DVD-CCA vs. Pavlovich deals with the juristiction of internet publications and accountability for content. Pavlovich was an open source devleoper who founded LiVid (Linux Video Project). They're goal was the provide DVD playabck support for Linux computers. Part of the project involved using the DeCSS algorithm which Pavlovich made available online. In his testimony, he says that he knew that there was questionable legality of using and spreading the code when he originally came across the algorithm, but he did it anyway.

Howver, the opinion of the court written by Justice Brown finds that Pavlovich cannot be forced to stand trial in California for the publishing of DeCSS on his web site. Pavlovich is not a California resident, performs no business in California, and was not actively encouraging California residents to use his algorithm to harm Californinan businesses. Brown determined that he cannot be held responsible for any negative economic impacts on California businesses that his posting caused.

The outcome of this case is important when considering the Dmitry Skylarov situation. Skylarov was detained for months for breaking a law of a country which he was not a citizen of, nor was he present in at the time he allegedly violated the DMCA. Not too long after, the courts are ruling that the liability can be restricted by state lines.

Another interesting aspect to this case is the dissenting opinion by Justice Baxter, particularly his wording. He critizies Pavlovich's "network of 'open source' associates'" in their efforts "to undermine and defeat the very purposes of hte licensed CSS encryption." Baxter tries to connect open source and piracy, a misconception that many people have. This association hurts legitimate developers and their efforts.

Baxter's opinions also details the inherent incompatabilities with the open source movement and closed DRM.  An open source project could never be licensed by the DVD-CCA because the stipulations would never allow certain parts of the code to be revealed.  He also compilcates the decision by discussing the fact that the whole point of the the DMCA to restrict playback ability.  Whatever their motivations were, they were making use of a technology that the DVD-CCA should have full control of and was developed through illegal means under US law.  Baxter determines that, jurisdiction issues asside, the LiViD developers should be held responsible for their development with an illegal technology.

In Blizzard vs. BNETD, Blizzard used the DMCA to prevent open source projects from interoperating with its software. Blizzard software comes with the ability to play multiplayer games online through their Battle.net service. In order to combat piracy, Blizzard requires users of Battle.net to have valid CD keys and prevented people using the same CD Key from connecting simultaneously. A group of users enjoyed the game but disliked Battle.net due to people cheating in the games. They sought to create their own alternative, resulting in www.bnetd.org. This site gave users with Blizzard software to connect and play multiplayer games through their server. This open source project was posted on the web and other people used and modified to code for similar purposes.

In interpreting this case, the court claimed that BNETD was in violation of several provisions and was not protected by the reverse engineering for interoperability exemption. BNETD did not check to see if the user had a valid CD Key before allowing them to connect to the server. The court interpreted this as circumvention, as BNETD allowed users to experience online multiplayer games with illegal copies of Blizzard software.

This case determines that plug-ins could be held responsible for their functionality when applied to pirated software. Had the plug-in been designed to bypass CD Key checks and then connect to Battle.net, the decision would make more sense. However, BNETD wrote the program to connect to their own servers, and just didn't happen to check to for a valid software copy. Holding plug-in writers accountable for license checking is a dangerous precedent. Open source developers won't want to write a plug-in if they can be sued for the misuse of their product in combination with pirated software. The right to author extensions to software and market them has been around for years before the DMCA and now has been compromised by the misuse of its provisions.

Brad Templeton summarizes the impacts of the DMCA focusing primarily on Dmitry Skylarov's case from the point of view of an eBook publisher. Dmitry Sklyarov is a Russian graduate student who made some discoveries about inadequacies of Adobe Digital Rights Management for eBooks and published a paper on it. The paper caught the eye of two groups, one a Russian software company ElcomSoft, and the other, the DEF CON electronic security conference. ElcomSoft paid Dmitry to demonstrate these weaknesses by creating a program which ElcomSoft then marketed around the world (including the United States). DEF CON honored Dmitry's work by inviting him to speak at their conference. While he was speaking at the conference, Adobe filed a complaint with the federal government about the software ElcomSoft and politely pointed out where one of the developers might be found. Mr. Skylarov was then incarcerated for weeks, and kept in the country for months before charges were dropped. Mr. Skylarov broke no law in the country in which he wrote the software but because the company whom he sold it to engaged in potentially questionable business in the United States, he was detained. Computer scientists and researchers who do work relating to Digital Rights Management and cryptography will be less likely to come to American under fear of similar treatment and prosecution, significantly hurting the research community.

