The Yes Men

I really enjoyed the documentary, though it did drag in places. The subject matter was good, but as a film it lingered for too long on certain topics or scenes that neither informed the audience nor moved the narrative ahead. Like the rest of the class, I was surprised that the group was able to carry out some of these presentations without legal repercussions. There seemed to be no doubt that they were claiming to be representatives of the WTO and speaking on behalf of the organization. I would certainly think that this would be illegal in some way, as it is slanderous at the least. I felt that what the men were doing was a waste of energy, as the WTO was founded to promote business, and is not primarily a humanitarian organization. Localized aid in business growth to developing countries would be more beneficial in my view than basing global trade policy on the vulnerabilities or weakness of a few. It is easy to say that the WTO cares only about globalization of markets- this is like saying that the NRA only cares about the right to bear arms and is unconcerned with how they are used- well duh. If you really wanted to do something about it, start your own opposing organization. And I'm sure I'm the only one who thinks this, but if we are able to recycle water, why were all those people up in arms about the recycled food? If it was proven to be sanitary and healthy, I would have no problem with this. But more to the point, this exageration is is not even a parody of any specific WTO program or policy, but simply an emotionally charged topic that addresses no real issue. But I digress, as I have just noticed that the topic is how this relates to project five. The Yes Men present their agenda through the guise of their opposition, making a more memorable and powerful message. In film, we can do the same thing by re-arranging media to present a new message. This essentially allows us to speak through anyone or anything we wish to add new layers of meaning that would not be present had we simply filmed ourselves speaking on a topic.

Moltov Man

The idea of ownership is fundamental to the operation of any market, for why create if you are unable to reap the benefits of your own work? Although it is true that ownership of any creation, whether tangible or not, is the cornerstone of art and business, there is also the gray area of re-contextualization and the use of common themes. In the Little Mermaid video we watched in class, for instance, the use of the image was very obviously taken from a different source to be used in parody. I do think, though, that is films such as this are distributed for profit, there is a real problem. Whether or not the use of the mermaid in the example was an obvious re-contextualization, Disney spent both time and money creating the image that is used, even if it is only a single frame. So although I did enjoy the film, I completely understand Disney's perspective and right to protect their intellectual property.
What is funny to me is the ways that companies can blatantly steal the storyline of a film. In any Blockbuster you go to, you will see such quality films as "Snakes on a Train" or "King of the Lost World", a blatant theft of King Kong. If anything, I think that we need stricter laws for situations like these, which seem to somehow slip through the cracks of the current system. Of course, there will always be recurrent themes throughout the canon of fictional works, but this is very different than an obvious attempt to capitalize on a popular item/work of art by creating a near clone.

Okay, so this finally worked. It took a few attempts and quite some time, but here we go: