PDA

View Full Version : George Lucas is anti-bush??


Digital_Ice
23-05-2005, 07:29 PM
i found this quite interesting, i thought i'd share

'George Lucas could be messing with your head'

Pumba the homosexual warthog, Ozzy, and now George Lucas. The boycotters of the right are hilarious

John Sutherland
Monday May 23, 2005
The Guardian

Like the biggest Irishman in the bar, George Lucas ($9bn from merchandise and rising) can't help provoking fights. The hard right have chosen to pick one with him over Revenge of the Sith.
As they see it, the movie is anti-Bush. Particular exception is taken to the scene in which Chancellor Palpatine persuades the Senate to suspend democratic freedoms and elect him emperor for life. "So this is how liberty dies?" muses Senator Amidala (Democrat, Planet THX).

Things weren't helped by Lucas saying at Cannes last week that "the parallels between Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable" (ie, all too believable). A boycott has been mobilised via www.pabaah.com.
Pabaah's yabooh won't impede George's serene progress to $10bn. It's not the first time he has been in hot water with the ideological fringes in American society. The Phantom Menace drew African- American fire for its "racist" depictions. The rap group Damn Nation had a transient moment of fame with Jar Jar Binks Must Die. The film also went down badly with the Arab world for its Der Stürmer-style caricature (as it was thought) of Yasser Arafat as Watto.

For a long time Lucas was in bad odour with military veterans. He began work on the original Star Wars in 1971, when his beard was black and made a political statement. So did his film. He shaped Star Wars as anti-Vietnam allegory. When the movie came out, in 1977, the guerrilla Han Solo could be seen, by those with eyes to see, as Vietcong without the black pyjamas. Moff Tarkin and his planet destroyers were General Westmoreland (waste more land) and his technoweapon imperialists.

Despite his offences against strict conservative doctrine, Lucas retains a solid core of support among the Christian right. In his Indiana Jones saga he cheerfully mixes boy's adventure with reverently handled theological themes (the sanctity of the Ark of the Covenant, the quest for the Holy Grail). Less overtly, the Star Wars episodes are saturated in Manicheanism (the Dark Force and Light Force, eternally in conflict). Doubtless, George imbibed religion as a juvenile churchgoer in Modesto. Like the beard, it's stayed with him.

Steven Spielberg, Lucas's occasional collaborator, studiously avoids anything overtly Christian (or, except for Schindler's List, anything overtly Judaic) in the films where he's in sole charge. Whatever homage there is in his next movie to George Pal's 1950s War of the Worlds it won't, for a certainty, end, like its predecessor, with a congregation singing hymns in a Los Angeles church under bombardment from the Martian war machines. (Pal was allegorising the west's terrified realisation that the godless Soviets had intercontinental missiles, capable of nuking even Hollywood.)

Spielberg has had other problems with the boycotters. Last year the Italic Institute of America mobilised a boycott against Shark Tale on the grounds that the cartoon stereotyped Italian-Americans as mobsters. Spielberg was lucky not to wake up with a big fish head on his pillow.

Lucas will doubtless appear, dishonourably, on Thomas N George's www.BoycottLiberalism.com. This week's list is headed (inevitably) by the Hanoi Jane-starring Monster-in-Law. Among the website's usuals (Sean Penn, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins) is Chris Martin for his graceless thanks-but-no-thanks at the 2004 Grammy ceremony: "Awards are all essentially nonsense and we're all going to die when George Bush has his way." Bravely said. But Martin stands less high on the right-thinkers' boycott list than Ozzy Osbourne, whose recent concert performances of War Pigs are bellowed out beneath a screen depiction of Bush and Hitler with the caption "Same shit. Different asshole".

Many web-promoted boycotts are less hilarious and some are downright bizarre. The American Family Association, for example, warned the faithful against Disney's The Lion King on the grounds that Timon the meerkat and Pumba the warthog were inter-species homosexual lovers. Why not?

The boycotters serve a useful purpose, even at their most crazed, absurd and fanatical. They remind us that nothing artistic is ideologically neutral. At some core level every movie, however fluffy, contains a kernel of propaganda.

"Enjoy your film," the attendants say nowadays, as they clip your ticket. They should add: "and think about it, too: that

Kendorjia
23-05-2005, 07:40 PM
I believe George Lucas is anti-bush and all, but the fact of the matter is that ROTS' criticism against Bush is purely accidental... While i agree with this:

For a long time Lucas was in bad odour with military veterans. He began work on the original Star Wars in 1971, when his beard was black and made a political statement. So did his film. He shaped Star Wars as anti-Vietnam allegory. When the movie came out, in 1977, the guerrilla Han Solo could be seen, by those with eyes to see, as Vietcong without the black pyjamas. Moff Tarkin and his planet destroyers were General Westmoreland (waste more land) and his technoweapon imperialists.

The new episode is based upon the old one... so it has to be intertwined with it... So maybe at some points George could add a bit of criticism to Bush, there's no way in hell the entire movie could be an attack to bush in disguise... The story was written and, like i said, it had to make sense with the old trilogy... which was written so many years ago... Unless George posseses some "Force" skills himself to see in the future, i don't think this movie is written anti-bush

just my 2 cents tho

frodo1511
23-05-2005, 10:13 PM
Considering that most of the film deals with turning to the dark side, absolute power, and ruining reputations, I kinda thought this sort of comparison would've occured. It's probably all a coincidence and everything.

Jacoby
23-05-2005, 10:16 PM
He's not anti-Bush, he's anti-Sith. That's why he makes the Jedi look like such cool guys.

frodo1511
24-05-2005, 12:48 AM
He's not anti-Bush, he's anti-Sith. That's why he makes the Jedi look like such cool guys.


Only he would've made the Emperor look like a raisin.

Renegade
24-05-2005, 05:45 AM
Journalists are always trying to write articles using ridiculous comparisons. It's in their nature... and plus, it gets people's attention.

deviljet88
24-05-2005, 07:39 AM
Michael Moore's Anti-Bush.

Keyser_so_so
24-05-2005, 08:28 AM
Um, one of the things worth noting is that Palpatine gets to power by 'emergency powers' acts. Exactly like one Adolf Hitler did.

Perhaps these Republican twats should pick up a history book. Actually, no- I wouldn't want to give the warmongers more ideas.

Digital_Ice
24-05-2005, 09:24 AM
Michael Moore's Anti-Bush.

seriously?

wow, you learn something new every day!

Kendorjia
24-05-2005, 11:15 AM
click here (http://japantoday.com/e/?content=comment&id=774) if you wanna read a bit more bout it all...

Sarah
24-05-2005, 03:41 PM
If he's anti-bush that makes George Lucas even cooler than he already is! ROCK ON GEORGE!

KRev
27-05-2005, 11:08 PM
Is it me, or isn't the whole Republic, Empire... Empire, Republic thing an allusion to ancient Rome?

Digital_Ice
27-05-2005, 11:44 PM
its an allusion to many things, there are many references throughout the entire saga, to various different political......thingys (for want of a better word)

Keyser_so_so
29-05-2005, 08:33 PM
Maybe they're just films. Stories made up with no solid link to any real events or occurances.

Or do I misunderstand the idea of a story?

deviljet88
30-05-2005, 01:33 PM
Its people trying to draw analogies out of sheer boredom. Oh yeah, Spielberg believed aliens looked like demented fuckheads when he made ET. Or something like that.