Whose Film Is It, Anyway? Canonicity and Authority in Star Wars Fandom

IF THERE IS ANY popular culture phenomenon that can be referred to as “religion,” it would be the fandom associated with the Star Wars films. In the 2001 census in many English-speaking countries, a number of people identified their religion as “Jediism,” including 70,000 in Australia, 21,000 in Canada, 53,000 in New Zealand, and 390,127 in England and Wales (“Jedi Census” 2012). This may well have begun as a joke (Emery 2001), but it is also clear that at least some of those who support this movement take it seriously, such as the online Jedi Church (“Jedi Church” 2012). More significant, perhaps, is the number of fan activities related to Star Wars which might express some of the “markers” of religion, such as communal identity, a system of beliefs and values, myths and ritual practices. One cannot attribute all of these to marketing, as a number of fan activities clearly do not originate from corporations such as Lucasfilm but are generated by the fans themselves. Although it is hard to track all of this, one can find a sampling in fan-made videos posted on youtube.com and other web sites, fan stories based on Star Wars categories, fan art and comic books, fan-designed games, costume events (including weddings), and various artifact recreations (Figure 1).1 The interactive nature of the internet has allowed these activities to develop in unforeseen ways, as it is possible to easily post content that can be edited by users around the world who can interact in real time, and who can network in ways that formerly would have been impossible. “STAR WARS FAN SITES,” STAR WARS, ACCESSED APRIL 16, 2012, HTTP://WWW.STARWARS.COM/CONNECT/FAN-SITES/. One of the more remarkable fan creations has been Star Wars Uncut, a film made via crowdsourcing on the internet that allowed hundreds of contributors to design their own version of scenes from Star Wars: A New Hope (Episode IV). Fans were invited by designer Casey Pugh to submit scenes that were then cut together in fifteen-second sequences that loyally follow, shot for shot and word for word, scenes of the original film. For this breakthrough in interactive media, the film won a 2010 Primetime Emmy for Outstanding Creative Achievement in Interactive Media for Fiction (“Uncut Project” 2012).2 The shot structure of the original film, well known to its fans, provides the continuity that would otherwise be dislodged by the jump-cut quality of the editing, which splices mid-scene sequences that differ widely in representational form. They include scenes shot with amateur actors, homemade costumes, pets, puppets, computer animation, drawings, and stop-action animation with toys. They also draw on and refer to other popular culture creations, including Star Trek, Yellow Submarine, Toy Story, Terminator, and The Little Rascals. In this way, variations are created that “riff” on the original film even while they do homage to it. Star Wars Uncut gives us an occasion to reflect on the religion of Star Wars fandom and its complexities and ironies. If one was to draw an analogy to traditional religions, it would appear that the original films are the scriptures which the faithful seek to safeguard. Their faithfulness to and love for the original is demonstrated in the fact that the shot structure and sequence of the original is meticulously followed. On the other hand, they self-consciously parody and revise particular scenes, recreating them in their own image (literally in some cases) in order to make the text their own. Fan culture appropriates the commercially made products of popular culture in this way, and in doing so, fans avoid being simply passive consumers of commercial goods, as early theories of popular culture suggested they were. Following the insights of Cultural Studies pioneered by the Birmingham School, it can be suggested that fans interact with popular culture products to create readings of them which may be subversive to the intents of the commercial manufacturers, or at least at odds with them (Lynch 2009). Fans are not passive receptacles of the messages of manufacturers to the extent that they interact with the products and interpret them in personal ways that have significance for them. Again, it may seem like a stretch to view such parodies as “religiously” motivated, but it is clear that the fans are very attached to the narratives, and do want to appropriate them in certain ways rather than others. This has been seen in the battles between Star Wars fans and George Lucas regarding the “original” trilogy of films. In 1999, George Lucas released a “special edition” of the original three films (Episodes IV, V, VI) that included scenes shot in the 1970s and 1980s but deleted from the original theatrical releases, as well as digital alterations and additions to the films. Many fans took issue with the changes, as these altered the “canon” with which they were familiar.3 One change in particular that elicited a great deal of controversy involved the encounter between Han Solo and the bounty hunter Greedo in the bar in Mos Eisley. In the original, Han shoots Greedo under the table before Greedo can fire; in the 1997 version, a digitally enhanced scene shows Greedo shoot first, with Han shooting second, although the result is the same (namely, Han kills Greedo). Fans insisted that this preemptive action shows Han's willingness to do whatever it takes to survive, and that the change “dilutes and compromises Han's rebellious and ruthless nature” (“Han Shot First” 2012). In addition, it was regarded as ludicrous that a bounty hunter could miss someone from three feet away. On the other hand, Lucas defended the change as recently as February 2012, in fact claiming that it had always been the case that Greedo shot first, and Han was simply responding to defend himself: Well, it's not a religious event. I hate to tell people that. It's a movie, just a movie. The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn't. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down. (Block 2012) The attempts of fans to defend the original version of the original films are also found in the battle to have a decent print of these films available. As late as 2004, Lucas insisted that his revisions to the original (which continued, as he tinkered with successive DVD releases) were his prerogative as the filmmaker. In fact, he claimed that the originals were “unfinished” works, and now with more time, money, and technology, he was able to “finish the film the way it was meant to be when I was originally doing it” (Lucas 2004). In essence, the rereleases were the originals, in his view, as they better expressed the original intent of the auteur. Fans, however, believed that the text as received by them in their original theatrical experience was the original film, as it was seen by them at that time. In their view, the film belonged not to Lucas, but to the viewers. Lucas refused to release the original version of the films in 2004, but a fan outcry resulted in the 2006 release on DVD of these. However, it then turned out that this version was made from a vastly inferior source, so that the visual quality was poor; specifically, the remastering was done from a 1993 Laserdisc rather than a thirty-five millimeter original. The web site savestarwars.com claims that: Lucas deliberately wanted the original versions to be presented in an inferior format so that they would not have to compete with the Special Editions. First, while bootlegs were sourced from Laserdiscs, to outcompete them all one would have to do is make an official transfer from the Laserdisc master—the result would be just a bit better than the bootlegs, which would be enough to put them out of commission. In other words, the least amount of quality possible to still have this as the “best available version.” A high quality new transfer is unwanted because it also makes the Special Edition not look as good, so all you have to do is pull that 1993 master tape out of a dust bin in the Lucasfilm archives and you've accomplished your mission of not letting people really enjoy watching the originals; they look rough, crude, the way Lucas wants us to think they look. (“Got GOUT” 2012) This fan view suggests something like a conspiracy to prevent the fans from really having and enjoying the original films; in response, fans created the web site originaltrilogy.com dedicated to petitioning George Lucas to release the “real” original films in a better format. Interestingly, however, that web site itself has morphed to become a launching pad for fan edits, in which fans create their own edited version of the Star Wars films (“Original Trilogy” 2012). In this way, they definitely take matters into their own hands, creating their own canon, as it were. This includes efforts to improve the prequel trilogy of Episodes I, II, and III, which many fans who remember the original films find vastly inferior. The Phantom Edit, for example, reedits Episode I, The Phantom Menace (1999) to cut eighteen minutes from the film, much of this involving the much-criticized scenes of Jar Jar Binks; a subsequent fan edit recut Episode II, Attack of the Clones (2002) to cut thirty-eight minutes, calling forth approval from the likes of film director and Star Wars fan Kevin Smith (“Phantom Edit” 2012). Technology now allows fans to revise what Lucas has done, in the same way that Lucas returns to his own canon to revise it; the irony is that neither is being exactly “true” to the “original,” largely because there is no “text” that can be called “the original” and agreed upon by all parties. In the age of the internet, texts are shifting realities, negotiated by multiple parties who interact with the medium, contributing their own interpretation and evaluation of the text as part of its revision. As Heidi Campbell has argued, the internet is “a sphere for the renegotiation and canonization of accepted sources of authority” as it has become a “realm of contention and shifting power” (2012: 74). It is difficult to identify which version of Star Wars actually is the original at this point, given the plethora of versions and the continuing dispute between filmmaker and fans about what constitutes the “canon,” and who has the authority to define it. It is also worth noting that even while Lucas defends the films as his own products and hence implies his right to revise them as he sees fit, he has not attempted to squash the right of the fans to create their own films. He even seems to applaud their bravado at times, as when he was seen wearing a “Han Shot First” T-shirt (Hollis 2012) (Figure 2). Fan videos, meanwhile, have multiplied, many of them critical of Lucas and the changes he has made, but in this way still expressing an appreciation for the work of the “original” Lucas who created the films they grew to love. One fan video even postulated (tongue in cheek) that the real Lucas was kidnapped and replaced by an imposter who made the prequels, and that the “real” George Lucas is about to “strike back”—after escaping from his prison and enlisting the help of his own characters, who somehow also exist in the extra-filmic world (“George Lucas Strikes Back” 2012) (Figure 3). Although in comedic form, this video expresses both the frustrations and the hopes of the “true believers” in the original Star Wars who wish to remain faithful to its vision, even if this takes them up against the “imposter” who claims to be the “legitimate” George Lucas and hence the authoritative interpreter of the canon. The 2010 documentary The People vs. George Lucas also contains interviews of numerous fans who have a “religious” devotion to the original films that puts them in conflict