for desecrating classics, may I point out that "Carmen" has been made as "Carmen Jones," a jazz version. "Romeo and Juliet" has been made as "West Side Story." We never worry about classics in the public domain. I don't know how many versions there are of the Bible, but nobody is getting excited about them. But new versions are constantly issued. So bills such as H.R. 2400, in my opinion, are based on the faulty premise that directors and screenwriter participants are the sole creative forces. The American motion picture is a fusion of producers, directors, screenwriters, special effects, actors, cinematographers, musicians, composers, lyricists, animators, and many others. David O. Selznick, who provided Margaret Mitchell's "Gone With the Wind," had it adapted by perhaps 14 screenwriters, and engaged as many as four directors. They were all involved in the creation of the film version of "Gone With the Wind." Is it a classic? I think we all agree it will rank as a classic. Whose is going to make a decision about further alterations in "Gone With the Wind." A film that Mr. Zanuck and I made, Jaws, would not have the same impact without the music of John Williams, his thumping "Jaws" theme. Robert Redford, was the prime force behind the filming of "All The President's Men." It was Mr. Redford who bought the book, who thought it could make a movie. He then hired a director named Alan Pakula. He hired William Goldman, and later Alvin Sargeant, to write the screenplay. Is Mr. Redford mentioned anywhere as an auteur? Not at all. So I think it is presumptious for the directors and writers to ask Congress to accord them special status because they claim to have a monopoly on the creativity that goes into making a movie. I wish it were so. It would make our life a lot easier. Sometimes the Writers Guild of America, to whom we give the responsibility of allotting screen credit for writers, have to have boards and arbitrators to decide who did what, and sometimes it is someone who wrote only 15 percent of the screenplay who receives credit. Alterations occur in a theater where a projection machine is badly lighted. A lazy projectionist who doesn't make the change alters the showing of a film. The television screen was never designed to show movies. We have an Italian actor speaking for Robert Redford or Paul Newman when the film is exhibited in Italy. That is an alteration, but a necessary one. It proves that a movie is not sculpture or poetry. I believe that the issues addressed by H.R. 2400 are better left for resolution in the marketplace. I think producers and directors and screenwriters have dealt with these types of issues for years without Congress jumping in. They are doing so now. We presently have a strike, but we can't go to Big Daddy. In negotiations, directors and screenwriters are represented by powerful unions. The Directors Guild of America agreement specifies the director's participation in creative phases of film-making. This is the result of long negotiations. Some individual directors have obtained the right to a final cut. Legislative action on these issues, are not appropriate. I love movies. Most of the people I know who are in the movie business as producers, directors, writers and entrepreneurs are movie buffs. They love them. The idea that everybody is going to take "Gone With the Wind" and present it in nude form is nonsense. All businessmen are not bad. All artists are not good. The Guild agreements represent only the minimum protections afforded directors and screenwriters. So I think Congress should let the marketplace do what it must do and does do and does so well and so cruelly at times. I will conclude with a comment about the Mrazek proposal. I don't think anyone in the motion picture and television industry would welcome a Federal Film Commission. I don't think anyone in our creative community, screenwriter, director or producer, would want the Federal Government to set up an agency to make creative decisions, even if they were represented on that agency. I am aghast that producers and screenwriters are calling for the creation of a permanent federally funded commission to make decisions that could have a profound effect on our creative efforts. Our industry has prospered. It is one of our main sources of foreign income. We have grown over the years because we have been able to operate in a free marketplace. We petition the Congress, respectfully, not to alter that fundamental fact. Thank you. Mr. KASTENMEIER. Thank you, Mr. Brown. [The statement of Mr. Brown follows:] MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. 1600 EYE STREET, NORTHWEST (202) 293-1966 June 21, 1988 Summary of Testimony of David Brown The Motion Picture Association of America, the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers, and Mr. Brown's own production company, The Manhattan Project Ltd., oppose legislation such as H.R. 2400, "The Film Integrity Act of 1987," that would impose so-called "moral rights" on the American motion picture and television program production industry. We oppose federal "moral rights" legislation because: 1. Bills such as H.R. 2400 are based on the faulty premise that directors and screenwriters are the sole creative forces behind a film. Thus these proposals ignore the fundamental fact that filmmaking is a collaborative effort by a variety of creative artisans. It 2. Under these proposals Congress, would grant directors and screenwriters enormous power to decide what the viewing public may or may not see see in their homes and in theaters. would be a gross error to confer such authority on screenwriters and directors or anyone else. Such decisions are better left to the free marketplace. 3. Producers, directors, and screenwriters have dealt with these types of issues for years in guild and individual negotiations without Congress jumping in and taking sides. Congress should let these issues continue to be resolved through negotiation, not legislation. 4. Enactment of a federal "moral rights" statute would hamper the ability of the film industry to respond to consumer demand for new diverse programming, by giving non-copyright owners broad power to veto alterations deemed essential by the copyright owner for successful marketing. Ultimately, this would undermine a key goal of the Copyright Act: to promote public access to creative works. 5. Technological innovations that permit copyright owners to adapt motion pictures to changing markets -- from colorization to panning-and-scanning to time compression and time expansion tend to enhance public access to copyrighted works. 90-655 0 - 89 - 5 STATEMENT OF DAVID BROWN ON BEHALF OF THE MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA, INC. THE ALLIANCE OF MOTION PICTURE AND TELEVISION PRODUCERS AND THE MANHATTAN PROJECT LTD. ON H.R. 2400 "THE FILM INTEGRITY ACT OF 1987" BEFORE THE HOUSE JUDICIARY SUBCOMMITTEE ON COURTS, CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE June 21, 1988 Mr. Chairman, my name is David Brown. I am head of The Manhattan Project Ltd., an independent producer of films and TV programs that is associated with Tri-Star Pictures. 1/ I appear here today on behalf of my own company, as well as the members of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA)} and the Alliance of Motion Picture and Television Producers (AMPTP). I welcome the opportunity to share with this Subcommittee our views on so-called "moral rights" legislation pending before this Subcommittee, H.R. 2400, "The Film Integrity Act of 1987." Mr. Chairman, I bring to this Subcommittee years of experience as a producer of motion pictures. I've spent much of my professional life in the motion picture business. I served as Executive Vice President of both Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation and Warner Bros., supervising all aspects of production on a worldwide basis. In 1972 Richard Zanuck and I formed an independent production company, the Zanuck/Brown Co. Earlier this year I established my own production company, The Manhattan Project Ltd. 1/ The members of MPAA are: Columbia Pictures Entertainment; MGM/UA Communications Co.; Orion Pictures Corporation; Paramount Pictures Corporation; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation; Universal City Studios Inc.; The Walt Disney Company; and Warner Bros. Inc. 2/ The AMPTP represents a variety of producers of TV programs and motion pictures, such as: Aaron Spelling Productions; The Burbank Studios; Columbia Pictures Entertainment; Embassy Television, Inc.; Four Star International; Inc. Hanna-Barbera Productions; Lorimar-Telepictures; MGM/UA Communications Co.; MTM Enterprises; Orion Television, Inc.; Paramount Pictures Corp.; Ray Stark Productions; Stephen J. Cannell Productions; Sunrise Productions, Inc; Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.; Universal City Studios, Inc.; Viacom Productions, Inc.; Walt Disney Pictures Inc.; Warner Bros. Inc.; and Witt/Thomas/Harris Productions. |