Theories of Criticism and the Star Wars Saga

i would agree that it is the case in most films but star wars is a different case to the majority. its story is certainly a singular vision of one man first and foremost, no different to a writer and his novel. how that story gets on screen is a collaborative effort, yes, but that effort is dictated solely by lucas himself, and when it comes to interpretation of that story he is perfectly entitled to use the auteur theory as far as i can see. its neither a case of him outranking the audience or vice versa. now what was that wonderful lex luthor quote "Some people can read War and Peace and come away thinking it was a simple adventure story. Others can read the ingredients on a chewing gum wrapper and unlock the secrets of the universe."

 

Star Wars fits quite well with the majority. Putting it on screen was a collaboration. Threepio is definitely not Lucas's solitary vision of what the character was supposed to have been--it is Anthony Daniels's interpretation of the character, forged by Lucas's lack of specific direction. The characters you see on screen are the result of the personality that Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford and Carrie Fisher brought to those parts. Obi-Wan Kenobi, as we know and love him, is as much Guinness's creation as Lucas's. They brought the characters to life and lifted them from the pages. The worlds on which it takes place were not solely dreamt up by Lucas. They were heavily based on what had already been done on film, and the visuals are the result of Ralph McQuarrie being allowed to let his imagination run wild. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are even more collaborative. With only a vague outline by Lucas, and conferences with Kirshner and Marquand, and contributions of his own, Lawrence Kasdan turned it into workable screenplays. These contributions were not merely the colors on Lucas's palate; they were creative output from other artists with ideas of their own. Their work on the film makes it more than simply Lucas's singular vision.

Also, once the work is done, Lucas's intent really stops working on the films. Three films came out that were firmly about Luke, and a decade later Lucas decided they were really about Anakin. Lucas may have changed his mind, but the reality of what's on film didn't change with it.

It could also be argued that the films have suffered from Lucas's auteurist thinking. First he showed us a scene in which Han shoots Greedo, and everyone thought Han was bad@$$. Then Lucas decided that because Greedo didn't shoot first, that made Han a murderer. That, combined with how much everyone liked Han, suddenly made Han a cool murderer--and therefore the scene had to be corrected. The "author's intent" doesn't really work here. His belief that Han shooting first makes him a murderer doesn't make it so. That scene has a life beyond what Lucas claims he intended for it.

 

[image=http://thewrongadvices.com/wp-content/han-shot-first.jpg]

 

yes but these are details within the overall story - a story which is the singular vision of one man. when interpretation is called into question, lucas can claim the auteur theory - on issues like midichlorians and anything else that is deemed controversial within his own world. what c3-p0 and han do in the overall story (c3-p0 as one character of a double act influenced by the hidden fortress) do not change over the collaborative issues that influence how they should look or speak. c3-p0, whether he was a used car salesman or english butler would still have gone from a-z in the film with no more or less deviation either way. and that joureny and function within the story was still lucas' orginal vision.

im sure if tolkien had been alive and been a film director today he would have taken it upon himself to make the lord of the rings films and have them be a collaborative venture. but in the end, the interpretation and analysis of his story from said films would still give him the same auteur scope as the books did.

 

Glad to see this discussion taking off.
I just want to clarify one point, and that is this discussion is about theories of criticism and interpretation, not "film history". Every film, like a musical performance, is a collaborative endeavor, and no one can deny this. Criticism of art, literature and film is about meaning and interpretation, not the acts of composition. What is the fundamental point here is whether or not an author's intent (in meaning and interpretation) can ever be known at all, even by said author. When Lucas says something is the right meaning, and what he always intended, we can argue about whether of not this matters. If we agree with the notion of "auterism" than we give primacy to the author's stated interpretation; if we accept "intentional fallacy" than the only keys to interpretation are contained in the films themselves and any interpretation consistant with the evidence contained within them is equally valid. The discussions in Zombie's great thread are an example of a debate of film history more than film criticism. This thread was intended to investigate interpreation and criticism only. If we accept the fallacy argument it is completely immaterial whether Lucas is telling the truth, misremembering or even lying about how and when the story came together; all that matters are the films. If we accept "auterism" the difference between criticism and film history, as told by Lucas, becomes much vaguer. I hope this makes sense!

 

But the story itself can also change due to the influence of other creative people. Just by looking at the various drafts of the first film the story change quite a bit. Now if this was just due to Lucas changing his mind or feedback or ideas from others is hard to say. Even after ANH the story was in flux, Lucas discussed things with Brackett and later with Kasdan. It is quite possible that they came up with ideas and suggestions that Lucas might not have thought of himself. Then we have outside influences like other films or books. Lucas might have seen a movie or read a book and liked aspects of them and decided to use them in his story.

Films, by their very nature is a very collaborative medium. Who knows, if Ralph McQuarie had not given Vader his mask then the whole issue with Vader being a walking iron lung might never have come up.

Regards
Nordom

 

D_arblay, Google "tolkien sold film rights taxes".

