“Under certain circumstances, profanity provides a relief denied even to prayer.”
Mark Twain
Quote of the Week: More on Declining Quality of… Everything
A conversation between two young women overheard by The Frustrated CFO:
Young Woman #1: "Oh, those wreaths are beautiful! Have you had them for a long time?"
Young Woman #2: "When I was growing up we went to the Renaissance Faire several times. Every time we went, I bought one."
Young Woman #1: "Well, how do you know, which one is from which Faire?"
Young Woman #2: "By the quality. The older the wreath, the better it's made."
P.S. to Unpunishable Plagiarism
A few readers expressed strong disapproval of my recent post Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism. Not of the subject matter per se – they agree that gorging on other people’s creativity—whether in business, science, or arts—is despicable and the law that doesn’t protect it is fucked up. But they were upset with the examples I’ve chosen to illustrate the idea-snatching in pop-culture.
Instead of picking on absorption of mythology, folklore, and literary inheritance in the beloved Harry Potter—they say—or making vague allegations about the possible origins of Hannah Horvath, why didn’t you talk about the simultaneous releases of Pixar‘s A Bug’s Life and DreamWorks‘ Antz (both in 1998), or of a superior Chris Nolan’s The Prestige and subpar Neil Burger’s The Illusionist (both 2006)?
The answer is simple: as peculiar and suspicious concurrent developments of very similar ideas by different production companies are, it is practically impossible to uncover the back stories behind these incidents, or make even vague attempts to point a finger at the alleged perpetrators. So, I wrote about the instances that seemed somewhat obvious and transparent to me. Otherwise, the post would consist of nothing more than just one anecdote from my own professional life and a non-descriptive list of dubious cultural references. Maybe it would be more sanitary, but also boring.
Let’s take, for example, The Prestige/The Illusionist case. What can we dig up? Well, both screenplays were based on legitimate and independent literary sources.
The first one is an adaptation of a novel with the same title written by an English novelist and science fiction writer Christopher Priest and published by Gollancz in 1995. Priest is a well-known and highly respected writer: the themes of his A Dream of Wessex, for example, were used as a framework for David Cronenberg’s fantastic eXistenZ. The year The Prestige hit the book stores, it was nominated for four sci-fi and fantasy awards and won two of them. While the movie differs from the book (the latter being darker and more complex) all the main ingredients and the plot turns were taken from the novel: the characters’ names and descriptions, Priest’s fictional practice of stage illusions (the setup, the performance, and the prestige), the nature of the competing teleportation uber-acts, and even the guest appearance of Nicola Tesla.
Various sources indicate that several Hollywood producers had approached Priest for an adaptation of the novel and it was Valerie Dean of Newmarket Films (they also produced Memento), who told Chris Nolan about the novel in 2000. After he read it, Newmarket Films purchased the option. I can see how adapting a novel constructed as shifts between entries of two diaries could be very difficult, especially considering that the work on Insomnia had already began. Yet, the Nolan brothers had it finished in 2003 and were ready to start filming, but it wasn’t meant to be: Batman Begins production got escalated and The Prestige was postponed. The pre-production didn’t start until October 2005 and the film was released by Touchstone exactly one year later.
The Illusionist is based on an even earlier short story by Pulitzer Prize winner Steven Millhauser Eisenheim the Illusionist – it was a part of his 1990 collection The Barnum Museum. The Hollywood mythology has it that, even though Neil Burger’s debut Interview with the Assassin was a terrible flop, its producers desperately wanted to work with the said writer/director again. In 2002 they asked Neil what would he like to do next and he said, “There is this short story I always wanted to adapt…” I’m guessing it took a couple of years before the idea could be sold and budgeted (unlike Chris Nolan, Neil Burger had no other projects on his hands), and the movie didn’t go into production until early 2005. It was released 10 months ahead of The Prestige.
Thus, on the surface all facts point to the accidental concurrency of these two movies. However, who the fuck knows how the little impulses that churn the Hollywood machine work? You see, as soon as any creative property is optioned, the fact becomes a matter of public knowledge. Ok, let me amend that: I don’t really think that the “general public” is following that kind of information. But if you are in the trade or have some sort of a vested interest in filmmaking, you can and must know all tinseltown’s moves.
