Re: Academy goes after Mary Pickford's Oscars
Calvin
> From the Internet Movie Database:
> "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is attempting to
> prevent the sale of three Oscars that were awarded to Mary Pickford
> and her husband Charles "Buddy" Rogers, the Associated Press reported
> Sunday. Rogers's second wife Beverly had indicated that she intends to
> sell the statuettes, but the Academy claims that under its rules it
> has the right to buy them back for $10 each. A judge on Friday ordered
> mediation of the lawsuit. In 2004 another judge ruled that the academy
> had no right to the Oscar that Orson Welles received for Citizen
> Caine, thereby allowing his daughter to proceed with a sale of the
> statuette. Pickford won a best actress Oscar in 1930 for Coquette and
> an honorary Oscar in 1976. Rogers received an Oscar for humanitarian
> work in 1986."
Never knew there were strings attached to the statuettes.
Does anyone know why the Academy doesn't want the
recipients to have full rights of ownership, which obviously
would include the right of them or their heirs to sell them?
Eric Stott
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:adc1d84e-ad97-4e53...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Never knew there were strings attached to the statuettes.
Does anyone know why the Academy doesn't want the
recipients to have full rights of ownership, which obviously
would include the right of them or their heirs to sell them?
Possibly the Academy didn't want to see the Oscar in a pawnshop window?
Eric Stott
Calvin
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> Does anyone know why the Academy doesn't want the
> recipients to have full rights of ownership, which obviously
> would include the right of them or their heirs to sell them?
>
> Possibly the Academy didn't want to see the Oscar in a pawnshop window?
Why not? I don't mean to be flip; I would like to know why
letting the statuettes go wherever, would not be desirable.
One in a pawnshop window might mean that an actor fell on
hard times, for example. But wouldn't auctions be more
likely places to run across them?
moviePig
There's a reason we call it *crass* commercialism...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Eric Stott
I meant back at the time the ban was imposed. There weren't memorabilia
auctions in those days, but I could see some screewriter down on his luck
hocking his Oscar for the price of a drink. (it's kind of sobering to think
that most Oscars go to comparatively unsung positions- there must be a ton
of Best Adaptation/ Best Lighting , Etc. awards out there)
Calvin
> On Jan 1, 2:48 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > > "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
> > > Never knew there were strings attached to the statuettes.
> > > Does anyone know why the Academy doesn't want the
> > > recipients to have full rights of ownership, which obviously
> > > would include the right of them or their heirs to sell them?
>
> > > Possibly the Academy didn't want to see the Oscar in a pawnshop window?
>
> > Why not? I don't mean to be flip; I would like to know why
> > letting the statuettes go wherever, would not be desirable.
> > One in a pawnshop window might mean that an actor fell on
> > hard times, for example. But wouldn't auctions be more
> > likely places to run across them?
>
> There's a reason we call it *crass* commercialism...
Assuming you're serious, and not punning or something,
I see nothing crass about it. The award is the important
thing, not the token of it. The buying and selling of the
statuettes, or collecting of them, seems perfectly
honorable and legitimate to me. Though I don't indulge
in collections of memorabilia, I might at least look in
on an exhibition of someone's Oscar collection if I was in
the neighborhood.
Jim Beaver
"Eric Stott" <estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE> wrote in message
news:13nld3j...@corp.supernews.com...
I think in large part it has to do with preventing the honor from falling on
the shoulders of the undeserving. While the Academy certainly doesn't want
to see Oscars in pawnshop windows, neither does it want them decorating the
mantles of car dealers and hedge fund managers.
Of course the legal right of the Academy to reclaim Oscars is bound up in
the agreements each winner has signed upon receipt of the award (in the
period since such agreements came into being). Winners from before that
time may do what they wish with the award. Pickford, I believe, signed the
first-right-of-refusal agreement with the Academy. Thus the lawsuit.
Jim Beaver
Calvin
> I think in large part it has to do with preventing the honor from falling on
> the shoulders of the undeserving. While the Academy certainly doesn't want
> to see Oscars in pawnshop windows, neither does it want them decorating the
> mantles of car dealers and hedge fund managers.
I don't get that. The statuette is not the honor, and owning a
statuette would not be a claim of deserving the award that it
represents. You speak as if these things are religious
artifacts that should not be sullied (though I'm not sure why
car dealers and hedge fund managers are unworthy to be proud
of an item of interesting memorabilia that he or she has
aquired).
David Totheroh
unworthy to be proud..."
I don't mean to be flip either, but that parenthetic quote may help
explain why you're having a hard time understanding the Academy's
position. Think about it, and have a happy new year.
sirmichaelcat
it is part of the collecting mania that is sweeping the world. Many
collectors of beer-cans would prize one of their treasures more than
any AA Stattuette
Calvin
> the agreements each winner has signed upon receipt of the award (in the
> period since such agreements came into being). Winners from before that
> time may do what they wish with the award. Pickford, I believe, signed the
> first-right-of-refusal agreement with the Academy. Thus the lawsuit.
Legal agreements are binding, of course, unless broken by
judicial rulings; but this looks highly unenforcable. Surely
the Academy doesn't look into inheritance arrangements
when the winners die, and considering the thousands of
statuettes out there, they couldn't if they wanted to.
How does the signing work, anyway? You said "signed upon
receipt of the award", but I see no signing at the ceremony,
and doubt that winners are detained if they try to leave the
building. Wouldn't having the nominees sign before the
voting make more sense? This is just amazing. I had no
idea about this tiny facet of our culture.
Calvin
> On Jan 1, 2:35 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > I don't get that. The statuette is not the honor, and owning a
> > statuette would not be a claim of deserving the award that it
> > represents. You speak as if these things are religious
> > artifacts that should not be sullied (though I'm not sure why
> > car dealers and hedge fund managers are unworthy to be proud
> > of an item of interesting memorabilia that he or she has
>
> "though I'm not sure why car dealers and hedge fund managers are
> unworthy to be proud..."
>
> I don't mean to be flip either, but that parenthetic quote may help
> explain why you're having a hard time understanding the Academy's
> position. Think about it, and have a happy new year.
But the rest of what I said, above what you highlighted, makes
it clear what I meant, and did not mean, by the word "proud".
Anim8rFSK
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
Has anybody ever said "Hell, no, I'm not signing that" and if so, what
happens? Are they still an Oscar winner and just don't get to carry
home the statue?
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
moviePig
Rather than "crass commercialism", I might better have named "filthy
lucre". The Academy doesn't want its symbol sullied as a commodity.
So, they enforce that having one is an honor... never more, thus never
less.
moviePig
The statues that are handed out onstage are made of salt water
taffy...
Jim Beaver
-----------
I don't speak of them as holy. I'm trying to convey what I THINK might be
the Academy's point of view. Not that I think they think the statuettes are
"holy" either.
I've got three Emmy awards sitting on my desk right now. I won none of
them. I'm pleased (I don't say proud, because I did nothing to engender
rightful pride) to have them as "interesting memorabilia", as you say. But
I knew the man who originally owned them. If you think he felt that owning
the statuettes was not a large part of the honor of the thing, then I
suggest that not everyone thinks the way you do.
The fact that owning a statuette is not a claim of deserving the award
stands rather overwhelmed in the shadow of a larger fact: that some people
do in fact want others to think they got these things by dint of their own
actions, even if only for the few moments before the nameplate reveals the
honor belongs elsewhere. I've met too many fake Vietnam vets, for example,
who proudly display medals won by others as their own. (Apparently there's
a whole cultural subset of those phonies.) I myself always take a moment to
enjoy the fun of someone entering my office and seeing these three Emmys,
watching them try to figure out what I might have done to deserve them. Of
course, unlike car dealers and hedge fund managers, I actually work in the
field in which these awards are handed out, so it's not such a stretch that
I might have one of my own.
Simply put, I think the Academy believes the image and value of their award
is sullied somewhat if it can be purchased on the open market. Maybe
they're right, maybe they're wrong. I'm just passing on my sense of it.
By the way, you can buy most military medals in surplus stores or online.
To the best of my knowledge, you can't buy a Medal of Honor in such places.
Maybe because some people think there's a line that should be drawn before
the marketing of all symbols of honor?
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
"Anim8rFSK" <ANIM...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:ANIM8Rfsk-9A063...@news.west.cox.net...>
> Has anybody ever said "Hell, no, I'm not signing that" and if so, what
> happens? Are they still an Oscar winner and just don't get to carry
> home the statue?
I don't know. I've wondered about that myself.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
-----------
Because the names of the winners are not known until just before the
ceremony, the statuettes are not engraved. After the ceremony, the Academy
collects the Oscars from the winners and arranges for the proper engraving.
It is either at this time, or at the time of nomination, I believe, that the
agreement to sell the Oscar back to the Academy is signed.
Jim Beaver
phant...@aol.com
time in the late '40s (possibly early '50s), which gives the Academy
the option to buy back a statuette for $1 (or $10) before a recipient
can legally sell it. I think the KANE award was not "legally
protected" because it pre-dated the contract. So Pickford's Oscar
for COQUETTE should be allowed to go up for sale, while the other two
Honorary Awards cannot.
Jay Salsberg
Sean O'Hara
>
> I don't get that. The statuette is not the honor, and owning a
> statuette would not be a claim of deserving the award that it
> represents.
And the Ruby Slippers are just a pair of slightly-used sequined
pumps. That doesn't stop people from paying thousands of dollars for
them. The same goes for the Oscars. The Academy feels that would
devalue the awards.
--
Sean O'Hara <http://diogenes-sinope.blogspot.com>
Bender: Hey sexy mama, wanna kill all humans?
-Futurama
craig
http://www.newsweek.com/id/43414
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E07E3DC163FF931A15754C0A9659C8B63
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7046638.stm
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20071211/ennew_afp/entertainmentusfilmoscarkane_071211232040
http://www.eonline.com/news/article/index.jsp?uuid=1dd75649-a65f-4143-8f13-ac83b0ecb6ac
Calvin
How incredibly witty and funny. I must remember to laugh.
Calvin
> Rather than "crass commercialism", I might better have named "filthy
> lucre". The Academy doesn't want its symbol sullied as a commodity.
> So, they enforce that having one is an honor... never more, thus never
> less.
It's clearly not enforceable, except in certain high profile cases.
The honor is in winning it, not in having it, in my opinion. At
the time of death, if not earlier, the statuette passes on to
someone who will have the thing, but not the honor, with no
confusion being necessary.
moviePig
To avoid internal injury, first remove that stick...
Calvin
When and if I figure out what that means, no doubt I'll
have a debt of two laughs to pay.
David Totheroh
How is it not enforceable? If I inherit a house, do you think the
CC&Rs are somehow automatically null and void? Do you think whatever
mortgage obligations remain are magically forgiven just because I
didn't personally sign the loan papers?
It's as enforceable as any other laws involving property transactions.
Eric Stott
<phant...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:d4640d0d-f514-4f1d...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
From what I've read, when the academy gave Pickfor the two later awards they
made the agreement retroactive to include the early one. Sounds picky, but
if she signed it it's probably binding.
Eric Stott
Calvin
I only meant that there are too many out there for any except
high-profile transactions to ever be heard about. If the winner
for Art Direction in 1975 wills his Oscar to a son who later sells
it at a flea market, the Academy will never know, and neither
father nor son may even have been aware of breaking an old
contract.
Howard Brazee
<estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE> wrote:
>From what I've read, when the academy gave Pickfor the two later awards they
>made the agreement retroactive to include the early one. Sounds picky, but
>if she signed it it's probably binding.
So what did her heirs sign?
moviePig
A phrase I used to hear w/r/t stolen property later purchased openly
was "holder in due course", which I believe represented a kind-of
statute of limitations on an article's shady provenance. Under that
doctrine, you might claim that you bought your statue from a legit
seller, as did he, etc. But, it seems to me that the Academy can
argue that its policies are a matter of sufficient public record
(frequent ignorance of them notwithstanding) that, *whenever* a
violating transaction's discovered - e.g., a guest sees your newly
acquired Oscar on your mantlepiece - they can assert that you
*should've* inferred its illegal past...
Calvin
Maybe I'm more ignorant than most about such things, but if
yesterday I had seen an Oscar in someone's home, bought from
an auction, memorabilia sale, or somesuch, two things would
-not- have occurred to me: (1) that any illegality or contract
violation had been committed, or (2) that the new owner was
in any sense pretending that it had been awarded to him.
If the person was such a pretender, I could simply ask (if not
allowed a close enough view of it), what filmwork in what year
had merited his award, and then I could have looked it up.
tmk
> statuette would not be a claim of deserving the award that it
> represents. You speak as if these things are religious
> artifacts that should not be sullied (though I'm not sure why
> car dealers and hedge fund managers are unworthy to be proud
> of an item of interesting memorabilia that he or she has
> aquired).
The Oscar is also a brand. The Academy is doing it's best to protect
that brand. If an internationally recognized, prestigious award can be
purchased on e-bay, it loses much of it's prestige. It's in the
interests of the Academy and the other winners (past and future) to
not permit free-market sales.
I believe the Tony's have a similar arrangement with their recipients.
tmk
> Has anybody ever said "Hell, no, I'm not signing that" and if so, what
> happens? Are they still an Oscar winner and just don't get to carry
> home the statue?
>
(though not for that-but the results would be the same.) The
recipient can still claim to have won, he just can't put the statuette
on his mantle.
tmk
Not exactly correct. Welles won his award before the resale
stipulation was put into effect. However, during the period of time
that his Oscar was classified as missing, his daughter asked that a
replacement be issued. A replacement was issued with a signed resale
stipulation, plus a resale stipulation for the original, if it should
ever resurface (which it did.)
I believe that at the time the stipulation was put into effect, an
effort was made to get all previous winners to sign the resale
agreements. Mary Pickford was one of the first to sign.
tmk
> It's clearly not enforceable, except in certain high profile cases.
> The honor is in winning it, not in having it, in my opinion. At
> the time of death, if not earlier, the statuette passes on to
> someone who will have the thing, but not the honor, with no
> confusion being necessary.
The catch is when money gets involved. The contract does allow for
inheritance. It does not allow for open sale.
tmk
That's part of the problem. The current "owners" of the statues are
not Mary's heirs. They are in fact the children of Buddy Roger's
subsequent wife, from her previous marraige.
Anim8rFSK
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
If it's at the time of the engraving, we have another loophole. The
actors take the statues home with 'em, or at least to the after parties
we see on E!. If the academy grabbed them at the door it would be one
thing ... but if they call the next day and say "you have to bring it in
to be engraved and sign away your rights to it" somebody, sometime, has
had to say "screw you, I'll keep it just the way it is, thank you very
much"
Of course, if it's at the time of the nomination, and somebody refuses
to sign, you've got another problem.
Anim8rFSK
"Eric Stott" <estott@localnetoSPAMcomMODE> wrote:
oooo, I bet a good lawyer could blow hole in that you could drive a tank
through. "You can't have this award unless you agree to give up the
early one we freely gave you, and, no, we're not making any of the other
winners do this, and you don't get any additional consideration for it"
Jim Beaver
As one of the founders of the Academy, Mary Pickford tended to side with it.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
> If it's at the time of the engraving, we have another loophole. The
> actors take the statues home with 'em, or at least to the after parties
> we see on E!. If the academy grabbed them at the door it would be one
> thing ... but if they call the next day and say "you have to bring it in
> to be engraved and sign away your rights to it" somebody, sometime, has
> had to say "screw you, I'll keep it just the way it is, thank you very
> much"
Yeah, and then you get to have an Oscar with no name on it. Not having one
and only guessing, I would surmise that an Oscar with my name engraved on it
would mean a lot more to me than a blank one on my mantel.
Jim Beaver
Feuillade
That would be my thinking exactly.
Tom Moran
Howard Brazee
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>Yeah, and then you get to have an Oscar with no name on it. Not having one
>and only guessing, I would surmise that an Oscar with my name engraved on it
>would mean a lot more to me than a blank one on my mantel.
Everybody knows it's yours. Engraving isn't expensive.
Calvin
Hear. hear. Though it's quite understandable that some property
has strings attached (land, animals, houses, cars), the idea that
one does not have full ownership of small inanimate objects of
personal memorabilia, might well be shocking to many people,
and bring out feelings of rebellion concerning that state of affairs.
jessica
Oscars.
In the early 90s I attended the auction for the Cagney Estate ( his
wife's and he had
died ealier) BOTH his Congressional Medal of Honor and Oscar were for
sale.
Neither sold but not for any legal objections ( this pre dated the the
agreement and I am not aware that the Academy made any attempt to stop
it) but because neither met
the minimums.
On Jan 1, 6:43 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:0f839795-d38f-4281...@z11g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 1, 5:19 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>
> > I think in large part it has to do with preventing the honor from falling
> > on
> > the shoulders of the undeserving. While the Academy certainly doesn't want
> > to see Oscars in pawnshop windows, neither does it want them decorating
> > the
> > mantles of car dealers and hedge fund managers.
>
> I don't get that. The statuette is not the honor, and owning a
> statuette would not be a claim of deserving the award that it
> represents. You speak as if these things are religious
> artifacts that should not be sullied (though I'm not sure why
> car dealers and hedge fund managers are unworthy to be proud
> of an item of interesting memorabilia that he or she has
> aquired).
>
> -----------
> I don't speak of them as holy. I'm trying to convey what I THINK might be
> the Academy's point of view. Not that I think they think the statuettes are
> "holy" either.
>
> I've got three Emmy awards sitting on my desk right now. I won none of
> them. I'm pleased (I don't say proud, because I did nothing to engender
> rightful pride) to have them as "interesting memorabilia", as you say. But
> I knew the man who originally owned them. If you think he felt that owning
> the statuettes was not a large part of the honor of the thing, then I
> suggest that not everyone thinks the way you do.
>
> The fact that owning a statuette is not a claim of deserving the award
> stands rather overwhelmed in the shadow of a larger fact: that some people
> do in fact want others to think they got these things by dint of their own
> actions, even if only for the few moments before the nameplate reveals the
> honor belongs elsewhere. I've met too many fake Vietnam vets, for example,
> who proudly display medals won by others as their own. (Apparently there's
> a whole cultural subset of those phonies.) I myself always take a moment to
> enjoy the fun of someone entering my office and seeing these three Emmys,
> watching them try to figure out what I might have done to deserve them. Of
> course, unlike car dealers and hedge fund managers, I actually work in the
> field in which these awards are handed out, so it's not such a stretch that
> I might have one of my own.
>
> Simply put, I think the Academy believes the image and value of their award
> is sullied somewhat if it can be purchased on the open market. Maybe
> they're right, maybe they're wrong. I'm just passing on my sense of it.
>
> By the way, you can buy most military medals in surplus stores or online.
> To the best of my knowledge, you can't buy a Medal of Honor in such places.
> Maybe because some people think there's a line that should be drawn before
> the marketing of all symbols of honor?
>
> Jim Beaver
Bill Anderson
> Actually Jim non military Medals of Honor have been for sale WITH
> Oscars.
> In the early 90s I attended the auction for the Cagney Estate ( his
> wife's and he had
> died ealier) BOTH his Congressional Medal of Honor and Oscar were for
> sale.
I think Ronald Reagan presented James Cagney a Presidential Medal of
Freedom. Now that's a very nice award, but it's not a Congressional
Medal of Honor.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
Eric Stott
"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OLmdnebjjtgMvuHa...@rcn.net...
The military Medal of Honor can not be legaly sold or traded, and it can't
be exchanged as part of a transaction either (like: I pay you $10,000.00 for
your car & the MOH is in the glove compartment). You CAN obtain display
copies if you're a proper institution- the museum I work at has gotten two
for displays and both are marked DISPLAY ONLY on the reverse.
Now.....funny things HAVE happened. We were given an old guy's medal
collection by his widow. There was a MOH in it,(fairly new one) with a name
on the back. The recipient isn't listed in ANY list. Was it a screw up? We
have no idea, neither does the widow & there's no paperwork.
Eric Stott
Jim Beaver
"Howard Brazee" <how...@brazee.net> wrote in message
news:vr2nn3l01bsmd0nf3...@4ax.com...
Yeah, and everybody who can tell the difference between an Oscar and a
doorstop would know the difference between engraving and the official
Academy engraving. But if you only want to impress your Aunt Perspicallia
from Keokuk, I'm sure a Post-It would do, too.
Jim Beaver
------
Yeah, I can see the masses rising now, chanting "Keep your stinking Oscar!
We're not helping you maintain its specialness!" I'm sure most of the
actors I know would gladly forego the honor in order not to sign an
agreement to terms. That's probably why so few of them do so. Uh-huh.
Jim Beaver
Howard Brazee
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>> Everybody knows it's yours. Engraving isn't expensive.
>
>Yeah, and everybody who can tell the difference between an Oscar and a
>doorstop would know the difference between engraving and the official
>Academy engraving. But if you only want to impress your Aunt Perspicallia
>from Keokuk, I'm sure a Post-It would do, too.
But they know it's your Oscar, that's the important part.
I'm sure someone could get whatever quality of engraving they wish to.
craig
Oscar on ebay. Sorry. Contracts supercede everything,including
copyright law.
If you want to buy an Oscar convince a pre-50 recipeint or their
Estate to sell it to you. The Academy is just aggressively defending
their quite substantial prestige associated with the statues--I would
do the same in their shoes.
That is why folks do contracts. The Internet does not supercede all
legalities
Calvin
I don't want to buy an Oscar. I'm just interested in the limits
on the meaning of private property. Normally, legal ownership
includes the right to sell. I can't offhand think of another case
where it doesn't. If I was an Oscar winner, I probably would
toy with the idea of not signing, and getting my own engraving
done. But that probably would mean no more nominations,
ever, maybe even some form of blacklisting, depending on who
at the Academy got angry.
Would standing up for the concept of full ownership be worth it?
Maybe not. I wouldn't want to sell it, but I might want to give it
to a museum or something if I didn't have any heirs. Defying
authority has always appealed to me.
moviePig
There's no inalienable right or principle being outraged here. The
Academy isn't reneging on your "full ownership", because the Academy
never *gave* you full ownership...
tmk
Oscar is not a cure for cancer or an end to war. However, to
recipients of the Award, and the Academy itself, it's damn important!
That's why no one has ever balked at signing the agreement. By
allowing Oscars to creep into the open market, they lose their cache.
The Academy wants to protect their brand, and the prestige accorded
their recipients. Once an Oscar is sold on the open market, it is no
longer priceless! Heirs who have no connection at all to the original
recipients (as is the case here) should have no right to trade in
honors they had no connection to (not even by right of birth
inheritance!)
David Totheroh
Your idea of "full ownership" is in reality partial ownership. You
want to be able to ignore whatever conditions or restrictions are part
of the transaction and still take posession. You want the posession
part without the conditions part. It'd be like buying a house zoned
for residential use only and then claim "full ownership" rights allow
you to tear down the house and run a for profit rifle range business
on the land, totally ignoring the zoning restrictions. The purchase
price of the house had the restrictions and conditions built into it.
You want to pay the price that included the conditions and
restrictions but then not be bound by those conditions. In other
words, you want something for nothing. That's not the way contracts
work.
The Academy has every right to impose whatever conditions or
restrictions it wants in the granting posession of the Oscar statuette
in comemmoration of winning recognition for achievement as voted by
Academy members. If you don't like it, don't take the statuette
(assuming you've accomplished something to warrant the votes of the
Academy in the first place).
Calvin
> There's no inalienable right or principle being outraged here. The
> Academy isn't reneging on your "full ownership", because the Academy
> never *gave* you full ownership...
Yes, I guess that is the important point.
Going off on another thought, the awards are getting old now,
over 75 I think. As heirs become more and more removed
from the generation of the recipients, how will it be possible,
I wonder, to keep very old Oscars out of the 'public domain'.
Heynony
> Yes, I guess that is the important point.
Geez I miss the Emily Litella bits. Thanks for the memory jog.
Anim8rFSK
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
Sure, I'm just saying SOMEBODY must have messed with this at some point.
If not an actor, a tech award or something.
Jim Beaver
On Jan 2, 10:31 pm, craig <sle...@infionline.net> wrote:
> Simply put, there is no constitutional right to be able to buy an
> Oscar on ebay. Sorry. Contracts supercede everything,including
> copyright law.
> If you want to buy an Oscar convince a pre-50 recipeint or their
> Estate to sell it to you. The Academy is just aggressively defending
> their quite substantial prestige associated with the statues--I would
> do the same in their shoes.
> That is why folks do contracts. The Internet does not supercede all
> legalities
I don't want to buy an Oscar. I'm just interested in the limits
on the meaning of private property. Normally, legal ownership
includes the right to sell. I can't offhand think of another case
where it doesn't.
----
A. I believe you COULD give it to a museum if you didn't have heirs. The
museum would become your heir, insofar as that one bequest goes.
B. The wording of your remarks led me to reexamine the question and I may
have found your answer. The Academy does not tell winners they cannot sell
their Oscars. Winners sign an agreement to sell the Oscar back to the
Academy. Basically, with one hand the Academy gives the Oscar and with the
other hand they shake on the deal of buying it back -- with the amount set
in writing and the time to be decided by the seller. So when the winner
decides to part with it, he has ALREADY agreed to sell it for a set price,
and reneging would be breach of contract. If he dies and his heirs want to
part with the Oscar, they have not only inherited his estate but also the
agreements that estate has in place, to which they are bound no less so than
complying with the deceased's arrangements to complete his mortgage
agreement. I believe that if I sign a contract to sell you a load of wheat
or uranium or pesticide for a certain price, the exchange to be made at the
time of my choosing, the deal survives my death. If both parties agree to
void the agreement, fine, but if one party chooses not to void it, I think
the contract is still enforceable. And this has nothing at all to do with
abrogated property rights.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
------
It's already impossible. Oscars predating the sell-back agreement go on the
market often, and there's nothing the Academy can do to stop it. Although
Pickford's first award predated the agreement, she later signed a
retroactive one. But plenty of Oscars are in the 'public domain' already.
Jim Beaver
Stone me
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
news:e2b99441-b376-4843...@l79g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
--
Yes, that's what their lawyer would say.
Whether they had that right, whether the recipient had any right,
whether there is any limitation on the contract and whether such a
contract may have the legality it seeks to have, and how much,
are for the judgment of the Court, I would have thought.
There are contracts which are made which when challenged are
judged not to have all the legal weight they seemed to have.
For example, a Movie Studio might want to bind an actor to
certain constraints such as those which existed under the old
"Star" system. Such contracts, even if signed willingly by the
actor, may be challenged successfully today.(I think)
So when a contract was signed long ago, there is no guarantee
that the Law still maintains it, providing no recent judgments
have reinforced it. - it seems to me, that is.
Stone me.
Howard Brazee
<jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
>A. I believe you COULD give it to a museum if you didn't have heirs. The
>museum would become your heir, insofar as that one bequest goes.
I have read of museums that buy things very different with their
bequest money than was described in the will - people complain, but
can't do much.
>B. The wording of your remarks led me to reexamine the question and I may
>have found your answer. The Academy does not tell winners they cannot sell
>their Oscars. Winners sign an agreement to sell the Oscar back to the
>Academy. Basically, with one hand the Academy gives the Oscar and with the
>other hand they shake on the deal of buying it back -- with the amount set
>in writing and the time to be decided by the seller. So when the winner
>decides to part with it, he has ALREADY agreed to sell it for a set price,
>and reneging would be breach of contract. If he dies and his heirs want to
>part with the Oscar, they have not only inherited his estate but also the
>agreements that estate has in place, to which they are bound no less so than
>complying with the deceased's arrangements to complete his mortgage
>agreement. I believe that if I sign a contract to sell you a load of wheat
>or uranium or pesticide for a certain price, the exchange to be made at the
>time of my choosing, the deal survives my death. If both parties agree to
>void the agreement, fine, but if one party chooses not to void it, I think
>the contract is still enforceable. And this has nothing at all to do with
>abrogated property rights.
A good lawyer could break that agreement (for the heirs) - trouble is,
good lawyers cost money.
Steven
> I don't want to buy an Oscar. I'm just interested in the limits
> on the meaning of private property. Normally, legal ownership
> includes the right to sell. I can't offhand think of another case
> where it doesn't.
Real Estate traditionally has restrictions, both by deed and by
government action.
I own various manuscripts and artwork that I can sell to anyone, but I
cant make copies to sell
(thus restricting my rights to the physical property)
Calvin
> On Jan 2, 11:08 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > I don't want to buy an Oscar. I'm just interested in the limits
> > on the meaning of private property. Normally, legal ownership
> > includes the right to sell. I can't offhand think of another case
> > where it doesn't.
>
> Real Estate traditionally has restrictions, both by deed and by
> government action.
In a previous post I acknowledged strings attached to ownership
of certain property as reasonable, such as land, animals, houses,
and cars. I should have re-stated that. For small, inanimate
objects, are there other examples of strings attached? We can't
sell copies of our DVDs, but we can sell the DVDs.
Calvin
You can't even agree that you were wrong about something
without being put down for it. What an awful place.
steve
On 1-Jan-2008, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >The Academy doesn't want its symbol sullied as a commodity.
> > So, they enforce that having one is an honor... never more, thus never
> > less.
>
> It's clearly not enforceable
Well, regardless of the rationale, why isnt the provision enforcable? Is
there no actual contract? Or is the court tossing out the provision by
fiat?
--
"History is a lie agreed upon." --Napoleon
steve
On 3-Jan-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> Because the names of the winners are not known until just before the
> ceremony, the statuettes are not engraved. After the ceremony, the
> Academy
> collects the Oscars from the winners and arranges for the proper
> engraving.
So ... a mad dash for the exit and a trip to the engraver? Ah, but, no
doubt, there are security agents everywhere. How about a fiendishly clever
and daring plot to substitute a false Oscar for the real thing in plain view
of the audience. The real Oscar is then spirited out of the building in the
body cavate of a large actress, and sold to an eccentric south amarican drug
lord or an oil rich sheik.
Writer's strike? Fuck that. I'll cross that picket line and pen the
screenplay myself. Now I just need the perfect tittle...hmmm....how about:
"Flight of the Uncomfortable Diva"
steve
moviePig
> "moviePig" <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote in message
> Whether they had that right, whether the recipient had any right,
> whether there is any limitation on the contract and whether such a
> contract may have the legality it seeks to have, and how much,
> are for the judgment of the Court, I would have thought.
>
> There are contracts which are made which when challenged are
> judged not to have all the legal weight they seemed to have.
>
> For example, a Movie Studio might want to bind an actor to
> certain constraints such as those which existed under the old
> "Star" system. Such contracts, even if signed willingly by the
> actor, may be challenged successfully today.(I think)
> So when a contract was signed long ago, there is no guarantee
> that the Law still maintains it, providing no recent judgments
> have reinforced it. - it seems to me, that is.
Yeah, but afaics, there's no 'quid pro quo' here with which to pry
open this contract. The Academy is, without compensation, offering
you an award, with stipulations. Take it or leave it...
moviePig
So, when an honoree bequeaths to your museum his treasured Oscar, you
can't turn around and sell it... or, presumably, your museum...
steve
On 3-Jan-2008, moviePig <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> Yeah, but afaics, there's no 'quid pro quo' here with which to pry
> open this contract. The Academy is, without compensation, offering
> you an award, with stipulations. Take it or leave it...
Offering the award in exchange for certain promises is a quid pro quo, is it
not? Many valid contracts take that form (like a stock option, for
example).
David Totheroh
A couple of examples of small inanimate objects that typically come
with strings attached. Tickets to sporting events and concerts have
scalping restrictions, which is more analogous to copyright
restrictions. Many (or most) small electronic devices come with a
"reverse engineering" restriction, more like the Academy Oscar
situation in that it is a private contractual condition, not a matter
of public policy like copyright and scalping laws.
(I'm not sure that it's universally true that you can sell DVDs. What
about screeners sent to Academy voters by movie producers? Can they be
sold legally?) But...
Even in the case of "normal" DVDs, you can sell the object but the
conditions and restrictions that were part of your original purchase
transfer along with the object to the new buyer. The new buyer is not
free to ignore the attached strings of no copying, except as ruled too
restrictive of consumer rights by courts (fair use). IIRC, a court
ruled that the 'values police' folks did not have the right to edit
and redistribute movies with parts they found offensive edited out.
That's an "attached string."
No court that I'm aware of has ruled that the Academy conditions are
too restrictive.
Jim Beaver
"steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote in message
news:KNmdne_6_q2ma-Ha...@rcn.net...
With these ideas of yours in mind, I ask you on behalf of all my fellow
Writers Guild members: PLEASE be our competition!
Jim Beaver
Vanwall
"Millions are to be grabbed out here and your only competition is
idiots."
moviePig
Sorry... but Leno/Huckabee, sans scribes, outdrew a fully armed
Letterman. (Did I mention I was sorry?...)
gerry
> From the Internet Movie Database:
>
> "The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences is attempting to
> prevent the sale of three Oscars that were awarded to Mary Pickford
> and her husband Charles "Buddy" Rogers, the Associated Press reported
> Sunday. Rogers's second wife Beverly had indicated that she intends to
> sell the statuettes, but the Academy claims that under its rules it
> has the right to buy them back for $10 each. A judge on Friday ordered
> mediation of the lawsuit. In 2004 another judge ruled that the academy
> had no right to the Oscar that Orson Welles received for Citizen
> Caine, thereby allowing his daughter to proceed with a sale of the
> statuette. Pickford won a best actress Oscar in 1930 for Coquette and
> an honorary Oscar in 1976. Rogers received an Oscar for humanitarian
> work in 1986."
>
> --
> The High Weirdness Project
> http://www.modemac.com
If the Academy is serious about enforcing its rights to retrieve
Oscars, the Academy had better start putting GPS traking devices in
the Oscars. If the Oscar statuettes cannot be sold publicly, then the
few that are worth much will be sold privately, in secretly arranged
deals. If these statuettes go off to China, Russia or Japan, the
Academy may find its ability to get back these runaway Oscars stymied.
The actions of AAMPAS to Oscar holders is not surprising. When AAMPAS
started, a tool of the movie studios, one of its first major actions
was trying to convince star contract players to accept a reduction in
pay on their studio employment contracts during the Depression. Two
stars that did not play ball, Ruth Chatterton and Richard
Barthelmess, were dumped by Warner Bros. when their contracts ended in
1934, no contract renewals for those ingrates.
AAMPAS' actions now in regard to the Oscars it awards show that
underneath that veneer of scholarship and an art for arts' sake
facade, the Academy is still a grasping sleazebag at heart. AAMPAS is
a deaf mute concerning the writers' strike, but like Tatiana the
Siberian tiger when it comes to attacking the heirs of dead Academy
Award winners.
Jim Beaver
"gerry" <2ger...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2698fb0f-f8b2-4608...@e23g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
---------
Leaving aside the fact that I don't think your attitude toward the Academy
relates to the real world at all, it's AMPAS, not AAMPAS. Academy of Motion
Picture Arts & Sciences.
Jim Beaver
gerry
> "gerry" <2gerry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Somewhere I had read the name of American Academy of Motion Picture
Arts and Sciences for AMPAS and it stuck. I went to delete my posting
and, sure enough, someone had spotted my error. As for the history of
AMPAS, go back to 1933, when Conrad Nagel, then President of the
Academy, quit in a dispute with the board over how to handle Warner
Bros. continuing salary cuts to Warners staff. Darryl Zanuck, then
head of production, quit his job then over the same matter, the up to
50% "temporary" salary cut to regular staff while executives still got
their full salaries. Jack Warners' pinch penny attitude never left
him. The Academy's efforts on behalf of Warner employees came up
empty.
Flash forward to a May 2, 1993 New York Times article about David
Geffen's purchase of Jack Warner's mansion:
"I mean, this is the home of one of the men who created the town and
the industry," he says. "I had worked for Warner Brothers most of my
adult life, and I was totally enthralled by the world that this guy
had created. So I bought the house. And I sold Warner Brothers all the
scripts, the Oscars, the mementoes for $3 million, which they're going
to use for a museum. I sold some of the rest of the stuff for $7
million. And I kept millions of dollars of furniture and silver. So I
was really paying about $34 million for prime Beverly Hills
property."
No problem then for the Academy when Geffen sold Jack Warner's
Oscars.
Refer to Roberto Michels Iron Law of Oligarchy when considering how
large membership organizations operate, not press releases.
steve
On 4-Jan-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> With these ideas of yours in mind, I ask you on behalf of all my fellow
> Writers Guild members: PLEASE be our competition!
LOL!
Not for nothing, JB, but when I see new films advertised on TV, more than
half the time Im laughing at the stupid ideas that make it to the screen.
Could I come up with that crap? No freakin' way.
[The following turned out to be something of a rant. No anger or hostility
was/is intended. This is just something that bugs me about film in
general.]
Im not saying there are no talented writers in hollywood. But I am (quite
seriously) saying that I think my writing skills (spelling aside) would
stack up against most of them. And if I put together a dramatic film plot
(where realism matters), I would be sure that the pieces fit together and
the characters actions were believable and consistent with their
characterizations. It kills me, for example, in "My Darling Clementine"
when one of Fonda's sons concludes the dramatic horseback gun fight chase
scene by walking up and knocking on the door of his nemesis (just one of
half-dozen idiotic things in an otherwise great film). To me that kind of
nonsense reflects a disdain for the audience. There are dozens of instances
where I think a script could have been improved immensely with just a few
minor changes. I'd tweak the end of "Vertigo" so that KNs fall wouldnt seem
so silly. I'd do a major rewrite on 3:10 to Yuma, primarily changing the
personal dynamic between Heflin and Ford so that Heflion doesnt seem
inexplicably defferential. Id change some of the dialog in "The Hustler"
(although so much of it is excellent), secifically the scene where Burt
insults the girl in front of Eddie in the Hotel room. Eddy's reaction is
appropriate, but too simplistic.
Lets take an example of great writing..."Port of Shadows". Recall the
early scene where Gabin grabs the wheel and forces the truck off the road to
avoid the dog? The two square off for a fight, but heads quickly cool and
they swing to the other extreme. The driver gives Gabin a pack of
cigarrettes and they wish each other well. It's a wonderful bit of
humanity. My impression is that filmmakers in hollywood at that time (1938)
would have considered that scene a non-event and would have probably
preferred to let them fight.
In short, I think much of the writing (story line and dialog/personal
interaction) in hollywood films is pretty awful. Too many shortcuts and
inconsistencies. Too little respect for the audience.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> It kills me, for example, in "My Darling Clementine"
> when one of Fonda's sons concludes the dramatic horseback gun fight chase
> scene by walking up and knocking on the door of his nemesis (just one of
> half-dozen idiotic things in an otherwise great film). To me that kind of
> nonsense reflects a disdain for the audience. There are dozens of instances
> where I think a script could have been improved immensely with just a few
> minor changes. I'd tweak the end of "Vertigo" so that KNs fall wouldnt seem
> so silly.
Too bad John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock died before they could benefit
from your superior storytelling skills.
Mar de Cortes Baja
www.mardecortesbaja.com <http://www.mardecortesbaja.com/blog>
shaynes
Lloyd -
Not that I think that there is anything wrong with rethinking any part
of any movie made by any one, but as someone who has recently been
second-guessing the ending of Chaplin's City Lights hearabouts, maybe
this is a stone you shouldn't have cast...
Jim Beaver
> "I mean, this is the home of one of the men who created the town and
> the industry," he says. "I had worked for Warner Brothers most of my
> adult life, and I was totally enthralled by the world that this guy
> had created. So I bought the house. And I sold Warner Brothers all the
> scripts, the Oscars, the mementoes for $3 million, which they're going
> to use for a museum. I sold some of the rest of the stuff for $7
> million. And I kept millions of dollars of furniture and silver. So I
> was really paying about $34 million for prime Beverly Hills
> property."
>
> No problem then for the Academy when Geffen sold Jack Warner's
> Oscars.
Oh, I have no doubt that the rich are not like us. But I also suspect that
there's more to it -- almost certainly a well-worked out agreement between
Warners, Geffen, and AMPAS that honors the intent of AMPAS's position
vis-a-vis private ownership -- than what Geffen off-handedly remarks here.
There's also the issue of whether the Oscars Geffen refers to predate the
AMPAS no-sale agreement. I don't see anything particularly inconsistent
here.
Paramount has a lot of Oscars, including post-agreement personal Oscars, on
display on the lot. I've always wondered if they were duplicates. (John
Wayne's TRUE GRIT Oscar?! On display at Paramount?) Of course, when the
Academy is primarily made up of and funded by the studios, I suppose they
get to draw the line wherever they like.
Jim Beaver
Jim Beaver
You're leaving out an aspect. (And I absolutely agree with much of what
you've said here.) You're leaving out the fact that you're looking at all
those films with hindsight. In the room, writing them, or on the set,
shooting them, things often look different. I'm not excusing failure, but
simply trying to suggest another dimension. I too am bothered by Holt
knocking on Brennan's (and heaven's) door. I'm not sure how that decision
came about, and I can't defend it. But sometimes things look or sound
perfect after hours or weeks of honing and then, when the film
screens....they don't anymore.
As to your potential as a screenwriter, you might well have the skills.
Everybody who does it used to not do it. Who knows? But ideas for stories,
as well as "post-hoc" fixes for someone else's lapses, are much more common
commodities than actual writing. I get letters from high-school chums,
etc., all the time, telling me of a "great idea" they have for a movie, and
if I'll write it they'll split the riches with me. Which is sort of like
pointing toward the Black Hills and saying, "I think there's gold there.
You go dig it up and I'll split it with you." Ideas are a dime a ton.
Execution is what succeeds. I wish I could remember the exact quote, or who
said it, but it's along the lines of "Writing is staring out the window
eight hours a day for three months. The rest is just typing." Or as Red
Barber (I think put it), "Writing's easy. You just sit at the typewriter
until drops of blood come out of your forehead."
And even the bad stuff, most of it, requires that there will be blood.
Jim Beaver
moviePig
> "gerry" <2gerry...@gmail.com> wrote in message
It's probably sufficient for them that, e.g., there are no Oscars on
eBay. Meanwhile, there's another, more noble (however inadvertent)
side-effect to AMPAS's pre-nup: no recipient need ever feel guilt for
hanging onto his statue during hard monetary times...
Calvin
> On Jan 4, 3:59 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> > Paramount has a lot of Oscars, including post-agreement personal Oscars, on
> > display on the lot. I've always wondered if they were duplicates. (John
> > Wayne's TRUE GRIT Oscar?! On display at Paramount?) Of course, when the
> > Academy is primarily made up of and funded by the studios, I suppose they
> > get to draw the line wherever they like.
>
> It's probably sufficient for them that, e.g., there are no Oscars on
> eBay. Meanwhile, there's another, more noble (however inadvertent)
> side-effect to AMPAS's pre-nup: no recipient need ever feel guilt for
> hanging onto his statue during hard monetary times...
But he might feel hunger.
steve
On 4-Jan-2008, "Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> You're leaving out an aspect. (And I absolutely agree with much of what
> you've said here.) You're leaving out the fact that you're looking at all
>
> those films with hindsight. In the room, writing them, or on the set,
> shooting them, things often look different. I'm not excusing failure, but
>
> simply trying to suggest another dimension. I too am bothered by Holt
> knocking on Brennan's (and heaven's) door. I'm not sure how that decision
>
> came about, and I can't defend it. But sometimes things look or sound
> perfect after hours or weeks of honing and then, when the film
> screens....they don't anymore.
In general...yes, absolutely. I dont mean to scoff at the task of fleshing
out an entire film as if it was something simple and straightforward. And
Ive also conveniently ignored time constraints and pressure from the guys
with the money. No doubt many things get to the screen because no one had
the time or the money to re-work the script and fix the obvious problems.
And if there is actually disdain for the audience, I'll bet most of it comes
down from the suits.
It has also occurred to me that script problems probably result from
additions and insertions that, if done right, demand a rewrite of other
areas of the script. Perhaps the "Clementine" Holt door knock originally
followed a simple tip off, and not a violent chase scene. In that case, it
wouldnt be so incredibly dumb. Maybe Zanuck told Ford he needed more
action, and there was no budget for a rewrite.
