Tuesday, September 28, 2004 6:58 PM | Matthew Jeanes This misguided rant over at Box Office Mojo has finally pushed me over the edge. I realize this is just a commentary by some guy writing on a movie website, but it seems to be just the kind of gross misrepresentation and misunderstanding that plagues so much editorial content on the web. The point that the article attempts to make, though I do suggest reading it to glean this for yourself, is that fans who claim that Star Wars belongs to the fans and not to George Lucas are barking disapproval that is tantamount to censorship when it comes to the changes Uncle George has made in the movies we all love. Firstly, let me say this: quoting people from their blogs in a published commentary/article on a website and making a case from those quotes that parallels fan reaction to the Original Trilogy DVDs with the creation of a new fascist empire is a bit much. Arguing blog to blog is one thing, but when you write a column for a fairly public and meant-to-be-professional site, there's a different standard at play (isn't there?). Secondly, it's important to note that anything that anyone says online is subject to be taken with a grain of salt. (Including me!) Star Wars lunatics have been raging that George Lucas raped their childhood for goodness sake, so it's not really reasonable to take the online ramblings of upset Star Wars nerds to mean that there is any implied legal ramification to their musings. In fact, if anyone was up-in-arms enough about the changes to the Original Trilogy, and if anyone really felt like Star Wars belonged to 'the fans' or 'the people' and not to its intellectual creator and copyright holder, then there'd be a lawsuit. Come on, there's a lawsuit every time someone falls out of their own car. But, even the presence of a lawsuit (claiming that Star Wars is now in the public domain?) wouldn't be enough to start crying 'censorship is the first step towards fascism!' Look, fans are pissed that the thing they love has been tampered with. Honestly, even if you put it to a vote of the most rabid nuts, I think 90% of the restoration and enhancements of the original trilogy would not cause anyone to stir. They've made it sound BETTER, made it look BETTER, made the effects sharper and more believable. There's going to be a point at which each individual decides to jump ship on these new editions, but for the vast majority of people it's going to come with with the dramatic and conceptual changes, not the technical ones. I'm of the opinion that Lucasfilm should (and at some point will) release some sort of restored archival version of the original trilogy and that it'll be something like a retro-amusement. They have already started reproducing the classic action figure packaging (with newly sculpted figures) for collectors, and they are really building up sales with the nostalgia marketing angle, so its reasonable to think that at some point they'll release "Retro-Star Wars" in its stereo-only, cleaned up but not fancily digitized version. Then, people will complain that they have to buy the movies twice. There's just no pleasing some people, and fans are going to get bent out of shape at something regardless. The ones who claim that Lucas no longer owns the film don't mean that in a literal way. They mean that Star Wars is something of a cultural institution, and as such it should be preserved and protected like any classic work of art or architechture or other such thing for which people have fond memories. I agree with that sentiment, even if I also agree that Lucas has the right to do whatever he bloody well pleases with his movie. Some of the changes (Hayden Christiansen at the end of ROTJ) are pretty abominable, but you know, if your entire relationship to a trilogy of movies can be destroyed by a few seconds in one of the films, then you probably had something less than a sincere love for them in the first place. I think the changes (Solo Shoots FIRST damnit!) are sometimes changing the story in slight ways, but it doesn't make the whole thing less epic, less fun, or less of an experience I had when I was growing up. It doesn't digitally remove memories of Empire Strikes Back sheets on my bed, or of my first Star Wars toys, or of the countless times I watched the movies in the theater and on VHS, or the time I saw a bootleg VHS copy of Jedi because it was taking too long to make it to the military theaters in Germany, or... I could go on and on. The fact that Greedo shoots first or that there are Gungans dancing somewhere that they didn't used to be really doesn't change my love for the whole thing, warts and all. So when I see someone talking about censorship and communism and evil empires and nazis and saying that fans expressing their opinion about the changes is tantamount to limitiing expression, it's a bit depressing. Fans can scream until they are blue in the face (many have) and it won't keep George from doing what he wants to do with HIS MOVIES. Plain and simple, it's not a case of censorship, but in fact NOT allowing those dissenting voices WOULD BE. That article... it's just poorly written and thought through and while it will spark debate and criticism (ahem) it's ultimately not going to convince anyone of anything one way or the other because it's not a sound argument. {0} Comments Friday, September 10, 2004 3:20 PM | Matthew Jeanes Now that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that any sample of any piece of music is a violation of copyright, I wonder where the world is supposed to go