Thursday, April 17, 2008

Wizard People, Dear Reader

First, a brief introduction to what you are about to see, because if you haven't heard of "Wizard People, Dear Reader," you will probably not have a damn clue what's going on.

This is the creation of Brad Neely, who you may also know from his work on Superdeluxe.com (he created the Professor Brothers and Baby Cakes shorts), and helped write three episodes of South Park last season (The List, Imaginationland Part II, and Le Petit Tourette, if that means anything to you). The clip that basically follows is the first chapter of his work, which is a redubbing of the first Harry Potter movie. In a voice that is oddly reminiscent of both Peter Lorre and Clint Eastwood, he re-narrates the entire movie in the style of a drunk beat poet. Let's watch.



Now for discussion.

This project, of course, has caused controversy. Warner Brothers considers it a copyright violation, but supporters of "Wizard People" believe that it's a work in and of itself, and is, in fact, a new form of art. I can see both sides of the fence here, but I would much rather see it as art, especially as a postmodern work, because it takes something that already exists, that isn't even that old or dated, and reworks it for a different kind of audience. But this is subjective, so, as Kathy Acker called her own work plagiarism, but others disagreed, you can decide for yourself: illegal or art? Or illegal art, as it is on a website with that name. Perhaps even you'd consider this little more than crude parody.

A lot of people are saying that this is a new art form, but if it is, that means it should theoretically work with other movies, but it seems that choices are limited, because the form is really only relevant to the audience if the audience is already at least semi familiar with the movie they're seeing. Would this work with a movie like Lord of the Rings? What about with something lesser known, or as widely liked, or even a movie that nobody knows, like a Bollywood film? Does the film have to be serious for the result to be funny?

No comments: