Originality doesn't really matter anymore.  There are filmmakers that are considered original - like Charlie Kaufman or David Lynch, for example - but I'm sure that if you go back far enough, just about every idea ever put on screen comes back to some archetypal story first written at least several hundred years ago.

The important thing now isn't being original but being authentic.

Pulp Fiction is a perfect example, as Withnail mentioned before.  It's one of those films that you can point out what Tarantino cribbed from in every scene.  It's been said a million times before but he's the cinematic equivalent of a DJ, sampling other flicks but making it something his own.

Now, the endless slew of Tarantino clones that came out since Pulp Fiction... the majority of those were shit. Inauthentic. Riding a bandwagon. Fuck them.

If your thing is to be intentionally referential, then do it.  If the entire reason for you to make a movie is to follow some sort of popular trend (I out-and-out FEAR the onslaught of graphic Biblical epics that will be sprouting from Hollywood over the next couple of years), then it's probably going to be a waste of time.  

That's not to say that being authentic means it will be good automatically but that goes without saying; a shitty movie is still a shitty movie.

But if you're looking for originality, don't hold your breath.

Quote from: mutinycoI'm taking about making a film from your own ideas and observations or life experiences. Not simply making a film from pieces of other people's films you like.

Even still...there's something to be said for the collective unconsicousness (and I'm not a fanboy who reads Jung, by the way), in that a hypothetical filmmaker, having never seen another film, could make something based on his or her own experiences, and audiences and critics would still find connective points between it and other, earlier films. That every story has already been told is not simply a reflection of the limits of creativity or the urge to emulate (although those are both certainly factors in many cases) but simply because most people, in their lives, go through similar experiences and feel similar feelings - all unique in the details, of course, but at a base level very much the same. A filmmaker looking to express a feeling or experience in cinematic language runs a very good chance of repeating something created by filmmakers in the past, even if he or she thinks its entirely original.

Pulp Fiction, to me, is the only truly original Tarantino film.  All the others borrowed extremely heavily from other films, almost to the point of plagiarism.  (And that Tarantino "borrowed" from Avary doesn't bode too well for him, though I do like the stories I've read of him and Avary kind of throwing together bits and pieces of everything they've ever written to form Pulp Fiction.)  And Jackie Brown wasn't an original work, but I'm betting the film is nothing like the novel.  Because Tarantino does it with such charm, he gets away with it, and I don't fault him for it too much.  He can do it because he has a grasp of his own personal style.

There ain't nothing wrong with fanboys reading Jung, but they better understand it before trying to cite it.  It really is fun trying to see someone who's just learned all this new jargon, though, try to use it.

And one of the things that crushes me, really annoys me, is when I come across someone who doesn't really have any respect for origins of films.  I fall into this trap at times, and try to catch myself (because let's face it, there are a lot of old films that are just flat out boring), but there are some people who simply refuse to do their homework, refuse to see any films before 1970, and don't go out of their way to see films on the fringe.  Memento is their idea of an art house film.

I had such an invigorating conversation with one of these guys about six months ago.  We were talking about Donnie Darko, David Lynch, and all sort of new indie flicks, but when I took it one step further and started drawing on some of those influences and anything deeper than that (I probably brought up Bunuel and Fellini and Godard because I had just seen some of their stuff and was excited), he just looked at me and said, "nah, I don't really care to look into anything like that.  The way I see it, it's old, there's so much new stuff.  That's kind of irrelevant."  It's these types of people who I think hacksparrow was getting at.  People who quote pop culture as profound thought and do it in such a stylish and slick way that most of the viewing audience gulps it down though it doesn't really have all that much substance to it.  Any thoughts on this?

There is some sort of collective subconscious and it sucks, because all the best ideas get lost that way if you don't pounce on them.  The expression "it's all been done" is true, which is why it's a matter of HOW it's done that's so important.

I'm not talking about the collective unconscious. Yeah, there might be a handful of stories out there. But what I'm talking about is watching a film like Kill Bill 2 and NOT FEELING ANYTHING! It's a series of scenes from other films. A series of LOOK AT ME references.