But, regardless of who's fault or why, letting that go up on the screen is
unfair to the audience.
> As to your potential as a screenwriter, you might well have the skills.
> Everybody who does it used to not do it. Who knows? But ideas for
> stories,
> as well as "post-hoc" fixes for someone else's lapses, are much more
> common
> commodities than actual writing. I get letters from high-school chums,
> etc., all the time, telling me of a "great idea" they have for a movie,
> and
> if I'll write it they'll split the riches with me. Which is sort of like
> pointing toward the Black Hills and saying, "I think there's gold there.
> You go dig it up and I'll split it with you." Ideas are a dime a ton.
> Execution is what succeeds.
Understood and appreciated.
Thanks, Jim.
Anim8rFSK
"Jim Beaver" <jumb...@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> Paramount has a lot of Oscars, including post-agreement personal Oscars, on
> display on the lot. I've always wondered if they were duplicates. (John
> Wayne's TRUE GRIT Oscar?! On display at Paramount?) Of course, when the
> Academy is primarily made up of and funded by the studios, I suppose they
> get to draw the line wherever they like.
Paramount has all sorts of fake props marked as authentic at Vega$ (the
prop guys that built them for the Experience were mad as hell to have
them pawned off as original), and have fake props in their new "tour"
starting in Long Beach (the website shows a dreadful model of the
Enterprise A and claims it's a shooting model, while elsewhere it's
identified as a replica) so fake Oscars wouldn't surprise me any.
--
Jitterbug phones:
Fourth one is in hand. Doesn't work. Yet. :(
Heynony
> sometimes things look or sound
> perfect after hours or weeks of honing and then, when the film
> screens....they don't anymore
The ending (almost) of Casablanca is a nice tutorial on what you
describe. The writer(s) did it right, but the execution was off just
slightly, and it was terrible. Fortunately it was noticed, and the
timing of the shots fixed. Sometimes it's not noticed and the writing
seems terrible.
George Peatty
wrote:
>And even the bad stuff, most of it, requires that there will be blood.
And, even after you've done that, you're still only halfway home. Next, you
have to sell the thing, and that can be even more harrowing ..
David Matthews
> who said it, but it's along the lines of "Writing is staring out the
> window eight hours a day for three months. The rest is just typing."
> Jim Beaver
As Oscar Wilde said to a friend who asked him how his latest project was
going:-
"It's all finished dear boy - except for the writing".
Dave in Toronto
David Totheroh
No, they've covered that too. That's what the Motion Picture Country
Home and Hospital in Calabasas is all about. One of the best examples
of a union/industry taking care of its own I've ever seen or heard
about.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> On Jan 4, 11:46 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS...@cox.net> wrote:
>>Too bad John Ford and Alfred Hitchcock died before they could benefit
>>from your superior storytelling skills.
>
> Lloyd -
>
> Not that I think that there is anything wrong with rethinking any part
> of any movie made by any one, but as someone who has recently been
> second-guessing the ending of Chaplin's City Lights hearabouts, maybe
> this is a stone you shouldn't have cast...
I feel entitled to criticize any work of art I don't like, even a work
by a great artist -- that's part of the conversation of culture,
especially popular culture -- but I don't feel entitled to nominate
myself as someone qualified to "fix" it, as the poster I was responding
to was doing.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> I too am
> bothered by Holt knocking on Brennan's (and heaven's) door. I'm not
> sure how that decision came about, and I can't defend it. But sometimes
> things look or sound perfect after hours or weeks of honing and then,
> when the film screens....they don't anymore.
Holt doesn't know that Brennan killed his brother -- he doesn't even
know why he's chasing Billy. He has no reason to assume that Billy's
family will murder an officer of the law just because he wants to arrest
one of them. It only looks like a dumb move in hindsight, or in light
of evidence that Holt doesn't have.
Holt assumes, perhaps naively, that the Clanton clan will respect the
law, a rational assumption given that the entire Clanton clan is
destroyed for violating it. Ford wanted to highlight the clash between
that assumption and the Clantons' actual anarchic and irrational
behavior, which goes right to the heart of the film's themes.
You could say that there's an innocence at the heart of all the Earps --
"What kind of a town is this?" -- but it's also the source of their
strength.
Anim8rFSK
Heynony <nos...@noway.com> wrote:
What did they do to fix it? Reshoots? Editing?
Lloyd Fonvielle
For one thing, the "beautiful friendship" line was recorded in
post-production and added over the last shot of Bogart and Rains walking
away, seen from behind.
Jim Beaver
"Lloyd Fonvielle" <navigar...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:pkMfj.75165$KU2....@newsfe11.phx...
It's an excellent argument. Nonetheless, every time I see the movie (many,
many times, including just a couple of weeks ago), I always think you'd have
to be pretty stinkin' naive (or dumb) to chase someone for the reasons Holt
is chasing (he can't have thought it was because Billy'd done something good
or unimportant) without taking better precautions than Holt takes. I don't
even think his gun is drawn. A man with a shotgun and his hulking glowering
gun-toting sons are staring you down with their son/brother newly murdered
(in their eyes) and you, a likely prospect (in their eyes) for the one who
did it, turn your back without even a hand on your weapon? Seems more
foolish than I took Holt to be prior to that scene.
And it's hard for me to buy that the Earps naturally expected the Clantons
to respect the law, regardless of any foresight they might have had about
the Clantons ultimately being destroyed by it, because (a.) the only
evidence the Earps have for or against the Clantons' respect for the law are
acts of murder and rustling, and (b.) the Clantons have no more foresight
about their eventual destruction than the Earps do. The Earps do indeed
have that innocence you describe, but they're not THAT innocent. Remember,
Wyatt's already a famous lawman. This ain't his first time at the rodeo.
Jim Beaver
shaynes
Nonsense - there's no difference since you specified pretty precisely
where you thought Chaplin had gone wrong - the other poster's
observations were not that much more specific.
Eric Stott
in Nitrateville......NOT!
Eric Stott
Lloyd Fonvielle
> It's an excellent argument. Nonetheless, every time I see the movie
> (many, many times, including just a couple of weeks ago), I always think
> you'd have to be pretty stinkin' naive (or dumb) to chase someone for
> the reasons Holt is chasing (he can't have thought it was because
> Billy'd done something good or unimportant) without taking better
> precautions than Holt takes. I don't even think his gun is drawn. A
> man with a shotgun and his hulking glowering gun-toting sons are staring
> you down with their son/brother newly murdered (in their eyes) and you,
> a likely prospect (in their eyes) for the one who did it, turn your back
> without even a hand on your weapon? Seems more foolish than I took Holt
> to be prior to that scene.
>
> And it's hard for me to buy that the Earps naturally expected the
> Clantons to respect the law, regardless of any foresight they might have
> had about the Clantons ultimately being destroyed by it, because (a.)
> the only evidence the Earps have for or against the Clantons' respect
> for the law are acts of murder and rustling, and (b.) the Clantons have
> no more foresight about their eventual destruction than the Earps do.
> The Earps do indeed have that innocence you describe, but they're not
> THAT innocent. Remember, Wyatt's already a famous lawman. This ain't
> his first time at the rodeo.
Well, first of all, the film is not about the historical Wyatt Earp --
it's a fable that plays very fast and loose with the historical record.
The real Earp was nothing like the character Fonda plays.
