Is Lucas's Future-View Really That Positive?

Rating: 3/10 (20 May 1999)

Before "The Phantom Menace" was released, many critics released early reviews. I steered clear of them as much as I could so I would be able to go into the film with as much of an open mind as possible. I only began reading other reviews today. I have to say that I am on the side of many other critics who are critical of the film. I was not a big fan of the first three "Star Wars" films, but I wanted to put all that aside and go into the film with the hope that something had changed. In the theater where I saw the film, there was a loud countdown before the projector was started and I felt as much adrenaline pumping as anyone, but after it was all over, I came out with mixed emotions about the film.
The film had its good points; the special effects and sound were out of this world. The racing scene was amazing; the best part of the movie, I would say. Dare I say that all of the technical academy awards will go to this film at the next Oscars? It is a pretty good bet. But if there is any film guilty of having too many special effects, "The Phantom Menace" is it. I suspect that one could watch this movie over ten times and still not have seen everything that George Lucas has painted onto his canvas. Does Lucas have a good imagination? Yes! But the problem is that his imagination seems to lie only in the visuals and sound, everything technical. If one was to take away the effects, there would be nothing left. This does not make for a good film. I had the same problem with last summer's "Armageddon". In movies of this sort, the stories are usually seriously lacking. While, I will grant that "The Phantom Menace" is miles beyond "Armageddon", the "Star Wars" story really needed some more work. Lucas and his crew from Industrial Light & Sound were obviously so concerned with an audience "awe" reaction with the effects, that they forgot to write a compelling story. What story there is, is often confusing and disjointed because the special effects are so overbearing and seemingly signify nothing. There are new creatures constantly popping out from every which direction, with no explanation. And half the time it is next to impossible to comprehend the relevance of the sets or landscapes where the lines of action are taking place. Sure, it all looks cool, but if one can not understand what it means, it is useless.
If I could ask George Lucas one question, it would be "Why did you bother having a cast of any actors at all"? The human aspect seems to play minimal weight in the picture, and one would think that Liam Neeson, Ewan McGregor, and Natalie Portman could be created digitally through the use of computers, just as all of the other creatures are. I wonder how much time was spent actually filming the actors as compared to the time spent in the studio concocting special effects. It seems to me that if Lucas could eliminate humans from his films altogether, he will have arrived at his masterpiece. It has been argued that Lucas's view of the future is much brighter than that of many other science fiction writers; that the future is not a place of darkness and damnation. The real tragedy here is that most of those other science fiction writers such as Philip K. Dick and William Gibson write in part about how technology causes a dehumanizing effect on people, so therefore it may be argued that they are providing a social commentary on exactly what Lucas is doing which is ridding his films of human content. And people buy into it, because he has the power and the money to create these technological film-making breakthroughs. I would not say that his future view of technology is bright and cheerful because the way he and many others use technology is exactly the concern of more critical science fiction writers. It is too dismissive to view the two realms of science fiction as only having differing views of the future. Each responds to and relies on the other.

** out of ****