Lucas and auteur theory

I saw this in another thread, and I thought it deserved some consideration:

Quote:
""Everyone says they're HIS films but, Empire and Jedi were directed and written by other people."

Reply:
"And other people acted in them. And made the costumes. And developed the film. So, what's your point? That an artist's work is not his own if other people contribute their services for money?"

------------------------------

Now, this is an interesting point. Lots of people claim that George Lucas is the single guiding vision behind Star Wars. Unfortunately, if you've done any sort of film studies course, you'll know that this isn't viable. Auteur theory (the idea that the director takes sole credit for the film and is directly responisble for all creative decisions made) has been widely discredited. It's pretty much universally acknowledged nowadays that the director is influenced by myriad decisions and ideas that didn't originate with him - the classic example is that the pioneering cinematography in Citizen Kane isn't actually the work of Orson Welles at all, but his Director of Cinematography, Gregg Toland.

If you want an example of this in Star Wars, take a look at any one of those making of videos, where Lucas is touring the art department; when he rubber-stamps an idea an artist has had, he didn't come up with the idea himself. Christ, he had almost nothing to do with the creation of General Greivous; he just said "make me a bad guy" to the art-slaves, and they came up with all the ideas...

Anyway, the point is that the director isn't a single visionary, transmitting his vision for the film directly onto celluloid. He's the captain of a very large, very unwieldy ship, pointing it in vaguely the right direction, but trusting in the work of others to get it to roughly the right destination.

Just something to bear in mind when you're talking about the Sacred George Lucas Whose Words Are Law.

SG

DamonD edit : Gotta lock it since it's not specifically about the OT.

 

I know, Lucas stinks. He's a fraud! Let's overtake the ranch and rule it ourselves, after all, they're our movies right? Lucas didn't do anything, he wouldn't be anywhere without us, the fans!

 

"the idea that the director takes sole credit for the film and is directly responisble for all creative decisions made"...this idea, while refuted, is still used nowadays, but only for some directors, not everyone. Auteurism in its original form (as you know) was a misreading by Sarris re the "politique des auteurs" from the New Wave, but later, with Auteur-structuralism, it was made into a more formal theory. The basic point is this. There is no "Grand Unification Theory" for film. This is why we have Film Theories using auteurism, semiotics, audience, reception, queer, cognitive, psychological, post-colonialist, etc, etc, etc. IF we choose to use auteurism to validate Lucas as an auteur, it is very easy to prove that even though hundreds of people come up with ideas it is him who decides what represents his vision of the universe, therefore his signature, his style remains regardless of the "noise" (an auteur-structuralist term) created by others who may/may not have influence over him. In the same token, you can use Postcolonialist theory to prove that ANH is a pro Republican, anti-democratic text, basically an indictment against big government (The Empire)...then an auteurist can say "but this theme is also present in THX1138, so this proves Lucas is an auteur, who uses recurrent themes, etc...the debate can go on forever, and this is why the current state of Film Theory is a mess, with scholars fighting each other over what works and what does not, over what theory is comprehensive enough to include sound design, or animation. Hell, I could create my own Film Theory proving that since CGI is a new technology, it deserves its own subtheory to be represented and analyzed properly, perhaps as a sub-branch of animation. The whole argument boils down to this: Lucas can be an auteur, like Kubrick, or not, depending on who is making the argument and how strong their rethoric is. For the record, I do think that some directors should be classified as "auteurs", like Kubrick starting with 2001...but then again, I'm a formalist, so I am biased towards a visual director...

 

Compare George's earlier work with the later train wrecks. Scenes now go on for too long. The action jumps around to much without out proper motivation.
The reason he hasn't directed a good film since "A New Hope" and "American Graffiti" is simple to me.

Marcia Lucas. his now ex-wife.

I'm sure his wife was able to get through to him make him see the obvious much better than a hired editor that doesn't want to make waves and keep their job.
She edited his earlier two films while they were together. She also pieced together the W.W.II airiel dog fight footage that would serve as the pacing for the death star battle.
Her other films were "Taxi Driver", "Alice doesn't Live here Anymore", and "The Candidate".

Also whatever happen to her career.? She hasn't done anything since "Star Wars". I wonder.......

 

Of course he had creative help, but what makes it his vision is the fact that it was up to him which ideas to keep and which ideas to throw away.

At the end of the day, the concept and storyline are basically Lucas's, and then he has other people help him flesh out some of the details.

Of course it took a creative village, but that village was being run by Lucas.

 

Also George had a tighter budget on those early films and that also helped keep him in check. Now the sky is the limit and he focuses way to much on the effects rather than a tight story and character chemistry.

 

So, who gets credit for filling out the metal bikini?

 

If you ask me, Lucas is the one focusing on the story, and it's the people who say he isn't focusing on the story who are the ones who focus on the effects at the expense of the story.

 

Cheers for that well thought through reply zeva - it is nice to hear from someone who is interested in movies on a somewhat more advanced level.

I myself am also studying movie theory, and I am very intersted in the cognitive approach since my professor has been part of advancing this approach to film theory exstensively throughout recent years. I agree that discussing auteur-theory usually means opening up a polemic can of worms, yet it is also very interesting to hear how others regard the influence a director has on a given production.

I believe that only a very small number of directors can be labeled as true auteurs, and that the only way of distinguishing these people is to take numerous factors into account, including every film in their respective ouvre and not just some of say Kubricks films.

