My presentation on Chavez went very well. The next topic I plan to tackle is Israel/Palestine. I have downloaded two documentaries. One is peace propaganda and the promised land, and the other is occupation 101. Occupation 101 has more information in it(about in the corruption in the Palestinian Authority, the expulsions of 1948 etc.) but peace propaganda and the promised land, is in my opinion, a far superior documentary. Which should I use?
I have a problem
Wed, 2009-02-25 14:04
#1
I have a problem
Wed, 2009-02-25 15:14
#2
remind
Do a blending edit of both.
Wed, 2009-02-25 16:31
#3
Maysie
CMOT, I would ask you to consider what is it you want to say and which one most closely matches your POV?
remind's idea is a good one too, capturing the most relevant pieces of both that you want to highlight. Were you going to show one of them in its entirety? How long are they? What is the total length of your presentation?
Wed, 2009-02-25 17:06
#4
I haven't figured out the length of my presentation, it's only at the beginning stages.
Peace propaganda and the promised land is 79 minutes long, and occupation 101 is 88 minutes long.
However, the guy whose burning the DVD could only fit one on his USB key. So, I chose peace propaganda and the promised land. I'll talk about the Nahkba after the film. Is there a documentary out there about the collaboration of the Palestinian Authority and the Nahkba?
-------------------------
Takes more than combat gear to make a man Takes more than license for a gun Confront your enemies, avoid them when you can A gentleman will walk but never run -Sting, an englishman in new york
Wed, 2009-02-25 20:28
#5
I suport airing only one of both, the one you consider the best. It is not very respectful of authors - indeed, it's probably illegal - to do a slice-and-blend of their works when you screen them in public... and the opposition might accuse you of offering a biased view through editing choices.
Thu, 2009-02-26 09:00
#6
Maysie
Ack, I hadn't thought of that, martin, very good point on the public screening and editing idea.
The other option is a shorter segment from one of them, unedited by you.
Those sound very long as presentations, btw, especially if there's going to be discussion after. Think of your audience!
Thu, 2009-02-26 10:06
#7
I agree that Peace, Propoganda, and the Promised Land is the stronger documentary, and would suggest that you go with that over Occupation 101.
Thu, 2009-02-26 10:20
#8
It is not very respectful of the authors to burn rather than purchase their documentaries. The funds would be going to a good cause.
Thu, 2009-02-26 17:51
#9
Do you know that the downloading was done without the authors' consent, Ghislaine? Many activists distribute their products in this manner.
Wed, 2009-03-25 12:53
#10
Alright, my presentation is coming up, which is a good thing, but what do I do if someone asks me what they can do to end the occupation? I mean, what anti-occupation groups exist in Canada?
-------------------------
Takes more than combat gear to make a man Takes more than license for a gun Confront your enemies, avoid them when you can A gentleman will walk but never run -Sting, an englishman in new york
Wed, 2009-03-25 13:35
#11
Maysie
SAIA (Students Against Israeli Apartheid) are in a few campuses across the country. See if they're in universities in your province/region. Check out UBC and SFU for sure. Once you find some groups, it will lead you to more.
Wed, 2009-03-25 14:35
#12
Timebandit
I suport airing only one of both, the one you consider the best. It is not very respectful of authors - indeed, it's probably illegal - to do a slice-and-blend of their works when you screen them in public... and the opposition might accuse you of offering a biased view through editing choices.
I'm a documentary filmmaker, so you're talking about something very close to home for me.
Unless you have express permission from the copyright holder, doing a "blending edit" is indeed illegal. It violates copyright law. You can show excerpts, of course - provided you have public performance rights and/or express permission from the copyright holder. I suggest you get it in writing that spells out your intentions, just to be on the safe side.
A note on public performance rights -- they cost more than home video, and it's our bread and butter. Ripping a DVD and then using it for your own purposes is stealing the filmmaker's livelihood.
Beyond being disrespectful, if someone takes content I own and then juxtaposes it with someone else's, he changes the meaning - in other words, misrepresents the message I, as a filmmaker, constructed. He is also using visual media that I either shot or had to pay someone else for the right to use. I also have to get permission in the form of releases to use peoples' images etc. FOR THE PURPOSE OF MY SPECIFIC PROJECT. Add content, and it is no longer that project or that specific purpose and the people whose images are being shown have the right to sue both me and the alterer of my work.
I would not take kindly to anyone manipulating my work, and if I thought it was especially egregious or presented to a large group I might even consider suing.
Think about it: If you had two essays by two different writers, would you combine the two into one essay? Motion picture is no different.