruscant, the sunlight again glaring off it as the sun essentially goes down on the Republic and Padme's own life (her confrontation with Anakin will not be a happy one). Such lighting effects are obviously built into Star Wars on some level (the reflection effects are obviously added later with CG). But Lucas has always been interested in highlights and reflections, giving objects a sultry, seductive gleam. His "Herbie" short film, for example, is really nothing but reflection effects:





So that's where I stand on the man and his art. The only place I can stand: as an entranced, delighted admirer, acolyte, and (I suppose) defender. I am relatively happy in my work.

 

Sith Lord 2015

I don’t think his compositions are necessarily bad. Just sort of unremarkable and standard. This may actually be the most striking frame in anything he’s directed:



I’d actually argue that Lucas’s directorial style is quite sedate compared to Spielberg’s. Spielberg’s style is much more energetic, kinetic, and dynamic, whereas Lucas’s style is more static. Compare the direction of the first STAR WARS to the direction of RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK to see what I mean.

Cryogenic

Kubrick likely couldn’t have done SW…but I doubt Lucas could’ve done DR. STRANGELOVE OR: HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, or EYES WIDE SHUT. Although, given that Lucas wanted David Lynch to direct STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI, you never know. On the other hand, while Spielberg likely could’ve directed a damn good SW film, I doubt Lucas could’ve done SCHINDLER’S LIST.

To me, Lucas is more of an interesting visual conceptionist than a photographer. (Is conceptionist a word? I guess it is now.) Most of the visually interesting elements in the SW films come more from the production design than from how they’re photographed. I don’t think this is true of Kubrick, Hitchcock, Welles, Kurosawa, or Spielberg. When I think of the great deep focus frames in movie history, I think of a frame like this:



Or you look at Hitchcock’s masterful manipulation of light, color and shadow in a film like VERTIGO:



The only analogue to the Hitchcock composition I can find in SW came from Irvin Kershner and not George Lucas:



I know that this is Kershner because it's much more gothic and expressionistic than Lucas’s compositions and lighting usually are. He mirrors Kershner a little bit in STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH during the final duel, but you really don’t see this kind of image in THX 1138, AMERICAN GRAFFITI, or the first SW.

Honestly, some of the scenes you mentioned don’t really impress me that much. The scene where Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker say goodbye to each other, for example, strikes me as a pretty standard shot reverse shot setup, and nothing to really write home about. The intensity of the opera house scene comes more from Ian McDiarmid’s brilliant performance than Lucas’s framing. Similarly, the scene where the Emperor reveals himself also just seems to be pretty standard shot reverse shot. However, I will concede that the shot you mentioned of Obi-Wan hovering over Darth Vader’s shoulder on the lava planet is a pretty interesting composition. It actually reminded me of one of Bergman’s double close-ups a little bit.

I also have to admit that I’m really not a huge fan of the oversaturated digital highlights. It’s actually one of my biggest criticisms of Janusz Kaminski’s cinematography. It just looks kinda garish and ugly to me.

 

Kuro A question, if its alright. Since Rian Johnson is helming the next Star Wars film, would you mind sharing your thoughts on him as a filmmaker?

 

Could be. But I still think they work in the SW context. I don't see why Lucas constantly needs to be compared to Kubrick, Kurosawa or Spielberg. I like Spielberg movies, but I don't really see how his movies are composed better than Lucas'. I could post hundreds of SW saga screen shots that are equally well composed, from every single episode. We may criticize him for many things, but I don't think scene composition should be one of them. Just MY opinion of course. About Kubrick I won't argue with you. But like I said he made completely different types of movies. You also mentioned Raiders. Can you give some examples where that has superior composition to the SW movies? I really haven't noticed anything really remarkable visually in Raiders that impressed me that much, not to mention that I consider the sequel to be far superior in almost every aspect. I never studied movies or anything, I'm just an average viewer, so maybe I fail to notice some details. But to me all SW films have pretty well composed scenes. I wonder what are the criteria and standards anyway. Isn't it ultimately just a matter of taste? Some SW screen compositions I actually find quite well executed:









Of course just a few examples from just 3 episodes. But I do see some real talent here. Lucas is certainly a visual kind of filmmaker. Is he as good as Kubrick? Frankly I don't care. He did a good job with the story he wanted to tell, and I find his visual style to be impressive enough, in the context of his story. He never wanted to make another 2001 but tell his own story. I think he did pretty well in that respect.

