IGNFF: I like to say, "The greatest detriment to art is success"...
KURTZ: Yep, exactly.
IGNFF: Well, I know that when talking about the directors and the auteur theory and directors throwing off their shackles in the '70s and what it eventually led to... by the way, a group of friends of mine, we have something that we, ironically enough, call the Kurtz Theory ? which directly relates to Lucas. Essentially, it's that when you lose all checks and balances ? someone who has the ability to say no to you or to convince you that this might not be the right direction ? you get films like Episode I.
KURTZ: Yeah. Well, I think that's true. In the case of Episode I, there's probably something else going on as well, which is it was a merchandise-driven project ... they knew that the money from the merchandising would make a lot more money than the money from the film. It's a tired film, in the sense that there's no passion or energy there, and that comes from that kind of slightly cynical attitude, I think. There's a lot that could have been. In Episode I, there's a tremendous amount of story potential that was wasted.
If, on balance, you're looking on it on the basis of "Well, it's going to make a lot of money no matter how terrible it is," then you're going to go in not with the right kind of energy to make it right. That's not limited to Episode I ? there are lots of films that are made that way. I think you have to approach every project with a kind of wonder.
I didn't know Alfred Hitchcock very well ... he was working at Universal when I was there, and I met him several times in Lew Wasserman's office and a couple of times around the lot, and I watched him work on Family Plot a bit. He was a fairly intimidating guy and he was ill as well, at that time. So, he wasn't his old self, I suppose. Anyway, he did say one day that when someone asked him what was his favorite film of all of his projects, he said, "The next one."
I think that's a wonderful comment, because that shows that he was excited about the idea of planning something new. I think all filmmakers should feel that way, because that energy then is transported into the project. If you're tired before you start, if you're only doing it for the money, if you don't like the script ? then you're going to go out everyday and show up, but you're not going to transfer any of your personal energy into that project.
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!"
IGNFF: And so it's the argument between doing the best you can, and good enough?
KURTZ: Yes, and I know that there's an extreme that you can go to. I also knew Stanley Kubrick quite well, and I know that he's probably the epitome of the perfection-oriented. In fact, I think he actually was clinically obsessive-compulsive, probably, in the end. He would go to unbelievable lengths to have it be exactly the way he wanted it, and he didn't have any money problems ? Warner Brothers was writing the checks and they didn't care what he did. But it still didn't matter, beyond a certain point. In my personal opinion, after Clockwork Orange, his efforts went downhill, basically. Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut all are less than interesting films, as far as I'm concerned.