negative1 said:
I also quoted:
Puggo wrote:
As such, every cultural, historical, and artistic sensibility that I know of demands that it be preserved in its original form. Students of the history of cinema should be able to study it, for example.
why don't you explain why exactly should this movie be studied?
i don't see any reason to... it's just a movie, that some people liked in 1977..
are you studying it? are you student of the history of cinema? is anyone here?
I'm going to try hard to answer this calmly and without getting angry.
Just because you or I might or might not be interested in studying the history of anything in particular, is irrelevant. History is what it is, and there are a lot of people that study it. History is more than a timeline of events - it is also its artifacts. One way we learn about ourselves, our culture and how it changes through time, is by studying what we produce. That's why people preserve and study artifacts of pop culture - books, films, artwork, music, etc. Maybe you don't, but not everything is about you.
I think that SW is a work of art. You might disagree, but that's what I believe. And, as any work of art, it exists in a context. Consider film noir - it is what it is as a product of its times, and the dark mood the western world was in in the 1940s. Contrast with the films of the upbeat 50s which reflect a happier time. Could you imagine Val Lewton or John Huston or Billy Wilder or Orson Welles going back and "brightening up" all of their noir films to reflect the more recent happier times? We'd lose not only an entire genre, but a valuable window into the sensabilities and mood of life in the 1940s, and of course what people were watching then. And as things invariably run in cycles, those older noir films were to speak to a particular younger generation some 50 years later.
Consider the movie 2001-A Space Odyssey. Sure, as it turns out, a lot of the characterizations of what would have transpired by 2001 are incorrect. But what would we lose if Kubrick decided to go in and "fix" those "mistakes"? We would lose a vibrant window into the boundless optimism of a nation on the verge of the first moon landing. We can see for ourselves how many people 40 years ago saw their future. A culture's mindset is reflected in its art - to change it is to destroy it by destroying the all-important context in which it resides.
Suppose that Federico Fellini or Ingmar Bergmann or Andy Warhol decided to "update" their works and destroy the originals. Wouldn't that be a tragic loss of cultural art? What if Romeo & Juliet were "improved" by making the protagonists a little older, say 21, so that we wouldn't have to squirm about them getting married at 13? Wouldn't we lose a striking element of historical cultural interest?
Should we go back and "correct" all those pre-Rennaisance paintings that don't properly use perspective? Hmm, as it turns out, the devices that they used - in the absence of technical innovations of the 1500s - became influential centuries later in other ways and to other artists. They also allow us to study the cultural and spirituality of midieval times. They also allow us to discern the evolution and development of the geniuses that followed. I'm glad this window is preserved.
And what about the development of SW itself? How do you think George got those story ideas? It's because he himself was very much a student of film history and drew inspiration from Kurosawa, Flash Gordon, as well as the writings of Joseph Campbell. Good thing they didn't destroy their earlier works and replace them with "better" ones. Just because YOU don't study film history doesn't mean that it is useless, because a lot of people who DO, as a result create things you enjoy!
Now regarding special effects - those too are a product of their times. And to think that "newer" is necessarily "better" completely ignores the whole notion of what art is. Is Beethoven better than Mozart? Is Monet better than Michelangelo? No, the craft of all great art is itself great and worthy of preservation. What if the rise of the Romantic composers had led music publishers to destroy the previous Baroque works? Well, fast forward 400 years, and which style is studied and rehearsed by jazz pianists? The baroque works of Bach. What does it have to do with Star Wars? Well, suppose someone wanted to make a really great puppet movie... who do you think they would study? They would study the muppets, and they'd study Star Wars. But--- oops, George replaced all the "bad" puppets with CGI. Too bad, now our aspiring puppet movie director can't see what works well versus what are the challenges.
Consider Greedo shooting first. In the 70s, apparently, it was OK for Han to shoot first. Whereas in the more PC late 90s, that is less acceptable. By changing that, that little window into the 1970s is obscured slightly. It is possible that, 100 years from now, Han shooting first might be just as jarring then as a 13-year old getting married is today. But then, we won't know, will we, because George changed that.
Now about editing... you made it clear you don't care about an award for editing. Well, a lot of people believe that the reason the original SW was SUCH a good movie, was not because of the effects, the actors, or the script, but because of the editing. Editing can make or kill a film... it's what produces the pacing, and it can turn drab dialogue into snappy repartee. Anyone studying film editing would have to consider SW a masterpiece. Every cut, every scene, every turn of phrase, is assembled with perfection. Examine the dialogue in Obiwan's hut, look at how the drama towards the end unfolds and hightens during that pregnant pause at the end, and then the perfectly timed change in angle... the entire movie switches direction at that moment and it's all because of the editing. The academy awarded it with best editing in 1977 but oops... George re-edited it 20 years later. Too bad! We don't get to see the original editing that so many other filmmakers awarded their highest honor.
The great jazz musician Charlie Parker stated several times that if he could go back and erase every copy of his famous recording of "Lover Man", that he would. He was drugged out at the time and he was ashamed of it. However, it's widely considered one of his masterpieces - the simultaneous anguish and beauty of his life crying through every note. It's a window into the life and times of bebop artists. As it turns out, Parker did re-record "Lover Man" later when he was sober, and it's nowhere near as great as the first recording. I am glad he didn't have the resources to do what George did and wipe out the original. I am glad both are preserved.
Finally, your argument that it's not stopping you or I from doing our preservations, is a joke. I'm not talking about it being preserved for ME, I'm talking about it being preserved FOREVER, and for everyone. I'll be lucky if 100 people see the PuggoGrande, and it's not a proper preservation anyways. It should be preserved as it appeared in the cinema in 1977... that means a high end transfer from a pristine print off the original negative, not a crappy 16mm transfer done in my basement.
You don't go changing a finished work of art - to do so is to destroy it to its core. At least not without preserving the original too.
