What do filmmakers from outside our country think about what we do so freely, so frequently?
While we wrestle with our souls about our films sourced without credit from the cinema of elsewhere – are they copies? Homages? Remakes? Plagiarisations? – here’s Quentin Tarantino cheerfully absolving Sanjay Gupta’s Kaante. (The quote appeared in an article, a compilation of what non-Indian directors had to say about Indian films, published at Firstpost.com – so yes, I’m crediting the source, like I wish our filmmakers would.) “I think it was fabulous. Of the many rip-offs (of Reservoir Dogs) I loved Hong Kong’s Too Many Ways To Be No.1 and this one, Kaante. The best part is, you have Indian guys coming to the US and looting a US bank. How cool is that! I was truly honored. And these guys are played by the legends of Bollywood. Here I am, watching a film that I’ve directed and then it goes into each character’s background. And I’m like, ‘Whoa’. For, I always write backgrounds and stuff and it always gets chopped off during the edit. And so I was amazed on seeing this. I felt, this isn’t Reservoir Dogs. But then it goes into the warehouse scene and I am like, ‘Wow it’s back to Reservoir Dogs’. Isn’t it amazing!”
This quote is astonishing for a variety of reasons. One, Tarantino thinks Kaante is “fabulous” – not many of us thought that – despite labelling it a rip-off. Two, the things we thought were ridiculous about the film – “Indian guys coming to the US and looting a US bank” – are deemed “the best part.” He thinks it’s cool. Three, he almost appears to say (without saying) that Kaante is, in some ways, better than his film. He wishes he’d been able to cover the backgrounds of his characters the way Kaante did (and the way he, in Reservoir Dogs, was not able to). How tragic that there’s no more to the quote. (What did he think about the songs, for instance?) But the essence is that there is, on Tarantino’s part, no indignation at his property being stolen and refurbished. He says, instead, that he’s “truly honoured.” Perhaps this is no surprise coming from Tarantino, who has fashioned a career from being inspired – though he is also a natural-born talent who bestows his creative vision, his stamp, on everything he takes from elsewhere.
Listen, then, to what Krzysztof Kieślowski, one of the world’s most celebrated auteurs, has to say on the subject (in Kieślowski on Kieślowski, edited by Danusia Stok). “Nor do I think that there’s anything wrong in stealing. If somebody’s gone that way before and it’s proved to be good, then you have to steal it immediately. If I steal from good films, and if this later becomes part of my own world, then I steal without qualms. This often happens completely without my being aware of it, but that doesn’t mean that I don’t do it – it did happen but it wasn’t calculated, or premeditated. It’s not straight plagiarism. To put it another way, films are simply part of our lives. We get up in the morning, we go to work or we don’t go to work. We go to sleep. We make love. We hate. We watch films. We talk to our friends, our families. We experience our children’s problems, or the problems of our children’s friends. And the films are there somewhere, too.”
“They also stay somewhere within us. They become part of our own lives, of our own inner selves. They stay with us just as much as all those things which really happened. I don’t think they’re any different from real events, apart from the fact that they’re invented. But that doesn’t matter. They stay with us. I steal takes, scenes, or solutions, just as I steal stories and afterwards I can’t even remember where I stole them from.” If there’s a bit of contradiction in this exquisitely moving confession – “I steal stories” gives a sense of volition, while later he says it happens without his being aware of it – it doesn’t matter. What he’s saying is that films are like the air we breathe and it’s inevitable that we inhale another man’s exhalations. No, these quotes do not come anywhere close to ending the “but is it stealing?” debate. But how fascinating that two major filmmakers from two ends of the spectrum should be so tolerant about something we, in our nation, are so intolerant about.
Lights, Camera, Conversation… is a weekly dose of cud-chewing over what Satyajit Ray called Our Films Their Films. An edited version of this piece can be found here.
Copyright ©2011 The Hindu. This article may not be reproduced in its entirety without permission. A link to this URL, instead, would be appreciated.
rameshram
September 2, 2011
Autuers like their ideas propagated. studios like their ideas MONETIZED. there is no mystery here.
