The Case for Taking Star Sides

I went to one film in this year's Edge Documentary Film Festival, and chose the most amusing sounding one above all the other (and there were several) tempting options. The People v George Lucas, with fanboys and the odd fangirl taking on the Phantom Menace that is the rather elusive auteur known as the Beard, was long but highly entertaining, with lots of internet rip offs interspersed amongst all the talking heads, and the odd few seconds from the widely known but rarely seen (and with good reason, from the sounds of it) Star Wars Christmas Special.



Like the Holy Trilogy itself (well, all 6 of them), the movie was broken up into sections each describing a different part of Star Wars history. I can't recall the different parts myself, so I will only use three: the hook, the line and the sinker.

The hook is the beginning, briefly chronicling Lucas' beginnings, the conception of Star Wars, and the cinematic and marketing phenomenon it became. All fairly straight forward stuff, really.

The line shows the difference between Lucas' idealistic youth and the reality of his actions today. Using quotes and clips of the man himself, the movie shows how what he originally wanted (to not be part of a corporate machine; that movie classics should be kept in their true form) runs contrary to what he currently is (Star Wars merchandise anyone?) and what he does (with the Star Wars movies as they were originally released in the 1970s and 1980s now deemed "destroyed" in favour of those versions containing his more recent revisions). Lucas comes through looking like a complete control freak, perfectionist, and not a little like someone milking what he created for all its worth.

Finally, the sinker is the reaction of the fanboys and fangirls raised on the original versions, looking to Lucas to hold them as holy as they do themselves, and finding the creator does not live up to their expectations. It's really a crisis of faith for these people, with Lucas unable to live up to all that his worshippers wanted.

This is of course the most interesting, amusing and occasionally sad part of the film. There are some angry people out there, some apologists (not sure if there was some intended irony or double meaning in the fact the apologists were, for the most part, French), and some people who really should be on medication (though there was noone interviewed who appeared to require the levels of therapy of some of the hardcore Star Trek fans who appeared in the film Trekkies. This may have been a conscious decision, as I am sure there are some almost unbalanced obsessed out there). There are people composing songs of hatred, others love ballads, and others Youtubing Misery-type videos of complaint to Lucas about how the latest movies have come out.



It's all a matter of perspective really: who owns Star Wars? Well, when it comes to the film and the merchandise, there is no disagreement that it is Lucas. Who owns the ideas and the spirit of the film? Well, there may be some copyright infringement problems, but, for those who love the Original Form movies, they all belong to the people.

As well as being the most entertaining, the sinker is also the more disappointing part of an otherwise really well put together film. The "then versus now" discussion boiled down to quick lines about a particular character or scene being dumb. By relying on fanboys and fangirls to explain the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars and not really allowing someone with a bigger perspective to try and analyse the new trilogy backlash, the film (to me anyway) comes across as something for fanboys and fangirls rather than a documentary actually trying to explain what is going on to the general public.

For example, do the toys of the new three films sell better than the classic ones? There is a bit of anecdotal evidence in the film that kids love the new three, but the anecdotes come from kids who have been surrounded by Star Wars their entire lives so may have inherited some of their interest from their parents, so do the films really appeal to kids? If Star Wars is aimed at kids, then why is the infamous 1970s Christmas Special so reviled by Lucas, appealing as it does to a very undemanding (and possibly vegetative) audience? And really, are the new three as bad as they say, or are they just as good (or bad) compared to the originals?

But I had to laugh when the discussion dipped into the follies of the "reimagined" original trilogy, with some pointing to things that I would never have noticed in a million years (quicker opening credits?) to the outrage (shared, I admit) about the changes to the Han meets Gredo in the cantina scene. And who could fail to admire the lovely Japanese woman who had obtained (and wore) a snow storm trooper outfit in camouflage pink (for hunting rebel scum hiding on planets composed of frozen candy floss, one presumes).

Overall, the film is lots of fun, showing the depth (and occasional shallow) of talent of those who love Star Wars through numerous video clips, songs and costume parades, and the international angle was welcome. But where was the interview with Star Wars nut Kevin Smith? Why was David Prowse the only Star Wars actor interviewed (or else screened)? These lacks made me feel this was a fanboy film for fanboys (and fangirls) rather than a documentary really seeking to enlighten, but overall, I can't really complain, as South Park again proved its
cultural relevance and I got to see what Wookies dream of...

Verdict: I was really glad I made it to the People Versus George Lucas. The occasional extreme reaction (the accusation of George Lucas having "r@ped my childhood" got me hooked) is tempered with the odd dose of reality, but the love of those who adore Star Wars (even if not the reincarnated versions) is what gives the film a strong beating heart. No one may be fond of the metachlorians (or whatever), but the force is strong with this one. Red 3 out of a Red 5.