Kubrick's films were always based on novels, yet they were always original FILMS. So intricate that they require repeat viewings.

When studying films one should try to understand the underlying concepts, not the surface of the presentation.

And you know what? I DO believe in originality. And I'll be proving that with my films.

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman

Quote from: peteacademics are like fanboys who've read Carl Jung.

And what's wrong with that?

and what's wrong with sucking my balls?

"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."
- Carl Jung

Quote from: Jeremy Blackman"Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves."
- Carl Jung

While I strongly prefer Freud and his followers (other than the Jungians) to Jung, that is an undoubtedly true statement.

I think it's safe to say, all chicken-or-egg "originality" and "collective subconscious" talk aside, that intelligence, skill, spontaneity, and the ability to self-edit that spontaneity (sometimes on a dime and while everyone's looking) are fairly indispensable in the creation of a great film.

"Originality" as the term is used- "something new"- doesn't mean much to me; I sort of take the poststructuralist, "nothing new under the sun" line on that one. But boy, can I tell when I don't think proper thought or care has been taken in the creation of a film. It's more important that you take what you're doing seriously and follow through on it than that you desperately grasp at the fleeting, perhaps impossible glory of "originality."

I will say that most "original" ideas in film have been borrowed from other media. Susan Sontag called Godard a "literary" filmmaker, implying that he applied radical literary theory to cinematic storytelling. And so on.

hahaha, "poststructuralist."

Quote from: petehahaha, "poststructuralist."

You know of it, Cambridge boy?    Maybe I should have said "postmodernist," but they both mean what I did when it comes to "originality."

"you know of it, cambridge boy"--what are you, a young republican?

Quote from: pete"you know of it, cambridge boy"--what are you, a young republican?

Quote from: OnomatopaellaI had such an invigorating conversation with one of these guys about six months ago.  We were talking about Donnie Darko, David Lynch, and all sort of new indie flicks, but when I took it one step further and started drawing on some of those influences and anything deeper than that (I probably brought up Bunuel and Fellini and Godard because I had just seen some of their stuff and was excited), he just looked at me and said, "nah, I don't really care to look into anything like that.  The way I see it, it's old, there's so much new stuff.  That's kind of irrelevant."  It's these types of people who I think hacksparrow was getting at.  People who quote pop culture as profound thought and do it in such a stylish and slick way that most of the viewing audience gulps it down though it doesn't really have all that much substance to it.  Any thoughts on this?

That's partially what I was getting at.  Anyone who hasn't seen a film made prior to 1970 is perfectly capable of making a good film.  It's not likely but it's possible.  What matters is the intent.  Are you adding your own personal touch to the references or are you just rehashing them?

But, concerning film history, I remember something that I heard Salman Rushdie, Mr. Pop Culture himself, say once at a symposium.  My friend asked him something about his childhood in Bombay and did it nurture a love affair with films that is so evident in his novels (I'm not doing her question justice; it was better than that).  His reply was that, growing up in the 50s, the local theatre would have The Seventh Seal one week and The Seven Samurai the next, and Breathless after that.  He said (I'm pretty sure this is word for word), "You have no idea what it was like to be around when these films were the new films."  That kicked my ass.

Getting back on topic, a lot of it has to do with what you grew up on and how it affected you.  The guys that we grew up on all grew up on Howard Hawks, Kurosawa, David Lean, John Ford.  What did most of us grow up on?  Lucas, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Simpson/Bruckheimer productions.  Fundamentally, there's nothing wrong with that because there are some damn good films in there but, where the major driving force of the old guard was substance, most of everything now is superficial.  This is nothing new; we all know this.  Every filmmaker emulates their inspiration.  But the problem is that copies of copies of copies lose the resolution of the original.  The best filmmakers of this generation have studied the work of their idols' idols.

