But the wait is over, my (2? 3?) loyal readers! Something has happened that I am passionate enough about to bring me out of my blogging lapse. Star Wars! As some of you are certainly aware, The Phantom Menace has been re-released upon the hapless masses (now in the THIRD DIMENSION). This event has given George Lucas another opportunity to say stupid shit in interviews, and his latest gem is that he never intended Han Solo to shoot first. This is troublesome (extreme rage and aneurysm inducing) to me for multiple reasons, which I am more than happy to elaborate on.
The most obvious qualm I have is that this is almost assuredly bullshit. In the original cantina scene there is only one gunshot, one explosion as the shot blasts through the table, and one dead bounty hunter. If it was always intended that Han shot first, then the editors, sound engineers, and special effects people all fucked up (and if that was what happened, shouldn't the director be able to step in and fix it)? Of course, if it was intended that Han shoot first, I'm sure the script would reflect that. Let's see what it has to say.
HAN: Even I get boarded sometimes. Do you think I had a choice?Looks pretty cut and dried to me. If the intention was that Han Solo shoots first in this scene, then that portion of the script is not well written, and Lucas must have done a TERRIBLE job directing the scene. (I will admit, I cannot verify the accuracy of that script, but it's been on the internet long enough I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt).
Han Solo slowly reaches for his gun under the table.
GREEDO: You can tell that to Jabba. He may only take your ship.
HAN: Over my dead body.
GREEDO: That's the idea. I've been looking forward to killing you for a long time.
HAN: Yes, I'll bet you have.
Suddenly the slimy alien disappears in a blinding flash of light. Han pulls his smoking gun from beneath the table as the other patron look on in bemused amazement. Han gets up and starts out of the cantina, flipping the bartender some coins as he leaves.
HAN: Sorry about the mess.
Another reason this is a (mind-numbingly) stupid alteration (or original intent if you don't think George Lucas is full of shit) is you are forced to believe that either Han Solo has such super-human speed and reflexes that he can dodge a blaster from 3 feet away while seated in a booth, or that Greedo is such an epically poor shot that he could actually MISS a stationary human-sized target from 3 feet away (a target that he had been pointing his gun at for an entire conversation no less). Neither of these are actually plausible, and it is difficult for an audience to make that kind of suspension of disbelief (even in a movie with laser swords and space ships). You can try this one out for yourself. Sit across the table from someone with a laser pointer, point it at their chest, and then randomly turn it on and off. You wouldn't miss from that range (with a laser pointer that is probably harder to aim than a handgun), and your job description very probably does not include killing people and bringing their corpses to crime lords! (and if it does, I find your interest in my blog surprising/terrifying).
However, far and away the worst part of this change is the impact is has on the character of Han Solo. The characters in this movie are what made Star Wars the lasting iconic movie that it is (was?). We loved and love those movies because we cared about the inhabitants of the galaxy (far far away) they had created, and we were invested in their adventures. But we grew attached to them not because they were space rebels, but because each of them had depth and a meaningful character arc that we cared about. If you don't provide interesting character development then you don't create a connection that lasts for generations and create fans who are devoted enough to convince themselves that the Star Wars Prequels weren't some of the worst movies ever made. With his assertion that Greedo was always supposed to shoot first, George Lucas is admitting to us that he has absolutely no comprehension of character development, and he never did. While I have already stated that I'm convinced this assertion of his is an outright lie (or potentially insanity...I won't rule that out either) I do think his grasp of characters and dialogue has always been tenuous (Harrison Ford's famous "You can write this stuff George, but you can't make me say it" line comes to mind).
It may seem like I am overreacting to a change as small as Greedo firing his blaster a fraction of a second before Han Solo does, but that change actually does have a very significant effect on how the audience perceives him as a character. (Over/under on me using the word "character" in the rest of this paragraph?) Our first introduction to Han Solo sets the tone for what we understand of who he is as a person. We can deduce he cares about himself, his ship, and money (in that order). He has no qualms about killing someone who is in a position to do him harm, and he feels no remorse for doing so. This sets the tone for the rest of the movie. When he gets his reward money and leaves Luke and Leia on the Yavin moon base we all believe that he's the kind of person who would do that, and it makes his sudden appearance during the Death Star attack all the more surprising and exciting, because this is character growth and depth, and definitely not something we would have expected from the Han Solo we met in the cantina.
If you change the events in our introduction to Han Solo, however, then we are forced to draw different conclusions about him. If we are now to believe that Han Solo is the kind of person who, when confronted by a bounty hunter who is pointing a gun at him and has literally just told him he is about to shoot him, waits until said bounty hunter takes the first shot before retaliating then our perception of Han Solo is not the same. He's clearly not just in this for himself and money if he puts enough of a value on the lives of random bounty hunters out to kill him that he would put himself in mortal danger by giving them the first shot. He shows less growth and development in returning to save Luke in the Death Star attack because that kind of character was there from the beginning.
Yes, this is kind of nit-picky, but I really think it's important. George Lucas is taking art that has been a part of the collective public consciousness for over four decades and altering it. This is not different from a resurrected Leonardo da Vinci touching up the Mona Lisa because he really didn't give her as much cleavage as he had originally intended. Is it within his right to do so as the original artist? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? No. I'll close this with a quote from George Lucas himself, spoken in front of members of the United States Senate in 1988:
If you change the events in our introduction to Han Solo, however, then we are forced to draw different conclusions about him. If we are now to believe that Han Solo is the kind of person who, when confronted by a bounty hunter who is pointing a gun at him and has literally just told him he is about to shoot him, waits until said bounty hunter takes the first shot before retaliating then our perception of Han Solo is not the same. He's clearly not just in this for himself and money if he puts enough of a value on the lives of random bounty hunters out to kill him that he would put himself in mortal danger by giving them the first shot. He shows less growth and development in returning to save Luke in the Death Star attack because that kind of character was there from the beginning.
Yes, this is kind of nit-picky, but I really think it's important. George Lucas is taking art that has been a part of the collective public consciousness for over four decades and altering it. This is not different from a resurrected Leonardo da Vinci touching up the Mona Lisa because he really didn't give her as much cleavage as he had originally intended. Is it within his right to do so as the original artist? Yes. Is it the right thing to do? No. I'll close this with a quote from George Lucas himself, spoken in front of members of the United States Senate in 1988:
"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.
I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected. The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg.
American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.
A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history. People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart.
Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race. These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten. There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste. I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest. I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation. The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.
There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered? Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself. I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."
