Lucas says Star Wars is a wakeup call
 

I found this article to be quite amusing. Its good that more and more people realize what's really going on. Maybe Star Wars can help with that, who knows.


Star Wars a cautionary tale about politics

Interesting.

I'd always assumed that it was more heavilly based on ancient Roman history - a senate being overpowered by an emperor.

I cna see the Nixon parallels, and the Bush issues as being "hot" for the liberal artistic establishment of California, but I think that it would be hard to find any society that couldn't point to a period in history where traditional freedoms of citizens were eroded in the interest of "national security" in a way that undermined personal liberties and enhanced despotism.

That said, I'd pay to see Newt Gingritch vs. Hillary Clinton with Lightsabers... :D

It's funny, I always saw the emperor as a Hitler type figure... The aesthetics of the empire are very sexy.

When the backstory was revealed I was even more convinced...

Umh, there are parallels to Hitler and Bush. The used scheme (Threats from the outside[...]) is not new. But it seems to function all the time, thats and when you see how quickly it sometimes happens is what makes it so scary.

"[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
(Herman Göring)

It seems to me that Lucas, while not wrong, has an overly simplistic view of how these things happen. I won't elaborate too much, as I anticipate this'll be a really long thread with that information given, but I will cite one point: economic factors.

Star Wars and Lucas don't ever focus on the issues of class separation and the poor. One of the reason people back these tyrants is because they feel the food on their table is in jeopardy. Put simply, these things don't happen by accident. If my kids are about to starve because I've lost my job to someone from another country, you'll be sure I'll back whoever will keep my child fed by limiting immigration.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that, and there are other options anyway. All I'm saying is that Lucas would like to think that these things happen without people noticing when in fact, people bring it about. They just don't notice how.

Yeah I knew this was coming.

Saw it last night on the news about how all the reporters over-reacted declaring this was his preaching against Bush. Well I hate to break it to yall but he had written/planned this movie back over 25 years ago.

You should really read the article because that is exactly what Lucas said.
However, the point is, that what happened back than seems to happen again. Thats why the movie, which was palnned long ago, seem to fit to todays events :

Are you sure: (re 25 yrs)

10 years ago, Lucas started to work seriously on the Script.
But parts of it are based on notices and stories he had written back then.

That seems like an overly simplistic view of why your kids are about to starve.
I think he's saying exactly that.

Look at meeeeeee! I'm on tee-veeeeeeeeee!

(This is my standard response when politicians, celebrities, or pretty much anyone else makes a controversial statement for the sake of publicity)

He does draw a correct parallel with history, and as simplistic as it is, compare Roman history and the corruption in government leading to its downfall and what the U.S. is going through right now.

That said, I'm looking forward to being a kid again and seeing all 6 movies in one sitting. This is still entertainment, quit reading crap into it!!!

While Lucas was most assuredly preaching to the converted abroad, many of his points are still valid. I definitely see more of the Bush-US/Roman Empire in the story than Hitler. I feel as though Hitler used more of the peoples dissatisfaction with the Treaty Versailles and their current downtrodden condition as a unifying force, while Bush is creating an atmosphere of panic about national security. In other words Hitler was seeking a rallying point over what had happened, and Bush is seeking one over what could happen.

I agree.

I am rather disappointed in him.

I thought he was above this sort of publicity stunt.

yes, it's funny how these ideas surface right when he is in france at a press junket.
i think that lucas promoting a movie like this is a wakeup call...if you want to make money, start preaching to the choir! it helps if you seem a little fed up with something or other. just make sure the choir has some disposable income.
hey, it worked for mel gibson and michael moore.

(idea for press in salt lake: empasize the biblical nature of film's battle b/w good and evil.)

Any good story speaks to it's audience in a way that appeals to them. People in the US are obsessed with their freedom and their pursuit of the American dream. Anything that APPEARS to threaten that is equivalent to Hitler, the Nazis, persecution, the inquisition, any powerful threat to the 'underdog'.

The Star Wars series has always had religious and political undertones that are somewhat subtle. That subtlety lends itself to personal interpretation.

The guy licensed Star Wars ring tones to Cingular. I'd hardly call this a significant means of seeking publicity in comparison. There are rather obvious political connotations to the entire Star Wars storyline - to presume they shouldn't be spoken of (or the speech and the man should be criticized) because from some perspectives those political connotations match up with actual political landscapes seems awfully like a desire for censorship.

I'm tired of people criticizing celebrities for vocalizing their politics. Particularly as it almost always breaks down to the critique of those celebrities who vocalize political viewpoints which differ from those making the critique.

I don't find Reagan to have been anything close a good President - but I don't begrudge him his roots which enabled him to achieve the presidency.

