 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2021 - 12:37 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Morricone
(Member)
|
My two cents. Artists have destroyed their own work for ages and it always was their own prerogative.
Kafka, Brahms, Monet, Nabokov, Michelangelo, etc. all had trepidations about what they put out there. Even Kubrick tried to find every print of FEAR AND DESIRE and destroy it. But I have been happy every time they failed to do so. This project came from an impulse by Carrie and Jerry to say something while he was here, however cajoled by Lukas. This impulse should stand even if it might wait until we are gone to be published.
As an aside I vaguely recalled from the couple of chapters that got out what might be offensive. One I do recall was Jerry saying that "Elmer Bernstein always tried to be famous by promoting himself whenever he could" or some such remark. Well, having done an Elmer concert recently I learned that Elmer was blacklisted. Instead of leaving town or the country, as many did, he kept a conversation going with anyone he could. This networking led to a conversation with Cecil B. Demille, who was key in creating the blacklist, which led to the THE TEN COMMANDMENTS which was the end of his blacklisting. So this is a "walk a mile in my shoes" moment for Jerry who thought going to a Hollywood party was anathema but Elmer saw it as a tool to survive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lukas was right not to destroy the materials. They are priceless and it's easy to see how Carrie could have destroyed or lost them. If they were freely given to Lukas without an agreement, I can't think of a real legal basis to demand he destroy them as long as he doesn't ever re-copy them. Goldsmith's remembrances of his career not recorded elsewhere are like a vault of silent films sitting in a vulnerable warehouse.
As to the underlying "revelations," the Goldsmiths were (and are) humans... not so shocking.
I met Goldsmith after his concert in Toledo in early 95 (I think) and he politely signed my Rudy CD despite me being an obvious teenage geek loser who would go backstage to find Jerry Goldsmith. His personality is widely discussed in liner notes and revealed on videos, like all that raw "River Wild" footage on YouTube. Seems like he was funny, gruff, sometimes condescending... but he earned it!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2021 - 12:53 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
.
(Member)
|
The Judge Judy Verdict (we join the case already in progress):
Judge Judy: No, no, look at me Mr Kendall... not up there... eyes front!
Lukas Kendall: Yes Judge Judy. But what would you do if...
JJ: Quiet! I ask the questions! Now... I've read the complaint and in it you say "My rationalization was that I had done all this on a volunteer basis, pro bono, with no agreement. I promised never to share the material—a promise I have kept, after, of course, the one time I broke it".
Is that correct?
LK: Yes, and I also...
JJ: Sshhh! The answer is "Yes". So you agreed to work pro bono on a project and had no agreement in place relating to any kind of partnership or permission for you to keep or use or share the material once your involvement in the project was over. Correct?
LK: Well...
JJ: That's a yes or a no!
LK: I promised not to release the material and...
JJ: Sshhhhhh! They don't keep me here because I look good, they keep me here because I'm smart... and I'm smart enough to know when the evidence walks like a duck and sound like a duck, it usually is a duck. Get it?
LK: Yes Judge Judy.
JJ: Good. So I'll ask again... you agreed to no payment and had no agreement of any kind giving you permission to keep the material indefinitely or dictate its distribution. Correct?
LK: But I had no agreement to give it back either.
JJ: Ah, but you promised never to share the material. You promised not to share it with anyone, ever. So you acknowledged the material was confidential. And yet you DID share that material with a third party. And, most importantly, you took upon yourself the right to allow or not allow distribution of the material. By declaring you would choose not to distribute the manuscript, and then by actually distributing the manuscript, you took upon yourself that decision-making process over material that was not yours. In other words, you assumed control without authority to do so.
LK: Well, I only...
JJ: Wait! I'm talking! You shared the material...
Carrie Goldsmith: Judge Judy, I'd like to say...
JJ: Stop! Does it look like you are losing this case Ms. Goldsmith?
CG: No Your Honor.
JJ: Then please stay quiet. Interrupt again and I will ask Byrd here to escort you out and I will rule in favor of the defendant.
CG: Yes Your Honor.
JJ: Now... Mr Kendall... Let us say you have recorded audio material for a book and a friendly typist approaches you and kindly says she will type the manuscript for you, "pro bono". Do you think the typist then has the right to possess a copy of the manuscript for herself and to then announce that henceforth she will be the person to decide who shall or shall not be shown your material?
LK: But judge... I wouldn't...
JJ: That's it. Judgment for the plaintiff in the amount of $5000, the maximum the show can award.
LK: But Judge Judy...
CG: Thank you Judge Judy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi, I can take the criticism, though I can't say I'm enjoying it.
Please do not resurrect that rant I wrote ages ago about Ford. It was something he and I patched up and it's hurtful to both of us to have it dragged forward again.
Lukas
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread should be locked. Nothing good is going to come from it being open. People are waking up from their naps in Never Never Land and getting online to see who can be reported the most.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This thread should be locked.
Sheesh, is there anything worse than people who want a thread locked? If you don't like it, just don't read it. Simple as that.
Post, expanded edition: (read below for reasons why)
Edited post:
This thread should be locked. Nothing good is going to come from it being open. People are waking up from their naps in Never Never Land and getting online to see who can be reported the most.
Sheesh, is there anything worse than people who want a thread locked? If you don't like it, just don't read it. Simple as that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You tossed out the rest of what I said and therefore changed what I had said. What's even worse is selective quoting to make one's point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yeah, it's a shit show alright.
That's where the juice is. The rest is filibuster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You tossed out the rest of what I said and therefore changed what I had said. What's even worse is selective quoting to make one's point.
I tossed out the rest because it wasn't relevant to my response.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 31, 2021 - 2:14 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tevose
(Member)
|
I see Lukas has now deleted the incredibly crude Ford Thaxton rant he wrote years ago (posted here by another member), and that’s quite alright by me as it was indeed a hurtful and childish piece of work. Thankfully, Lukas has the ability to rid himself of the past with the utilization of a delete button. This is a luxury that the Goldsmith family doesn’t have, unfortunately, when reading about their “alcoholic, divorced” father and husband yet another time by someone who has confessed to doing wrong toward them.
But this is one of the points I believe many people here have been trying to convey to you, Lukas. The blog post was in poor taste and was likely to throw salt into old wounds. You just, a moment ago, had to realize yourself how that feels, and it’s a shame the same courtesy isn’t offered to others, especially if it is you’re as apologetic as you claim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You tossed out the rest of what I said and therefore changed what I had said. What's even worse is selective quoting to make one's point.
I tossed out the rest because it wasn't relevant to my response.
Removing what I meant then removes the relevance. Your post was made intentionally erroneous by your own admittance. Awful. But hey, you can get a job at NBC with that kind of approach.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removing what I meant then removes the relevance. Your post was made intentionally erroneous by your own admittance. Awful. But hey, you can get a job at NBC with that kind of approach.
What was erroneous about my post and where did I admit to such? Would it make you feel better if I edited my post to include your full post? Because, honestly, if it would, I would.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You didn't understand any of my post.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