 

Except in the case of Star Wars, Lucas did not have the whole saga written out years before making the movies, unlike the situation with LOTR, where Tolkien DID have the whole story written as books before the movies were even made.

 

yes but these are details within the overall story - a story which is the singular vision of one man. when interpretation is called into question, lucas can claim the auteur theory

You're conflating a film with only the story it tells. Unlike, say, a written story, a film does not simply pass from a writer's pen to the silver screen. With a writer like, say, King or Rowling, the only thing standing between the writer and the audience is the editor. Other than that, every detail is one person's creation. A film is MORE than just the story being told, MORE than a singular philosophy. It is an irrevocably collaborative process. No one can claim to be the singular author of a film, even the person who dreamed up the story. While he may have come up with the germ of the idea, it didn't take life until several others became involved in a quite substantial way.

A book only has an author. A film has a screenwriter, a director, a producer, art directors, actors, composers--all of whom shape the final product. It is more than just the story one person dreamed up. Films have no singular author, thus knocking out the foundation of the analogy and the auteur theory itself. There's no comparison between a singular art form and a collaborative one.

It is also overstepping one's bounds for the makers of a film to insist on what everything "means," aside from what is self-explanatory. What he puts into it is his business, what we get out of it is ours. In the case of Star Wars, Lucas (or his adherents) will tell us in exactly what manner the prequels change the meaning of the originals--that the first trilogy, while originally about Luke, has been retroactively changed to the story of Anakin's redemption. We filmviewers need hardly be bound by his assertions, especially as inconsistent as they are. He set out to put Luke through the traditional "hero's journey." In the event, that involved dealing with Vader as his father, whose history was only roughly sketched out. That he ultimately decided to commit that backstory to film doesn't bind us all in lockstep to his attempts to rewrite the original films in the process, or new plot elements introduced in a desperate attempt to establish the new films' relevance. (Ex: Chosen One Prophecy, midichlorians, Jango Fett).

"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect is presence. I much prefer history, true or feigned, with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse "applicability" with "allegory;" but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposeful domination of the author."

 

It seems mathematically difficult to me for a consumer to assign "allegory" to LOTR when Tolkien says things like above. "Applicable", obviously, but there is a finer gradation. A consumer cannot prove "allegory", as that requires, by definition, authorial intention. But the relationship between LOTR and WWII need only be "analogous". It can have correspondences that are accidental in that they do not intend to mean anything, but are laid out as a 'what if' scenario for comparison, but not, not, to instruct didactically (here I think Narnia). It's far safer for a consumer to assert that LOTR is "analogous" to WWII than to assert it is "allegory". But it is not necessary to surrender all perception of correspondence jut to appease the claims of the author.

This comparison between Lucas and Tolkien is interesting, because Lucas is claiming something that is not to the satisfaction of qualified consumers magnetically sealed in his text, whereas Tolkien is denying something that many qualified consumers suspect is actually in his text.

 

Midichlorians were not introduced by the PT in any kind of desperate attempt. They are simply a different name for the genetic link in Force sensitivity that had already been put on display in ROTJ. As Jedi Search demonstrated even before the PT, the story eventually progresses to the point where the means of selecting new Jedi candidates will be shown. This makes something analogous to midichlorian count inevitable.

 

^ It took me a little while to get used to the idea of Midichlorians, but this is totally right.

"The Force is strong in my family..."

 

So, which is it?

To my mind, the "auteur" theory does not live or die based purely on the idea that film is a collaborative medium. Film is collaborative, absolutely, unavoidably and fundamentally so, but I see a difference between ascribing every last detail to a single person (a fallacious position if ever there was one) and defining a single person as the architect or orchestrator. It's the difference between granting auteur theory a status it can't meet and one it can; exclusivity versus primacy.

In my opinion, the reason that this topic was dreamed up was not to discuss the loose trimmings draped over the surface, but as a piece of subterfuge designed as another way to hammer Lucas and argue that SW succeeded in spite of him, and that fans can intellectually satiate this emotional belief with a thin piece of mental trickery -- i.e. by arguing that the auteur theory is pointless (achieved through strawmen and clandestine snipes at people that do find it valuable), and that, since a false dichotomy has been created (auteur theory vs intentional fallacy), one must choose the intentional fallacy by process of elimination; and since the auteur theory is clearly absurd (according to the rigged descriptions given about it), anyone of sane mind and body must choose the intentional fallacy, thus starting a slippery slope towards justifying anything one sees or doesn't see in the saga, whether it be bad characters, bad dialogue, bad plotting or racist stereotypes.

Here is my own position, as alluded to above: I believe in the auteur theory. I also believe in the intentional fallacy. They are not mutually exclusive.

Not entirely. Art is personal, but considering and respecting what the creator was striving for is necessary to appreciate what was or wasn't attained, and what the creator thinks about the world, which enriches a given work of art a hundred fold -- and allows you, in a sense, to touch the heart and mind of the artist, because you see *behind* the art, which is, ultimately, just a signifier, nothing more. It is possible to dislike, or dissent from, what the creator did, and any given individual will invariably have their own thoughts and feelings out of sync with another human being, but as Go-M

 

"Not only are artworks allegories, they are the catastrophic fulfillment of allegories."--Theodor W. Adorno.

Representational art is necessarily allegorical. To not attempt to reveal hidden meaning is to romanticize superficiality. If something clearly emerges from the logicality of a work, odds are it was intended.

 

"In my opinion, the reason that this topic was dreamed up was not to discuss the loose trimmings draped over the surface, but as a piece of subterfuge designed as another way to hammer Lucas and argue that SW succeeded in spite of him, and that fans can intellectually satiate this emotional belief with a thin piece of mental trickery -- i.e. by arguing that the auteur theory is pointless (achieved through strawmen and clandestine snipes at people that do find it valuable), and that, since a false dichotomy has been created (auteur theory vs intentional fallacy), one must choose the intentional fallacy by process of elimination; and since the auteur theory is clearly absurd (according to the rigged descriptions given about it), anyone of sane mind and body must choose the intentional fallacy, thus starting a slippery slope towards justifying anything one sees or doesn't see in the saga, whether it be bad characters, bad dialogue, bad plotting or racist stereotypes.
"

Wow! I haven't been psycho-analyzed by Cryo in some time! Here he is clearly engaging in intentional fallacy, as he feels he knows my intentions better than I do. Touchee. As for auteur theory and intentional fallacy being at loggerheads, they are. Intention is either perceived as being knowable and relavant or it isn't. Works can either be evaluated based on evidence contained within in them or they cannot. Discuss the topic Cryo, not my intentions, as I am afraid my thoughts on the matter are beyond your comprehension. I clearly introduced this topic to gain an understanding as to how so many intelligent people here can feel how they do. All of my post have been polite, so please discuss the subject and not my motivations. I am always interested in how people who disagree with me get to their conclusions, as it allows me to learn, rather than to surround myself by those who do agree with me and learn nothing.

 

This is a good discussion, so let's please keep this about the posts and not the posters

 

It could also be argued that the films have suffered from Lucas's auteurist thinking. First he showed us a scene in which Han shoots Greedo, and everyone thought Han was bad@$$. Then Lucas decided that because Greedo didn't shoot first, that made Han a murderer. That, combined with how much everyone liked Han, suddenly made Han a cool murderer--and therefore the scene had to be corrected. The "author's intent" doesn't really work here. His belief that Han shooting first makes him a murderer doesn't make it so. That scene has a life beyond what Lucas claims he intended for it.


That depends upon the individuals' point of view. I'm sure that most STAR WARS fans would agree with you. But I was never that impressed by the Greedo scene, so it didn't bother me that Lucas had changed it. And it was his perogative, anyway.

 

Han was never a cold-blooded killer. In the original incarnation of the scene, it is made clear in the subtitled conversation between Greedo and Han that Greedo intended to kill Han.

Han really had no other choice at that point but to defend himself.

The trouble is that so many people either didn't read the subtitles or didn't understand the predicament Han was in, and assumed he was a cold-blooded killer.

That's why Lucas wanted to clarify the situation by having Greedo shoot first.

 

So it's basically the '...for Dummies' version of the story?

Ohhhh, THAT's what they mean by 'Special' Edition...

 

You catch on pretty quick.

 

This is shrewd, Gomer. I'd push this further to say that the grounding or familiarity with Westerns and their tropes of the competent loner in 1977 had been red-shifted or stretched noticeably bit by 1997 (It is horrible to think that that interval was only twenty years, and now we are past one half of that interval!!!). By no means do I agree with his recalibration, but I can see where he might want to. The 'West', in global terms, has come so far from Manifest Destiny, "White Man's Burden", and is in a Post-Colonial phase where we have to take stock of the damage that Marborrow Man caused during his reign (I hear China can sink an aircraft carrier in a split second). Much gnashing of teeth to go round, much fretting over milk spilled in the American myth.

 

This is rife with complication. Unintended consequences or results are in ordinary parlance called "accidents". A qualified creator may, during the stellar shock wave produced by the collapse of a critical mass of inspiration, push out such a flux of intention-guided genius that unintentional or accidental genius is swept out in addition, but without a legible baggage label. The trouble is in deciphering, discerning, discriminating, delineating WHICH of the agreed upon elements that can be perceived as genius WERE actually the author's OWN unintentional genius. It is possible that accidents - of correspondence, of resonance, of epiphany, of proportion, of harmony - occur without the central author's genius but are due to the Cygnus X-1 accretion maelstrom of talent he has swept up around himself. It is hasty to reactively assign every element of genius to the author alone. No genius is an island. There is safety in numbers when it comes to apportioning out credit for this or that unvalidated item of 'accidental genius'.

 

Once more, in English please.

 

Lone-wolf exponents who think they spot a bit of unclaimed, unnoticed, undocumented genius are well advised to calmly consult with other qualified observers and double-check if there is sufficient separately-verifiable consensus in order to claim discovery of a real phenomenon, a real bit of signal rather than chaotic noise. That's at least how they roll in physics, which builds your airplanes.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair