Genre – Documentary
Movie Total Runtime – 1 Hour 32 Minutes
Spoilers – N/A

An absolute Blockbuster Bargain Bin acquisition, this film dates to the period after the release of the prequels but before the sale of Lucasfilm to Disney. For those of you with better things to do, during that time, George was treated as a villain by the fan base, which likely contributed to his agreeing to sell later.

I admit to being both a geek and a nerd, with an unhealthy level of trivial knowledge stuffed in my brain regarding some of these big franchises. Even so, the fanbase the intro segment decides to spotlight consists of the most cringeworthy basement dwellers to ever geek geekdom. I know there is a kernel of truth in stereotypes, but the dark reflection makes me want to drink.

Roll opening credits.

From a narrative standpoint we find that the filmmakers have picked that obnoxious style of documentary construction where you do not have bridging narration nor a presenter. They simply stitch together slivers of video like Doctor Frankenstein and are surprised when it fails to live. I really dislike this approach to documentary filmmaking. I know it was used a lot, but I always feel like I’m still waiting for the documentary to actually start by the time the end credits roll. I know it saves money because you don’t need to record original material, nor find someone capable of being the presenter/narrator. But you lose so much from the actual delivery of information that it’s not worth it.

Obviously, this documentary is about George, his life, career, and the eventual backlash after the Prequels. There was even a Crystal Skull reference in the opening credits. So we start with a video collage of interviews both modern and retro regarding his early work. But the disjoined nature of the assembly makes it difficult to actually absorb information.

This poses an interesting question – In talking about a documentary, especially one about a subject many of my expected audience is somewhat familiar with already – do I focus more on the weakness of the presentation and become a broken record with nothing to say? Do I try to extract George’s story from their patchwork of half to five second clips? Do I run away yet again and review the next thing on my list?

I think I’ll discuss how I prefer documentaries to be constructed.

First off, you need a presenter. They could be a disembodied voice providing bridging narration, or an actual character on-screen, or a combination of the two where the on-screen character talks to the narrator. Your presenter/narrator provides a consistent voice, both literal and figurative, which anchors the documentary narrative and helps guide the viewer through the information presented. However, this role is a make or break point for the whole production. YouTube provides an excellent array of examples. There are some presenters where I can sit through five ours of the most niche, esoteric analysis you would ever see because the presenter is good at his or her job. And then there are those where I can’t force myself to slog through fifteen minutes about something I’d otherwise be interested in because I can’t stand the presenter’s voice or style.

So, there was this fad where documentarists went “Why risk it, just edit together our source materials and let the clips speak. This lands us in the situation this film presents where it’s like a gravel slide instead of a ski slope. Even a documentary is supposed to be telling a story. It might be the story of the transfer of valence electrons in semiconductors, or the tale of a once beloved filmmaker’s fall from favor in the eyes of his audience. But you still need to construct your narrative to present the information in a manner that flows through that story smoothly. You may curse the snowfall, but it ties together that gravel slope and lets the guests just glide where you’re trying to take them (the gift shop).

I have repeatedly mentioned my dislike of quick cuts, short camera shots, and clipped scenes. A scene should be long enough to let the audience establish where they are, what you want them to see, and to convey the key points – the moves along. I actually learned this one from my writing. In my oldest surviving dreck, I find some scenes that are little more than a paragraph. Re-reading the story, the sudden jump-jump-jump of these short ‘scenes’ left me feeling disjointed and abandoned by the yarn. Transition – Establish – Act/Exposit – Setup – Transition. Leave behind a smooth flow for the reader or viewer to ride along.

One of the people whose interview was cut up and included in this documentary is credited for some role in making Bond movies. But it is never established what connection he has to the George Lucas tale. They also have a clip from Neil Gaiman. Okay, I’ve heard of him – but you didn’t establish why you’re talking to him about Star Wars. In fact, they use all of one sentence in the clip where he first appears, and it’s clearly from the middle of a conversation. Without the context, I’m left going “why are we asking Neil Gaiman about a phone call with his mother?”

Okay, enough kicking that dead horse.

I appear to have lost my own narrative in harping on one, albeit significant, flaw in the Documentary. So, we’ve got our presenter, and we’ve got an idea of the overall narrative, and we’re going to array the information we’re presenting in digestible yet still substantive chunks. What else do we need? We need to make sure we don’t make the mistake I so often fall prey to – keep the tangents under control. Find a way to tie them back to the main narrative, or acknowledge the tangent exists but amputate it from the final product. You’re not going to be able to present everything. There’s too much information, too much potential detail. Select what fits best, acknowledge where we’re bypassing other elements, and tell the story. If you really want to keep working on a topic, those amputated tangents can be starting points for future projects.

So we’ve built a streamlined trail from where the audience starts to our gift shop/merch store. Stop fiddling. Another trap is trying to get things too perfect. You will never get there. The question one needs to answer is not “Is this good enough?” but “Will my audience accept it?”

I think they will. At least for this ramble.

As for this Documentary? It’s outdated and poorly done. Pass on it.