Templeton's role as an eBook publisher is important as he has experience with eBooks and is financially hurt by eBook piracy, yet he still supports an open format. He's even apart of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which is strongly against DRM.  He discusses the failure of DRM and the benefits of open formats. Open formats are at a greater risk than closed but also see greater sales because of their increased utility. He also points out that as long as the DMCA prevents people from cracking poorly designed locks, there is less of an incentive to design better, more secure locks, stifling developments in security research. Templeton concludes that scapegoating weak DRM on a foreign visiting scholar only hurts the interests of the consumer, the research community, and the copyright holders whom the lock is designed to protect.

The Wireless Alliance and Robert Pinkerton request a DMCA exemption for modifying mobile phone firmware. Their case specifically pertains to counteract the practice of cell phone locking. It is often that the only way to get a phone service carrier by purchasing a bundle with a special phone that is tied to that particular service. When switching to a new service, consumers forced into buying new (often unnecessary phones). The Wireless Alliance and Mr. Pinkerton argue that modifying cell phone software does not create unauthorized copies of the original work. It is possible that in the eyes of the law, the modified firmware might be viewed as a derivative work. However, copyright law permits users to modify purchased software (a category under which firmware falls). The Copyright office recently granted the Wireless Alliance and Robert Pinkerton the exemption.

The exemption for modifying firmware to legally join cell phone networks and carry out legal activity is one of the few cases where the decision was not in favor of the large business. One of Mr. Pinkerton's main complaints was that as he traveled often internationally due to business, it was difficult for him to find a carrier that met all his needs. He found a carrier he liked internationally and a carrier he liked locally, and wanted to modify his phone so he could connect to a different carrier while in a foreign country. The obvious extension is that DVDs with region codes would prevent someone traveling from playing a DVD in a foreign country's regioned player, and an exemption should be provided for DVDs legally purchased in a foreign country. However, the real heart of the case is not Mr. Pinkerton's travel, but needing two different services depending on the context of his work. Licensed applications for Windows and Mac OSX are common and are often embedded into the operating system directly. However, the Open Source nature of Linux distributions makes players for DRM protected media scarce and built-in functionality often impossible. If someone's business practices makes Linux a necessity, they should be permitted to modify their operating system to properly play protected media. The courts and the copyright office previously found that not being able to play content is a mere inconvenience to a consumer. This case demonstrates that the government has more sympathy for business practices hindered by the DMCA. Approaching future exemptions and cases from this angle might be the best way to counter the DMCA.

DVD-CCA vs. Bunner brings up the issue of posting DeCSS several years after its original posting. The DVD-CCA at the time of the original ruling in 1999 sent out cease and decist letters forcing web sites to remove any mention or discussion of the algorithm and codes from their web sites. The courts granted injunctions against any sites that posted the algorithm as they were revealing the DVD-CCA's trade secret as well as violating the trafficking provision of the DMCA. However, the court determined that even before the original injunction, the majority of the people who wanted to obtain access to the code got it. So many have access to the code that the court brings into question the protected status of the DeCSS algorithm, and the court determined that the DVD-CCA did not make a strong case to warrant an injunction against Bunner's web site.

The most important result of this case is that the DVD-CCA was unable to demonstrate any harm caused or potentially caused by DeCSS being posted by Bunner. The movie industry still profits massively from DVD sales in spite of the algorithm's release. If the courts determined that it being released out into the open will have little impact on the businesses protected by DeCSS, the original publishing was not as damaging as the DVD-CCA and the industry originally claimed.