I am A HUGE sanjay gupta fan (Kaante, Musafir…) Quienten Tarantino…not so much…
LikeLike
Kishor
September 2, 2011
Fantastic opinions by those two great directiors. But not able to fathom the meaning of the final paragraph. Do u encourage it ? Good, from tomorrow i will paste all ur blog posts in my blog with my name as the author.
LikeLike
Zero
September 2, 2011
“Autuers like their ideas propagated. studios like their ideas MONETIZED. there is no mystery here.”
Superbly said. Lovely. (Not that it’s surprising the least bit coming from the ever entertaining Ramesh Ram.)
LikeLike
Rantings of a delusional mind
September 2, 2011
It is surprising how the same Westerners, who appreciate (or at least treat plagiarism with ambivalence) criticised Kavya Vishwanathan for lifting a few paragraphs from already published books. Stealing is to condemned-done in any form. If a liberal approach is used, how what will give impetus to creativity?
How comfortable would a film critic be if his reviews are plagiarised? And before someone says that it hasn’t happened, let me share a link:
http://jaiarjun.blogspot.com/2004/11/whorism-in-film-writing.html
And this is our very own Nikhat Kazmi-apparently stealing is a privilige that isn’t limited to filmmakers!
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 2, 2011
Kishor: All I’m saying in the last para is this. “No, these quotes do not come anywhere close to ending the “but is it stealing?” debate.” That’s a debate that will rage on, but I just thought it was fun that two filmmakers (so divergent) were offering similar thoughts on what we call “plagiarism.” And that “inevitability” aspect in Kieślowski’s quote I found quite moving, actually.
LikeLike
Just Another Film Buff
September 2, 2011
I think it is highly advisable that one considers Tarantino’s quote within a SARCASM tag. Tarantino isn’t new to neither lying through his teeth to the mass media nor waxing lyrical about trash. It sounds to me like the condescending modesty of a secure master.
LikeLike
keshav
September 2, 2011
I have a quote similar to the Kieslowski one. This one’s by Jim Jarmusch:
“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is non-existent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery – celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from – it’s where you take them to.”
LikeLike
rameshram
September 2, 2011
JAFB,
Tarantino IS a big sanjay gupta fan from a long time. no sarcasm in the quote.
LikeLike
loverboy
September 3, 2011
We don’t make love. I make move. You make love. He makes love. She makes love. etc. We making love sounds like some royal orgy.
LikeLike
Raj Balakrishnan
September 3, 2011
Was Tarantino being sarcastic? Among Sanjay Gupta’s many crimes, the worst is the Old boy rip-off ‘Zinda’.Mahesh Bhatt is another shameless plagiarist. His worst should be the Collateral rip-off.
LikeLike
Venkatesh
September 3, 2011
Rameshram: “I am A HUGE sanjay gupta fan (Kaante, Musafir…) Quienten Tarantino…not so much…” wow
LikeLike
rameshram
September 3, 2011
venkatesh: Ille irukkattum 😉
LikeLike
Ludwig
September 3, 2011
Baradwaj
Apropos stealing and appreciation, I offer you this (true) story:
http://bmukhtiar.blogspot.com/2009/01/copy-chris-paste-ghajini.html
Ludwig
LikeLike
bv
September 3, 2011
For me the key difference is the lack of honesty in subject, ambition and intent.
QT celebrated his influences. It was in the bright yellow suit of the Bride and in every interview he gave. I have lost count of the number of campy but superbly enjoyable movies that I have watched because of QT showed me the way.
[Speaking of yellow tracks, my favourite Jackie Chan scene is from ‘City Hunter’ where he fights two tall fighters while the scene from ‘Game of Death’ where Bruce Lee fights Kareem Abdul Jabbar plays in the background. Not subtle, but a nice way to acknowledge your influences.]
The problem with our copies for me is that we take beautifully crafted biryanis and boil it out into an insipid gruel. Zinda and Sangharsh are examples that immediately come to my mind for the singular lack of ambition.
