(thanks to Sam)

Specifically:

• U.S. broadcaster Comcast ‘somehow’ showed 30 seconds of porn to some viewers during its broadcast of the Superbowl (Tyler Durden splices frames of porn into family movies in Fight Club)
• An employee of U.S. financial company Fannie Mae attempted to wipe the company’s customer credit history data (in the film version, the ultimate goal of Project Mayhem was to erase credit information and return everyone to an equal footing)
• People in several parts of the world have been hacking road signs to display strange messages, such as “NOBODY HAS EVER/LOVED YOU” (Project Mayhem manipulated public space to publicise messages such as “Did you know? You can use old motor oil to fertilize your lawn”)
• Starbucks has at least been partially destroyed (albeit not by blowing up nearby corporate art as in the film)

Can the wanton destruction of an Apple store be far off?  Let’s hope not…

It’s funny because it’s true.  More champagne comedy at if movie posters were honest (thanks again to Sam for the link).

…”Troll 2″ is a life-changing experience, similar to the Middle Ages’ trials by fire. If you succeed in ingesting this festering piece of cinematic detritus in one sitting, you will emerge a new person, like a phoenix rising from its own ashes. The watching itself may be painful, but it is ultimately worth the pain to be able to say, with conviction, “I survived ‘Troll 2,’ and I’m still technically alive.”

From that description, it has the potential at least to be worse than the Horrors of Spider Island, which I recently survived watching.

There’s also a discussion at Slashdot: link (more from a “you crazy Australians and your crazy laws” perspective).

Now, in what seems not to be a coincidence (perhaps a coordinated campaign was agreed to in some Bond villain-esque meeting room), the film studios have decided to have a serious crack at on-line piracy in Australia by suing iiNet in relation to the distribution of copyright material via bittorrent by its users.

I checked out the claim (Roadshow Films Pty Ltd ACN 100 746 870 & Ors v iiNet Ltd ACN 068 628 937; Federal Court of Australia action NSD1802/2008). There are an epic number of applicants (aka plaintiffs):

Beverly Blvd Llc
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Columbia Pictures Industries
Inc Disney Enterprises
Dream Works Films Llc
Gh One Llc
Gh Three Llc
Internationale Fileproduktion Richter Gmbh ; Co Kg
Internationale Filmprodukition Blackbird Vierte Gmbh ; Co Kg
Lonely Film Productions Gmbh ; Co Kg
Mdbf Zweite Filmgesellschaft Mbh ; Co Kg
Inc Nbc Studios
Paramount Home Entertaiment (Australasia) Pty Ltd
Paramount Pictures Corporation
Patalex Iii Productions Ltd
Ringerike Gmbh ; Co Kg
Roadshow Films Pty Ltd (Acn 100 746 870)
Seven Network (Operations) Ltd Acn 052 845 262
Sony Pictures Animation Inc
Sony Pictures Home Entertainment Pty Ltd Acn 002 489 554
Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd Acn 076 486 470
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment International Corporation
Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment Llc
Universal City Studio Procductions Lllp
Universal City Studios Lllp
Universal Pictures (Australia) Pty Ltd Acn 087 513 620
Universal Pictures International
Universal Studios International B.V
Village Roadshow Films (Bvi) Ltd
Warner Bros Entertainment Australia Pty Ltd Acn 003 773 411
Warner Bros International Television
Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc
Warner Home Video Pty Ltd

iiNet is all alone as the respondent. It’s interesting to note that the plaintiffs picked iiNet as their target, rather than (say) Telstra.

The matter is before Justice Cowdroy, who is by all accounts a scrupulously fair and even handed Judge. His Honour has an interesting history as a barrister (including “air and space law”), although it’s hard to glean much information about his personal political or intellectual leanings. He has not delivered much in the way of judgments on copyright, other than one decision about toilet bowls.

I did find the following remarks (from his Honour’s speech upon his appointment to the NSW Land and Environment Court) interesting, and they might give some comfort to iiNet if his Honour ends up being the trial judge that he will not be taking a radically pro-property owner approach:

The environment belongs to us all. It is a recognition that has come to us as lawyers somewhat late in the day, yet the Indians recognised the beauty of the environment and its protection more than one hundred and fifty years ago. In 1854 the American President wrote to a Red Indian tribe offering to buy their lands. Their chief, Chief Seattle, responded. He was puzzled at the concept that someone could offer to buy the land and the environment which had been the ancestral home of the Red Indians. He responded in a statement which is regarded as the most beautiful and profound statement on the environment ever published. One statement in it reads:

How can you buy or sell the sky, the warmth of the land. The idea is strange to us If we do not own the freshness of the air and the sparkle of the water how can you buy them. This we know. The earth does not belong to man. Man belongs to the earth.