with their creator. GEORGE LUCAS WEARING “HAN SHOT FIRST” T-SHIRT. WOOKIEPEDIA, THE STAR WARS WIKI, ACCESSED APRIL 16, 2012, HTTP://STARWARS.WIKIA.COM/WIKI/HAN_SHOT_FIRST. SCREEN CAPTURE FROM “GEORGE LUCAS STRIKES BACK,” YOUTUBE, MAY 31, 2011, HTTP://WWW.YOUTUBE.COM/WATCH?V=_BMGEGUT3UM. One may contest whether the devotion of fans can literally be equated with religious devotion, or whether their reception of these texts is as crucial to the formation of their values and way of life as religious texts have been held to be by those who profess to shape their identities through them. Wendy Doniger, for example, suggested twenty-five years ago that those who reject traditional religions are left with a “degraded mythology” found “in films and children's books,” and that the communities that form around these will not hold fans “responsible to live in a certain way because of these myths” (1988: 131–132). As I have noted elsewhere, however, there is really no reason to assume that those who utilize the stories of popular cultural texts are any less or more likely to be “responsible” to the values within them than are “traditional” religious believers (Lyden 2003: 74). Not all Christians live by the Sermon on the Mount or the Ten Commandments, just as not all fans of Star Trek follow the Prime Directive in their daily lives. What can be said about both cases is that the narratives in question have potentially contributed in some significant way to the formation of communal identity, a set of shared ideas about ultimate meaning and values, and a set of practices that reinforce or express these. Although scholars of religion and popular culture do not always feel we can literally name activities such as movie fandom or attending rock concerts “religious” experiences, they do acknowledge that these experiences at least have a dimension that is analogous to religion. Eric Mazur and Kate McCarthy note that there are “markers” in popular culture that are suggestive of religious meaning, including “the formation of communities of shared meanings and values, the presence of ritualized behaviors, the use of language of ultimacy and transcendence, the marking of special, set-aside ‘sacred’ times and spaces, and the manipulation of traditional religious symbols and narratives” (2011: 6). David Chidester defines religion as “the activity of being human in relation to superhuman transcendence and sacred inclusion, which inevitably involves dehumanization and exclusion” (2005: viii). He allows that rock ‘n’ roll, Coca-Cola, and baseball may all be considered “religious,” as they involve ritual performance and exchange, sacred objects, and experiences of community in sacred time and place.4 Although some may resist this identification—and this is acknowledged by Mazur, McCarthy, and Chidester in their analyses—it may be a moot point to claim such experiences are not religion simply because they are not usually called religion. As Chidester points out, when critics deny the title “religion” to phenomena they call “cults” (whether these are New Religious Movements or rock ‘n’ roll fandom), it denies them legitimacy and derides them as not worthy of the “serious” attention usually reserved for “religion” (2005: 50; see also Lyden 2003: 2–3, 108–136). If one is to avoid essentialist understandings of religion, it would seem legitimate to allow the possibility that aspects of popular culture can function religiously, and adopt a sufficiently flexible understanding of the term that permits that function (e.g., Lyden 2003; Marsh 2004). One might also think that popular fandom does not resemble what we usually call religion because it engages in a continual process of revising and reinventing its texts—but religions do this as well, and increasingly so in the age of interactive media, which allows practitioners to be co-creators of their scriptures, and hence to share the authority with the “original” creators of the texts. In the age of the internet, the (fixed, static) text is dead; long live the (interactive, continually reinvented) text! Religion is not dead, but the media through which it is expressed have changed, and this has changed both the “texts” of religion which comprise its authority as well as the nature of the authorities who decide the value or interpretation of texts. Even if there is no single, universally accepted authority which decides upon the canonical filmic text of Star Wars, there may still be a canon, or (more properly) various versions of the canon, endlessly debated between fans and auteur. Debating the canon is also not a new aspect of religion; consider the differences between Jewish and Christian views of the Bible, or the different scriptures of Theravada or Mahayana Buddhists. There have always been disputes about what text constitutes authority, as well as who should have the right to interpret it, and the disputes about the texts of popular culture mirror the conflicts over authority that have always been part of the structure of religions. What is new is the speed at which these debates occur, and the inclusion of more parties in the debate, which has made determinations of authority more democratic—at least at the level of fan reception. Studying the way that popular culture fandom mirrors religious practice may illuminate the changing nature of religion as much as it illuminates the practices of popular culture. Scholars of both religion and of popular culture, and those interested in their intersection, would do well to consider how notions of canon, authority, and text have altered and in a world in which media is increasingly and the fans as well as the can create and what text as well as The values of culture are created by this interactive including the aspects we call religion, and its is likely to as the media of culture

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.