George Lucas IS Orson Welles: Could AOTC be Citizen Kane?

Like Lucas, Welles never received an Academy award for Best director. Like Welles did on Citizen Kane, Lucas has been able to wield complete control over his Star Wars films (at least the latter ones).

Of the five films George has directed, two of them are listed among the AFI's top 100 and those same two films have been nominated for Best Picture in their respective years( something that can't be said for ESB ). It should be noted that Star Wars was also ranked higher than another sci-fi film that many falsely claim is superior (namely 2001).
Whatever your feelings about Empire Strike Back or 2001, it should be understood that Star Wars: A New Hope is Lucas' masterpiece.

Both Welles and Lucas created their most remembered masterpieces early in their careers (Citizen Kane and Star Wars respectively).

However, both also were revolutionary in pushing the envelope when it came to Visuals.
If you don't own the DVD for Citizen Kane, I suggest you go get it now. Not only is it a great movie, but it also has a commentary by Roger Ebert, who goes on to explain a lot of the visual effects used in Citizen Kane.

To paraphrase Ebert, he says that Citizen Kane is as much a special effect movie as Star Wars, and I believe him. Clever edits, matte paintings, and models are just a small sample of skills that were used throughout the entire film to trick you into believing the movie was epic in size and had a larger budget than it did. However, due to the benefit of shooting in black in white, Citizen Kane's effects are more easily hidden, convincing some people to believe that they simply weren't there.

Why do I mention this in regards to AOTC? I do this because George is doing the same thing Welles did, but in contrast, Lucas is getting criticized for pushing the envelope.

You need not go very far on these boards to find threads bashing George for using bluescreen instead of set pieces, or using digital characters instead of men in costumes.

What we fail to realize is that a lot of shots in Citizen Kane are really a person sitting in front of a rear-projected screen. How is that different than actually shooting against bluescreen?

In some shots, Welles could shoot an actor giving a speech in front of NO ONE, and then edit in stock footage of a crowd of people responding. George Lucas does the same thing, except instead of doing a cut, he put more people in the same frame as the actor. But, George is the one who gets criticized. Don't believe me. See Terrence Stamp's constant complaints about George giving Natalie the day off during his scenes in The Phantom Menace.

In Citizen Kane, for a certain outdoor shot, Welles ONLY built the front door of the building and then used a matte painting to show the rest of it. Does this not sound like what George does in The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones (building minimal sets and extending them through tricks)?

On the DVD, you'll find from Ebert's comments that Citizen Kane pulls off odd technical feats that you don't notice while watching. For example, there is a scene near the beginning where the camera physically seems to pass through a table as the actors begin crowding around it. This was accomplished by physically moving the furniture in the scene quickly so the camera could pass by, then moving them back before they came into the frame. With George's digital backlot, he can do (and has been doing) the same thing in Attack of the Clones and The Phantom Menace. Unfortunately, too many people equate this over use of digital technology.

I believe it was Kevin Smith who mentioned that Star Wars makes Titanic look like a suspense thriller. He claims this because we already know what is going to happen to Anakin/Vader, the Emperor, etc. What he fails to notice is that within the first few minutes of Citizen Kane, Welles tells us EVERYTHING that is going to happen! A similar situation occurs in Jim Cameron's Titanic. This seems to be a reoccurring theme/technique with honored films.

George may not have intentionally wanted everyone to

 

Very interesting point of view and I find that you have put much thought into this. Maybe the Star Wars Prequals will one day get the credit they deserve.

 

Call me back in 50 years and I'll give you an answer to this question

 

What 1stAD said, but ANH was Lucas' "Citizen Kane" not AOTC, as much as I liked it.

CK also has a way stronger story and script. Sorry, gushers, but it does.

Also, 2001 is not really comparable because it is science fiction and SW really isn't.

And since this has come up, does the AFI use the original version of ANH or the SE? Just curious.

 

No offense, but all that was a load of Star Wars-obsessive bull, and I respectfully totally disagree.

I can see where you're coming from though, I had similar views 5 years ago. Fortunately, however, I grew up (at least interms of my appreciation of film). Yes, one can compare GL and Weles in terms of technical innovations, but its what you do with them that counts.

(Btw, 2 things: 2001 and starwars can't be compared: 2001 is Sci-Fi, Starwars is fantasy. In these respective fields they are the best. Also, when these critic lists vote for sarwars, they often mean it as a general term for the trilogy.)

 

This is a great post, Vonn! I have no trouble seeing future cinema historians citing the Prequel Trilogy, with its use of CGI to create scenes that would otherwise have been impossible or impractical (e.g. battle scenes involving thousands of combatants) and CGI characters that often, ironically, seem more real than their flesh and blood counterparts (e.g. Yoda versus Portman) as a landmark in the history of film. I think that with time, with the passing of the irrational criticisms of the moment, will come perspective and appreciation.

Of all the negative criticisms of AOTC, and a good many are legitimate, the most ludicrous is that we all know (at least in broad outline) how the story ends. Did Oliver Stone's Nixon receive this criticism? Did David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia? Did Franklin Schaffner's Patton? Uh, bartender, a round of common sense for these folks. I'm buying!


EDIT: "I can see where you're coming from though, I had similar views 5 years ago. Fortunately, however, I grew up. So will you." -SidiousDragon

According to your profile, you're 19 years old! Thanks for giving the rest of us that unique "adult" perspective that only a teenager can give. LOL!

 

Why isn't starwars a sci/fi movie?????

What's the definition of science fiction movies??

 

rsterling78,

Another shot at Portman? Geez.

Here, here. The "I already know how it ends" is absolutely the lamest thing that I've ever heard as a criticism.