 

Its my understanding that Lucas is a great admirer of Kubrick, and even regards his '2001: A Space Odyssey' as a textbook work in silent filmmaking. Something I think is important to note though, is that Lucas films' are his own stories (although he does draw heavily on his own influences), where as Kubrick's tend to be adaptations of novels, or other source material. I'm not suggesting that one should think less of Kubrick because of this, indeed he remains a superior filmmaker to Lucas, especially in areas such as screenwriting and acting. Nevertheless I think Cryogenic is correct in pointing out that Kubrick would not have made Star Wars.

I have say, I don't think we can mention Stanley himself without posting this...

 

Let's see... things I really like about the Prequels:

- The Music; Williams is probably the most consistently high quality piece of SW (and that's not a shot at Lucas or anyone else.. Williams is just THAT good at his craft)

- I personally enjoy the way Lucas establishes locations and scenes camera wise. I love the wide shots showing beautiful scenery. I also like the way he "visually paces" scenes if that makes sense (I'm probably not using the right term). I feel a lot of modern films do way too much jerking around with the camera and don't let the scenery breathe for long enough. I feel Edwards did a nice job putting a modern spin on this style for Rogue One. (to be fair to JJ, he IMO toned down his camera work to at least be somewhat more like Lucas's in TFA... particularly in the early Jakku scenes. I was worried we would get something like Trek 09 where I couldn't tell what was going on half the time).

- Ewan McGregor... I mean the guy just NAILED Sir Alec Guiness. Really impressive work

- Ian McDiarmid - his ROTS performance is phenomenal

- Clones/Clone Army/Clone Equipment designs.... I loved the designs of the clones and all their equipment, ships and fighters. Just some really cool stuff and I liked how you could see how it would evolve into the Imperial military

- It's a small thing but for some reason I just like Jimmy Smits as Bail Organa; can't even really explain why, but I do

- Droidekas

 

Here are some of the more striking images from RAIDERS:





















It helps that I’ve seen the movie a million times, but I do think the cinematography is incredible…and incredibly underrated.

Let’s also compare how Spielberg shoots a fight scene to how Lucas shoots one.



Lucas pretty much lets things play out in what’s known as a master shot (i.e. he shoots the entire scene from an angle that keeps all the players in view) and then intersperses some close-ups in there.



By contrast, Spielberg’s camera is much more interactive and immersive. Spielberg likes to get right into the middle of things and get into the down and dirty of it.

In short, Lucas’s camera passively observes an action scene, whereas Spielberg’s camera puts you right into the middle of it.

And I actually do agree that Lucas’s compositions do work just fine for the first film. I simply took issue with Cryogenic’s statement that no one in film history is better at framing and composition than George Lucas is. Several directors are, including Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg.

Mostly Handless

I agree that Kubrick never would’ve made SW. However, the corollary to that is that Lucas never would’ve made DR. STRANGELOVE, 2001, CLOCKWORK, or EYES WIDE. It’s also worth pointing out that 2001 is an original screenplay, and Kubrick was notorious for taking incredible liberties with his source material. For example, the novel RED ALERT is a serious, dramatic thriller. The film DR. STRANGELOVE is an absurd black comedy.

 

Raiders and A New Hope are tonally and completely, different movies. What works for Star Wars, works for it and it alone.

This is a thread about loving a sect of movies(which are undoubtedly, not as welcome in the fanbase as the others) not to argue on Lucas's "flaws" or "lackluster" on his specific style in filmmaking. So your own contribution to this thread, is not desired. It is obvious that Kubrick was a more experienced director than Lucas. So in a way, he is "better". However, that does not, should not, demean Lucas's way of filmmaking. Further more, the way Lucas does it is reminiscent of old serials like Flash Gordon, Western inspiration and soap operas. Lucas basically has brought "modern art" into a contemporary era. Seamlessly making it as if his movies were made during those times, and just "polished" for the Modern era.

