Tarantino has said:"I steal from every single movie made, all right? I love it. If my work has anything it's because I am taking this from this and that from that, piecing them together...great artists steal, they don't do homages."
Respond to this statement. What is the difference between stealing and homage? Make sure your answer makes mention of The Killing and Reservoir Dogs and at least one of the readings.
(To respond click on the comments link below. Be sure that you look at the blog posting guidelines in the syllabus and don't forget to identify yourself by name.)
27 comments:
Stealing and homage are similar. They both involve someone else’s work. The difference is homage is paying respect to someone and stealing is just using it without permission or recognition. Tarantino is not the only filmmaker to steal from others. At least he can admit it. Can you blame directors for stealing? It is impossible to claim a director has never stolen anything from another director. Even directors that think they are being completely original are probably stealing something without even knowing it. Stealing has helped advance filmmaking.
The Killing and Reservoir Dogs have many similarities. They both are about heists that go wrong. Both also involve a rat selling the capers out. The last similarity I will mention is that they both follow a similar flow, meaning they both flashback and show how each character played a part in the heist. They also both share a white masculine attitude. The two movies also have many differences. The Killing actually shows the heist, while Reservoir Dogs only shows before and after it. In The Killing, the heist works but they get caught later on. In Reservoir Dogs, they get caught during the heist. Tarantino used ideas from The Killing, but he also used many of his own.
In chapter one of Quentin Tarantino, Gallafent states that he wants to “claim Tarantino as an American modernist, using the term in the sense defined by Stanley Cavell, an ‘artist whose discoveries and declarations of his medium are to be understood as embodying his effort to maintain the continuity of his art whit the art of the past’”. Tarantino does ‘steal’ from other directors, but he does so much more than that. He takes what previous directors have done and raises it to another level. He adds his own creativity and art into it. He takes it to the point where many would not even know he stole anything.
As you can see above, Tarantino did use some aspects from The Killing, but that material was changed and modernized in Reservoir Dogs. Tarantino is a very talented director. I have no doubt that many directors will and probably already have ‘stole’ parts from his movies. If I was a director, I would feel honored by other directors using some of my ideas. Maybe in a way, stealing is a form of homage in film.
To me homage means to show respect to some one or somthing, in these cases by replicating what has already been done. In my opinion Tatantino hit it right on the head no matter what you do your taking something some one else has already done and putting your spin or signature on it. I had never seen "The Killing" before last night but I thought it was great. Immediatly I could see the similiarties in the two movies but when we watched Reservoir dogs it seam differnt than before. Maybe I was looking for more things that matched or didn't. The time line of the movies were obviously in the same context going back and forth also the most obvious it was a movie about a robbery. To me Tarantino took from The Killing also in the sense of the names. In The Killing two of the people involved were not known to the others and vice versa for everyones saftey. I see Tarantino doing this with the names, "Mr. White, Mr.Blue" ect.
When you watch a movie by Tarantino you know thats what you are watching. In years you will watch a movie and you will wonder hmm is that a Tarantino film, and I have heard this starting more and more now, but if will be some one using his style with their own style. I don't think Tarantino would be mad, obviously by his comment, nor should any one thats where the sense that this is an homage by some people comes into effect. They are stealing if from you because they liked it and think they can add to it and or bring it back.
After much speculation that Tarantino used the story line from City on Fire—directed by Ringo Lam, he is quoted stating that “I[Tarantino] steal from every single movie made, all right? I love it. If my work has anything it's because I am taking this from this and that from that, piecing them together...great artists steal, they don't do homages." Although, by definition homage and stealing are very similar; homage is taking but acknowledging that one is taking it and paying respect or reverence for it.
A great example of Tarantino taking ideas from other films—which Gallafent raises—is clearly present in Reservoir Dogs where he uses the effect of the past and the present time scheme used in The Killing to trace each character piecing together the film as well as finalizing the details of the heist. In The Killing, each man involved in the plan is tracked individually and many of the same frames are showed over again to bring depth to each character. Meanwhile, each man in Reservoir Dog is shown first then their past are shown as one by one their roles are revealed in the heist[their present]. Tarantino does this very effectively because as the film continues to proceed, each character is being fine tuned up until the very last minute of the film. These scenes or ideas that Tarantino steals from other films adds depth to a character, suspense, and enhances the films effectiveness in presenting its final outcome.
