LUCAS BASHING 2:  Jeff Wells was kind enough to try to defend the Position of the Week as critics chase George Lucas around the globe with a meat cleaver for making a movie that is (GASP!) popular.  Of course, only an idiot – and Jeff is perfectly capable of high idiocy – claims that his position is right because there are a number of  people who agree with him that counting heads is no way of proving an argument. 

I have been arguing with people for a long, long time.  There is a difference between a personal belief and a fact.  A personal belief is emotional, often thoughtful and unassailable with logic.  A fact can be backed up with history and logic.  None of us have to like the facts.  Facts cannot replace personal beliefs, but personal beliefs cannot make facts moot either. 

I had a piece of pizza with Jeff last night around 11 p.m.  I had eaten something else, but watching Jeff eat his pizza made me want a slice.  I wanted that pizza.  I wanted that texture and taste in my mouth.  The fact is that a thirty-seven-year-old man eating pizza late at night is not smart.  It’s fattening and will sit there with no late night exercise in the offing.  But I WANTED that pizza.

If I were George Lucas, eating that slice would have been an indictment of my entire artistic being.  I would be a fat, old man who hadn’t shaved that morning indulging my personal needs while pissing on my readers, who need a light, spry, smarter David/George. 

We who decide we are high and mighty enough to deserve for you to read what we have to say about movies live in a constant bind.   I have made my bones.  I know this business.  I know film as well as anyone post-1970 and better than most before that.  But I also know that there are very few ultimate rights and wrongs when it comes to what makes people respond. 

In this day and age, I am comfortable that $100 million at the box office does not necessarily mean that a film has found a place in the culture… that it has made a deeper connection with more than a percentage of the audience.  At the same time, an indie movie that does $26 million – like Memento – may have struck a deep chord, but also in a limited audience.  When it comes to my understanding of that connection, my feelings as a film critic are meaningless.  When a movie makes over $300 million, something is going on… I don’t care if I love the film, hate the film or haven’t seen the film.  Only someone who knows nothing, or cares to know nothing, about box office can claim that a movie like The Phantom Menace made over $900 million by way of inertia.  If you do that, you have to throw out every other box office result in history. 

People line up “like Muscovites” on opening weekend.  I have been writing about that – consistently – for five years.  Opening weekend is never about quality.  Opening weekend is always about marketing.  Occasionally there is a Sunday effect because of quality, but it’s rare.  Word of mouth is a weekend two issue.  That’s one of the reasons why studios are so first weekend obsessed… they still have control.  But movies that people hate tend to die in future weekends. 

Why did the “rage” over Pearl Harbor die after the second weekend?  Because the box office pretty much died on the second weekend.  Even Jeff Wells admits that Attack of the Clones is a better movie than Pearl Harbor.  So where was the run of articles about how being tall and good looking and banging Playmates who line up like lemmings ready to fall over his penis made Michael Bay out of touch and more interested in CG than story?  People are still attacking Lucas because we all know that Clones not only opened to a massive number, but that it will be playing to millions of people well into August.  It offends our sensibilities.  And it pisses us off so much that we exaggerate what we know to be reality, even in our own heads. 

The Phantom Menace was a bit disappointing.  Fine.  Have you seen a movie before this summer with two better action sequences – outside of The Matrix, which I still count as the best populist film of the last decade – than the pod race and the Darth Maul fight?  I doubt it.  But that wasn’t enough.

Let me ask you this?  When did Star Wars become the fucking bible? 

These are the same people who think Michael Jordan shouldn’t come out of retirement because it would disappoint them to see him playing at less than the best-ever level at which he left.  Three things.  One, when he came back after baseball, his skills were already diminished, but he changed his game and won more championships.  Two, if it were not for his knees, he would have succeeded in what all the naysayers said was impossible, taking the Wizards to the playoffs.  Three, why should Michael Jordan spend a single second worrying about how YOU see him? 

This is classic critics behavior.  We scream and cry about the system crushing creativity and then when anyone does anything out of the mainstream that we don’t control, we rip them new assholes for their effort.  When are we going to wake up to the truth.  ALL studio directors are out of touch with reality!!!  People who make millions of dollars a year and have hundreds of people making their visions come true at a cost of tens of millions of dollars are not “regular guys.” 

If you look at what doesn’t work about A.I. – and you can find a rabid group of critics who feel the film is an underappreciated masterpiece –you don’t find an aging and disconnected Steven Spielberg.  You find the same Steven Spielberg who made all of those movies we liked so much.  He can’t help himself.  He is a skilled enough filmmaker to deliver what he feels… and sometimes, people may not connect with that.  Does that make him “wrong?” 

Joel Schumacher made Falling Down before he made Batman & Robin.  He made Tigerland after he made Batman & Robin.  Can any of these fat-theorists explain that?  (Personally, I far prefer Falling Down, but I’m sure J.S. will make more good films and more terrible films before it’s over.) 