The applicants explain their claim thusly:

The companies seek a ruling that iiNet infringed copyright by failing to take reasonable steps, including enforcing its own terms and conditions, to prevent known unauthorised use of copies of the companies’ films and TV programs by iiNet’s customers via its network.

In other words, the complaint is that iiNet should have taken steps to stop its users from infringing copyright. There is some recent authority for this type of claim, in particular Cooper v Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd [2006] FCAFC 187. In that case an operator of a website which provided links to copyright material was held liable for copyright infringement. That case, and this claim against iiNet, raise significant questions about the degree to which a service provider must be involved in copyright infringement in order to be taken to have “authorised” that infringement within the meaning of the Copyright Act.

For example, it might well be argued that iiNet permitting the use of bittorrent traffic at all amounts to ‘authorisation’ because it is aware that many people use bittorrent for copyright infringement. In Universal Music v Moorehouse [1975] HCA 26, the High Court held that a university was liable in respect of copyright infringement committed by students using a photocopier located in a library. Gibbs J said:

…a person who has under his control the means by which an infringement of copyright may be committed – such as a photocopying machine – and who makes it available to other persons, knowing, or having reason to suspect, that it is likely to be used for the purpose of committing an infringement, and omitting to take reasonable steps to limit its use to legitimate purposes, would authorize any infringement that resulted from its use.

By analogy, it might be said that iiNet has provided the means by which an infringement of copyright may be committed (i.e. Internet access), made it available to other persons (its users), and knows or has a reason to suspect that it will be used for the purpose of committing infringements of copyright. A great deal will therefore hinge on whether iiNet is found to have taken “reasonable steps” to limit the use of the service to legitimate purposes. Another distinction which might be drawn by iiNet is that identified in Australian Tape Manufacturers Association Ltd v Commonwealth [1993] HCA 10:

It follows that manufacture and sale of articles such as blank tapes or video recorders, which have lawful uses, do not constitute authorization of infringement of copyright, even if the manufacturer or vendor knows that there is a likelihood that the articles will be used for an infringing purpose such as home taping of sound recordings, so long as the manufacturer or vendor has no control over the purchaser’s use of the article [...] It was the absence of such control in C.B.S. Songs Ltd. that constituted the critical distinction between the decision in that case and the decision in University of New South Wales v. Moorhouse, where the University had power to control what was done by way of copying and not only failed to take steps to prevent infringement but provided potential infringers with both the copyright material and the use of the University’s machines by which copies of it could be made Accordingly, in Moorhouse, authorization was made out.

It can only be hoped that the Court takes a practical and realistic view of the nature of the Internet and bittorrent, and tends to the latter view of the nature of iiNet’s actions as a result. The Copyright Act itself provides some assistance to iiNet. For instance s 112E provides that:

A person (including a carrier or carriage service provider) who provides facilities for making, or facilitating the making of, a communication is not taken to have authorised any infringement of copyright in an audio‑visual item merely because another person uses the facilities so provided to do something the right to do which is included in the copyright.

Section 101 of the Copyright Act will no doubt also be relevant, cryptically named “infringement by doing acts comprised in copyright”, as will the ‘safe harbour’ provisions enacted fairly recently in respect of ISPs.

More fundamentally, this case highlights what I see as a critical problem with the current legal framework for dealing with copyright infringement: the Internet has made it trivially easy, and even people who are not in any sense tech-savvy can commit numerous, heinous breaches of the Copyright Act with a few mouse clicks. So many ordinary people were downloading US television programs via bittorrent that we (finally) have broadcasts in Australia which are nearly up-to-date with their US counterparts. Although this type of copyright infringement isn’t necessarily something to be completely ignored (depending on your point of view), there is a very great disparity between the magnitude of the conduct (click, click, minimise window), the harm created (possible arguable maybe hypothetically slightly dimished prospect of that person watching the same episode of that program when it is finally broadcast or buying the DVD), and the penalties which potentially apply (criminal conviction in some cases, and fines in the tens of thousands of dollars).

I will be following this case with interest and will provide updates in due course.

The USA has been subjected to a torrent (get it?) of this kind of crap in recent years, but we have largely been spared. It is deeply troubling to hear a Federal Minister directly reading from the RIAA/MPAA/local variant script.

And of course, every single person who copies a movie would definitely have bought that movie, which means that the following statement is entirely correct and not a total load of bullshit:

The Federal Government says DVD piracy is costing the entertainment industry more than $1.7 billion.

“[Filmmakers] will not be allowed to film at German military sites if Count Stauffenberg is played by Tom Cruise, who has publicly professed to being a member of the Scientology cult,” Kammerbauer is quoted as saying.

“In general, the Bundeswehr (German military) has a special interest in the serious and authentic portrayal of the events of July 20, 1944 and Stauffenberg’s person,” Kammerbauer added.

