movieoke

topic posted Wed, March 10, 2004 - 5:28 PM by  The Dr
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
The NYT reports on Anastasia Fite's creation of movieoke,
participatory movie acting to movies as karaoke does with
singing.

www.nytimes.com/2004/03/10...10MOVI.html

"Anastasia Fite, 24, is an aspiring director and screenwriter who, for now, pays the bills by running the club, the Den of Cin, a basement party-rental room at 44 Avenue A, at Third Street, beneath the Two Boots video store and pizza parlor. She is hostess for the weekly movie nights. She is usually also the bartender, the operator of the DVD remote control and as far as she knows the inventor of movieoke, which came to her late last summer in a burst of low-budget creativity."

"This was all second nature to her. She is a self-described movie addict who grew up in Los Angeles, attended a performing-arts high school and weaned herself on endless viewings of "Dirty Dancing," "Saturday Night Live," and for some reason "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers." ("I love that movie," she said.)

At Cornell she made a movie short about a kind of cartoon version of herself, a girl whose only way of communicating was speaking movie lines. "I wrote the script using dialogue from all of my favorite movies from all of the ages — "Badlands" to "Johnny Guitar" to "Red River" to "All About Eve" to "In a Lonely Place," she said.

In her student movie, the girl can connect only with a video-store clerk who understands all of her references. But then, tragically, she begins to forget her lines and cannot communicate with anyone. In a way, Ms. Fite said, movieoke is the opposite of that experience, a means to allow people who "are married to our television sets" and whose personalities are basically a pastiche of pop-culture references to get together, drink and put some of that hard-won knowledge to good use."

She is trying to license the idea.





The creator also made a student film
posted by:
The Dr
Portland
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: movieoke

    Thu, March 11, 2004 - 1:31 AM
    cheers for the various posts doc~!

    interesting reads...

    what's your interest in 'remixable' films?

    jp in oz
  • Re: movieoke

    Thu, March 11, 2004 - 4:30 AM
    Interesting stuff.

    >Ms. Fite is working hard to legitimize her claim to having >invented it.

    She's going to have to work hard indeed. People have been horsing around during movies for quite sometime, the sing-a-long crowd have been at it for years for example:

    thequality.com/massive/we...html#000208

    To have any claim, I think she'll have to come up with a particular format and see a huge take-up.

    .M.
    • Re: movieoke

      Thu, March 11, 2004 - 11:06 AM
      Ah, maybe your new project could license clips to movieoke disks. Pure promotion for the film *plus licensing... Wonder what the actors and directors contracts say about movieoke scenes?
      • Re: movieoke

        Wed, March 17, 2004 - 12:47 PM
        We're certainly not discouraging licensing but I'm actually more interested in seeing what free non-commercial usage generates. The real money for (non-trivial) spin-offs will come I think once there is a reasonable number of films both legally and technically re-mixable for this kind of thing. Call me naive but the last thing we need is greedy producers seeing this is another revenue stream to wring dry. Hopefully there's room to PLAY with this for a while.

        As for contracts, that's a rhethorical question right? Anyway, I hope the phrase movieoke doesn't take off on style grounds. {:-)
        • Re: movieoke

          Wed, March 17, 2004 - 4:52 PM
          Hi Michela,
          Thoughtful post, excellent. Is your thinking that the free remixble films will fall under "free use"? (US copyright law, probably there is an EU equivalent, though maybe not in China!) Or are you thinking that the owners will license it for free? Or are you postulating a micropayment system + reasonable fees for non commercial use.

          A classic case is "Star Wars 1.1 - The Phantom Edit" a fan's reedit of "Star Wars:The Phantom Menace". Initially Lucas was quoted:

          "The Internet is a new medium, it's all about doing things like that," said Lucas, who added that it gives people a new creative outlet. "I haven't seen it. I would like to."

          However Lucasfilm changes their mind as the film achieved wider distribution:

          "And, when we started hearing about massive duplication and distribution, we realized then that we had to be very clear that duplication and distribution of our materials is an infringement. And so we just kind of want to put everybody on notice that that is indeed the case."

          The other possibility is the "under the radar" approach, not legal, but not worth finding and pursuing by the content owners... The original poorly distributed Phantom Edit would fall under this approach...

          B
          • Re: movieoke

            Thu, March 18, 2004 - 8:21 AM
            To what degree you charge for licensing is always going to be off-set by your profile. I'm thinking of a model whereby us young and hungry artists can throw caution to the wind, gamble on their artistic merit and trade off the buzz. Free provision of content and usage rights can strike a chord with re-mixers if (and probably only if) the original work is worth it. A bit like OSS really.

            I see it as a bit of a chicken and egg situation that re-mixing can break. You don't really get to truly enforce your licensing rights without having a certain profile so the first thing is to get that, use every trick in the book to get an audience.

            The model of course has to also work for the other end of the scale, the established film-makers like Lucas and co. can afford dole out usage rights more sparingly and chase revenue streams .

            So yeah, I think a free re-mix can be valid free use but it's up to every producer to make the call.

            Initially I'm more interested in the under-the-radar side of things because I really just want to make films and build an audience for them. All this legal stuff does my head in after a while!

            In a way it may simply come down to convenience. You can't control access the way you used to but you can make it inconvenient or convenient to access depending on your mindset. I can see the value of the likes of Lucasfilm is that they can get X% of something instead of 0% of nothing when it comes to under-the-radar usage.

            Just because I'm doing something naughty or cheeky with someone else's content doesn't mean I wouldn't gladly pay something for privilege of getting it done quicker and easier.

Recent topics in "Re-mixable films"