The Hot Blog

Where's that array of quicky indie movies that Lucas has been promising to produce for twenty years now?

Nonissue.

Lucas did come out of the indie movement and his influences were experimental cinema. And his work spawned the creation of digital film editing, which has made indie film more viable, and all the CG animation we see today, much of which is indie prod. So I guess on some level the guy does deserve it.

And he retains control of what he does in a way that's very... independent.

True, but what secrets of success can young indie filmmakers really learn from him? Tap into mythic archetypes and don't worry if you have no clue about how to direct actors?

How about follow your vision, don't give up control, use innovative technology that is more and more affordable, and grow a beard?

I think STYLE overrides your DIRECT statement jeff. Since, rather some choose to believe it or not, he did have an ACTING style in mind for the prequels. Of course, I get them, and enjoy the kool-aid. It's cherry and orange together and fantastic! That aside, palmtree, great points, and sums up a counterargument perfectly.

Can we do this talkback again, but faster and with more energy?

Faster and more intense, only if you hit your cues on the blue screen, properly. Now, let's do it again! FASTER AND MORE INTENSE!

Sorry, I haven't learned to type my comments in fully-CG animated letters...yet!

CGI letters are inferior to handmade motion-control model letters anyway.

Actually, CGI and handmade motion-control letters are best working in tandem. Do not tell John Favreau. It might rock his fragile little world.

Sigh, i credited the MCN bloggers with more credit than to jump on the 'Lucas can't handle actors' bandwagon. This isn't AICN fellas. One could just as easily argue that Lucas' handling of his actors has been masterful throughout the prequels. He acutally ENCOURAGES the flat, stiff, almost theatrical performances from the actors that you seem to think is an oversight or a weakness on his part, because he sees the Star Wars films as essentially silent, the narrative is progressed through the editing and John William's music (as an aside, the British actors in Star Wars seem more attuned to this performance style than the American actors). And if you think that sounds a little pompous, it's instructive that some of the best-remembered scenes in the whole SW saga are the silent ones, or that so many foreigners can see these movies without subtitles and TOTALLY understand the flow of the story. It's more acceptable now to praise, say, Peter Jackson, who makes these big epic fantasy films with an acting style more attuned to regular movie-making, but i'm coming around to the view that he could actually learn a few things from Lucas. Let's compare the early action scene from Revenge of The Sith where a crippled freighter turns on it's side and spills everything vertically, to an action scene in King Kong where the group has to outrun a herd of fleeing brontosauruses. Even though both sequences are largely created in the computer, the Star Wars version is far more convincing in it's illusion of physical space, the superimposition work is less obvious, the geography, axes of movement and choreography a lot more fluid and believable, and there isn't the sense that the ambition of the sequence outstrips what can realistically be achieved.

Lucas having a convincing sense for cinematic space/movement/color is one thing; The fact that British actors like Peter Cushing and Ian McDiarmid were able to properly ham it up is another thing; but Lucas' ability to make good actors like Natalie Portman look dull and boring is something else entirely . She doesn't exactly channel Lillian Gish.

He acutally ENCOURAGES the flat, stiff, almost theatrical performances from the actors ..."

Bingo!

I agree with this. Lucas is actually a wonderful director and encourages this style of acting because it is reminiscent of the serials he was inspired by from his childhood.

The prequels were not perfect but got progressivly better and Sith was a fantastic piece of exciting, blockbuster film-making.

By pushing the ground of technology he has helped to redefine cinema as an artform. The name 'Lucas' will be mentioned in film circles long after today's 'geniuses' are forgotten.

Most 'indie' filmmakers are more involved in navel gazing than about cinema as art.

I have a lot of respect for the man and what he has accomplished. Unlike many in Hollywood he is a true artist.

In film circles that gets me into more trouble than my political views.

You're a real martyr.

Who are you hanging out with? Most movie fans I hang out with agree that Lucas is one of the great ones. It helps to have grown up with the original trilogy.
Regardless, I don't believe the "stiff on purpose" theory. The acting in Verhoeven's Starship Troopers is stiff and unconvincing on purpose. The acting by Portman/Christensen is simply weak, stiff acting. If Christensen had a little more gusto to his performance, Episode III would have been the tragedy it wanted to be; instead he came off as more petulant than epic.

I'm curious to know who some of the 'geniuses' are that Nicol is anticipating the downfall of. I'd say Clooney, but nobody thinks he's a genius.

There's a difference between petulant and EPIC? I could have sworn we lived in a time where a small-town girl from Canada, could sing songs overriding with petulance, and still become an EPIC star across the world.

Again, you do not have to believe it jeff, but it's there for a reason. Nothing can be more frustrating than the overthinking something at face value. The internet movie fan base, on some films, turn into their own version of NFL Scouts before the draft. Nitpicking everything, while ignroing the obviousness residing right in front of their face. Anakin of course was petulant because he could never except his place. However, he became epic, the moment he cut off Mace's hand, then took it to very disturbing levels.

Dislike the acting because it's different, or do not believe what Lucas said. You are entitled. I simple disagree with the sentiment due to actually buying into what Lucas put into the films. Instead of needing my modern sensibilities taken care of via acting styles. Portman is far from dull in that movie. She's the incarnation of love lost. That's tragic and epic at the same time.

God, you're hard to read. Clauses, man, break up your clauses.
I don't know who the small-town Canadian girl is that you're talking about. I consider that you're the one 'overthinking something at face value' and 'ignoring the obviousness' but whatever. I still liked Episode 3, but it's not as good as Empire Strikes Back.

If you cant figure little'ol me out, then how can you possibly interpret the acting style in a Star Wars prequel? There might not be any correlation, but I am far from difficult. I am at least PRO level not ALL-MADDEN. You did reply to my argument with "whateva", and I taking that as a win! FACE!

Jeff, you still responded with "whateva", and I am taking at as this...FACE! That aside, yeah, the first post, confused even me. Thus the reason, I needed to use the preview button on it. Since I did not use that button. Mass confusion, dogs and cats living together, George Lucas using Spielberg shots, and MASS HYSTERIA! Mass HYSTERIA and CONFUSSION creating the phenoma known as HYSTERUSSION! Happy Easter!

It should have been 'whatevs', not 'whateva'. There's a difference.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: