Look at Life

Q: HEY, CHRIS, WILL I ENJOY "LOOK AT LIFE"?

Yes, but only if you enjoy seeing a plethora of still pictures thrown at you in the span of a minute. If you don't dig this kind of artsy and pseudo-pretentious vibe, skip Lucas's student films altogether.

LOOK AT LIFE pioneered the kind of rapid photo montage that has now become a staple on such guilty pleasures as VH1's BEHIND THE MUSIC. (Even the E! TRUE HOLLYWOOD STORY gets into the spirit once and awhile.) But, hell, even big feature films use this technique. What would the montage-heavy Ted Demme film BLOW be without Lucas's influence? Okay, so you're insulting/applauding me for the observation, but wait till you see LOOK AT LIFE. The influence is there, Dear Readers.

BUT CHRIS, AREN'T MOST BIG TIME FILMMAKERS WEIRD ABOUT LETTING THE PUBLIC SEE THEIR EARLY WORKS? HOW WOULD I EVER SEE THIS THING?

A: Yes, most big time filmmakers are weird about letting the public see their early works. But, there is hope. If you're currently attending Mr. Lucas's alma mater, you'll be forced (at gunpoint) to watch the thing... Even if you're in the university's Dentistry program.

Before George Lucas became world-famous as the man who invented the Star Wars universe, he was just another typical film student creating independent short films for classes at USC. "Look at Life", his very first film, was made for a course he took while at school where each student was apparently required to create an approximately one-minute short. When viewing it with a critical eye, it is not an exceptional work by any means, (at least by the standards of conventional filmmaking) and yet, considering the restrictions of the assignment, it does about the most any filmmaker could do with a one minute duration. The fact it was his directorial debut on top of all this makes it seem even more impressive on its own merit.

With a title like "Look at Life", one would typically expect a thoughtful, nostalgic sort of film - but this is not so. Indeed, the short starts out rather quiet and harmonious, but quickly shifts into a rambunctious, energetic feel as a rapid photo montage flashes by, including a variety of black and white images with loud music. Lucas's first film is considered by many to be a political one in how many of the pictures are news-centered, but I would personally say he was just trying to create an interesting look at life, just as the title says. When one takes into consideration that this one-minute movie is where one of the greatest men in Hollywood started out, it becomes worth a look if only for that very reason. Even without that perspective, I saw it because I've always enjoyed independent/experimental films, and thought it was a nice little collection of images.

This One Minute Short, shows how life can be filled with Violence, War, Love, and Happy Times, Racial Movements,ETC! George Lucas is most known for Star Wars and other Films, but this might be his most powerful film!!

1) Images. 2) Sound. 3) Editing. = A movie.

That's how George Lucas conceives how making a film. It's his first one and he never changed his mind about that. For George Lucas, cinema is like painting or sculpture: a TECHNICAL ART. Writing is not really important. Writing is the last thing that "makes" a film. The images have to tell the story. That's why the Lucas' shorts movies were silent. And the last Lucas' films are always. Images, sound, editing, and not important dialogs: that's how we should see The Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones.

Look at "Life" is a nice one-minute short which condenses all these concepts. It shows really how this mean to do can create the emotion.

THIS FILM IS PRESENT ON THE DOCUMENTARY ABOUT American ZOETROPE ON THE DVD BONUS OF THX 1138.

The user who commented that Lucas's LOOK AT LIFE film pioneered rapid montage obviously hasn't seen the films of Bruce Conner or Joseph Cornell. These were the true pioneers. Check their films out instead. Lucas has in interviews given huge credit to and cited great influence from the actual pioneering American independent and experimental filmmakers like James Broughton, Sidney Peterson, Stan Brakhage, Bruce Conner, and Kenneth Anger. These films were shown/taught to him in his school days at USC and he had been exposed to them as a part of the vibrant '60s San Francisco independent film scene.

George is no slouch of a filmmaker, certainly, and pioneered things in his own right that are big parts of today's film and pop culture, but let's not give him credit that's not due him, especially when people like Broughton and the others I've mentioned have consistently been ignored by mainstream film enthusiasts.