ReelThoughts

---

Choose the month you would like to access:

Return to Current

February 2, 2004 (Monday):

A Reversal

Those of you who have stopped by this page before may notice a few changes as of the beginning of February. In addition to the pull-down menu bar (the first step in archiving "ReelThoughts" topics), I have "reversed" the text/background color combination. While I personally think white text on a dark backdrop looks cool, I have received several e-mails from people who complain that it causes eye strain. Since that was not my intention, I have reverted to a more traditional combination (with a suitably muted and modified graphic).

This pull-down menu is the first of several that will be popping up in different parts of the site during the next few months. Eventually, most of the plain-vanilla html menus will be replaced by these. This change will permit me to reduce the number of frames from three to two. (Text-based browsing will still be supported for those who prefer that option.) The basic underlying philosophy of the site's navigation will not change. In fact, if anything, navigation will become simpler. Enhancements will likely come slowly, but they will come.

I may also elect to add pictures to select older reviews. As with all "graphically enhanced" reviews, the global "hide/show graphics" option will apply. All you have to do is click it on/off once and it will stay on/off until you change your preference. (Note: those who have cookies disabled will always see the graphics. Those who have javascript disabled will never see them.)

Groundhog Day

It's hard to believe that Groundhog Day is 11 years old this month. Every year since I first obtained a laserdisc copy in 1994, I have taken a couple hours on February 2 to watch this film, and it gets better with each watching. My original review (three and one-half stars) was highly favorable, but, during the intervening years, I have come to appreciate the movie more - so much so, in fact, that it just missed my Top 100.

For those who have never seen Groundhog Day, this is an opportune time to watch it - not only because of the arrival of Candlemas Day, but because the star, the sublimely funny Bill Murray, has just been nominated for a Best Actor nomination. (The jury is still out whether Murray or Hollywood "outsider" Sean Penn has the inside track.) Often, we wonder what we might do differently if we could live a moment over again. During the course of Groundhog Day, Murray learns to his chagrin what a nightmare this scenario can become.

As for the rodent's weather prognostication ability... It actually derives from an old English rhyme: "If Candlemas Day be fair and bright, winter will have another flight. If Candlemas Day be gray and grim, winter is gone and won't come again." Unfortunately, today was about as sunny and pleasant as it gets in February, so, if you believe in this sort of thing, there will be six more weeks of snow shoveling.

Stupor Bowl

It's a good thing the game was exciting, because nothing else was. For the countless millions who watch the Super Bowl more for the commercials than for the on-field gladiatorial struggles of the conference champions, the 2004 edition was a complete bust. Sure, there were a couple of mildly amusing spots, but most of them were duds. And it seemed like every other ad featured Mike Ditka hawking Levitra. Not many laughs there. Mid-way through the game, I started using the commerical breaks for what they were intended to be used for: trips to the bathroom and channel surfing.

Then there's the Janet Jackson "controversy," which has to be the most overinflated "scandal" in the history of U.S. television. Okay, so she showed a breast. In prime-time. For about one second. And you had to have HDTV and a recorder to see anything. What's the big deal? Was it in good taste? No. But it really doesn't deserve more than a footnote.

As for those who claim the incident was "R-rated," it's clear they have little concept of what earns a film that rating. (Admittedly, the MPAA is so inconsistent that such a mistake is understandable.) The pasty on the breast rendered it PG-13, which is hardly shocking. Almost as absurd as the FCC's reaction is that of CBS, MTV, and the performers who claimed everything from "surprise" and "ignorance" to "defective wardrobe." Not only was the incident promoted (something shocking at the end of the performance), but it was obviously rehearsed. And why else would Ms. Jackson be wearing a pasty if she didn't intend to expose herself? (Then again, this is the Jackson family, where weird doesn't begin to describe things.)

The intention of the stunt was to generate publicity. And, considering the mini-firestorm it ignited, that aim was achieved. Congratulations, Janet, on becoming the most exposed strip-tease artist in the history of the world. And congratulations to the American public for once again displaying an irrational fear of the naked female form.

February 8, 2004 (Sunday):

The Nipple That Won't Go Away

One week after the Superbowl, the insane controversy about Janet Jackson's right breast is still going strong. Since I last wrote about this subject (Monday 2/2), I have had a little time to reflect on it, and my incredulity has only grown. Certainly, the amount of "legitimate" press exposure the incident has received is far above and beyond what is deserved, and the biggest boobs in this situation are the people who are trying to make political hay by capitalizing on Jackson's flash dance.

