At that time surrealism was in fashion in New York.
The most luxurious shop on 5th Avenue, Bonwit-Teller,
asked me to make two surrealist show windows.
I worked all night long.
One was "The Day", the other "The Night".
There were certain things that were really terrible.
Telephones shaped like lobsters,
a hairy bathtub
lined with astrakhan. Anyway, indescribable.
There was an aphrodisiacal suit
covered with peppermint and flies, etc., etc., etc.
Very happy, the next day I went
to see the results and saw
they had changed the show window.
I asked why and they said too many people looked at it.
I told them to put it back and they said no way,
that they had paid me
and could do whatever they pleased.
Then it occurred to me to go into the show windows and,
kicking the mannequins, I broke them.
Then I took the bathtub,
the hairy bathtub, and I wanted to knock it over
and leave the window unusable with the water,
but the bathtub broke an immense glass pane.
Gala was crying, everyone was desperate.
Then my lawyer tells me it's best
to go to jail immediately
because he knows the judge
who will try the offences that afternoon,
and who is a nice person.
They locked me up at 8 o'clock that afternoon
in a sort of ignominious cage,
and after that I was tried
by the classic grey-haired judge
who listened to what happened and said:
"Dalí has committed an act that is too violent.
He has broken a glass pane that costs sixty dollars,
and must pay for it.
But all artists have the right
to defend the integrity of their works
to all extremes." And I was freed.
FILMMAKERS IN ACTION
Besides, filmmaking is an industry.
If World War I allowed the American film industry
to ruin French filmmaking,
with the birth of television, W.W. Il allowed financing them.
That is, ruin all European filmmaking.
Thus, television becomes a stupid and sad adult
that rejects its origin.
THE CAMERA IS THE SCREEN
Space is the most essential form for filmmaking,
as far as filmmaking is an art.
To which Godard film does this frame belong?
Belmondo in color. A Woman Is a Woman.
- No. - Then Pierrot, Le Fou.
- No. - Yes, that's Belmondo.
- Pierrot, Le Fou, yes. - No.
This is the frame belonging to Pierrot, Le Fou.
What is filmmaking?
FILMMAKING = EMOTION
EMOTION = RISK
RISK = NITRATE
Both in black and white and color,
nitrate film reached the highest levels of beauty. Fatal beauty.
The risk of high inflammability
was a good excuse to impose safety precautions
using the new non-flammable acetate film,
the so-called safety film,
the quality of which deteriorates alarmingly in time.
And so, the cheapest solution was chosen.
It's a shame.
I believe that
nitrate was something very special.
Have you ever smelt nitrate film?
- No. - You've never?
It is very special. It is a savage,
exciting smell, if I may say so.
VistaVision and Technicolor had no risk,
but were very expensive and were also replaced
in detriment of the colorant quality,
which degrades very quickly.
And in Venice, in 1980,
Martin Scorsese exposed the deterioration of color film,
following a complaint letter he had
sent to Eastman Kodak
signed by over 200 filmmakers the world over.
As an example, the trailer of Land of The Pharaohs
was screened at the Festival,
thus showing the fading of the colors that,
according to Scorsese, takes place ruthlessly in 20 years,
in the best of cases.
If Kodak has improved its material
to conserve films better,
we will know in 10 or 20 years.
What we do know now is
that all our complaints and activities in defence of
the preservation cinematographic material have
raised the awareness of film archives worldwide,
which are now much more careful and aware
with regard to this subject.
All film material manufacturers
for storytelling, whether digital or chemical,
should inform well on how long it will last,
which is never clear.
They should say: "It will last whatever number of years
if you don't take care of it."
A bit like what is happening with biological food.
We should be more and more demanding.
We want to know what we eat, what goes into our body.
A bit the same. In this XXI century
the unintelligible small print is no longer valid.
"You make a film, it'll last 15 years and then disappears,
unless you put it in a special chamber and so on..."
It should be clear, but people don't know.
People buy a digital video tape,
a film director buys 35 mm. Reels...
It's not clear.
I remember 15 or 20 years ago,
and still nowadays,
Turner had the idea
of restoring films
by colorising them.
It's unacceptable to me to watch The Asphalt Jungle,
The Bicycle Thief,
or Ford's Stagecoach
or Dreyer's Joan of Arc, in color.
It is unacceptable.
It is not natural and,
to me, it seems like an aggression
against the essence of the film.
European filmmakers have become guardians of their own and
others' films, above all of American filmmakers'.
The French were the first to go to Court
in defence of John Huston's Moral Right.
French directors' attitude against colorising was
ridiculed and criticised by some journalists,
specially those of "Liberation".
They considered it a caveman attitude.
Colorising amused them and
they said films could be seen in black and white.
But the black and white color of a colorised film
is not the same as a print of the original negative.
Besides, people get used to
seeing color only,
and the number of black and white films is removed
from television.
And, above all,
we have no right to go against
the criteria of the author of the film,
of the authors of the film.
Colorising is not
a frivolous matter, like the
"Liberation" and "Paris Match" journalists think.
They find it amusing to be able to watch
The Asphalt Jungle in a different way,
with Sterling Hayden colorised, but to me that's crucial.
The man who prepared
the strategy and became
the prosecutor
was Pierre Truche.
To me it seemed very symbolic
that one of the most respected
magistrates of France,
who was in charge of the proceedings against Barbie,
and also the person who
would attack Ted Turner.
Tavernier and I have a good relationship
since the times of the Lumière Institute in Lyon.
He spoke to me of the colorisation
of John Huston's film.
I listened to him very conscientiously
and asked one of my collaborators
to study the subject on the author's
Moral Right regarding the screening of his film in France.
The process began
through the French Film Directors Guild,
with Choukroun as the attorney,
and the SACD continued with Carmet.
I well remember the case of
"John Huston Vs. Ted Turner".
That's what we called it in 1988.
At my office I received a dossier,
sent by the Dramatic Authors and Composers Guild,
that confronted the
author, director of an American film
with an American producer.
The author was against
the modification of the black and white film
that had been colorised
and scheduled by a French television network.
They asked me to begin proceedings
that seemed impossible to me.
And perhaps that's why we won.
It was a report that confronted
two fundamental thesis:
The American concept of an Author's Right,
then the U.S.A. Did not belong to the Berne convention,
and the Western or Latin conception.
They were radically different.
The copyright grants the author economic right only,
whereas the continental conception
ads another dimension to the Author's Right,
which is his Moral Right
that respect the creator's person,
a bit as if they were human rights.
We overcame this impossibility due to two basic reasons.
First, there was a huge mobilisation
of French and American authors
backed by American guilds,
and above all by the Dramatic Authors and Composers Guild,
that took care of getting this
legal operation underway.
It was resolved with a very important decision
of the highest French court,
the Supreme Court.
It stated that only authors, as physical persons,
could appeal to Moral Right in France,
and not commercial firms
such as film production companies which,
concealed behind the copyright system,
wanted to be the holders of Moral Right.
On the other hand,
and speaking of the same resolution,
the Supreme Court reaffirmed that,
whatever the nationality of the works,
independent of their geographic origin,
authors could demand their Moral Right from France
whenever exploitation in France
endures an adulteration
or an alteration,
as in the case of colorisation.
In practice, this means
that both for colorising and inserting a logo
during the broadcast of a film on television,
the author can appeal to his Moral Right
and prohibit this form of exploitation.
And he can even obtain
compensation for damages,
in more or less important amounts.
But remember that Moral Right are not economic rights.
This right respect the author's persona, but
could have economic consequences.
The problem was knowing which
would be the prevailing right,
the American or French.
The Supreme Court resolution
is clear and protects the directors:
"In France,
the integrity of a literary or artistic
work cannot be jeopardised,
regardless of the country
of its first showing.
These are laws of imperious enforcement."
The international convention also
protects authors against manipulation of their works.
But authors can add complements to this.
The court was not judging
the aesthetic quality provided by coloring.
It may annoy you that Chaplin added music
to his silent films,
but it was he who decided, and not
the company, which is not a physical person.
After this, France established a law
that gives the author full power.
The author can accept,
for commercial, aesthetic or personal reasons,
the colorisation of his film.
In this case,
and although it
doesn't seem right to me,
I am forced to resign myself.
It is a shame,
but the author has the right to do so.
The Cow And I was colorised
under the direction of Henri Verneuil.
Autant-Lara's La traversee de Pariswas also.
It is deplorable.
But it's the director's right.
He may ruin his film,
but the law is way above my own personal opinion.
What I think is of no value.
Some heirs have refused.
For example, Prévert's heirs
did not accept colorising Children of Paradise.
Like my grandmother, I refuse to colorise
my grandfather's films.
In the 80's,
Pathé proposed colorising
Children of Paradise.
They offered a lot of money.
To convince her,
they lent her a video tape of The Cow And I.
My grandmother refused categorically
and I too will do the same.
This film
was shot just like that in its time.
There is no reason to colorise it.
The motivation is money
and the fact that it could be broadcasted on TV
for a much larger audience,
but the film is adulterated,
it does not contribute anything.
These films should be protected.
They cannot be altered merely
for money or for a different format.
I will always refuse because
I must preserve my grandfather's work.
All heirs should
defend these works
and not give in to temptations
such as money or fads,
because, someday
someone could cut the running time short.
They are as they are and should remain like that.
They are a testimonial.
There is one thing that drives me mad
and makes my hair stand on end.
The art house theatres,
and not commercial theatres
that show Disney or Matrix,
but those that supposedly respect author films but,
in the end, do not.
Three years ago, in Paris,
I went to a Martin Karmitz theatre.
He is a distributor and produces Chabrol.
He defends demanding art films. He has produced Kieslowsky
and Kiarostami. He is supposed to love films.
There, I saw Two English Girls and the Continent.
My father shot it in 1:66
with Nestor Almendros as director of photography,
who I know well.
