Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 31st Jan 2011 15:32 UTC
Multimedia, AV Francis Ford Coppola is one of the most prestigious and critically acclaimed directors in cinematographic history. He directed, among others, the Godfather trilogy and Apocalypse Now, and has won so many awards it's hard to keep track. In an interview with 99%, he touched on the subject of art and making money, and his musings are fascinating, and yet another indication that the times are changing in the content industry. "Who says artists have to make money?" Coppola wonders.
Thread beginning with comment 460362
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Article is grossly misleading
by jack_perry on Mon 31st Jan 2011 18:35 UTC
jack_perry
Member since:
2005-07-06

While you might think Coppola made most of his fortune through his filmography, you'd be wrong. He finances his film career through his wine business, which is running quite well.

Thom, the lesson you are taking from the interview may be the lesson Coppola wishes to impart, but I'm not sure that's what Coppola means, and if it is he's being at best disingenuous, at worst hypocritical.

Coppola started his wine business after he became rich through filmography. The wine business allows him to be independent now, but he wasn't in the beginning. According to Wikipedia, for example, the chronology is as follows:
He purchased the [vineyard] in 1975 using proceeds from the first movie in the Godfather Trilogy. His winery produced its first vintage in 1977 with the help of his father, wife and children stomping the grapes barefoot.

(emphasis added) And God alone knows how many people buy his wine because it has his name on it.

Does anyone else remember a time when journalists did research that extended beyond quoting celebrities who say what they want to hear?

Anyone at all?

Edited 2011-01-31 18:36 UTC

Reply Score: 6

Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Uh, I think you need a reading comprehension class. There is nothing wrong with the quoted sentence.

Reply Parent Score: 2

cfgr Member since:
2009-07-18

It's still spin and bad research on your part. He finances his film career through his wine business, which he managed to start with the money from his first movie. So no money from the first movie means no wine business which means no (personal) funding for his other movies.

Not that I disagree with most of what's being stated here, but a fair discussion is only possible when the whole truth is known.

About copyright itself, I think the current term is way too long indeed. On the other hand, everyone can claim public domain content as his own and freely commit plagiarism without attributing any credits to the actual authors. So rather than putting everything in public domain after 7 years, it may be a better idea to put everything after 7 years in a BSD-like domain (i.e. proper attribution is still required but you can do whatever you want with it) for perhaps another 50 years and then finally become public domain.

This should make everyone happy except Big Content perhaps, which is fine by me.

Edited 2011-01-31 20:49 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

jack_perry Member since:
2005-07-06

No, Thom. You're either spinning it, or you're being as disingenuous as he is. Coppola would not have been able to finance his later films using his winery, if he had not first gotten rich off the current scheme.

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I think you need to take a lesson in deductive reasoning.

What the previous poster pointed out pretty much invalidates whatever Coppola says ... since he basically made his money, so he could invest his time in a more sustainable source of income.

So if Coppola made no money from the Godfather, he wouldn't be able to afford the vineyard ... and thus not be in a position to make those statements.

Thus it puts into doubt the validality of those statements.

Seems pretty obvious to me.

Reply Parent Score: 2