First, there are the questions of why and when the female breast became obscene. After all, we all have breasts - the only difference is that 50% of the population possesses extra fatty tissue and glands for milk production. Yet, while it's perfectly acceptable for males to flash them - nipples and all - in public, it's taboo in the United States for women to do the same. The "why" of this has a lot to do with prudishness and Puritanism. Are female breasts a sexual turn-on for some men? Unquestionably, yes. But the same can be true of legs, feet, hands, and hair (depending on the individual), and those aren't required to be kept under wraps. While it wouldn't be appropriate for women to walk around topless all the time (much as it is inappropriate for men to walk around topless all the time), it makes no sense to legislate against the exposure of breasts. (Anyone remember the public breast-feeding furor that swept the country a few years ago?)

Many parents were horrified that their children were exposed to the sight (however brief and unclear) of Janet Jackson's breast on live TV. Again, I am forced to ask the same question: why? Why should the sight of any breast be offensive to a child (especially since most of them are only a few years removed from sucking on them)? An even stranger question is why parents should be offended by the flash, when they were apparently not concerned with the sexually suggestive gyrations and lyrics that preceded that climactic moment. The whiff of hypocrisy is stronger than skunk roadkill. Many of the people expressing outrage over the quick nip shot don't have a problem with Nelly crooning, "It's getting hot in here. So take off all your clothes." Huh?

Was it a publicity stunt? Of course - one of the most blatant and crass sort imaginable. If there's something to be annoyed about, it's the way Janet Jackson played the viewing public for suckers. As an attempt to attract attention, it may have worked too well. I doubt Jackson thought her stunt would end up garnering her name more internet searches than any other moniker in history. As for Justin Timberlake - is there a luckier guy than this? Not only has he slept with both Britney Spears and Cameron Diaz, but he got to rip off Janet Jackson's top without being slapped.

Of course, someone had to file a lawsuit, which serves only to elevate this already overblown subject to new heights of lunacy. (The word "farce" was coined for this kind of idiotic escalation.) The woman's claims to have been "injured" by Jackson's display of flesh makes one wonder exactly what the nature of the injury is. Meanwhile, MTV and CBS practically wet themselves trying to distance their corporate butts from the infamous 1.5 seconds. Suddenly, there will be no more live TV events. Sports and awards shows will be delayed so that censors can eliminate anything deemed offensive. So much for freedom of speech and expression. If there's one silver lining in this entire mess, it's that the NFL has jettisoned MTV from producing the halftime show. Maybe next year, it will actually be entertaining.

No Trim Please

One of this week's most frequently asked e-mail questions (aside from whether I would like a penis enlargement or a new mortgage) was about why I am not planning to review Barbershop 2 (or a variation on the theme, why I am not planning to review Catch That Kid.). The answer requires an explanation of what goes into my decision to review/not review a particular film. The answer has less to do with my expectations about a movie and than with logistics.

As a rule, I do my best to avoid seeing new movies on weekends. (I enjoy having a little "down" time.) 90% of the films I see are on weekdays, at press and/or promotional screenings. For me to see a picture on a Friday, Saturday, or Sunday, it has to be something I was unable to catch at a preview (because of a conflict or because I couldn't make the screening) and have a genuine desire to see. In addition, I generally review only films that I view before they open or during their opening weekend. If I see something a few weeks after its local release, I usually do not write a review.

Another contributing factor is the location of the screening. Because I am inconveniently located 60 minutes away from Philadelphia, where most of the previews are shown, attending requires a degree of effort. And there is one cesspool of a theater that I avoid at almost all costs. It consistently has poor projection and sound quality (rarely is a film in focus and interruptions for breaks and re-splicing are commonplace), is manned by surly, unhelpful employees, and often smells of unmentionable odors. The only time I go there is when I really want to see something early. Fortunately, the local publicity companies have limited their use of this place. However, that's where Barbershop 2 was shown, and that's the primary reason I skipped it. On the other hand, Catch That Kid would have forced me to get up early on a Saturday morning, and doing that is almost as much an anathema as heading off to the dive by the Delaware.

February 9, 2004 (Monday):

For Real?

To date, the best movie I have seen this year is Touching the Void. Many critics are mistakenly referring to this as a documentary, but, based on the rules of factual filmmaking, it's not. More than 50% of what's on screen is an impressive re-creation of events, using actors to play the parts of the protagonists. There is certainly a documentary element to the project (the "talking heads" narration by the expedition survivors), but the final result is a hybrid of narrative and documentary techniques, and should not be lumped into either category.