Also, at this point any protection granted by using the DMCA to enforce trafficking restrictions on the encryption algorithm has been lost. Open source encryption algorithms have the benefit of being examined by experts to make them the most effective. All the DVD-CCA accomplishes by continuing to close the algorithm off to the community is losing the benefits of the scrutiny that open techniques get. This case is a strong example of what papers such as “DMCA Against the Darknet” propose: that DMCA is not an effective tool for countering piracy and that anti-piracy methods that depend solely on DRM are bound to fail.

Alan Cox states in the Felten case many of the speculated impacts of the DMCA and its enforcement. Cox is a Red Hat Linux (an open source operating system) developer residing in the United Kingdom. His statement includes a resignation letter to Usenix (a group that encourages foreign researchers to speak in the United States). In this letter, he tells all foreign software developers to avoid visiting and speaking at the United States until the “DMCA mess is resolved.”

This comes as a direct result of the Dmitry Sklyarov case. He fears that foreign researchers can be jailed for research in security and cryptology they performed in their own countries if it is viewed to be a DMCA violation in the United States. The DMCA prevents security experts from pointing out bad protection algorithms and only increases the profitability of the “businesses of the incompetent.” Without the ability of experts to point out and discuss bad algorithms, copyrighted material protected by these algorithms are exposed to hacking.

He further notes that the DMCA will not prevent people from discussing ways to break algorithms for illegal uses. His experience is that the “bad guys share their knowledge and act without regards to laws.” It's only the people aiming to increase the strength of computer security that will be silenced. The DMCA only helps pirates win in the end. Cox also claims that what the DMCA would prevent him from saying regarding inspecting computer security systems in the United States would be considered negligent in the United Kingdom.

From Cox's statement, the DMCA hurts the United States software development community in two main ways. It prevents international researchers from speaking, for fear of prosecution of their research or activities in other countries. It also means that the block of the DMCA will hinder US researchers from discussing decryption methods and our own security will be weakened when compared to the advances made by other countries who are able to have these discussions.

Edward Felten, head of the ACM's special interest group on DRM, petitioned the Library of Congress for an exemption in order to circumvent access control mechanisms for research purposes. Felten discusses how the evolution of technology is dependent on past improvements. By restricting researchers from experimenting with copy protection methods, improvement to techniques will be hindered. He demonstrates the negative impact by discussing the paper he wrote comparing different methods of breaking protection and what information is required to crack the protection, something the record companies tried to prevent from being released with the DMCA. Felton also claims that in the field, it is unclear in the early stages of research whether a possible DMCA violation will be incurred or not. Academics are unlikely to engage in research that could potentially lead to violations, hindering not only research directly related to DRM, but tangential applications as well.

The most important thing to come out of the exemption request is the context in which research is given. In describing the valuable research he participated it in before the DMCA was enacted, Felten notes that the SDMI sponsored his acclaimed research paper on breaking access control methods. The SDMI is a group of music distributors, and had something to gain from their studies, and now sought to prevent others from sharing in this knowledge. Clearly, by inhibiting research into access control, the technology of copyright protection and the lessons learned from the research falls solely in the hands of the gatekeepers, the record companies. Without the added input of the academic community, research in the field has been hindered and copyright holders have not been provided the best digital protection methods.

The best example of his hindered research is the Sony Rootkit debacle. He and an associate discovered the vulnerability but had to delay publication and hire a lawyer to make sure that they weren't exposing themselves to DMCA violation. Threats of DMCA violations prevent important studies and important information from reaching the consumer.

The courts' decision in “MPAA vs. 2600” prevented journals from writing articles about Digital Right Management that divulge methodology. After “DVD Jon's” deCSS program (which breaks the encryption on DVDs) began circulation, 2600 had an article in print and online which detailed the algorithm and decryption codes used in breaking the CSS encryption. The MPAA filed suit under the trafficking provision of the DMCA, claiming that 2600 was distributing a program which would contribute to breaking DVD encryption. 2600 claimed that this inhibits free speech. As a technical journal which specializes in computer encryption and decryption algorithms , it needed to be able to provide the details to its readers. The magazine complied with the injunction to remove the algorithm from their site but began to participate in what they referred to as “electronic civil disobedience” by encouraging others to post the algorithm and then provided links to these sites.

