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]>