Epilogue: The Children of George and Steven and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

You can say what you will about the man who created Jar-Jar Binks, George Lucas sure knows his audience. Case in point, this quote from this February's Vanity Fair:

“The fans are all upset,” Lucas says. “They’re always going to be upset. ‘Why did he do it like this? And why didn’t he do it like this?’ They write their own movie, and then, if you don’t do their movie, they get upset about it. So you just have to stand by for the bricks and the custard pies, because they’re going to come flying your way.”

I quoted that a couple of months back, but I can't help but keep flashing back to it when I go over the numerous Internet slams of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL, the eagerly anticipated fourth INDIANA JONES film that opened a little over a month ago. It didn't seem to go over so well. The film has made quite a bit of money, as predicted, but it seems as though the fans are not happy. Or at least those who are most unhappy have decided to shout their displeasure as far and loud as they possibly can for as many as possible to hear because, well, it's so god damn important. They've destroyed Indiana Jones! This precious, beloved character and film series has been sullied by a lackluster entry that has all but sunk the series! It had inter-dimensional aliens, characters surviving huge drops from waterfalls and Shai Labouf swinging from vines. The series has nuked the fridge! Damn you George and Steven for pissing on your youth once again! WE WILL NEVER FORGIVE YOU!!!

So anyway...

George couldn't have called it better. Not matter what you do, if it's not good enough, then you're toast. Audiences demand quality, that's nothing new, but the quality that the Children of George and Steven, the generation that grew up with STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES, demand is that they must be taken back to the feelings that they experienced in their youths or you've let them down. INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL basically had to live up to the previous films in some way or another, and to a lot of people it didn't. Hey, I'm sorry you didn't like the movie. You pay your money, you buy your Twizzlers, you sit down in your seat and you expect to be transported to another time or place via the magic of motion picture making. Expectations being what they are, how could this film ever live up? Hey, I'm sorry you're not 12 anymore.

Allow me to take a moment to focus on the movies that INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is, as opposed to what it isn't. It's pretty good. I've seen it more than once and it's improved with each viewing. I like it. I also liked the STAR WARS prequels, so I'm probably a drooling fanboy who likes everything and can't be trusted, but for what it is, it's pretty good. It's fun; the action scenes are all extremely well done and are that distinctly zippy style that I believe Spielberg does better than anybody. This is a Steven Spielberg film, no question, and those action scenes feel to me like action scenes in an INDIANA JONES movie. In fact, the whole movie feels like an Indiana Jones movie to me, albeit a new Indiana Jones movie, a 2008 INDIANA JONES movie, if you will. I see Harrison Ford in the fedora and leather jacket and it's unmistakably Indiana Jones. And Ford is doing some of his best work in a while here; like my friend Drew McWeeney said in his review on Ain't It Cool News, "Harrison Ford showed up" - he's on his game again, not just that he's fit and can do the action scenes like he used to, but it looks like he's enjoying himself. I also loved Cate Blanchett, who I've never found this sexy in a movie, and I love both of the major chase scenes. Are there problems? Are there flaws? Of course there are. The return of the character of Marion feels like a wasted opportunity, although Karen Allen does have some nice moments, and the film does fall apart once they hit the waterfalls. The aliens just don't feel right and there's nothing at stake other than getting that skull back to its rightful owners. Spielberg's been in need of going to ending school for the last decade or so, although the last scene does put a smile on my face, the perfect way to end it all and, one would think, wrap up the series. Sure there's a lot of silly stuff before for - the fridge and the monkeys quickly come to mind - but it's a sad day in moviedom when we start faulting an INDIANA JONES movie for its lack of realism. Isn't this the series that opened its second installment with our hero and his cohorts surviving an jump from an airplane with nothing more than a life raft? Besides, James Bond not only swung from vines but also gave a Tarzan yell in OCTOPUSSY and we forgave that.

