IGNFF: From your personal experience, how would you compare the George you worked with on American Graffiti to the George you worked with towards the end of The Empire Strikes Back?
KURTZ: It was quite different, actually. He was very different. I think the most unfortunate thing that happened was the fact that Indiana Jones came along, and Raiders of the Lost Ark had come out in between. George and I had many, many discussions about that, but it boiled down to the fact that he became convinced that all the audience was interested in was the roller-coaster ride, and so the story and the script didn't matter anymore.
Now Raiders is not a bad film, but the script actually was much better than the finished film. There were a lot more nuances in the character, and there was less action. It would've been a better picture if that script had been made. But, as it is, it's an interesting and entertaining film – it's just that this idea that somehow the energy doesn't have to be put into getting really good story elements together. One of the arguments that I had with George about Empire was the fact that he felt in the end, he said, we could have made just as much money if the film hadn't been quite so good, and you hadn't spent so much time. And I said, "But it was worth it!"
GNFF: Now, also the story has arisen that George had always intended prequels, but had never intended sequels to that initial three films.
KURTZ: After this idea of more films came up, he did several interviews where he said he had story material to do nine films – three prequels and three sequels. That was the accepted story, basically, and there was quite a bit of material both before and after the Star Wars lump. So there was no decision to do either one... it was kind of a red herring in a way, because there was no immediate thought to make any other films right away. In a sense, through a business point of view, it probably would have been better to do so, like they did with Star Trek, rather than wait all this time, because the audience interest dissipated somewhat. I mean, it didn't seem to affect the box office on Phantom Menace too much, but ...
IGNFF: It didn't exactly leave a good taste in people's mouths, either.
KURTZ: Well, regardless of the value of the film as a film, artistically, there is a kind of energy around some things where if it had come out say three, four years later after Jedi, and then another one three or four years later after that, that kind of cycle would have probably been better for the audience and for the merchandising than what happened. But that's hindsight. At that time, he always said that he had enough material for three earlier films and three later films, to make a total of nine, and there were outlined materials certainly for a later three that culminated with this big clash with the Emperor in Episode IX. So, we'll never see any of those, based on what he's said now.
IGNFF: Well what were the original outlines for the prequels? Since they can be compared and contrasted now that the first one's out there, and the second one's soon to be out there. Were there major differences from what you saw, from the original outlines of prequel ideas?
KURTZ: Well a lot of the prequel ideas were very, very vague. It's really difficult to say. I can't remember much about that at all, except dealing with the Clone Wars and the formation of the Jedi Knights in the first place – that was supposed to be one of the keys of Episode I, was going to be how the Jedi Knights came to be. But all of those notes were abandoned completely. One of the reasons Jedi came out the way it did was because the story outline of how Jedi was going to be seemed to get tossed out, and one of the reasons I was really unhappy was the fact that all of the carefully constructed story structure of characters and things that we did in Empire was going to carry over into Jedi. The resolution of that film was going to be quite bittersweet, with Han Solo being killed, and the princess having to take over as queen of what remained of her people, leaving everybody else. In effect, Luke was left on his own. None of that happened, of course.
IGNFF: So it would have been less of a fairy-tale ending?
KURTZ: Much, much less. It would have been quite sad, and poignant and upbeat at the same time, because they would have won a battle. But the idea of another attack on another Death Star wasn't there at all ... it was a rehash of Star Wars, with better visual effects. And there were no Ewoks ... it was just entirely different. It was much more adult and straightforward, the story. This idea that the roller-coaster ride was all the audience was interested in, and the story doesn't have to be very adult or interesting, seemed to come up because of what happened with Raiders of the Lost Ark and the Indiana Jones films – and the fact that that seemed to make a lot of money and it didn't matter whether there was a really good story or not – that wasn't what this kind of film was about. We had serious differences about a lot of that.
IGNFF: Well it's ironic to me ... I was talking to somebody who has a lot of good friends at ILM, especially in the conceptual department, and he said that George has basically a new catch phrase in the development process. His new catch phrase is "It's good enough," and they say he uses it all the time now. When you're talking about that idea of only going to a certain depth because the audience only wants the quick and easy impact, and then move along.... That somehow the audience isn't observant, so why should we be overly detailed... it's just fascinating to compare that with the observations you made.
IGNFF: When you talk about the development of Star Wars and the transition in tone through Empire and Return of the Jedi and now eventually what happened with Episode I, do you think that George's storytelling became more simplistic, or less mature? How would you characterize the elements that you saw emerging with the difficulties that were happening towards the end of Empire and what eventually led to Return of the Jedi?
KURTZ: I think it became simpler. You don't need complicated interpersonal relationships, you don't need difficult dramatic structures for this kind of story. Empire, in a way, is a typical second act of a three-act play. It's the problem act – everybody has problems, everybody has difficulties that they're trying to get out of, and usually the end of the second act is you're leaving everybody in deep shit. And, in a sense, Empire does that. Luke's hand is cut off, and Han Solo is frozen and he's off somewhere – all of the key elements are left unresolved. It's very rare that you see a feature film that ends that way and is satisfactory.
