11.21.2009
More Crayola Weirdness
I thought I would share a couple more pictures of my goofy artwork from the past.
11.19.2009
Would Thomas Jefferson Steal a DVD? Part 3
Intellectual property has also been called intellectual protectionism and an intellectual monopoly. When conceived, it was indeed considered a temporary monopoly that was enforced by the state. Although intellectual property includes industrial ventures, such as patents and trademarks, the copyright monopoly is perhaps more of a threat to freedoms. This is because it is not only a source of economic control, but a source of creative control. The purpose of copyright law appears to benefit the artist upon a superficial glance. It was conceived to protect creators from “idea theft” and to provide financial incentive for artists so that they can make a living from their art. On a broader level, copyright law serves a specific government interest: to promote progress, art, and culture by offering these incentives and protections. In the text of the United States Constitution, the purpose of copyright and patents laws were “to promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries.”[1] As legislation involving copyright continues to develop, the purposes have evolved with the economic interests of media conglomerates.
Artists’ interests are not at the center of this legislation. These protections have been subverted in favor of profit. Copyright laws have extended purposes in supplying legal means of financial retribution and implementing economic superiority. What was once a legal recognition of the value of creativity has become a mechanism of controlling the entertainment industry. Since nearly all the media in the United States is managed by a handful of companies, their lobbying power to pass more advanced copyright law ensures their ability to control the type of media consumed. “[T]he purpose of patents and copyrights,” according to the Framers of the Constitution as well as legal scholars, “is not to enrich the few at the expense of the many.”[2] Copyright infringement also provides these major conglomerates a means of prosecuting individuals and other artists only with financial interests in mind. Not only do small violations add up to a large number in fines, but fear of prosecution adds to the atmosphere of control that is desired, creating an inevitable chilling effect on speech. The less options consumers have, the better for these companies because when “monopoly over ideas is absent, competition is fierce.”[3] Competition is narrowed by modern copyright law, as increased restrictions confine artists and limit consumers.
There are two components of copyright law: the ability to buy and sell copies of an idea and the power to control how others use the idea. While the purchasing power associated with DVD’s or CD’s for example is not disputed, the control after the purchase is controversial. This right is sometimes referred to as “‘intellectual monopoly,’ to emphasize that it is this monopoly over all copies of an idea that is controversial, not the right to buy and sell copies.”[4] The temporary monopoly may be granted to literary works, musical works, dramatic works, choreographed works, pictorial, graphic and sculptural works, motion pictures, and sound recordings. While this ownership period was intended to be limited, it keeps growing.
The first known use of copyright protection came with Britain’s Statue of Anne in 1710, which was granted a reasonable 14 year period of protection. In the United States, the duration of copyright protection has increased from 28 years with the option to renew for another 28-year-term, to the life of the creator plus 70 years.[5] The idea here is that relatives of the creators should be included in the benefits of copyright protection. The Sonny Bono Copyright Extension Act, which added 20 years to the prior 50 year period, was passed in 1998 under much contention. It was often referred to as the Disney Copyright Extension because it was viewed as an attempt to keep Steamboat Willy—the original cartoon in which Mickey Mouse appears—out of the public domain. In a legal challenge that ended at the Supreme Court, opponents of the Act claimed that extending the monopoly for works that were already protected violated the purpose of copyright. If the primary governmental purpose of copyright is to foster new creations, then there is no need to extend rights for existing works. The Court disagreed, as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg explains:
Beneath the facade of their inventive constitutional interpretation,
petitioners forcefully urge that Congress pursued very bad policy
in prescribing the CTEA’s [Copyright Term Extension Act] long terms.
The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province
to second guess.[6]
While the Act may be a matter of poor policymaking, the majority of the Court reasoned that it was not a constitutional matter. However, Ginsburg’s analysis adds more weight to the fears of the Act’s challengers; Congress has the ability to make copyright terms virtually endless in the interest of major corporations, such as Disney. Some fear that the lovable black mouse will never enter the public domain, as Congress created “a virtual dam blocking the flow of information into the public domain.”[7]
11.17.2009
Thanksgiving on Elm Street Part 3
For my last post, I discussed my memory issue with bad movies. I forget the ones I don’t like and forever remember the ones I enjoy. Aside from the original film, I recall the most from the third installment in the Nightmare on Elm Street series.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 3: Dream Warriors
1987 sure was a good year. Only that particular point in time could have produced this epic entry, which features an equally epic song by Dokken. If I were to imagine the perfect 80’s moment, it might very well be the leader singer belting “We’re the Dreeeaaam Warriorrrrrsss!” Aside from the hair band awesomeness, Part 3 is just a solidly entertaining movie. Freddy’s back with a new viciousness and a sick sense of humor. Creative kills, some gore, decent EFX, and macabre exposition brought all the elements that many missed from Part 2. As much as I enjoy Freddy’s Revenge, I must say that I am thankful Dream Warriors realigned the rails and put the series back on track.
