DEATH OF ORIGINALITY
iView Author: Sonu Sureshbabu Malgee (Thane, India)
Email: withheld
DEATH OF ORIGINALITY
“Nothing is original”, said Mahesh Bhatt. To which, Sudhir Mishra replied, “ARTH was original”. Yet he says “Nothing is original”. I don’t’ know how many of you believe in the definition of Mr. Bhatt., but I think his definition is too obtuse. Let’s see why.
Anurag Kashyap’s DEV D. Is this original? Or is this a copy of Devdas?
Raj Kapoor’s song “jaane kahan” from Mera Naam Joker. Is this original? Or is this a copy of raag shivranjani?
Ar rahman’s song “yeh haseen vadiya” from ROJA. Is this original or is this a copy of “Chariots of fire” by Vangelis?
If you consider all these examples, I would say these are all work of INSPIRATION.
An artist cannot function without inspiration. You cannot create something out of thin air. Creativity must have a source. That source could be anything. It can be an idea, even someone else’s idea. That idea pricks your thought process. You get hooked by it and you think what if I take it to another direction? That’s ORIGINAL. That’s CREATIVITY. Ar rahman’s song is similar only in terms of percussion, yet it takes a completely new direction. Listen to raag shivranjani and you will understand my point. Steven spielberg said, during his acceptance speech in golden globes 2009, a common thing that binds us all artist together is INSPIRATION. Even Mr. Bhatt’s ARTH was inspired from his real life. So can INSPIRATION be termed as ORIGINAL? Or still Mr. Bhatt’s “Nothing is Original” statement holds?
In an article in TIMES OF INDIA, Mr. Bhatt had advised to newbie film-makers, “Don’t’ copy one film, but combine two films into one and it will become new”. We all know how our industry functions, so no point in discussing who copied from which Hollywood film. But why did Mr. Bhatt said this? Because Einstein has said “Creativity is hiding your sources”. Again, Picasso has said “Art is a lie”. May be their statements are true.But does this justify for us to become lame and copy Hollywood films? Does that mean combine two Hollywood films into one, put some Indian masala in it and produce a new product? I think there is a difference. There is a difference between COPY and INSPIRATION. And that comes from your INTENTION. It’s not the way you make your films, or you make your paintings, but the way you CREATE your work. There is always an audience for an art and that audience can clearly distinguish whether it’s the case of INSPIRATION or COPY.
So, according to Einstein, creativity is hiding your sources, but I would say lets not hide our sources, for that source was also CREATED from another source. According to Picasso, art is a lie, then let there be more such lies, because to lie you have to CREATE it, rather than state a truth. Many may agree or may disagree with me, but I would like to say, there is no Death to Originality. “A WEDNESDAY” is original, “FIRAAQ” is original, “ARTH” is original, “INPIRATION” is original.
Tags: Anurag Kashyap, AR Rahman, Arth, Dev D, devdas, Firaaq, Mahesh Bhatt, Mera Naam Joker, Raj Kapoor, Roja
Anurag Kashyap
Abhay Deol
Dibakar Banerjee
Hansal Mehta
Khalid Mohamed
Kundan Shah
Anish Kuruvilla
Jaideep Verma
Manish Gupta
Navdeep Singh
Bhavani Iyer
D. Santosh
Onir
Ashvin Kumar
Ramu Ramanathan
Sudhir Mishra
Pankaj Advani
Revathy
Saurabh Shukla
Shilpa Shukla
Sujoy Ghosh
Suparn Verma
Santosh Sivan
Shashank Ghosh
Shivajee
Pavan Kaul
Partho Sen-Gupta
Prroshant Naryannan
Sam Langoria
Satish Kasetty
inspiration!=original
exactly…
if you’re making a film, either make it different than existing materials or if you can, then make it better (original=inspiration from reel/real) than the rest….
but let's not make films just for the sake of it, let's not do Don or The Kite Runner just with the intention of making money.. please don't sell your soul (if you've one)
well if you make a good localized '«copy,' that will uplift the cinema (movies that every generation will want to watch even if it fails today), I think the '«whole original hai ki nahi' doesn't matter'–
if I can satisfy me with a remake of parineeta, i'll do it- but my aim would be to make a film of course contemporary (like the film was from the book— like Dev D) and execute it with the sum of all my creativity and experience'³ i mean '± i want you to thank me for making it'– if you don't then, it's '«copy', if you do- then that's original for me and everybody
My video inspired from editing in Delhi-6 title song….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8olUcKB7exY
@salik
In other words, it must have your touch. Its your interpreatation which is unique than others. Thats original.
A lie is made and truth is taken… as per Mr Bhatt goes, his sanity decides what his outlook is … The statements made by him are so testimonial to his eccentricities … A superb article…
@sudipto
Thanks fot ur comments. INSPIRATION ZINDABAD!!!
interesting stuff….n very well written article…i side with Einstein’s saying that ‘creativity is hiding your sources’
@rasik
Thanks for ur comments, If einstein was alive I would have asked him, ” If I reveal my sources, am I still creative, still original?”
A nice article this..But I would like to make a comment here. Most of the times I have found people fighting over “Original” vs “Inspirtional” work. I have found that, mostly, “Originators” are being hailed to a highs than very good “Inspired workers”. Is that the right thing to do? I don’t know. I just don’t know.
If Hollywood ever sues and succeeds, the copycats could become bankrupt!
There should be debate now on original versus inspiration versus adaption in our every aspect of society, not just cinema.
It is a nice article needing fair debate about the originality of film scripts ,music and even cinematography.I have written one article few months ago on this aspect. http://yayaver.blogspot.com/2008/02/plagiarism-in-bollywood.html
ButYou really want to explore in this arena read this convocation speech given by Balraj Sahini in 1972 at JNU,Delhi
http://windsfromtheeast.blogspot.com/2008/10/balraj-sahnis-1972-convocation-address.html
@Arnab
There are no such people as “originators”. I completely agree with einstein. every work is an
“inspirational work”, and that work eventually becomes “original”.
Nice article timtomlee, and I too agree that if you’re inspired by something, and it takes a seat in your psyche where you develop your own interpretation of it, and that’s what you present, than that can not be deemed as plagiarism.
*
Take “Sholay” for example. Is it “Seven Samurai” or “The Magnificent Seven”, or was it more derivative of “Mera Gaon Mera Desh” or even “Khote Sikay”. Was Rajkumar Santoshi’s “China Gate” a derivative of “Sholay” and “The Magnificent Seven”? Or were all these films original and independent in their own unique ways thought they’re all obviously inspired from the same basic concept and story.
*
What about “Ghajini”? Is it a plagiarized version of “Memento” or is it simply inspired by “Memento”, where that was the take off point to create an new, original, albeit inspired film?
*
Then again, you have films like “Partner” and “Zinda” and “Ek Ajnabee” and, well, this list is endless. Where it is obvious that very little was contributed by the film-maker which would constitute originality.
*
As an audience, collectively, I think the embracing of films like “Ghajini” and “Sholay” and others of the like demonstrates quite clearly that we really don’t mind “inspired” works so as long as their is some visible, tangible contribute and creativity infused by the filmmaker.
*
There is no end to the debate between inspiration and copying. For those who love SHOLAY, it is an inspiration. For those who hate it, sholay becomes a copy. No point in convincing any of the parties.
@Azad
I think there is a difference between COPY and INSPIRATION. Real life stories or novles adapted into films are work of INSPIRATION. As far as SHOLAY and GHAJINI are concerned, one has to look at them in comparison to the original work.
I have not yet seen Seven Samurai, so cant’ comment on it. But I have seen MEMENTO. I would like to say that when an artist is truly inspired, he will take the SEED idea and delve deeper in its ESSENCE. In other words, he has understood the inditial concept and now wnats to interpret it in its own way. I have not seen that in GHAJINI.
MEMENTO is a puzzle. Its tagline “Memory is treachery” actually teases our memory. It puts us into the mind of the protagonist. Thats the reason the entire film takes a backward route. But after watching the film, you will ask yourself, “does anything like “short-term memory loss” really exixt? Thats the power of the film. Unfortunately, I have not seen this in GHAJINI.
The director had seen the original film MEMENTO, liked the idea of a protagonist who has SHORT-TERM memory loss and who wants to avenge his wife’s death. Then he used the same situation, but only changed WIFE to GIRLFRIEND, added some extra characters,combined it with the masala of a typical TAMIL action film and a new PRODUCT is ready. This is the same definition that Mr. Bhatt advocates. Thats’ the reason one has to look at it in the right context. One may agree or disagree with me, but as far as GHAJINI is concerned, I reserve my opinion.
timtomlee, a well argued and valid point.
*
“I would like to say that when an artist is truly inspired, he will take the SEED idea and delve deeper in its ESSENCE. In other words, he has understood the initial concept and now wants to interpret it in its own way.”
*
Dead on. I think if one were to view the original vs. inspired vs. plagiarized debate using these guidelines, then I guess it doesn’t have to be so convoluted really.
@ Tony
Thanks for ur comments. I think there should be more such debates on this topic. Will try to give more such examples henceforth.
Satyajit Ray’s Feluda is inspired from sherlock holmes and tintin.. it’s veree original.