Did George Lucas rape our childhood?

Far from just being of interest to children of Star Wars like myself, the documentary "The People Vs. George Lucas"  (youtube trailer here) raised some interesting questions about the ownership and identity of art, once it becomes part of popular culture.

The original Star Wars movies, especially the first, are widely acknowledged as an important part of modern culture, informing the dreams and dispositions of a significant segment of a generation. Even though not everyone might have been as awestruck and adoring as some were (including myself) the sheer fact that so many were affected in this way shows their iconic nature. More than just mere entertainment, the affection the saga inspires in all that experience it, and the fanatical devotion it elicits in some, shows that it qualifies as a modern 'myth', more a vision than just a story, a worldview which resonates deeply with a culture. Story telling is a fundamental part of human nature and history, and the most important stories have long been the means by which societies passed their heritage down through the ages; furthermore, these stories often capture a morality, an outlook,which makes them more than mere entertainment, and this is something which has can result in a deep emotional connection; indeed it is probably no coincidence that most major religions have some form of narrative tale at their core, since this is the way to captivate mankind's heart. This is how art can become entwined with culture, and the way Star Wars became thus entwined, makes it I think, indeed a real kind of art.

However, there was a problem. The original movies, although groundbreaking technologically for their time, were still restrained by what was actually possible, both financially and technically, and it seems that Lucas felt he had only realized part of what his full vision was. This part was however enough to blow the minds of a generation, and falling in love with it, they loved it as true love should, for what it actually was, not for what it might also be.

Unfortunately the very thing that made Star Wars great, its use of special effects and post production processing, and the fact that it consisted of unreal elements, meant that as technology improved, these effects and elements were open to further seamless manipulation; what is not real, can be easily replaced. Thus Lucas released new, digitally remastered versions of the movies, with various modifications which were in his view improvements, and which made it, as he says, as it should have been. If these new versions were merely extra interpretations (as for example one can watch various versions of Blade Runner, or even ET) it would be one thing, but Lucas took advantage of the fact that movies were transitioning to new media - DVD - to actually replace the old versions, even going so far as to claim that the original prints were damaged during the updates, and no longer existed. It's almost reminiscent of the Stalin's airbrushing of Trotsky from history, but when we feel the wave of indignant emotion were are forced to admit how different the situation is. Stalin was trying to rewrite the history of what others had done, Lucas was only trying to adjust what he had created, and surely that was his right?

The problem was, so many people had taken the originals to heart, his creations now part of their cherished childhood memories, and through their formative influence, even in a way, part of them. And suddenly they found these memories, these references, these parts of their selves, being changed, and it is not surprising they didn't like it. This is why some even go as far to claim (albeit tongue in cheek) that George Lucas 'raped' their childhood - in trying to rewrite something so integral to their youth, he was in a way abusing and violating it. They wanted to be able to relive, re-experience what they loved, but now it was all different. Of course most normal people might not notice the changes, a scene cut here , a new alien waddling in the background there, but the people who really cared, and there were a lot of them, did notice. I guess it would be like returning to a wood where one played as a child, to find an old beloved tree house renovated and modernized. It might be 'better', but it would be different, and what it was somehow destroyed, and that at some level really matters.

But is the anger justified? Does the artist always retain ultimate ownership? I think not, and for two different kinds of reasons. Firstly and most basically, he only had the resources to continue making the movies, and ironically remake them, because of the support of the fans. So while he doesn't strictly owe them anything as such ( they were free to pay for the merchandise) one could argue that it would at the very least be antisocial to take back what he had given them, once he has gained out of it. Secondly, it is a fact that the movies became bigger than what they were when he created them; they took on a life of their own in popular culture, and this is again down to the fans, not to him. He provided the spark, but others piled on the fuel, and the resulting fire became part of the culture, and hence he loses the right to extinguish it. The point here is that he seems to be trying to replace the originals, not just rework them into something new. This is the fundamental problem. While fans might take issue with what he is doing in his new movies and be horrified at the prequels that followed, they really don't have the right to complain about this if it is just new work. They are disappointed to see what they love not grow as they would have liked, but they are the fools to have fallen in love in such an expectant manner. This is one sided infatuation, and they have no right to dictate to their beloved. But their relationship with the originals were two sided, a partnership between art and culture, and Lucas has I think no moral right to destroy this. He gave his dream to the world, and it dreamed it with him, and he should not be allowed to take it back.

There is also another interesting facet to this argument, where the question becomes not just whether an artist be allowed to later improve his art, but whether he or she can also retract it.  In the Star Wars controversy there is particularly heated debate about the modification of one scene, and the argument can be labelled 'Han shot first'. Even in the original 3 movies the character of Han Solo developed significantly, from a selfish smuggler,  to opportunistic mercenary, and finally to a fully signed up member of the rebellion. In a movie dealing so much with concepts of good and evil, he is still a very neutral character initially, not 'bad' as such, but living on the edge of the law, and doing what needs to be done. This is nicely captured in his first scene in the saga, when he encounters a bounty hunter who wants to deliver him to what sounds like a nasty end. The conversation shows that the wrath he faces is unjustified (it's not like he ripped anyone off) so it is perfectly fitting that with a gun being waved in his face, he shoots the bounty hunter, albeit before walking nonchalantly off. Strangely, in the later movies, Lucas has (rather clumsily) manipulated the scene to have the bounty hunter shoot first. Apart from the ludicrous nature of the result, a trained bounty hunter misses a target from point blank range, the purpose of the change is clear, Solo only fires back in response to an immediate attempt on his life. Lucas here is obviously not just trying to represent the themes more vividly, but change the themes, by changing the morality, the nature, of the characters.

This raises the fascinating question - can an artist do this? Obviously this is more than just creating what he always wanted, but wanting later to create something else. Maybe the Lucas of the 1990s is more mature than that of the 1970s, maybe more sensitive, and maybe now finds his original idea too brutal. Maybe now as a father, he wants to sanitize the rougher vision of the world that he had when he was young. But should an artist be allowed do this? I think not, at least not in so far as to wipe out the original, and not just produce additions to it. Think of a philosopher who writes an influential treatise, and then tries to have it erased, removing books from libraries and changing later editions. In a way of course this always happened, but the point is in the modern digital age this can be done so much more effectively. In his book 'Delete' Victor Mayer-Schoenberger worries that the growth of digital memory will conflict with our own biological recollections, and here is a wonderful example of that, and a disturbing one, since it involves the changing of those memories.

Again,while one may be inclined to accord ultimate ownership to the artist, I think this ignores an important fact - that creating art inherently involves giving it away; if an artist never reveals his painting, or a writer never publishes her book, then maybe they retain this ownership (though an interesting argument could be had over private notes left behind), but if they actually present that work to the world, and ask it to look, to judge, to react, then through this they relinquish some rights. The world for its part however needs also to remember not to define the artist by what he or she has done, to allow them to do something else, to allow them to change if they want. The deal however must be, we won't deny artists their future, but they must not deny us our past.

So while George Lucas certainly didn't rape our childhood, he is messing with it, and he shouldn't. He has to accept that it is part of life that even though we may regret our actions, we cannot deny them. Even if we shot first.