Hypocrisy of George Lucas

Over at the National Review Online comes a nice example of the hypocrisy of rich Luddites:

It’s a free country, and Lucas can make whatever films he likes, and put in whatever subtle or not-so-subtle political messages he likes. But I can’t be the only one who finds a stunning disconnect between the messages of Lucas’ films and the decisions he’s actually made in his life and work.

Let me get this straight. With villains in Attack of the Clones that consisted of the “Trade Federation”, “Commerce Guild”, “Techno Union” and “Intergalactic Banking Clan”, etc., I’m being warned about the dangers of capitalism from a man who made perhaps more money from merchandising than any other man in history. I’m getting lectured about the dangers of greed from man who authorized, “C-3POs” breakfast cereal, “The Star Wars Christmas Special” featuring Bea Arthur’s musical number, and not one but two Ewoks made-for-TV movies.

I’m being warned about the dangers of technology, and the glory of primitive cultures like the Ewoks, who are able to defeat the ‘technological terror’ of the Empire, in what is supposedly an allegory of Vietnam. Technology is bad, soulless, dangerous, and dehumanizing. Mmm-hmm. This from a man who replaced a tall man in a hairy suit, a projecting the human-eyed loyalty and sadness of Chewbacca, with the CGI cinematic war crime that is Jar-Jar Binks. A man who tossed aside the Yoda puppet, the spaceship models, the stop-motion animation of the Imperial walkers to go all-computer-animation-and-green-screen, all-the-time.

I'd have more respect for those who advocated the glory of primitive cultures if they actually lived that simple, natural, back-breakingly hard and disease-ridden life. But of course, those that truly take that path are silencing their own voices by denying themselves the power of modern technology to spread ideas. Huh, maybe some of this modern stuff is good for something...

Share this



It was peace and prosperity versus taxation, inflationism, protectionism, imperialism, and war. The good guys win this one and people are applauding in theaters throughout the country.

The movie of course is "Star Wars: The Phantom Menace," one of the finest allegories on classical liberal political economy to ever appear on screen.

One has to wonder if George Lucas hasn't been reading Ludwig von Mises or Murray N. Rothbard during the long sabbatical that he has taken since his last major movie project. As a wealthy capitalist and businessman, Lucas certainly knows all too well what the government means to wealth and what the market means to the success of complex production processes like a major motion picture.

Why mesa always da

Why mesa always da one???

While that vent was moderately amusing (Jar Jar as war criminal...), it totally missed the point of the movie as the above poster noted. Lucas was focusing on state-capitalism (corporativism, syndacilsim, mercantilism, etc.). Also protesting colonialism, Lincoln's war of aggression (Grand Army of the Republic), etc. Show's how the republic devolved into the empire, much like america today. All in all, very libertarian and anarcho-capitalist.

He's reading a hell of a lot

He's reading a hell of a lot into the fact that the Ewoks were helpful sidekicks. Sheesh.

I don't think that's

I don't think that's necessarily the message. I think the message is actually about the danger of commerce protected/served by the state. Look at the names he uses: "guild", "union", "clan". He's talking about mercantilism, public-private partnership, and fascism, not free markets.

- Josh

Well, there's little doubt

Well, there's little doubt that Lucas is talking about fascism. The problem is that fascism=capitalism to plenty of Star Wars fans. While libertarian-minded folks cheer as Lucas lambasts state involvement with the economy and cheers an individualistic groups' voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit, I suspect most people see just the opposite.

I've actually had a friend tell me that the Rebel Alliance is an allegory for socialist principles. They just can't seem to get their mind around forced vs. voluntary cooperation. When I explained if that were the case, Han Solo would have been shot for desertion and could never have saved the day, my friend just ignored me.

I think the political

I think the political questions in the last 2 movies would interest me more if the movies themselves weren't so poor.

It was like "Alexander." Everyone stopped caring about the debate when it was agreed that the movie just sucked.

Lucas is 50/50 on philosophy. I'm not sure he understands the differences between mercantilism and capitalism, but his portrayal of the corrupting nature of political power is good. Especially in how a previously good government/person can confront a truly bad adversary, but become bad in the process. The Republic is an allegory for Anakin, I suppose.

Allegories? ha ha

Allegories? ha ha ha...sorry, I don't think George Lucas is that deep a thinker, no way, no how. I think Star Wars is just an action flick. Instead of Cowboys on horses, we get Cowboys on Starships. The bad guys just happen to wear white storm trooper uniforms, and zing lightening-bolts outta their "holsters"...C'mon, lighten-up! Remember, George grew up during the serial western on the "B" moviehouse days, when popcorn was a dime and you couldn't have a soda in the theatre so the red velour seats would stay nice...you guys are a hoot...
lol, LOL. Thanks for the laugh!:wink:... :)