Free digital camera!

If you want a free digital camera, just follow these easy steps:

  • Go to Cinema Guzzo in Greenfield Park.
  • Watch for someone who goes into the cinema, then goes back to his car for a minute, and then returns to the cinema.
  • Break into the car and steal the camera that he put there because he’s not allowed to take it into the screening room.

I would have been one of your victims on Friday night, except Martine and I opted instead to refund our tickets and leave. We had gone to see “Knocked Up,” only vaguely aware of the silliness brewing around Bill C-59, the “anti-camcording” bill. As a result of the bill (which has not yet been debated or passed), the cinemas are in a frenzy over the issue of “camcording” movies.

A bit of background: the media has been reporting that a lot of pirated movies seem to be coming out of Canada. Specifically, pirated moves of the “camcording” variety. That means pirate copies that were made by someone filming the movie screen with a video camera.

The cinemas are supposedly outraged over the practice, as they feel these crappy pirated versions keeps people from plunking down $12 to see the movie in a cinema. Cinema Guzzo in Greenfield park (and possibly other cinemas too, but Guzzo is the only one where I personally witnessed this), now have a security guard checking people’s bags for cameras. The guard is on the other side of the box office, with no warning signs outside. So you only find out about the bag checking after you’ve paid for your ticket.

They nailed me. I had a still camera in my bag (not a video camera). The guard gave me the option of putting my camera into a big cardboard box along with a bunch of other captured ones, or of going out to the parking lot and leaving it in the car.


First, there is no way I’m putting my $600 Lumix DMC-LX2 into a box with no access control on it. It wasn’t even like a coat check – no chits or numbered tickets. Just toss it in the box and take your chances. (Oh, by the way, that’s another way to get a free digital camera and you don’t even have to break anything. Just go see a movie at Cinema Guzzo and on your way out walk over to the guy with the box and say “I’d like my camera back now” and grab one.)

Second, there is no way I am going to walk out to my car in front of all those people – people who are aware of the new camera policy – to pay a 15 second visit and then turn around and go back to the cinema. I might as well just pull out a bullhorn and yell THE CAMERA IS IN THE GLOVE COMPARTMENT!

If you think I’m being paranoid, I’ll remind you that there are plenty of people who make a living by hanging around parking lots waiting to spot people who park their cars, deposit something in the trunk, and then walk away. I’m not making this up, call your local police department and ask.

There are lots of things going on here, so let’s pause for a breath:

  • Parliament is about to pass a very stupid law based on flawed information from bone-headed lobbyists.
  • The cinemas are over-reacting to the issue, and acting as if cameras were firearms or something.

What really burns me about all of this is how over-blown the problem is. I can understand why the industry is upset over people distributing unauthorized copies of DVDs, because those are direct digital transfers with no loss of quality. They’re indistinguishable from the originals.

But what does a “camcorded” version of a movie look like? I’ve never seen one, but I’ll bet the image is shaky and blurry, and it’s probably twisted into a trapezoid because of the angle of the camera. The edges of the frame are probably clipped off, or there are large black borders because the camera isn’t zoomed enough. No doubt the sound is terrible.

So then the question becomes “who watches such a video?”

I can imagine it playing in a run-down cafe in some tropical jungle village, or at some beach bar in South-East Asia that’s full of Eurotrash pot heads. But no one who actually enjoys going to the cinema would bother with such a thing.

In other words, the “market” for camcorded movies is likely very small, and limited to people who wouldn’t spend $12 on a movie ticket anyway. So in fact there is no loss to the cinemas or the movie industry. It’s like screening a pirated movie to a wall of trees or a field full of sheep. It has no bearing on the box office.

Cinema Guzzo likely did not prevent anyone from camcording “Knocked Up” last Friday night, because it is unlikely anyone would have camcorded it anyway. Or if they had, the only people who would have watched the pirated version are people who wouldn’t have paid in the first place. But their ill-conceived “security” check cost them at least two tickets that night (mine and Martine’s). Cinema Guzzo is just shooting itself in the foot.

If the cinemas really want to prevent the loss of box office sales, I suggest the following game plan:

  • Stop charging $4 for a 79-cent bottle of water.
  • Stop charging enormous prices for popcorn and other “food” items.
  • Stop treating customers as if they were crime suspects.
  • Stop subjecting customers to 20 minutes of advertising and previews before the show starts.

Love means . . .

About a million years ago (OK, 1970), a movie came out starring Ryan O’Neal and Ali MacGraw called “Love Story.” It was based on a novel of the same name by Erich Segal, who also penned the screenplay. The movie was hugely successful, and has since been given the “number nine” position on the American Film Institute’s list of the 100 greatest love stories of all time. (Number one is “Casablanca.”)

I’ve never seen the movie. First of all, I wasn’t even born when it came out (OK, I was 10, but the first 30 years of my life don’t count – long story.) Secondly, as a kid I was against anything that was popular. The more popular, the more I hated it (to this day I’ve never seen an episode of “Starsky & Hutch” and I would have to leave the house when my Dad insisted on watching “The Dukes of Hazard” on our old two-channel Zenith television).

More importantly, my refusal to see the movie has been a protest against its ridiculous tagline; “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”

What the heck does that mean? I’ve spend the last thirty seven years trying to figure that out and I still haven’t the faintest idea. I was quite happy to discover recently that Martine feels the same way (although in her case it didn’t keep her from seeing the movie). It’s not just me! It confuses other people too!

That expression makes no sense at all. I love Martine very much, but I’m apologizing to her all the time (“sorry for overcooking the broccoli again,” “sorry for snoring in your ear half the night,” “sorry about that thing with the goat,” etc.) Does my endless stream of little apologies mean that we’re not in love?

Perhaps I’m missing something. Maybe the answer is obvious but I’m too thick to get it. Therefore I’m recruiting you, the readers of the blork blog, to weigh in with your opinions. Please participate in this exclusive blork blog survey between now and Thursday, March 8, and register your opinion. (It’s quick – just three multiple choice questions and you don’t even have to tell me who you are.) I’ll report results on Friday.

Come on, you know you want to . . .  Go to blork’s “WTF does ‘Love means never having to say you’re sorry’ mean?” survey.