We were a bit afraid of that whole concept. Knowing that there was going to be a third film obviously helped, but still – that wasn't going to be for another three years, so the idea of presenting this to an audience and having them accept it was a scary proposition. I had never done it before. It seemed to work, though. It seemed to work quite well. The audience was very satisfied, and anticipated the next part. I think part of the reason that they were satisfied was because they were satisfied with the characters themselves. The characters seemed believable in the story.
Star Wars, the first film, is very much a comic book story. It's a very archetypal standard story about a hero coming of age and engaging with the world and trying to right some wrongs – and all of those things worked very, very effectively – but the dialogue is fairly pedestrian as far as movies go, and the adventure is carried along by interesting side bars and some of the individual effects... and the fact that it's kind of a rollercoaster ride in a sense, with very, very archetypal energy, so that you can associate with the key character elements very, very easily.
There's a lot of undercurrent in Star Wars that, if you take it on the surface, a four-year-old can really enjoy it – but there's a lot else going on, under there. In that sense it's multi-layered, and Empire is as well. That's the thing that bothered me a bit about Jedi and certainly about Episode I, is that those layers, those subtexts – they're all gone. They're not there. You accept what's there on the screen – it either works for you as a surface adventure, or it doesn't. But that's all there is. There's nothing to ponder.
IGNFF: No depth.
KURTZ: There's no depth in it. And that's where I think the mistake is. And I'm sorry that it happened that way, because the potential for a lot of that is great – it could have had a lot of depth, without damaging the surface story. The sign of a good movie is one that can work on very, very many levels and, depending on your mood when you go to see it, you can see those, or not, as you want. But it doesn't interfere with your entertainment of it.
IGNFF: How did you observe that change in George, because obviously he was the one who guided it towards that lack of depth...
KURTZ: Well, I think that he felt Empire was an ordeal for him – using his own money, it went over budget and over schedule a bit. Kershner was slow, we had some problems with Mark Hamill who had an injury – typical movie stuff, really. But even though it did cost a little more than was budgeted, there was no way it was ever going to lose money. He really didn't have to worry too much about it – the combination of the merchandising and the distribution would never be a problem.
IGNFF: It was never George's intention to direct Empire?
KURTZ: No, no. After Star Wars, he didn't really want to direct the others. I think he was unhappy that I – I'm the one that recommended Kershner, and had worked with him before. I think he was a good choice for Empire, I think he worked really well, but he wasn't the kind of director... George, I think, had in the back of his mind that the director was a sort of stand-in – that he could phone him up every night and tell him what to do and kind of direct vicariously over the telephone. That never happened. Kershner's not that kind of director, and even when George showed up a couple of times on the set, he found that it wasn't easy to maneuver Kershner into doing what he would have done.
So, on Jedi, he was determined to find a director who was easy to control, basically, and he did. And that was the result, basically – the film was sort of one that George might have directed if he had directed it himself... but maybe not, because it goes through so many interim bits, that if he had directed it probably would have been quite different.
IGNFF: For better or worse?
KURTZ: I think probably for better. But, I don't know, because as I said, he had gotten into this mode of saying that the audience is interested in the rollercoaster ride and that he could make just as much money, and it doesn't have to be complicated, doesn't have to have as difficult a story. There are a lot of other people who do that all the time – that's they're kind of movie making philosophy, the sort of Jerry Bruckheimer approach to movies. A lot of Hollywood movies have been based on the idea that the story is the subtext of the action, so that's certainly nothing new. But it's not very satisfying, I don't think, personally. But, you can make a lot of money, and if that's what you want to do, then you do it that way.
IGNFF: How did the arguments between you and George escalate during Empire?
KURTZ: It was just a matter of trying to get done and he, I suppose, wasn't very good at delegating. Sometimes he would want to control everything, and then other times he would go away and you wouldn't hear from him for a long time. It was difficult to fathom kind of how he approached all that, and he comes out of school doing everything himself – the documentary school where he wrote and directed and shot and edited all by himself, and there's certain feature films you can make that way, and others you can't. He had a good eye, and he's a very good editor, and the films that he directed for the most part have a good visual sense.
With story material, some of the characters were complicated, and the scripts work well. He seemed to work best as a collaborative writer, where other writers came in and had some say in adding certain things so you'd get a variety of point of view, like Willard and Gloria Huyck on American Graffiti. The Huycks also did a polished last draft on Star Wars to add some humor and some edginess to some certain bits, and I think it helped a lot.
IGNFF: Would you say that George tends to be a cold writer, as far as emotional warmth or character depth – we were talking about this as far as American Graffiti, that everything tended to be somewhat sterile as far as George's original drafts of that film.
KURTZ: I think that's probably the case. The other writers tended to add extra elements, especially emotional elements. George tends to write about the facts, in effect.
IGNFF: Very documentarian.
KURTZ: Yes, because that's his background.
IGNFF: At what point did you decide to divorce yourself from the Star Wars process?