I guess, Manx, what I was trying to say, albeit unsuccessfully, is that Lucas was taking an oppurtunity to do the usual Bush/G.O.P. bashing when the reality is that the people vote them in. Real people around us who are sometimes our friends. Focusing the blame on the government takes the onus off of us, the population.

Lucas wouldn't dare disrespect his public... oh wait
:) :)

I understood you. What I'm saying is that he is blaming the people -

??

I don't see anyone asking for censorship and I myself am tired of this charge.

You are entitled to you opinion and I am entitled to mine, and mine happens to be that this is a publicity stunt.

And what Reagan has to do with this post is beyond me.

You may not see anyone asking for censorship, but that doesn't mean you aren't asking for censorship.

FYI - Reagan was a celebrity before he was Governor before he was President.

I also don't see that anyone could reasonably construe what I wrote as a call for censorship.

Lebell it is implied in your desire to see all celebrities, who appear to hold an opposing point of view, silenced...

It may not be your intetent but it's there (probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov).

"probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov"

Why are you trying to censor those peoples' opinions? Seriously, just as a celebrity has the "right" to express his/her pov, other's have the right to disagree? Or don't they?

Of course they do - but that's not the extent of what they are doing. They're actually criticizing the RIGHT of a celebrity of making a political statement - in Lebell's case by expressing his expectation that Lucas was "above" making political statements in the context of his films.

You can disagree with Lucas' political viewpoints all you want. You can even criticize Lucas for making political statements. But when you do the latter, you are seeking censorship - there are no two ways about it.

And I don't think for a second that I am suggesting Lebell stop what he is doing... I was simply pointing out how his opinion was coming across...

I just find it interesting that noone seems to get as upset when Republican Hollywood opens their mouths...



As for George... I'd like to find out the context in which he gave his answer. Like he gave an off the cuff answer to a question from the press... I highly doubt he was looking for publicity by being controversial... I mean think about it. Really. If anything, in today's climate, mouthing these sentiments is likely to hurt his box office rather than boost it...

As for what he said, it is no more scathing or deep or anything than what a high school student would put in his english essay: The Democractic Path to Dictatorship: Symbolism in Star Wars.

Nonsense.

I question his timing and I question why his opinion should be held in any higher esteem than anyone elses.

I don't question his right to speak it.

And yes, I thought he was above doing so.

Not even close.
To question his timing implies you know when and how often he expresses political opinions, that they are rare, and that this instance is somehow extraordinary for George Lucas. Personally, I have none of that information - nor do I expect you have it.
I haven't seen anyone hold his opinion higher than anyone else's. He is a celebrity however - so now you are stating that because the words of celebrities are reported, those words should not contain political speech.
You criticize him for doing it. You may not be in a position to prevent the man from speaking - but you are most certainly proclaiming his inferiority to yourself for speaking. You are attacking someone for making political statements. As such:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/248ipzbt.asp

You see, even if there are parallels and Bush IS moving us in the suggested direction, it may be better for everyone in the long run...

;)

Just a little humor for the thread.

I sincerely do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth and ascribing things to me that I have not said.

I have said what I meant to say and I reject all that you wish to place on my shoulders.

It seems that you have some issues you wish to transfer to me, but I don't want to play, so good day.

Excellent post, djtestudo.

"I found this article to be quite amusing. Its good that more and more people realize what's really going on. Maybe Star Wars can help with that, who knows."

Lucas hasn't made a good move since he fell ass-backwards into the greatest Hollywood contract fuckup ever. :)

(yes yes ILM is tha shit and a bank, but that would have ruined my one-liner)

I can't speak for Labell, but I fear my desire for stars to shut the fuck up, may be misconstrued as saying they should BE shut up. This isn't just when they make oppositional statements, but generally whenever their foodholes are open.

I work in the film industry, and it is the most souless, heartwrenching pile of shit on the planet. The star/title/series is the MOST marketable product of any film. That said, ANY press is good press; now, flame-seeking press is BETTER press. I have literally worked for stars who had to call me to get help figuring out how to board a goddamn plane by themselves. While their opinions aren't worth less than mine, they're certainly not worth more.

Even though I agree with the part about partisan bickering being the most useless shit of all time, I don't give a rat's about his opinion about it. I want George to give me empty, stupid stories, with lots of BADASS pretty pictures.

Lucas is a brilliant salesman, who happens to have an army of creative people who have garnered him millions. I too see it as a press grab.

On that note, We've all read "The Once and Future King" and all the other Jungian arch-myth stories out there. We could collectivly write our own SW by taking turns in a thread writing 10 lines at a time. :)

-tha fibba

I reject your denials that what you said is not precisely equivalent to the way I described it.

Loks like my analogy hit the nail on the head after all.

link

This is well put, and in my opinion, what the "discussion" between Manx and Lebell is really all about. It's semantics, really.

For a second, let's grant Manx that Lebell would have George Lucas censored. Does it have any bearing on reality if Lebell doesn't actually have any power to do so? Lebell isn't on the F.C.C. or anything like that, so does it really matter what he thinks? Is it worth discussing?

The following definition from the American Heritage Dictionary/dictionary.com seems to imply someone in an official position. Those are the people we should worry about censoring our public discourse.

cen·sor
n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

Aberkok -

I'm not stating that Lebell is censoring anyone - he doesn't have the power to censor George Lucas. Lebell's comments, however, are comments that encourage censorship. Lebell has 4 choices, as does anyone:

1- Ignore George Lucas
2- Agree with George Lucas
3- Disagree with George Lucas
4- Criticize George Lucas for speaking

The 4th choice is the only one that encourages censorship. Attacking someone for the very act of speaking. And although Lebell has been rather adamant in his denial, the reality is simply unequivocal.

Note that the third definition for censor is one that condemns.

As for fibber's comments that celebrities should all shut up - well, I can't really respond to that as it's simply unbelievable.

Do you guys seriously believe this is a publicity stunt?
Do you think some guy out there is going to stumble across this article and say "Hey, that 'Star Wars' movie sounds kinda cool. Thank God George Lucas decided to declare his hatred for Bush or I never would have heard about it."
Maybe I would buy that if it was Mark Hamil or Carrie Fisher saying these things, but not George Lucas. He doesn't need the attention.

Since you ask, yes I do. Because what Lucas is suggesting otherwise borders on the ridiculous.

And finally you have spoken against the content of his words as opposed to his act of speaking them. It's too bad you choose to spend a number of posts attacking him for speaking before you choose to remind us that you disagree with what he said.

It's probably not your intention to encourage censorship (then again, I don't know you), so it's a shame that you do.

As to the content of his words bordering on ridiculous - well, I can hardly agree. The political nature of Star Wars has been obvious since day 1 - a large and powerful ruling organization facing insurgency from a small band of righteous freedom fighters (aka terrorists). Ultimately, it's pulp fiction, but that fact doesn't mean the political message is non-existent or ridiculous.

I dont know, life tends to imitate art more than we think. Would we be having this discussion if the movie came out with Clinton in office?

Who can say.

I do know that it is human nature to pay more attention when it is things we disagree with than when it is things we agree with.

I also know that on one site that I used to spend time on, the right leaning there were hypersensitive to things that were said when Clinton was in office.

Well I don't remember seeing such effects-ladden commercials for McDonnell Douglass previous to the BushII presidency. Those commercials are certainly star wars influenced, wouldn't be surpised if they were ILM productions.


Maybe Darth Sideous is actually.... :lol:

Really.. Who the hell is George Lucas?

He made Star Wars, big deal. I think my neighbor had an absolutley ridiculious political opinion too, but it didn't make the news.

Who cares...

why on gods green earth would anyone as creative as george lucas want to ruin his legacy of brilliance on the big screen with politics?

Perhaps, as David Brin suggests, both The Empire and The Rebellion are evil, just flip sides of the same elitist-worshipping coin? Below is the first page of an essay by Brin about the lessons of the Empire. Follow the link; the whole article is well worth reading.

Link

I love Star Wars as space opera, but it falls apart as political rhetoric. Is it any wonder the best of the Star Wars movies is the one for which he didn't write or co-write the screeplay?

Gee someone in Hollywood would say something bad about G.W. at a festival which last year gave Moore the best picture award?

Thats unpossible!

No because it wasn't hip to protest Clinton's wars or use of force.

Everyone has opinions, viable or not. Lucas didn't ruin his legacy by making poor analogies or biased opinions. Lucas ruined his legacy with 3 shitty movies.

No one cares what Lucas has to say. Really.

I can never see Lucas without thinking of Jar Jar.

Which is also why I didn't spend any money on II or III, he still owes me back a ticket price for I.

He had an opportunity to speak. He spoke on what he felt was a parallel between the movie the people were there to see- not just at some random time- and the current political landscape. There are so many things to speak on, and he chose to relate his new movie to it's roots, which were politically motivated. Since he wrote the original series under the influence of politics, and then also the prequel series that has now, some ten years later, made its way onto the big screen, it seems very reasonable to me that he make reference to his ways of thinking and inspirations and how they are easily compared to our current political situation, so many years later.

I think his comments were fine, based on the fact that this story was always a tale rooted in politics. He is simply pointing out that things are similar in some respects to the ways and reasons he originally wrote the story, well before any of this was happening.

