Word is out that Ray Bradbury is torqued with Michael Moore over Moore’s titling his film “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Seems he doesn’t like the homage, if you will, to his classic tale of book burning and censorship.
I can see both sides of this one. On the one hand, Moore should’ve gotten Bradbury’s blessing. Then again,if he asked Bradbury’s permission, he’d have to be willing to toss the title if the response was negative, and Moore likely didn’t want to do it. On the other hand, I don’t exactly see where the author of “Something Wicked This Way Comes” gets to bìŧçh about riffing another author’s words. At least Moore changed his title rather than using a verbatim quote. And considering there’s going to be a new edition of “F451” coming up in a few weeks, what’s the harm in some free publicity?
I think Moore should stand firm with the title but offer to put a big ‘With thanks to Ray Bradbury” in the credits or, if that’s no longer possible, in the DVD release. Maybe even interview Bradbury for a DVD extra to get his take on what’s going on these days.
PAD
• 
Missed the fact someone already mentioned that. OOOOPSIIESSSS…
Kudos to Derek for pointing out that pørņø titles often copy or come very close to mainstream titles, yet there’s no outrage over them. (It woulda been fun to see Spielberg suing over the name of SHAVING RYAN’S PRIVATES — yes, it’s a real movie.)
And let’s not forget that Moore title is only similar to Bradbury’s title. “9/11” doesn’t appear anywhere in FAHRENHEIT 451, so Bradbury is upset that someone else used the word “Fahrenheit” followed by a three-digit number (or two #s separated by a slash).
Guys:
The title of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a literary allusion.
Literary allusions are allowed.
They have always been allowed.
Moore had no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to ask Bradbury permission.
You can consider Ray Bradbury a living God, and Michael Moore a pinko fathead, and still recognize that in this case Bradbury is dead wrong.
A-TC
Guys:
The title of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 is a literary allusion.
Literary allusions are allowed.
They have always been allowed.
Moore had no obligation, legal, moral or otherwise, to ask Bradbury permission.
You can consider Ray Bradbury a living God, and Michael Moore a pinko fathead, and still recognize that in this case Bradbury is dead wrong.
A-TC
Answering several points above:
Arco says that he’s amazed at the amount of venom spewed at Moore when people like Rush Limbaugh prattle on and no one says anything about it. I can only imagine that Arco is living in some universe where he has no liberal friends or acquaintances, because *I* hear about it on a fairly regular basis.
Unlike Isaac Asimov, I saw “Nightfall”. It is on my short list of “worst movies of all time”. It’s not even bad in any amusing way. It’s just bad.
Then there’s parody law, discussed by many:
First, it’s not clear that everything that Weird Al does when setting new words to other people’s music is parody under the definition given in Justice Souter’s opinion in the Acuff-Rose vs. 2 Live Crew case. (This unanimous opinion is one of the most muddled messes that the Supreme Court has produced.) According to Souter, a true parody must comment on the original song. By that definition, a song such as “I Love Rocky Road” is probably not a true parody, but I Am Not A Lawyer (thank God), and the only way to determine whether my opinion is correct or not would be to go through an expensive trial.
PAD’s correct that it’s ok to print lyrics to be sung to an existing tune — as long as the lyrics are *sufficiently different* from the original lyrics. That decision was handed down some time ago in a case involving Mad magazine. Unfortunately, that decision doesn’t help one bit when you want to actually *record* the song.
While the U.S. has compulsory mechanical licensing if you want to record a song, the law explicitly states that you can’t change the fundamental character of a song that’s licensed in that fashion. Changing the lyrics around would do so.
Of course, you *can* change the lyrics if you get the permission of the license holder. And that’s what Weird Al does.
He’s also famous, his records sell well, and there are royalty checks of reasonable size for the license holder to cash.
Strange Joe will generally be rejected out of hand.
(Bob Kanefsky, a parody writer friend of mine, has a fine collection of what he characterizes as “hate mail” from publishers from whom he’s tried to get permission to record altered songs.)
And that’s probably far more than anyone wanted to know about the subject…
Karen says:
“As opposed to Kenneth Starr and Karl Rove? I think the man needs to protect himself. Look at what happens to ANYONE who is critical of this administration.”
Anyone else getting tired of hearing this untrue statement? What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical? You seem to be critical…what has happened to you?
Seems to me, one disagrees with the administration, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter slam you. You disagree with the opposition to the administration, Michael Moore and Al Franken slam you. I’m struggling to think of some official sanction that has happened to someone because he or she simply disagreed with the administration policy.
In any case, if you can’t see the irony Bill was trying to express, that Michael Moore, paragon of the common man and freedom of speech, has hired lawyers to sue anyone who says something he doesn’t want to hear…
Here’s a nice viewpoint from a reviewer who pretty much challenges Moore to give it his best shot:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Tim says
“Bill,
I’m forced to side with Karen here (not that this is unusual). I’m not seeing whatever irony you are — I’m not even seeing where you’d see it. I would hope any high-profile documentary would employ outside fact-checkers, actually.”
Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who “maligns” his film.
Crow, Tom Servo, and the other folks at Best Brains had better hope this sort of thinking doesn’t catch on. The makers of Gigli may yet recoup their losses. And Mel Gibson could pocket another half billion.
Sue people who malign his film…! Take a chill pill, Mike.
Incidentally, the movie that was supposed to be called “I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream” was retitled “And Now The Screaming Starts”…so I guess they were able to get past that whole no mouth problem.
If there’s any misleading title for an upcoming movie, it looks to be I, ROBOT.
As others have pointed out, this looks to be something like another “Starship Troopers” — the credits should really say “based on the title of a novel by Isaac Asimov” and not much more.
(I *might* go see the film, as the trailers make it look like it’s got the possibility to be a decent mindless action flick. I’d need to have the aversion therapy in advance to make me stop thinking of Asimov, though.)
I’m glad you mentioned Harlan’s screenplay, as it’s really good. Folks, if you haven’t read it, do.
TWL
Bill,
Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who “maligns” his film.
Okay, fair enough. I assume he means “maligns” in a more specific sense than simply disliking and/or making fun of it … but you’re right that there’s some good amusement value there.
(Mentioning Best Brains, though … geez, now I want to see Joel and the ‘bots silhouetted in front of a Bush speech…)
TWL
Thanks, Charles 🙂
Hey Michael Moore !!!
I have the perfect solution to this dilema – and I call it, for resaons that will become obvious,
THE HARRYHAUSEN RESOLUTION
(1) Ray Bradbury draws attention to the fact that something you are working on bears something of a similarity to something he worked on in the past
(2) Being an affable fellow, you contact Mr Bradbury and suggest that you and he, as two civilised men, discuss the matter over tea and biscuits – or, if you prefer, a beer
(3) As a gesture of goodwill you both make a small gratuity to Mr Bradbury – money, or some fine malt whisky, or an original King Kong poster ( the 1933 version, natch ) and give a tip of the hat to him in the credits of your movie.
You are happy. Mr Bradbury is, well, molified…
And you get an ideal alternative title for your movie – and this you can have for nil.
You call it…
Wait for it…wait for it
The Bush From 20,000 Fathoms
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahaha
I made a funny !!! I slay myself !!!
Ahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahaha
What ? What’s everyone shaking their heads at ?
Did I err ?
Adam, a literary allusion within the body of a distinctly different story is one thing – even when said story is a pastiche, as with Asimov’s moderately obscure short, “The Up-To-Date Sorceror”, a Gilbert & Sullivan pastiche.
However, when you have used a given title, altering a total of two words within it, with a substantial resemblance remaining, you are, at the very least, skirting the edge.
Remember that there is a remake in progress of “Fahrenheit 451”. There is a chance (IMHO, a rather strong one) that a portion of its potential audience, who might have been drawn in to watch “this here sci-fi flick”, and only then exposed to its subversive message (Think For Yourself, People! Inform Yourselves – Don’t Rely On Someone Else To Do It!), will instead see the title, associate it with Moore, and turn away in droves (a Palm d’Or isn’t the same thing as Box Office d’Or, after all). In this sense,. Moore has indeed potentially harmed Bradbury financially, and should at the very least publically apologize for having done so.
Tim says:
(Mentioning Best Brains, though … geez, now I want to see Joel and the ‘bots silhouetted in front of a Bush speech…)
Well, can’t do that…but here’s a little something posted by a guy called Cronan
This is long…but worth it.
[Door sequence]
> Good evening.
CROW: For Starr, maybe.
> This afternoon in this room, from this chair,
CROW: [as Clinton] Got some got me tail!
> I testified before the Office of Independent Counsel and the grand jury.
MIKE: [as Clinton] During which time I’ve been reasonably assured by my people that I can categorically deny that anything involving an
orgasm occurred
> I answered their questions truthfully,
[Tom enters and takes his seat]
TOM: A wholly new experience, I’m sure.
MIKE: What were you up to, Tom?
TOM: When the time is right and not before
MIKE: I see your home-study Enigmatic Courses are paying off
> including questions about my private life,
CROW: Even thinking about his private life makes me want to question life in general
> questions no American citizen would ever want to answer.
MIKE: At least not truthfully.
TOM: Clearly someone who’s never watched _Jerry Springer_
> Still, I must take complete responsibility for all my actions, both public
> and private.
TOM: Which are more times than not the same thing.
> And that is why I am speaking to you tonight.
CROW: To cover my ášš with Teflon and kevlar
MIKE: Let’s at least give him a chance
CROW & TOM: NO!
> As you know,
CROW: [as Clinton] I’m as horny as a billygoat with half the discretion
> in a deposition in January,
MIKE: Note that he didn’t say which January in which century leaving him a clear loophole
> I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky.
TOM: [as Clinton] Needless to say I was so aroused I couldn’t continue
> While my answers were legally accurate,
CROW: They lacked that certain finesse only lies can give..
> I did not volunteer information.
CROW: He even has draft dodging information. Color me impressed
MIKE: Why not simply blame the information for not volunteering itself?
> Indeed, I did have a relationship with Miss Lewinsky that was not
> appropriate.
CROW: And you’ve hidden it SO well.
TOM: [as Clinton]We had sex. The really dirty kind.
> In fact, it was wrong.
MIKE: As is all sex with Miss Lewinsky.
> It constituted a critical lapse in judgment
TOM: Occurring on 37 separate occasions…
CROW: …over a period of 18 months
MIKE: Hey, if you’re going to lapse, you might as well make it a biggin’
> and a personal failure on my part
MIKE: To have her silenced in time.
> for which I am solely and completely responsible.
CROW: [feigning shock]You? The President? Responsible? For your own actions!? Whoa. Who saw that one coming?
> But I told the grand jury today and I say to you now
MIKE: ‘Gimme a second, I’ll think of something’
CROW: ‘Wilt Chamberlain was an amateur!’
> that at no time did I ask anyone to lie,
TOM: Which would seem a big mistake, in retrospect
> to hide or destroy evidence or to take any other unlawful action.
MIKE: Hey, you’ve told us the truth so far, why wouldn’t we believe you?
> I know that my public comments and my silence about this matter gave a
> false impression.
TOM: [as Clinton] The implication that I ever tell the truth has hopefully been forever dispelled.
> I misled people, including even my wife.
TOM: Curiously, that would make her the only one misled at all.
MIKE: Of course because that misleading took the form of bald face might have furthered those false impressions
> I deeply regret that.
TOM: We all do, Bill. We all do.
> I can only tell you I was motivated by many factors.
CROW: A perpetually raging hard on was but one among many
> First, by a desire to protect myself from the embarrassment of my own
> conduct.
MIKE: And we *feel* your shame.
> I was also very concerned about protecting my family.
TOM: [sneers] From everything but venereal diseases.
MIKE: [as Clinton] Thankfully they have as little shame as I
> The fact that these questions were being asked in a politically inspired
> lawsuit, which has since been dismissed, was a consideration, too.
CROW: So, he hoped to de-politicize it by volunteering a lie on national television?
MIKE: If you watched more PBS you’d understand
> In addition, I had real and serious concerns about an independent counsel
> investigation
TOM: Believing the truth is out there
> that began with private business dealings 20 years ago,
CROW: And has since come to include politics and sex
TOM: Making it perfect for the next Jackie Collins novel
> … dealings I might add about which an independent federal agency found
> no evidence of any wrongdoing by me or my wife over two years ago.
MIKE: Which federal agency is independent of the Presidency?
TOM: Must have missed that section of the constitution
> The independent counsel investigation moved on to my staff and friends then
> into my private life.
CROW: [as Clinton] Luckily, I misled them as well
> And now the investigation itself is under investigation.
CROW: [Stan]”The truth has plagued our fragile earth for many years. We must end it.”
TOM: “He’s taken the responsibility… and hurled it at Ken Starr.”
> This has gone on too long, cost too much and hurt too many innocent people.
CROW: How many people can say that about their genitals on national television?
> Now, this matter is between me, the two people I love most
CROW: [as Clinton]Myself and I.
> My wife and our daughter.
TOM: Kinky.
MIKE: Sounds like a good ole fashion Arkansas threesome to me.
CROW: Do I want to know how you came to be in possession of that information?
> and our God.
CROW: Sex between two people can be a beautiful thing but sex between four people… mmm mmm!
MIKE: And when one of them is God, well…
TOM: [announcer] God’s spokesperson has released a statement denying ever having had any ‘inappropriate relationship’ Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton.
CROW: [announcer] Satan immediately made a pre-emptive counter-statement with only five words, “Don’t look at me, either.”
> I must put it right, and I am prepared to do whatever it takes to do so.
MIKE: Save tell the truth.
TOM: Let’s not be unreasonable
> Nothing is more important to me personally.
CROW: Have you forsaken the almighty Twinkee, Bill?
> But it is private, and I intend to reclaim my family life for my family.
MIKE: I believe Lewinski pawned it
> It’s nobody’s business but ours.
TOM: And the Grand Jury, the Independent Council, the House Judiciary Committee, Monica..
> Even presidents have private lives.
CROW: Most have had this thing called discretion, however
MIKE: The rest had a modicum of taste.
> It is time to stop the pursuit of personal destruction and
TOM: Begin pursuing abstract destruction
> the prying into private lives and get on with our national life.
[strange pause]
MIKE: We interrupt this announcement to increase dramatic tension.
> Our country has been distracted by this matter for too long,
CROW: So millions of Iraqis will have to die.
> and I take my responsibility for my part in all of this.
TOM: [as Clinton] All I wanted was a little bløwjøb, is that too much to ask for the leader of the freeworld?
CROW: I bet Saddam gets mucho ášš
> That is all I can do.
TOM: [as Clinton] Other than the destruction of my competitors by bashing their heads in with blunt objects and feasting on their gooey insides
MIKE: What is this surprise you’ve got for us?
TOM: Oh you shall see
> Now it is time — in fact, it is past time to move on.
