|
Active Member
|
There is something that Michael Kaminski recently wrote in reply elsewhere to the same type of replies seen here about how the films are "Georges and he can do whatever he wants with them" etc etc that i think is very relevant to this discussion:
Quote:
This is a reply to all those who are accusing people of entitlement because the originals are not available.
First off, let me introduce myself. I'm the author of Secret History of Star Wars, and its supplementary website. I also run savestarwars.com, and I've given talks and written other various articles relating to Star Wars and specifically issues surrounding its suppression. Apparently, the Library Of Congress now defers to me on the issue, which is flattering on one hand but also kind of sad because this should be an area where actual preservationists can work on it, which Lucasfilm unfortunately is barring.
Number one, I think anyone who accuses people on this place of being selfish and self-entitled to be a bit hypocritical. We are an enthusiastic bunch who strive to demand the best quality and features from the rights holders who control films. When Predator was DNR'd to death, we complained, because we demand better. When Superman lacked the mono mix on its first DVD pressing, we complained, because its a classic audio artifact. When Fellowship of the Ring and Gladiator came out on BD and were all messed up, we complained, because the films deserve to look as they should. When Back to the Future came to DVD in the wrong aspect ratio, we complained, because the film should be composed differently. We are not whiny complainers who have a sense of ego and entitlement--we care about films and want to make sure that they are presented in a way which reflects their integrity. Art is important. Yes, obviously war, famine, poverty, etc. are more important, but the preservation of our art and culture is not a trivial matter, and motion pictures are the pre-eminent art form of the 20th and 21st century, and the number one source of our popular culture. So, when one of the most important works of art in the 20th century and a landmark of our culture and history is not only neglected but actively suppressed: that is worrying, and this is something to complain about. Anyone here who writes something so extreme as that complainers are guilty of entitlement has no place here, because you would be unable to voice concern or criticism with any other home video release. It's downright hypocritical to facilitate such historical cinematic suppression while being critical of comparitively minor technical details in other releases.
Secondly, PeterTHX (and others--you were just the first one I noticed in the past few pages), you are seriously misinformed about a number of things. For starters, Irvin Kershner did not answer to Lucas about everything and Lucas did not supervise the shoot. In fact: Lucas only visited the set three or four times. Kershner was filming in europe while Lucas was in California, sorting out the business end and supervising ILM. Kershner only agreed to the film if he could have artistic control over it, and Lucas agreed. He didn't have unanimous control, of course, because film is collaborative and Lucas of course still had some input. But as far as the auteur theory of filmmaking can be taken, Empire Strikes Back is "an Irvin Kershner film", as the credit goes. Lucas had a much heavier hand in Return of the Jedi, but Marquand was still the director and made artistic decisions.
Thirdly, the analogy is raised that if you plan a house, you hire someone to build it and then it's yours, and you can do what you want (the analogy being Lucas as the homeowner/planner). This is incorrect. Your house is subject to zoning bylaws, which limit and control what you can do with it. But your point is largely true in that if you want to re-paint the walls or build an addition with the city's permission, you can do so. EXCEPT in one case, and this is where your house analogy has the most credence: historical buildings. Homeowners and even the original architects cannot simply do as they want. The buildings are protected under cultural heritage laws. The buildings have become classics, part of the civic identity, and you cannot make changes that compromises their historical integrity, even if you own the house or designed it yourself. You see where I am going with this? Cultural heritage belongs to the public, even if that heritage is privately owned and even if was an individuals artistic expression. Star Wars is a classic of cinema and a landmark of our cultural heritage. AFI ranks it as the 13th most important American film ever made, and the Library of Congress recognized it's value and placed it under cultural protection by including it in its National Film Registry, which preserves films of artistic and cultural significance.
In fact, the US Government not only recognizes film--and Star Wars specifically--as part of its cultural heritage, but it tried to pass laws to protect them, the way famous paintings, landmarks, and buildings are protected from destruction and suppression by whomever happens to own them. And--this is where you might be shocked--George Lucas was among those who tried to help congress. He stated before Congress that films belong to the public and deserve to be protected from being irreversibly altered.
This is why Copyright law is there. All artworks belong to the public according to US law because they are the public's cultural heritage. The very purpose of copyright is to ensure that the creators get financial compensation in their lifetime. Then they become public domain. Star Wars will become public domain in a few decades, because like anything it belongs to the public, but Lucas deserves to profit off it so it is temporarily protected while he is alive. But soon it will belong to all of us anyway.