The court determined that both posting and linking were not protected by the first amendment. They determined that while there is a part of code which is speech, there is also a non-speech component which can be banned under the anti-circumvention clause. Exemptions are provided for reverse engineering and cryptography. However, these exemptions only extend to the cryptographers and the reverse engineers directly. Publishing their results is not considered an exemption. The consequence of this decision is that to prevent lawsuits, technical journals will likely avoid discussion of Digital Rights Management. For example, discovery of important security flaws would not be published because it might hint as to how to break the encryption. Understanding the flaws of the current generation however is essential to enhancing security for in the future. Development of future security methods have continued to be crippled by the DMCA, due to the limited scope of the exemptions.

John Gilmore looks at the effect the lack of open standards has hurt the digital author not associated with major studios. He discusses several examples, such as Apple's iDVD and Sony's MiniDisc format. He is legally unable to copy his brother's wedding using the MiniDisc format, even though he holds the copyright because it assumes that he's trying to pirate content. With iDVD, he comments on Apple's marketing, which states that “the major consumer applications for recordable DVD will be home movie editing and storage and digital photo storage” and not potential fair-uses like time-shifting digital content. He further points out Apple is not offering authors the ability to encrypt their own copyrighted films and materials. If copy protection is so essential to protecting the copyright holders intellectual property, why isn't readily available to all copyright holders?

Where copy protection goes wrong is that it takes away rights from the new digital author and monopolizes the protections of them for only a select few. Competing open DRM formats have begun to emerge to fill this gap. However, a young filmmaker needs to ensure that his video is as compatible as possible. He now has the choice between protecting his work but preventing it from being played on DVD players that don't support the new open formats (most of them), or exposing his work to piracy.

Gilmore's arguments shows a strong legitimate need for an open source developers to develop applications that might be in violation of the DMCA. An open source application might expose certain algorithms and codes, and even development of a closed source application would likely require breaking encryption at some point in the product's development.  The courts and the copyright office generally use the phrase “mere inconvenience” and wave their hands at demonstrated harm to consumers not being able to access their digital content.  However, requiring young authors to get picked up by a major licensed company in order to receive protection can hardly be so easily ignored.  The best solution to lowering the barrier of entry for copyright protection is through an open source DRM standard that either is adopted by major players or at least cocurrently supported with their proprietary technologies.

The consequences of the the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have hindered developments in computing by putting unnecessary blocks on academic researchers, journalists, and especially open source software developers. However, the limits on developing and trafficking code that circumvents copy protection has harmed copyright holders on the whole more than it has helped. In order to ensure strong and fair protection for copyright holders, an open standard Digital Rights Management solution should be developed and adopted.

Sun's DreaM White Paper outlines the current flaws with current DRM standards and their proposed solution, a marriage of the open source philosophy and Digital Rights Management.  They also outline the potential for the future of DRM outside of media content protection.  Sun's paper explains the flaws of the proprietary based systems currently in place.  By tying up content with proprietary DRM protection, the same content must be purchased whenever a different device is chosen.  A standardized format would ensure cross-platform capability, much in the same way that the CSS allows for flexibility across different licensed DVD players.

Current proprietary systems attempt “security through obscurity.”  The algorithms are often weak and prone to cracking, and simply hopes that no one will figure out the keys.  Opening the format has the benefits of criticism.  Everyone will be allowed to debate the merits and the strengths of the systems, as well as offer suggested improvements, ensuring that the open DRM will be the strongest.

It also suggests that an open standard can expand the market for DRM.  While the market was generated by media content providers, Sun envisions that the needs of businesses and health care will far outweigh the media companies.  Securely protecting business documents and health records is a need that DRM will logically be extended too.

The modularity of the architecture allows for adaptability with future technologies and compatability across multiple formats.  While this system has its skeptics in groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation, it has received some backhanded complements from scholars like Lawrence Lessig, stating that if you have to DRM, you want Sun's version.

Sun's DReaM architecture is a strong example of how opinion source development can be used to help copyright holders and consumers by encouraging technological development.