The film was screened at 1:85, without respecting
the original aspect ratio,
because the projectionist thought
that it was a modern aspect ratio.
I saw it with heads cut off and one line of subtitles less.
Five minutes after it started
I went to see the projectionist and
told him to screen it at 1:66
and to begin again.
He said that was the correct aspect ratio.
Of course it wasn't. I know my father's films well.
At that time he didn't use 1:85
because he didn't like it.
He finally stopped the screening and started over again.
That was not the only time.
I had already stopped screenings
of friends' films
for aspect ratio reasons.
Films run a risk at the theatres.
Few theatres respect the demands
of author art films.
This also occurs with
the exploitation of films
on video tape and DVD.
Scenes are cut out,
aspect ratio is not respected,
because 16,9 is fashionable.
By contract,
in France I can have them respect
the aspect ratio on DVD
and refuse any colorising or alteration
not in compliance with my father's
editing and aspect ratio.
George Stevens was the first filmmaker to go to Court
to avoid manipulation of his film
A Place in the Sun during a TV broadcast,
a regular practice already reported by Otto Preminger.
The judge made the network respect its integrity, but
after the broadcast Stevens had to go to Court again
to report the film had been interrupted by
commercial breaks every 12 minutes,
altering its narrative pace.
The judge considered these interruptions
did not alter or manipulate the film
and sentenced a one dollar compensation
for each break.
Now, 40 years later, the Stockholm Supreme Court
has passed a very contrary sentence
in favour of two Swedish filmmakers,
Vilgot Sjöman
and Claes Eriksson.
It was Vilgot Sjöman who initiated the lawsuit because
his film was the first to be shown on television
after the television law of April, 2002.
The law was based on a European Union directive
and was introduced by surprise, practically no one reacted.
When they broadcasted Vilgot's film,
he complained.
And when mine was, in June, 2002,
he had already executed his claim
before the Inspection Council
that controls compliance with the television law.
I thought Vilgot should not be alone
because I was of his same opinion.
Unfortunately, we lost by a minimum.
Of the 7 Council members, 4 supported TV4, and 3 us.
Then we decided to take the lawsuit to Court
to see how the Copyright Law would be applied.
It was the first time this was attempted.
It was a completely new perspective.
And thus required more preparation
and economic resources.
In Sweden it is free to go before the Inspection Council,
but very expensive in Court.
The case took 2 and a half years to be processed
by the Primary Court of Stockholm.
We won the lawsuit in November, 2004.
I perceive this victory
under a broader perspective.
It can help to increase
the cultural status of filmmaking.
As filmmaking is the youngest of all arts,
this triumph can help to
to be able to finally compare filmmaking
with literature, music,
dancing and the other classic arts.
I believe that if interrupting films is allowed,
it is because filmmaking is not taken seriously yet.
It is not considered authentic art.
The current debate in Europe
between the Copyright and the TVLaw
is being won by Moral Right.
We filmmakers establish a setting
for films we want to make,
rules that define their running time, their ratio,
whether they are in black and white
or in color, etcetera.
In the Dogma group,
we liked imposing other rules upon ourselves,
ten principles.
The director does not always decide on the rules of a film.
Often, the producer imposes the running time
or wants a certain camera and aspect ratio used, etc.
But once we have accepted these rules,
and have worked with them,
no one is to change them under any concept.
If we shoot in wide screen,
no one can change it to full screen.
Because it will no longer be the film we created.
It would be a different expression, composition.
The pace of the film cannot be disrupted either.
It took us months to achieve.
This pace should not be interrupted by ads,
unless specifically agreed upon.
So, the issue is very simple:
When we make a film with a specific running time and aspect ratio,
this must be respected.
Like with a painting or a photo.
It is that easy.
I often wonder
whether the rights we defend are the director's
or of the film itself.
The film we see on screen.
Why only the director's? The director disappears,
but not the film.
When we defend the works of Dreyer
against colorisation,
these artificial colors,
against pan-scanning
and against cuts,
we defend his films more
than we defend Dreyer himself.
Danish directors also took action.
The Danish Film Directors Guild
asked me to defend two cases of Moral Right,
both of them in the decade of the '90s.
One at the beginning of the '90s
concerning John Ford's They Were Expendable,
a film shot in b /w and which
Danish TV2 wanted to broadcast
in a colorised version.
The Directors Guild spoke to TV2
and requested cancelling the broadcast.
TV2 didn't want to,
so the Guild asked me to
contact the network and
threaten them with a lawsuit
if TV2
would not cancel the broadcast.
This avoided broadcasting the film.
So we did not file the lawsuit
and did not go to Court.
But we did with another film,
Sydney Pollack's Three Days of the Condor.
At first it was difficult to find
a film to fit our purpose.
Our fist option was Kurosawa, whose film language
lies necessarily in cinemascope.
But as it was hard to contact him in Japan,
we thought of a Visconti film, already deceased...
But, being homosexual,
he had no heirs to defend his interests.
So we had to give up.
Finally, a Sydney Pollack film came up.