Thirdly, you asked where there are statements where Lucas is being a hypocrit. I have a whole website full of them. But in particular, please read this page before replying: http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeecha...aledition.html
You might be lazy, so I will quote some choice samples. These are the words of George Lucas, keep in mind.
"A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.
These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.
In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten."
"The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work."
While Lucas did indeed defend that filmmakers have the right to change their work, this does not nullify the original from existence. The original historic versions must be preserved and in the highest quality possible (not from Eastern bloc sources) so that future generations can experience films in their authentic, original form. Movies are a window into the past and illustrate the tastes and technology of the time they were made.
However, this gets more interesting. What Lucas is doing--and what he even fought against in 1988, quoted above--is illegal according to the ethics of united states law. However, he gets away with it. Why? Because there is no enforcement agency in place. The law was never actually made. Lucas and his fellow film preservationist crusaders failed, and the reason they failed is because they brought in the messy idea of moral rights for their own purposes, instead of framing it purely in terms of preservation of the past. They wanted to keep things open to also, while preserving the past, altering their own works if they wanted to in derivative copies, and that's why it failed. It failed because who decides who a film belongs to? The law that Lucas tried to get put in place demanded two conditions of consent: the primary screenwriter and primary director were argued by Lucas and co. as being the authors, and they had to both agree to changes. But people like Jack Valenti, the head of the MPAA, rightly criticized this because film is collaborative, and in real life people like producers and studio executives can tell a director what to do, and people like the DPs, composers and editors also don't want their work distorted without consent (which is the purpose of moral rights).
So, by Lucas' own definition he would have been legally barred from changing the films. He wasn't the primary screenwriter on ROTJ or ESB, Marquand died before this whol spiel even occured, and Kershner was not consulted for the ESB:SE, plus he's dead now as well. Lucas would have been recognized as allowing changes to Star Wars, but he would have had to preserve the original in as high a quality as possibly by law, if things went the way those advocates wanted.
The US eventually did enter the Berne Convention for Moral Rights, but it wasn't extended to films because the issue of authorship is so messy. All artworks and historical artifacts of culture, including privately owned residences, are protected by U.S. law, but because of the fallout from the 1988 issue no one has actually challenged why films are allowed to be destroyed.
So, I hope this gives all of you a bit of a wider perspective. Star Wars and its sequels are not only very good films, but they are perhaps the most popular film series ever made, and a key artifact of our cultural heritage. The SEs may not have changed the story, but they in no way represent the look or experience of the original, aside from their historical inauthenticity. Did you know that Star Wars alone has over 200 visual changes? Think about that. It saddens me that people don't care about their history, their culture, or important films, and its doubly so that there are people this apathetic on this forum of all places. Its because people shrug and say "so what?" that Lucas has been allowed so easily to destroy the cultural history of you and me. I really don't get that attitude; and it shouldn't matter if you like the SE. I don't mind the SE that much. But if you have a bone in your body that cares about history, movies, and Star Wars especially, how can you possibly rail against someone who is critical of this suppression? I would think anyone on this place cares at least a bit about movies.
And if you are one of those people who say "I like the SE, don't need/care about the originals," then your attitude is basically "I got what I want, too bad for the rest of you." To which I have to quote C3P0: "how rude." But as I said, if you don't care, doesn't it still bother you in principle that your own cultural heritage is being re-written and destroyed? It's especially puzzingly why it would actually bother you that some people do care. Finally, you might not care, but maybe one day your children will want to see the films, and that's what's sad about all of this: the way it's going now, they won't be able to. They could try digging your antique DVDs and VHS tapes out of grampa's basement, but they may be sad to discover VHS tapes and DVD discs do not last that long before they deteriorate to uselessness.
I would encourage people to poke around savestarwars.com and educate yourself a bit; the article on film preservation and the law might be a bit enlightening.
|
Last edited by adywan; 06-22-2011 at 08:33 PM.
|
All countries
Argentina
Austria
Belgium
Brazil
Bulgaria
Chile
China
Colombia
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Estonia
Denmark
Finland
Greece
Hong Kong
Hungary
Iceland
Indonesia
Ireland
Israel
India
Latvia
Lithuania
Malaysia
New Zealand
Norway
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Russia
Singapore
South Africa
South Korea
Sweden
Switzerland
Taiwan
Thailand
Turkey
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
Linear Mode
