I’m not here to discuss if (illegally) downloading is wrong or right. This thread was made thinking of a realistic solution for art, and specially for Cinema.
I stand for the authors and artists, but I don’t stand for some who just want to make money thanks to the lack of brain of the masses.
Most of the times, the copyrights are owned by millionaire major companies, that also hold a large part of its artists’ revenue. This is a reason why so many people on the industry are against it, they profit from their artists’ talent (or what ever it may be).
Other thing: What makes people go to museums or music festivals is the sense of exclusivity. This is something that Cinema doesn’t have. Tarkovsky said that cinema is an unhappy art form because it depends on money, not only because it’s expensive but also because its copies are makerted like cigarettes on a drugstore. And the sense of multiplication makes people feel that they don’t need to watch films on the big screen.
It’s almost impossible to stop the illegal “services”, from drugs to free downloads. So let’s face it:
1. How could Cinema survive if free downloads were legal and required?
2. How can the authors attract more people to theaters?
“What makes people go to museums or music festivals is the sense of exclusivity.”
that needs explanation.
Dust, your post makes no sense at all.
“2. How can the authors attract more people to theaters?”
It’s not the auteurs’ problem, it’s the industry’s mechanisms when they want to control the audiences’ brains. Speaking on behalf of my country’s public reaction, most are quite willing to pay a 10 euro ticket for Inception or Clash of the Titans but aren’t even remotely interested about Kaplanoglu’s Honey or Haneke’s White Ribbon…are Hollywood and commercial films in general the only way to increase the financial benefits of a struggling cinematic land? That IS the question.
“Most of the times, the copyrights are owned by millionaire major companies”
Perhaps but talking about money, I’d rather download the mainstream lot instead of going to the nearest multiplex and garner a fucking private company with some extra bucks from my wallet. I may be detroying the integrity of Coens’ “artistic work” but I’ll know WHERE to pay if I want to. It may sound elitist but that’s the way it is.
FREE CINEMA FOR EVERYONE, LET’S REDUCE THE FUCKING EXPENSIVE TICKETS, WE’RE NOT FUCKING SHEEP OF THE GOVERNMENTS AND CORPORATE SATYRS.
I go to museums for the air conditioning.
@Rich Uncle Skeleton: Well, I’m sure you don’t buy a copy of Guernica at your local supermarket. There is only one ORIGINAL and seeing it live is an experience, just like seeing an artistic performance or an music concert. It’s exclusive to that place and moment.
Coppola once said that DVDs should be given freely, like a form of remembering an experience (watching a film on theaters). Like DVDs of music concerts.
@Dial KLondike5: No need to tell me that. The situation itself doesn’t make any sense.
Do you buy 35 mm film reels at your local supermarket, Dust in Love? Or maybe copies on DVD? Your comparision makes no sense at all.
All art depends on money. Film just happens to be the most expensive.
@Dimitris Psahos: “are Hollywood and commercial films in general the only way to increase the financial benefits of a struggling cinematic land?”
Hollywood is trying to survive with the “3D” -Not only Hollywood actually, Wim Wenders is doing the same with Pina-. Personally I don’t think that will be the solution. Also that so called “3D revolution” is bullshit!
This is the real 3D:
“It may sound elitist but that’s the way it is.”
Yes, I think the same.
@apursansar: “Do you buy 35 film reels at your local supermarket, Dust in Love? Or maybe copies on DVD? Your comparision makes no sense at all.”
Why will I want to buy 35 film reel? Nowadays there are films being made digitally, projected digitally and sold digitally. What makes no sense is that way of thinking.
How could Cinema survive if free downloads were legal and required?
This is my real question.
One does not need to make profits to write poetry, to make a drawing, to paint, to write a story this obsession you have with money being the basis of all art is absurd.
“How could Cinema survive if free downloads were legal and required?”
What on earth do you mean by required?
@Allan: “this obsession you have with money being the basis of all art is absurd.”
I never said that.
Of course it’s not the basis. But you have to think that there are people on the so called “industry” that use cinema as a mere business. Money is not the basis of all art, but unfortunately money is the basis of all human life, since centuries.
And if I had that kind of obsession, I wouldn’t do downloads.
@Ari: “What on earth do you mean by required?”
What I mean by “required” is if all media forms on earth had to accept free downloads and find new ways to survive because there were no other way.
Dust, what I said was a response to Malik.
Well under a Free-market economy, films need to make money at a profit to continue being made. The point is to change that, Socialism is necessary to make Culture truly free and accessible to all. From the ‘A Trend I noticed’ thread posted a couple of days ago I said:
“What I’d demand is that Cinemas be publicly owned and controlled, that they be ran democratically by people who care about film at a local (not a centralised) level rather than profit margins, at the moment a cinema will not screen films it thinks will not be profitable that is a simple fact. I didn’t suggest and never would suggest banning films because they are commercial, I certainly wouldn’t suggest forcing anyone to see anything, people can watch what they like, I couldn’t care less what other people want to see. The point is a cinema ran by film fans (of all hues, not just artsy types) with no regard for making a quick buck would be glad to screen films even if only one person wanted to see it, a state of affairs where an equal level of marketing would go into all cinema regardless with whether it was made in Hollywood or not would give people an opportunity they don’t have now, to choose between a much wider variety of films to see.
“I’d rather my taxes go there than Imperialist wars, I don’t know about you, I’d rather live in a society completely ran like this, workers controlling their workplaces for need rather than for the profits of a few (that the workers produce anyway). Also a free and democratically ran state funded film industry, where film-makers felt security in there art rather than the worry about the need to make money, would only help originality and creativity and help stifle the reign of cinema of the lowest common denominator, of test screenings, of studio censorship, of populist concession etc. "
Think of all the profits going into our Capitalist overlords pockets, imagine if those profits that the workers make were democratically controlled by the workers themselves, under such a system the amount of funding we could pump into Education, Culture, Healthcare, Welfare, Housing, Science, The Environment etc would be infinitely superior. Work hours would be much less, Living and Working Conditions much better. Under Capitalism, what you suggest is impossible.