Two cherries on top of this victorious sequel sundae: Wes Craven and the cast. Craven returned to work on the story, offering his most excellent skills to craft a tale that recaptured the successful features of the original while offering something new. Freddy’s back story is a welcome addition to the lore of the Nightmare films. Plus, the son of 100 maniacs has a ring to it. Craven and the other writers also did an excellent job of recreating the confusing fantastical world of the subconscious. Natural law is replaced by terrifying dream logic. The second winning component of Dream Warriors is the cast. Firstly, we get the return of Heather Langenkamp. Her cute face is always welcome on my television screen. It’s always nice to see where our main character’s end up. In this case, Nancy is helping teenagers who have sleep disorders. Way to go movie, this actually makes sense. Thanks! Nancy’s father, played by genre-favorite John Saxon, also jumps in on the fun towards the end. To top this off, we get Patricia Arquette as the Final Girl. She seems destined to play roles that require lots of screaming, mental disturbances, and she generally portrays someone with a messed up life. Throw in Laurence Fishburne and you got yourself a pretty impressive cast for an 80’s sequel.
For this post, I thought I would we could relive my three favorite kills together. Not only is it fun (and maybe a tad sick) to pick favorites, but it will help me remember the deaths in the future. One of my goals in doing Thanksgiving on Elm Street was to resolve the confusion in my brain over which kills happened in which movie. So let’s begin the murder rundown.
Phillip:
Poor Phillip. He has to have one of the most painful deaths I’ve ever seen. His veins are ripped out of his wrists and used as strings to puppeteer him off the roof of the hospital. Ouch!!! I think this may be my favorite of the three. The first kills are often some of the best.
Jennifer:
In the grand tradition of killing characters off in ways that relate to their weaknesses or desires, Freddy shoves this aspiring actress straight into primetime. I’m always happy to get the snide quips from Mr. Krueger as he’s murdering helpless pre-adults.
Taryn:
If needles make you cringe, then you won’t like this. Taryn, an ex-addict, is stabbed with 10 hypodermic needles. While it is simple and not necessarily gory, it is quite effective.
Conclusion:
Dream Warriors is awesome. 'Nuff said. Depending on how the rest of my retrospective on the Nightmare films goes, this will probably be my favorite of the sequels.
11.15.2009
Thanksgiving on Elm Street Part 2
As I’ve said before, out of all the major horror franchises, I’m definitely the least familiar with Freddy and his films. I’ve only seen most of the movies once and I have a difficult time keeping them straight in my memory. Some of them I have just forgotten about completely. Usually when I can’t remember anything from a movie, it means I didn’t like it. My brain has this way of pushing out bad information so that it can save room for the important things like memorizing every single line of Army of Darkness. That said, I had almost zero memory of the next entry for Thanksgiving on Elm Street.
A Nightmare on Elm Street Part 2: Freddy’s Revenge
Given my background in easily forgetting bad movies, does that mean I didn’t enjoy Part 2? As the movie continued, I kept saying “How could I NOT remember THIS?” Perhaps my inaugural viewing of Freddy’s Revenge wasn’t so pleasant and I wiped it from my brain. Now, however, I am sure to remember it forever. Why? Because I actually liked it…a lot. I know I’m making the boys over at Tower Farms very happy when I say this. Despite the forced drama, the weirdness of its characters, the ridiculous scenarios, the unpolished Freddy metaphysics, and the wacked-out plotline, I thoroughly enjoyed the second installment. It has all the awkwardness of Sleepaway Camp and all twisted insanity of Silent Night, Deadly Night, all while somehow taking itself seriously. For this post, I’m going to give you a bunch of reasons why you should like Part 2. This list may confuse you. In fact, it may contain all the reasons that you hate this movie, but it just might give you a newfound purpose when returning to this ill-received sequel.
10 Reasons You Should Like Freddy’s Revenge
#1: Jesse screams like a girl
It’s not like Jesse only lets out girly blood-curdling screams once or twice. It happens on at least four distinct occasions and it’s pretty amazing. It’s not every day that you get a Final Guy, let alone a Final Guy that might as well be a Final Girl.
It’s not like Jesse only lets out girly blood-curdling screams once or twice. It happens on at least four distinct occasions and it’s pretty amazing. It’s not every day that you get a Final Guy, let alone a Final Guy that might as well be a Final Girl.
#2: Jesse’s Dance
There’s this incredible dance scene conducted by our hero Jesse to “Touch Me.” It’s highly sexualized, completely unnecessary, and will make you cringe. The best part is when he closes his dresser drawer with his butt, which is shown in close up.
There’s this incredible dance scene conducted by our hero Jesse to “Touch Me.” It’s highly sexualized, completely unnecessary, and will make you cringe. The best part is when he closes his dresser drawer with his butt, which is shown in close up.
#3: Jesse walks around everywhere with an exposed chest
I get that he is being taken over by Freddy and all, but does that somehow prevent him from buttoning up his shirt? The filmmakers just want you to see the glimmering sweat from his pectoral muscles...or lack thereof.
I get that he is being taken over by Freddy and all, but does that somehow prevent him from buttoning up his shirt? The filmmakers just want you to see the glimmering sweat from his pectoral muscles...or lack thereof.
#4: Marshall Bell as Coach Schneider
Marshall Bell always plays a jerk. And he’s pretty good at it. What really makes this movie special is that the kids joke about Schneider being a masochistic guy that hangs out at S&M bars…and it turns out to be true.
Marshall Bell always plays a jerk. And he’s pretty good at it. What really makes this movie special is that the kids joke about Schneider being a masochistic guy that hangs out at S&M bars…and it turns out to be true.
#5: Homoerotic subtext
If you weren’t getting the hint from the previous three reasons, then let me explain it to you. Jesse constantly complains about Freddy “taking him” and getting “inside him.” When he is about to score with Lisa, he leaves to jump in bed with his pal, Ron. The homoerotic suggestiveness is even on the Wikipedia page for this movie.
If you weren’t getting the hint from the previous three reasons, then let me explain it to you. Jesse constantly complains about Freddy “taking him” and getting “inside him.” When he is about to score with Lisa, he leaves to jump in bed with his pal, Ron. The homoerotic suggestiveness is even on the Wikipedia page for this movie.
#6: The snake
So the movie pulls this trick on you: Jesse is asleep in class and suddenly a snake starts slithering around his neck. You assume it’s occurring in Freddy’s dream world, but nope! It’s real. Somehow his buddies snuck across the entire classroom, retrieved the pet snake, and put it around Jesse without the teacher noticing. When Jesse wakes up screaming like a girl, the teacher says, “If you want to play with animals, Mr. Walsh, join the circus.”
So the movie pulls this trick on you: Jesse is asleep in class and suddenly a snake starts slithering around his neck. You assume it’s occurring in Freddy’s dream world, but nope! It’s real. Somehow his buddies snuck across the entire classroom, retrieved the pet snake, and put it around Jesse without the teacher noticing. When Jesse wakes up screaming like a girl, the teacher says, “If you want to play with animals, Mr. Walsh, join the circus.”
#7: The Exploding Parakeet
Do I need to explain this anymore? Anytime animals explode for no reason in front of a family, including a little girl, it is funny. I love animals, but it’s still amazing.
Do I need to explain this anymore? Anytime animals explode for no reason in front of a family, including a little girl, it is funny. I love animals, but it’s still amazing.
#8: The Walsh Family
These people have the best reactions to all the bizarre occurrences. In very beginning of the film, they are having breakfast and suddenly they hear a woman—I mean Jesse—scream the most horrendous scream upstairs and they just kind of shrug. The little sis says, “Why can’t Jesse wake up like normal people?” This is great because the next time Jesse screams from a nightmare, they rush into his room like a SWAT team. And the father’s reaction to the Parakeet scenario is equally golden, blaming Jesse, saying that he put a cherry bomb in the bird. HA!