MIKE: To women who don’t talk so much
> We have important work to do
CROW: And interns to fondle.
TOM: Too easy, wouldn’t you say?
> — real opportunities to seize,
MIKE: Among other things
> real problems to solve,
TOM: Real lies to tell.
CROW: Oh and that was *much* better
> real security matters to face.
CROW: Cub scouts – the enemy within.
> And so tonight,
MIKE: I look forward to a rousing spanking from Hillary
> I ask you to turn away from the spectacle of the past seven months,
CROW: And look forward to the production number sure to accompany my impeachment!”
> to repair the fabric of our national discourse,
TOM: [as Clinton] I intend to avoid all extra-marital intercourse
> and to return our attention to all the challenges
MIKE: Such as finding women who don’t bear a striking resemblance to muppets
CROW: Leave us not forget the horrible threat posed by the evil cigarette cartels
TOM: With the rise in nicotine fiends mugging little old ladies who could forget?
> and all the promise of the next American century.
TOM: Therefore, since I cannot prove a leader, I am determined to prove a lover.
CROW: When you start going Shakespearean, I worry
MIKE: As should we all
[Tom rushes out]
> Thank you for watching. And good night.
CROW: That story had it all – lies, sex, and God.
MIKE: I love it when national policy is settled in the infomerical
format
[Exit Door Sequence]
I’ve seen some of Cronan’s MSTings before — he certainly had his moments. (David Hines did a lengthy series of MSTings as well, and his were almost always fall-down hilarious.)
This one’s cute, though Jon Stewart managed to make some of the same points last night in about a tenth the time. 🙂
TWL
“Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who “maligns” his film.”
Michael Moore likes to think of himself as being a funny guy so has anyone considered that maybe he’s being facetious about suing people?
Charles,
Count me as one who is also tired of the weak, straw man argument that ANYONE who disagrees with this administration is…well, what exactly? Slandered? Persecuted? Karen didn’t exactly say.
I guess it’s just a given that from a liberal perspective, you’re allowed to say anything you want, regardless of facts, and heaven forbid if someone disagrees with you strongly.
Ironically enough, this is part of what Moore has said in “Stupid White Men” and the recent Playboy interview.
Namely, that liberals in specific and Democrats in general have for the most part lost their spine. They refuse to fight for what they believe, if indeed they believe in anything besides holding on to power. I believe one quote was “Of course Democrats are mad at Nader. They’re mad that they used to BE Nader, and realize that they no longer have the courage of their convictions to fight for what they believe in.”
See, when I say that Moore doesn’t have respect for many people – which so many automatically assumed was a partisan insult – I meaqnt what I said. Nothing more. Moore has as much contempt for fat-cat unions and sell-out Democrats as he does for big corporations and the Republicans.
It’s tough not have a grudging respect for someone willing to put themselves on the line like that. Regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
I guess it’s just a given that from a liberal perspective, you’re allowed to say anything you want, regardless of facts, and heaven forbid if someone disagrees with you strongly.
And SPEAKING of weak, straw-man arguments…
TWL
A couple of quick observations:
Of course Moore’s use of the title Fahrenheit 9/11 is an allusion, and there is nothing illegal or unethical about making allusions in and of itself.
But beyond the title, Moore’s film doesn’t have anything to do with Bradbury’s story (in whatever media — book, movie, stage play), and as such the allusion, such as it is, can be argued to be deceptive (or at least to be a weak use of good literary practice).
Meanwhile, folks keep pointing out — correctly — that titles cannot be copyrighted. But titles can be (and have been) trademarked. Star Trek
Last year, when Fox News was suing Al Franken over using “Fair and Balanced” in the title of his book, the Authors Guild compiled a list of other titles using others trademarks.
“Actually, the part I found ironic was where Michael Moore, Mr. Free Speech, threatens to sue anyone who ‘maligns’ his film.”
I was under the impression his idea is to protect himself from libel. That is, you can criticize “Fahrenheit 9/11” on its merits all you like, but if you say something like “Michael Moore is an anti-American traitor whose movie doesn’t have a single honest fact”, then he’ll drag you into the courts to prove it.
As for the anti-Moore attitudes bounced around… eh, it’s the same groundless stuff from the conservative right. Despite all the folks who insist Moore is a liar, they still haven’t proven that he’s fabricated material. Anti-Moore web sites like bowlingfortruth.com invariably end up either splitting hairs (“Moore used clips from two different NRA conventions!”) or told lies of their own (yes, Virginia, there is a bank that keeps rifles on-site for customers who open a new account).
And who knows? Maybe Fahrenheit 9/11 is so well-made that it can even persuade die-hard Bush supporters. Even the heavily-slanted Fox News admitted that the movie was “a tribute to patriotism” and “simply cannot be missed” (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,122678,00.html). Can’t wait to see that blurb on the billboards…
Meanwhile, folks keep pointing out — correctly — that titles cannot be copyrighted. But titles can be (and have been) trademarked. Star Trek
One thing’s for sure… I’m looking forward to seeing the movie.