What the reaction to INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL tells me is that the Children of George and Steven don't seem to enjoy movies like they sued to, if they really do at all. They've seen so many of them that a certain burnout settles in, especially where the blockbusters are concerned, especially more where George and Steven are concerned. Now, this sort of thing is true of most anything in life, movies especially, so the reaction shouldn't be too much of a surprise; nothing is a good as it used to be. I wasn't too thrilled with the film the first time I saw it, either. I liked the first third, and then started to lose interest, and left with a bit of a shrug. But I went to see it again because I felt like what was off wasn't the movie so much as it was me. - I couldn't see the movie for what it was, just what I thought it should be. When I saw it a second time it played much better and it was so much easier to just sit back and enjoy it. The groove got considerably easier to get into and I was much, much more entertained. It also helped that I saw it with a group of crazed Spaniards, led by filmmaker Eugenio Mira, who came to Austin just to experience the film at the Alamo Drafthouse, god bless 'em. We all pretty much agreed that it plays better the second time out, and later on Eugenio and I were going through the chase at the university and both remarking on how much we liked it. Doesn't mean that if you didn't like it then you need to the film again in order to appreciate it; I'm sure that others have seen it more than once and probably don't agree, but it's worth another shot. But that's all up to you.

It's easy for me to say that the fan reaction to the film is, in truth, a reaction to a life of failed dreams and grown-up disappointments ("The dreams of youth are the regrets of maturity"), and the asshole part of me kind of wants to rub that in, even though I know it's not true (OK, maybe just a little true). Listen, if you don't like a movie then that's your reaction and I can't change that. But this overreaction I can't comprehend - so fucking what if the movie doesn't live up to expectations?!? People, there are earthquakes and floods and cyclones in this world and the disappointment you feel in the new INDIANA JONES movie, or any movie, is so very low on the list of things that are important that your vitriol is beyond insignificant. Jeez, imagine what would happen if you cared about something that was actually important! But then again, how else would you expect the Children of George and Steven to react to their disappointment? Children, even overgrown children, seem to enjoy crying as much as they do being happy.

I'll let George have the last word here (from an USA Today April interview):

"When you do a movie like this, a sequel that's very, very anticipated, people anticipate ultimately that it's going to be the Second Coming," Lucas says. "And it's not. It's just a movie. Just like the other movies. You probably have fond memories of the other movies. But if you went back and looked at them, they might not hold up the same way your memory holds up... When people approach the new (Indiana Jones), much like they did with Phantom Menace, they have a tendency to be a little harder on it," he says. "You're not going to get a lot of accolades doing a movie like this. All you can do is lose."

This guy's a lot smarter than his former fans are giving him credit for.

The Children of George and Steven, Part III - The Internet of Broken Dreams

Vanity Fair's recent cover story on INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL contained an interesting (though unsurprising) quote from George Lucas about what the potential fan reaction to the new film might be like:

“The fans are all upset,” Lucas says. “They’re always going to be upset. ‘Why did he do it like this? And why didn’t he do it like this?’ They write their own movie, and then, if you don’t do their movie, they get upset about it. So you just have to stand by for the bricks and the custard pies, because they’re going to come flying your way.”

There are two ways of looking at this: One, Lucas is just hitting back at his fans, the ones who helped make his empire by spending years worshiping the STAR WARS and INDIANA JONES series, for their griping over the STAR WARS prequels, which have been endlessly criticized despite all being mammothly successful at the box office (personally speaking, I like them all well enough). For years they loved and revered Lucas and then when he went back to the well like they had all been waiting for they hated what they got; changes to the original STAR WARS trilogy and then a new trilogy that didn't measure up to their standards, whatever those were. It was a divorce with kids involved, amicable but with a lot of post-divorce hate. You love the person you were married to for so long, love the kids, still respect that person, but the person they've become? That person is a stranger to you and you want little or nothing to do with them. Seeing the new INDIANA JONES films is tantamount to seeing your ex at your kid's high school graduation; you have to see them even though you don't want to, but you're really there because of your love of little Steven. Little Stevie Spielberg is what keeps the two of you talking to each other.

And the other way of looking at George's statement? He's 100% correct.

There is a segment of the audience that is extremely trepidatious and almost all of them can remember seeing the original film back in the summer of '81. Like myself, they don't want to see this series go out with a whimper and as much as they would love to see the movie, they also question the basic need for it. They've also had a fourth INDIANA JONES movie in their heads for almost 20 years, so no matter what the result is it won't be good enough for most. Of course, it could be great (and it would be nice if it is), but even if it were just "pretty good" it would be a letdown for many; it has to be better than the movie they have in their minds or else it doesn't deserve to exist. And rest assured, if that's the case then the fans will make sure their voices are heard, and I think you all know where that will be.