Instinctively the idea of the military stifling creative expression, even by crazy people, seems repugnant… is this decision good, bad, or indifferent?

Pros:

• Scientology has a long history of not only being a weird cult concocted by a bad science fiction author but also of being aggressive, unpleasant, manipulative, and litigious.
• Scientology in particular likes to stifle the freedom of expression of anyone who publicly criticises Scientology and therefore Scientologists perhaps deserve less sympathy than the average struggling artist.
• This may help stave off at best another boring Tom Cruise movie, and at worst something in the league of Battlefield Earth.

Cons:

• It is perhaps somewhat hypocritical of the Germans to criticise anyone for believing in insane ideas promoted by a charismatic but weird leader who was a complete no-hoper before he became a veritable god on Earth.
• According to the maxim “I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it” even repressed, cult-brainwashed lunatics have the right to say whatever they want in whatever form they want.
• The state controlling creative endeavours and demanding a specific version of history be represented in popular culture is typically something post-totalitarian societies like to avoid as part of their “12 steps to no more hideous repression” recovery programs and is widely regarded as “not cool” in democracies.

Conclusion: probably not cool, but Scientology is insidious and unpleasant nonetheless and they could always film in Austria instead.

The film is called ‘I’m Not There‘ and it sounds rather odd, to say the least:

Formerly going by the title of “I’m Not There: Suppositions on a Film Concerning Dylan”, this is a film about the life of Bob Dylan. The film follows seven characters, each embodying a different aspect of Dylan’s life story and music. It’s the first biographical feature project to secure the approval of the pop culture icon. The film is about the life of Bob Dylan’s early days as a struggling folksinger, the rise to the forefront of the early-’60s folk scene, the controversial switch to rock, the motorcycle accident and the subsequent retreat from public view, and the latter-day de-emphasis of recording and concentration on the concert series known as the Never Ending Tour. Sounes somehow has uncovered some new information in that oft-scanned showbiz legend, mostly about Dylan’s childhood and his jealously guarded family life. Some of it actually provides further insight into his songs, particularly those about his wife, Sara. Sounes also blows the lid off Dylan’s heretofore unknown 1986 marriage to one of his backup singers. Each story expresses an aspect of Dylan’s mercurial personality and each story is to be filmed differently, in a style appropriate to its theme: Woody (Franklin) – an 11-year-old black boy, always on the run; Robbie – a womanising performer, always on the road; Jude (Blanchett) – the young androgynous rock star; John/Jack (Bale) – a folk idol who reinvents himself as an evangelist; Billy (Gere) – the famous outlaw, miraculously alive but growing old.

So, this film will feature a fictionalised 11 year old black boy representing a side of the life and personality of a middle-aged folk singer. Sounds straightforward enough. Incidentally, Dylan’s “heretofore unknown 1986 marriage to one of his backup singers” was actually heretofore known.

Apparently the film is sanctioned by Dylan and will feature his music. It also features Adrien Brody (from The Pianist) and, for some reason, David Cross (from Arrested Development). The director also directed the surprisingly good movie about glam rock, Velvet Goldmine.

we have combed through eight decades of Oscar winners to determine which Academy Award-winning film truly stands above the rest.

The idea is that they have taken the last 79 winners of the ‘best picture’ Oscar and ranked them according to critical consensus (using a rather complicated formula). In other words, the article reflects which of the best picture winners from the last 8 decades were the most critically acclaimed (they also incorporate ratings from users of the site, i.e., movie buffs).

The results are relatively unsurprising. Their top ten includes:

1. The Godfather
2. On the Waterfront
3. All About Eve
4. Sunrise
5. Rebecca
6. Marty
7. The Best Years of Our lives
8. Lawrence of Arabia
9. The Godfather Part II
10. Casablanca

The years of those films, in order: 1972, 1954, 1950, 1927, 1940, 1955, 1946, 1962, 1974, and 1942. And therein lies the frustration: on almost any ‘serious’ list of the best films of all time, the results are massively skewed towards the period from around 1940 to around 1960. Can it really be true that no film that has won a best picture Oscar in the last 32 years is in the top 10? Were more than half of the top 10 Oscar winners really made in the years 1940-1955?

One might conclude that the problem is that the Academy Awards have made dubious selections for ‘best picture’ in the last few decades. Or that, because the Oscars are effectively only for American films from major studios, most of the good stuff from recent decades hasn’t made the list by default. But, as anyone who’s read other film buff-type ‘greatest films of all time’ lists will attest, the trend is more widespread. For instance, Halliwell’s Top 1000, an generally excellent movie reference book, lists its top 10 as follows:

1. Tokyo Story
2. La Regle du Jour
3. Lawrence of Arabia
4. The Godfather trilogy
5. The Seven Samurai
6. Citizen Kane
7. Raging Bull
8. Vertigo
9. Some Like It Hot
10. 8 1/2

Once again, the release years: 1953, 1939, 1962, 1972-74-90, 1954, 1941, 1980, 1958, 1959, and 1963. If we ignore the Godfather Part III, which presumably wouldn’t have made the top 1000, let alone top 10, on its own, then the most modern selection (Raging Bull) is 26 years old. IFC notes of Halliwell’s that:

the most recent five entries in the top 100 are “Toy Story” (#25), the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy (#30), “Breaking the Waves” (#39), “Gosford Park (#71) and “Fargo” (#88).