When Chris Nolan makes a bad movie… and he will… is everyone going to get off of the bandwagon?  Is he going to be labeled a sell-out because the very good Insomnia has some story points that are more obvious than the original?  I hope not. 

Can one be critical of the crowds that did love The Phantom Menace?  Sure.  That’s your prerogative.  Hating people for loving something inferior is nothing new.  But to deny that many people – children, teens, college students and adults – loved The Phantom Menace as much as we loved the original series… that’s just pig headed self congratulation. 

People who “need” to beat people but who know they can’t get away with beating the wife and kids beat the dog.  You may feel like George Lucas shit on your rug.  But you don’t put a bullet in his head for that.  Your kids still love him.  And you know that your boss, who takes credit for every good thing you do and blames you for all of his screw-ups deserves to be punished far more than that dog.  But I guess it feels good to you to give that dog a kick in the side… lazy mutt, his food costs so much and all he does is lay around all day and shit on my rug…  after all, you can’t kick the boss…

You guys are just soooo superior to George Lucas!

There is a line in Insomnia, early on, when Al Pacino, playing a top cop who made one haunting mistake talks to an Internal Affairs investigator who is dogging him.  He says something like, “You guys just sit behind their big desks all day, getting off on bringing down guys who do the job you never had the balls to do themselves… that’s why I have contempt for you.”

I have to look in the mirror too.  And the issue here, for me, and if these other guys could ever admit it, for them - is beyond George Lucas and his movies.  It’s about how we behave in our opinionated coverage of an artistic industry.  When Frank Rich left the theater critic gig at the New York Times, Broadway didn’t celebrate because the great critic who kept mediocrity from reigning was leaving… they cheered because one man who had gotten too high on his power moved on. 

What do we win by singling out George Lucas for personal criticism?  More importantly, what do we lose?

IRONIC LINKS:  The L.A Times’ Brian Lowry’s TV column on Wednesday was titled, “Leno Can’t Win For Winning.”  Surprisingly, it was a kind of antidote to Patrick Goldstein’s Lucas column from the day before.  Here’s a link.

Meanwhile, you have the Washington Post’s Stephen Hunter wetting his pants over the Cannes Film Festival here

In Japan, multiplexes are taking over.  Take a look at this

And again in the L.A. Times, a decent story on the ever shifting line between PG and PG-13.

AND NOW… READER OF THE DAY!!!

Dy-no-mite Scott writes:  “Patrick Goldstein.  I have not read his work before so I cannot comment on how it differs from the norm but his article seems to be within the normal range of entertainment columnists.  He's stating his opinion as fact and exaggerating some points to support what he thinks.  You certainly are guilty of stating opinions as fact over the course of your career.  But that's the nature of the beast, you are analyzing a subjective industry.  It would be hard to continually write, "This is what I think" or something like it anytime you say something about Hollywood.  In the end I've always felt that your opinions had more weight than many of your peers because you seem to stick to a set of journalistic rules but using phrases as "spew his opinions" seems overly harsh to me.  I think this is one time you've gone overboard in disagreeing with what someone else has written.”

The Dubious One writes:  “I saw About a Boy and i had a great time. I laughed out loud and enjoyed myself. The only flaw i saw was that Rachel Weisz had very little to do. I  mean why wouldn't Hugh Grant (or anyone else) wanna get with her - she's  gorgeous. But the script didn't give her enough of a character.

I guess I'll see Star Wars at some point. Even when i was a kid i never came in my shorts while watching them, and the truth is, i don't even think i'll bother to see it in a theater. I won't pay the extra to see it in digital and i'm not about to see a substandard print of a film i'm not that excited about. I'll rent the DVD.

Also I'd like to quickly respond to "The Mac" who seems to hold Star Wars in higher regard than other films because it's the invention of one man. (Though if we add Leigh Brackett, Lawrence Kasdan, Irvin Kershner, Gary Kurtz, not to mention hundreds of actors and technicians to the list, Star Wars is probably the result of more than one man).

Who cares!

It's about how good the movie is. About the acting and the dialogue and the effects and the fights. I hate die hard auteurists (and i would group Star Wars fans in that group - Star Trek fans are willing to say something sucks) who can't see past a grand vision of the person behind the film. Everyone who succeeded failed at some time and there's no shame in it. So get over it. If people want to insult Lucas' talents as a writer or director, don't take it personally. He doesn't care. He's laughing all the way to the bank.

So will these Droids just shut up about their obsession. It's a movie. The question is whether it's good or bad. Nothing more.”

Mystery Man adds:  About A Boy was great.  Thoroughly enjoyable.  Not a bad performance in the lot, and Hugh Grant knocked it out of the park.  And I picked up the soundtrack on the way home.  Saw it in a ½ full matinee at CityWalk, and there was more laughter in that theatre than I had heard in long time.  A little too much V.O. for my taste, but at least they bounced it back and forth between Grant and the kid. 

And while I know that there seems to be a groundswell on your site for Ep. 2, the more I think about it...ooof.  For me, it was just a godawful train wreck of a film.  Not one thing remotely interesting, and NO HEART.  Kenneth Turan wrote a review that pointed out that we all just have to get used to the fact that we'll never have "our" Star Wars back again...sigh.   Personally, I'd like to see Lucas do what Coppola has done, and use his sway to do what American Zoetrope is doing...maybe George will find the heart so sorely lacking from Eps 1 & 2.

The thing that gets me is that Lucas has come out and said that these films are for kids...but kids repsond to heart, to true feelings.  If they didn't, Lion King wouldn't have made the money they did.  Kids are smart.  Sure, they like shiny planes and cool robots (who doesn't) but they appreciate being talked to, not down to.  So come on, George, bring back Lawrence Kasdan.  Bring in John August, Scott Frank, Ed Solomon.  And hand over the directing reins to someone with real flair.  Because as you pointed out, there's not a lot of room for surprise in Ep. 3, and it's going to take someone with considerable talent to make it interesting.

And while I'm ranting, one final matter...as I shifted uncomfortably in my seat for Ep. 2, there was one moment for me that was almost pretty cool.  It was towards the end, and Dooku was talking about the need to keep secret "our ultimate weapon" (or something along those lines).  And there, in the background, for just a split-second, was a tech readout of the Death Star.  And I thought "How cool.  Something for the older fans, subtle, rewards people paying attention.  Nice touch, George."  And then, not five seconds later, the Death Star pops up right in the middle of the screen.  I felt the top of my head, because I was sure a hammer bruise would be there.  I should have known better than to think Lucas could be subtle.

And finally, as several places have pointed out, why do the animals that Anakin rides in that abysmal love scene in the field, as well as the creatures in the arena look like they are from the Harryhausen movies?  It was all I could do to keep myself from standing up and shouting, "Let loose the Kraken!"

Sigh.  Is Minority Report here yet?  Perdition?

E.I.E.I.O. opines:  “I'm usually just a reader, not a writer, but I had to respond to your question today: Yes, some of us did see About a Boy! While it didn't hold quite the same magic that High Fidelity holds for me(am I alone in my passion for that movie?), I really did enjoy it and I even thought (am I saying this?) that Hugh Grant was flawless in his role.  I was also really impressed with the sound track. It had just the right vibe for the movie. Between the dialogue and the characters, I'm starting to think you just can't go wrong with a Nick Hornby story.

As for your other question about what ads look interesting, I have to tell you: the trailer for Insomnia is making me very, very nervous. As a huge fan of Following and Memento, I had really high hopes for all things Nolan, but I just can't see him bringing much out of this one...when I see the ad, I keep waiting for a scene with Morgan Freeman and Ashley Judd/Monica Potter nosing around in detective mode...haven't we seen this plot before? At any rate, I'll still cross my fingers and pray Christopher proves me wrong.

McG.L.T. adds his own About A Boy comment:  “What a great movie.  Would have waited (finally seeing for the Hornsby factor) if I hadn't read such good things in the column, but went opening night.  I hope word of mouth helps this film.  Such an unusually honest film for a "feel good" movie.  Usually films this honest about life and relationships are criticized for being depressing.  Nice to have it both ways.”

Dislodge writes:  “Just wanted to say I tried to avoid all the traffic and media hype and saw About A Boy over the weekend.  It was really good!  It was a nice story from beginning to end (no dropping off in the third act like Spiderman.)  Hugh Grant was great; I enjoyed how he kept the sentiment out of his performance.  I liked it a lot.”

Dallas R.I.P. says:  “At the urging of my girlfriend and her mother, I made the trek to the local multiplex to see About a Boy. I didn't know for sure what to expect from the movie. I hadn't read the book, wasn't too much of a fan of High Fidelity aside from Jack Black's scenes, and couldn't tell from the trailer whether About a Boy would be something I would like. Your review made me feel a little more confident about the whole thing, but I realize that just because someone else likes something doesn't mean I will.

In the end, though, I'm extremely glad I went. What a wonderful film - an interesting story told very well. It was funny and touching at the same time and always felt real, authentic, believable. I don't mean to gush, but this was certainly my favorite movie of the year thus far. I remember sitting in the theater and being so happy to be sitting there watching this story unfold in front of me (something I certainly didn't feel the next day when I got around to seeing Star Wars: Episode 2 at the DLP theater) and wishing more of my movie-going experiences were like that.

The reviews from my party were not all raves, though. My girlfriend and her mother dubbed the movie merely "okay". They weren't impressed at all.”

E ME:  Defending George Lucas?  Why do they do this to me?!?!?!