LikeLike
Ramsu
September 3, 2011
I felt Kaante actually wasn’t so bad and that, although the backgrounds weren’t always interesting, fleshing out the characters’ stories didn’t really hurt the narrative. Anil Kapoor also narrates an incident where oliver stone was impressed with sanjay dutt’s performance in, musafir.
I wonder if directors and writers are more likely to be charitable towards ripoffs than producers?
LikeLike
rameshram
September 3, 2011
“The problem with our copies for me is that we take beautifully crafted biryanis and boil it out into an insipid gruel. ”
It is this kind of opinionated bilge that keeps me returning to your comments page brannigan!
athu eppadi? if QT rips off lady snowblood athu well crafted biriyani, ana if anurag basu does “dil ko hazaar baar roka” in an absolutely awesome nightclub version of a musical “unfaithful ” athu insipid gruel-a?!”
the word for it , invented by the australians and adapted by the british is “cultural cringe” you foo’s (mostly peter-ing foo’s) are deeply ashamed of your own and put the foreigner on a pedastal and worship.
Speaking of QT’s influences,
this
LikeLike
bran1gan
September 4, 2011
Ramsu: Got a link to that Anil Kapoor quote? Thanks.
LikeLike
Ramsu
September 4, 2011
He mentioned it in a coffee with karan episode. The one with him and sanjay dutt
LikeLike
KayKay
September 5, 2011
“It is this kind of opinionated bilge that keeps me returning to your comments page brannigan! ”
Now you’re talking outta your ass, Ramesh The Ram.
athu eppadi?
Ippadi:
QT (of whose films I am a deathless fan of) gleefully acknowledges his influences. ALL of QT’s movies are a potpourri of scenes whipped into his own idiosyncratic cocktail bearing his own signature. Kill Bill is fundamentally Lady Snowblood, but it’s also a tribute to Yakuza flicks, Spaghetti Westerns and Shaolin Kungfu movies. It’s acknowledging the iconic totems of a Bruce Lee or Kwai-Chung Caine. You can have countless scenes of a slow-mo walk of a Yakuza Chief and his/her minions, but scoring it to Tomoyasu Hotei’s “Battle Without Love and Honour” puts your imprimatur on it. And that’s what makes QT films such a joy to watch. Noted critic Walter Chaw of Film Freak Central said it best: Robert Rodriguez makes a good exploitation flick but it’s Tarantino who captures the joy of watching one.
I won’t comment on Kaante as I haven’t watched it, but the few …ahem…”homages” that I’ve been unlucky enough to see perpetrated by Indian filmmakers on Western films that have…cough..ahem… “inspired” them have by and large been so ludicrous it’s surreal, kinda like watching a T.Rajender interview for 2.5hrs.
Murugadoss wouldn’t even acknowledge Memento as a source of inspiration for Ghajini and instead lifts it wholesale and in the attempt to meld it to a masala-driven potboiler, promptly squats and shits out a giant turd all over it’s source material without any sense of context and need to put his own stamp on it. Compare the tattoos on an emaciated Guy Pierce ( as befits the frame of a tortured individual with such severe memory trauma he probably forgets to eat) and the ones on Surya and Aamir, both honed to the point of absurdity (I can’t remember fuck all after 15mins, but I never forget my protein shakes and 5 hour gym workouts?).
I even saw an Ajith flick (just the 1st 10mins was sufficient) that rips off the big reveal of The Usual Suspects , as a lame Verbal Kint loses his limp and hand cramps and walks normally, the revelation that everything you heard in the last 90mins was a fabrication of a criminal mastermind was mind-blowing. Whoever helmed that Thala flick used it to generate more whistles from his fan clubs. Once again, drag and drop with no imagination.
And less you think I’m one of those…whatcha call it…Peter am not sure what that means but I suppose it’s similar to what we in Malaysia call a (translated from Tamil) Black-Arsed White Man, au contraire. I reserve equal bile when Hollywood filmmakers do it as well, as evidenced by John Badham’s insipid remake of Luc Besson’s La Femme Nikita and Gus Van Sant’s frame by frame remake of Psycho. Not to mention Michael Bay’s wholesale rip-off of the excellent bathroom fight scene of True Lies for his dreadful Bad Boys.