Hopefully it’ll inspire a few of the people sitting on the fence to vote liberal rather than fascist.
Tim,
Whatever.
I’m just going on personal experience and this thread in particular. You decided to bring Coulter into the conversation, another poster decided to use the tired “right-wing hosts that foam at the mouth and interrupt everyone who disagrees with them rant”, and even Karen, whose opinions I usually respect, failed to give one. Instead, we got a blanket statement that implies that everybody who (or ANYBODY) that disagrees with this Administration….well, something bad must always happen to them! Of course, it was just left there to hang and interpret, as if we should all KNOW what happens to anybody who disagrees with Bush.Funny, but I don’t seem to recall Bush’s political opposition being sent to Guantonomo for speaking out, and it just gets tiresome to listen to ridiculous statements with no basis in fact.
But if you want to continue to make snide, snippy comments instead of the educated, reasoned discourse I have come to expect from you, well be my guest.
Kurt,
Ah, fascist. Haven’t heard that one in a while. The sad part is you probably believe what you say.
Great way to exchange ideas:)
Sounds to me like the lawyer is grasping at straws. At least, I haven’t seen any Fahrenheit 451 action figures, Fahrenheit 451 lunchboxes, Fahrenheit 451 comic books, or Fahrenheit 451 Underoos, have you?
Wrong shopping aisle. Check out the flamethrowers. 🙂
TWL
Jerome,
You’re missing the point. You can rant all you like about how people make unwarranted generalizations, but when you end on “it seems the cardinal rule of every liberal is so-and-so” you’re shooting your own argument in the foot.
I’m not the one who’s pigeonholed every member of the opposition into a neat little opinions-in-lockstep box with a label on top.
As for my “bringing Coulter in out of thin air”, it’s called paying attention to the past statements people have made and responding accordingly. I realize that most members of the Bush administration consider that dishonest (“no, we never said that Prague meeting was well confirmed”), but it’s actually a pretty basic element of reasoned and logical discourse.
As for “nothing ever happens to them” — I guess I must be imagining those commercials that linked Sen. Max Cleland with Saddam and labeled him as unpatriotic despite his losing three limbs in Vietnam and merely questioning Bush’s plans. Yep, all my imagination.
See, saying “you know what happens to people” doesn’t have to imply they’re clamped in irons or quietly killed. Dishonest smear campaigns are much easier to start up, and often just as effective. I strongly suspect that’s what Karen meant — I know it’s what I’d have meant in her place.
Feel free to ignore these points and mention something utterly tangential with a blanket anti-liberal generalization tossed in. You usually do.
TWL
I’ve interviewed “Weird Al” Yankovic in the past, so I come from a place of some knowledge on this, having spoken to him personally on exactly this subject.
Al does get permission from the songwriter (not necessarily the artist — which is an important distinction in cases where the artist did not write the song) before he parodies a song. He doesn’t HAVE to do so, but he feels it’s the right thing to do. Legally speaking, you don’t ever have to request permission to cover or parody a song as long as the songwriting royalties are paid. In the case of Al’s parodies, it’s a split of the royalties, as he receives a portion for his new lyrics.
Those familiar with Al may know that he also does “style parodies” and polka medlies. In the case of the latter, this is basically a cover version, so he doesn’t have to ask permission; however, he negotiates with each songwriter so as to work out the percentage of the royalties they will receive. If any songwriter asks to be excluded or asks for too much money, they’re left out. That’s more on economics, though, as he negotiates a reduced royalty rate — otherwise the medlies would be too expensive to do.
Style parodies are songs which Al does that intentionally mimic the style of another artist — examples include “Dare to Be Stupid” (Devo), “Everything You Know is Wrong” (They Might Be Giants”), “Germs” (Nine Inch Nails) and “Bob” (Bob Dylan). In these cases, no permission is required or requested, as it’s an all-new Al creation. These songs are intended as tributes to the artists, and Al only does them of artists he admires. Usually, they’re flattered (at least one wasn’t, though, and I know this because I was directly told so by the artist), and Devo’s Mark Mothersbaugh was jealous of how thoroughly Al had deconstructed Devo.
Now, the infamous Coolio matter: Al did receive permission from the publishing company to parody “Gangsta’s Paradise” as “Amish Paradise.” Believing this meant Coolio was aware of — and approved of — the parody, he went forward. He didn’t find out until after the record and video were released that this was not the case. Over the years Al has made overatures to Coolio but Coolio won’t hear it. That said, there was nothing Coolio could do about it legally, and as has been mentioned previously, Coolio still cashed the checks. (And let’s face it: “Gangsta’s” was based around a sample to begin with, so how much moral high ground did Coolio have?)
Another instance where an artist was displeased with an Al parody was George Harrison, who wasn’t happy when “I Got My Mind Set on You” was done as “This Song’s Just Six Words Long.” But in that case, Harrison hadn’t written the song, he just popularised it, and Al did get the permission of the songwriter.