All too often, the need to classify results in a movie being herded into a category where it does not belong. The most (in)famous of these films is Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine. Despite not being a documentary (Moore is well known for staging scenes and engaging in creative editing), the film nevertheless managed to capture the Best Documentary Oscar (which led to the low point of last year's awards ceremony). In fact, as a representation of facts, Bowling for Columbine leaves a lot to be desired, and much has been written about the inaccuracies and misrepresentations included in the text. What the film is, is a compelling opinion piece - a cinematic essay that establishes a thesis and spends two hours putting together a case for it. Even Moore's unforgivable, bully-like treatment of an ailing Charlton Heston cannot obscure the skill with which he assembles his arguments. Whether we buy them or not is another matter. Bowling for Columbine succeeds, although perhaps not in the way Moore intended. His goal was to convert audiences. He didn't do that, but he got people talking, which, in my opinion, is a more impressive achievement.

Moore has stated that he intends to release his next movie in the advent of the 2004 Presidential election. He wants to expose some "hard truths" about the current regime in the hopes that the electorate will turn in a different direction. What Moore ignores is that the only people who see his films are those who are pre-disposed to agree with his views. The swing voters in any election - those who are in the middle and likely to sway in either direction depending on their present circumstances - will more than likely give Moore's film a miss. And, even those small numbers who see it will be more concerned with the state of their bank account than in Moore's crusade.

Sorry for the tangent… My point is that the term "documentary" is rapidly becoming a misnomer. The Fog of War is a documentary. Capturing the Friedmans is a documentary. But Touching the Void and Bowling for Columbine are not, and it's best not to fall into the trap of lazy categorization when describing these movies. It does a disservice not only to the product, but to those who see it.

Political Views

A number of my regular correspondents enjoy trying to figure out what my political views are on subjects, and whether I'm a Democrat or Republican. So I'll "out" myself for the record: I am neither. You can consider me a fiscal conservative and social liberal. This revelation will probably confound some of those who thought they had me figured out. How have I voted in recent Presidential elections? Had I been eligible in 1984 (I was 17, but participated in a mock high school election), it would have been for Ronald Reagan. In 1988, it was for George Bush. 1992, Bush. 1996, Bill Clinton. In 2000, I was so disenchanted with both candidates that I didn't visit the polls. This year, it will be whoever runs against Bush - doesn't really matter who. (It's not so much George "nucular" Bush I have a problem with, but the unholy trinity of Chaney, Rumsfeld, and "Patriot Act" Ashcroft.)

Why write about this? Because there is a relationship between politics and reviewing. All critics bring a boatload of personal biases to every review, and one of those is where along the political spectrum they stand. Denying this would be pointless and disingenuous. Politics aren't a critical component to every review, but there are times when they can make the difference between liking and disliking a motion picture. Consider Roger Ebert's vicious attack on The Life of David Gale. Ebert was so offended by the movie's politics that he was unable to look beyond them. Some have criticized him for this, but applying a political point-of-view is a valid way to criticize a movie. Michael Medved does the same sort of thing from the other side of the aisle. I may disagree with him, but what he writes cannot be dismissed merely because his perspective is that of a conservative supporter of "family values." In any review, honesty and clarity are things I value far more than agreement.

February 12, 2004 (Thursday):

When Good Ideas Go Bad

Based on reports that I have heard, today is the day when the latest computer virus will expire (or maybe not). This will be a great relief to my e-mail "in" box, which has been overflowing for the better part of two weeks. (If you sent an e-mail to me earlier than February 6 and I haven't responded by now, it probably means that it was inadvertantly dumped as part of one of my semi-daily virus purges.) Strangely enough, however, infected e-mails aren't the biggest problem I'm currently facing (besides, my anti-virus software takes care of them anyway). The most irritating clutter results from all the "return mail" messages informing me that I have sent someone an infected e-mail.

Once upon a time, this must have sounded like a good idea: automatic virus blocking software, after intercepting and deleting an infected e-mail, sends a helpful note back to the source warning of an infection. Unforunately, starting last year, viruses got smarter. Now, they forge the return address, which means that the bounce-back "you've got a virus" message goes to an account that didn't send anything. And, since reelviews@reelviews.net is on a lot of people's e-mail lists, it ends up being an unfortunately popular forged address. (I have gotten infected messages supposedly from myself. If I had an automatic warning system, I would have sent myself several messages warning myself that I'm infected. Viral recursion!)

