Oh, it's that time of the week again, isn't it? I have to confess, I've not done anything at all in the last week. Nothing at all. I've not watched any films, read any books, listened to any music. Work has certainly drained my creative soul.
In arts news, one of the Bs* from ABBA is mighty relieved that he won't have to hear Dancing Queen, Waterloo or Fernando used in an advert for Twix, Pampers or the BNP. It's some copyright issue, whereby performers lose the rights to their work 50 years after its written, whereas songwriters who don't perform their work only lose the rights after they're dead and frankly don't care any more.
One of the main guys campaigning for more milk out of his cash cows is Sir Cliff Richard, who is now incredibly relieved that the ruling has been changed, and that his recordings will continue to be used only for Christian purposes for another 20 years. Cliff will presumably use that twenty years to challenge the present ruling.
The practical upshot for you and me is this: all that old music we were looking to start playing commercially without asking anyone? Can't do that any more. Not until 2044, when the floodgates will open to ABBA-obsessed advertising executives, and everything from abaci** to zebras will be marketed to us while Waterloo jangles on in the background.
See, this was one of the Bs issue with the rights expiring. He didn't want to hear it on an advert. I'm not sure that's what convinced the EU Council to change their mind, but if it did, I see their point.
I don't want to be grumpy, but I am, and I've got to live with it, and if you've read this far, so do you. My point is this: 70 years is a very long time. If you're not Cliff Richard, who is exempt from the ravages of time due to being on first-name terms with Jesus, it's pretty much a lifetime. Seventy years after I write and perform my number one hit "10 Minutes Longer Than It Needed To Be and Lacking Structure", nobody will remember or care.
This ruling effectively stops the music being used ever again, unless the artist condones the purpose and has been paid handsomely for his vocal/pianoic*** efforts. I don't really think that can be a good thing.
And now, what you've really been waiting for: the footnotes.
*I do know which one of the Bs it is. If your issue is with my punctuation, Bs is correct, as there are two Bs in ABBA but only one Bjorn and only one Benny. I do know which one it is, but I'm not telling you, for no other reason than I don't really feel like it today. Think of it as a treasure hunt, lacking any obvious material or even spiritual reward.
**I have no idea if this is the correct Latin plural of the word abacus. I never did Latin. If you did, and I've got the wrong declension, please email me and set me straight. I'm just trying to overuse Latin plurals really. I think it adds spice, even if it's not any more right. I had fun saying "spatulae" the other day. Again, don't know if it's right, but not excessively fussed.
***You try thinking of an adjective meaning "the manner in which things are done by a person who is playing the piano". If I use it often enough, it will become real.
Tuesday 13 September 2011
Wednesday 7 September 2011
A quick hello, then on with the show
Welcome to Artstastic, your home-made view on the arts. From news to reviews and beyond, Sachtastic will aim to bring you everything you wanted or needed to know about creative goings-on. The launch, I'm afraid was mildly delayed, but I hope to be posting every Tuesday.
A film review, then, for starters. Four Lions. It's a film I've been wanting to see for ages, since I looked up Benedict Cumberbatch after he stunned me so in BBC's Sherlock. Cumberbatch, incidentally, does not feature excessively in the film.
On paper, Four Lions was a recipe for a terrible film. It's about suicide bombers, yet it's a comedy. There are few less funny subjects than suicide bombing, but they still thought this was a viable topic. It could have gone so horribly wrong.
Then again, it really didn't. It worked perfectly. The motivations of the would-be Jihadists are well-presented; though the characters are daft, they're fully formed. Their stupidity seems to originate from stupidity rather than from poor scriptwriting. It's hard to explain without spoiling it really, but though the characters were often stupid, they were only as stupid as it is possible to be within the realms of human experience. Also, the fact that incompetence was rife on all sides -the Jihadists, the politicians, the police - made it somehow fair. As long as the police were too incompetent to notice the terrorists, it was perfectly acceptable that the terrorists were too incompetent to disguise the nature of their activities.
It didn't just work, either. It was bloody hilarious in a way that just makes me want to tell you to watch it. The beginning of the film is made up of "bloopers" of the group making Jihadi video wills, which sets the pace for the rest of the film. It's a clever film about idiots.
For me, a key thing which made this film not only funny, but good, is the fact that the central character, aside from wanting to be a suicide bomber, is a perfectly balanced, perfectly human person. The film also looks at his family life, along with the differences between his and his brother's interpretations of Islam.
This film was made to a budget, and occasionally that shows, but not often enough to detract from it in any way. It is absolutely a 5 star film, and the only truly original piece of cinema I have seen in a long time. I hope people realise how good it is. Watch or... well, the alternative is unthinkable.
A film review, then, for starters. Four Lions. It's a film I've been wanting to see for ages, since I looked up Benedict Cumberbatch after he stunned me so in BBC's Sherlock. Cumberbatch, incidentally, does not feature excessively in the film.
On paper, Four Lions was a recipe for a terrible film. It's about suicide bombers, yet it's a comedy. There are few less funny subjects than suicide bombing, but they still thought this was a viable topic. It could have gone so horribly wrong.
Then again, it really didn't. It worked perfectly. The motivations of the would-be Jihadists are well-presented; though the characters are daft, they're fully formed. Their stupidity seems to originate from stupidity rather than from poor scriptwriting. It's hard to explain without spoiling it really, but though the characters were often stupid, they were only as stupid as it is possible to be within the realms of human experience. Also, the fact that incompetence was rife on all sides -the Jihadists, the politicians, the police - made it somehow fair. As long as the police were too incompetent to notice the terrorists, it was perfectly acceptable that the terrorists were too incompetent to disguise the nature of their activities.
It didn't just work, either. It was bloody hilarious in a way that just makes me want to tell you to watch it. The beginning of the film is made up of "bloopers" of the group making Jihadi video wills, which sets the pace for the rest of the film. It's a clever film about idiots.
For me, a key thing which made this film not only funny, but good, is the fact that the central character, aside from wanting to be a suicide bomber, is a perfectly balanced, perfectly human person. The film also looks at his family life, along with the differences between his and his brother's interpretations of Islam.
This film was made to a budget, and occasionally that shows, but not often enough to detract from it in any way. It is absolutely a 5 star film, and the only truly original piece of cinema I have seen in a long time. I hope people realise how good it is. Watch or... well, the alternative is unthinkable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)