Post by jollyreaper on Jun 1, 2005 17:48:32 GMT -5
This was originally emailed to Kristen but she recommended I post it here instead.
I'm astounded at how Lucas was able to put this thing together. I've been reading through the script collection, from the original cheesy drafts of Adventures of the Starkiller up to the Alan Dean Foster novelization of the first film. It's incredible how he could just string together a poorly-written pastiche of fantasy, sci-fi, and adventure and suddenly have it turn into gold when put into film. Really, the true credit Lucas can take for the effort is that he brought everyone together and got the project started. After that point, the people truly responsible for the magic are listed in the credits after the films. Would this have been a childhood obsession for anyone if the mechanical designs sucked, if the sound engineering hadn't been so distinctive, if the music was bland and insipid, if the actors weren't instantly likable?
I think Lucas' problem is that he started to believe his own hype. He started out saying he was just trying to make an homage to adventure serials like Flash Gordon. Only later did he go on about how this is supposed to be Myth on a Grand Scale and how it's the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall and redemption and always has been. Bull hockey! Look at the early drafts of the script! Vader wasn't even a Sith in the first draft and the Sithy character was nothing like Vader. The whole "I am your father" thing was invented during the writing of the second film and the brother-sister thing was invented in the third. It all works when you don't look at it too closely but it falls apart under close scrutiny. It's forgivable for most authors -- usually all these contradictions, plot holes and unforseen changes in direction will happen during the first draft of a story. That's why it's called the first draft! The rewrites are for filling in holes, strengthening themes, and reenforcing the integrity of the story. Since film is such a malleable artform, the story is never really set in stone until after the finished film has been cut together and hits the theater. Lando Calarissian and the Millenium Falcon were originally destroyed when the second Death Star exploded but that tested poorly so voila, he's still alive. Because of this, you can honestly say that the first draft of Star Wars wasn't complete until Jedi hit theaters. Is it any wonder, then, that those holes exist? Looked at from a logical point of view, the backstory created for the new trilogy doesn't hold up. We're to believe that Darth Vader's son, born in secret and hidden from him, is allowed to keep his family name?! That he's "hidden" with Vader's own half-brother?! The Jedi robes were based on Kenobi's outfit for visual continuity in the same way that Padme wore an outfit similar to Leia in Episode II and Kenobi wore a Luke-style outfit in Episode III. But upon reflection, this is ridiculous! If those robes were the Jedi uniform and the Empire is anihillating all Jedi, would he really be wearing that outfit when in "hiding"? That would be like an Orthodox Jew wearing the full black outfit with beard and curly locks and trying to hide out in Germany in WWII!!!
Anyway, I love the analysis you put into this, digging down to the real influences for Star Wars. Personally, I disagree with the sort of metaphysical side of the Archetype argument. I do agree with the concept but when it is explained more from the perspective that certain themes have strong resonance with human beings based upon shared experiences rather than there being some sort of group subconscious or deep programming hidden in our psyches. For example, everyone has a father. Now sometimes the father is good, sometimes he is abscent. Even orphans who never knew their fathers will wonder what he was like, how things would have been different. It's a truly human feeling. Thus, father themes in stories have immense power. For myself, the whole fall/redemption theme was very personal. My dad was an alcoholic and my parents divorced when I was seven. My mom would tell me about how he used to be, "the man I married." I'd see the pictures of him when he looked normal. The man I grew up knowing looked nothing like that. He was a 6'3" biker dude with a long-ass beard, tattooes and a "thou shalt not f**k with me" disposition. He was tempted by the Dark Side of the Booze. The Vader parallels were so strong they just about knocked me out. Since he took me to see Jedi in the theaters, that really made a strong impact.
I think that most of the other aspects of archetype fit this sort of pattern. The story of growing from childhood to adulthood is always a theme that resonates with people. The pivotal time of change, becoming a man, that's a tale that boys will read with anticipation and adults will read with nostalgia. Mentor figures are always respected and are necessary for guidance on the path. Parents, grandparents, elder friends of the family, that role is a part of the human experience. It's only natural for wise old sages to be a part of the storytelling vernacular. Same goes for the power of romance and sex.
What I think becomes a bit slavish is when writers decide to follow the mythic model to the T. Just because those themes are powerful doesn't mean that they should be shamelessly aped. I think it's important for basic themes to be reinterpreted into the language of the times. I agree with the idea that technology becomes the plausible magic to replace the faerie dust of yesterday's tales. But at the same time, our increased knowledge of science and philosophy not only dispells the old magic, it also dispells the old gods. The old myths talk about mankind approaching the divine, attaining the example set forth by the gods. Christians in particular talk about how the world is flawed and that the true believer seeks the path of holiness that comes from contemplating things of heaven, not of this world. The world is seen as the corrupter, the kingdom of Satan. Lovecraft was the first to tell horror from the post-Christian perspective, removing the God-based explanation of Life, the Universe, and Everything. His materialistic universe filled with inhuman, alien gods and a humanity that came about by accident set the stage for a nihilistic despair that man fled from, burying himself in the comfort of ignorance and superstition. Personally, I think that's a big driving force behind today's current religious revival.
Personally, I like the idea of an Epic serving as an instruction guide to living, the heroes and villians serving as positive and negative examples. I'd like to see the idea of the god-based divine replaced with an ideal of the divine, an ideal that can be attained by living up to a higher standard. That standard should be "Nobody ever said life is fair but it'd sure be nice if it was. Let us live as if it is and do our part to make it a reality."