As with most every industry or artistic medium, the internet has been revolutionary in how it's allowed the audience to interact with filmmakers and studios like never before. Want to download the script to some hot new blockbuster? It's out there, and if someone isn't careful the entire film itself can be out there, too, for those who want it. Want to tell the folks how much you loved or loathed a certain flick? Start a blog or subscribe to a message board and you're off and running. The audience now has more information about a film in their grasp than ever before; reviews can show up weeks, even months, in advance, and rumors of on-set strife or battles between studios and filmmakers can hit your browser just hours after it all goes down. We've always been a movie-hungry society, but over the last decade it's become a non-stop feast that's never going to end and mine is the generation that has up and run with it. We created Ain't It Cool News, Dark Horizons, CHUD, Twitch, IGN, UGO, Bloody Disgusting and countless other news, reviews and info sites that feed our habit several times daily. I read a few of them daily and usually see the same stories posted again and again, but at least once a day one of them actually breaks an interesting story, like when Devin Faraci at CHUD revealed that Spike Jonze's WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE might be undergoing major reshoots due to studio displeasure at the film's currently shape. It's interesting to see what's happening now - the fans are rallying around Jonze, insisting the studio let him make the film his way - and perhaps, just perhaps, if the reaction gets louder and louder, maybe, just maybe, they might have an impact. It was a similar negative fan reaction that no doubt led the now-former New Line CEO Bob Shayne (an asshole he might often be, but I always admired the guy and am sad to see him go) to make peace (and payments) with Peter Jackson regarding THE HOBBIT because otherwise who'd see the movie? Every so often the fans do have their power and it's the internet that's their weapon of choice, but you know something? That's an extremely rare thing.

I remember when I first saw Harry Knowles' Ain't It Cool News in the fall of '96 and saw the first batch of scoops - test screening reviews and rumors (some accurate, some not) about the upcoming STAR WARS prequels - it seemed too good to be true, and it was. It felt like it was a revolution in filmmaking, giving the fans a voice in the moviemaking process and allowing them to take on the powers that be in order to get films made they way they should be made, without studio interference and with as much creative freedom as possible. Around the summer of '97 it seemed like Knowles and his readers were indeed having a positive effect: BATMAN & ROBIN was assaulted mercilessly by AICN readers at advance screenings and many fans stayed away, which happened again the following summer with Emmerich's GODZILLA. One test screening with a slew of AICN reviews helped turned the tide for TITANIC, which many were predicting would bomb thanks to its cost, and the rest was history for that film. There really was this idea that it was possible to change things, to get the studios to hear about what the audiences wanted, and it was kind of exciting. However, that's not what happened. Movies haven't gotten any better; there are more comic book movies and stupid action movies, many of them second rate or worse; more stupid blockbusters, less creativity and less respect for the audience. Everyone claims to hate Michael Bay, but his movies still make money. Just as many revolutions fail as they do succeed and this one seems to join the former camp. So where did it all go wrong? I think it might have been with STAR WARS: EPISODE I, to be honest; plenty of fans disliked the movie (I wasn't one of them), and yet it was a blockbuster, still one of the five highest grossing films of all time. Sure, it wouldn't be the first time that a movie that people disliked was a hit, but that fucker was huge, so huge that marked a considerable change in things. It seemed for a brief time that audiences would be rejecting crap in favor of quality, but that notion, as noble as it is, was fleeting. If you feed the audience the perception that they feel they must see a certain movie, then see it they will, and by the time everyone figures they've been duped, it's already in profit. Nobody wins except the studio. The audience is powerless.

People are quick to blame Harry Knowles and his ilk for the geek culture of today for feeding this notion and all I can say is that if it wasn't Harry it would have been someone else, so give the guy a break. I know Harry a little, along with Drew and Eric, the other top guys at AICN, and I admire the fact that they've taken the site and turned it into something special to certain people and that they're making a career out of something they love doing. A lot of people see them as corporate tools, but if you knew about some of the behind-the-scenes stuff that I've heard about then you'd know that that's not the case. Yes, Harry can get way too effusive about certain movies (or too many movies), but I believe the site is balanced enough if you look at it clearly and besides, the only critic you should listen to in the end is yourself. I feel the same about the other internet folks I know, like Devin at CHUD and Todd at Twitch, and if I could make a living out of doing this myself I would, so understand that I am not trying to place myself above anyone. Yes, they can all be a little too snarky at times (though well-placed snark has its benefits), but what people also don't understand is that these guys take what they do seriously. They all see themselves as journalist and they all love the opportunity to champion little movies and to call the studios out on their bullshit. The fact that it doesn't always make a difference, well, maybe that's just the system. Doesn't make it less sad, but perhaps it is what it is. Not that is has to be that way...

The filmmaking (and film loving) generation of Lucas and Spielberg eventually gave birth to a generation that has had most every filmmaking advantage given to it but hasn't produced real results. Some great films, yes, but mostly carbon copies of the films that our parents, George and Steven, originally made so much better 20, 25, 30 years ago. We talk and write more about great movies than we actually make them. I 'd like to think that we know what a great film really is, but with SIN CITY sitting in the IMDB Top 100 (above 2001, mind you), I'm not so sure. It's not that I think that I think people my age are stupid or lazy, but that we don't have the proper perspective; we can't do what's been done before and we have to find ways of trailblazing that are more than just putting comic book panels on the big screen. There have been opportunities to do things new and original, or even to just offer some solid entertainment, and in the words of one trailblazing classic, we blew it. But like I said before, it doesn't have to be that way. Things can change, as they always do. We can change them, but we have to change ourselves first. Like Spielberg, we can wise up, grow up, throw away our childhood things and discover something new about the world and about ourselves and bring that experience with us when we tell our stories. Like Lucas, we can stick to our guns and remain independent. We can learn the lessons of these "parents" and not blame them or ourselves when we don't measure up, but just pick ourselves up and try again. We had some damn happy childhood memories thanks to these two, but we're all adults now. Dosen't mean we have to forget our childhoods, but we can no longer afford to revel in them. Let's act accordingly and clean up this mess.

The Children of George and Steven, Part II - The League of Ordinary Filmmakers

Over the years, the bashing of George Lucas and Steven Spielberg has become something of a national pastime amongst many of our nation’s critics, and it’s something that will continue until the last critic who can remember a cinema before JAWS breathes their last. 100 years from now, or maybe even just 50 years from now, there won’t really be a heck of a lot of dissenters to swim against the mainstream that these guys were movie gods of the highest order. Not that HOOK will get reappraised as a film classic (although maybe the STAR WARS prequels, all of which I enjoyed, might get a second look), but maybe not all of the history books will state, “Not everyone was a fan”. History is written by the winners, as the saying goes, and let’s face it, George and Steven have fought their battles (sometimes even among their own fans), but they will always come out victorious in the end.

One manner of this victory is in the legacy they leave us, in this case the films made by the currently under-40 filmmakers who grew up with Lucas and Spielberg. These guys spawned more filmmakers than the Velvet Underground did bands; there are extremely few under-40 directors who didn’t see STAR WARS, RAIDERS or E.T. as a child and experience some kind of epiphany. Countless filmmakers or wannabe filmmakers have spoken about how these films (and, to be fair, many other films) changed their lives and put them on the path they are today. Even those who have gone onto another path of filmmaking, the Joe Swanbergs and Andrew Bujalskis, are working their ways out of the shadows of these cinematic father figures. It was a similar thing for Lucas and Spielberg, who grew up revering Hitchcock, Disney and Kurosawa, and for their contemporaries (Cameron, Scorsese, Coppola, Romero, Dante, Landis, Zemekis, De Palma, Woo, Carpenter) who likewise grew up the children of Fellini, Bergman, Minnelli, Ford, Hawkes, Harryhausen, Kubrick, Corman, Universal horror, Famous Monsters and countless others to create works that would also prove highly influential. Every filmmaker has their influences and you can often trace a director’s themes and style to that filmmaker they revere the most. Thing is, we now have a generation of filmmaker feeding off of another generation of filmmakers who wanted to make movies just like the movies their idols did. We’re getting third or fourth generations of stories and themes that have been around the bend a few more times than most of us care to count and for those of us who see a lot of movies, that’s not good. And what’s worse (to me, at least), tribute are being made to eras in filmmaking that weren’t all that great to begin with. As a reaction to the likes of HATCHET, I wrote a little piece at the AMC Monsterfest blog last summer about how a lot of 80s horror movies sucked and it was not that well received by the readership. I’m just waiting for the day 20 years from now when someone pays tribute to torture porn to stop watching movies altogether.

The under-40 directors of today have huge advantages that their idols never did: Tremendous leaps in technology that allow for digital filmmaking and editing; DVDs of thousands of great films with pristine transfers and supplemental features; more outlets for distribution and investors than ever before. And yet, movies aren’t better. Why is that? Are these filmmakers too lazy to find their own style or simply not good enough to develop it? Certainly there are some tremendously talented directors out there and some legitimately great films, but with so many opportunities afforded them, why are there more Shawn Levy and Brett Ratner-types than not? Hollywood certainly isn’t a place that fosters artistic growth, but even among the indie sector you’ve got directors who started out looking like they would make something of themselves but have either given up, sold out or have lost their spark. Robert Rodruiguez pretty much showed us all he had with EL MARIACHI and has more-or-less been making the same film ever since. Kevin Smith seemed to have a singular voice about him; his 90s work showed intelligence and an creative progression, from the crude but sharply-observed CLERKS to the slicker but smarter (and more heartfelt) DOGMA and CHASING AMY. His work this decade, however, has been extremely lazy and running on fumes, as though he has nothing left to say about much of anything. Jason Reitman went from the wicked satire of THANK YOU FOR SMOKING to the mush that was JUNO while M. Night Shalmyan proved he had a cinematic storyteller’s gift with THE SIXTH SENSE and the underrated UNBREAKABLE but has been coasting on fumes ever since, from the uninspired SIGNS to the utterly ridiculous LADY IN THE WATER, where he cast himself as the savior of mankind. But the most tragic of all (as far as I’m concerned) has been John Singleton. BOYZ N THE HOOD was like a much-needed punch in the gut back in ’91, and while its melodramatic elements have aged it a bit, it’s still a solid piece of filmmaking. His 90s follow-ups weren't in the same league, but at least they stayed on the same course of social outrage as BOYZ; with the exception of 2001's BABY BOY he’s been more of a studio director for hire this decade, albeit a talented one (I have to admit that I was most entertained by FOUR BROTHERS). He gets points for having produced Craig Brewer’s HUSTLE & FLOW and BLACK SNAKE MOAN, but just knowing that he’s directing the movie version of THE A-TEAM (a show that even I didn’t think much of as a lad) tells me he’s more interested in the deal than anything else. I’m sure he disagrees, but these things speak for themselves.

However, bright spots abound. I mentioned Swanberg and Bujalski and the possibilities there leave one with hope, though I think it’s still a little too soon, although the fact that the whole scene that they’re part of (I’m not going to say the name… don’t ask me to say it… OK, OK, it’s called “Mumblecore”, are you fucking happy now?) is a minimalist, character-based Cassavetes/Dogma one embraced by young filmmakers. Films the likes of FOUR EYED MONSTERS and THE PUFFY CHAIR (which I wasn’t especially impressed with, though others were) wear their indie badge with pride, but they’re refreshing mainly because of what they’re not – studio product - unless they’re really awful, and let me tell you, a bad, pretentious indie movie is as depressing as any Ice Cube family comedy can be. But the two filmmakers who I believe are going to prove to be the best of our generation are both, oddly enough, named Anderson : Wes and Paul Thomas. They both make unique and distinctive films and both have styles that are very much their own. P.T. Anderson’s early works certainly owe a debt to the likes of Altman and Scorsese, but his last two features, PUNCH DRUNK LOVE and THERE WILL BE BLOOD have been very much his own original creations and are unquestionably masterpieces, with BLOOD taking my vote as the best film of the decade thus far. Both tales of obsessed men who finally explode after years of repressed emotions - one by love and one by hatred - P.T. Anderson is exploring some unique psychological territory that very few American filmmakers (especially those his age) are into and it's important that we don't get in the way of whatever direction he's headed in. Though THERE WILL BE BLOOD seems to owe a bit of a cinematic tip of the hat to Kubrick (I get this weird 2001 vibe every time I watch it) it truly is its own work and a stellar one at that, putting P.T. Anderson on a cinematic trail that one hopes will continue to be as exciting to view as it's been thus far.

As for Wes Anderson I see him as something of a fantasist, a Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam sort who happens to make comedies about dysfunctional men, usually in relation to family, and again, this is territory that he seems to have the market cornered on. Folks have come to be turned off by the whimsical elements to his work, but that's what I think is so wonderful about them, that there is a very positive undertone to almost every film he does. His films all see the world as a place where redemption is possible for even the most self-destructive of us, and the films never lean towards being too "cute" or phony. I also love that he's very possessive of his style; like Burton, his attitude seems to be, "There are my films, take them or leave them", and no matter what flaws you seem to think you find the first time you see them, by your inevitable second viewing they'll be gone. And like P.T., Wes also understands the power and importance of music in his films, which often contain some of the best soundtracks around. He's an impossible filmmaker to dismiss and I have no doubt he still has a few more classics in him.

But do the two Anderson's make up for all the Brett Ratner's of the cinematic world? No, not really, but I'm still incredibly happy to have them here in this day and age. It certainly possible that interesting new directors may come up in the next few years to rival their talents, and if they do I certainly look forward to their arrival. But in the here and now I don't exactly take a lot of pride in the filmmakers of my generation, especially if they see their childhood heroes as their co-directors. What's also troublesome (though far less so) are the cheerleaders, the fans and the press of my generation who have put them on pedestals and knocked them down with equal aplomb. They're something new for a different age of moviegoer and maybe not a positive thing. We'll get into that in Part III.

The Children of George and Steven, Part I - The Crap of Our Youth

Indiana Jones, the films and the character, means a lot to me, perhaps a bit more than it really should. The films themselves I love, with RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK being the movie that solidified my status as a lifelong movie freak. It also has a deeper meaning to me, because it was the right film at the right time, a movie friend that came along when one was sorely needed, and in this fairly bizarre way I look upon not just as a movie but as an old friend, someone I can take comfort in from time to time. I can’t really go into the whys and hows, except to say that there was a bit of a dark time for me and my family and constant returns to the old Morristown Triplex through the summer of 1981 were actually encouraged as long as it was going to help me forget about my troubles for a while (and just so you know, even though it was tough going there for a while, everything turned out OK in the end). The sequels were big events for me, too, although as much as I enjoy them they never really meant the same to me, because times were always different and the events that surrounded them were nowhere near as heavy. The last one of these films came out in 1989, half a lifetime ago for me, leading me to think I had said goodbye to Dr. Jones back then, but that, of course, turned out to not be the case. The opening of INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL is about three months off, but it’s been in the works for a long, long time, ever since an October 1993 Variety article about George Lucas stated that there actually were plans for another film, despite previous insistences that THE LAST CRUSADE was indeed that. It’s been a real long time in coming, but I don’t quite exactly know just how excited I am about it. Aside from the idea that I don’t want to see my favorite film series potentially get ruined with a lackluster entry (hey, it could happen), the fact of the matter is I don’t really feel like I need Indiana Jones to come back into my life again. For a chubby, sometimes dim, friendless kid in the 80s, yes, he mattered, but I’m not that person anymore. The idea to kind of tantamount to dating your old high school girlfriends once again; do I really need to go there? Can I just have my memories and leave it at that?

Ah, but this is the movie industry, where nostalgia is a star in its own right. It’s easier to make a sequel, even if it’s almost 20 year after the last film, than it is to make something original because there’s less risk: the audience will show. Will I be there opening day for INDIANA JONES AND THE KINGDOM OF THE CRYSTAL SKULL? Of course! I’m as much of a lemming as anyone else and curiosity (and nostalgia) will certainly get the better of me, no question. But it goes beyond all of that, really. There’s the element of devotion, not just to the Indiana Jones character, but to the men who created him, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas. I know that I’m not alone in this, that idea that you have to go and support everything these guys do, and I know it’s something beyond just simple fandom. Everyone knows these guys changed the shape of movies, but they also helped change the face of contemporary society, unknowingly at first and (I think) unwittingly in the end, but change it they did, in a big motherfucking way. As with the movies, one can always question if the influence has been positive, but you can’t deny it’s been huge.