EDIT: smauldookie,

I think that you (apologies if it wasn't) and I debated this exact same point in another thread awhile ago. I'll let someone else jump in.

It just isn't, so there.

 

but see the narrative structure of the star wars saga is not reveal the end first then tell the story. it is completley linear from the first episode to the last. there is simply no comparison on that level. just because the 4th 5th and 6th episodes were realeased first does not change the fact that the story starts at episode 1.

EDIT: my complaint is not that i already know how it ends, rather that lucas is giving away too much of the later story, and destroying the surprise of story elements that were clearly intended to be major revelations later in the series.

 

Nice Post.

George Lucas has always been one of the great visualists of cinema and he has always pushed the boundaries of what can be done in cinema in terms of technology. I Just wish he started getting the basic things right again like, plot, acting, script etc.

The original Star Wars is my favourite too. Definately his masterpiece, won't ever be topped. Stop tinkering with it! If ain't broke don't fix it!

Anyway, could AOTC be Citizen Kane? No. If like I said he got the basics right then maybe. That's why I am slightly dissapointed with the PT in that I think Lucas has so much more left in the tank. If only he would try a little harder. I still think he has it in him. Needs to forget about business and money and just concentrate on making a really good Episode III.

Here's hoping for Episode III!

 

smauldookie

Science Fiction=speculation upon future socio/scientific/economic/political matters, using contemporary knowledge. Also a means of commenting on the above themes, placed in fantastical situations to avoid the distractions of every day life.

None of that applies to Star wars. Its not in the future, there is no reference to any of these themes, since its not even set in our own galaxy. Its situations and characters are all typical of mythology. The only difference between Star Wars and LOTR, for example, is that its set in space.
George himself says its fantasy.

Anyway, enough of that matter. Back to Welles...

 

DrEvazan,

Your point really needs another thread but I'm assuming that you mean some plot points should remain more ambiguous to preserve OT surprise elements?

 

Could AOTC be Citizen Kane?

No.

 

Could AOTC be Citizen Kane?

Simply No. Never.

The closest could be ANH. has good acting,story and directing.

 

and another thing. there is NOTHING about GL's visual style that is groundbreaking. to compare the visual style of orson welles and george lucas on the same level is utterly ridiculous. please cite some examples of lucas usuing now or original scene composition or camera movement.

it could even be easily argued that his use of CG is not groudbreaking. he just uses it more. if orson welles had the same tools at his caommand he would still have found new and interesting ways to shoot & incorporate them, unlike lucas.

the special effects of ANH were simply more expansive uses of effects invented for 2001: a space oddysey, so i would have to say the real pioneer/groundbreakers in that area are kubrick and his effects crew.

 

"Your point really needs another thread but I'm assuming that you mean some plot points should remain more ambiguous to preserve OT surprise elements?"

indeed. i think its essential to the integrity of the saga as a whole to keep these story points ambiguous or completley hidden. the only reason i responded in this thread was because of suggestions that lucas's intention was the same as welles' with citizen kane re: narrative structure.

 

DrEvazan,

So what would you suggest so that Obi-Wan finds out that Anakin=Vader but the audience doesn't "find out" explicitly or should we just be left to assume that Obi-Wan finds out between III and IV?

And how the heck would you preserve the surprise of the twin revelation?

 

I agree with Evazan.

In fact, I'm withdrawing my previous comment that you could compare Welles' and Lucas' technogical innovations, since Lucas originally didn't care about what ILM was doing. According to Peter Biskind, he just wanted the effects over and done with for the smallest possible budget. It was Dykstra who used Star Wars as an excuse to develop motion control, which he had been working on for years. Lucas would have been happy doing it with models attached to brooms.

Most importantly, however, Lucas isn't a great director. He could've been, but he took the wrong path after ANH.

Btw...
"and Kane's visuals style is only surpassed by the Star Wars prequels"
Do you even realise what you're saying?????

 

Is that the same Dykstra that worked on Spider-Man?





[runs away, giggling like a schoolgirl]

 

Actually, I think Lucas really sucks as a film-maker as of this moment. He really has a lot of work cut out for him with Episode III if he is gonna restore his credibility again.

 

I agree. My opinion of the man who has it all has went down a few notches after the last two films. He used to be pretty brilliant, but he's losing that luster.

If anything, George Lucas IS becoming Citizen Kane, unfocused and increasingly out-of-touch as he ages, like Charles Foster Kane. HAHAHA. Funny.

 

Absolutely, anyone who has read Biskind's book, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", knows that it ends with Lucas, the only one of the movie brats to fulfill the dream of being independent from the studios, thinking of himself as a failure, trapped in his Xanadu-esque Skywalker Ranch and prevented from realising his potential as a director by the very film which gave him freedom in the first place.

Replace the words "Rosebud" by "director's cut of American Grafitti", and Lucas really IS Kane!

 

Absolutely, anyone who has read Biskind's book, "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls", knows that it ends with Lucas, the only one of the movie brats to fulfill the dream of being independent from the studios, thinking of himself as a failure, trapped in his Xanadu-esque Skywalker Ranch and prevented from realising his potential as a director by the very film which gave him freedom in the first place.

LOL. I love the analogy.

Replace the words "Rosebud" by "director's cut of American Grafitti", and Lucas really IS Kane!

 

Amazingly true. I MUST read that book.

 

"trapped in his Xanadu-esque Skywalker Ranch." What blatant stupidity on the part of Peter Biskind. That's the kind of phrase that sounds great in a book as a nice summing up, but has no connection to reality.

No one with that much freedom, money, and power is trapped by anything.