But there was a problem
because Pollack had granted
all his artistic rights to his producer.
This seems to be done always in the U.S.A.
There, directors do not have the rights of their own works,
which is very strange.
Despite it all, Sydney Pollack
agreed on filing the lawsuit.
Three Days of the Condor was shot in Scope.
The Danish State channel, DR,
wanted to show a scanned version in full screen.
This became public knowledge
and, therefore, the Directors Guild objected.
However, DR
insisted on broadcasting the film scanned, and did so.
Interestingly enough, in Denmark
Pollack has the same rights
as any Danish director.
So, we were able to claim that
his rights had been infringed,
despite his reality in the U.S.A.,
since he had ceded those rights.
The intention may seem a bit sophist
but, in fact, Pollack's authorisation
allowed us to denounce that
his rights as a filmmaker had been infringed.
... his rights as a filmmaker had been infringed.
It could be questioned...
... if the defended film must be a work of art.
Not even Pollack would say his film is a masterpiece.
But, before the Copenhagen Court,
he explained that the shots,
the compositions, were very meticulous...
It was a full-fledged trial,
during which Pollack could express himself.
We won,
even though the Court
did not declare Sydney Pollack was legally right.
But the sentence contains a very harsh passage
that affirms that the TV network
had totally ruined an artistic work.
Since then
all films in cinemascope are broadcasted correctly.
It seems strange to me that
a judgement from the Court is needed
for a public network to behave decently.
And speaking of public television networks,
it is worth mentioning that
prior to this lawsuit over
Sydney Pollack's film,
you always saw the network's logo
whenever a film was being broadcasted.
They would place it on this side,
or on the other,
or below. Danish networks always placed it at the top.
It is evident that everyone
wants to show their logo.
However, they stopped doing it after the lawsuit.
But only when broadcasting Danish films.
They still show it
when broadcasting foreign films, besides
the rest of their own programs.
You can't blame them for using
their logo on their own productions. The rights are theirs.
But when, for example,
they broadcast a French documentary
and show their logo,
they infringe the filmmakers rights.
With the arrival in France
of the private networks,
the La 5 network came about and programmed
a film I had made,
an adaptation of a story by Guy de Maupassant
entitled Yvette.
I knew La 5
used to insert their logo,
that sort of impertinent fly that
we see in a corner of the screen
during the entire film.
This logo distracts the viewer
and conceals things we want to see.
It's as if a plane flew
when there is a landscape on screen.
I warned La 5 that if they broadcasted my film
they couldn't insert their logo.
They paid no mind and I filed a lawsuit,
which I won,
before the Paris Supreme Court,
and was subsequently confirmed by the Court of Appeal.
That trial acknowledged
the moral right of the author
to not allow anyone to ruin
or modify his film.
It is to be broadcasted as is,
without removing or adding anything.
Concerning the logo,
I would like to read the transcript of the trial.
"Keeping in mind that the insertion
of the logo in litigation,
inserted without any technical or artistic reason,
is aimed at promoting
the image of the television network, an act of publicity
beyond the broadcasted work
and which all authors can refuse."
The Court enforced the law correctly
and sentenced La 5.
The Yvette affair is an example of the difficulty of this law.
A moral law is spoken of
as if it were a luxury given to the author
but, actually, the enforcement of this law
is a very brave act on the part of the authors.
Jean-Pierre Marchand dared to
report a television network because
they inserted their logo while broadcasting his film.
This is never exempt of consequences for the authors
because it could cause, amongst the broadcasters,
a preventive response that could even
consider that particular author
unwelcome at their networks.
In this particular case,
it was evident that
adding an nonexistent logo to the original piece
would vary the broadcasting terms and conditions
as well as the body of the work.
Regarding Moral Right, this argument had no problem,
but the network claimed
that, for the viewer, it was
a way of knowing which channel he was watching,
and a way of identifying the programmes.
It was not a way of marketing
the image of the network.
The thing is that
when we were able to convince the Court that
the only moment
in which the logo did not exist
was during the advertising breaks,
the network's arguments made no sense.
The judge, paying close attention to
the respect for the author's works,
considered that this addition,
this permanent insertion of the logo
was contrary to the integrity of the work.
You can follow their retreat by
the bodies they left behind.
Where's Andres?
He didn't have enough money and went upstairs.
If you saw them, they weren't Apaches.
We'll talk about that later.
Gentlemen, I introduce you to
the Chief of the Apache nation, Cochise.
Be brief, Captain.
Please go on, Bolford.
Let's get to the point.
What did he say?
The Apaches are a great nation that is still unconquered.
We city Apache kids have always been free.
No one's ever invaded our neighbourhood.
The new Avenue threatens our peace.
The cars don't let us play.
They run over the old people.
We must do like the Apaches against the Iron Horse.
Kids, that language you just heard doesn't exist.
It was invented by dubbing actors and
I don't know how or from what language they got it.
- Good afternoon, Chief. - Good afternoon.
You can speak.
Fort Apache, She Wore a Yellow Ribbon andRio Grande
belonged to John Ford's trilogy dedicated to the cavalry.