KURTZ: Well, it was just the difficulties of finishing Empire, and the fact that – at the very beginning with American Graffiti and with Star Wars, and into the start of Empire – it was a very, very small shop... there were four or five of us in the office, and that was it. Then, in the middle of Empire, we were here in England shooting and George was back in San Francisco working with ILM on visual effects and other things, too. He hired some film people from other companies and started to expand into a much bigger operation... some marketing people, and some merchandising, and people to negotiate in some of the toy deals... and by the end of Empire, it turned into kind of this big organization. Not big necessarily in terms of actual physical numbers – there weren't that many people – but there were enough, and it was an entirely different attitude about everything. That was part of it, and also the fact that I think he blamed me for all the things that were difficult on Empire – a director that was difficult to control, a film that was too expensive, and all those things.
IGNFF: Do you think that he felt he'd outgrown the need for a set of controls... A "no-man"?
KURTZ: I don't know. I don't think we ever talked about it in those terms, but I think that he did chafe a bit under the idea of someone saying "that's not a good idea," some of the time. At the very end of Empire ... we decided at the very last minute – we pretty much locked the picture in the mix and just getting ready to make 70mm prints – and we decided that there had to an extra shot at the very end, to identify this rebel fleet.
If you remember how the end works, it's before you go into the medical department, who are working on Mark's hand. It's the establishing shot of the fleet, and we had a shot already of going into the window and showing Mark inside, and we just decided that it was confusing We didn't know exactly how that was sorted out, so we wanted a long shot at the beginning, and then one at the end that shows the whole fleet when the Falcon flies off. They weren't very difficult to do, and all the ships were there ... just pile up the composites, and they were rushed through, just to get it done. Very last minute. One of them wasn't particularly good, and George said, "Oh well, maybe we should just let it go."
I said, "It's worth at least one more go through. One bad shot can ruin the whole movie, basically." Which I really believe is true, and it just wasn't very good. It was just a compositing problem, had nothing to do with the individual shot elements – I can't even remember what shot it was, now. I think making a movie wears everybody down. You have to be really careful of the decisions you make at the very end, because you can kind of throw a monkey wrench in, very easily.
IGNFF: Just to get it out the door?
KURTZ: Yeah, just to get it done. So, I really don't want to criticize any way of making movies – anybody makes a decision about what they want to make, and they make it, and it goes out there, and the audience is there or it isn't. You can argue for years about the Pauline Kael approach, about whether movies are art or commerce or how much intellectual content you have. One of the things I remember Pauline Kael said quite clearly is that, "The young filmmakers of the '70s mostly didn't have anything to say. They were good technicians and they knew all the tricks, but they didn't have any passions, like some of the filmmakers in the '20s, '30s and '40s did."
Now, whether that's true or not – I don't generally believe in vague generalizations – but, there is a certain amount of truth to that, because a lot of films that have come out since the '70s have been quite shallow. Good looking films, but not much to say. Maybe that's part of the problem, the filmmakers haven't lived enough. Their entire experience is based on old movies, rather than life. As such, they're referential all the time – referential to old movies rather than to life experience. So I suppose the only answer to that is material that isn't that way, material that's written by novelists or screenwriters that have a substantial amount of real life experience and have interesting things to say about various topics.
Anyway, as it relates to Star Wars, the key is that the original Star Wars, and to a great extent Empire, resonated with the audience because there seemed to be something there that appealed to them. Saying something to them that they may not have even noticed – it was subconscious and they wanted to see it, they wanted to be immersed in that experience, to be able to see it several times.
That's one of the reasons the films were so popular. If you think about the fact that Star Wars came out so long ago, when ticket prices were that much cheaper, the reason it made as much money as it did is because people went back to see it many times. There are some infamous stories about people seeing it about two or three hundred times. I'm not sure if that's true or not...
GNFF: You're the person to ask about this – when you're talking about these kind of special editions and changes and are they due to an original vision or changing sensibilities – I have to ask you about your thoughts regarding the infamous redo of the scene with Greedo in the cantina.... the whole shooting first thing.
KURTZ: Yeah, I really was livid about that one. I think it was a total – it ruins the scene, basically. The scene was never intended that way. Han Solo realized that Greedo was out to get him and he had to blast him first or he would lose his life. It shows you how much of a mercenary he is. That's what the point of the scene was. And so the way they've changed it around, it loses the whole impact of that whole aspect of it.
IGNFF: Do you think that's due to George's changing sensibilities as opposed to his argument that, "No, that was my original intention"?
KURTZ: Well, he can say that was his original intention, but we could have shot it that way very easily. There was no reason that it couldn't have been shot that way. It was shot and edited the way it was because that's the way the script was. That's what he wanted at the time.
IGNFF: What is your opinion of why he would try and rationalize it, when he could very well just say, "You know, I just thought nowadays, it's better if he shoots first."
KURTZ: Maybe he just didn't want to say that. Maybe he felt it was a stronger argument to say, "That's what I really wanted to do and I just didn't have time or inclination at the time." You listen to all these directors, they all say that. That's the stock argument ... somehow if they say that, you can't argue with them.