Tuesday, 2 July 2013

Making Blade runner...

En route uphill, to have lunch with mum and da, a radio show guest, some musician, was talking about copyrights and intellectual property. He's a law student or somesuch and he said he's spent the last six years fighting against people's ability to download music. He said, stressed, that if you don't pay an artist for their art, they will simply cease making it.
      This is something I strongly disagree with. First of all, no artist in this country has ever lived off their product. None. In fact an artist who failed to also have a normal job, was considered a junky loser. The most famous writers were also librarians or editors or journalists or teachers. The most famous musicians were also along those lines. None of them ever sold enough to be well off from items. In fact the only money that goes to the performer is from being on stage. Actors, musicians, dancers - on stage is where they do the heavy lifting. And get paid for it. And most of them also tutor at least. This has nothing to do with Internet. You can't tell me that at this day and age actors and musicians are the least paid in history. Because of the Internet. And the movies in theatres are so costly, even the people who LOVE going to the theatre can't afford it. So - sorry. Stop picking on those of us who prefer to download. If I wanted to read a comic, I would have to pay thrice the price of shipping - and don't fucking tell me any of that money would go to the ARTIST.

And then there is that amazing documentary on making Blade Runner that I watch in small chunks every now and then. Small chunks is enough to keep me buzzing for days. I'm telling about the scenes to everybody! 
        Latest lesson was in big studio bucks. At the end of the shoot, when the guys are already way over due and over budget, studio commandeers the reels and everyone fights against this - everyone thinks Ridley should be the one to edit the movie, even though he was fired. 
        Here's the skinny. Ridley, a selfish, stubborn and narrow minded director wanted to create a MASTERPIECE. But he was given a bunch of bucks to create a BLOCKBUSTER. we, as movie buffs and hungry audience and artists ourselves, root for the masterpiece. However, if someone trusts you with a lot of money to MAKE them  a lot of money and you insist on making something that will suck (money wise, as Blade Runner did, because what people then really wanted was another Star Wars and it needed for times to change to really prove this movie to be a monument.) - that just kind of plays unprofessional and unfair. Doesn't it?
         Here continues my jab with editors. (Presuming there are no good ones.) Do what they say, take the money and make your masterpieces on your own dime, or snake your way through their poles and create both - a masterpiece AND a blockbuster? By Prometheus, Ridley was already well tamed in this aspect. He already clearly admits to be responsible to make money for the studio, whether or not he believes in those scenes.

Mildly related subject - I read a report/thank you speech of my editors about our so called book. She thanks about 25 people in it, about how they helped  create this great book, including her husband and in-laws who helped get the photos, because, you know, my photos all needed to be replaced with flowers and shutterstock kids and the dumbest photos of town you will EVEr see, even on bad postcards. Does she mention me?