Of course a host of legal issues run along “Wizard People.” There are no laws against Neely making “Wizard People” and distributing it freely among his friends. People talk over movies all the time and recording what they say is comparable to that old urban legend that Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” fits perfectly with “The Wizard of Oz.” But can Neely get any money for it? Should he be allowed to perform it in public? A free public performance constitutes a free public screening of “Harry Potter,” which causes the filmmakers and artists to lose potential revenue. The only way to ensure the creation of new art is to pay the artists. Otherwise they have to go get normal jobs and then bitch about how they don’t have time to make their art. But what about a paid public performance of “Wizard People,” in which Warner Bros., the studio that owns “Harry Potter,” gets all or most of the proceeds? Well, with the studio permission, this is fine and dandy. But through the grapevine I heard that Neely was invited to do just that, with 100% of the ticket sales going to either the theater or the studio, as per usual. Warner Bros. sued him anyway.
At first you might be thinking: those corporate bastards, how dare they? Keep in mind that defending Neely and the theater that screened his version of “Harry Potter” puts us on a very slippery slope, the same slope in fact that led to that infamous inter-racial “Star Trek” debacle in the 1960s. You remember, it was the episode where Uhura and Kirk kissed. That part of the episode was actually blanked out during its initial broadcast in the American South. If we make it acceptable for any piece of art to be changed any way we sit fit just to play better in particular markets, then we are denying ourselves the original artist’s vision. Even if we still compensate the copyright holders and artists, we are denying the artist control over her own artwork. We are no longer subjecting ourselves to someone else’s view of the world. We are no longer empathizing with strangers, which is art’s great gift to us. Instead we are co-opting or transforming someone else’s worldview into our own worldview. By changing art from one market to another, we are not expanding and challenging ourselves. We are keeping our vision and sympathies small and narrow. We shouldn’t be allowed to do that unless the artist, free from pressure, says “it’s okay.”
PUTTING A FIG LEAF ON MICHAELANGELO’S “DAVID”
Recently I saw a television interview of some studio big-wig going on and on about how great it will be to replace film with digital projection. One of the bonuses of digital projection, he claimed, is that it would allow differently-rated versions of the same film to play in the same multiplex. If I had the powers ascribed to Harry Potter in “Wizard People” I would have certainly jumped into the television and beaten this boorish neanderthal to a bloody pulp. My reason is the same as the one stated above: I want to see someone else’s vision of the world. I don’t want my own limited version of things to be catered to. I want my horizons expanded, I want to learn something I didn’t already know, or at least have what I already know challenged.
But wait, you say, what about when I watch a movie on network television? The version of “Heat” that gets played on ABC doesn’t have all the swearing and runs ten minutes shorter than the R-rated theatrical release. The copyright owners of “Heat” gave their permission for ABC to edit “Heat” for television, even though in theory no one was forcing them to do so. The copyright owners have the freedom to refuse that their work be “changed just to play better in a particular market.” This is at best a quasi-freedom: rarely do studios fund the creation of a multi-million dollar film without first getting the artist’s permission to edit the film for television. (This doesn’t seem to be as much of an issue as it used to be: the number of films available to the networks has now become so ridiculously large that many questionable films never make it to broadcast television anyway. I don’t think I’ve ever heard of “A Clockwork Orange” being played outside of premium cable.) Similarly, if the plan to have differently-rated versions of the same film playing simultaneously is implemented, the artists will be just as free to turn it down—and they would be likewise free to watch their movie never get made.
(I’m probably more vehement about this than normal because my favorite painting of all time, “The Scream,” just got stolen. And I’ve also just read Gene Philips’ critical biography of Francis Coppola, titled “Godfather,” in which Coppola is quoted as finishing an argument with studio executives by shouting “I’m an artist; you’re fucking Philistines.”)
But I also want to defend Brad Neely. “Wizard People Dear Reader” is art, even if it might not qualify as high art. There is a long and beautiful tradition of artistic stealing (or “homages”). The famous Dies Irae in Berlioz’s “Symphony Fantastique” is actually a much older monastic chant and all the pieces in 20th century composer Ottorino Respighi’s “Ancient Ayres and Dances” are dances from the Renaissance and the Baroque. Does getting a print of the “Mona Lisa” and then splattering it with chili qualify as art? It’s debatable. People like Neely are not a threat to artistic expression—how can one artistic expression threaten the existence of another?—but there’s a fine line between what he’s done and what the aforementioned studio bigwig threatens to do.
There are laws protecting parody and satire. The novels “Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody” and “National Lampoon’s Bored of the Rings” and the short film “George Lucas in Love” are all safe. Any packaging of “Wizard People” and “Harry Potter” would not be protected by those laws, but what about selling “Wizard People” by itself? (This point is moot since it can be downloaded for free, but it’s a good mental exercise.) The issue is complicated by living copyright holders. It’s too complicated to discuss in this small arena. You get into intellectual property laws real fast. I’m for the free distribution of anything as long as the artist can make a living at it. Try www.illegal-art.org. And, if you know what’s good for you, you’ve already started downloading “Wizard People Dear Reader” anyway.
Finished August 24th, 2004
Copyright © 2004 Friday & Saturday Night
Page one of "Wizard People Dear Reader." Back to home.