Oh…and 1 example of an Indian film maker appropriating a material well? Shankar’s spin on the El Mariachi films in the Athiradi song sequence in Shivaji. That’s how you whip up your own intoxicating brew from a cribbed recipe!
Thanks for the link, by the way. Loved it!
LikeLike
rameshram
September 5, 2011
KayKAy,
youre welcome about the link.
no no talking out of ass this time.
I find that your own reasons for why Tarantino’s “homage” is worshipful and murugadoss’s “ripoff” not to be lame. Tarantino Acknowledges it, and therefore, like noblesse oblige it becomes ok suddenly? (BTW I thought Murugadoss did a very classy job of ripping of the pseudo freudean narrative of memento into a completely credible in bollywood storyline. Bollywood heroes have done many crazy things from loving /stalking women, and this was one in that long line (Ravi Chandran’s cinematography didn’t hurt either).
Strictly in terms of creative art, a good ripoff(not a frame by frame copy, which can be insipid or meaningless- the ring or let the right one in are examples ) by Indian directors are much more interesting to me than Tarantino’s film geek homages. and here’s why. Any foo’ (and most of the peters that read post on this site) can get the overeducation it requires to be a tarantino style film geek and write screenplays. To write a successful (and by that I mean something that works even if it does not make money) Bollywood script that translates for Indian audiences into motivations and narrative arcs removed from their foreign original is complete seat of the pants creativity. to call it a reduction into gruelhood from great biriyani is doing both gruel and the indian film a grave disservice.
For example, in Murder, the conversion of the context for the affair is so totally credible if you have lived in the contexts created (delhi college girl, Bangkok housewife) that if someone never had heard of the original but knew enough about India/ Bollywood, the film would work well for them.
You notice that I do not think ALL ripoffs are good , musical ripoffs sometimes are boring, as are scene by scene copies(bheja fry) but to me a vital part of cultural interaction is in how themes and ideas are transplanted across cultures. It is entirely irrelevent to me whether someone “acknowledges ” a ripoff(kannu ille? its up to you to see/observe/conclude) or whether someone else gets paid for it.
so no.ippadi ille.brown assed brown man!
LikeLike
Cine Cynic
September 6, 2011
“But how fascinating that two major filmmakers from two ends of the spectrum should be so tolerant about something we, in our nation, are so intolerant about.”
The opinions of Tarantino and Kieslowski individually are interesting. But those two are anecdotes that aren’t very surprising given the large sample set (that wasn’t considered). What would be more interesting is also a statistical evidence on the range of prevalent perspectives.
I don’t agree with two words “our” and “intolerance”. Both the words are exaggerations.
Leaving aside my individual opinion on the topic in general, I was highly impressed by Vishal Bharadwaj’s Maqbool, both for the adaptation and the acknowledgment.
LikeLike
Govardhan Giridass
September 6, 2011
Tarantino fails to mention that Reservoir Dogs is heavily inspired by Ringo Lam’s City On Fire. He has also privately admitted to people in LA that he was inspired by the sequence in Aaalavandhan (he saw the Hindi dub Abhay) where Kamal cuts Manisha to bits in anime and used it in Kill Bill.
LikeLike
KayKay
September 7, 2011
Ram,
You’ve made some good points.
“For example, in Murder, the conversion of the context for the affair is so totally credible if you have lived in the contexts created (delhi college girl, Bangkok housewife) that if someone never had heard of the original but knew enough about India/ Bollywood, the film would work well for them.”
Agree. I’d forgotten about Murder, which I incidentally saw quite soon after Unfaithful and felt it to be a decent transplant to an Indian context (or was I blindsided by Mallika Sherawat’s bare back?)
Now that I think about it a little more, I will acknowledge a few decent remakes like Rajeev Menon’s Sense & Sensibility take in Kandukondein Kandukondein (although I prefer Ang Lee’s Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon as the more dazzling and innovative Asian treatment of that novel), as Cine Cynic mentioned above Vishal Baradwaj’s Shakespeare adaptations are first class, displaying a reverence for the source material while imbuing them with a thoroughly Indian flavor. And Kamal’s Roshomon-like approach to Virumaandi is also a worthy attempt.