I mean, Variety, the oldest American entertainment-trade magazine, had been founded in 1905 (!). Since then, its been reporting on every single production and celebrity move imaginable. The Hollywood Reporter joined the action in 1930. Nowadays, you can have paid subscriptions to both publications online. However, the Internet access to filmmaking trade news is dominated by DoneDeal Pro ($24 a year), which delivers basically a live feed of every option, screenplay purchase, new project announcement, talent attachment, etc.; and IMdB Pro ($125 a year) with its remarkable search capabilities allowing you to see what every producer has “in-production” and “in-development.” And I know for a fact that all production companies and studios have staffers and interns, whose job is to deliver the digests of all these daily news to their bosses.
So, it is easy to imagine that the knowledge of The Prestige waiting its turn since 2000 could’ve been a pressure point in The Illusionist pitch: “Look, we can beat their timing with our own movie about a magician…” Is this a qualified example of the unpunishable plagiarism? I really don’t know. You decide for yourself.
Some readers also said that my post, by making a case that “everyone steals,” might give unsavory elements a carte blanche for encroaching on others’ creativity. Well, first of all, I hope I was explicit enough in stating my position on the issue. Secondly, I honestly don’t think that my two cents have the power to change the situation in either direction. And finally, I am not Huffington fucking Post – I don’t have that kind of exposure!
Of course, I cannot just end this post without letting the movie critic in me to use this opportunity to make the following comment. If somebody referred Christopher Nolan to Eisenheim the Illusionist, he wouldn’t care for it. It’s a story of the “and I will do anything for love” kind, and this writer/director is not interested in that. Think about his movies (including Man of Steel, which he only co-produced) – they are all about a Man and His Mission, a Hero and His Obsession. Love, even if it’s present, is just a plot point; it is seated in the last row of the Nolan bus.
Related articles:
Warning: Unpunishable Plagiarism
Quote of the Week: Karl Pilkington’s Mathematics of Age
The Frustrated CFO’s Preface:
I never understood why people made such a big deal about their birthdays. If others think that your existence in this world worth celebrating and want to make the day you were born into a special occasion, let them do it. But for a person himself to be happy about the years sprinting away with exceeding acceleration? Absurd!
My father is 79 years old today and its scary for both of us. When I called this morning, I could hear it in his voice and I can only pray I was able to hide it well enough. Dad said, “That number, I cannot believe it.” And that reminded me:
“I think people would live a bit longer if they didn’t know how old they were. Age puts restrictions on things.”
Karl Pilkington
The Dangerous Business of Whistleblowing, or George Orwell’s Worst Nightmare
The global blockbuster thriller of our government's hunt for Edward Snowden (the man who informed us that Big Brother has secretly expanded its reach beyond our most pessimistic expectations) has pushed my mind into the territory I usually try to block out – the silent knowledge of wrongdoings, the discouragement of honesty, and the plight of whistleblowers.
Most people don't realize that the largest professional group exposed to secrets, transgressions, misdeeds, and abuses of power is us, the corporate accountants of different levels – from junior clerks to CFOs. We are on the front lines of dealing with numbers and money, which are the subjects (and the reasons) of most violations one encounters in business.
Daily we witness and, as our job descriptions demand, participate in the tweaking of performance numbers, breaches of contracts, violations of tax code, systematic bribing, manipulation of truths during negotiations, scheming, and what have you. Most of this mendacity, especially in the private sector, is not really that significant in its magnitude. And no matter how high on the corporate ladder, we are just employees attending to our jobs. Many of us cannot even do anything about it – not only because we need our paychecks, but also because we are legally bound to be liars and conspirators by means of non-disclosure agreements and implied fiduciary duties.
Some of our employers, however, are just 100% pure scum, constantly skirting the edges of real frauds. At first glance, they present appreciative and earnest facades: something is wrong with their business and they want to hire you to straighten it all out. Then, as soon as you make the first probing incision, such foul stink and puss comes out, you are stunned with disbelief: There is an appropriation of nearly $1 million that belongs to a major corporate client, the devaluation of a $28-million private equity investment, unpaid payroll taxes, and unreported taxable income. Eventually these criminals swindle you (i.e. me) personally out of a large chunk of money too.
Yes, I sincerely considered to report them to various regulatory agencies and injured parties as well as to sue them myself. First, I sought legal advice. The attorney was eager to proceed, but had enough decency in him to paint a realistic picture for me. "Look," he said, "they will sue you on all possible grounds. It will cost you at least $50-$60K in legal fees. They will pour buckets of dirt on you. Their lawyers will be ripping you apart at every deposition. You will have to live through this for at least 5 years and the outcome is unknown. But let's fucking do it!" With that in mind, I called one old-timer I know. Two decades ago, as a CFO of a public company, he sued his employer for fraud and lived through all the consequences of his actions, including a revocation of his CPA license and his wife's heart attack. His advise was laconic: "Don't do it!" So, I didn't do anything.
Then again, some frauds are terrifyingly large and affect a lot of people. Uncovering them has a potential of creating public scandals and attracting media attention to the whistleblowers. Both WorldCom and Enron were brought down by female career accountants: the first one by Cynthia Cooper, VP of Internal Audit, who first spent years building her resume at PricewaterhouseCoopers and Deloitte & Touche; the second by Sherron Watkins, VP of Corporate Development and Arthur Andersen alumnae. (The cynic in me cannot completely believe in the pure righteousness of these women. There could've been some sort of grudge they held against their employers, which were run predominantly by male execs.)
While both Cooper and Watkins shared their 15-minutes of fame and public applause as Time's "People of the Year 2002," their carefully crafted top-tier accounting careers were over. No large or mid-size company will hire an executive with a whistleblowing history. And accounting firms? That's the funny part: even though both women acted in accordance with the ethical code imposed on them by their CPA licenses, they rendered themselves practically unemployable in a public accounting sector. Both published books about their experiences (well, we've already discussed the rewards of such endeavors) and now give speeches in colleges and high schools.
Still, it could've been worse: if any corporate remnants of WorldCom and Enron have survived, I'm sure Cooper and Watkins would've been sued by their respective former employers on all kinds of legal grounds and ended up losing much more than their careers. And this is what makes the governments and their agencies the scariest targets of the whistleblowing: while their individual employees may be shuffled around and even removed, the institutions don't go anywhere; no matter what, they retain their power to harm.
Try scrolling through Wikipedia's List of Whistleblowers – it gives you a pretty good idea about bleak plights that befell the people who publicly unveiled secrets of their government employers (FBI, State Department, Department of Justice, Department of Defense, CIA, EPA, US Army). The stories are pretty gloomy: professional licenses challenged, people fired, discharged, accused, extradited, prosecuted, indicted, sentenced, found with two bullets in the head.
This is all public knowledge. Obviously, Edward Snowden was aware of these possibilities. Moreover, he was also prepared to fight against them. Whether he succeeds at protecting himself or not, the fact remains that he took the responsibility for disclosing to the Guardian and the Washington Post a certain set of classified information, including a secret court order forcing Verizon to yield clients' telephone records as well as the existence of PRISM – the program that allows National Security Agency's analysts to access servers at Microsoft, Google, Apple, and other Internet firms with the purpose of extracting customers' (yours and mine) audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and other materials.
Apparently, ever since the Snowden ordeal started, the sales of 1984 got a tremendous boost (it's presently #62 on Amazon's Bestsellers list and #8 among Fiction Classics). Well, good for George Orwell's estate. But, truth be told, even he couldn't cook up a plot this thick. At least the residents of Airstrip One knew that they were always watched; they were aware of what kind of behavior could result in repercussions. We, on the other hand, have been kept completely clueless.
It has always been a position of the Labor Department that there is no Right to Privacy in a workplace: whatever we say or write at work is opened to our employers. Now, thanks to Mr. Snowden, we have learned that everything we say or write in our own home became secretly opened to the government – our very own government, which, like a bad parent, thinks that it knows what's best for us. Perversely they believe that they "represent our interests," without even asking what we think about it, basically reducing us to the level of retarded children.
And it seems that we are just scratching the surface with Snowden's revelations. Check out the news of the police departments' unregulated photo scanners: Police License Plate Scanners.
According to the numerous Internet pundits, the Obama administration holds a record for prosecuting the largest number of whistleblowers. Obviously, this government is very sensitive about the secrecy of its operations: "the enemy cannot know." Does that include us, the US patriots? Is it OK for us to be treated as one with the enemy for the sake of the "larger good?"
Well, Machiavelli's famous maxim "The end justifies the means" was a favorite and much-repeated slogan of the Soviet mass murders Lenin and Stalin. But our founding father Benjamin Franklin said, "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
And here is what the Senior Director of International Law and Policy at Amnesty International had to say about the hunt for Edward Snowden: "No one should be charged under any law for disclosing information of human rights violations by the US government. Such disclosures are protected under the rights to information and freedom of expression."
YES, that's what we used to believe. Yet, this alarming news had an immediate impact on me: I thought REAL HARD before finally deciding to write this post.
The Frustrated CFO 