Fargo. (Out of interest, Halliwell’s includes neither Fight Club or Aliens (the second one) in its top 1000.)

So what causes this trend towards picking movies from a very specific era? One theory I have is that old films are technically bad. Not necessarily in the sense that they were directed poorly by the standards of the day, but in the sense that film making techniques have developed dramatically since the 1940s and 1950s and today’s films are far more realistic in their depiction of… well, reality. After all, one of the reasons Citizen Kane is so adored is that it introduced many cinematic devices which are now absolutely commonplace and unremarkable.

The gist of this theory is that, because older films are technically poor (unsophisticated lighting; unrealistic effects; contrived dialogue; static camerawork), they are judged by a far kinder standard whereby misty-eyed film critics yearn for simpler, happier times when the world was black and white and grainy, and conversations were a series of delicate and subtle one-liners written by a team of writers who accompanied people around at all times. To put it another way, modern films have the potential to be so true to life that they are judged far more harshly for their small contrivances than older films are for their many lapses in authenticity.

We still have films where people say things like:

Of all the gin joints, in all the towns, in all the world, she had to walk into mine.

and:

Kiss me. Kiss me as if it were the last time.

We call them ‘bad romantic comedy-dramas starring Julia Roberts’, or sometimes ‘James Bond #24′ if there are guns involved. Serious contemporary films can’t hope to get away with such corny dialogue, because when everything else is faithful to reality, a bad line grates horribly and reminds us that we’re watching actors in a studio. Even the basic transition from black and white or garish technicolour to full, faithful colour film makes it harder to forgive minor lapses in dialogue or plot realism.

It is naturally hard to clearly identify the greatest works from the past decade or two because the perspective that hindsight allows is not yet upon us. Of course, one view is that art should be judged for its time. This cuts both ways though – a film as simple (in terms of plot) as Casablanca or Citizen Kane is unlikely to be as well received today as it would have been in the 1940s or 1950s: there is perhaps too great a consciousness of the complexity and ambiguity of the world in the early 21st century for something straightforward to be considered culturally relevant. As such, films with greater complexity and ambiguity should be judged fairly by contemporary standards and in a contemporary social and artistic context – to dimish them for those characteristics is otherwise to unwittingly criticise the state of the world, not the art itself.

What’s more, the majority of film critics seem to either be soft-around-the-edges 50- or 60-something year-old men who genuinely do pine for a kinder, simpler version of the world, or unbearably pretentious 20- or 30-somethings who worship the old and obscure because it provides a point of distinction between them and their ignorant, bleating peers. In the former category, Roger Ebert said of Fight Club:

It’s macho porn – the sex movie Hollywood has been moving toward for years, in which eroticism between the sexes is replaced by all-guy locker-room fights.

He gave the film two stars – the uneducated masses at IMDB (that is to say, not film critics but rather anyone who cares to vote) rank it as the #32 film of all time. Of course, when it comes to Raging Bull, Ebert is far, far kinder about the equally confronting violence in awarding it four stars:

The equation between his prizefighting and his sexuality is inescapable, and we see the trap he’s in: LaMotta is the victim of base needs and instincts that, in his case, are not accompanied by the insights and maturity necessary for him to cope with them.

What, in essence, is the ideological difference between the two films? Raging Bull is a traditional story about a competitive, emotionally stunted male unable to express himself other than through violence and control. Fight Club is about highly intelligent people violently confronting the apparent meaninglessness of life in the age of the white collar wage slave. Yet the film about the thug hitting his wife and anyone else gets in his way is a simple tale of human frailty, and the film with almost as much philosophical as physical violence is ‘macho porn.’

The current era of cinema is undeniably one in which a vast, vast amount of formulaic, pointless and intellectually empty filler is churned out by profit-obsessed studios. At the same time, however, it is an era in which (presumably) more films than ever are being made, and film industries are thriving not just in Los Angeles, but in Europe, Britain, Australia, India, Asia – across the world, in other words. And even in Hollywood, enough films are being made and enough interesting ideas are floating around that every now and then something really intriguing slips through the net and gets made with millions of dollars of studio backing.

We should have the courage to recognise that great movies are being made, and that cinema as an art film did not cease to evolve in 1960.