To some, the best was She Wore a Yellow Ribbon,
butFort Apache is particularly interesting.
It's the first chance Indians have to speak their own language.
To speak in Apache.
I heard the most incredible story on manipulating the
original version of a film from Billy Wilder.
That was his film Stalag 17.
Stalag 17 is about a German concentration camp
for American prisoners of war.
There is one German
amongst all the Americans
who is a spy and
diverts everyone's suspicions
towards William Holden.
But Paramount,
along with its German branch,
decided to turn the German
into a Polish spy,
and it is the Polish man who accuses Holden.
As Billy Wilder said,
after everything the Germans did to the Polish
just to sell the film better,
the bad guy couldn't be German, but Polish.
Billy Wilder complained uselessly and, consequently,
decided to leave Paramount after
being 16 years with them.
He never worked for Paramount again.
Anyway, this modified version
was the version shown in Germany.
In this country, my country,
there is a tremendous lack of education regarding sound.
Italian films are almost always post-synchronised.
Currently we are beginning to make them
with natural sound.
But foreign films are always dubbed.
That something made by me goes to another country and
they separate the tracks and change actors' voices
and consequently change mixes and music levels...
That seems horrible to me.
Many countries show this horrible thing off,
like Spain or Italy where, unfortunately, we dub more.
Some say: "We do great dubbing,
we have great dubbing actors..." To me that is perverse.
What about Japanese films?
Those of Kurosawa, Mizoguchi, Ozu,
or Kitano or Oshima.
Japanese contains
many extraordinary guttural sounds
that match their faces well.
If you see those faces
with the voice of an actor with a Roman accent,
it sounds unreal,
it makes you angry.
In Italy not only do they dub, but they
also change the script.
I've seen bits of my films,
I remember Jamón, jamón specifically.
A part I saw, because I always leave if
they're showing a film of mine dubbed
'cause I don't like to be there,
and in a particular scene the original said:
"Where are you going?"
The reply was: "To my town."
They put "Where are you going, bitch?",
and the word "bitch" was not in the original.
It's terrible. At times, this Mediterranean creativity
that is wonderful, can be terrible.
In this case it's pathetic.
I think movie theatres
should be like art galleries or museums.
In an art gallery you see the author's original work.
In a theatre, people should know that
there, they see our work with no alterations.
I remember Godard telling me:
"In Italy you don't know talking films,
you know dubbed films." And he was absolutely right.
When I made Last Tango in Paris,
I also had to dub
Marlon Brando and Maria Schneider
cause, in Italy, if you don't dub you don't release.
Market laws are so strong that
if you leave the original version with subtitles,
you cannot get a release.
I remember that, with Last Tango,
a few days before its release,
we were very nervous
because of the controversy the film aroused,
the comments, the scandal
and the consequences it could give rise to.
Two days prior to the official premiere,
we gave a special screening not only for film critics
but for journalists in general.
We were in Rome,
in December of 1972,
at a great dubbing studio called Fono Roma.
I stood between the two screening rooms we had.
To the left, a large one, and to the right, a small one.
And I told the journalists:
"Here you can see the film dubbed,
and there in its original version.
Perhaps you've never heard Marlon Brando's voice,
so now you have the opportunity."
Almost all the Italian journalists
watched it dubbed.
At the original version, with Marlon's and Maria's voices,
there were only 2 or 3 people.
I think John Francis Lane,
a critic from Films & Filming.
2 or 3 foreigners, but no Italian.
So now you can see
the lack of education
with regard to sound.
But there are some films
that need foreign actors
to play certain characters
who must speak in another language.
Like in my film Hands Over the City,
with Rod Steiger,
or Visconti's film
The Leopard, with Burt Lancaster.
For my film,
Hands Over the City, I chose Rod Steiger
because, physically and due to
his acting skills,
he was the ideal actor
for achieving optimum results
in portraying
this enterprising Neapolitan.
And Rod Steiger had to be dubbed.
That's right!
He had to be dubbed.
John Malkovich is a French prisoner of war in Germany
in The Ogre,
who gets to Germany and doesn't speak German.
He should speak French, but everyone speaks English.
How can you express the different languages?
This is a very common problem.
The Italians treated him freely,
at least in the '60s.
Fellini, with Anthony Quinn, in La Strada,
Visconti's The Leopard, with Burt Lancaster.
Which is the original version? Easy.
It is the version
that Fellini and Visconti decided it was.
That is to say, the Italian version,
even though it is not Burt Lancaster's original voice.
And when, in Denmark,
we subtitle foreign films, this could also
be considered an infringement of the image.
And I wonder
if that isn't altering
the rights of the film.
But the problem is that we do not
understand Spanish, Italian or Russian.
That forces us to subtitle.
We can also wonder whether
this infringement of the film,
which is the case of dubbing,
is, in addition, the reason why
it is so difficult to watch European films.
We don't watch many Portuguese
or Spanish films in Denmark,
nor are Danish, Swedish and Norwegian films
in Latin countries.
In India we have many languages as well.
We make films
in over 20 languages.
The language I speak is Malayalam,
and my films are in this language.
My films are shown, basically,
in the state of Kerala.
When these films are screened
elsewhere, not in Kerala,
they are subtitled in English.
Therefore, if we want to show
all Indian films throughout the country,
they must be subtitled in English.
Good-bye, my angel.
Alterations of the soundtrack don't only affect the dialogue.
This beautiful melody Friedhoffer composed for Brando's film
is an example.
Many times the soundtrack is not kept and the film
must be redubbed with new music
by an unknown author, or even the great classics.
Good-bye, my love.
But the author of the original music remains in the credits.
Often, to entertain themselves,
members of the crew
capture albatrosses, imposing sea birds that,
indolent companions, follow the voyage
of the vessel that floats over the salty chasms.
As they land on deck, these kings of the Deep Blue,
clumsy and fearful, drag their white wings sadly
as if they were weighty oars.
This winged voyager looking inept and grim!
So beautiful before, and now laughable and ugly.
A sailor teases its beack with a wooden pipe,
while another imitates its weakness.
The Poet is similar to the prince of clouds,
lord of storms who laughs at the authorities.
Exiled to land, amid the jeering crowds,
his giant's wings hinder his steps.
And after the Poet's death,
legal predators take over his works and
complete it with their own heinous invention. "Improving it", they say,
following the deceased's so-called instructions.
Thus, new works appear
to which the dead Poet never gave life.
And on these monstrosities erected with vile
commercial objectives, these uncut precious images turn pale,
become brutalized when cut by such heartless hands.
There is an example
that I like to quote.
I made a film under
very bad conditions.
In France it was entitled Le Scandale,
but it had been shot in English
because it was by Universal. Champagne Murder.
The film was rather successful
in France,
but when it was to be shown abroad,
Universal,
who produced it,
wanted to make modifications.
They requested my opinion,
so I went to London to work with
a talented editor,
Frederic Wilson, a charming man,
but he would cut out anything that
he thought unorthodox, but that I liked.
He was removing the film's character,
its distinctive features, its very own taste.
It was like
removing the salt from salted codfish.
In short,
they then edited this version
and, as I had been understanding,
they said they would propose
the two versions
to all countries.
That was generous on the part of Universal.
But to most European
and foreign countries
they sent only their own version
but, as everyone knew there was another version,
they asked for it. Finally,
my version was screened in practically all countries.
That seems very moral to me.
They spent their money for nothing. And that's fine.
Regarding these alterations
and manipulations of an author's work,
to me the worst country of all,
because they do it from a legal point of view
and get commercial gains, is the U.S.A.
With Anguish, not only did they
reedit a small part, but also shot footage.
They added cars in Los Angeles going to the theatre,
a helicopter with policemen...
When I saw this I became very angry.
I phoned their lawyers and,
with all the irony and perversity
of the Los Angeles Century City lawyers,
the reply was: "Mr. Luna, you're right,
sue me, sue me."
Sue me, pursue me,
you, a poor European helpless here,
you'll spend a fortune...
Finally, I had to forget it,
but to me it was terrible, a lack of criterion,
because that contributed nothing to the film.
After a while I found out why they do that.
At times they think that doing that is more commercial
but, basically, it is because
they seize the author's rights.
A law in the U.S.A. States that this right
is not the employee's, but the employer's,
which, in this case, is the production company.
Then, just for having manipulated a film,
they include themselves in the credits as co-producers,
or as producers,
and thus they have all the rights of the film.
And that is what is behind
colorising films.
They buy a film,
colorise it and
have the rights of that film.
There is always business behind all that.
That happens often in films.
That happened with a Fritz Lang film,
it happened with my film
Salvatore Giulano,
in which there is a scene
dedicated to the slaughter of Portella della Ginestra
that took place on May 1st, 1947.
Since there is no existing documentation
on that period,
they take my scene
as if it were documentary material,
for actuality footage, and that is not fitting.
I complain continuously,
I send letters, send summons...
At times I speak with someone and
think that maybe next time
they'll at least give me credit.
But after a few months,
and when May 1st, the Labour Day,
they want to
remember that slaughter,
that political slaughter
that took place on May 1st, 1947.
If they want to celebrate the Labour Day festivities,
they take some images,
or the entire scene from Salvatore Giuliano
and show it without mentioning
what film it belongs to. It's unfitting.
But they don't use it only
as a chronicle,
they do the same with other films.
They did that
on some television programme,
and not only showed
this scene of Salvatore Giuliano
but also completes scenes from Lucky Luciano
containing scenes
from past years,
of the post-war period that I reproduced,
and they had no right
to use this footage.
That is totally unfitting.
Respect must be shown
because the artistic work
of a film
belongs to the author.
Something extraordinary used to happen.
In the United States, the large production companies,
the managers of the large production companies
were Central European Jews.
Now they are no longer Central European Jews.
Now they are bankers,
they are bankers from the East.
Well, from the East: New York.
We have lost a lot with this change
because, before, producers
like Mayer, Zanuck,
liked filmmaking and
they made films,
but now it is just a job for them.
Today the producer doesn't exist as such,
as the figure he was years ago.
Today it's a corporation
that the producers join.
Just as this corporation makes films,
it may also publish books, manufacture cars, or whatever.
From that point on, the strategy has radically changed.
Until the previous period some years ago,
first they sought the author
who wrote the book or made the film,
and then picked out the audience.
As things are now,
and with preference for the marketing concept,
contrary to European claims lead by France
with cultural diversity,
they propose the opposite: The market rules.
What is first? The audience.
Second: Product design adapted to that audience.
And third: The professional or director
who can make the product reach a maximum audience.
When speaking of maximum appeal,
to make the product socialise massively
it is not for free choice.
The result is in detriment of the creative factor.
In this case, the role of the author is reduced
and becomes a product in the hands of a corporation
that can do as it pleases.
And that is very different, because
there is no love.
There may be proficiency, but no love.
Filmmaking must be loved
or it will become
what these stupid new Hollywood producers
want to make. That is to say, an industry
like a sausage factory.
The majors, like all large corporations,
do not leave out any of the marketing lines
that could have a minimal demand,
and they also track down which
authors are in demand on their own,
because there is a demand by minority audiences,
not only to justify expenses,
but also to earn money. Then they look for the author.
This is why directors,
the authors of the films,
must be careful.
They must protect their rights.
It is their obligation, if I may say so,
to protect their rights
because, by doing so, they give life to films
made with love, instead of pure merchandise.
In time, films made with love
earn the most money.
But these bankers, so close to money
and so far away from the love for art
that they exploit,
haven't realised that, but they will.
The first time world filmmakers got together to defend their rights
was in Paris in 1956.
The film theorist Jean Pierre Sèvegrand
was an exceptional witness of that
meeting at a restaurant on Pierre Charron street.
Jean Renoir,
Michael Wilson, Cacoyannis,
Thorold Dickinson,
Cavalcanti, Jiri Trnka,
Bergman,
Paul Strand, William Wyler,
Tasi Tsou Sheng, Zoltan Fabri,
Benito Alazraki,
Preminger, Joris Ivens,
Serge Youtkevich,
De Sica, Zavattini,
Le Chanois, King Vidor,
Serge Vassiliev,
- Soldati... - Mario Soldati?
- You know his films? - Of course.
When I was a child, I wanted to be Yolanda, Black Corsair's daughter.
I saw the film many times.
- At the Cinematheque? - No, on TV.
I saw her at the premiere.
This is Cottafavi, isn't it?
Yes, but when he came here
they hadn't made the Peplums yet,
which must be the films you've seen.
Yes, but above all The Hundred Horsemen.
Oh, yes.
Entitled The Son of El Cid in France.
- Those title changes... - It's terrible.
At times they choose well.
Yes, at times.
Do you like my drawing?
Did you draw that?
Yes, I did some sketches and then I drew them all.
- Do you like it? - It is very pretty.
The boss liked it a lot and raised my salary.
But not much because he was very stingy.
- Would you have something? - No, thank you.
Yes, come have something. Gérard.
Have a seat.
Back then I already felt a passion for films, but had nothing published.
This was my first job. I was happy to
drop my studies
because I earned money and could go to the movies.
After serving coffe here, I'd run to the Champs Elysées.
My favourite theatre was Mac Mahon.
But you want me to talk to you
about that famous meeting
here of worldwide directors
- to discuss their rights. - Yes.
It is as if I could see them sitting here.
King Vidor was the most enthusiastic.
Sure, he had just made Man Without A Star.
- Do you remember the song? - Yes.
Who knows? Who knows? Yes.
He said the time had come for the directors
to demand their rights as authors.
He was right there.
He got up and said that in Hollywood
he did as he pleased, and would continue.
De Sica, il comendatore, was sitting there.
He got up. "Bravissimo", he said.
But William Wyler, who was in that corner,
said that Vidor and he
could impose because they got to Hollywood
before the tycoons.
He meant they had started in silent films,
just like Ford, Walsh or Allan Dwan.
And they wouldn't take them on.
But the subsequent directors were very much under control.
Otto Preminger,
who had just made The Man With the Golden Arm,
complained about his problems with the censors.
And Jean Renoir had serious trouble with French Cancan
and, feeling at home, he got to the point.
The first thing he did was ask me for some Pernod.
He wanted a serious manifesto from that meeting,
but he didn't fully achieve that. It was difficult
since they were film directors from so many countries.
It was like the Tower of Babel,
and we know who controls the Tower of Babel, don't we?
You don't know who has always controlled it?
- The tycoons? - Yes, of course.
What about Bergman? Did he say anything?
He's one of the ones I wanted to meet
because I had seen Smiles of a Summer Night
and I enjoyed it a lot.
But Bergman was very young and shy back then.
He didn't dare ask me for coffee.
Did they talk about how filmmaking could
change with the arrival of TV?
