Reel Politique: News, plagiarizing film blog
Many readers may be familiar with Portlander James Westby’s tragi-comedy Film Geek (in which this writer has a small role). It tells the story of Scotty, a lowly asocial video store clerk who has his own movie review website. In his fantasy, the site becomes world famous, and critics far and abroad praise the clerk for his vast film knowledge.
There’s a real life Scotty, and his story may end as unhappily as Scotty’s.
Damian Arlyn is a 31-year-old video store manager in Corvallis, Oregon. In what appears to be his abundant free time, Mr. Arlyn maintains a film blog. Titled Windmills of My Mind (from the theme song to The Thomas Crown Affair), it offers the usual fare, lists, quizzes, obits, links to like-minded bloggers, and celebrations of personal favorite films, filmmakers, and moments (such as the elements of the opening credits for The Simpsons). Though it is more or less like every other blog in the world, Mr. Arlyn’s blog has developed a following, and was championed by New York Times writer Matt Zoller Seitz at his site, The House Next Door. Pretty heady stuff for what is a fairly conventional and often rather awkwardly written blog. But in the blogosphere (as in the print world), true talent scares people, and they cringe from it back toward mediocrity. And Monsieur Homais has just received the cross of the Legion of Honour.
For August, Mr. Arlyn came up with the gimmick of dedicating a blog entry each day to his favorite filmmaker, Steven Spielberg. Entitled “31 Days of Spielberg,” Mr. Arlyn proposed to “analyze” every film by Spielberg in chronological order, beginning with the episode he did for Night Gallery. In prose that was alternately clumsy and pretentious, Mr. Arlyn proceeded to do just that. The gimmick worked, and the Spielberg project created a lot of buzz, despite the fact that Mr. Arlyn’s entries were little more than a combination of set gossip and visual transcriptions. The talkbacks for each entry were ecstatic, and Mr. Arlyn was careful to reply to almost every poster.
Though running a little behind schedule, by the 19th entry, Mr. Arlyn was covering Hook. And that’s when disaster struck. Amid the blaze of praise for Mr. Arlyn’s endeavor in the talkbacks to the entry, an anonymous made a devastating comment.
“Damian are you aware that you are being accused of plagiarism, on the spielbergfilms.com website? The post discusses Duel, Columbo, and Eyes.” The link took the reader to a website devoted to Spielberg, where a debate had arisen over the value of various books on the director. Steven Awalt, who maintains the site, basically put down most Spielberg books as dry and overly intellectual, especially the latest book, Directed by Steven Spielberg, written by Warren Buckland, an academic who favors the use of cognitive psychology in film analysis. As an alternative, Awalt pointed to Mr. Arlyn’s website, where good solid criticism was being practiced. To this, a poster using the handle justanotherfan pointed out that it was paradoxical of Awalt to praise Mr. Arlyn at the expense of Professor Buckland, since it was the same text. Mr. Arlyn, justanotherfan charged, had plagiarized Buckland.
The examples were devastating. Here’s just one:
Buckland: “Jim is unimpressed, indicating that Ken is not wearing gloves, does not have his finger on the trigger, and that the gun barrel does not contain any bullets. Ken concedes he is a lousy practical joker, and offers Jim champagne.”
Mr. Arlyn: “Jim is unimpressed, indicating that Ken is not wearing gloves, does not have his finger on the trigger and he can clearly see there aren’t even any bullets in the barrel. Ken smiles charmingly, concedes he is a lousy practical joker, offers Jim some champagne.”
To his credit, Mr. Arlyn owned up to the charge, both at the Spielberg films site and at his own. In Mr. Arlyn’s lengthy mea culpa he casts himself, when it was convenient, as a seasoned writer, one who “can offer no excuse except to say (and this is not really an excuse, just an explanation) that it was very early on in the project and I hadn’t yet found the ‘rhythm’ by which I was operating,” and then, when it is convenient, pleads for pity from the court of public opinion as a poor boy of little means: “I am not doing — nor have I ever done — this for praise, for esteem, for glory, for fame and certainly not for money. One thing I have never lost sight of is that in the big scheme of things, I am a nobody. I am a thirty-one-year-old video store clerk who lives in Corvallis, Oregon. I make little more than minumim wage a year and I happen to love movies. I never intended for this blog to be anything more than an expression of one little guy’s passion and affection for cinema.”
