|
HOMAGE OR PLAGIARISM? :: 05/18/06 Quentin Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs is one of my favorite movies. As such, I was a little disappointed when I discovered that the plot, much of the dialogue, and many of the shots were an exact rip-off of an Asian film called City on Fire. After my indignation wore off, however, it got me pondering an interesting question: in any art form, when does something borrowed cross the line between influence or homage and direct plagiarism? A good example some questionable content is the work of many "Pop Artists," such as Andy Warhol or Roy Lichtenstein. The most famous pieces by both of these artists didn't use original images - Lichtenstein made copies of comic book panels that were very large, while Andy Warhol often just used repetitions or distortions of images (such as the soup can) that he didn't come up with. Most people would agree that they had a message very different than that of the original creation, and in this context, their borrowing is actually creating a fully original work. Pop artists rarely credited their source images, instead working on the assumption that the culture referenced was "popular" enough to be recognized without credit. Let us look, too, at the world of music. In rap music, for example, it is common practice to "sample" a clip from a different song to use either as the beat or as a flourish. This may seem like a harmless gesture, but the clips are rarely, if ever, credited, and they often form the artistic basis of the song (as they are usually the only "musical" element). Most people hearing, say, a Tupac song for the first time would assume that he made his beats, unless otherwise credited, even though many of the beats for his most famous songs were taken from old funk and soul pieces that have since drifted into obscurity. In this context, it seems to me that this is, in fact, plagiarism - the passing off of another's work as your own. This brings us to film. Let's look, in particular, at Reservoir Dogs. Naming the characters after colors is not from City on Fire, but from an American film called The Taking of Pelham 1, 2, 3. This element, I believe, falls under "homage." It is a re-use of an old idea, yes, but is not essential to the base of the creation. Additionally, to someone Quentin's age, that reference would likely not seem lost to obscurity. The plot, however, is another story. When one sees a movie that includes the "written by" credits with no "story by" credits, one assumes that the writer invented the story. In this case, he did not invent the story, which is a very significant part of the film, and offers no credit where it's due. If The Magnificent Seven had not credited Seven Samurai, it woud have been considered a complete theft, and Reservoir Dogs should be held to the same standards. For my personal view, it boils down to this. If something is unquestionably assumed to be original work unless otherwise credited, it must be credited, or the product is plagarism. If it isn't absolutely assumed that something is an original idea, an artist can generally get away with not citing the source and calling it "homage" or "influence," unless that idea is so essential to the work that the work could not exist without it, it should credit the source at a minimum for providing inspiration. Now, if only I'd follow my own rules... |