----------
>From: Milos Stehlik <milos@interaccess.com>
>To: Multiple recipients of list <videolib@library.berkeley.edu>
>Subject: Re: censorship of Farocki's film
>Date: Thu, Sep 24, 1998, 9:46 PM
>
>I think that if you are going to follow this line of reasoning, you will
soon end up in absurd
>territory. No one is denying a company's right to refuse a job, but I
don't think duplicating
>videos is exactly like producing widgets. The film lab business, like
casting sculptures or
>framing photographs or printing books, happens to be a business which
assists the artist
>in realizing his/her work. And, in my view, the first responsibility of the
company then rests
>with the artist, with helping the artist realize his/her vision -- that IS
their business. This means
>a respect for the artist's vision. Taking the work, in this case of a
well-established artist whose
>LIFE IN THE GERMAN FEDERAL REPUBLIC was produced by German national
television -
>and on the basis of one scene lasting about 45 seconds not seen or taken in
context and then labeling it as
>being below some fictional and artificial standard is, I think, a crime
against the artist's integrity and
>being.
>
>If Allied Digital Laboratories were The Fundamentalist Video Duplicating
Labs, with a stated
>purpose implied in their name, one could understand this action in context.
But this is a company
>which duplicates 100 million cassettes each year, has nine U.S. plants, and
has built their
>business by doing the work for film and video makers and for their
distributors.
>
>I think it's a short step from refusing to duplicate Farocki to refusing to
duplicate Kiarostami,
>because his films are made in Iran and we know they ain't Christians over
there, or Godard,
>because some of the films don't really have a story, or films with lots of
flag poles, because
>they look like phallic symbols to someone.
>
>And yes, there is always fortunately someone to print, duplicate or frame
-- but it also took
>dozens of samizdat typists and lots of carbon paper to "print" those
forbidden books which
>some state/commercial entity like a Soviet publishing house didn't deem up
to the "moral standards"
>of the state publishing system. I could name you a list of talented
filmmakers (Evald Schorm, Pavel Juracek
>come to mind) who, denied the possibility of working, because their work
was not up to someone's "standard"
>who then exercised their right not to produce their work, simply withered
and died. It is our loss -- they
>had a lot to say.
>
>It's easy for an artist and a work of art to be marginalized and pushed to
the extremes - which is why I
>think to preserve the freedom of expression and availability and access to
diverse views and opinions takes
>exterme vigilance.
>
>Censors have faces and they don't need a government title to do their work.
>
>Milos Stehlik
>Facets Video
>
>
>Dennis Welker wrote:
>
>> I think this is an interesting discussion. Can it really be considered
>> censorship to refuse to duplicate a film that violates the company"s
>> standards? This is to say that the company is simply there to do
>> everything that you bid them to do. Considering it from the point of view
>> of the lab, isn't it like saying they have no right to set their own
>> standards? I think to simply argue that the material doesn't violate
your
>> standards does not obligate them.
>>
>> It seems to me that if this argument is valid, then no company who
provides
>> similar services has a right to refuse work they deem inappropriate just
>> because the client wants it done. There seems to be no obligatory
>> relationship here. It may be to their financial benefit (from your point
of
>> view) to accept the job, but insistence to go against their standards may
>> lose other business and certainly doesn't say very much about the client.
>> They don't seem to be preventing the duplication, only saying they won't
>> take the job. As far as I can see, they have no legal or moral
obligation
>> to take your job. They do however, have a moral obligation to abide by
>> their standards.
>>
>> To label this as censorship attaches a legal stance to their refusal. To
go
>> against their company's standards/policies would destroy their integrity
>> and may have negative repercussions on their business. I certainly hope
>> they do not succumb to threats. In a country where there is little moral
>> conscience from the White house down, I applaud them for maintaining
their
>> integrity.
>>
>> It is their choice to refuse your job, not censorship. You have other
>> legal choices to get the film duplicated, which may not be as convenient,
>> but certainly are available.
>> Dennis L. Welker
>> Faculty Services Coordinator
>> Brigham Young University
>> Media Services
>> 251 Fletcher Building
>> Provo, Utah 84606
>> Ph: (801) 378-6781
>> Fax: (801) 378-5265
>> E-mail: dennis_welker@byu.edu
>
>
>
>