"Originality is the art of concealing your source".....a quote which is used by alot of innovaters/artists etc etc...what do u guyz think about it?

1) This is the wrong section for this kind of topic.

2) People "borrow", "steal" and "plagarise" things all the time. Heck, Quentin Tarantino made a career out of it!

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

conceal >verb prevent from being seen or known.
-DERIVATIVES concealer >noun concealment >noun.
-ORIGIN Latin concelare, from celare 'hide'.

"HIDE" so how can it be origianl if no one can view it? "If a tree falls and no one hears it. bla bla bla" Same rules apply here. So this is still up in the air in my opinion. But a waste of time to talk about in another of my opinions, so why did I reply? Good question.

Besides filming, the only other thing I ever did good was filming.

What that meant was to be original, you must hide your influences, your inspirations, and anything else where you have taken a little technique from someone else. I think that saying is....stupid, because you can be original without ripping anyone off.

quote:

---

2) People "borrow", "steal" and "plagarise" things all the time. Heck, Quentin Tarantino made a career out of it!

---

4

Quentin Tarantino....like I've said millions of times before......takes the ideas from little known movies...the CONCEPTS if you will....and turns it around adding his own originality to them to make them something new and "original" A lot of directors just do the taking of ideas...but don't bother to add anything new or original.

My example...no offence to the filmmmaker.

The film "HEIST" on this website...the filmmmaker took the whole robbery gone wrong scenario....but he didn't add anything FRESH or original to it.

Then you look at a film like Reservoir Dogs...the robbery gone wrong....AGAIN. But Tarantino added so much wonderfull originality and brillant dialogue to it that it became "original"

That's my point.

TacoWagonProductions

"They look like psychos? Is that what they look like? They were Vampires. Psychos do not EXPLODE when sunlight hits them. I don't give a f*** how crazy they are!" - George Clooney in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'

Heh, I saw this and thought "Well, yeah, if you can make your backyard look like a tropical jungle, that's an art." But, I don't guess that's what he's talking about.

Eliott

quote:

---

Originally posted by hemant:
"Originality is the art of concealing your source".....a quote which is used by alot of innovaters/artists etc etc...what do u guyz think about it?

---

I've yet to hear this quote before, but lets break it down:

Lets think about this ending piece;

"...is the art of concealing your SOURCE"

If the story presented in your movie came from another SOURCE, then obviously, it contradicts the statement that your story is yours originally. In this day and age, almost all concieveable stories have been explored and exploited, and as you will find, almost all films are inspired by articles, life experiences, etc., which are UN-ORIGINAL SOURCES.

Thus, ORIGINALITY is finding a way to present one of life stories in a artistic manner which is itself ORIGINAL, and thus making this a new and fresh presentation of an old idea.

I believe originality should not be stressed over. If you start with an idea/philosophy/belief, that is your own, and make a film that best portrays that idea, philosophy, etc. your film will be original. I think there's something pointless in trying to find a new way to film a fight scene, or a relationship break-up or whatever. Plus, even if that kind of originality is achieved, it's pointless: I mean, what is there for the audience, except to think, wow, that's original; perosnally, I try to achieve something more than that in my films.

OK.

1. Tarantino's dialogue is not "brilliant" It reveals nothing of character, psychology or anything. It's just catchy little bull**** and stupid pop-cultural references. That stupid Quarter Pounder in France stuff is silly nonsense-NOT GOOD DIALOGUE. I'd rather listen to the dialogue in a silent film than a Tarantino film. The silent film will always have better dialogue.

2. He does not rip-off lesser known films. The Billy Wilder movie, the Apartment, is a very well known and respected film, to name one example.

3. If you want to talk about someone who can be influenced by previous movies, and remain original, I suggest you see Jim Jarmusch's "Down By Law" and compare it with some classic Hollywood prison films. Just PLEASE get over this Tarantino silliness.

4. And please explain this "wonderfull originality" that you claim is in Reservoir Dogs.

Thanks

quote:

---

Originally posted by i'm a ninny, are you?:

quote:

---

2) People "borrow", "steal" and "plagarise" things all the time. Heck, Quentin Tarantino made a career out of it!

---

4

Quentin Tarantino....like I've said millions of times before......takes the ideas from little known movies...the CONCEPTS if you will....and turns it around adding his own originality to them to make them something new and "original" A lot of directors just do the taking of ideas...but don't bother to add anything new or original.

My example...no offence to the filmmmaker.

The film "HEIST" on this website...the filmmmaker took the whole robbery gone wrong scenario....but he didn't add anything FRESH or original to it.

Then you look at a film like Reservoir Dogs...the robbery gone wrong....AGAIN. But Tarantino added so much wonderfull originality and brillant dialogue to it that it became "original"

That's my point.

TacoWagonProductions

"They look like psychos? Is that what they look like? They were Vampires. Psychos do not EXPLODE when sunlight hits them. I don't give a f*** how crazy they are!" - George Clooney in 'From Dusk Till Dawn'

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by ap:
If the story presented in your movie came from another SOURCE, then obviously, it contradicts the statement that your story is yours originally.

---

Ahh, but you're assuming that it's always the story that's the flashpoint for all this.

I'm not a big Tarantino or 'Reservoir Dogs' fan myself, but it actually is an excellent example for this thread. The story of that film was a direct lift from Ringo Lam's 'City On Fire'. Tarantino never really denied or tried to cover this up. However, the two films are remarkably different and most fans of 'Reservoir Dogs' might not like 'City On Fire' because it lacks the banter and personality. I'd argue that it's not the story at all that makes the film successful, but rather the de-emphasis of that story. And it's the source of implementing this de-emphasis that would be worth concealing in this case.

Too many times people take the "Story is everything" argument as mantra and walk into walls. Philosophy of how to tell a story is equally or more important in the cinematic arts.

Nota "Plato with a camera, or at least Ted Theodore Logan" Mono

There is no right way or wrong way to make a film.

What I'm interested in is new things being brought to the table.

quote:

---

Originally posted by NotaMono:

quote:

---

Originally posted by ap:
If the story presented in your movie came from another SOURCE, then obviously, it contradicts the statement that your story is yours originally.

---

Ahh, but you're assuming that it's always the story that's the flashpoint for all this.

I'm not a big Tarantino or 'Reservoir Dogs' fan myself, but it actually is an excellent example for this thread. The story of that film was a direct lift from Ringo Lam's 'City On Fire'. Tarantino never really denied or tried to cover this up. However, the two films are remarkably different and most fans of 'Reservoir Dogs' might not like 'City On Fire' because it lacks the banter and personality. I'd argue that it's not the story at all that makes the film successful, but rather the de-emphasis of that story. And it's the source of implementing this de-emphasis that would be worth concealing in this case.

Too many times people take the "Story is everything" argument as mantra and walk into walls. Philosophy of how to tell a story is equally or more important in the cinematic arts.

Nota "Plato with a camera, or at least Ted Theodore Logan" Mono

---

I would agree with you, as story is not everything, only the element of a film I used as my example. All elements of a film can be broken down, seperated, and examined under this same theory.

For example; The Matrix.

While the matrix (original movie) had a very unique story, the fighting sequences defined wire fighting for many people. NOW, anytime wire fighting is seen in a different movie such as chariles angels: full throttle, people automatically refer to it as matrix style fighting scenes, because of the wire fighting, slow motion, nature that has corupted films in hollywood. Right away, EVERYBODY knows they have seen this style of fighting done before, and it is no longer surprising, nor a mystery, or exciting for that matter, and people suddenly wish that fighting was more realistic than obviously fake. IE: they want to see something original.

Now if somebody could do wire fighting sequences without the obligatory walk up walls and flying backflips, it may hide the obvious matrix roots of such fighting, and then possibly prevent the "been there, seen that" response the audience gives.

You not only have to conceal your source, but you also want the audience to ask "how did they do that?" or say "i've never seen that before"...

Its about using ALL elements of film to put a new twist on an old idea.

Of course, to prevent further flaming, I will make it clear that this is only in context of originality, making a project all your own, and by no means is it saying that the shock value of "i've never seen that before" should or ever will create or a define a good movie, as I am only speaking in context to originality, and the specific reference in idea for each individual example provided within this thread.

[This message was edited by ap on July 06, 2003 at 10:52 AM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZuluCom:
I believe originality should not be stressed over. If you start with an idea/philosophy/belief, that is your own, and make a film that best portrays that idea, philosophy, etc. your film _will_ be original. I think there's something pointless in trying to find a new way to film a fight scene, or a relationship break-up or whatever. Plus, even if that kind of originality is achieved, it's pointless: I mean, what is there for the audience, except to think, wow, that's original; perosnally, I try to achieve something more than that in my films.

---

Why would it be pointless?
I have very small level of exposure to hollywood films. When I showed my latest movie to friends, family, etc., they enjoyed it, and then told me about how a certain scene was like movie xyz, and another scene was kinda like zyx, etc. But they still enjoyed it, they still cried, I had not seen or even heard the plot of the stories they mentioed, was my project original? Very much so.

If you KNOW in your mind a certain way it has been done before, and you copy that exact scene with lighting, action, props, angles, etc., then not only are you wasting your audiences time, you are wasting your own time in copying such as scene.

If you use this knowledge to create a similar scene (for instance a break-up) but filmed and performed differently, to work best with YOUR story/movie, the fact that you would avoid recreating a scene you have seen before means you are being original.

So much I want to respond to. Where to start?