If I get 500 virus related e-mails in a day, at least half are these kinds of warnings. This is a problem - bandwidth waste and an irritant. The time has come for those who have this kind of automatic response system to disable it. It's causing far more harm than good; the percentage of infected e-mails that still use the correct return address is pathetically low. All of the new, sexy viruses have gotten smarter. Now, it's time for the blocking software to follow suit.

Pirates of the Cinema - an Introduction

This is the first installment of a multi-part article about motion picture piracy. My intention with this series is not to do another "puff piece" about the evils of piracy, but to look a little deeper beneath the surface and offer a few honest but politically incorrect answers to common questions. When writing pieces on piracy, few people bother to get the opinion of the pirates. Instead, they rely on stock quotes from studio reps. However, considering the amount of graft and corruption that goes on across the big business spectrum, and accepting that the motion picture studios represent big business, why are we suddenly so willing to take what they have to say at face value? Do you trust Michael Eisener more than the pimply-faced 14-year old computer geek down the street?

For example, consider the commonly held belief that the studios are losing "billions of dollars" each year because of piracy. It's easy enough to make the calculations (provided lots of assumptions are included). A file sharing system like Kazaa offers access to roughly 500 million files at any given time. If two-tenths of one percent are full-length movies, and 10% of those are downloaded on any given day, that's 100,000 film files per day. The value of those files can be anywhere between $5 (a theater matinee) to $20 (a DVD purchase). Let's use a weighted average of $10 per file. So, the total value of downloaded movie files is $1 million per day, or about $400 million per year. And that's on Kazaa alone. Expand that to multiple file sharers, both public and private, and it's easy to see where the $2-3 billion number comes from. But there's a catch. The value of dowloaded files is not equivalent to lost revenue. And that's a difference (or should I say "big lie") I'll explore in Part One.

Another important consideration is to separate movie piracy from music piracy. A major reason why people steal songs is that the record industry has thus far been unable to provide a legitimate means to obtain music as conveniently as by downloading something from a file sharer. If it was possible to log on to a single site and buy any song for 50 cents, music piracy would take a big hit. (I am not saying this is a cure-all, but it would help.) There is no analogous solution for movies. Downloading entire motion pictures is cumbersome and time-consuming. It's far easier to go to amazon.com and order a DVD or to drive to a local multiplex. Cost is also a minor factor. If you have to pay $18 to get one song along with 14 other crappy tracks, that's robbery by the music industry. $9 for a theater admission or $20 for a DVD is reasonable, if not cheap. That's another subject for Part One.

Before I go any further, it's time for an obligatory disclaimer. I am firmly against movie piracy. No matter how its advocates attempt to pretty up its image, it is the unlawful theft of copyrighted material. As someone who has been plagiarized over 100 times (and those are only the incidents I know about), I'm keenly aware of what it means to have my intellectual property stolen. I have never watched a pirated movie, nor do I intend to (even when such a movie is currently not available in the United States). I do not own equipment that would allow me to break a DVD copy protection. And I don't pay for one movie, then sneak from theater to theater (not piracy, but still theft). The goal here is not to defend pirates, but to explore the world of piracy with an unblinking eye.

February 15, 2004 (Sunday):

Pirates of the Cinema - "Who" and "Why"

There are typically six questions worth answering about any subject: the "five w's" (who, what, why, where, when) and "how." For Part One of my examination of movie piracy, I'm going to concentrate on "who" and "why." I'll cover the other four in Part Two.

Although one can reasonably debate how much money motion picture theft is costing the movie industry, there's no doubt that piracy is a rampant situation. Hundreds of thousands of movies are illegally copied each day, either via downloads from file sharers or through specially rigged DVD recorders that are able to circumvent copy protection techniques. And, as big a problem as piracy is in the United States, it's an even more serious concern overseas, where law enforcement authorities are lax in tracking down those who are responsible.

Generally speaking, there are two groups of pirates: the amateurs and the professionals. For those in the former category, piracy is a game - a source of bragging rights and one-upsmanship. In underground circles, it's a big deal to be the first person to get a copy of a hot movie on-line. For those in the latter category, it's big business. Trumping official video releases and offering cut-rate prices can generate huge profits, especially when there are no royalties to pay. When Paramount issues a DVD, they incur a great number of costs. When someone sells a copy of a pirated Paramount movie, the only cost is that of buying a blank DVD.

Amateurs pirate movies for fanboys and collectors - those who think it's cool to have a copy of a movie before anyone else. Quality is often, but not always, suspect in such cases - a great many of these pirated movies are obtained by pointing a camera at a movie screen and recording. Often, however, quality isn't the point. In fact, many of the people who own these pirated titles don't bother to watch them. It's enough to be able to say they have them.

