E D I T O R I A L

Whose Film Is It, Anyway?

Thursday, January 17, 2002 — My inspiration for writing weekly editorials dried up after 9/11. Slowly this is coming back (along with a pent-up desire to get some things off my mind). To get things rolling again, I thought I would wade into a very contentious issue.

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence." — Napoleon Bonaparte

Recently a group of fans has "created an alliance to appeal to Disney to begin treating Hong Kong films with respect when they purchase them for distribution." They have also created a web site that is growing in content and support.

While I don't necessarily agree with all of their assertions (they make a lot of assumptions without a lot of proof -- so far), their collective heart appears to be in the right place. One of their points leads me to the thought of right of ownership.

Who owns a film? Is it the studio or production company that funded it? Is it the studio or company that has purchased distribution rights? Is it the creative forces behind the film (the writer, producer, director, performers)?

I'm not talking legal rights here (about which I know nothing). In other forms of art (films are a form of art, no matter how often they fail to achieve it), ownership issues appear more straightforward.

Here's one scenario. A painter buys a canvas, paint, brushes, perhaps hires a model, all at his own expense. He paints his picture. He signs it. He sells it. The buyer decides where to hang it. It could be in a museum, in a bathroom, or in a closet. But the buyer, if he has any respect for the artist at all or a shred of decency, does not alter the picture or take credit for it. For better or worse, it is the artist's creation. If the painter creates art that nobody wants, he may change the subject or style of his work to make it more commercial. Or he starves.

Another scenario. A writer is hired to create material for a company's web site (yes, writing is a form of art too, no matter how often it fails to achieve it). He does his job, submits it, and is paid. The company does not like everything he wrote, and makes some changes to it. The material is posted on the web site. The writer is incensed to see the changes to his creative vision. But there's nothing to be done. The company owns the material and can change it as it sees fit.

Let's twist that around a little. Let's say a writer based in the United States submitted an article for publication in a magazine based in the United Kingdom. The editor made some changes to fit the "house style" (perhaps changing "check" to "cheque" or "web site" to "website"). The writer understands why those changes were made and is agreeable. He is paid. The article is printed under the writer's name in the magazine. Everybody is happy.

Now, finally, we come back to the film industry. How does it work?

Somebody has an idea. It could be a completed script, a spoken "pitch," a novel begging to be adapted to the big screen. Somebody has an idea, and somebody buys it -- a studio or a production company -- and agrees to finance and (perhaps) arrange distribution as well.

People are hired. Everybody looks at the idea again. In rare instances everybody loves it and the movie is made. In nearly all cases, though, the idea is changed to a greater or lesser degree. Sometimes the changes make the idea better, sometime worse.

The idea is turned into a production. The director is trying to make a movie, with the help or hinderance of the producer, his crew, and the performers. During production the idea may be changed again. Finally the movie is completed and submitted to the buyer. Perhaps the buyer does not like the movie. He wants changes made. Depending on the clout of the director (most do not have "final cut" in their contract), changes are made.

The buyer decides whether to release it, and how. Most Hong Kong films seem to get at least a few days in a cinema (with Chinese and English subtitles) before being released soon thereafter on VCD and DVD, although some go direct-to-video. Generally speaking nowadays, they are recorded "live" in Cantonese and dubbed in Mandarin. Some Hong Kong films are distributed in other Asian territories, which means more subtitles, or perhaps dubbing.

At last the film is considered as "complete." At this point, who owns the film? The people who put up the money to produce and release it, and who hold the copyright? Or the people who created the content - the writer, director, performers?

I'll wade further into dangerous waters next week.