Unbelievable. Thanks for alerting us to this one, Joe.
I'll have more to say about this later. Maybe not a lot more, though...
The way her voice sounds both virulent and arrogant when mentioning the Prequels is quite repulsive. Glad I've never cared for "The Agronight" or whatever this thing is called....
Unfortunately, it's worse than that. One year ago, she spoke much more approvingly of the prequels (or TPM, at least), and also of Lucas' story choices. However, this interview indicates she either holds a more negative opinion of both, or that she lies and conveys contradictory sentiments, depending upon, it seems, whose company she is in or who she desires to impress. When her remarks were reported here on Naberrie Fields,
I idiotically praised her up before and even called her "warm and sincere". But as usual with these two-faced, self-serving woke agitators, I've been made to feel a fool and now regret my obvious naivete. At least with someone like J.J. Abrams, you kinda know where he stands. Worse are these smarmy, mendacious progressives who alter their opinions on a dime, ready to stick the knife in and betray a person or a principle if and when it suits them.
Just so we're clear here...
In June 2021, Leslye Headland gave an interview with The Wrap, in which she spoke about her upcoming show "The Acolyte", framing it as a tribute/continuation, of sorts, to George Lucas' depiction of the Jedi Order in TPM. She claimed that Episode I was a big influence on her and made it clear she was rather taken by some of GL's storytelling choices, implying his imprimatur on Star Wars is worth taking seriously -- more or less the polar opposite of what she says in that clip above:
Original source:
www.thewrap.com/the-acolyte-leslye-headland-star-wars-series-phantom-menace-lgbtq-writers-room/Alternate link:
www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2021/06/the-acolyte-the-phantom-menace-influence.htmlBut before then, thanks to the Jar Jar Abrams channel on YouTube, we now know that she was happy to casually slam the prequels like so many of her contemporaries have done, and to even suggest, not only was George Lucas
not the chief creative force of Star Wars, but an embodiment of systemic inequality and an
impediment to the artistic process.
Title: Leslye Headland is a George Lucas hater
Channel: JarJar Abrams
Uploaded: 15 Sept 2022
Description: Leslye Headland disparaging George Lucas. Thinks he can be easily replaced by people like her.
Source: June 2019 podcast "IndieWire Filmmaker Toolkit "
soundcloud.com/user-445966404/russian-doll-creatordirector-leslye-headlandAs the description makes clear, Headland made those remarks two years prior to the more complimentary quote captured above. Here are her
June 2019 remarks in full (per the video):
She promulgates several contemptible fallacies here, not the least of which is her advancing a false dichotomy (combined with a strawman) concerning the auteur theory of film. A good filmmaker is meant to instill in people working for them,
and helping to achieve their creative vision, that they can be relied upon for an answer to virtually any question;
not that they necessarily have all the answers in advance. It's not about a filmmaker lying or being a conman. A good filmmaker is meant to have extremely sharp instincts, including an ability to assemble, work with, listen to, and adeptly both plumb and constrain the egos of hundreds of other artisans, technicians, and sundry creative personnel. In short, they know what they want; or rather, what they
don't want; and they work heuristically, hour by hour, day by day, until the desired ends are achieved. Even if George Lucas got a little lucky with Star Wars along the way and with some of the talent that was hired (e.g., Ben Burtt, Ralph McQuarrie, John Williams), it doesn't mean he wasn't competently running the ship or undeserving of being given all the support and respect duly owed to a Commander-in-Chief. Moreover, in the case of Star Wars, the results that Lucas achieved speak for themselves.
Headland seems to have an issue with the idea that a filmmaker is a little like a political dictator. A good filmmaker keeps their options open and makes people feel valued and included in the artistic process. Good filmmakers encourage the talents of those around them; as much as time, budget, and circumstances allow. Yet filmmaking is
not a democracy. On a film where a clear vision is being pursued and the gears are turning correctly, creative personnel are there to give the director what he/she wants. Of course, directors are often hired at the behest of film studios and don't necessarily have the level of authorial control Lucas enjoyed (and fought hard to acquire), but Leland seems to view this as a good thing. She is arguing from a paradigm in which producers and the bean counters that they must answer to hold sway. In other words, she is not really talking about filmmaking as a pure artform in the Tolstoy-ish sense ("Art is not a handicraft, it is the transmission of feeling the artist has experienced"), but more as a commercial or collectivised process in which many people get to have a say in what form the film takes, or even what it is truly "about". This is not an entirely invalid perspective, it must be said. However, the basic idea is, humans are more than just a colony of ants -- or they can be. And the best art is often about individual expression; or an individual inducing a virtuoso performance in others, but in a way that the personal stamp of the individual remains paramount.
The notion that everyone on a film is expendable -- because
reasons -- is probably something that many writer or producer types, with certain aims in mind, would agree with. That it also plays into poisonous leftist ideas that anyone you can disagree with can just be "cancelled" and replaced with someone or something better seems to escape her notice; but it undoubtedly makes her both a shill for the corporate machine and more of a political agitator, or trendy poseur, than a genuine artist desiring mastery over a particular domain. Her comments on the Lucas-McQuarrie connection, used as broad-brush critique of alleged misogyny and systemic bias within the filmmaking industry, are just crass. She seems ignorant of the fact that Lucas was able to attract decent talent to realise his complex, multifarious vision because he himself instilled in others a certain attraction to his creation; regardless of other considerations. Alec Guinness maybe put it best when he admitted he didn't think much of Lucas' dialogue, but that something compelled him to keep turning the page. Furthermore, Lucas has strong visual sensibilities of his own, winning several awards in his USC days, recognised early on as a competent stylist and brilliant editor; and being sufficiently empowered by visual artistry, especially of the popular kind, that he
once co-owned a comic book store that sold exclusive or rare comic art items, and is presently involved in
a brand-new, first-of-its-kind museum devoted entirely to visual arts in popular American culture. He is not your run-of-the-mill creative wannabe who fluked out with Star Wars. Star Wars emerged from Lucas' own psychological eccentricities and his particular creative intellect.
Unfortunately, Leland's own egocentrism and swollen sense of pride, her compulsion to meddle first (it would seem) and tell stories second, has placed a beam in her eye and precludes her from paying respect to George Lucas and is preventing her from expressing the appropriate level of gratitude for someone in her position. Her ridiculous two-facedness between her 2019 and 2021 comments indicates two things: i) George Lucas' filmmaking
did touch her spirit, but she is unable to stay consistent and remain open about it, and ii) She wants to believe (in her egomania) that George Lucas isn't that important and she can do better than the genius filmmaker (remember: winner of the Academy's prestigious
Irving G. Thalberg Award among other accolades) who brought Star Wars into the world and made it into an iconic entertainment franchise in the first place. It's the usual slander and disrespect that has come to singularly define Disney's tenure of George Lucas' creation these past ten years.
