Kitt Solo
Alen Na'Varro's Ex
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZbqAMEwtOE
The below is part of a NY Times article. "I" did not create the video.
[SIZE=10pt]In 2012, on my Facebook feed, I stumbled across a hilarious excerpt from alegal transcript. In a deposition in Ohio, a lawyer became embroiled in an absurd argument about the definition of a photocopier.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]D: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]PL: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The dialogue was so sharp, inane and fully realized that I assumed it was fiction. I traced the deposition back to the Ohio Supreme Court and downloaded hundreds of pages of legal documents from the case. To my pleasant surprise, it was as strange as it was true.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]In this short film, I sought to creatively reinterpret the original events. (I’ve not been able to locate any original video recordings, so I’m unsure how closely my actors’ appearance and delivery resembles the original participants.) My primary rule was the performance had to be verbatim -- no words could be modified or changed from the original legal transcripts. Nor did I internally edit the document to compress time. What you see is, word for word, an excerpt from what the record shows to have actually unfolded. However, I did give the actors creative range to craft their performances. As such, this is a hybrid of documentary and fiction. We’ve taken creative liberties in the staging and performance to imbue the material with our own perspectives.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The Case: Ohio Supreme Court Case 2010-2029[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]In 2010, the Cuyahoga County Recorder’s Office in Ohio changed their policy about copying records. Digital files would no longer be available, and the public would have to make hard copies of documents for $2 per page. This would prove to be prohibitively expensive for Data Trace Information Services and Property Insight, companies that collect hundreds of pages of this public information each week. They sued the Recorder’s Office for access to digital versions of the documents on a CD. In the middle of the case, a lawyer representing them questioned the IT administrator of the Recorder’s Office, which led to a 10-page argument over the semantics of photocopiers.[/SIZE]
The below is part of a NY Times article. "I" did not create the video.
[SIZE=10pt]In 2012, on my Facebook feed, I stumbled across a hilarious excerpt from alegal transcript. In a deposition in Ohio, a lawyer became embroiled in an absurd argument about the definition of a photocopier.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]D: When you say “photocopying machine,” what do you mean?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]PL: Let me be clear. The term “photocopying machine” is so ambiguous that you can’t picture in your mind what a photocopying machine is in an office setting?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The dialogue was so sharp, inane and fully realized that I assumed it was fiction. I traced the deposition back to the Ohio Supreme Court and downloaded hundreds of pages of legal documents from the case. To my pleasant surprise, it was as strange as it was true.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]In this short film, I sought to creatively reinterpret the original events. (I’ve not been able to locate any original video recordings, so I’m unsure how closely my actors’ appearance and delivery resembles the original participants.) My primary rule was the performance had to be verbatim -- no words could be modified or changed from the original legal transcripts. Nor did I internally edit the document to compress time. What you see is, word for word, an excerpt from what the record shows to have actually unfolded. However, I did give the actors creative range to craft their performances. As such, this is a hybrid of documentary and fiction. We’ve taken creative liberties in the staging and performance to imbue the material with our own perspectives.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]The Case: Ohio Supreme Court Case 2010-2029[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]In 2010, the Cuyahoga County Recorder’s Office in Ohio changed their policy about copying records. Digital files would no longer be available, and the public would have to make hard copies of documents for $2 per page. This would prove to be prohibitively expensive for Data Trace Information Services and Property Insight, companies that collect hundreds of pages of this public information each week. They sued the Recorder’s Office for access to digital versions of the documents on a CD. In the middle of the case, a lawyer representing them questioned the IT administrator of the Recorder’s Office, which led to a 10-page argument over the semantics of photocopiers.[/SIZE]