Man is a collection of his experiences. Everything he encounters shapes him in the same way. The artist is no different: every painting he sees, every novel he reads will ultimately make its way into his art, whether he is conscious of it or not. Artists are inspired an influenced by other works of art as they are by anything they experience or witness in the real world. The term homage carries with it a more loving connotation, a piece of art made out of the love of something, while stealing is sinister and malicious. Tarantino’s acknowledgement of his influences turns him into an homage artist—it is his love for these films that drives him to emulate them. I’m not sure that stealing exists in the context in which we are speaking. Art progresses by artists that make work that expands upon what has been done; homage is necessary for this progression to take place.
After all, how could the post-modernist novelist become post-modern, if he had not first encountered modernist work? Tarantino cannot help but to be influenced by all the films he watched as a child; they become a part of his conscious, mashed up against other books he has read or TV shows he has seen. And when he goes to make his film, it will not be a product of just one film, but of many, all interwoven into a piece of work that as a result is inexplicably different—Tarantino himself has said, “If my work has anything, it is taking this from this and that from that, piecing them together” (Woods 32 ). Gallafent likens “Reservoir Dogs” not only to “The Killing,” but also to Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch,” with Woods citing influences from “City on Fire” and “The Thing.” It is true that “The Killing” and “Reservoir Dogs” share the same themes (group dynamics, strangers brought together by the promise of quick cash, ultimately thwarted by situations out of their control), yet they are in no way the same movie, because they were made by different directors living in different historical periods with different life experiences. It would be impossible for the two to be the same movie, or even replicas of each other.
Melissa Campbell
“Stealing is wrong.” That sentiment is drilled into children in elementary school. Why then, does Quentin Tarantino feel that it is O.K to steal? Stealing and lying have only worked to his advantage. His lies are so obscure that most people will not catch them and those who do are impressed with the reference. Paul A. Woods explains that early in his career Tarantino wrote on his resume that he had a supporting role in Jean-Luc Godard’s "King Lear." Also, in his article “Eastern Dogs” he, very convincingly, shows that Tarantino stole the plot and certain shots of Ringo Lam’s "City on Fire" for his film "Reservoir Dogs." The fact that he does not cite the director nor the film as an influence for his film exhibits the mentality of a thief.
In a friendlier light, Tarantino pays homage to Stanley Kubrick’s "The Killing" in "Dogs." He credits Kubrick and "Killing" as inspiration for his film. The fact that he is giving credit where it is due does not denote stealing. This is like citing an author verses plagiarizing. You can use their work as long as you give them credit.
Aside from the obvious and exhausted similarities the most interesting homage to "Killing" I noticed in "Dogs" was the opening shot. In "Killing" while the men are planning the heist they are sitting at a round table and the camera is low, table-height peering through the shoulders at Johnny, the leader. This is the opening shot of "Dogs." The shot is masterfully recreated. This shows that Tarantino values the influence of "Killing" or loves it so much that he referenced it at the very beginning of his film. An experienced movie-goer could catch the reference and get an idea of what to expect from "Dogs." However, instead of peering at the gang leader, in "Dogs," we are peering at Tarantino himself. This also shows the viewer how much Tarantino values himself.
Dictionary.com defines stealing as: “to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force, to appropriate (ideas, credit, words, etc.) without right or acknowledgment, to move, bring, convey, or put secretly or quietly; smuggle to move, go, or come secretly, quietly, or unobserved”. Homage is defined as: “respect or reverence paid or rendered, something done or given in acknowledgment or consideration of the worth of another.” Did Tarantino steal or pay homage when comparing
“Reservoir Dogs” and “the Killing“ ? It’s not a very simple answer, Tarantino doesn’t directly steal, but nor does he pay homage in the traditional sense of the word either.
Edward Gallafent states that Tarantino is an American modernist. According to Stanley Cavell an “ artist whose discoveries and declarations of his medium are to be understood as embodying his effort to maintain the continuity of hi art with the art of his past.” defines what a American modernist is. There are many similarities between each movie. Both movies are crime capers about robberies. They also feature a large group of mean who plan, practice, and commit these crimes. Non liner time lines drive both narratives forward, making the storylines more interesting then if they had appeared in a traditional format. However, despite theses similarities, there aren’t many scenes directly taken from “The Killing” from Tarantino. More importantly however, ultimately, “The Killing” is about relationships between men and women, while “Reservoir Dogs” is about relationships between just men. Did Tarantino steal or pay homage? It was closer to homage then stealing, but it’s a fine line that Tarantino walks. He’s paying homage by reminding of us a past cinema.