Little did they know what future had in store.
Television, video, DVD, software, digital...
God, the days we have seen and those we have yet to see.
5 CENTURIES BEFORE
It's hideous, indecent, intolerable.
These painting belong more in a brothel than a church.
Buonarroti painted them about 20 years ago
but we haven't been able to eliminate this obscenity.
This wall should be repainted over.
It's been proposed under different Popes in vain.
It's useless to insist.
How could His Holiness allow this heresy?
A Della Rovere and a Farnese,
these families value the arts more than religion.
And one cannot deny Buonarroti's works are art.
They may be art, but a malignant art in any case.
Amongst such Dantesque fantasy
Buonarroti has portrayed
- certain outstanding men. - Are you one, by chance?
Certainly, Your Eminence.
And where did he place you?
Haven't you seen them?
There's so many, and the wall is so big...
My eyesight is so poor I can only see what I have near me.
But I didn't recognise you amongst the saints.
Did he portray you as a demon?
He didn't dare.
But he did that to poor Biaggio Martinelli da Cesena,
who told the Pope of the abundance of naked paintings.
I know. When poor Martinelli da Cesena
was portrayed as the demon Minos
with donkey ears and a snake biting his private parts,
he complained to Paul III
to have His Holiness force him to withdraw the offence.
But Farnese responded that
had he placed him in purgatory,
he could intercede on his behalf,
but as he was in hell,
it was useless, his condemnation was irremediable.
No one can escape from hell.
- You won't have anything? - I fast on Fridays.
But when His Holiness died, may God keep him,
couldn't anyone remedy the situation?
Paulo IV, a Carafa. A Neapolitan.
That was something else.
He did want to destroy the wall and the painting.
But Buonarroti has great influence.
The family is linked to architects, artists.
They all want beautiful statues on their tombs.
Now things have changed
and with the Council of Trent, we can finally
relieve the scandal.
No matter how nakedness is covered, the scandal exists.
These images are in front of the altar.
Whenever the officiant raises the Sacred Host
he must see those atrocities,
that naked crowd of demons and saints.
It seems as a scorn to Service.
That's what we told the Council. With the decree approved,
not even Buonarroti himself can stop us.
Go on, eat, eat.
But there are many families, we must negotiate.
Don't ask for impossibilities.
You negotiate the decree with the families?
Of course, and have accepted the suggestion
of a member of a powerful family.
Daniele Ricciardelli da Volterra
has a project to cover some of the nudes,
specially saints and celestial figures,
and leave the demons in the altogether.
We must go step by step. Volterra is the ideal artist.
Buonarroti was his maestro and one of his few friends.
He is waiting outside
with his sketches.
Let's see those sketches, Volterra.
What about Saint Catherine?
Will her breasts remain uncovered like a prostitute?
Have you planned anything for that?
I did as Your Eminences indicated.
And you've done a good job.
But you don't seem very satisfied, Volterra.
This is a very sad job, Your Eminence,
because I think The Universal Judgementis a splendid work
and I shall be remembered as the one who ruined it.
Works of art are not what they are,
but what they represent.
You artists think that what you do belongs to you.
Think about the eyes that ponder it.
Eyes of all ages.
Art, like the Holy Church,
is a heritage common to all Humanity.
The images were covered.
Good afternoon.
The sun is very important people.
If the sun dies, we all die.
The moon is also important.
Our fury as cheated viewers
should make the tycoons' structures shudder.
But we have become weak, very weak.
We accept everything and they have even convinced us
that we're the kings of show business
because we can see a DVD in the original or altered ratio,
in b /w or colorised, by pressing a button.
THE FUTURE IS NO LONGER WHAT IT USED TO BE
Will the tycoons reach their goal of colonising us,
or will we rid ourselves of these pervasive greed
and get on the filmmakers side? As I have done!
FILMMAKERS VS. TYCOONS
FILMMAKERS IN ACTION
I want you to be just as you are.
Just as when I met you.
Just as you were before meeting me.
You should be like that forever.
You will have new lovers,
that will want you the same.
Isomorphic,
anamorphic...
Black and white or color.
If that is how you were born,
that is how I love you.
I like just the way you are.
With your original voice.
Like that author dreamt of you
and one day created you.
You, who projects
perfect shapes,
treated me to
afternoons and evenings
full of emotions
and feelings I had never felt.
I will not let anyone betray you.
Low-class merchants,
people of ill-repute
who harass you everywhere.
I want to love you without breaks,
without ads or cuts,
without colors
you didn't have before,
nor another aspect ratio.
So as to recover
from my memory
those moments
you gave me
at the matinee showings.
So many moments of happiness.
Isomorphic,
anamorphic,
spectacular, intimist
or comedian.
Mysterious, fascinating.
I will not let anyone betray you.
Low-class merchants,
people of ill-repute
who harass you everywhere.
Neither cuts nor interruptions.
Nor a ratio nothing to do with you.
Not a voice
that is not yours.
I love you just as you are,
I love you just as you are.
When I grow up I want to see films
just as the directors made them.