And here's where the discrepancy comes between loss of revenue and theft of value. Most people who illegally download movies have either already seen the movie in a theater or wouldn't see it at all if they couldn't download a copy. The net loss in both situations is zero. Consider a few cases. Someone who downloads a copy of a movie he likes has usually already seen it theatrically and fully intends to buy the legitimate version when it arrives on DVD. The pirated version is a stopgap means of instant gratification. (How cool would it be to have a chance to purchase a legal DVD copy of a movie on the way out of the theater?) Alternatively, someone might download a movie he never intended to see. However, since it's for free, it becomes worth a look. If there was any cost associated with it, the movie would be out of bounds. (Theft of value = cost of a movie ticket; loss of revenue = $0, because he would never have gotten the ticket, even if the movie wasn't available illegally.)

It's rare for a downloaded movie to take the place of a theatrical viewing or a DVD purchase. Therefore, most of the lost dollars attributed to on-line piracy are false numbers, representing value of theft, not lost revenue. How much money are the studios really losing because of file sharing? That's impossible to say, but it's not close to the billions of dollars they claim. And there's even some anecdotal evidence to support the notion that piracy can help the revenue stream for certain low-budget, non-mainstream motion pictures.

The following is a true account of something that occurred involving an acquaintance of mine and his experiences with Cabin Fever. He's a big horror movie fan, but also a fairly selective one. When he heard about Cabin Fever, he was skeptical. To him, it sounded cheesy and he decided not to see it. Then, a few days after its release, he noticed a copy of it on file sharer. So he downloaded it. After watching it on his 18" computer monitor, he decided that he wanted to see it on the big screen. So, along with four friends, he went to a local multiplex and caught a Monday night showing. The following Friday, he returned with two more friends. That's about $70 revenue that the makers of Cabin Fever would not have seen without the "word of mouth" that piracy can sometimes generate.

The argument is that piracy can (albeit on rare occasions) have positive repercussions. If the studios would put forth an effort to think "outside of the box," rather than react in predictable ways, they might be able to capitalize on this aspect of the trend. Obviously, this isn't going to work with Spider Man 2, but it could be a useful marketing tool for movies that often fly beneath the radar. If attempting to stamp it out is proving difficult, why not switch tactics and use it.

The industry is focusing an inordinate amount of attention on on-line piracy, which is a relatively small part of the problem. The real demon that needs to be dispelled is professional piracy, especially what goes on in Asia, where the pirating of movies is an accepted part of the culture. In many Asian countries, hardly anyone buys a legitimate copy of a movie, because pirated versions are (1) readily available, (2) of equal quality, and (3) much cheaper. There's no associated stigma and it isn't viewed as unethical; in fact, perhaps 90% of those making such purchases don't see anything wrong with it. If you look through the DVD collection of someone living in the Philippines, you might not find one legitimately produced title.

There's no denying that a lot of revenue is lost through these professional operations. Most do not operate in the United States, although there are a few smalltime distributors who sell poor quality DVDs of current theatrical releases on big city streets. But, compared to the huge operations that pump illegal titles into Asia, these guys are irrelevant. If the studios really want to cut back on losses, these are the operations they need to go after. But, because of where they're located and how they operate, they are almost impossible to shut down. (Enter the impotent politicians.) So the movie-makers target the amateurs. It's a foolish and shortsighted policy that's likely to breed a lot of ill-will, and which will make some in this arena all the more determined to steal.

For Hollywood to be able to make inroads against rampant piracy, there needs to be a clear understanding of where the genuine danger lies. Targeting downloaders is a poor and ineffective approach. It gets press, but that's all it accomplishes. Shutting down Kazaa would be a big victory in the newspapers, but, when it comes to the bottom line, the result would be insignificant. Closing down a major copying and distribution operation in Hong Kong, however, would be a huge blow.

So that's the "who" and "why." Next time, I'll take a look at the "where," "when," "what," and "how." And, once all those questions have been explored, then it's time to look at the biggest issue of all: can the war against piracy be won, or, like the war against drugs, is it a bottomless financial sinkhole?

February 16, 2004 (Monday):

Pirates of the Cinema - "What," "When," "Where," and "How"

When it comes to Asian piracy, the biggest sellers are DVD titles. In a way, these can be the hardest to crack down on, because all the pirates are doing is taking a legitimate title and making illegal copies. And, because the DVD covers are done professionally, it can often be difficult for anyone without a trained eye to determine whether a DVD is pirated or actual. Ultimately, price is the determining factor, since pirated DVDs are substantially cheaper than the real thing.