Also what do you mean by Required, are you suggesting people should be required to watch certain cinema, to read certain literature, to view certain paintings, what do you mean?
Well first off, the movie industry is doing fine. Regardless of what the MPAA (also known as ‘mafiaa’) has to say about their “losses,” the actual prodution houses are doing fine. They’re not making as big a profit as they had expected for 2009 and 2010, but they’re hardly “failing.”Besides, no industry needs to make that much money! But that’s another story…
Going to see a movie in theatre is an experience. Seeing a movie on your laptop is another. I won’t say which is better, but they are different. If the “movie industry” (whatever that is) wants to attract more people to theatres (thereby making more money, because DVD’s barely ever turned a profit) then they should focus more on improving the threatre experience. Movie theatres are essentially the vaudeville/ melodrama theatres of the 20th and 21st century. Worse, you don’t even really have any choice. At least in the 19th century there were swankier theatres, now they’re all pretty much the same. They need to remedy that situation.
As for “illegal” downloading, the best idea that I’ve heard is the “universal license.”
1. The question is interesting but this is science-fiction. In fact, everything is possible, i don’t know, cinema could become rare and foreign films would be subtitled in newspeak.
2. Clowns. A lot of Clowns with floating balloons and fluffy puppies. AND naked women selling pop-corn of course.
@floserber: That already happened. Actually, it’s happening now somewhere near us, in a dark room…
idk what you guys are blabbing on about but check this: all those really fucking old, pretty obscure films, especially soviet ones, are basically not available for purchase. and no i’m not picking up some damn VHS copy, thanks.
so unless Criterion picks up a lot of these older and obscure films, our only way of watchin em are download
Nice to know people have no idea how economies work beyond idealistic notions.
Essentially, if someone’s become an artist with the expectation of making money, they’re an imbecile. If they happen to make money while doing so, then they’re a lucky imbecile (and there are a lot of lucky imbeciles running around – luck, not being something which is rare, but rather illogical and/or unnatural). We all (myself being one of them) want to receive recognition and appreciation and even the possibility of monetary reward, but if one’s intention is purely to make money (as if ‘art’ were a business), then one should be whipped mercilessly (or some other punishment if this happens to excite the imbecile).
My work’s available on torrent sites (at least it used to be, so I’m told) and I don’t really care. Sure, it theoretically cuts into my “income,” but it doesn’t deplete it. I’m still making a profit off what I do and I’m not that great of an economist to really notice much of a difference. Anyway, that’s just my opinion.
As far as me downloading other artists’ work; yeah, I’ve done it, but I always make it a point to purchase (in the soonest possible future) work I appreciate. And there’s a ton that I’m still catching up on…but I will attend to these things. I have multiple bookcases lining the walls of my current abode as if wallpaper, filled with books, DVDs, CDs, etc. I contribute to the artist’s cause as much as I possibly can.
“What makes people go to museums or music festivals is the sense of exclusivity. This is something that Cinema doesn’t have.”
Actually, there are such things as film festivals (quite a few of ‘em in fact), so I’m not sure what you’re saying.
It couldn’t, but as others have mentioned this scenario would never, ever occur unless there was some universal disgust for filmmakers or some kind of economic brainwashing involved because the fact is, though many of these commercial films suck (let’s face it), they make a helluva lot of money and the “corporate engine” will never ignore money and it certainly wouldn’t give up a money-making opportunity.
Well, I’m sure you don’t buy a copy of Guernica at your local supermarket. There is only one ORIGINAL and seeing it live is an experience, just like seeing an artistic performance or an music concert. It’s exclusive to that place and moment.
I’m guessing you just read Walter Benjamin’s “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, no?
As crappy as it is most super successful movies like summer blockbusters are ‘tentpole pictures’ they make enough profits for the production companies to survive the year because the vast majority of films either break even or lose money.
If anything changes in Hollywood it may be actors’ payscales. They have priced themselves out of the market before – way back in the days of Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks, leading to United Artists and the innovation that artists would be given a percentage of profits instead of what they were owed upfront in a salary. Even though that is still a popular option nowadays, big name stars and their salaries or backend deals can still take up too large a chunk of production budgets or resulting profits. Hence the dumping or discrediting of old established stars and desperate attempt by Hollywood to come up with new thus cheap “talent” that will put butts in seats.
@Machiko Kyo: I’ve heard of it, but I’ve never read.
“especially soviet ones”
Is this some kind of a joke? Especially? You clearly have no idea of the lot of OTHER COUNTRIES’ PRODUCTIONS!!!
And Criterion is not the only option. Are most of the new MUBI users Criterion-generated users? So that’s why MUBI changed its name???
I believe he meant that Soviet ones are the hardest to find.
i just read it yesterday! i saw this thread and thought i was going mad. hmm.
“I believe he meant that Soviet ones are the hardest to find.”
I suppose, but I don’t know much about Russian movies. I know Kino has around 40 by themselves. Well 40ish DVDs some of those have multiple shorts or are boxsets.
“I know Kino has around 40 by themselves.”
Add up all the other acclaimed publishers and the respective Soviet / Russian releases….now let’s figure out how many Romanian DVDs exist…
I will only download something for free if nobody gives me an opportunity to buy it at a reasonable price.
You do realize, if you take money away from the big companies, you’re not hurting it’s executives? You’re hurting the low paid workers they’re going to fire to make up the difference.