Other than that, there’s never been a controversy with Al. He’s on record as mentioning that he begged Ray Davies of the Kinks for YEARS before Davies finally agreed to allow him to parody “Lola” as “Yoda” (Davies felt the song was too personal to him and offered him the run of his library save that song, but eventually Al won him over). And as others have mentioned, this is exactly why Al hasn’t parodied Prince, to name just one.
With the Eminem situation, Eminem gave permission for the parody, but later decided he didn’t want a video done as the song was too important to him (this was after the song won an Oscar — I believe the parody had already been approved and recorded before the Oscar was won). Al chose to scrap the video literally at the last minute to honor Eminem’s wishes — he didn’t legally HAVE to, but again, he felt it was the right thing to do.
Al is generally very highly regarded in the music world, and many artists (most notably, Kurt Cobain) are on record as saying they knew they’d made it when Al requested permission to parody them.
The Negativland situation is another matter entirely. The problem was not so much in the marketing as in the piece used actual clips of U2’s music (not a parody or a cover, but the actual original recording), and the combination of the two was seen as potentially misleading. They also hadn’t paid for the samples, which is another factor, and still a third is the fact that the piece also made use of unlicensed, unapproved outtakes from Casey Kasem’s radio show (in which the voice of Shaggy and Robin was quite ill-tempered and foul-mouthed, I might add). In my opinion, the piece was brilliant, but it was also a pretty clear copyright violation to commercially distribute it.
Fascinating stuff, Julio. Thanks. (I’ve seen a clip from Mothersbaugh talking about how good he thought “Dare to be Stupid” was; to this day it’s one of my favorite Al songs ever. We almost had it played at our wedding reception. 🙂
I assume you’re not comfortable telling us which artist wasn’t flattered by the style parody in question — if so, understood.
I also always thought he got around the Prince situation nicely with “Wanna B Ur Lover” on his last album: sure, it’s a style parody of Moby (I think I read that, anyway), but it’s basically a style parody of Moby himself doing a Prince knock-off type of song.
TWL
Charles wrote:
Anyone else getting tired of hearing this untrue statement? What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?
Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks pocketbooks were a bit lighter after their criticism of Bush.
Imagine my embarrassment. Quite a brain cramp. Thanks to all for pointing out my dopey mistake typing “Roger Moore” when, in fact, I did mean “Michael Moore”.
Peace,
Sean R-B
🙂 LOL!!!!
Sorry Sean, but the image of Michael Moore as James Bond just came to mind!!
RJM said:
“Well, I guess the Dixie Chicks pocketbooks were a bit lighter after their criticism of Bush.”
Well, now that’s an entirely different issue, isn’t it? Tim brought up a better example with Cleland, although there were certainly other issues involved. You’re talking about people making the choice not to financially support a trio of singers they disagree with. Since Ann Coulter’s name has come up a couple times, have YOU ever bought an Ann Coulter book? If no, then does that prove that liberals are treating her unfairly because of her viewpoint?
Regardless, the Dixie Chicks came out of that OK, as a lot of people gleefully pointed out. They may have had some embarrasing bruises, but financially, they came out on top.
As far as Jerome’s statement goes, yes, it is a blanket statement, but there is SOME truth to it. Kennedy and Gore have outright claimed that Bush betrayed his country with Iraq. Kerry has even said similar things, but not in as strong words. However, any time anyone brings up Kerry’s voting record, it’s “an attack on my patriotism,” even if it has NOTHING to do with his patriotism. When the leaders of the Democratic party (and I don’t mean rank and file, a distinction I think more people need to acknowledge) are acting in the way that Jerome mentioned, once again, that shrouds any reasonable debate on the actual issues. And I’m not talking about the good troll-shrouding thing going on, I’m talking about people ignoring what’s important because they think they have a “gotcha” moment to wave in someone’s face.
Do I agree with Bush all the time? No. Am I going to sit and listen to someone call him a traitor and ignore any rational discussion? No. Do I know enough about Kerry to make an informed decision? No. Am I going to rely on partisans pointing out a vote he made seven years ago and how it contradicts a comment he made on the phone to his golfing buddy thirty years ago? No. Problem is, all we’re getting is either “traitor” or “Flip-flopper.”
Right now, however, I’m feeling more hypocrisy from the leaders of the left-leaning than I am from the leaders of the right-leaning. To me, that speaks VOLUMES.
For those who’ve seen Bowling for Columbine..the commercial/video box shows a picture of a beagle wearing a hunters vest.
Does anything bad happen to the beagle?
As for folks who are ready to dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 because Michael Moore allegedly lies, it’s worth noting that The New York Times reports that he’s making a big effort to keep this one factually bulletproof.
Here’s one liberal (Christopher Hitchens) who would disagree with that assessment:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Bradbury would do well to read this article too. He might get the hint to lay off and let this film bury itself.
-Dave O’Connell
As for folks who are ready to dismiss Fahrenheit 9/11 because Michael Moore allegedly lies, it’s worth noting that The New York Times reports that he’s making a big effort to keep this one factually bulletproof.
Here’s one liberal (Christopher Hitchens) who would disagree with that assessment:
http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723/
Bradbury would do well to read this article too. He might get the hint to lay off and let this film bury itself.