The question lies in front of us, have filmmakers done homages? There is not one film that exists that is homage (to honor/respect) to other filmmakers. Quentin Tarantino considered himself stealing from other films, so do many other filmmakers, too. There are no credits that state, "this is an excerpt from this film (title)." The film industry can be really sleazy but at the same time successful. Many filmmakers get their ideas from what they've seen from previous films. The ideas they extract are not exactly the same as the original ones. They were able to manipulate their ideas into their own way, their own style.
Tarantino used ideas from The Killing about a heist at a Horse Derby. There were similarities but still there are differences, too. in The Killing, white men were named by their names but in Reservoir Dogs, they were given color-coded names.
Another big difference, I strongly believe, is how there is a person who messes the heist up. In Reservoir Dogs, the obvious person would be Mr. Orange and how he is the undercover cop. He is a problem to the mafia, organized by Joe. In The Killing, it is Sherry, the wife of George. She cheated on George and manipulated him by involving her lover, Val. Val appeared at near the end of the film at an apartment, and caused trouble and the consequence was that almost everyone got killed. None of the readings mentioned this part, which was interesting. Have the critics ignored this part or Has Tarantino overlooked this similarity?
In Quentin Tarantino, there was a part where Gallafent explained about marriages in The Killing. "Equally, the presence of women has receded to a remote point, almost disappeared. There are no beds, or couples, no needs" (p. 11). Interesting way to approach Reservoir Dogs without any women involved. Tarantino wanted to simplify things by removing women because they are what dragged men down in The Killing. Men from The Killing are torn between two lives; life as mafia members, and life as good husbands/boyfriends. Reservoir Dogs has a mob just doing their job without anything from their personal life in the way. This is also one other reason why they were not allowed to share their personal information with other members. That way, Tarantino wanted to change how the mafia works, in his way.
Since there are no formal homages to any filmmakers from other filmmakers, all of the filmmakers steal from each other. This kind of stealing took the filmmaking to the next level.
I believe the difference between stealing and paying homage is quite simple. Stealing in this example is taking the work of others and replicating it without their permission and without giving that person credit for their influence. Paying homage would be taking from others work and giving them credit in an attempt to further their creativity and give them respect for their work. It is hard to say what Tarantino's full motive was in this case based on your short excerpt. This short statement seems to indicate that Tarantino is a thief who is also arrogant. It also shows a lack of respect for filmmakers he steals from. It also gives the impression that the greater the thief the greater the artist. I am not sure if that was his true intent. It was stated in class that he gave credit to The Killing as an influence for his movie Reservoir Dogs. I would assume he was paying homage to this films creator and was attempting to build on their work. The movies have similar plots and character parts. Both seem to show that crime does not pay given that the criminals all die or go to jail without making a dime. They also both jump from the end to the beginning of the tale to keep the viewer wondering what is going on and running various scenarios through their mind. The role of the police was quite different in the films. In The Killing the police were involved in the plot and helped get the money away from the track. In Reservoir Dogs the police were attempting to infiltrate the group and wound up being victims eventually killed and tortured. Based on the instructor’s comments that Tarantino is one of the more laid back likable film makers I would assume he was not as arrogant as indicated by these statements and that he was actually paying homage to those he replicates or bases his films on. I would also agree with ronstad that every film maker build on other work. This is how we advance and is pretty much applicable to everything in life.
Jason Mucha
Stealing is taking something without permission. But, why do some people steal, because they like something that someone else has and they feel they must have it and can only obtain it by taking it from that person. Homage is giving respect to someone or something by using their ideas but giving the person credit. Why do people do this, for the same reason, they like something so much that they have to have it, but this way, credit is given. Stealing and homage are very similar, and in a way Tarantino is paying Kubrick homage by stealing his ideas.
Taking ideas from Kubrick could be seen as a form of flattery because his ideas were liked by Tarantino and he used them but molded them into his ideas. In Reservoir Dogs, Tarantino uses the main theme of a heist gone wrong but he uses an undercover cop instead of a greedy woman. As Gallafent states, he almost eliminates the presence of women in this film whereas Kubrick has women all over the place. Tarantino also uses the idea of unknown characters but takes it to a new level. His characters are generic names, Mr. White, Mr. Brown, etc, and in The Killing, Kubrick has two unknown characters playing small roles. I would classify those two examples as paying homage to Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing.
My idea of Tarantino’s theft would be the male/male non-sexual relationships created between Mr. White and Mr. Orange. This relationship is stolen from the relationship felt by Marvin (the book keeper) and Johnny (the organizer). Then Tarantino takes it further to make it his own by creating relationships between the rest of the characters by age, behavior, etc.