Quote from: OnomatopaellaThere is some sort of collective subconscious and it sucks, because all the best ideas get lost that way if you don't pounce on them.  The expression "it's all been done" is true, which is why it's a matter of HOW it's done that's so important.

Exactly.  For example, the intent of Kill Bill (judging from Vol. 1) wasn't to be thought provoking or an emotionally enriching thing.  It's a pure visceral, superficial experience and, though we may have seen it before, it's still got his stamp on it and a personal touch to an old story is the most "originality" that we can really expect from anyone.  Like how Punch-Drunk Love and Eternal Sunshine were personal spins on the same "boy meets girl" story that we've seen a million times throughout recorded history.

Quote from: mutinycoAnd you know what? I DO believe in originality. And I'll be proving that with my films.    

Don't take this personally but I'm skeptical of anyone saying that.  I do, however, look forward to you proving me wrong.

well that also depends on how specific you wanna define "original".  Is Eternal Sunshine "boy meets girl?", or is it, as the tagline suggests "boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy wants his memories of the girl erased"?  Are motion pictures just narratives of themes transferred onto the big screen, or are they themes with flickering images with sounds with a live audience?  'Cause the more specific you get, the more variables are available for the filmmaker to play with.  Film is a huge medium, but most of the time it's been limited by an arbitrary need to be between 1.5 to 3 hours, to have a script that contains narrative arcs, to have characters that have visual motives.  And in hollywood it's even more strict, with the amount of violence, social messages, even the time (character motive must be introduced in the first 10 minutes, all major characters must be introduced in the first 20 minutes, character conflict must be introduced at the end of the first act, when the character makes a decision that changes the direction of the film...etc.) is retrained.  I'm just using Hollywood as a very very obvious and safe example, but it's everywhere and there are so many things that we take for granted just as the meatheads have taken the studio formats for granted, rules to break, rules to make, actresses to bone...I don't think it's that hard to be unoriginal.
But I do think it's that hard to be RECOGNIZED as unoriginal.  When William Goldman killed off Prince Westley in The Princess Bride, it took him months just to write that line, and when he did, he cried and cried, it was so liberating and original for him.  But when Princess Bride came out, people laughed at it yes but they also just thought it was this big parody/ reference thing to all the great parts of fairytales.  And I'm not gonna argue that it's not, but once again, that doesn't mean the film is not original.  Critics also love playing this game of EXTREME comparisons, where they'll pull in two movies that aren't seemingly related at all, and then throw in phrases that are apt descriptions for both films, to convince the readers that both films are actually very similar semiotically speaking or some shite like that (like that article posted here a few weeks back comparing Kill Bill to Lost in Translation), and a lot of times, just because a film can be described the same way another film can be described, it doesn't mean it's not original.  It just means the vocabulary in film criticism as of now is still very limited, allowing some two-bit, think-himself-witty jackhole writer to get away with something as asinine as these exotic categories.
For example, just this past year, Triplets of Belleville--never seen anything like it before, and can't really describe what I just seen.  The action scenes in Ong-Bak, can't really describe it either, though the plot is pretty lame.  Then there's All the Real Girls, Marooned in Iraq, Divine Intervention...etc.
Also it even trickles down to how much of the film can be "original" before it's considered an original film?  If all the songs in a standard musical are original, is the film original?  What about the other way around?
Refernencing is inevitable--accusing one of referencing is even more inevitable, but originality in film, today, definitely exists.

i'm for the story - anything that can make a story funny, witty, intelligent, unforgettable...i'm all for it. American Beauty is playing with stereotypes and it does that in such a funny way. The character and the story should be realistic and possible, but nobody will acomplish that by quoting Freud, Jung, Adler,...those guys are part of the research, and they should stay behind the "stage". The viewer should "get" the movie with his own intuition, not a diploma, and sometimes it's hard to give yourself to the movie, because it involves your own emotions, your own life. American actors are really waaaaay ahead of actors from other parts of the world, in my opinion, because they mainly work on film, and that means closeups, and lots of emotions that are not yelled out, but shown with facial mimic.