George Lucas to TIME: "All democracies turn into dictatorships..."

TIME Magazine via TheForce.net ^ | April 21, 2002

[Darth Sidious]

Here's the press release for the latest edition of Time Magazine which is on newstands now:

******************************************
COVER: Yoda Is An Action Hero
in the latest STAR WARS Feature

TIME Interview--GEORGE LUCAS:
'All democracies turn into dictatorships...That's the issue I've been exploring: how did the Republic turn into the Empire'

TIME's JESS CAGLE Was First Journalist To See the New Movie, Which Opens May 16

New York - Yoda is the real action hero of the newest "Star Wars" prequel opening May 16, reveals TIME's Jess Cagle - the first journalist to see the entire feature this past Thursday, at the side of creator George Lucas at Skywalker Ranch in Marin County, CA.

Now fully computer-animated, Yoda (who appears on TIME magazine's cover) is "no longer the endearing puppet animated by Frank Oz's hand" but is "both more supple and more thoughtful," Cagle reports. "Who'd have thought that our sedentary sage was such a deft martial artist, with lightsaber maneuvers...a Gandhi-turned-Rambo?"

In TIME's cover story, "Yoda Strikes Back!" An exclusive guide to the new STAR WARS movie, Episode II--Attack of the Clones" (on newsstands Mon., April 22), Cagle and critic Richard Corliss provide the most detailed view yet of the much-awaited fifth feature. Cagle talks to Lucas about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader - and political analogies in the latest "Star Wars" installment (some scenes remind TIME of Kofi Annan and John McCain).

Lucas tells TME about his own geopolitics, reflected in the features:
"All democracies turn into dictatorships--but not by coup. The people give their democracy to a dictator, whether it's Julius Caesar or Napoleon or Adolf Hitler. Ultimately, the general population goes along with the idea. What kinds of things push people and institutions in this direction? That's the issue I've been exploring: how did the Republic turn into the Empire?...How does a good person go bad, and how does a democracy become a dictatorship?"

Lucas also opens up about how Anakin Skywalker becomes Darth Vader:
"Because he gets attached to things...He can't let go of his mother...his girlfriend...things. It makes you greedy. And when you're greedy, you are on the path to the dark side because you fear that you're going to lose things. You fear you're not going to have the power you need."

Lucas admits to TIME that his 1999 Star Wars movie, Episode I--The Phantom Menace, was not universally revered - though it made $431 million at the North American box office, making it the fourth highest-grossing movie of all time (after Titanic, the original Star TIME 'Star Wars' cover story/p. 2 of 2) Wars, and E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial.) "I'm getting my education now from the press," Lucas says. "They come in and say, 'Wow. People hated your movie. What do you think about that?"

"There's only one issue for a filmmaker," Lucas tells TIME. "Will this make it's money back so I can make the next one?" With Phantom Menace, Lucas admits he did not know: "It didn't have Harrison Ford, Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher. It was not a slam dunk."

Lucas also talks with TIME about fatherhood ("My kids don't have a perfect life...they don't have a mother, and they just have to get over it"); making movies for 12-year-olds ("We had reached a period in terms of our society of not having a mythology, of not having a code that you pass down to the next generation"); demands of fans ("I can't really make a movie for fans"), and more.

Cagle and Corliss conclude Clones is "two hours of serious fun." By adding love scenes between stars Natalie Portman and Hayden Christensen, Cagle and Corliss conclude the hit new feature "looks like Shaquille O'Neal standing three feet from the basket." Clones extends the franchise "from 12-year-old boys (the action scenes) to 15-year-old girls (the love scenes). If it works, Lucas has quite a combo: the Star Wars and Titanic markets in one package."

TIME also reports:

? Interview: NATALIE PORTMAN:
When she's not playing Amidala, actress Natalie Portman has been going to college and keeping a low profile. "When I'm at a restaurant with my parents," Portman tells TIME, "I don't want to be stared at." Yet last week she wrote a letter to the Harvard Crimson objecting to a racially-charged essay about the Palestinian conflict that appeared in the paper; her family immigrated from Israel. Portman has completed her credits for a B.A. in psychology but may go back for another year of college before the summer of 2003, when the next Star Wars film goes into production.

? Interview: HAYDEN CHRISTENSON:
Actor Hayden Christenson, 21, whose role as Anakin Skywalker, Jedi knight-in-training, will make him world-famous, tells TIME "I think I'm a pretty grounded individual and will handle it as well as anyone my age would...Or maybe I'll become a big mess. Who knows?"

? Digital Yoda:
Once rubber, Yoda is now digital for Attack of the Clones. "We didn't want to make him look like he was real," Lucas tells TIME. The digital Yoda remains remarkably true to the delicate puppetry of Frank Oz, who still supplies the voice, TIME reports.

? FIRST ENTIRELY DIGITAL FEATURE 'FILM':
Clones is the first major feature to be shot and, in certain theatres, shown on digital disks. "The result," writes TIME's Richard Corliss, "is a breathtakingly clear image that lends a superreal glamour."

? 'Star Wars' Effect:
The series' huge success "forever altered the way Hollywood made movies and did business," according to TIME. Now, "films are made for kids, especially teen boys." Once, "movies were one-offs; there was no 'Gone With the Wind II." Now, "Studios swing for the fences to get a megahit action film that can win name-brand recognition and be profitably cloned for years to come."

******************************************
You can read more by clicking here and check out the Lucas interview by clicking here.

[aimlow]

You are right. The longest single running stable government in the world is the ours. Lucas should stick to movies.

[Saturnalia]

The evil--Britney Spears/Washu--spearmint!
Dwoemer Cthulu demonublicrats!
Balrog ice-cream palaces (pot/hippy) blue?

[AmishDude]

You know, as an averaged sized 29-year-old stocky male, I was hoping Temura Morrison would be the big sex symbol for the ladies. Oh, well, a guy can dream, can't he?

[marajade]

Only fan boys like JF and BF...

[Fabozz]

"Except, according to this article he happens to have a clue how dictatorships come about. He knows dictators are elected."

And he's wrong about that, too. Julius Caesar was "elected" to the dictatorship only after marching his legions across the Rubicon and occupying Rome. Cromwell became "Lord Protector" only after taking up arms not merely against King Charles but against Parliament as well. Napoleon rose to power only after leading the Brumaire coup d'etat. Hitler was not elected to the chancellorship, he was appointed to it, and didn't have dictatorial power until after conducting a rigged election in March 1933. The common thread is that dictators, after seizing power by force of arms, generally try to legitimize themselves with elections. Such elections, invariably "monitored" by thugs from the dictator's faction, are hardly examples of democracy in action.

Pretending that George Bush and Adolf Hitler are cut from the same cloth—which is certainly Lucas' and TIME's subtext here, and presumably "Darth"'s as well—is not merely morally bankrupt but historically ignorant. Come talk to me after Trent Lott guns down Daschle, after Marc Rocicot burns down the Capitol building; then I'll acknowledge that our Republic is about to "become" a dictatorship.

[Darth Sidious]

Re: the cameras, thanks :-) Well, he can't put EVERYTHING about history into a series of movies. But he already had an amazing amount of research under his belt when he worked on the first Star Wars movie. Even without the much-touted "Hero With A Thousand Faces" stuff, Lucas's tale had plenty backing it up.

[Avoiding_Sulla]

For you attention

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Someday they will grow up and take a principled stand against BOTH crime syndicates and demand a return to the Constitution.

But it may not be this generation.

Semper,
Not the next generation either should we fail to reach our own.

Though I may not feel your precise frustration, I feel a share of it. You see corruption and power glomming clearly enough. But do you see to what purpose?

Those whom you wish to reach seem beyond reach don't they? One man foresaw this predicament in 1943.

"In a sort of ghastly simplicity we* remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our mist."
-- C.S.Lewis, The Abolition of Man

The men you wish to reach have been lessened. In being denied the lessons which teach us to blend thought and feeling, they are no longer men seeking out the civilizing influences. In its stead they are nurtured in cold logic and visceral instinct and told to let it lead them wherever it takes them. Leave the blending to the professionals. Trust in the professionals.

Without expanding the quotes further, let me add the following.
From my understanding of Lewis, I think he says to you "somehow your conditioning to willingly accept contemporary mores didn't take, and now you feel isolated."

Even though your concerns are legitimate, you meet indifference. Lewis foresaw that circumstance too. He said it was inevitable. The majority have been conditioned to an "open mind," and, in so doing, have had their allegiance turned from our most important traditions, and their minds closed to the sacrifices and understanding from which the traditions were rendered. For those traditions you are grateful. To those traditions you still feel obligated. (As does first_salute, hence his inclusion above).

It's my observation that we've largely been conditioned by cynics (media and adversarial legal system) to, in the least, be skeptical about most everything, and particularly distrustful of our fellows. And if we recall DeTocqueville, "The despot rather cares less that you love him than that you are distrustful of your fellows," you've gotta ask the question why are we being misled so? Why is the accumulation of so much power so important for a few people?

So again, I ask you to consider in depth "To what end this power seeking?"

Lewis also answered that in part. However, he lacked the experience of his predictions. We've witnessed those experiences and so I think we can see the answer more clearly. As you know, my reading of what is that intended end is as grim as it gets.

--------------
* I think the "we" Lewis refers directly to is the educational establishment of which he was a part. However, he most certainly would mean to implicate society at large.

[Jefferson Adams]

WOW!!! My serious compliments on Post #31. You nailed it.

[Darth Sidious]

I've no idea. I'm only now back on FR after a day or so away from FR. What in the world happened?

[Avoiding_Sulla]

Av: But do you see to what purpose [the seeking of unlimited power]?

semper: Yes. The purpose is self-agrandizement. It is the sense of self-preservation run amok in an unfettered field of opportunity.

So I may categorize your theory as one that is all greed driven? You will allow no room for theory that is fear driven (other than that simple complement to greed, the fear of not being king)?