These people have the best reactions to all the bizarre occurrences. In very beginning of the film, they are having breakfast and suddenly they hear a woman—I mean Jesse—scream the most horrendous scream upstairs and they just kind of shrug. The little sis says, “Why can’t Jesse wake up like normal people?” This is great because the next time Jesse screams from a nightmare, they rush into his room like a SWAT team. And the father’s reaction to the Parakeet scenario is equally golden, blaming Jesse, saying that he put a cherry bomb in the bird. HA!
#9: People get all dramatic and stuff
Both Jesse and Lisa scream and cry like they’re working for an Oscar nomination. It’s incredible. There is no sense of humor about them, just blatant drama that isn't felt on the other side of the screen.
Both Jesse and Lisa scream and cry like they’re working for an Oscar nomination. It’s incredible. There is no sense of humor about them, just blatant drama that isn't felt on the other side of the screen.
#10: The Pool Party
So Lisa throws this cool pool party, where everyone is dressed respectably and listening to jazz music. Yet, the moment her parents go to bed and the lights turn off, the party gets wild! And I’m not joking when I say the moment the light goes off. Suddenly, rock music is screaming from the radio and beer is flowing. Mingling turns into making out. And what’s they pay off for this? Are all the kids going to get horribly mutilated at the party? Well, no…not really. Only a few. This disappointment is all part of the charm.
So Lisa throws this cool pool party, where everyone is dressed respectably and listening to jazz music. Yet, the moment her parents go to bed and the lights turn off, the party gets wild! And I’m not joking when I say the moment the light goes off. Suddenly, rock music is screaming from the radio and beer is flowing. Mingling turns into making out. And what’s they pay off for this? Are all the kids going to get horribly mutilated at the party? Well, no…not really. Only a few. This disappointment is all part of the charm.
So....Wait, you’re still not convinced? Did I actually make you hate the movie more? Let’s just agree to disagree.
11.14.2009
My Little Spotlight in the Deep, Dark Vault of Horror
Remember that Ms. Horror Blogosphere thing I mentioned? Well, the spotlight on my blog is now up on The Vault of Horror. Check it out here for an interview and a bio that I wrote up for the entry. While you are there, be sure to look at the other contestants that are up so far. They have some awesome sites. Also, if you aren't familiar with The Vault of Horror blog itself, it would behoove you to give it a good looksie.
11.13.2009
Oh Shit, it's Friday the 13th!
Everyone has a special post for the wonderful occurrence of a Friday falling on the 13th day of the month. Since I've done retrospectives on all of the Friday films last month, what is left for me to do? Well, I thought about it for a while (like 3 whole hours) and found the perfect idea. In commemoration of the holiday, I am going to share a collection of "Oh Shit" faces from the Friday the 13th films. What is an "Oh Shit" face? Well, it's probably better for me to just show you...
"Oh shit, zip up your pants."
"Oh shit, my hands are hairy."
"Oh shit, but I'm the Final Girl!"
"Oh shit, I can't act!"
"Oh shit, I'm allergic to knives."
"Oh shit, you finished just in time."
"Oh shit, this movie's in 3D!"
"Oh shit, I'm dying for realzzz this time, I promise."
"Oh shit, my hand fell off!"
"Oh shit, there's something in my eye."
"Oh shit, guys, I'm really getting cold...guys? I'm not kidding. This isn't acting. I'm actually acquiring hypothermia as we speak."
"Oh shit, I just realized that 1920's porn was the last thing I ever saw..."
"Oh shit, my death is off screen!!!"
"Oh shit, giving it up tonight was a good call."
"Oh shit, I'll never say 'Talk to the Hand' ever again!"
"Oh shit, my career is already dying."
"Oh shit, you can't kill the girl with perfect boobs."
"Oh shit, this hurts, this really really hurts."
"Oh shit, I just came in here to take a shit."
"Oh shit, I'm f'ing crazy."
"Oh shit, I can't breathe!!!!!!!!"
"Oh shit, Jesus, help me out here."
"Oh shit, this is what I get for being a jerk."
"Oh shit, this monster stole my earring."
"Oh shit, you mean this blood is real?"
"Oh shit, this voyage is doomed."
"Oh shit, I just wanted to rock!"
"Oh shit, I become BAMF."
"Oh shit, that was not the type of money shot I was expecting."
"Oh shit, my death is so COOL...get it?"
"Oh shit, this sucks on so many levels!" (No work necessary on my part)
AND THE GRAND FINALE...JASON'S TURN:
"OHHH SHIT!!!!!!!!"
As a final note, I'd like to thank the amazing BodyBags Count site for so many of these images and for being a wonderful guide to the death scenes from all of the classics. It's like an encyclopedia of kills, with images and useful information.
Would Thomas Jefferson Steal a DVD? Part 2
Copyright is a relatively modern concept. It is part of a broader category of law known as intellectual property, which is defined as property rights over creations of the mind, including copyrights, patents, and trademarks. Some legal experts take issue with the term intellectual property because it lumps three different areas of law together, even though they were developed with separate legal principles. Richard Stallman, President of the Free Software Foundation and found of the GNU Project, distinguishes them as such: “Copyright law was designed to promote authorship and art, and covers the details of price of giving the one who publishes an idea a temporary monopoly over it—a price that may be worth paying in some fields and not in others. Trademark law, by contrast, was not intended to promote any particular way of acting, but simply to enable buyers to know what they are buying. Legislators under the influence of 'intellectual property', however, have turned it into a scheme that provides incentives for advertising.”[1]
Although the concept of owning creative or industrial material has been discussed since at least the 18th century, the term “intellectual property” was not widely circulated until 1967 with the formation of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and subsequently gained further familiarity through 1980’s Bayh-Dole Act. WIPO’s purpose is to “rewar[d] creativity, stimulat[e] innovation and contribut[e] to economic development while safeguarding the public interest.”[2] Its international presence has rendered it an organization of increasing importance, as internet technologies have made a global economy shrink in size and grow in ease of accessing material from across the world. The Bayh-Dole Act, also known as the University and Small Business Patent Procedures Act, allowed universities, small businesses, or non-profit institutions to receive preferred consideration for ownership of inventions over the U.S. government. This opened the door to commercial use of intellectual property rights. Prior evidence does exist of thought surrounding the concept of intellectual property, particularly in Europe where it was intended to be utilized “as an instrument of government censorship.”[3] A 1791 French law stated: “All new discoveries are the property of the author; to assure the inventor the property and temporary enjoyment of his discovery, there shall be delivered to him a patent for five, ten or fifteen years.”[4] Yet, many were hesitant of this law. In 1818, a French liberal theorist by the name of Benjamin Constant distrusted the notion, arguing that “property which is called intellectual is only a matter of opinion.”[5] Several decades later, the first legal use of intellectual property in American law emerged in Davoll et al. v. Brown (1845). Justice Charles L. Woodbury summarized such property as “the labors of the mind, productions and interests as much a man's own, and as much the fruit of his honest industry, as the wheat he cultivates, or the flocks he rears.”[6] Although Woodbury’s description is rather poetic, it is more sentimental than substantial.
The origin of copyright law lies in economic theory as much as it does in legal postulations. In economist and philosopher F.A. Hayek’s well-cited case against socialism, he warns, “our civilization depends, not only for its origin but also for its preservation, on what can precisely be described only as the extended order of human cooperation, an order more commonly, if somewhat misleadingly, known as capitalism.”[7] Although copyright may appear to be a pure capitalistic venture, Hayek argues for the decentralization of knowledge and power. Modern copyright laws perform the opposite; they centralize ideas through economic power. Basic tenants of capitalism involve the ownership of private property, but intellectual property is a later development that many early economists were puzzled by. Hayek doubts “whether there exists a single great work of literature which we would not possess had the author been unable to obtain an exclusive copyright for it.”[8] Even Karl Marx, advocate of socialism, may have been weary of intellectual property. Marx’s fundamental problem with capitalism was that human beings became commodities through labor; monetary value was placed on actions, skills, and abilities rather than physical items. This danger is exacerbated by the concept of intellectual property, which renders the ideas and talents of the creator the same as commodities. Marx’s vision of a communist society, where cooperation and shared property were the law of the land, certainly would not include theories of intellectual ownership. His world would be one where all is in the public domain so to speak. If basic theories of capitalism and socialism do not support intellectual property, then where does this place our modern copyright laws in a philosophical context?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)