-Dave O’Connell
“I guess I must be imagining those commercials that linked Sen. Max Cleland with Saddam and labeled him as unpatriotic despite his losing three limbs in Vietnam and merely questioning Bush’s plans. Yep, all my imagination.”
The “Max Cleland was called unpatriotic” mythhas assumed such importance to many liberals that it seems almost churlish to remind them of the facts but here goes: from Rich Lowry:
“The case for foul play rests on a tough anti-Cleland ad that Chambliss broadcast featuring Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. The ad didn’t morph Cleland into either of these figures or say that he supported them. It noted at its beginning that the United States faced threats to its security as the screen was briefly divided into four squares, with bin Laden and Saddam in two of them and the other two filled with images of the American military.”
“It went on to explain that Cleland had voted 11 times against a homeland-security bill that would have given President Bush the freedom from union strictures that he wanted in order to set up the new department. The bill was co-sponsored by his Georgia colleague Sen. Zell Miller, a fellow Democrat. Bush discussed details of the bill personally with Cleland, and Chambliss wrote him a letter prior to running his ad urging him to support the Bush version. Cleland still opposed it, setting himself up for the charge that he was voting with liberals and the public-employees unions against Bush and Georgia common sense.”
“If you can’t criticize the Senate votes of a senator in a Senate race, what can you criticize?”
Cleland’s opponent won the endeorsement of the VFW–unlikely if he had truly smeared a vet.
And frankly, it’s usually conservatives who trot out nonsensical bits about how if soemone has fought in the army or been wounded they are somehow immune to all further critisizm on issues of national defense. A bad argument. Cleland’s injuries have no bearing on the validity of his position and visa versa.
Sorry, Bill. I’m not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified.
Citing Cleland’s opposition to the homeland-security bill –which, let’s remember, Bush completely and utterly opposed creating UNTIL he could make it a campaign issue to smear Democrats with — in an ad which features Osama and Saddam prominently sure as hëll DOES claim that Cleland is giving aid and comfort to them. It doesn’t do it explicitly, no — but the linkage is clearly there.
The most charitable interpretation is that it’s a sleazy ad. That’s at best. It’s most certainly an attempt to set him up in the voters’ minds as “not on board the war on terror” — let’s recall that this is the same administration whose attorney general has EXPLICITLY stated that anyone who criticizes the war is giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and with a defense secretary whose initial response to Abu Ghraib was to complain about the prevalence of digital cameras getting pictures to the press before they got to the Pentagon.
So no — I’m not buying that the Cleland ad was just innocent business-as-usual. This administration has a persistent preference for stifling and quashing dissent in any form, and this is certainly an example.
And no, I’m not saying Cleland should be immune from criticism simply because of his injuries. I’m saying that charges that bear a particular relationship to his patriotism should be scrutinized carefully.
TWL
“Sorry, Bill. I’m not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified.”
What was that again about “straw man arguments”?
Charles,
When the leaders of the Democratic party (and I don’t mean rank and file, a distinction I think more people need to acknowledge) are acting in the way that Jerome mentioned, once again, that shrouds any reasonable debate on the actual issues.
Only when they do it? Interesting distinction.
I completely agree with you that it’s unproductive to avoid debate in favor of “gotcha” moments. We as a nation should be better than that.
However — with all due respect, Charles, the Democratic party is not the one that started this fight. We tried to work with the Bush administration. In response, we have been trampled and belittled at every turn. The Congressional leadership has bent or broken rules to make sure its pet votes pass, has completely shut opposition out of the negotiating conferences, and has been willing to let bills die on the vine rather than give a millimeter. Hëll, Frist is trying to abolish the filibuster, despite the fact that the GOP just adored it a decade or so ago — and let’s not even get into the multiple orgasms Tom DeLay gets into over gerrymandering.
Let’s also remember that one of the actuaries who analyzed the drug-benefit bill was ordered not to reveal the true cost of the bill to Congress under penalty of losing his job. This is honest debate? Christ, Democrats and Republicans alike should be pìššëd øff about that one.
This is not a group of people who are interested in honest debate. This is a group of people who want to control the game, and who are trying to change the rules to give themselves that control for generations.
We’ve tried playing nice. We got rolled.
It will not happen again.
(Disclaimer: please note that I am talking about the current leadership, and not all Republicans or all conservatives.)
TWL
Me:
“Sorry, Bill. I’m not going to buy a picture that includes this as innocence personified.”
Bill:
What was that again about “straw man arguments”?
Fair enough. I don’t know that I’d call this a straw man per se, but it was definitely hyperbolic and unnecessary. Consider it withdrawn.
Care to respond to the substance now?
TWL
Charles wrote:
have YOU ever bought an Ann Coulter book
No, but I’ve never bought an Al Franken book either.
So your point?
Sounds to me like the lawyer is grasping at straws. At least, I haven’t seen any Fahrenheit 451 action figures, Fahrenheit 451 lunchboxes, Fahrenheit 451 comic books, or Fahrenheit 451 Underoos, have you?