There has been no concerted effort to eliminate overseas pirating of Hollywood movies. From time to time, noises have been made, but the truth is that over 90% of the DVDs sold in countries like Thailand, Vietnam, Korea, Indonesia, the Philippines, and mainland China are pirated, and there are no indications that this is likely to change. For the studios, this represents a major financial hit. This isn't theft of value; it's lost revenue. Take away all the pirated copies (or at least a majority of them), and a percentage of those buying the illegal ones would purchase the legitimate ones, even at a higher price. If the industry would focus their time and effort on the overseas situation, they might be able to make inroads. Instead, however, they stubbornly insist that on-line piracy is the problem. I can't figure out whether the people making the decisions are stupid, ignorant, or badly misinformed. It's probably a combination.

Although most of the overseas piracy is of titles currently available on DVD, Americans (for the most part) aren't interested in those movies. They're old news. Sure, some theft of DVD content goes on, but it's a small percentage of domestic piracy. The hot items are current theatrical releases. The newer, the better. And, on those occasions when something materializes on-line before it hits theater screens, it is considered a huge coup. Remember The Hulk? A major public relations nightmare for Universal turned out to be a big credibility boost to whichever underground figure received credit for first making the pirated copy available.

There are three ways that new movies get on-line: copies of screen captures, copies made from "screeners," and "inside jobs." I'll consider them in order.

The high number of screen captures floating around on the Internet offers compelling testimony that those who download movies are less concerned about quality than about being able to boast that they "own" a copy of a generally unavailable film. Screen captures are the result of someone taking a camcorder into a movie theater and filming the image off the screen. The results are abysmal - poor video and worse audio. For the most part, these don't start popping up until after a movie has entered general release, although there have been occasions when someone has snuck a camera into one of those radio station-sponsored promotional screenings. Lately, the studios have been trying to crack down on this sort of thing, but, in order to be successful, they need more than the half-hearted help they're getting from theaters. Promo screenings are usually carefully monitored (pat downs and "wanding" by hand-held metal detectors have become routine), but, once opening day comes around, it's open season. No multiplex is going to station one security officer in each auditorium looking for someone doing something nefarious with a camera - not unless the studios are willing to pay the bill (which they aren't).

The issue of how to deal with so-called "screeners" has become a minefield. Screeners are the free DVDs and/or VHS tapes sent to Academy members, film critics, and other notable individuals around awards time so that limited distribution pictures can be considered for year-end Top 10 lists, critics' awards, and Oscar nominations. The MPAA rightly recognized that pirates were getting their hands on screeners. So, in a classic case of overreaction, Jack Valenti decided to stop all screeners from going out. Thus began one of 2003's biggest year-end controversies. The complete ban didn't last long. After a brief consideration, the MPAA decided to allow screeners to be sent to Academy members. Shortly thereafter, the courts got involved and it pretty much became business as usual.

The reality is that copies of screeners represent a minority of pirated movies. The solution is not to stop distributing screeners, but to stop doing so arbitrarily. Make sure that each copy is electronically encoded with information that can be traced to the recipient. (This was done in a limited, haphazard way - it likely will be refined by the end of 2004.) That way, if a screener is copied and made available on-line, it will be easy enough to determine who should be censured (and/or prosecuted).

But the biggest problems, and the ones that have yet to be addressed publicly, are the in-house leaks. Before a film is in its final form, copies are made available to all sorts of people within a studio. The path a movie travels between its near-final state and its final state takes it through dozens of hands. The lack of internal control and policing makes it very easy for a low-level employee to smuggle out a copy of a movie and sell/trade/give it to a pirate, who then quickly disseminates it.

The best quality on-line copies are those derived from screeners and in-house sorce material. The latter may be incomplete or work prints (this is what happened with The Hulk - the version that appeared on-line did not have the final special effects). Nevertheless, even the best quality on-line copies are vastly inferior to what can be seen in a theater or obtained on a legitimate DVD; hence the argument that real film fans - who are typically the ones doing the dowloading - will still see the movies in theaters and buy copies on DVD.

The final part of this commentary will concentrate on the question of whether there is a solution. Can the war against piracy be won? Is such a thing even desirable? I'll look at some of the flaws in the studios' current policies and discuss possible improvements before reaching a single, inescapable conclusion.