Um, first off, MY ASS THE MATRIX STORY WAS UNIQUE. Writers have been doing stories about reality being defined by limited perception and characters awakening from the illusion for years. Star Trek has done way too many episodes where the Holodeck characters realize how limited their existence is. Then there was the Truman Show. I'll admit that the Matrix delivered an old theme in a new way that is being copied by less imaginative movie makers, but nothing expressed in the Matrix hasn't been done before.

Secondly, J_Richards, Tarantino's dialogue is brilliant. The Quarter Pounder with Cheese conversation was perfect in setting up the mindset of the characters. Two hitmen on their way to a job entailing violence spend their time talking non-chalantly about trivialities. If they had talked about their upcoming task, their internal feelings, or anything but a trivial, pointless conversation then they would have been two completely different characters.

Finally, back to ap's posts, I think I would debate your use of the term originality when recreating. If you are in fact referencing something that has come before then you can not claim originality, no matter how much you change it to fit your own work. That you are referencing it, deliberately at that, means you are not attempting to make something unique, but rather are emulating them. The tweaks you make do not detract from the intention on your part to copy the original. Now the overall effect of your copied scene in tandem with the rest of your movie may create an original experience, but the scene itself can not be claimed to be original.

Look, you missed my point. I meant there is something pointless in making a film/scene, solely with the intention of originality. If all you want to do is something original, fine but it's pointless without an over all purpose.

Originality is important, but only to the point that you're not ripping anybody off or boring your audience, but taking an idea everyone has seen a million times, and putting a twist on it, or doing it differently solely for the right to say that it's original is pointless. I mean, it's original, so what? Is it interesting? Is it meaningful? Does it say something? Do audiences have any kind of deeper reaction than saying, "oh, that's original?"

And as for what you're saying...

quote:

---

If you KNOW in your mind a certain way it has been done before, and you copy that exact scene with lighting, action, props, angles, etc., then not only are you wasting your audiences time, you are wasting your own time in copying such as scene.

If you use this knowledge to create a similar scene (for instance a break-up) but filmed and performed differently, to work best with YOUR story/movie, the fact that you would avoid recreating a scene you have seen before means you are being original.

---

...I completely agree with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by actionranger:
So much I want to respond to. Where to start?

Um, first off, MY ASS THE MATRIX STORY WAS UNIQUE. Writers have been doing stories about reality being defined by limited perception and characters awakening from the illusion for years. Star Trek has done way too many episodes where the Holodeck characters realize how limited their existence is. Then there was the Truman Show. I'll admit that the Matrix delivered an old theme in a new way that is being copied by less imaginative movie makers, but nothing expressed in the Matrix hasn't been done before.

---

we are not all trekkies, and I can guarantee you that the movies primary audience had no prior exposure to such an idea on a cinematic level. PERIOD. SCI-FI writers are obvious in this because that is the source which must be concealed!!!!

WHAT? DID YOU THINK THAT SCRIPTS WERE MADE WITHOUT REFERENCE? YOU THINK THAT THE SCRIPT WRITERS ARE SIMPLY SCI-FI BUFFS? NO. HENCE, THE ACT OF CONCEALING YOUR SOURCE.

The average movie goer A: Does not like star trek, B: Has NO exposure to SCI-FI, C: is YOUNG, hence having a very limited cinematic experience, and D: has NO experience outside of mainstream current hollywood production.

Also note that my point was not that the martix was unique but was about the wire fighting style martix defined.

THE MATRIX TURNED A SCI-FI CONCEPT, LOSELY EXPLORED IN GEEKVILLE TO A CONCEPT THAT WAS BOTH CINEMATICALLY PLEASING AND EASY TO FOLLOW.

Thanks to the matrix, a large number of closed minded young couch potatoes may have opened their eyes to the power that a unique script can bring to a "UNORIGINAL CONCEPT"....

Have a nice day

[This message was edited by ap on July 08, 2003 at 03:34 PM.]

quote:

---

Originally posted by ZuluCom:
Look, you missed my point. I meant there is something pointless in making a film/scene, solely with the intention of originality. If all you want to do is something original, fine but it's pointless without an over all purpose.

Originality is important, but only to the point that you're not ripping anybody off or boring your audience, but taking an idea everyone has seen a million times, and putting a twist on it, or doing it differently _solely_ for the right to say that it's original is pointless. I mean, it's original, so what? Is it interesting? Is it meaningful? Does it say something? Do audiences have any kind of deeper reaction than saying, "oh, that's original?"

And as for what you're saying...

quote:

---

If you KNOW in your mind a certain way it has been done before, and you copy that exact scene with lighting, action, props, angles, etc., then not only are you wasting your audiences time, you are wasting your own time in copying such as scene.

If you use this knowledge to create a similar scene (for instance a break-up) but filmed and performed differently, to work best with YOUR story/movie, the fact that you would avoid recreating a scene you have seen before means you are being original.

---

...I completely agree with you.

---

you sir have a very strong point and I definately agree that meaning, soul, and purpose take precidence to originality.

That's good to know other people share your beliefs.