But here’s where you and I board different buses, brother:
“BTW I thought Murugadoss did a very classy job of ripping of the pseudo freudean narrative of memento into a completely credible in bollywood storyline”
Cough…splutter…ahem…hack..cough…what??????
You’re shitting me right? You. Are. Fucking. Shitting. Me!!!
Ether that or you’re smoking a substance that’s illegal in at least 5 states.
Murugadoss is a hack who lucked out by getting A-listers to star in both his Tamil and Hindi versions.
Ghajini, be it in it’s Tamil or Hindi incarnations, is the ne plus ultra of bad filmmaking. It’s ineptly directed, insipidly edited and erratically paced (and scores the honour of being the first stray strand of hair I’ve found in the otherwise sumptious buffet of Aamir’s film oeuvre in the last 10 years). I’ll grant you the Bolly version did a few things right, like jettisoning the shrill, whiny, pre-weight loss, pre- Prabhu Deva shagging Nayanthara and a ridiculous doppelganger for the villain but like a true hack, Murugadoss ported over every other shitty aspect of the Tamil version. It’s ignorant of its source material at best, and condescending at worst.
I’ll take a few nice songs and a genuinely likeable performance from Asin. The rest you can keep,kanna.
So, I think QT’s the dog’s bollocks, you reckon he’s the dog’s breakfast. No worries. You’re not in the minority and I respect your opinions of him there in spite of not agreeing with them. But seeing you wax lyrical over the non-existent talents of the likes of Murugadoss makes me want to hit the bong brother!
LikeLike
raj
September 7, 2011
Ramesh The Ram(sounds a good name no?)
Adhu enna delhi college girl bangkok housewife onaayaa irundhu pArthA dhAn puriyum? Ninga eppovavadhu bangkok housewifeaa irunhdurukkelaa?
LikeLike
hari
September 7, 2011
kaykay supera sonna ba …
dog’s bollocks and dog’s breakfast, i will try to use this next time aah, u vokay with that?
LikeLike
radhika
September 7, 2011
branigan, you said “But how fascinating that two major filmmakers from two ends of the spectrum should be so tolerant about something we, in our nation, are so intolerant about.”
Who is the “we” who are intolerant about plagiarism? I think by and large Indians are perfectly happy with plagiarized stuff – if done well, then you have an appreciative “good adaptation” halo around it, like “Taxi No 9211”. The intolerant ones are only the critics and the serious film buffs – aam janta couldn’t be bothered. It reminds me of a time when one of my students totally ripped off a classmate’s project paper – when I asked her, “did you think I wouldn’t notice?”, she said, no she didn’t think I would, and I couldn’t make up my mind which pissed me off more – her ethics, or her assumption that I was so stupid.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 7, 2011
“Murugadoss is a hack who lucked out by getting A-listers to star in both his Tamil and Hindi versions.”
I never went to that church.
As regards QT, let’s just say familiarity breeds contempt.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 7, 2011
As regards Murugadoss again, I think there are a few popular tamil film directors that work very well within the popular film grammar. I think murugadoss is one of them. (names like KS Ravikumar, santhana bharati,jeeva,suresh krishna,RV Udaikumar ..) without this set of master craftsmen, Tamil cinema will become like hindi multiplex. full of tarantino woshipping losers who make films for the vague , out of focus indi film geek audience in the US.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 8, 2011
“Ninga eppovavadhu bangkok housewifeaa irunhdurukkelaa?”
Illeda kannama, bangkok housewifea….. mm hmhmhm.
🙂
LikeLike
KayKay
September 8, 2011
Hari, go ahead. In keeping with the theme of this post and comments, it’s highly likely I ripped that off some one else:-)
Ramesh The Ram, totally agree, Indian Cinema needs it’s purveyors of Masala, and I for one would hate to see the day we completely stop making our unique brand of 7 songs-5 fights-1 item number style potboilers which I enjoy occasionally.