All in all, I believe that Tarantino is paying homage by stealing Kubrick’s ideas and that he is doing it out of respect because he was influenced by The Killing.
As we all know “homage” is paying respect to those who have influences us and I believe that this is what Tarantino is in some sense doing. Even though he specifically says he “steals from every movie” that shows me that those movies have influenced him enough to create new work that closely resembles them. It could be argued either way; that Tarantino is paying homage to previous filmmakers or that he is flat out stealing ideas and taking them to a new level.
One can see the similarities between Tarantino’s “Reservoir Dogs” and Stanley Kubrik’s “The Killing”. Both stories show congruencies such as non-chronological ordering of events, male-male bonding/relationships and a heist gone wrong. The influence “The Killing” had on Tarantino is obvious however a big difference between the two movies is the types of people the characters are.
Whether Tarantino was paying homage to Kubrik or simply stealing a few ideas, “Reservoir Dogs” will have a lasting effect on film lovers. As author Paul Woods says, “What kept audiences most audibly entertaine, even those who winced at the blood-letting, was that these hoods were somehow like them” (Woods 5).
Homage and stealing are the same thing. I could copy the post above me and put my name on the bottom and that would be stealing. But if copied it, put my name on the bottom, and added a couple sentences about how great I thought it was written by my classmate, would that really make it any different? I still stole it. Homages put up a front about respect and honor, and while I do think in most cases the directors genuinely revere the work they are referencing, they use the front to relieve themselves of the responsibility of their theft. And I think that is the point Tarantino is trying to make. An artist that feels the need to make nostalgic references in order to pay tribute to another work is not a great artist. A great artist will not feel a need for an excuse. If they see something they like they will take it and make it their own, be it a single element, a set of genre conventions, or even an entire body of work.
Such is the case with Reservoir Dogs. Among many things, Tarantino uses the genre conventions of the film noir (gangsters, shoot-outs, undercover cops, low budget) the plot and editing structure of Kubrick’s The Killing (achronological editing of a heist gone bad) and ,as Paul A. Woods points out in his article "Eastern Dogs", near shot by shot remakes of some scenes from City of Fire (the Cabot/Eddie/White Mexican stand-off). But even though Tarantino has stolen so much from other sources, his auteurship shines through. His dialogue and the emphasis it plays on developing the characters is all Tarantino, and works to make this movie his own.
When Tarantino states, “great artists steal, they don’t do homages”, I believe this is his own take on the fact that he is definitely borrowing techniques and styles used by other film makers in his own work. Every artist out there does this to some extent. It is by the meshing and conglomeration of previously used techniques and forms that create new techniques and forms within the art world, whether it’s film, music, theatre, etc...
It is fairly obvious that Tarantino took certain items from the formula that made up Stanly Kubrick’s The Killing to use in his own film Reservoir Dogs and the fact that he recognizes that by stating this to his fans and audience through interviews etc, makes this an homage rather than stealing. I believe Tarantino does his own interpretations on different genres of film each borrowing from well known films within that genre. Reservoir Dogs was his take on the heist/crime genre and he decided to take the approach of telling the story through similar techniques in which The Killing was shot, such as having roughly 5 or so anonymous men in on the heist, and telling the story from different times and character perspectives. Although, the differences in the two movies, one being the fact that in Reservoir the heist is never actually seen, and the fact that he clearly has made it known that The Killing was a major influence for this film makes Reservoir Dogs more of an homage that stolen material.
-Alex Sokovich
Well I believed that Tarantino's is work not stealing or homage from other, because their are similar concept works on "The Killing" and "Reservoir Dogs" but the idea and the storyline are very difference. Both movie is about a heist, diamond or money, in which both of them a well plain jobs, hire a group of man , which all them have some kind of story and background about the characters. How they got involved the heist.
In other point of view, I do see the similar camera work on the movie and similar characters. Both movie has leader, who plain thing out with the full detail of the heist. Right hand man, who is carrying out the plain and recruited all the man for the heist, For the other men’s, each of them have some kind of problem or connection to the main character.
In every film there is a focus the main character or the star of the movie to tell the story. Both of these movies didn't have main character to focus on, but have selected characters to tell or focus on the main part of the story, and put in together the pieces and become one huge story. S o when Tarantino’s said that he stealing and homage from other movie, I believed that some similarly on the idea or the camera, not on the storyline. Here is also thing, which does not stealing from other or homage
-quoc tran-
There is a big difference between stealing and homage. Homage is something that shows respect or attests to the worth or influence of another. While stealing is the illegal taking of another person's property without that person's freely-given consent. "I steal from every single movie made, all right? I love it. If my work has anything it's because I am taking this from this and that from that, piecing them together...great artists steal, they don't do homage’s." In this quote Tarantino admits that he does steal from other movies, and does not do homage’s.
