"We are involved in a business venture. We screened the film for you to bring you up to date as to the status of that venture. Do not misconstrue this as our soliciting the input of raging primitives."~ director Mel Brooks, explaining the fine points of artistic collaboration ...
9 comments:
I like the spirit of not giving too many fucks about the opinion of others. That’s what this statement implies, at least on the surface. We only have so many fucks to give, and we need to spend them wisely.
Yet I also sense there’s some element of Mel Brooks trying to make up for already giving too many fucks about his audience, whilst simultaneously trying to feel superior to them. If they are in fact “primitives”, why would he care about their opinions, even in a business sense? He wouldn’t be bothered to solicit their opinions in the first place. If he’s chosen to solicit their opinions it’s because he values them on some level. Doesn’t mean he needs to follow everything they request uncritically, but should mean he at least takes it on board and considers it without throwing insults back at them, and then decide if it has merit or not. If he truly didn’t give a fuck, he wouldn’t have felt the need to respond the way he did. He just would have either gratefully taken, or silently ignored their advice.
Brooks had a contractual obligation to show an early cut of his movie to the executives of the studio(s) who were funding and distributing it. (Just as the management of a company issues an annual report to their shareholders: the idea is to inform the shareholders what has been done with their money, not to invite them to meddle in the decisions.) Most film-makers have experience of how the money men often think they know better than the creatives.
But the movie executives were not his "audience". Brooks trusted his real audience to know better.
PaulVD - Understood. However I'd still suggest it's bad form to call the people who have chosen to invest in his film "raging primitives".
Not bad form if that is how they behave and if that is what they are. In that circumstance it would be a simple statement of fact.
Anonymous - If you're young, I hope you learn one day that if you want the focus to be on the facts, bringing terms like "raging primitives" into a discussion, to describe someone whose agreement or cooperation you need is counter-productive.
It encourages defensiveness on the part of your target, and makes it more likely the discussion will degrade into an emotional exchange. Every business dealing relies on a shared premise and common interest. If their feedback is wrong in terms of that common interest (say commercial success), there's clearer and more convincing ways to state this, by focusing on the facts of why it is wrong. Play the ball, not the man.
Even if it's objectively true, it's only focused on certain facts - the ones that I suspect triggered Mel's emotions, and he allowed his emotions to take primacy. He's likely disregarding the other facts that are likely to be more important - such as my observation above, and that calling them names will raise their antagonism, making his job of making the film harder and/or harder to find investors next time. If you want to end the relationship and this is intended as a parting 'fuck you' then fine, but otherwise probably not.
For full context, I should say that it was Brooks's producer who recounted tjis story, in his memoirs I think. Hinting it was said with some humour—as you'd expect.
Ok. It would be different if done with a smirk or glint in his eye (not out of anger) and he was humorously winding them up.
Ok. It would be different if done with a smirk or glint in his eye (not out of anger) and he was humorously winding them up.
MarkT
If certain people are behaving as raging primitives, then that is what they are. Saying so is a statement of fact. Pretending otherwise is evading reality.
Why would Mr Brooks agree to place himself in subservience to raging primitives in the first place? Mr Brooks did not do that. He didn't need to. His contractual arrangements were clear. He didn't need the approval of the primitives. They'd already agreed to front the money and he'd agreed to show them the film after it was prepared, ahead of release, presumably so they would be familiar with the product the money had been invested in. They'd agreed to leave him with the sole responsibility to make the film. So he controlled the content. He showed them the film as agreed and then headed any raging primitive nonsense off at the pass when they tried it on. Contracts and possession. He had his contract and he had possession of the masters.
Remember that a contract has three parts- offer, acceptance and consideration. Mr Brook's offer would have been that HE makes the movie HIS way with HIS content, they fund it and in return receive a portion of the revenues generated. They accepted that and paid the consideration, the money that Mr Brooks directed into his actions and activities up to and including the making of the film. So the contract was formed. End of story. They had no business even hinting that they might want him to change anything in the film, anything at all, anything whatsoever. They'd already accepted a contract which disallowed them to do that.
If you think that was tough you should read about Stanley Kubrick's contracts.
Regarding a smirk or glint in the eye. Humour often has at its base an uncomfortable truth. A humorous delivery may allow an uncomfortable message to be more palatable to the receiver while being easier for the source to dispense. That does not make such messages or fact any less true. It's like the old saying, "A spoon full of sugar makes the medicine go down." Works for children. Works for adults as well.
MarkT, when it comes to talking about playing the ball and not the man, you are a terrible hypocrite. You're exactly the last person who ought to bloviate about that! Read your last missive.
Post a Comment