February 20, 2004 (Friday):

Pirates of the Cinema - Battle Plans

"We're losing money!" That's the battle cry of the studios, recognizing (although perhaps not understanding) that movie piracy is somehow impacting the bottom line. So how do they react? A clumsy frontal assault that would be laughable if it wasn't so expensive. "Education," consisting of absurd ads with various movie technicians bemoaning potential unemployment because of cutthroat geeks with broadband internet access, is prong one. (I'm sure they'll get the sympathy of everyone whacked by the bursting of the tech bubble.) Prong two is a legal assault on anyone caught red-handed downloading a movie. Prong three is the stooges with hand held metal detectors "wanding" everyone who enters a pre-release screening - never mind that the detectors are used improperly. If I was so inclined, I could sneak in a camera without any conern of being caught. That's how manifestly ineffective this "security" is. It's for show only.

I don't claim to have all the answers, but even I can come up with a few better ideas. No, I don't know how to stop overseas piracy. Since theft in Asia is usually related to the illegal copying of DVDs, it's tough to police, especially if the local law enforcement agencies don't cooperate. However, considering that nearly every studio is an appendage to a huge multinational corporation, one would assume that, if this form of piracy became an issue, some arm-twisting could be done.

So let's concentrate on amateur piracy. Can it be stopped altogether? Absolutely not. Not in a society that values free speech and freedom of expression. Maybe not even in a totalitarian society. Underground movements will always abound. But there are ways to control and limit the damage (if that's what the studios want to call it). First, spend the money to have trained security monitors discreetly patrolling multiplex auditoriums. There doesn't have to be one monitor per auditorium. A roving person will be enough to discourage almost everyone, since photographers have to shut off the camera five or six times (for several minutes) every time the monitor meanders into the theater. Second, limit the number of screeners that are distributed, and ensure that every one is electronically encoded with a traceable signature. Third, go after the people who upload the movies, not those who download them. The former is a preventive measure, while the latter is merely punitive. Finally, and most imporantly, choke off illegal copies at the likely source - within the studios. Tighten control and institute employee searches.

But why not take things a step further? Why not get really creative? Why not find inventive ways to make piracy work for the studio? It can happen - consider the example I offered in Part One about Cabin Fever. It seems to me that the trick is to offer potential downloaders something that leaves them wanting more. Take control of putting things on-line. Flood the peer-to-peer networks with inferior copies of a movie that will give potential viewers a taste of the product, but not a full meal. Maybe put up everything except the last 10 minutes. And stop generating ill will by going after individuals who are just downloading for fun. The recording industry has already created a "them vs. me" attitude that paints all of the labels as greedy, power-hungry, corrupt entities. The motion picture industry is headed in the same direction. It's in the studios' best interests to keep on good terms with their potential customer base, otherwise a percentage will resort to piracy as a "screw you" measure.

If history has taught any lesson, it's that the more complex the methods are to stop pirates, the more inventive the pirates will become. Open warfare would result in huge losses on both sides and countless stalemates. It may eventually become more difficult to download movies, but, for those who enjoy the game, a success will be all the more rewarding. Meanwhile, Asian and DVD piracy will continue to slowly drain money like blood while the spotlight will remain squarely on the more sexy topic of on-line theft, even though (as has been amply demonstrated) the actual lost revenue is minimal.

So what is the point of this lengthy, multi-part discussion of piracy? Not really to find solutions, but to look at the situation from a more comprehensive perspective than is usually found, without demonizing pirates (as occurs in most corporate-funded write-ups) or lionizing them (as occurs in underground publications). If there are lessons to be learned, they are these: (1) piracy is theft, no matter what excuses are offered; (2) the studios have gone to great lengths to overstate the dangers posed by on-line pirates; (3) theft of product often does not equate to loss of revenue; (4) piracy can, in rare circumstances, be a positive marketing tool; (5) a more imaginative and comprehensive approach by the studios might yield beneficial results; and (6) piracy cannot be stopped.

A few readers have raised some interesting points about piracy, particularly as it exists in Asia. I'll address those concerns, and talk a little about the ethics of piracy, in an upcoming postscript.

February 29, 2004 (Sunday):

Pirates of the Cinema - Postscript

Initially, I had planned for this series to be three parts (plus the introduction). However, the volume of e-mails received about it, some of which raised interesting points, led me to append this final piece. Since this is essentially a response to readers' comments, it lacks the structure of what has come before.