Mr. Arlyn’s friends and supporters, seemingly unaware of the gravity of the case and how it was giving blogs in general a black eye, rallied around him in the talkbacks, praising his newfound forthrightness. There was one lone voice of dissent. A user named penman wrote, “Sorry, but I feel like that senator in Quiz Show who, after all the other senators kiss Ralph Fiennes’ ass for being ‘brave’ for finally copping to his cheating, reminds everyone present that Van Doren broke faith and shouldn’t be praised for merely coming clean about his wrongdoing. That’s how I feel. I have a Ph.D in English and teach college composition and literature, and what Damian did is exactly what savvier student plagiarists do: They copy outright and then ‘cover tracks’ by changing a word here and there. For all the different kinds of plagiarism I’ve seen — and I’ve seen a lot of ‘em — Damian’s kind is the one that most clearly demonstrates intent to deceive and consciousness of wrongdoing. So I can’t join in with the other commenters here with the ‘atta boys’ and ‘chin up, kid.’ I’ve been reading every day since Matt [Zoller Seitz] linked here, and I was looking forward to more. But it stinks here, now. I won’t be coming back.”
Though there are slight differences between the explanations for his actions at the two locations, it’s clear that the backstory is that Mr. Arlyn embarked on his project and soon found himself in over his head, and in the race to complete his entries relied a tad too heavily on already-printed material. In this regard, Mr. Arlyn resembles the main character in the new documentary Deep Water, Donald Crowhurst, the amateur sailor who attempted to win a world circumnavigation contest in 1968 with a cunning cheat.
I don’t know how many others are going to pick up on this story and pontificate on it, but one thing that needs to be said is that plagiarism of the gross kind that Mr. Arlyn engaged in is not the real problem in contemporary film criticism. There is another kind, that is more pervasive and insidious and nearly invisible. That’s the group-think that sweeps across the nation as certain reviews and reviewers set the tone and limit the terms of response to a film. What these writers are doing is plagiarizing a tone, the way the Paulettes from long ago, and even to this day, took their cues from Pauline Kael’s New Yorker reviews and her private exhortations. Plagiarists such as Mr. Arlyn are always eventually caught out. Plagiarists of the second kind never are, yet can unduly influence the fortunes of a film. In this light, perhaps it’s a good thing that no one pays attention to movie reviewers any more.
August 23rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm
Hello,
I’d like to make a couple of points (perhaps fine points) in response to your article about this unfortunate situation regarding plagiarism in which our site was an unwitting hub. Firstly, by no means have I ever “put down most Spielberg books as dry and overly intellectual.” Out of well over 50 published books on Spielberg films, biography, etc., I said this particular statement about one book, Warren Buckland’s. I also point out in the thread that uncovered Arlyn’s plagiarism that there is no direct correlation between my praise of Arlyn’s style and dislike of Buckland’s. That’s an assumption that justanotherfan made to make his inaccurate point. Looking at the work (both original and pilfered) on a micro level, sentence by sentence, of course there’s a high probability that there will be some passages of interest. Buckland’s book is not without any merit, but my point is that Buckland’s overall presentation in his book is very dry. He picks the films apart visually shot-by-shot in overtly descriptive terms, oftentimes without culminating to any real point or insight worthy of such lengthy, lifeless dissection. Such an approach, for me at least, sucks the life out of the films and makes them seem mechanical and not the living, breathing pieces of art that they are. Better to watch the films then wade through shot descriptions, especially when said descriptions amount to so little.
On the flip side, despite Arlyn’s failings when it came to parroting another’s thoughts and ultimately presentation of said thoughts, he did so using specific passages. This isn’t to say that his presentation is a carbon copy of Buckland through and through. If that were the case, then yes, my bolstering of one and criticism of another would indeed be amusing. But not all adaptations of the same source material are created equal, as many filmmakers have shown us. Some can adapt great works to bland, trying films, while others imbue their work with vigor and passion. Unfortunately, Mr. Arlyn’s passions and good intentions may have gotten the better of him.
Thanks for the opportunity to explain my position, since you mentioned it (erroneously) here.
Sincerely,
Steven Awalt
Editor, SpielbergFIlms.com
August 24th, 2007 at 3:45 am
I’m not sure why Mr. Awalt feels the need to attack Dr. Buckland’s book on a persistent basis. Dr. Buckland has never done anything to Mr. Awalt. To some degree, it is understandable that Mr. Awalt may feel embarassed that he praised Mr. Arlyn when Mr. Arlyn used the exact same sentences as Dr. Buckland did, but this is no excuse for Mr. Awalt’s disparaging of Dr. Buckland over and over again.
Mr. Awalt doesn’t like Dr. Buckland’s book–fine. However, he should stop indirectly praising Mr. Arlyn’s writing style, which is built upon a foundation of thievery and lies.