 

"I believe that only a very small number of directors can be labeled as true auteurs, and that the only way of distinguishing these people is to take numerous factors into account, including every film in their respective ouvre and not just some of say Kubricks films" This is exactly one of the problems that auteurism encountered; that it was able to create very consistent auteur-structures for every director, even though those directors themselves disowned (Kubrick and Spartacus, and pretty much all of his work before Paths of Glory) or disavowed (Ford and the "meaning" behind his compositions, themes, etc.) the findings of these auteur-structures. To work, auteurism must include every film, even works that are not representative of the director's ideology, making the theory inherently unsound. Nowadays, auteurism is implicit in the way people write about directors and even in the way directors negotiate their credit on film ("a film by...") even though as a scholarly theory it is only a historical landmark. Of course this does not even scratch the surface of debates regarding "written and directed by" directors, influences by marketing strategies to sell products by name recognition ("Steven Spielberg presents...") etc.

 

Of course he had creative help, but what makes it his vision is the fact that it was up to him which ideas to keep and which ideas to throw away.

Veto power is not the same as creation.

Nowadays, auteurism is implicit in the way people write about directors and even in the way directors negotiate their credit on film ("a film by...")

The height of directorial pretention. That possessive credit should have been abandoned long ago. Directing a movie is not the sole creative job in the same way that writing a book is. There are jobs that go into creating a movie, so many that it's nearly impossible to compare filmmaking to any other "solitary" art.

In response to the first reply, no one is calling Lucas a fraud. What I was putting forward when I started that thread, was the idea that what Lucas wants is not the only important factor in these films. Having made the films doesn't only give Lucas the alleged right to tinker with them ad infinitum. It gives him a responsibility towards his fellow collaborators, and towards his audience. Whether he admits it or not, the audience is an essential part of the process. They're not just those lucky people who get to are fortunate enough to watch a director's self-gratification for $8 a show; they are the people for whom movies are made.

What Sarris translated wrongly was simply the name. In french, it literally meant "author policy," and single-authorship is far too solitary to be applied to a collaborative medium.

BTW, thanks for resurrecting this topic.

 

"Whether he admits it or not, the audience is an essential part of the process."

Am I considered part of the audience? Cool. I say, I like what George is doing and I hope he keeps up the good work. Glad to be part of the process.


"they are the people for whom movies are made. "

The creator decides whom he makes his work for. He's not a slave. Then, the audience gets to decide to partake in the work or not. Freedom of expression and freedom of choice all rolled into one. And I'm in favor of both. So, drinks all around.

 

All I can say is that, as an aspiring director, I would be pissed if someone decided 20 or so years after I'd directed a film that because the story was his idea (even though he didn't write the screenplay), he wants to change things. For the worse. Like making the hero scream pathetically in a moment of calm triumph. Or inserting stupid dance sequences.

-sj loves kevin spacey

 

All I can say is that, as an aspiring director, I would be pissed if someone decided 20 or so years after I'd directed a film that because the story was his idea (even though he didn't write the screenplay), he wants to change things. For the worse. Like making the hero scream pathetically in a moment of calm triumph. Or inserting stupid dance sequences.

Whilst Marquand is unable to comment on the changes to the film, I believe that Kershner was at least consulted for the changes in ESB:SE. Now, whether that was just an empty gesture so that he'd be onside for interviews I don't know; I'm not sure if he would have been able to stop the changes being added if he didn't like them.

This discussion of film theory is fascinating. I only have a passing knowledge of such things through personal interest in films. I would imagine that true auterism is difficult for large scale films because of the scale and complexity. Kubrick was rather unique in that studio's gave him such free reign and control to do as he pleased that he had the opportunity to have total control.

Following on from this GL has the chance to be auteristic of the PT because it is his company and he's directing the films. One of the trends I noticed in the making of documentaries for the PT so far is that GL really does have complete say. Yes other people are working for him and generating ideas, but he can still go through and say "change that" or "that doesn't fit my idea".

The OT on the other hand, was not just his creation. There was a lot more input from other people in all areas of production. A biography I have of him suggests that he didn't like the way ESB was going at one point, and tried to "save it" by re-editing it, but the result was not as good as what had been done so far, so his changes were ignored. This biography also suggests that one of the reasons Gary Kurtz was replaced as producer by Howard Kasanjian and Richard Marquand brought in as director was because they were more willing to let GL have his way.

Obviously this biography shouldn't be taken as fact necessarily, but I did find it interesting reading. For GL to be considered a true autuer I think we need to see what he does after star wars. If he creates a whole new idea as opposed to expanding on a 30 year old one that has become a part of modern culture, then it will be interesting to see how much control and influence he uses on the film.

 

"What Sarris translated wrongly was simply the name. In french, it literally meant "author policy," and single-authorship is far too solitary to be applied to a collaborative medium."

ehem..that was the entire point of my commentary, that it is pointless to bicker on the extent of the validity of auteurism as "theory" per se. It is possible to coherently argue against it and for it, as it has been done for the past 42 years...your comment is like saying "God does not exist" to a Christian, or for a Christian to say "God exists" to an atheist. There is not point discussing whether Lucas is an auteur or not.

 

This thread is about Lucas, not specifically the OT alone. It doesn't belong here...try reposting it in SWC or Saga instead for further discussion.