From: Mary Jordan (email suppressed)
Date: Thu Jun 16 2005 - 10:19:41 PDT
Jerry,
Let me help you plug this memory hole--her name is Honorable Judge Eve
Preminger. She was not considering whether Flaming Creatures was public
domain. This isn't even her jurisdiction. The entire hearing was held ONLY
to give the Plaster Foundation a chance to explain why the Judge shouldn't
order the Plaster Foundation to return Jack's archive to its legal owner,
Jack's sister. We all know how this turned out--i think the hearing lasted
9 minutes! I'm writing this because people regularly confuse this issue
because of mis/disinformation like you wrote below. There was never a
question of ownership or the rightful possessor of Jack's archive through
the eyes of the Surrogate Court and no appeal was filed by Jim Hoberman or
Penny Arcade.
> Jerry Tartaglia <email suppressed>
> "I'm so glad you cleared that up. Judge what-her-name would certainly have
> cringed at any assertion that the work of Jack Smith is in the public
> domain."
I never said Jack's films are in the public domain. I said FC is public
domain. But I can take it a step further. Freya's research on US copyright
supports our own research. We researched this question substantially after
we learned that Jerry and the Plastered Foundation charged us to license
films that belonged to the public domain, including the following PUBLIC
DOMAIN Jack Smith films:
Flaming Creatures
Buzzards Over Baghdad
Overstimulated
Scotch Tape
Normal Love
> Jerry Tartaglia <email suppressed>
> Sorry to have been indirect. Let me state it in a different way. Mary;s
> comment is not correct. Jack Smith's films are not "in the public domain."
> Judge Preminger of the Surrogate's Court in N.Y, ruled that Jack's sister
> is the heir to his estate.
Great point Jerry! Why don't you call Jim Hoberman and Penny Arcade and
tell them they should hand over Jack's art to custody of his sister for safe
storage (per the Honorable Judge's ruling) instead of clutching onto it
whilst they negotiate (altruistically) for their big fat settlement to
compensate their many years of (altruistic) service to (promoting) Jack's
art????
> Jerry Tartaglia <email suppressed>
> My point then, is that once a judge has made a ruling, all parties must use
> that decision as the starting point. All the other whodeeha about "who said
> what to whom because she said that he didn't mean to say whatever" doesn't
> really figure into the argument.
>
I'm sorry to raise the decaying horse, but a pocket-lining gatekeepers can't
call me a liar without response. When I attempted to screen Jack Smith's
films at the Donnell Media Center in 2002, I was told by the DMC that I had
to obtain advance permission from Jerry Tartaglia and Jim Hoberman.
Jerry's grant of permission included me paying a fee to screen at the DMC,
which was supported by the DMC separately.
What are the ends you believe I'm trying to achieve here Jerry?
> Jerry Tartaglia <email suppressed>
> Remember
> when we had to read on Frameworks all about how the Donnell Media Center was
> charging people hundreds of dollars to view Jack Smith's films? That was a
> lie, deliberately told by a group of people who were trying to achieve their
> own ends.
Everyone on this list understands your interest in "reworking," demonstrated
by what one filmmaker referred to as your "butcher job" on NORMAL LOVE. I
suppose it's a matter of discussion, but from my point of view film
restorers and documentarians share a common obligation; getting to the
original intent and truth through their work. In the case of NORMAL LOVE, I
would have thought this would include taking input from Tony Conrad on the
music. From what I understand, Tony (who did music among other genius
contributions for FC) had many notes and tape logs and other input available
for NORMAL LOVE, but none of this was received or applied by you.
Is this correct?
> Jerry Tartaglia <email suppressed>
> By the way, I am very interested in your ideas about "reworking" the work of
> another artist.
One approach to help capture Jack's qualities I can suggest is to actually
talk to people who worked with him or knew him well. In the case of NO
PRESIDENT, you might have spoken to people who acted in the film or who saw
it when it screened. Two people I spoke to who acted in the film were upset
that your "preservation" included substantial changes to the film itself.
Jonas Mekas said of viewing it's original screening "....it was really the
only projection of that film that ever took place and it was quite
incredible and it's a pity that the film doesn't exist anymore."
Why don't you list some of the people you consulted during your "research"
on this project for the benefit of our FRAMEWORKS community? I myself am
very interested......
> As you know I went to great lengths to preserve Jack's films
> in a particular form, based on research, interviews, etc. - Ken ( Jacobs)
> pretty accurately described the films as the "detritus" of Jack's
> performances. How is it possible to preserve the ephemeral quality that
> only Jack could provide?
Mary Jordan
__________________________________________________________________
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.