I would only say he was doing this for publicity if he made such comments at every press conference, or any public speaking engagement. As of now, i'm unaware of other occasions where such parallels and comments were made.

Well see, Star Wars is an archetypal story, and you can pretty much apply any of what happens to the real world. Hell, I remember one of my friend's saying that Episode One was about the United States' Israel Policy. With archetypes, I think it's rather erroneous to try and limit them to analogy, applicability, yes. To me, when you start in with analogy, you're automatically limiting yourself as a writer, and while the writing of George Lucas isn't that great, I don't think it's limited by analogy. A couple of reasons, Episode I was written during the Clinton administration and we all knew that Palpatine had to gain power of the Senate and dissolve it because we all knew he was the Emperor. So obviously he's going to go along in the vein of writers and history before him (Orwell, Shakespeare, rise and fall of Roman Empire, Hitler, etc.) to use as examples and waypoints to write and frame his story. While I do disagree with George Lucas and I find his line written for Obi-Wan "Only the Sith believe in absolutes," to be tasteless (because the Jedi have to believe in absolutes as well, because each act that's evil leads them down a path that few have been redeemed from, so in my mind, that line makes no sense whatsoever) to say that he had President Bush in mind when he began the story is jumping to some conclusions a little bit. Yes, subtle script lines like the ones mentioned above may have been intended as a way to take a jab at the President, but I think that's an irrelevant point going back to again, the overall story. Lucas is able to make that comment because of the applicability of archetypes to pretty much anything. Was it for publicity? Maybe, but how much more publicity does Star Wars really need? Honestly, I just saw on G4 TV two commercials, one for Episode III and then one for Star Wars Galaxies, back to back. Secondly, the reporter may have picked up on the applications and asked Lucas about it, thus giving us this article.

Lucas' liberal politics have influenced Star Wars in at least a few ways already: He has already told us that the Nemoidian leaders of the Trade Federation are named Nute Gunray and Lott Dod for Senators Trent Lott (R-MS), Chris Dodd (D-CT), Newt Gingrich and Ronald Reagan (re-arranged to Gunray). 3 Republicans and one of the more conservative Democrats.

But I don't think Ep. 3 is anti-Bush. If 9/11 had never happened, we'd still have Ep. 3 and it would be the same movie. We just wouldn't be seeing Bush in it, we'd see more Hitler or Mussolini.

-Mikey

I love it when people say the "stars" should shut up.... yet then start quoting Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Coulter, Nugent or whomever the star for the GOP happens to be now.

And yes, all those mentioned have 1 thing that every other star (Sarandon, Lucas, Streisand, etc.) have in common the need to sell product. And if it takes outrageous things to say they will deem it necessary to in order to get press (or in some cases create press).

If you tell me the stars on the left need to shut up... then you must accept me telling you the stars on the right must shut up.

In my opinion, they have as much right to speak as anybody and if they have the audience that listens it is because of their hard work and the respect they have commanded. NOONE has any right to tell anyone else to shut up, threaten or belittle another's right to speak. You can dismiss what they say, argue facts or ignore them.... but they have as much right to speak and to use their celebrity in any way they want. If people don't like what they say, then those people stop buying the product and they may go away or be quiet. But to tell, insinuate, or threaten people to shut up because they may have an audience and YOU don't like what they say.......is truly un-American and against everything I believe in.

I may not like what a person says or believes, but I have proven (by my enlistment in the Navy) I am willing to lay my life on the line for their right to say it.

You have it exactly right. Everyone has the right to use their political position or fame to speak their mind. Taking this away from someone would be very un-American.

I never understood why Hollywood gets attacked when it goes political, yet the right does the same thing with their prominent people.

The worst opponent in an informal debate is an intelligent person with a set of beliefs....this person cannot express THEMSELF or comment on topics/facts.

With that being said...the movie had an erie (spelling?) resemblence to where the USA is today. A leader who is not who you thought he/she is/was.
Better yet a leader who may not have his/her supporters in mind rather alternative incentives and motives.

Don't discredit Lucas...why? If that was the case we would have to discredit the Smirkster everytime he speaks.

Left: Charlie Chaplin, Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra, Matt Damon, Martin Sheen, Barbra Streisand and so on.

Right: Douglas Fairbanks, Charlton Heston, Bing Crosby, Drew Carey, Bruce Willis, Ah-nold, Mel Gibson, Demi Moore and so on

The list of "star right is just as prominent as that on the left and just as long. Hollywood and the media has always been diverse and at odds with government and why would this be? Creativity is spawned partially by rebelliousness and speaking out against what the artists find wrong in society. Hence, the arts and artists will always be attacked by someone (no matter what side the artist maybe or what the point of the art truly is).