Monday, February 1, 2010
Response to ANiCO's response to My Earlier Post
ANiCO, I greatly appreciate your feedback. Perhaps I was a little hasty in asking if no original ideas or thoughts exist anymore. Rather, I would like to turn the focus to something more contemporary: pop culture. We had talked about the Bible as one example, but here's an example I feel more people might recognize. Alfred Hitchcock directed a film in the 1960s called "Rear WIndow," in which the protagonist is confined to his cramped apartment room with a broken leg and spends most of his days studying the habits of his surrounding neighbors. Over the course of a few weeks, the protagonist notices that one of his neighbors might be a serial killer (quite the intriguing plot). The film gained critical acclaim upon its release and opened up a new category of "voyeurism" in the film industry; many have said "Read Window" was a fresh, original work of art for its time. A few years ago, Steven Spielberg produced a film called "Distubia," in which the protagonist is confined to his house due to house arrest and notices his suburban neighbor may be a murderer. The two films had a virtually identical plot, but most movie-goers who are unfamiliar with Hitchcock's "Rear Window" might say "Disturbia" is an original, fresh film. (And Spielberg actually took some heat for "copying the plot") Thus, my question now is "are thoughts and ideas in our contemporary society only considered 'original' if they are widely accepted and popularized in the PRESENT MOMENT (regardless of the idea being thought of before)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ahh, now THIS is good. ;)
ReplyDeleteI am familiar with both movies (and because so, 'Disturbia' pisses me off). It's also a reason why I feel like I'm the only one who hated 'Avatar' (because its exactly the same as 'Dances With Wolves', only prettier and catering to our sci-fi, hyperreality fetish). I got a lot of heat for slamming Avatar, and when I explained myself, people had no idea as to what I was talking about. The only thing Avatar was innovative about was the manner in which it was built, but no one outside of techno-geeks can comprehend that.
I guess with this concept, originality can only go as far as what the generation is aware of. I'm an oldskool junkie, so I'd like to say that these reproductions of plots with contemporary settings are STILL unoriginal, but it's hard to contend with the mainstream. It's pessimistic, but I think what is "truth" depends wholeheartedly on how many people believe it.
Given that, I would put forward that originality stems from "how-many-different-ways-can-you-tell-the-same-thing" rather than a whole new concept from itself.
Another example could be Quentin Tarantino, but I think he walks a much finer Postmodern line. People say he steals from other old spaghetti western movies and compiles them into a shmorgishborg of old ideas into something new. I personally love all of Tarantino's movies because its a good postmodern example of the hyperreality and this concept of copying something enough and mashing them together to turn it into something original. I still think his movies are unique, even when I'm aware he's pulling it from other things. Maybe it's his admittance to pulling from other material that makes it genuine for me.