First, I love the low-income housing story. My respect for Lucas has risen several notches on that alone. There may be some lawyers in Marin, but Lucas OWNS lawyers, and has enough money that he can lawyer them to death. Whether anything ever gets built, he's going to exact his revenge on them regardless because all he has to do is tell his lawyers, "keep at it, and I'll keep signing the checks." The rich folks there, they're not as rich, and they will have to proactively continue to fight him. This is exactly the type of battle Lucas should love, even though he's rich and has his own empire in his own right, he's still an underdog in this battle fighting against elitist who have told him for the past 30 years he can't fulfill his dream of creating the anti-Hollywood, the people he's fighting against are likely in his eyes an extension of the studios he fought against in the 70s and 80s.
Second, I think that Lucas, like everyone is human, strengths and weaknesses good points and bad points and ultimately is a product of the unique circumstances of his life experience. A shy, kind of awkward kid with big dreams, a fractured relationship with his father and a predisposition against authority - while not a psychologist, I wouldn't be shocked if he could be diagnosed as ODD
.
The shy, awkward kid dreamt big, and like any kid, he dreamed bigger than he realized he had any sense doing, and before he realized it, he'd achieved monster success thanks to a perfect storm of circumstances in going to USC, meeting people like Coppola, his wife, Steven Spielberg, Gary Kurtz and a host of other talented people whom he recognized value where others lacked vision.
Like the Beatles, the unique combination of creativity, pressures and strong personalities created something far greater than the sum of the individual parts, and was fueled by the pressure of peers whom Lucas respected but also at that time had to listen to, be it Coppola demanding he re-write the script and then re-write it again. The results during this period are undeniable, THX1138, American Graffiti, Star Wars, the 3 initial projects which are the most intimate, most directly Lucas' ideas married with his oversight but still under pressures of studios and peers. The second wave of his creative work is no less astounding, Raiders and Empire where they are largely his ideas, his involvement remained high, but as part of a creative team which still required he answer to his peers. Depending on your tastes, his efforts after that are variously successful, Jedi, Temple of Doom, Howard the Duck, Willow, Radioland, and Tucker. Of those, only one is a bonafide bomb/stinker, the rest have varying degrees of success/merit (I've always been an unapologetic fan of Willow and Tucker).
We all know the story of how that dynamic changed over time, and we can see how the success of his projects mapped accordingly. Lucas grew-up and became successful, no longer needing Coppola's mentorship/protection, no longer needing the studios, and his success elevated him above his peers and one-by-one those he once challenged, and challenged him fell the wayside, becoming acquaintances and friends, but no longer peers. At the same time he became more and more isolated in his Victorian-clad Ivory tower. Focused on family (something he lacked growing up) and tired of the stress of film-making he ran his businesses and lost touch with the process and process and purpose of film-making.
Also, I don't think you can underestimate the impact of his relationship with his father. As a young man they fought, and Lucas disappointed his dad to no-end when he refused to take on the family business and opted to go to college and explore some useless artistic degree. Lucas' earliest successes are all driven by that opposition to authority and fractured father/son relationship. With age and success it is a natural part of the human cycle to re-evaluate our childhood choices and motivations as well as our relationship with our parents. Reconciliation with his father I think became a bigger issue for him as he got older (those of us who are a little older will perhaps understand this a bit more), and I think that his business endeavors are a direct effort to honor his father and heal that relationship in his heart, while simultaneously focusing on raising his children, being the father that he never really had.
He's not evil, he isn't intent on 'raping' people's childhoods. He is the product of his life, his choices, and the people around him (both present and absent) and the evolution of circumstances and his journey, just as we all are.
The citizen Kane reference is interesting except I don't think he has the malice in his heart that Charles had. At George's core is a person who cares about right and wrong, good vs evil, dreams conquering nightmares. Sadly he developed more power than is probably good for a person, and has isolated himself from (creatively) those who brought out the best in him so that by the time he chose to return to what started it all, film-making, the sum of his life experience was drastically different, his values no longer driven by the same raw, sore-points. He still hates authority, but not with the same fire, and for reasons which have evolved over time based on newer experiences (including the fans with whom he is in some regards, a slave to).
Scorsese, Eastwood, Scott and Allen, yes they are all older and have a far more consistent body of work and in some regards (particularly Eastwood) have improved with age. But that group have also been film-makers their entire lives. They've never left it, and they never fought against it the system in the same way Lucas has his entire life. Their careers weren't defined by a single-focus of fighting the establishment, and and also, not one of them ever achieved the level of success that allowed them to be above the system. Lastly making studio movies is in their blood, they couldn't leave it. Lucas stumbled into film-making just as much on accident as it was on purpose. Serendipity. But being a film-maker was never his dream, and never what he wanted to define himself as. His own interviews reveal that growing up he was not a film-buff by any means outside of serials. He was more a fan of comics. The others on that list, being part of the movie industry has been their focus their entire lives.
For me, when I think of Lucas, this is what I try to remember, as has been said before, a film-maker should be judged by their best work, not their worst. EVERY director lays an egg, most lay several. Every film maker makes bad choices, produces things that were probably best-left an idea only. Because few film-makers have even approached his level of success or created things that became such an imbedded part of the social fabric as Star Wars and Indiana Jones, few have had to try and meet those expectations over and over, and so their failures are not nearly as notable.
Clint Eastwood: Space Cowboys
Woody Allen: Melinda and Melinda
Martin Scorses: Bringing out the Dead
Ridley Scott: 1492: Conquest of Paradise,
Steven Spielberg: A.I.
Michael Bay (all releases)
I would rather be strapped down and watch the PT ala Alex in Clockwork than watch any of those movies again.
I'm not saying Lucas is flawless, or without good reason to be criticized (I've done my fair share of critiquing the PT) but the vilification of Lucas is downright idiotic. The PT's disappointment is largely in part a function of the wild success of the OT. Fact is, minus the OT, my kids still love the PT. They work. They may not work the way we like, but they work.
* after-note* looks like Tom wrote a spectacular response while I drafted this.. and I have to agree with everything he said, and think our two posts blend nicely addressing two sides of the same coin