A bit about internet piracy…

I’d be a hypocrite if I completely denounced the whole piracy fad, so I won’t.  Instead, I’d just like to point out a few things.

I don’t feel bad for movie executives or big companies – their only goal is to make money.  In fact, I’ve heard tell that the biggest companies aren’t going to be producing as many features simply because they want to focus their time and energy of films that are likely to become blockbusters or franchises. 

There is no room for art anymore.  I don’t feel bad for stealing their movies, but considering the quality of their work, those are rarely the ones I seek out online anyhow. 

I think the internet is a place where we can defeat that capitalist trend.  I’ve done some research and found several hosts that support the distribution (illegal or otherwise) of art-house films through sites like The Pirate Bay and other P2P hubs.  I’ve downloaded films that haven’t been released on DVD, films that only exist on VHS and films that are completely out of the social register.  This, while still considered “illegal”, is a completely legitimate and beneficial use of internet piracy. 

Not that my sanction means much when you get caught.

Unlike music distribution, films are not “performances” that can be replicated by an artist again and again at different venues.  Thus, unlike the P2P music sharing trend, filmmakers don’t necessarily benefit from you seeing their work for free on the computer… or do they?

I’m not sure if you are familiar with film’s auteur theory, but it’s rather simple: it’s the idea that films made by a particular person of group of persons reflect an authorship, much in the same way that an author writes a book or a musician assembles a body of work.  In other words, the film represents the intent and directorship of an individual’s ideal or a group’s collaboration.

I think a recent popular example of this, however lighthearted and commercial, is the explosion of the Judd Apatow-Seth Rogan-Freaks and Geeks series of films (including, but definitely not limited to, Pineapple Express, Superbad, Knocked Up, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, etc.). 

I would argue that this ideal, when put into practice, results in some of the best films I’ve seen. 

Illegal downloading, as a jumping off point, is tailor-made to advance this type of filmmaking.  Say, for example, you download a film (perhaps it has even been offered as a free, legal download) by a particular auteur.  Word of mouth buzz, if the film is worthy of it, spreads across the internet.  The next time they release a film, it’s in theaters, and they already have an established fan base that is likely to go and support their film.  It’s a lot like the approach some musicians have been taking, but it requires a slightly different approach considering the methods of distribution.

You could argue that this could create a sort of exclusivity in the market, making it harder for no name talent to get their work heard, but I think it’s exactly the opposite.  When you let public opinion decide what will succeed or fail (as opposed to leaving it in the hands of the big-wigs and pencil-pushers), it opens the door for anyone with a digital camera and some dedicated friends to break into the limelight. 

This is a socialist view, I know, so it would only work under the most optimal, uncorrupted conditions, but I think it is something worthy of consideration.   

If you haven’t ever tried to follow one filmmaker’s work, I would highly recommend it.  You might have to sit through a lemon or two, but you will undoubtedly notice themes and styles that will intrigue.  I’ve found that doing this also humanizes the whole process a bit, making films more approachable and easier to love. 

For a pretty supreme current example, I’d suggest Gus Van Sant.  I’m pretty sure he’ll come up in our discussion again soon. He rocks my world.

Film Suggestion – Coraline - (commercial I know, but it's damn nifty)

See it in 3D!!

Peace.