I believe that Tarantino does take from other movies, but he in no way copies the movie. For example, the movie The Killing and Reservoir Dogs have a lot of similarities and Tarantino even admits that Reservoir Dogs was his version of The Killing. At the same time, these movies are in no way the same. In each movie the heist is completely different, along with all of the characters. Tarantino simply got an idea from a previous movie and turned it into his own masterpiece.
Tarantino does steal ideas from other movies, but he also turns those ideas into his own vision. In the case of Reservoir Dogs and The Killing I believe that it is kind of homage since Tarantino admits that Reservoir Dogs is his version of The Killing.
Stealing and paying homage are substantially different things. Of course it is known that by stealing, credit is not given to the original source. But paying homage is honoring, crediting a previous source and utilizing that source in a repetitive manner, which apparently Tarantino is against. His statement “great artists steal, they don’t do homage’s,” has truth but what I think can be misunderstood is the use of the word steal. In a cultural view, stealing is viewed as misrepresenting and misleading the audience along with insulting the original source. But what I think Tarantino is trying to suggest is that by stealing, artists are plainly building off each other’s strengths and weaknesses and applying that work to improve their own work. Paying homage is more of an imitation of some work, which in a sense is non-original but a replica of work. Everything from our lives most likely can be compiled into a work subconsciously, its just human nature.
In reading the article Eastern Dogs by Paul Woods, Reservoir Dogs borrows from many different movies, not just The Killing. Woods suggests a compilation of movies such as which inspired Tarantino with narrative and underlying plot and action scenes. This more so proves that Tarantino is a modernist through not only his contemporary cinematography but also his use of past films.
When looking at The Killing by Stanley Kubrick, there are many similarities among the two films as well as differences. The similarities consist of a robbery that goes awry, an unfortunate ending and ultimate failure at both heists. Differences that exist can be seen, that in The Killing the characters are familiar with each other’s identity and the motives for the heist are completely different from that of the characters in Reservoir Dogs. The underlying difference between the two heists is that it seems that the robbers, Mr. White, Pink, Orange, Black, Blonde, Nice Guy Eddie and Joe Cabot are participating to receive money for a job while the characters from The Killing have purpose in their heist, that being marriage and money to legitimate love.
In closing Tarantino is a stealer of ideas from other films in his own, but that is what allows him to build on his own ideas and allows for development for him professionally in his field. By utilizing Kubrick’s The Killing, Tarantino has explored and built on the idea of a heist film and at the same time has not paid homage but has respectfully utilized.
When Tarantino confesses that he steals from “every single movie made” he is doing what he and others believe need to be done to create a complete and successful piece of art. Along with Edward Gallafent I also agree with Stanley Cavell’s definition of the American modernist, “an ‘artist whose discoveries and declarations of his medium are to be understood as embodying his effort to maintain the continuity of his art with the art of the past’”. (Gallafent, 7) In a sense it is necessary to take from others to create a whole new style of art that is your own. If you were to make homage you would not be creating art just remaking another’s. But when you steal from countless pieces of art, the art you admire, then and only then will you be able to achieve an art that you can call your own.
Tarantino is not ashamed to say who and what he has stolen from, and why should he? He acknowledges what it takes to do what he does and embraces that. Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing has been referred without denial from Tarantino as a model for Reservoir Dogs and after seeing both of the films back to back I can distinguish that notion. But I wouldn’t say whatsoever that The Killing was the one and only influence that some perceive it to be, as I stated before to make homage would not be an original piece of art, and in the case of Reservoir Dogs it most certainly is one of a kind. The similarities are in deed prevalent throughout Tarantino’s film with the common plot of an organized robbery preformed by a group of older and younger men, the nontraditional narrative structure, and the groups fatally unsuccessful at the end of the film. The Killing may have been the influence of the overall concept of Reservoir Dogs, it was defiantly not the only stolen idea, because how much alike these film may be they have as much, if not more different from one another. Such as one of the overall themes in The Killing of male and female relationships between the two couples longing for money as a substitute for love, and in Reservoir Dogs you only see a female for a few seconds and when you do they are thrown to the ground or shot, and money does not play as a significant role, this is just a couple of numerous examples of the great difference between the two films.
Tarantino’s success and career revolve around what he has learned from years of watching copious amounts of films. For any film buff turned filmmaker it is not so hard to imagine influences shining through in personal projects. Sure, Tarantino steals, but how could cinema progress without keeping in the context of its own past and constantly referring to that in a new era. Gallafent even says very early on in his essay, “…the energy of Tarantino’s cinema derives from his having gone back to traditional American subjects and images and married them to the expressive possibilities that are properties of current cinema.” (p.2). Tarantino makes films because of his love for the medium so it only makes sense that he would use traditions of filmic devices in order to structure his film. He knows, and so does his film-savvy audience, that the familiar and how it can be manipulated is what keeps the spirit of cinema alive.
With Tarantino it is not hard to discern between stealing from those who have come before him and making films that pay homage to his influences. If Tarantino were to pay homage, there would be no experimentation or expansion of these film devices that he has come to know and love. While his films can be interpreted as mere remixes of groundbreaking cinema, experienced viewers can see that Tarantino uses devices established by other filmmakers without necessarily thinking of them as copyrighted ideas. Film has been and will always be something that grows out of itself. The growth of cinema history is very much collaborative, giving its creators free reign to use others’ ideas and expand upon them, make them their own, and provide a fertile ground for new ideas and creations.
Gallafent pinpoints where Kubrick’s The Killing clearly influenced Reservoir Dogs: “The cumulative effect is to link myths to images of the present moment and the unavoidable truths they embody, reminding us of the sexual appetite that drives several of these figures and of irreversible conditions of age or illness.” (p.11). This is actually a brilliant metaphor for how Tarantino uses others’ techniques in his own context to prove a point. The overarching goal of film is to take the “myth” and give it a visual track which will prove something about this myth that has not been thought of in a certain context or era. As the mobs of men in both The Killing and Reservoir Dogs try to achieve the goal of the American Dream (be it different to each of them) they are shown the truths about their present lives and the lives of everyone in the world around them. Tarantino, in stealing from his predecessors, is trying to recreate the perfection of cinema (like the American Dream) and shows his devoted viewers that the same “irreversible conditions” are omnipresent. He is very much a worldly filmmaker, stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, all of who are in a position to relate to his films the world around.
Considering the negative connotations that the word "stealing" carries, it seems unsuited to use the term when describing Tarantino's writing style. In my mind, the difference between a thief and an homage-payer is what one chooses to do with what he or she takes. While "paying an homage" is a much kinder phrase to describe Tarantino's similarities in "The Killing" and "Reservoir Dogs", who's to say that he didn't steal some aspects of the film (heist theme, jumbled chronology, and male bonding)?
As a young filmmaker, it was to be expected that his influences would be evident in his earlier works. After 100 years of filmmaking, it is impossible for anyone to make a picture without stealing something from someone. Again, I believe it is what a filmmaker chooses to do with these stolen goods in his own work. A mind with as much ingenuity as Tarantino's can get away with stealing certain aspects of a work because he expands and internalizes the ideas so dramatically. For instance, the relationship between Marvin and Johnny in "The Killing" is hardly as complex or intimate as the one Mr. Green shares with Mr. Orange in "Reservoir Dogs". And yet Tarantino is able to present this relationship to the viewer in such a clandestine manner.
As Ella Taylor states in "Mr. Blood Red", "For Tarantino, derivation is the sincerest form of flattery" (p. 19). When he uses ideas from his influences, it is not in desperation to fill a gap in a shoddy story-line. Rather, he steals the most basic foundations and pushes them into a new realm with creativity and innovation. Whether you want to call Tarantino's work homage-payment or theft, how much of the current general public would have seen "The Killing"-a genius movie, far ahead of its time- without the attention that "Reservoir Dogs" brought it? I probably wouldn't have.
The difference between stealing and homage is that homage is a public show of respect to someone to whom one feels indebted. Stealing on the other hand is taking things or ideas without giving something in return, such as money or credit. Tarantino may have said, “I steal from every single movie made, all right? I love it. If my work has anything it's because I am taking this from this and that from that, piecing them together...great artists steal, they don't do homage’s.", but the fact that he has come forward and said that he has received ideas from specifically named movies is giving them homage. For him to name the inspiration, for a piece of art work, is giving credit to the piece of work that came before and inspired his work.
It is clear to see that Tarantino received his inspiration for “Reservoir Dogs” from “The Killing”. Both movies are about a group of men that perform a heist that goes wrong. Both movies also use flashback scenes and tell the story from each characters point of view. However, there are some differences, such as in “The Killing” the heist is successful until later on, while in “Reservoir Dogs” the heist falls apart in the middle of the robbery.
-Robert Mueller
The difference between stealing and homage in a Tarantino film is a vital distinction to be made. As the filmmaker reciprocates narrative and aesthetic elements from world cinema he is doing so in a unique modernist fashion that combines numerous elements together, sometimes excessively so, to extrapolate an entirely new work contextually submerged in film history and pop-culture. Special honor or publicity is not being given to films like Stanley Kubrick’s The Killing or Ringo Lam’s City on Fire like the term “homage” would suggest; to refer to Resevoir Dogs as a film made up of cleverly assembled instances of homage would require, along with ignorance, all cinema goers to be cinephiles as well. This could never be true for American moviegoers who fail to realize that most of the movies they watch in theatres now are nothing but remakes and adaptations of older films. Identifying his work as stealing rather than homage becomes congruent with his appropriated title of “American modernist.”
Stanley Cavell defines the American modernist as an ‘artist whose discoveries and declarations of his medium are to be understood as embodying his effort to maintain the continuity of his art with the art of his past.’ Gallafent employs this notion when stating that, “The connection is not a straightforward one: such assertions contain their own recognition of loss, the impossibility of reconstituting a still earlier, imagined world.”
While Dogs borrows heavily from The Killing in terms of plot and narrative structure the entire social commentary is diverted to rethink and reshape elements of characterization and themes of money, success vs. failure, and sexuality/gender. Gallafent states that, “The presence of women has receded to a remote point, almost disappeared.” This is in sharp contrast to Kubrick’s tale in which the minds and actions of men directly correspond to, and are influenced by, the women in their lives. He goes on to say that, “Even the fantasies appear to be largely distanced, attached to figures from pop music, or TV shows,” which is an element of the film, much like his “stealing” of scenes, that works towards audience identification. His distinct style of filmmaking, from the infusion of pop-culture and earlier cinema to blunt, realist conversation is all working to form a bond that the audience to relate to.
Quentin Tarantino, like all great filmmakers over the last 80 years, is influenced by the art that has come before him just as Hitchcock with German Expressionism, De Palma with Hitchcock, and so forth. To refer to his films as homage is to say that all films in some way or another deserve that classification when in reality he is simply building upon a longstanding art form in a uniquely modernist fashion.
I adore the fact that Tarantino is real with himself and the public about his "stealing". I feel as if that statement is a bit harsh on himself, however. The term "steal" sounds so deragatory, a term with negative connotation attached. I didn't find "The Killers" and "Resevoir Dogs" to be copies of eachother... I could see how maybe he was deffinately inspired by "The Killers", and maybe he stole the idea of a robbery theme and the narrative idea of the style of which Kubrick chose to tell each of the individual robber's story leading up to the horse race and robbery, but the movies were distinctly seperate movies.
I don't agree with Tarantino's statement that great artists "don't do homages". Homages being a means of paying respect to anothers work by using it in their own. In fact, I guess I cannot go any further with that arguement because, really, I don't know what the hell the difference between homage and stealing would even be? Doesn't the quote "imitation is the finest form of flattery" fit in here as well? Steal it, homage it, imitate it, it's all the same.
Woods uses the above terms on page 18, saying that Tarantino clearly "pays homages" to this and that actor and that his..."strongest influence is Martin Scorsesse"...
I would have to argue and say that an artist CAN make homages. This is art for god sakes,I could take a mild shit on a dinner plate and it would not be far off to say i could submit it to the Milwaukee Public Art Museum and surely get it displayed.
Meghan Parkansky
While Tarantino came right out and said that he steals from previous films and artists, it's not simply that he is directly copying. His comment about homage being, in short, B.S. is one that was likely aimed at not simply explaining his own methods but also at riling up any listeners. In this sense, I feel that it should be taken with a grain of salt...
Stealing versus homage could be debated endlessly, especially by artists who have been accused of one or the other. Any person who creates tends to be influenced by their lived experiences, what they've seen and been shown in the past. Unless raised in a cave with no human contact, a person who makes a film is absolutely going to use methods and imagery that can be linked back to a previous creation. However, the creator may or may not be consciously aware of this, which leads to, in my opinion, the necessity of adding a third term to the list; Influence.
Homage-a conscious reference to a previous work/artist/etc. in a fashion that makes it clear to the viewer/audience that the artist has some respect or recognition of that work.
Stealing- Using methods/visuals/etc. from previous works with no intent of explaining to viewers the original sources. In other words, seeing something you think would work and just using it.
Influence- The lived experiences that help form an individuals styles and choices, whether recognized or unconscious.
Tarantino may say he simply steals, but in my mind he is using all three of the categories. The simple fact that he has such a variety of styles blended together reveals that he has hundreds of influences, more than he could consciously be stealing from.
As far as Reservoir Dogs being Tarantino's The Killing, it's clear that he was highly inspired by it. Visual cues, timeline choices, narrative structure and general theme are all highly similar. Not identical, but clearly a sort of "son of" product was the end result. Highly interesting to me was the choice Tarantino made to have the inspiration of the characters be so different. This choice is what set the two apart most distinctly in my mind. In The Killing the majority of the characters are in the plot to make money to make their personal lives more comfortable. In Reservoir Dogs they may be interested in physical comfort, but each of the members of the heist are professional thieves, not normal citizens thrust into a new world of theft. This choice allowed Tarantino to take the plot to a much darker place than The Killing was able to achieve.
I think, that to make an homage to something implies a certain level of respect for the original thing you are taking from. By QT stating that he is stealing I feel that he is more making a statement about the pop art culture, in which everything is already copying or influenced by something so everything is up for grabs. For instance, QT made no direct references to Kubrick’s The Killing in his Reservoir Dogs but, both films did employ elements of irony or macabre situational humor, they utilized a non-linear structure, all characters concerned with the main plot are generational wise-guys, and at the climax of both films, a mishap takes place in which the group breaks down on itself. Also, not as apparent in Reservoir Dogs, but definitely apparent in The Killing and other Tarantino films is each director’s attitude towards women as either simpering damsels in distress, or manipulative, power-crazed, vixens. In any case, even if QT is stealing pieces from these movies he professes to love, at least he’s obvious about it and adds a bit of his own style to make it work.
Is stealing this same thing as paying homage? Maybe. It depends on how you pay homage. In Tarantino's case, the answer is no. Tarantino doesn't just make films. He snatches pieces of other films and sews them together, taking anything ranging from plots to cinematic methods in his quest to create art. The thing is, Tarantino admits it openly and without shame. “Great artists steal” he says in one article by Paul Woods “...they don't do homages.” All though one could disagree with that on paper, Tarantino's right. Great artists do in fact steal from other works and make it their own. However, paying homage is showing respect for another person and/or their work. Not simply taking it as your own. And while imitation is the greatest form of flattery, in the artistic world how much imitation can you be allowed to get away with before you cross the line of building on another artists' work and simply using? The fact that Tarantino finally gave forced admission to heavily borrowing from Chow Yun-Fat's City on Fire shows that although he admires the director's work, if by some chance the correlation between Reservoir Dogs and the aforementioned hadn't been made, he would have kept trucking along without uttering a peep. As Woods states, “Somehow, his plan to move from recycling the influence to working with the genuine article has failed to materialise.”
I think that an Homage is something that pays tribute to or gives respects to something or someone else, through any form of expression or communication. Stealing, is taking something that is not yours, whether it be an idea, a technique, words, or something physical. I think stealing a kind of culturally created concept that is derived from the viewpoint that people have ownership of not only physical things, but in some cultures, things they come up with in their mind. I think that even though what Tarantino does may not be seen as stealing by some cultures or people, in American culture, we see people as having ownership over their ideas and the things they create, so we would see Tarantino's using other's ideas as stealing. I don't think that stealing and paying homage necessarily have to be mutually exclusive ideas, I think it is possible to pay homage to someone's ideas by using/stealing them. Tarantino does this in many instances, as in Reservoir Dogs stealing ideas from The Killing, while paying tribute to the film. I think that often people don't admit that they are stealing and call it an homage, when they are really doing both, and that maybe this is because our culture looks down on stealing anything, including ideas, as something very wrong. Maybe the way American culture sees ideas as something that is owned is not completely correct and they should instead be seen as something to be shared, while giving credit to the person who came up with it originally, if that information is known.
Tarantino used the heist gone wrong storyline, and a non-linear narrative structure very similar to those of The Killing. Tood McCarthy describes this in his article entitled "Reservoir Dogs" when he writes, "Telling a story much like The Killing or Odds Against Tomorrow, script fractures very cleverly into an intricate flashback structure that mixes post-robbery mess with telling character and plot details from the planning stages." In this quote, he tells us how Tarantino steals the story part of The Killing, and the flashbacks from The Killing. However, The Killing is not necesarily the first time that this type of story or this narrative structure was used, and even though we can guess at where Tarantino got some of his ideas, or he can tell us where he got them, it is very hard to say exactly who he is stealing from and where these ideas originated because stealing is so common, but often not recognized as stealing.
Post a Comment