August 24th, 2007 at 6:53 am
To Yunda Eddie Feng:
I haven’t attacked Dr. Buckland’s book over and over, apart from it being brought up multiple times recently due to this situation. I do feel that it’s suddenly become a crime to have a darned opinion though. Any author should be so lucky to have people opine on their work, good or bad. At least people are reading.
Upon it’s release, I went into Buckland’s book with great excitement, as I do any book on Spielberg’s work. I didn’t find it to be as good as it hyped itself to be. That’s that.. It’s odd to me, however, that people continue to make it a big deal. Either you’re overvaluing my opinion, or you have a personal relationship that impels you to defend Buckland’s work against any who would dare to question it.
Further, my dislike of a book has nothing to do with Dr. Buckland or myself personally. I would imagine he’s a kind, intelligent man, and one I have never said anything about personally (I’ve never met him, so I’d be very wrong to do so.) I think people need to quit clouding the conversation with personal assumptions such as these. I didn’t like the overall presentation of the book, I liked Arlyn’s overall style (despite his plagiarism, at this point, we can assume that at least the majority of his work is his own). How is that so hard to grasp, and what’s the point further than that?
One last point: my Web site gave Dr. Buckland’s book a positive review upon its release. I didn’t personally review it, but as a publication, we gave it high marks. Nothing personal here, obviously. I think some folks on the ‘Net need to learn that plagiarism is wrong, and criticism is valid when someone publishes. It’s amazing how many out there are excusing plagiarist and admonishing valid criticism.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Doesn’t the “group think” you refer to say more about the narrow range of most big studio films today than about the critics? How many different opinions did you expect about “Transformers?” This nobody-cares attitude incenses me more than anything else in film criticism, and leads to a web where we are all writing summaries of old TV shows instead of talking about new work. AFTER writing a review for publication I often check Rotten Tomatoes to see where I fsll on the spectrum of reaction. (I would never change anything as a result of another critic or site) Generally I’m consistent with what’s out there - though I hope I’ve made my points in an interesting way. Does my inability to differ from Roger Ebert make me a lesser critic?
August 24th, 2007 at 9:52 am
D.K.: Regardless of whether Damian Arlyn is a good, mediocre or bad writer who stole material from someone else, I just hope that if he wants to continue writing that he will somehow weather the beating he’s taking right now and do so. If he doesn’t, then so be it, and hopefully someone else who might have considered doing what Damian did would see the consequences and reconsider before going through with it. It is a serious situation, to be sure, and one that, I think, has inspired enough finger-wagging for the time being.
As for the point you leave us with here, I’m unclear as to where you stand on the influence of critics. It’s pretty obvious when a critic is simply mimicking the tone or style of any given writer– there are plenty of wannabe David Edelsteins on RottenTomatoes,com, and one cannot see the trees for the forest of aspiring Harry Knowleses. But I also think it’s pretty clear within a paragraph or two whether these writers are going to have anything original to add to the mix, either in terms of style or thought. My antidote to bad writing: stop reading.
So is it the tone or the content that can “unduly influence the fortunes of a film”? (Presumably we’re talking about a negative opinion which may have a chilling effect on the movie’s box-office reception.) If it’s the content, should I be worried when I write a completely enthusiastic review of “Hairspray” even when I know of other writers also liked it? Should you be worried when you join in with others who loved “The Bourne Ultimatum”? Or should we be worried only about negative reviews?
I think a lot can be explained by the limits placed upon reviewers, by their editors or by their own disinterest in anything out of the mainstream, who end up reviewing the same four or five films everyone else does. And if there’s a whiff of disaster in the air before a film is released, I think a lot of reviewers receive this as accepted wisdom and never look much further. Then, of course, there is also the junket effect, which is designed to mass-produce similar-sounding ad copy that can be passed off as reviews.
But it all gets brushed aside by your final comment that “no one pays any attention to movie reviewers any more.” I don’t understand how critics can affect a movie’s box office performance and/or reputation and be irrelevant at the same time. You don’t write like someone who thinks he’s irrelevant, nor does your stuff read like it. And I think this is why we worry about these questions: because it does mean something. It does matter. And if people don’t read film criticism the way they used to in the days of Pauline Kael, maybe it’s because they see the average newspaper review and see no reason to. I think that’s where folks like David Edelstein, Manohla Dargis, Roger Ebert, Jim Emerson, Matt Zoller Seitz, D.K. Holm, David Hudson and all the excellent writers emerging from the online scene can still have an influence, where they can create and maintain new interest in the art of film.