next? The issue is a fundamental one in my mind, and not some squabbling over money and who deserves to get paid for what. If complaints are just about money, then it could be argued that an artist who doesn't make any money, or doesn't make a significant amount from his/her work should be more entitled to sample things because there is no financial gain being made as a result of the sampling. The court is arguing that the owner of the original music is entitled to compensation for its use, which isn't a statement about creativity; it's a statement about money. If there is no money to be made from sampling a Bruce Springsteen tune and looping it and rapping over it and then pressing up 500 copies of a 12" to sell at a loss, then there's never going to be a court case for the owner of the Springsteen tune to seek damages or compensation. In other words, while the court defines any sampling as illegal, in practical terms, any sampling that doesn't earn you money is really just fine. Obviously that's taking it to an extreme, but it points out the problem when you have a court making a decision about money and then talking about creativity. The court's statement said "Get a license or do not sample. We do not see this as stifling creativity in any significant way." What? Under what rock do these judges reside, and over what barren stretch of cornfields do they preside? (Cincinatti, if you are curious, home to one of the world's most egregious sample abusers, Enduser!) There are not only artists and labels devoted to sample-based music, there are whole genres and industries that are completely indebted to it! Rap and Hip-Hop are nothing without the appropriation of other music. Sure, some of it is egregious and lazy and we all wish we'd never have to hear P-Diddle turn a classic track into a dumbed-down, looped version with a mumbling rapper over it ever again. Then again, that dipshit PAYS for his samples anyway, so he can do whatever the hell he wants. But leave the Diddles and the Ice Ice Babies out of it and what you have is the collective world of Rap and Hip-Hop and all of the other musical forms it has spawned that are all based on riffing over a recognized loop. Some producers have take the "recognized" part out of the equation, but they almost all unanimously still sample. Without sampling, we'd have no "Midnight in a Perfect World," no Paul's Boutique, no Portishead, no Jungle or Drum-n-Bass, and certainly no Front Line Assembly. Think about that for a minute. The court is saying that it doesn't stifle creativity to force artists to pay for and seek licenses for samples, no matter how manipulated or destroyed or otherwise recontexturalized they may be. Well, tell that to the entire artist rosters of Wax Trax, Def Jam, Mush, Metalheadz, and on and on and on. Sampling takes many forms, from the lazy reappropriation of a melody or beat (Puff Dingle) to the mash-up pop-cultural send up of Donna Summer and the like. There's simply no way 95% of the music that I enjoy could even exist if the artists had to clear and pay for all the samples. Do you think metal bands want to be turned into self parody a la Donna Summer? They'd never give up the rights at any cost. Does Missy Elliot want to hear herself rhyming over 7/4 time splattercore breakbeats? Probably not, but the fact is that the rest of us DO! Not only is there a massive world-wide audience for that kind of stuff, but it's growing and spreading its influence every day. Look, the world of owning things is coming to an end. Sure, physical objects can be posessed, but everything else that can be translated into 1's and 0's is becoming just another byte in the datastream. Postmodernism is expressing itself through the constant re-use and reappropriation of any and everything imaginable. It's what makes movies like Kill Bill possible-that's a movie cut with the rhythm and heart of a Hip-Hop record. The world we live in now works off of and thrives on references. We have instantiated the hyperlink into everything, and what is a link but a reference? It's a bookmark or a snapshot that points you somewhere else, to some other place in space or time where you can read more, do more, see more, or hear more about something. It's a shorthand, sure, but it's the way we all interact with things now. In short, sampling isn't just a way for lazy people without any chops to make music (although it CAN be that), but on a grander scale, it's THE musical cue of our age. Sampling is the defining next step in a history of musical composition that dates back to primitive cultures banging on animal skins and sticks. From early tape experiments to music concrete to early hip-hop, jungle, and now mash-ups and breakcore and just plain pop music: sampling has proven more times over than can be counted that it is a vital creative process. It leads to new works, new understandings of old works, and to heretofore unseen artistic directions that absolutely would not and COULD not exist without it. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this blows over like every other similar decision, but the saddest part is that the judges who rendered the decision really have no idea what they are talking about. Somebody get me an address and I'll personally mail each of them a copy of Enduser's From Zero and we can talk about it after that. {0} Comments

Other Thoughts: Adbusters The Droplift Project Illegal Art Independent Media Center LARVAE Movie Thoughts Michael Moore Negativland Slumber Inc. Star Wars Thought of the Day The Noam Chomsky Archive Archives: