Jim presents five "codes" or guidelines for successful filmmaking. While all of them are equally useful and important to me - as a person considering becoming his colleague one day - for the purposes of our class discussions, I will only focus on his last advice. Here is the quote:
"Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don't bother concealing your thievery - celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard siad: "It's not where you take things from - it's where you take them to."
Now, it's obvious that Jim must be aware of copyright rules and regulations, as well as the consequences of stealing someone's work. Therefore, I am a bit perplexed as to what kind of stealing he is really talking about. What is his definition of thievery? What I do know with certainty is that Jim never incorporates other's artwork in his films without permission. A good example is his brilliant selection of soundtracks, whether by Tom Waits, Wutang Clan, or Neil Young and Crazy Horse. In fact, Jim had a hard time acquiring the latter's consent to write the scores for Dead Man. So, it is obvious that Jim has respect for other's work, therefore, I think his definition of stealing is - incorporating certain invigorating elements from a particular work in one's own creation.
Borrowing concepts, ideas, notions, elements, details and 'ingredients' from previous works has always been a part of human nature. This is explicitly evident in religions, the development of evolving movements in music, literature and art, as well as the evolution of science. People always find inspiration in others' work. I think that the necessity to protect 'original' work emerged when people discovered the potential commercial benefit associated with it. The economic rights of a benefactor, that is. Therefore, the copyright law is arbitrary, especially the time limit of the protection from reproduction, which by the way, has been expanding. One may ask why it is "author's life plus seventy" (the quote from Practices of Looking, pg 204) and not say, eighty years. How is it determined? Why is it allowed to reproduce artwork after, but not before? All of this convinces me that these are the market driven decisions.
However, the copyright law only protects a particular presentation of an idea, instead of the idea itself. But what is the probability of two individuals on either sides of the world expressing their ideas in very similar ways, separately from one another? Why must one of them suffer if it occurred to him or her individually? The Medieval paintings of mother and child is a good example. However, people did not necessarily think of art as commodity during that period and therefore these problems were nonexistent. As Jim writes in his third rule, "The film is not being made to serve the budget". I think this was the mentality of earlier artists.
In conclusion, I think it's not too harmful to share one's artwork as long as it will be used to enhance another's. A good example of this is Andy Warhol's repertoire. While many would not consider scientific inventions as artwork, this kind of sharing is practiced in the world of science. Scientists discovering new things about nature constantly share their work, which is used (most of the time without any modifications) by others to move forward and progress for the benefit of humanity. I think that art deserves to be recognized as such progress as well.
P.S. If you are interested in reading the article refer to this website: http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/jim_jarmusch_2972/"
No comments:
Post a Comment