Case in point: When THE PHANTOM MENACE opened, it was estimated that 2.2 million full time employees at companies all across the country took the day off or called in sick so they could go see the movie. In the event of a national tragedy, a 9/11, I can see that happening, but for a movie opening? Unheard of. And yet in an odd way, it’s not that surprising when you consider the audience. Mostly Generation Xers and Millennials (both terms I despise, but it helps clarify things), young people with disposable income and a desire to relive the pleasant memories of their youths in the same manner Lucas and Spielberg did by making their films. No matter what your lives were like outside of the theater, these films left a huge mark on people my age, and when I say “people” I mostly mean guys my age. The idea of the perpetual state of childhood isn’t exactly a new one (Peter Pan, ect.), but the notion that not only would it become acceptable that you didn’t necessarily have to “grow up”, that you could even make a living off of it, that was something new altogether. Folks like Forest J. Ackerman, who turned their houses into shrines of all things fantasy, used to be the anomalies. After a certain point you were expected to throw out your comic books, give your toys to Goodwill and grow the fuck up. Now it’s socially acceptable to wrap the comics up in plastic and keep the toys in their original packaging (or close to their original condition) so that they can accrue in value, for that day when you may need to sell them off in order to pay the rent. This did not really exist 30 years ago.

So times have changed; hey, they always do. One of the things that’s changed with those times is the definition of what man is, or used to be*. A man used to mean several things: a Lee Marvin-type, a man’s man that fought in wars and could handle himself in a bar fight; a Gregory Peck-type who provided for his family and knew how to fix things around the house; a Paul Newman-type, a rugged intellectual who fought against social injustice. Those kinds of men still exists, but there are seemingly less of them, mostly replaced by “guys”, guys who like to hang out with their buddies, smoke dope and drink, play video games and talk pop culture. An excellent example of this can be found in KNOCKED UP (and most of Judd Apatow’s recent work), the shiftless loser whose main ambition is to create a Mr. Skin-style website who only deals with an adult issue (parenthood) when it’s literally forced upon him. This type of “guy” is not exactly new, either, but it was never the norm like it is now, in this era of stunted growth and the idea that “40 is the new 30”. The movies are reflecting this, no question, but they’re part of the problem, too, and always have been. As a society, we’ve been invested in fantasy for far too long. We love our TV, our music, our drugs, our celebrity culture, our fashion, and our movies far too much than we do helping our fellow man or actually making a positive change in the world. Movies are a part of our complacency and people of my generation look to them to validate this and to validate themselves, a constant escape from some kind of reality. Luke Skywalker may have had a pretty shitty childhood growing up on Tatooine, but he didn’t have to pay taxes or rent and eventually fate found him, taking him on a lifetime of adventure. Only in the movies. Real life just isn’t the same.

Movies have always been about escape and fun and fantasy, along with the occasional social statement, but over the last thirty years the line has gotten blurred. It's not so much that the films themselves are at fault (one can argue that things would have gone this course no matter how the popular culture evolved), but that they help to feed our passive-aggressive nature. The desire to have the movies become our reality has grown to greater lengths. There are certain aspects of this, like the advent of new technologies that seemed unreal 30-40 years ago, that are indeed a positive, but in the attitudes of most people my age it’s become destructive. I see it in myself and people I know and I see it in how it’s affected movie themselves. Like in the real world, we have so many advantages that we never had before, but we’re not exactly making use of them like we should. It’s not so much that I’m just waking up to this, but recent events in my life are serving as a clear reminder that this addiction to the crap of our youths isn’t doing us (or me) any good. It’s hurting our perception of reality and it’s hurting the movies themselves. Growing up is always difficult, but the process is taking longer and getting more and more painful. The shit that I’m currently going through, mostly my own damn fault (bad career choices and the male phenomenon of not thinking before you speak), is for me to go through, though I don’t deny that I’m relying on others to help work it out. I'm not sure if things will resolve themselves like I want them to, but at some point things will get better, of that I'm sure.

As for the motion picture art form that’s so important to me, I’m still trying to figure out what can be done there. We’ll discuss that in Part II.

*The idea of what really constitutes “a man”, and whether those old standards apply in this day and age, is a valid one, but it’s a discussion for another time.