Lastly, you can make a thread for this in a more appropriate related forum.

 

I'll say this: The Amazon was depicted way better in the first reel of Raiders than it was in The Lost City of Z. I really don't know why that movie is getting such good reviews for its cinematography.

 

Look, I never said either Spielberg or Kubrick are bad filmmakers, and I agree that Spielberg's screen compositions in Raiders are excellent. Just out of curiosity, do you think his camera work in the sequel to be inferior? You only mentioned Raiders, no other Indiana Jones films. Personally I find Temple of Doom to be superior, composition-wise at least equal to Raiders. Also, let's not forget Lucas was involved in Indiana Jones as well. I know he probably didn't contribute much photography-wise, but I'm sure his influence was not to be ignored.

Didn't Kubrick and Clarke work together closely? And didn't they sort of write the screenplay together? The book at least was written pretty much during the filming of the movie. That there would be differences is natural. But the 2001 situation is very different than The Shining for example. The book was already a completely independent work. And Kubrick really took a lot of liberties with the movie. Not that it's a bad movie though. In fact I like many parts better than the book.
Back on topic with the prequels though...

 

Precisely. They are like the double-helix of serial escapism. But whereas one is mythic and graphical and virtually all-Lucas, the other is a fluid globe-trotting Lucas-Spielberg alt-Bond 1930s-style hyper-pulp adventure. Some of the longings Lucas couldn't quite express in the structured lattice of Star Wars, he instead farmed out to Spielberg to pull off in only the way he can. Years later, the favour would be returned when Lucas conceived of the opening sequence aboard the TF ship in ROTS being a broad homage to "Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom" (which is literally ROTS: a "temple of doom") and Spielberg helped with the pre-viz of Obi-Wan chasing Grievous (also very "Temple of Doom"-esque) and the epic end-of-trilogy duels between Anakin and Obi-Wan and Yoda and Palpatine.

Even some of the other moments in ROTS are rather Spielbergian: the way the bridge of the TF ship, during the crash landing, skitters toward the camera (or vice versa), which Lucas himself points out on the commentary track, and the way Obi-Wan dispenses with Grievous' MagnaGuards (crushing them with the Force and beheading that last one reaching for his staff) being very much like the way Indy shoots the swordsman cold in "Raiders" (Obi-Wan simply ploughing his lightsaber into Grievous' twirling four-bladed assault, after Grievous has spent a while intimidating him, could be another example). Very cool quotage and cross-pollination. Also, some of these moments, in my opinion, put the lie to the idea that there aren't more dynamic compositions in Star Wars. There are absolutely are; but they're very carefully incorporated and not deployed too often. The general Star Wars style is more sedate and observational than most action films; and I think it helps massively set the series apart.

Exactly. While one could read a certain inexperience into Lucas' choices, it could just as strongly be argued, in my opinion, that Lucas' style is one of remarkable restraint. He could well have chosen to be a lot flashier, especially with digital technology available to him and his obvious love of it. So maybe the fact he didn't makes its own statement. Furthermore, I don't think it should be overlooked that Lucas has equated digital filmmaking to the liberating mode of oil painting, versus the constraining "fresco" painting paradigm of chemical film and optical effects; possibly taking his cue from his friend Walter Murch. A striking clue to Lucas' classical grammar is found at the start of every SW movie: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...." Star Wars is a very formal, ordered work of art; displaying hyper-managed, almost OCD-ish control of colour schemes, spatial dynamics, geometries, lighting techniques, etc. Therefore, to expect a more immersive or expressionistic camera style, in my opinion, is ignorant of what Star Wars is and what Lucas was seeking to accomplish in creating it.

Yes. The turn to bashing, or weighting other filmmakers above Lucas, is pretty tedious -- and in this of all threads.

Still, there is something addictive to discussing movies; and few things are more movie-like than framings and movie clips.

In that regard, I will issue a very brief response back to Kuro. But I really will try and keep it brief this time.


(EDIT: Nope!)

I guess I've already stolen half your adjectives! Your "Raiders" clip does a lot to support your argument. Though I think it's also a little unfair to play off an obviously more basic shootout in ANH in the detention center with Spielberg's much more elaborate "Rube Goldberg" action construction in "Raiders". Action tends to happen with a tremendous amount of variety in Star Wars. In ANH alone, the detention area shootout is perhaps one of the more simplistic (though, in a way, like a lot of Star Wars, deceptively simplistic) bits in the movie, versus the opening sequence, the Millennium Falcon turret sequence, and, of course, the Battle of Yavin. This is not really a knock on the shootout sequence which is done with a lot of brio; but next to some of the more abstract scenes we see later, such as the speeder bike chase in ROTJ, or the sail barge sequence before it, or the multi-layered confrontation between Vader and Luke in TESB, it might be considered a bit lacking; to say nothing of comparing it to some of the more esoteric and grandiloquent action scenes in the prequel trilogy.

All those people you cite are obviously photographic masters. And I would agree that Lucas is more of a conceptualist than a photographer. Disparaging him as a photographer puts Lucas down; but so does making too big a claim for Lucas in that same area. He is much bigger than that; and I don't think we'd be having this conversation right now if he wasn't.

I'll level with you and happily agree that the combination of Lucas' storyboarding, Kershner's direction, and Peter Suschitzky's lighting is a combination to die for. All of the Star Wars films are exceptional in some areas; and I definitely think TESB wins out as having the most polished, atmospheric, and "gothic" look about it. It is a very beautifully photographed movie.

I would love to see something like that in Episodes VIII and IX; but I don't think Disney are going in that direction. So TESB may always remain, in a nine-part "full saga" reading, the odd one out. So be it. On the other hand, there is some magnificent work in the other episodes; so even TESB isn't a full exception in every regard.

Well, as mentioned, the opera scene does have a pretty tremendous longer shot when Anakin takes his seat and Palpatine gets to work. Before Anakin's line, "I have to admit, my trust in them has been shaken", there is no break to another shot; which contributes a good deal of mood, in my opinion. And in films such as these, a shot of such length is fairly unusual. While there is more standard cutting work after this, the opera sequence is hardly done in a mundane way, in my opinion. Indeed, the subsequent litany of shots seems very well-chosen; adding immensely to the "Church of Palpatine" and his dark machinations. I suppose, in some sense, it's more about the picking. Lucas seems to know exactly when to bring a shot in and when to let go and cut to something else. I think the final shot on Palpatine -- "Not from a Jedi" -- says everything about Palaptine's and Lucas' meticulous, slyly impactful approach. That scene is master and puppet-master performing a kind of cinematic tango.

I also feel like coming to the defence of the reveal scene. The shot you like of those I named is somewhat "built out of" the reveal scene; since the close-up on Palpatine, with Anakin hanging around in the background, but caught on his every word, is merely the "prequel" (if you'll pardon the pun) to the Anakin-Obi-Wan shot on Mustafar. In the latter shot, it is obviously flipped, with Anakin now in the foreground, and his "Palpatine"-esque mentor behind, berating him (while Anakin is silent as Palpatine speaks and tells him how much more focus his anger gives him). A third shot of this type (but again slightly different) is when Obi-Wan paces out in front of Padme and tells her, perhaps in a somewhat manipulative fashion, that he has seen a security hologram of Anakin "killing younglings".

That middle example is given an odd inflection, in my opinion, because it is placed between these other, more striking examples of one character stood some distance in front of another, with their back turned. If Anakin is "trying" to impress Obi-Wan, then Palpatine is definitely manipulating him. With the hazier example of Obi-Wan walking forward on Padme's veranda, we are potentially confronted with the notion that Obi-Wan is being a little "Sith"-like in his behaviour; an aspect of that very shot only accentuated, in my opinion, with Obi-Wan's theatrical beard stroking gesture at the end of his revelation. Another example, I feel, of Lucas' visual storytelling -- telling you far more than the words alone ever could.

But the reveal scene is also very effectively staged and shot on its own terms, in my opinion. Study some of the shots and the timing of the shots and you might see what I mean:



See the shot that starts the scene off? There is a very nice digital effect for Palaptine's red "operations" screen (or whatever it's meant to be), creating a sort of "frame within a frame". And, while he's looking at it, the camera is gently craning up in a very centred composition as Anakin enters from the background, at more or less the exact middle of our screen (the frame itself). Further, if you look at the video timer, you'll see the shot lasts approximately ten seconds; and Palpatine flicks the screen off, or it completely dissolves away, half-way through, at around the five-second mark. This is very cool, to me, as it shows you how precisely Lucas constructs and edits his various scenes. By the end of that ten-second phase, the camera has moved from being at Palpatine's level, "in" his sunken pit, to being above the two characters; which I think also looks neat. One is placed slightly "above" the Machiavellian drama, so to speak; and we see the hallway where Palpatine is obviously planning on moving Anakin to and revealing his identity. By having the camera remain above the players for a moment, Lucas is also obviously showing you the dark, spartan beauty of Palpatine's private office, and giving you some sense of how controlled and rarefied so many of Palpatine's actions and mannerisms, at this stretch of the story, seem to be. And that's just the opening shot!

I could obviously go on at some length here. I'll try not to. But I'll just say I like how the camera again moves a little when Anakin paces left to right in front of Palpatine, coming across as rather Maul-ish; like he can't wait to break out of his Jedi prison if only Palpatine would provide the proper excuse. It shows you how agitated Anakin has become; and how dependent on Palpatine he now is for Palpatine to make things "right" for him. Obi-Wan earlier warned Anakin to "Be careful of your friend, Palpatine", and even just a shot like this makes it clear that Anakin's guard has been lowered having spent too long in his company in a relatively deferential mindset. The neat back-and-forth cutting in this part really emphasizes just how much Anakin's speech seems to take place at Palpatine's prompting. Then there is a slightly hypnotic wide shot as they mount the stairs and begin their slow perambulation to the hallway area. And a great reverse shot on them passing through the doorway just adds to the feel of a chamber-drama manipulation; especially with those bronze statues flanking the two of them. Then Lucas gives you a wide shot perpendicular to the doorway shot it replaces; showing you near enough the full space of the hallway and the "bridge" walkway that Anakin and Palpatine are now slowly travelling down. The battery of shots that follow certainly have a sort of shot-reverse-shot tempo to them; but Lucas breaks up the monotony with different placements (the background alters a lot), as well as several shots where the camera is dollying around the characters in a semi-circular motion. Then there's that great close-up on Palpatine mentioned earlier.

All in all, I see a lot of great, solid, intelligent, driving camera work and editing in all the Star Wars movies; especially, in some ways, I guess, ROTS. I think Lucas went out on an artistic high. He never broke rules, per se; maybe just bent a few here and there. And that's exactly right for these movies, in my opinion.

For all I've said, I'm not huge on oversaturated highlights, either. I often prefer a slightly softer, calmer look. But I do think the digital look of the prequels is pretty striking in its own right. I can understand you finding it garish and ugly, though. While also shot digitally, I notice that "Rogue One" has much more dialled-down highlights than ROTS. The interiors of the rebel blockade runner, for example, almost look overcast compared to their hot-white appearance in ROTS. It seems there was some deliberate attempt to give everything a sort of muggy, under-exposed look in R1. But, I have to say, I think I would rather go with the "hotter" look of ROTS, in pretty much all cases, myself. I guess I just favour the rich presentational clarity of Lucas' approach more.

 

Very well-written post!!! You manage to put things into perspective without taking sides. I wish there were more SW fans who had that much insight and objectivity.

 

Oh, thank you for this! I almost missed it! Yes, well...

I do try and put things in perspective, but I can't pretend I don't rightly take sides in a lot of things. Guilty as (self?) charged!

However, I guess I do try and approach many discussions as a dialogue: a chance to learn, explore, and expound. Without just firing off grumpy insults all the time.

That's usually how I try and play it, anyway.

 

That's exactly the right attitude to approach any kind of discussion!

 

One has to strive, at times, to be a little "Jedi" about things.

 

The use of silhouette and shadow in the Indiana Jones movies, particularly Raiders, has always been one of the things I loved about the movies. Adds a real noir feel to it.

 

Everything in the Star Wars prequels is like that opening shot in "Spectre" for seven hours.