In Leitch’s discussion of what he calls fallacies in cinema adaptation theory, he invokes Hitchcock’s name under fallacy number nine, “Source material is more original then the adaptation.” Leitch centers his argument around the idea of auterism. Directors like Kubrick frequently adapted his films from pre-existing source material, yet is concerned to be a very original director. The early films from the Golden Age of Disney can all be linked together whether they are direct adaptation or original stories. All of William Shakespeare’s plays were essentially adaptations of pre-existing stories. He later points out that any work, adaptation or not draws from existing material, usually without even knowing it.

Leitch uses Hitchcock as an example of a director who manages to be an auteur with only rarely using original screenplays, noting in a footnote that Lifeboat as an unpublished novelette is up for debate as an adaptation. Despite having strayed so far from the source material that was not even published, under Leitch’s guidelines, Lifeboat still can qualify as being an adaptation. He disregards the notion that fidelity to source material (in spirit and specifics) and the idea that film adaptations are a way of connecting with the source material as ways of judging an adaptation.

Many criticize the differences without acknowledging the similarities. There’s value in noting that although the character’s names, motivations, behavior, and actions change, certain things did stay the same. Each character comes from the same background and represents the same aspect of society as in the final story. Hitchcock took away the competence away from many of the main characters, the sailors and the self-made man, whom Steinbeck idealized. Some plot elements were retained, though their context changed. Lifeboat is an interesting study for adaptation theory as it breaks with many of the false truths Leitch criticizes in his paper.

The Dark Side of the Genius lends insight into Hitchcock during the early days of production of Lifeboat. David O. Selznick had worked out a two-picture deal with 20^th Century-Fox for Hitchcock to direct Lifeboat and The Keys of the Kingdom. The second film was never made, as Hitchcock delayed starting the productions in a hope to receive more money. In the wake of the political fallout of Lifeboat, it’s unlikely that Fox would have wanted to shell out extra money for such an initially poorly received film.

While Fox pushed screenwriters to script Lifeboat, Hitchcock sought after novelists. Before Steinbeck, Hitchcock tried to convince Ernest Hemingway to take the project. Hemingway declined. Lifeboat is known as a picture Hitchcock saw as one of his cinematic challenges, putting him under the constraints of a single set and compositions of mainly close-up and medium shots. However, it seems as if he was also enamored with the idea of working with the additional constraint of creative input from an artist as well-respected and a name as well known as his.

With two deaths in Hitchcock’s family around the time of the production of Lifeboat, the theme of sudden loss and tragedy seems like a likely inspiration for the film to focus on the aftermath of a steady ship being thrown into turmoil. The impact of the deaths in Hitchcock’s own new concern towards mortality can be seen in the rapid weight loss regiment he undertook before Lifeboat’s production. The aftermath of this can be seen in the Reduco newspaper add in which he appears in the before and after picture, slimming down one-hundred pounds.

The book features an anecdote about lead Tallulah Bankhead’s exhibitionist behavior on the set of Lifeboat. As magazines sought to do features on the film, reporters and the studio higher-ups were not nearly as pleased as the male crew members about Bankhead’s behavior, with one reporter commenting about the rumors of indecent behavior in Hollywood being true. This taken in the context of the era of the PCA shows the careful attention the public paid to not only film content but their production environment and stars’ off-screen “performances.”

In The Art of Alfred Hitchcock, Spoto discusses many of the motifs found in Hithcock’s films. Water is frequently used to symbolize create turmoil, seen in Lifeboat with the stormy uncertain waters. Water also is the impetus for the survivors to rise up against the deceptive Nazi who had hidden his secret supply from the others, even killing to keep it a secret.

Jewelry is also a common Hitchcockian theme. It frequently represents false value. Connie equates her bracelet with good luck, saying that she will never take it off for fear of what would happen. The survivors are only saved, ironically, with her removal of the bracelet and its eventual loss. Hithcock also equates the bracelet with power. Connie is never able to fasten the clasp. Initially, she turns to Kopac for help, but eventually, the Nazi Willie is the only one who can fix her bracelet.

