[Marxism] Rotten Tomatoes - Wolf of Wall Street
lnp3 at panix.com
Sun Jan 12 10:50:37 MST 2014
On 1/12/14 12:29 PM, Shreyas Tallamraju wrote:
> Dear Critic,
> In your Rotten Tomatoes review of the 2013 movie "The Wolf of Wall
> Street", you mention that "The director of this film plagiarized
> "Goodfellas" but did a poor job. Not half as interesting as the original."
> You should be aware, however, that Martin Scorsese directed "Goodfellas"
> /and/ "The Wolf of Wall Street", and therefore both are his own
> directorial creations.
> Therefore, he did not "plagiarize" any work, even though he did take
> elements from "Goodfellas" and put it into "The Wolf of Wall Street".
> Whether or not he did it as well as "Goodfellas" is your job to figure out.
> As a movie critic you have a job, and that job is to depict a movie's
> characteristics, not its directorial shortcomings or false allegations
> of "plagiarism", and I hope that in the future you take your job more
> Please don't make misleading statements that slur others.
> Shreyas T.
> Ohio, USA
You are the third person who has brought this to my attention. I suppose
I should have provided one of those emoticons in my review to indicate
that I was making a joke. I certainly knew that Martin Scorsese directed
"Goodfellas" so my jibe about plagiarizing himself was intended to be a
statement more about recycling than actual theft. I should mention,
however, that in academia there is such a thing as self-plagiarism. If
you take an article and submit it to multiple journals with thinly
disguised rewording, juggling around of paragraphs, etc., this is
considered a form of plagiarism.
I should mention something else, however. I am not a movie critic. I am
a social critic. My interest in films is not in performance,
photography, music, etc. Of the hundreds of critics whose reviews appear
on Rotten Tomatoes, I am one of a group of maybe 5 radicals. Yesterday I
told a friend that you would have no idea who the author was of most of
the conventional reviews. I could not tell the difference between A.O.
Scott and David Denby if my life depended on it. They are basically
writing for the average person deciding whether to spend $12 on "A Wolf
on Wall Street" or "American Hustle". I try to avoid such movies as much
as possible but am forced to address them as a member of NYFCO around
awards time at year-end.
Basically, I am providing an alternative to the mainstream. My interest
is in society, not entertainment. When I reviewed "Captain Phillips" and
"A Hijacking", both about Somali pirates, I wrote about Somalia's recent
past including the role of radical Islam. I read a 200 page book just to
provide background in my review.
So, if you want the typical film review, you should avoid reading me.
There are others, however, who are fed up with American capitalism and
the role of Hollywood in making the system more palatable through
escapist fantasies like "Gravity" or fascist propaganda like "Lone
Survivor". I write for them.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write in any case.
More information about the Marxism