Second of all, as I remember it, old man Clanton is concealing the
shotgun from Holt -- Holt doesn't turn his back on a gun that's pointed
at him . . . he turns his back on an old man grieving over the loss of
his son. The first time I saw the film I was genuinely startled when
old man Clanton shot Holt in the back -- even with all my suspicions
about his involvement in the killing of the first Earp brother. It's a
shocking act, revealing old man Clanton as even more craven than I
suspected. Rewatching the film, I may wonder why I didn't see it coming
-- and thus why Holt didn't see it coming -- but that, as I've
suggested, is hindsight.
We as the audience have been given many reasons to suspect the Clantons
right from the start -- in terms of storytelling convention and casting
they're the only possible villains of the piece -- and Fonda has just
gotten some evidence to corroborate our suspicions, but Holt does not
have this information. When Fonda tells Holt to run Billy down, he
doesn't have time to explain why and no way of foreseeing that Billy
will make it back to the Clantons' lair. It's a tragedy waiting to
happen and suspenseful precisely because we know that Holt is in greater
danger that he's aware of.
The bottom line, though, is that the film is a melodrama. Holt is a
little more innocent and trusting in common decency than the average
fellow, perhaps, just as old man Clanton is a little more psychotic than
the average cattle rustler. They are both meant to represent archetypes
-- of virtue and viciousness -- rather than exhibit clinically realistic
psychological behavior. That's just how melodrama works.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> On Jan 5, 9:00 am, Lloyd Fonvielle <navigareNOS...@cox.net> wrote:
>>I feel entitled to criticize any work of art I don't like, even a work
>>by a great artist -- that's part of the conversation of culture,
>>especially popular culture -- but I don't feel entitled to nominate
>>myself as someone qualified to "fix" it, as the poster I was responding
>>to was doing.
>
> Nonsense - there's no difference since you specified pretty precisely
> where you thought Chaplin had gone wrong - the other poster's
> observations were not that much more specific.
The other poster was explaining how HE, personally, would have "fixed" a
couple of classic films, which he said suffered from their directors'
"disdain" for the audience. (The idea that John Ford and Alfred
Hitchcock, two of the greatest popular artists who ever lived, had
disdain for their audiences struck me as especially preposterous.)
I find the ending of "City Lights" unsatisfying, but I wouldn't presume
to say how Chaplin should have "fixed" it. I wish he HAD fixed it, but
if he had I'm sure he would have come up with a solution far more
brilliant than anything I could conceive.
When I criticize the work of a great artist like Chaplin I do so as a
member of the public he addressed and sought to please, which I think is
fair, not as an artistic peer, which would be . . . preposterous.
Jim Beaver
> Jim Beaver wrote:
>
>> It's an excellent argument. Nonetheless, every time I see the movie
>> (many, many times, including just a couple of weeks ago), I always think
>> you'd have to be pretty stinkin' naive (or dumb) to chase someone for the
>> reasons Holt is chasing (he can't have thought it was because Billy'd
>> done something good or unimportant) without taking better precautions
>> than Holt takes. I don't even think his gun is drawn. A man with a
>> shotgun and his hulking glowering gun-toting sons are staring you down
>> with their son/brother newly murdered (in their eyes) and you, a likely
>> prospect (in their eyes) for the one who did it, turn your back without
>> even a hand on your weapon? Seems more foolish than I took Holt to be
>> prior to that scene.
>>
>> And it's hard for me to buy that the Earps naturally expected the
>> Clantons to respect the law, regardless of any foresight they might have
>> had about the Clantons ultimately being destroyed by it, because (a.) the
>> only evidence the Earps have for or against the Clantons' respect for the
>> law are acts of murder and rustling, and (b.) the Clantons have no more
>> foresight about their eventual destruction than the Earps do. The Earps
>> do indeed have that innocence you describe, but they're not THAT
>> innocent. Remember, Wyatt's already a famous lawman. This ain't his
>> first time at the rodeo.
>
> Well, first of all, the film is not about the historical Wyatt Earp --
> it's a fable that plays very fast and loose with the historical record.
> The real Earp was nothing like the character Fonda plays.
Maybe not, but the FILM Earp is also a famous lawman. Note the change in
attitude in the Clantons when they find out just who they've messed with.
(And all it takes is his name.) Since it's established in the film, it
doesn't matter what the real history was. So my point stands.
>
> Second of all, as I remember it, old man Clanton is concealing the shotgun
> from Holt -- Holt doesn't turn his back on a gun that's pointed at him . .
> . he turns his back on an old man grieving over the loss of his son. The
> first time I saw the film I was genuinely startled when old man Clanton
> shot Holt in the back -- even with all my suspicions about his involvement
> in the killing of the first Earp brother. It's a shocking act, revealing
> old man Clanton as even more craven than I suspected. Rewatching the
> film, I may wonder why I didn't see it coming -- and thus why Holt didn't
> see it coming -- but that, as I've suggested, is hindsight.
>
> We as the audience have been given many reasons to suspect the Clantons
> right from the start -- in terms of storytelling convention and casting
> they're the only possible villains of the piece -- and Fonda has just
> gotten some evidence to corroborate our suspicions, but Holt does not have
> this information. When Fonda tells Holt to run Billy down, he doesn't
> have time to explain why and no way of foreseeing that Billy will make it
> back to the Clantons' lair. It's a tragedy waiting to happen and
> suspenseful precisely because we know that Holt is in greater danger that
> he's aware of.
I just went back and looked at it. Holt would have to be an idiot not to
know there was danger. Moments before he arrives at the Clanton's house,
Holt is shot at by Billy Clanton. It's not something he wouldn't have
noticed. Billy arrives at the house and collapses on the porch, but by the
time Holt rides up, Billy's inside. Holt dismounts, draws his gun, and
knocks on the door. One of the Clanton boys opens the door and at the SAME
TIME as Holt says "I'm looking for Billy Clanton," Holt HOLSTERS HIS GUN!
The Clanton boy says, "He's in there," indicating the bedroom further into
the house, but NOT indicating to Holt or to the audience that Billy is dead.
With NO knowledge that Billy is dead or even wounded, Holt with his gun in
his holster strides purposefully after Billy. He enters the bedroom and
sees the dead Billy and old man Clanton sitting in a chair next to him.
Hidden from the audience BUT NOT from Holt is a shotgun on old man Clanton's
lap. (It's clear from Brennan's movements when he reaches for the gun that
it could be nowhere but in plain sight on his lap, pointed in Holt's
direction.) Old man Clanton rants that his boy Billy has been "murdered."
Holt says it didn't have to be that way and turns his back on the obviously
infuriated family, one of whom, as I say, clearly has a weapon at the ready.
I don't dispute your thematic representations (below). But going back and
looking at the scene again, all I can think is that Holt (which Earp is he,
anyway??) behaves like a moron,and a man of his savvy should have known he
risked death at that moment. It doesn't matter what he knows or doesn't
know about what happened in town. Everything that happens from the moment
Billy shoots at him just before arriving at the house says "Danger" far too
loudly for putting his gun away and turning his back to be reasonable or
dramatically tolerable responses.
>
> The bottom line, though, is that the film is a melodrama. Holt is a
> little more innocent and trusting in common decency than the average
> fellow, perhaps, just as old man Clanton is a little more psychotic than
> the average cattle rustler. They are both meant to represent
> archetypes -- of virtue and viciousness -- rather than exhibit clinically
> realistic psychological behavior. That's just how melodrama works.
Even melodrama, at its best, doesn't leave people saying, "Aw, come on,
now." I LOVE this movie, yet that response is even more deeply felt, now
that I've looked at the sequence again carefully.
Jim Beaver