Hitchcock also suggests that transit sparks romance. The Nurse and the Radio officer slowly develop a relationship with him eventually proposing. Sexual tension also exists between Connie and Kopec. The trip also forces Gus to think only about his Rosie back in New Jersey, frequently questioning if he will ever see her again.

Spoto also suggests that the items that pass through the water in the opening represent the film’s main themes: The New Yorker symbolizes a society troubled in its foundation; the chess board symbolizes intellect useless in solving their situation; playing cards represent excessive leisure which allow Willie to successfully cement control over the ship.

While many criticize Lifeboat for its portrayal of Willie as an Aryan superman, Spotto suggests that people would be more offended by his humanity. His singing of German anthems and appreciation of music gives him a quality no one wanted to associate with Nazis. (This humanity is intentional as Walter Slezak who played Willie claimed his character was given curls in an effort to look more innocent.) Conversely, the “rabid pack of dogs” that were the other survivors prove unappealing at the end when they finally organize as one. Americans could only view a Nazi not as human or superhuman but as inhuman.

Truffaut introduces his compilation of a series of interview with Hitchcock with an anecdote in which he silences a critic of Rear Window who claimed he couldn't see Rear Window's flaws because he was not from New York City. Truffaut responded by saying "Rear Window is not about Greenwich Village, it is a film about cinema, and I do know cinema."

This anecdote applies to Lifeboat and author Steinbeck's dislike of the final material. He criticized the fallacy of things like one man rowing the whole lifeboat, failing to acknowledge the cinematic and symbolic implications this has for Willy's percieved control over the other suvivors.

In the interview, Hitchcock says Lifeboat was an effort to test his theory that psycological films contained mostly close-ups or two/three-shots. He saught to find an environment that would force a director to shoot mostly those shots.  This close-up style was later adopted by television, mainly due to the smaller screen size and not the psycological implications.

Hitchcock also here discusses his version of the allegory. He confrims that it is soley about the war (contradicting statements made by the producer). Kovac represented the communist way of dealing with the Nazis. He was the most vocal opponent to the captain, much in the same way early American Anti-Nazi Leagues had strong communist ties. Rittenhouse symbolized the Facist who is eager to give up control of the ship in a tumultous time to a dictator, much in the same way certain parts of society were, including the wealthy, eager to keep the status quo, and saw a dictator Roosevelt as their best hope.

Prior to writing the novellete that would become the basis for Lifeboat, John Steinbeck wrote The Moon is Down, his first novel about the war.  Like Lifeboat, it is a heavily allegorical story that, although unrealistic to a modern audience, was well reviewed and liked by the World War II-era American public who "wanted not art but propaganda."

 

Lifeboat partially originated as a project that the Merchant Marines asked Hollywood to produce in order to create public awareness of the threat U-boats presented its ships.  Steinbeck's original version of the story was much truer to the Marines wishes, and much less of an allegory than the final film ended up being.  While the characters were meant to represent a microcosm of American society, the element of a disorganized Democracy set against the strong-wlled Nazi was not present.  In contrast, the self-made man shows the leadership qualities that must have been used to amass his fortunes, not the facistman who finds it so easily to give up power.  Also, the Nazi is a weak individual who after only one act of deception is killed.  The focus of the book is not the Nazi's ascension to control but of what life as a Merchant Marine and the experience of being shelled and stranded is like.

 

After Steinbeck completed his work on the project, three additional drafts were done, and by the end the story only vaguely represented the original.  MacKinlay Kantor's draft was thrown out early on by Hitchcock, though he is credited with increasing the allegory's prominence in the story.  One of Frank Capra's collaborators Jo Swerling stripped away a lot of the realism of the characters and provided the "Capra-corn" melodramatic elements.  Hitchcock, the master of details, rewrote the final draft shortly before shooting to "give it narrative form."

 

After seeing his original vision transformed so much, Steinbeck eventually wrote and asked to have his name taken off of the film, claiming that he wanted no part in something that so clearly "damaged the war effort."  Most of all, as revealed in a personal letter, it seems as if Steinbeck hated the transformation of the working class characters from ones with dignity to stereotypes, criticizing Hithcock's "middle-class" sensibilities.

 

In the midst of Hollywood's war time effort, incorporating pro-American propaganda into its films, it's somewhat ironic to see the process converting a film with origins in propaganda transformed by the process into what many reviewers of the time considered to be anti-American.

Stilgoe discusses the reaction the public had to Lifeboat, and their perception of what the experience might be like.  Many critics were hung up on the political implications or the technical achievements or follies of the film.  When they did comment on the experience, they complained of the unrealistic portrayal of some of the lifeboat hardships.  Life magazine specifically complained of things like the lack of “swollen lips” and questioned how clean they were able to stay after all the days at sea.  No one falls ill with the exception of Gus, the amputee, whose injury comes during the attack and death ultimately comes from treachery.  The public, however, believed the film’s version as being true to life, which shows cinema’s role in the “skew[ing] of twentieth-century understanding.”

 

One thing Lifeboat got factually correct was the lifeboat’s size.  It could easily hold the survivors, supplies, and Connie’s luggage with plenty of spare space.  With this in mind, following the war, many decided to buy cheap lifeboats from shipyards and converted them into yachts.  They saw in the film a boat that was bigger, stronger, cheaper, and in greater supply than a traditional lot that could be easily obtained.

 

Another thing Lifeboat accurately portrays is many of the mental challenges that one faces at seas, the most common theme being rule of law.  In dealing with the German, the survivors struggle with the question of how to deal with him.  With no governing body or procedure, they often quarrel about the legality of throwing him overboard.  Faith and the rule of God is the only constant seen in the film, with the steward Joe being the only character to not get sucked into the mob at the end.  Lifeboat also successfully deals with issues arising from mental strain at seas.  Gus dying of thirst succumbs to the temptation of drinking the sea water, something that debilitates his already dire situation.  Two passengers attempt suicide, Gus out of physical pain and the mother out of survivor’s guilt.  Lifeboat is a strong example of a film’s role in shaping its audiences perception of realistic events.

By 1941, Hitchcock was considered by pop culture to be in the same league as Frank Capra and Orson Welles as being a recognizable personality as well as filmmaker.  Hitchcock had begun to receive some autonomy on his films of this periods from studios like RKO (who also afforded the same courtesy to Welles).  However, while Welles’s autonomy came contractually, Hitchcock’s came from people’s dislike of confrontation with the standoffish director.  With RKO unsatisfied with the progress of one of his projects, they began to seek more direct involvement.  Hitchock responded by leaving the studio after the projects completion, with David O. Selznick helping him work out a deal with 20^th Century Fox.

 

Unused to and unaccepting of studio interference, Hitchcock’s brief stint at 20^th Century Fox saw Hitchcock having to deal with studio head Zanuck over many of the elements of production.  Zanuck’s biggest issue with Hitchcock was his slow production pace.  It took twenty weeks for a script for Lifeboat to be produced.  A short production schedule was imposed on Hitchcock which was ignored.  Zanuck constantly sent letters complaining of the inefficiency of Hitchcock’s shooting scenes in sequential order and wanted cuts to be made to keep the project under budget, with Hitchcock frequently never responding.  Hitchcock disliked the even stronger studio interference then in his earlier projects, and Zanuck disliked Hitchcock’s disregard for the budget.  With Hitchcock’s value to the studio questionable, a second film for Fox was not produced (as originally intended).

 

Leff also notes that although Hitchcock sought after Steinbeck, he still hesitated working with The Grapes of Wrath author.  Familiar with Steinbeck’s work, Hitchcock was afraid of the “political baggage” that would be brought to the film that was meant to be a technical challenge above all.  Ironically, Steinbeck’s original work was far less politically controversial then Hitchcock’s eventual film.  Even in interviews after filming, Hitchcock denies any reading of the film other then a political one.  Leff states this as being the film’s chief weakness.  Instead of focusing on the development of real characters, Hitchcock is more concerned with the allegory of political ideal and ideals colliding.