I'm astounded at how Lucas was able to put this thing together. I've been reading through the script collection, from the original cheesy drafts of Adventures of the Starkiller up to the Alan Dean Foster novelization of the first film. It's incredible how he could just string together a poorly-written pastiche of fantasy, sci-fi, and adventure and suddenly have it turn into gold when put into film. Really, the true credit Lucas can take for the effort is that he brought everyone together and got the project started. After that point, the people truly responsible for the magic are listed in the credits after the films. Would this have been a childhood obsession for anyone if the mechanical designs sucked, if the sound engineering hadn't been so distinctive, if the music was bland and insipid, if the actors weren't instantly likable?
I think Lucas' problem is that he started to believe his own hype. He started out saying he was just trying to make an homage to adventure serials like Flash Gordon. Only later did he go on about how this is supposed to be Myth on a Grand Scale and how it's the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall and redemption and always has been. Bull hockey! Look at the early drafts of the script! Vader wasn't even a Sith in the first draft and the Sithy character was nothing like Vader. The whole "I am your father" thing was invented during the writing of the second film and the brother-sister thing was invented in the third. It all works when you don't look at it too closely but it falls apart under close scrutiny. It's forgivable for most authors -- usually all these contradictions, plot holes and unforseen changes in direction will happen during the first draft of a story. That's why it's called the first draft! The rewrites are for filling in holes, strengthening themes, and reenforcing the integrity of the story. Since film is such a malleable artform, the story is never really set in stone until after the finished film has been cut together and hits the theater. Lando Calarissian and the Millenium Falcon were originally destroyed when the second Death Star exploded but that tested poorly so voila, he's still alive. Because of this, you can honestly say that the first draft of Star Wars wasn't complete until Jedi hit theaters. Is it any wonder, then, that those holes exist? Looked at from a logical point of view, the backstory created for the new trilogy doesn't hold up. We're to believe that Darth Vader's son, born in secret and hidden from him, is allowed to keep his family name?! That he's "hidden" with Vader's own half-brother?! The Jedi robes were based on Kenobi's outfit for visual continuity in the same way that Padme wore an outfit similar to Leia in Episode II and Kenobi wore a Luke-style outfit in Episode III. But upon reflection, this is ridiculous! If those robes were the Jedi uniform and the Empire is anihillating all Jedi, would he really be wearing that outfit when in "hiding"? That would be like an Orthodox Jew wearing the full black outfit with beard and curly locks and trying to hide out in Germany in WWII!!!
Anyway, I love the analysis you put into this, digging down to the real influences for Star Wars. Personally, I disagree with the sort of metaphysical side of the Archetype argument. I do agree with the concept but when it is explained more from the perspective that certain themes have strong resonance with human beings based upon shared experiences rather than there being some sort of group subconscious or deep programming hidden in our psyches. For example, everyone has a father. Now sometimes the father is good, sometimes he is abscent. Even orphans who never knew their fathers will wonder what he was like, how things would have been different. It's a truly human feeling. Thus, father themes in stories have immense power. For myself, the whole fall/redemption theme was very personal. My dad was an alcoholic and my parents divorced when I was seven. My mom would tell me about how he used to be, "the man I married." I'd see the pictures of him when he looked normal. The man I grew up knowing looked nothing like that. He was a 6'3" biker dude with a long-ass beard, tattooes and a "thou shalt not f**k with me" disposition. He was tempted by the Dark Side of the Booze. The Vader parallels were so strong they just about knocked me out. Since he took me to see Jedi in the theaters, that really made a strong impact.
I think that most of the other aspects of archetype fit this sort of pattern. The story of growing from childhood to adulthood is always a theme that resonates with people. The pivotal time of change, becoming a man, that's a tale that boys will read with anticipation and adults will read with nostalgia. Mentor figures are always respected and are necessary for guidance on the path. Parents, grandparents, elder friends of the family, that role is a part of the human experience. It's only natural for wise old sages to be a part of the storytelling vernacular. Same goes for the power of romance and sex.
What I think becomes a bit slavish is when writers decide to follow the mythic model to the T. Just because those themes are powerful doesn't mean that they should be shamelessly aped. I think it's important for basic themes to be reinterpreted into the language of the times. I agree with the idea that technology becomes the plausible magic to replace the faerie dust of yesterday's tales. But at the same time, our increased knowledge of science and philosophy not only dispells the old magic, it also dispells the old gods. The old myths talk about mankind approaching the divine, attaining the example set forth by the gods. Christians in particular talk about how the world is flawed and that the true believer seeks the path of holiness that comes from contemplating things of heaven, not of this world. The world is seen as the corrupter, the kingdom of Satan. Lovecraft was the first to tell horror from the post-Christian perspective, removing the God-based explanation of Life, the Universe, and Everything. His materialistic universe filled with inhuman, alien gods and a humanity that came about by accident set the stage for a nihilistic despair that man fled from, burying himself in the comfort of ignorance and superstition. Personally, I think that's a big driving force behind today's current religious revival.
Personally, I like the idea of an Epic serving as an instruction guide to living, the heroes and villians serving as positive and negative examples. I'd like to see the idea of the god-based divine replaced with an ideal of the divine, an ideal that can be attained by living up to a higher standard. That standard should be "Nobody ever said life is fair but it'd sure be nice if it was. Let us live as if it is and do our part to make it a reality."