Hot Lead Enema

Driving home from work Tom Waits was talking on the radio about trying to keep his work — or more precisely, the work of Tom Waits impersonators — out of the hands of advertisers. "I'd rather have a hot lead enema." You don't hear that kind of candor on the news much these days: thank you, NPR!

Which brings us around to the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act, which is also called, euphemistically, the Artists' Rights and Theft Prevention Act of 2005, or more briefly, "the ART Act." The ART Act (or FECA) is the sort of IP has three major provisions: it makes it a federal crime to use a camcorder in a movie theatre; it modifies the Copyright Act to include those who distribute movies prior to their release; and finally, it exempts companies selling filtering technologies from copyright enfringement. It also provides for the reauthorization of the the National Film Preservation Board.

Most people were focused on that third provision, which allowed companies like ClearPlay and CleanFlicks to remove objectionable materials from DVDs. (As Ray Lines, the owner of Utah-based CleanFlicks, so eloquently put it: "Every teenager in America should see [Schindler's List]....."But I don't think my daughters should see naked old men, running around in circles.") The Directors Guild of America and 8 Hollywood studios had sued ClearPlay for copyright infringement, and this law will now offer them protection. The legislation received strong support from people like Focus on the Family and the Parents Television Council, which naturally has made the Left uneasy. I think there is reason to be concerned that technologies such as these (and egocasting technologies in general) are fostering exteme sectarianism, but shoving porn down people's throats, as therapeutic as that might be, doesn't seem to be the answer. I agree with the Electronic Frontier Foundation: this is a good thing (or a better thing, or not a bad thing).

This reminded me of the debate back in the 80s over colorizing films, another debate where I found myself faced off against the Directors Guild. I believed then, and believe now, that when you live in a world where movies are regularly sliced and diced to accommodate long blocks of inane commercials, arguing artistic intent and the integrity of the work is just a tad hypocritical.

People aren't objecting to having the movies mangled by CleanPlay; they resent the legalised puritanism. But legalised advertising, that's okay. My gripe with the Puritans is this: MAKE YOUR OWN FUCKING ART! It's the intellectual laziness I can't stand.

Colorizing film was all about advertising. Color films had more commercial value than black-and-white films, or so it was thought. In fact, the results were laughable, and you don't hear much any more about it. However, the colorization process required the creation of a pristine master print, so colorizing films actually encouraged preservation; and besides, no one was ever confused about which was the artist's intention and which the derivative work. Even had the trend continued, it's hard to see any lasting harm done; some dumbed-down knockoffs, that's all.

Black-and-white films aren't intrinsically superior to color films, although that limitation did lead to indisputable works of Great Art. (This is your cue to go watch Visions of Light.) Filmmakers almost from the very beginning dreamed of color, and as soon as the technology permitted, directors embraced color with wild abandon. (For me, the peak was in the late 40s and early 50s, with films like A Date with Judy: pure psychedelia!)

Back in 1986 Gilbert Cates, then President of the Director's Guild, was quoted as saying: "It (colorizing) is a process of dissembling the historical and artistic fabric of our landmarks.....Once you say you can add color, why can't you add a different score, add shots, re-edit it, or do anything you want?"

And isn't that the point we've reached? And isn't it a good thing?

But that of course brings us now back around to Tom Waits' enema. Maybe if we could simply all agree that sampling or borrowing or ripping people off or whatever you want to call it is really cool, except when it comes to Tom, and there we all agree that Tom is sacred.

Works for me.

Look everyone wants to keep something from the past
-a souvenir of the old regime
This man decides to keep a painting
This one keeps his mistress
This man keeps his horse
He [pointing] keeps his garden
He [pointing] keeps his estate
He keeps his country house
He keeps his factories
This man couldn't part with his shipyards
This one kept his army
and that one keeps his king
And so we stand here and write into the declaration of the rights of man
the holy right of property
And now we find where that leads
Every man's equally free to fight fraternally and with equal arms of course
Every man his own millionaire
Man against man group against group in happy mutual robbery
And ahead of them the great springtime of mankind
the budding of trade and the blossoming of Industry
and one enormous financial upsurge
We stand here more oppressed than when we begun
and they think that the Revolution's been won
     Peter Weiss, Marat/Sade