After critical reaction to the flim Lifeboat complained of the weak portrayal of Americans in comparison with the superman Nazi, producer Kenneth Macgowan wrote this article about the intent behind the film. Macgowan tries and provide explanations for several of the issues that critics had with the film. He claims the reason the German is the only one who can row the boat because he's the only one with water and food tablets, avoiding the fact that no one man should be able to paddle that lifeboat, no matter how strong he is.

Interestingly, in the article Macgowan includes Steinbeck's name in the list of primary creators of the allegory that was being so strongly criticized because at the time, Steinbeck was seeking to have his name removed from the film.

Macgowan credits Hitchcock with the idea of shooting a film in a lifeboat, and saying that first and foremost, this was a gimmick film. It was Hitchcock's idea of a challenge to shoot the first ever film with only one set. For this reason, Macgowan claims that the allegory was never intended, and they stumbled upon it by accident, throughout the creative process. Steinbeck is the only one for whom this is definetly true as his early manuscript proves. However, a few paragraphs earlier, Macgowan was crediting Steinbeck, a man only involved only very early on in the process, with having an allegorical intent that was supposedly developed later on.

Macgowan's contradictions are best summed up in his final paragraph when he essentially says (paraphrasing), "You misinterpreted our intent.  Oh, and if you still disagree, we didn't have any intent to begin with."

In the same issue of The New York Times as the Macgowan letter in defense of Lifeboat, Bosley Crowther responds with a strong critique of Macgowan and the film.

Crowther's article is a strong reflection of the American view of films during the height of censorship. His article is not one of strongly synthesized arguments about why Lifeboat is bad for the war effort. Instead he frequently employs the use of rhetorical questions, asking questions like "What's going on out there[Hollywood]?" as if any film whose portrayal of America's strength is questionable is an outrage in itself and needs no further explanation.

One of Crowther's criticisms that does not feature a question mark is that of all the abilities given to the German. He is the only one with the mental, physical, and emotional ability to amputize Gus's leg, navigate the ship through the storm, and row it towards its destination. He credits all of his abilities as being well-explained, but critizes Hitchcock (and unfairly Steinbeck) for giving them to him in the first place.  His argument can be summarized as no matter how well you explain Superman's ability to fly, his super strength, or his heat vision, they still make him look like Superman.

He closes his critique claiming that anything that casts doubt on America is inherently bad to morale and for our image overseas, giving credence to the idea of film as Will Hays's silient salesman.  Censorship in the 1940s is often attributed only to organizations like the PCA and OWI. However, the critical reaction to Lifeboat shows that if they weren't strictly enforcing unquestionable pro-American ideals in film that their would be outcry from other outlets.

Bosley Crowther uses Lifeboat as a case study in the issues he sees with the current state of the film industry.  He questions why the screenwriter never receives the attention and the acclaim that the playwright does.  With control firmly rooted in the hands of the producer and the director, a screenwriter may find his name attached to a project that is significantly altered from his original vision.  Early criticism of Lifeboat came on the shoulders of both Hitchcock and Steinbeck.  Steinbeck was a well known name, but for his novels not for his work in the film industry.  Subsequently, his name was used to market the film even though he had no control and input on the final print.  The lack of control is a situation that many Hollywood screenwriters could find themselves in.

 

Crowther’s analysis and comparison of Steinbeck’s original treatment of Lifeboat and the final script reveals the specifics of the changes Steinbeck that drove Steinbeck to seek the removal of his name from the film.  Steinbeck’s tale was even more character and less plot driven then Hitchcock’s final film.  The largest change is the democracies foe was not the Nazi but the ocean.  The Nazi attempted take over was little more than a subplot which was handled after only one act of deception by the other survivors.

 

Crowther accuses Hitchcock and producer Macgowan of “preempting” Steinbeck’s “creative authority.”  However, he acknowledges that under the current system the director and the producer have every right to change, for better or worse, a screenwriter’s original intent and characters.  He places blame too not only the founders of the system, but the writers who do not do anything to change it.  Crowther does not seek a system in which the producer has no control, as without his financing the film would not be made.  He seeks for a more balanced industry in which the financial and creative input are on a more balanced footing.