My (totally subjective) take on those….ahem…”Master Craftsman” you just mentioned:
KSR- Did one actually good psychological thriller early in his career (forget the name, had Raghuvaran as a psycho), today works best when doing Kamal/Rajini flicks where his chief duties are to cater to the whims and fancies of his megastars, and reckons his movies aren’t complete masterpieces without a 2min cameo from himself. Elsewhere, this guy seriously sucks balls.
Santhana Bharathi-I have a conspiracy theory about this guy. Did 2 great flicks Guna and Mahanadhi, and promptly never directed anything again (if I’m wrong, someone correct me). Theory? He never directed those movies. Kamal did.
Jeeva- Did 12B right? Liked it a lot, but not exactly a masala movie. In fact, that’s like a multiplex flick no? Haven’t seen others.
Suresh Krishna- Loved Baasha. Then I saw Sangamam and Baa Baa which effectively obliterated any goodwill I had towards the guy.As for Satya and Aalavandhan, see theory on Sandhana Bharathi above.
R.V Udayakumar- Liked Kizhakku Vaasal, and actually managed to sit through a “Captain” movie for once in Chinna Kounder. Then he did Ejaman which put me to sleep after half an hour. Haven’t seen anything else since.
The late S.P.Muthuraman before and Dharani today (at least for Dhil, Dhool and Gilli) better fit my profile for pure masala directors with a solid control over the genre.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 8, 2011
“I for one would hate to see the day we completely stop making our unique brand of 7 songs-5 fights-1 item number style potboilers which I enjoy occasionally.”
Haha could you be more peter-onizing! 🙂
LikeLike
rameshram
September 8, 2011
Inclusive , not exhaustive list. (BTW Master craftsmen as opposed to Auteur. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master_craftsman
LikeLike
KayKay
September 8, 2011
I’m not Peter-anything, (Hey) Ram. Kadavule! What’s this fucking obsession with “Peter-this and Peter-that”?
For fuck’s sake, I like the odd Masala flick, ok? I just don’t like it when it’s done without an iota of wit, charm and passion.
My filmic diet is largely Western. Ain’t gonna aplogize for that, boy. The fact that I have a passing familiarity with the oeuvre of those “Master Craftsman” you’re waxing lyrical over and that I’m complimentary over some of their work should have told you (assuming you’ve stopped smoking that weed) that I’m definitely NOT a Peter. I CAN appreciate the unique tropes of Indian Cinema, just don’t expect me to cum in my shorts everytime Vadivelu rhymes “Maappu” with “aappu” and Vijay ticks off a chick for sexy dressing while he dry-humps her in a lewd song scene 2 frames later.
You giving me that Wikipedia link presumes I give a flying fuck over what constitutes a definition of Master Craftsman.
You presumed wrong.
I only know that the likes of (Thiruttukuli) Murugadoss isn’t going to qualify for that lofty title anytime soon.
I’m done here. Let’s pick this up again in a different post when you go on another “Peter” rampage:-) AAlvays Yay Pleasure Taaking Vith Yoo.
Meendum Sandhippom, Ram Kanna. Adhu Varai…..Vanakkam.
LikeLike
rameshram
September 9, 2011
cha this kay kay flow turned out to be such an enemy of the india! 😀
LikeLike
VJ
September 9, 2011
Kay Kay , “Late S.P.Muthuraman” ! …he is very much alive .
LikeLike
KayKay
September 9, 2011
VJ, oops! My bad! Thanks for pointing that out.
LikeLike
Sugel
September 14, 2011
Tarantino won accolades around the world and earned a devoted following with his directorial debut.Quentin Tarantinos films have single-handedly revived and redefined American noir bringing to Hollywood a new energy irony and cool. Tarantino has won awards and accolades around the world earned a devoted following among critics actors and audiences and paved the way for a new generation of young filmmakers.Tarantinos directorial debut Reservoir Dogs hit the screen with a freshness and brutal edge that left critics and audiences stunned.
LikeLike