Not to speak of, no — though I would not take bets on there never having been a comics/graphic novel adaptation of the book.
However. Not all trademarks are registered trademarks,and trademark law (like copyright law) is a complicated animal. Neither I nor the IP lawyer said that the hypothetical trademark case would be clear-cut or that it would be wise to pursue it, only that it would be possible to argue it without getting laughed out of court.
Actually, if Mr. Bradbury had wanted to establish the “right” to complain about someone taking advantage of his intellectual property without his permission, he should have made a complaint against the movie “The Butterfly Effect.” Now, admittedly, while they use the concept from “A Sound of Thunder” that going back into the past can/will change the present, they use “Chaos Theory” to explain it.
Meantime, every review I read made the point that it wasn’t based on Bradbury’s concept. I think the very fact that they had to defend against that thought means that they were counting on the confusion.
As far as Mr. Bradbury’s selective choice of targets, I believe it is completely based on the political use. I remember Bradbury appearing on “Politically Incorrect” soon after Robert Packwood was shamed out of the Senate for sexually harrassing his employees. Bradbury’s comment: so he pinched his secretary’s butt; who hasn’t?
Tom, the phrase “the Butterfly Effect” comes from chaos theory, not from Bradbury’s story. The idea behind the concept is that the root cause of an event can be something seemingly insignificant, whose effect is leveraged by a series of results. The ultimate example of this is the flapping of a butterfly’s wings in China causing a slight diversion of a particular stream of warm air, which, through a multiplicity of meterological events, results in a typhoon hitting Hawaii. It’s supposed to illustrate that even chaos has an underlying cause – after all, if chaotic events happen just because, then there’s little foundation for chaos theory, now is there?
The incident in “A Sound of Thunder” wasn’t original with Bradbury – he just wrote one of the best stories around it. It’s a particular application of the Butterfly Effect, and needn’t involve a butterfly – stepping on just the wrong mutated vole in the late Cretacious should work even better…
“What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?”
Why don’t you ask Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson.
the credits should really say “based on the title of a novel by Isaac Asimov” and not much more.
Interestingly, the “novelization” of the movie is actually the orignal book of short stories, not a..well..novelizaTION of the movie
So, has anybody else taken note of the fact that the Bush Admin has already started to put together their smear campaign for Moore’s new movie?
Posted by: Tim Lynch at June 22, 2004 02:41 PM
“However — with all due respect, Charles, the Democratic party is not the one that started this fight. We tried to work with the Bush administration.”
I don’t know if I would characterize the Democrat’s actions toward the Bush administration as working with him. There are still a fair number of liberals who won’t even acknowledge that he won the election. If that is working with the opposition, I would hate to see what you consider an attack.
“”What, pray tell, has happened to ANYONE who is critical?”
Why don’t you ask Valerie Plame, wife of former US ambassador Joe Wilson?”
Ðámņ, Scavenger! That was the point *I* was going to make!
Y’know, the other thing that I haven’t seen brought up (maybe I just missed it) is that even if Moore deliberately did choose a title based on the Bradbury allusion, what, exactly, did he buy himself? Who really knows or cares about Ray Bradbury anymore? Spare me the list of awards he’s won and classic stories he wrote. What I mean is, his name and the title “Farenheit 451” are not exactly currency.
This reminds me of when I was a reporter and I wrote an unflattering story about a member of a tiny little board in a tiny little town. The guy said to me later that he knew “we” (reporters) would do anything to sell papers. I know that’s a fallback argument he got from watching TV but did he *really* think I called my editor the night I did that story and said, “You gotta bump up circulation, chief! That story I did for page B7 is going to blow the roof off! We’re going to sell like hotcakes tomorrow!”?
Similarly, does anybody think that there are people out there saying “Well, I hated Michael Moore’s other documentaries but this one has a title similar to an old science fiction story from that guy who I think died… Honey, get the kids in the car! It’s movie time!”
Last, I, too, remember Bradbury’s “Politically Incorrect” comment and it put him on my list of people whose work is stellar but who strike me as being real SOBs in their personal lives. (Also on that list are Bill Murray and Carmine Infantino.) I think Bradbury was trying to play the “crotchedy old man” but that goes over as well as the senior citizens snarling about how in their day, the races knew their place.
I don’t know if I would characterize the Democrat’s actions toward the Bush administration as working with him. There are still a fair number of liberals who won’t even acknowledge that he won the election. If that is working with the opposition, I would hate to see what you consider an attack.
1) I don’t think anyone currently holding office in DC (and thus in a position to work with or not work with the admin.) has made that claim of late.
2) One can work with the holder of an office even if one feels that the means by which he came to hold it are questionable. I doubt most of us support military coups, for example, but the US certainly works quite a bit with Musharraf.
3) Don’t get me started on the screwed-up state of electoral politics in this country. 🙂 By any statistically valid count, the best conclusion is that NOBODY won Florida — the problem is that we’ve no means to deal with that sort of situation. (I’ve said for years that instant-runoff voting is the way to go. I still think that.)
TWL