A number of people have written to back up my contention that, in some cases, piracy can be used to advance revenue. One man stated that, when The Fellowship of the Ring was released, he had no desire to watch it. However, when he stumbled upon an illegal on-line copy in December 2001, he decided to download it to see what all the fuss was about. (He also admits to being curious about whether this really was the movie or a fake.) The version he copied was videotaped in a movie theater, with the camera pointed at the screen. He never finished watching the pirated copy. One hour into the movie, he decided that he wanted to see it in a theater. He ended up paying four times to see The Fellowship of the Ring, six times for The Two Towers, and (thus far) five times for The Return of the King. In addition, he has purchased the theatrical and special edition DVDs of the first two movies, as well as the books and several other items. That's hundreds of dollars generated by one instance of piracy.

Another reader from overseas informed me that he frequently pirates TV show episodes because legal copies are not readily available. Once they are released on DVD in his country (in this case, Germany), he fully intends to buy them because the quality is superior to anything he can download. Had he not been able to download copies of episodes, it is likely he never would have become hooked.

The more often I read stories like these, the more firmly convinced I become that, rather than working to shut down piracy, the studios should become accomplices. There is a powerful marketing tool here. For someone who is smart, far-thinking, and creative, it could be exploited. I'm not suggesting that a studio throw up a pristine copy of their latest big-budget release onto Kazaa, but why use the stick when the carrot will almost always work better?

Two interesting ethical questions have been raised by individuals writing from Asia. Several readers have asserted that a primary reason for piracy in that part of the world is financial. Why would anyone go to a store and buy a $30 legitimate DVD when a pirated copy of the same title can be had for $5 (or less)? That's the mindset. Piracy is not viewed as being illegal or unethical. Plus, considering the low wages earned by many workers, the expense of buying a non-pirated DVD is out of the question.

While I understand that perspective, I find it hard to defend. I can argue in favor of someone who has to steal in order to provide their family with food and shelter, but not movies. Entertainment is not a necessity of life. I work in the telecom industry, and twice during the past 3 1/2 years, my job has been in jeopardy. So I prepared budgets detailing how I would proceed in the event of a layoff. One of the first things to go was DVDs. Would I have missed them? Of course, but their importance is insignificant when compared to the need to keep food on the table and a roof over my head.

But I was provided with what I consider to be a compelling ethical argument in favor of piracy. Several countries (notably China) heavily edit American films to remove "objectionable content." For movie-lovers living in those countries, there are three options: (1) Skip the movie altogether, (2) See the censored version, or (3) Obtain a pirated copy of the original. In those circumstances, I would opt for choice #3. This is one occasion when piracy shows respect for the creative process, whereas doing things the legal way supports close-mindedness and censorship.

In conclusion, I would like to say that it was never my intention to tackle every aspect of such a wide-ranging issue as motion picture piracy, nor do I claim to possess definitive solutions. My goal with this essay (which has taken two weeks to post) has been to wade through the pool of topics and overturn a few rocks. Hopefully, a little more thought has gone into this than in most knee-jerk reaction pieces. The bottom line, as I see it, as that while piracy is "wrong" in the strictest sense of the word, it's not going to go away. The studios have to recognize that there is some merit to a familiar old phrase: "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em."

A Busy Week

May you live in interesting times...

In the movie business, months can expire with little happening. Then, all of a sudden, the drought isn't broken by a gentle rainstorm, but by a hurricane. That's what the last week has been like. The Oscar ceremony seems like a footnote on seven days that have seen an avalanche of screenings and the release of the year's most controversial picture. To answer the oft-asked question of why I haven't been writing in this space for a week, it's because I have been seeing movies and writing reviews. And doing radio shows. And phone interviews. And personal appearances. After tonight, I will get a chance to catch my breath.

I intend to write something about The Passion of the Christ in a day or two, focusing a little more on the phenomenon and the reactions to it than on the movie itself. I do not plan to write anything else in "ReelThoughts" about the Oscars. My reactions to tonight's ceremony will get their own space. I'll be doing my semi-regular "live" Oscar commentary starting at 8:00 EST. My fearless predictions will be there, as will my thoughts on the winners & losers, as well as all the garbage that goes into an Oscar telecast. Do not, however, expect comments about any portion of the coverage that would require me to endure even a minute with Joan Rivers.

I watched most of last evening's tape-delayed coverage of the Independent Spirit Awards. For the most part, I believe the Oscars could learn something from this. However, someone has got to do something about the speeches. I am a firm believer in the three-name rule. You can thank three people, period. Bill Murray had the right idea. Make the speech entertaining. Much as I appreciate Charlize Theron as an actress, I was unimpressed by what she had to say. She thanked her lawyer??? Long speeches go with big egos. Thankfully, the Academy Awards impose a 30-second limit. That's one thing they do right.

©2004 James Berardinelli