I really liked Reservoir Dogs.  But why must something be "original"
to be good--even if it is an "original" process of telling?  Perhaps the
difference between "plagarism" and "engaging in a dialogue with other
works" is not the question of "originality" of something but the disclos
ing of names/etc. of these other texts/source which a work
consciously "addresses."  Granted, it might not be possible to list a
bibliography during a movie or in the credits and it may be a question
of publicity/journalism that such influences were never made known, but
I guess the main difference I see between plagarism and allusion is that
plagarist claims all the credit.  I have no idea whether Tarantino does
or not.  I don't really care.
    However I do have problem when directors are lionized (although sub-
tlely), comparable to Shakespeare (although unintentionally), or whene-
ver the autor theory seems to be overemphasized.  There are no Great Men
, I suppose.
   There have been many movies which I've loved for some brilliant por-
tion, but for some reason the rest of the movies just majorly sucks.  I
wouldn't hesitate to make my own remake, plagarized version if given the
chance.
     Lastly, I thought I might as well seize the opportunity to bring up
Hong Kong flicks which has hardly been raised on the group it seems and
for which I have an interest.
     Speaking of Tarantino, I might as well ask what people thought a-
bout True Romance for which he did the script.
--Sterling Chen (UNC-CH)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> The accusation of plagiarism leveled at Quentin Tarantino completely
> overlooks the fact that what makes a film an original piece of work in a
> way that should be of interest to us as film scholars is its film specific
> characteristics.  There are no original stories, only original ways of
> expressing them.   _Reservoir Dogs'_ brilliance lies not in the story, but
 
> Kelly Wolff <[log in to unmask]>