It has come out over the past couple of days that a chap named Tom Perkins from the YouTube channel FilmXTRA has been plagiarising the reviews of a number of established film critics.
The critic who has suffered most from the debacle is Matthew Turner of View London, who has found that forty-two of his reviews were read by Tom, virtually verbatim, and passed off as his own. Several other critics have been ripped-off, not least Chris Bumbray of JobLo.com, and even Empire (the gumption!). A very thorough Google investigation was undertaken by Tyler Foster at The Following Preview, who has posted a comprehensive list of the crimes, and a timeline on how this all happened here.
The extent of the plagiarism is baffling. Given the medium, it is perhaps not surprising that he was able to get away with this for so long. Matthew’s reviews lend themselves well to verbal presentation, and his work was deservedly lauded but undeservedly uncredited. Since accusations arose yesterday, he has attempted to back-pedal, at first claiming that he doesn’t read anyone else’s reviews. As the evidence mounted, however, he removed the videos in question from public view, and began to send apology emails to those involved. He claims to have been testing the corruptibility of YouTube. Conveniently, he seems to have been making money through an online store and attending premieres off the back of his dubious success.
Now, as a newcomer to the film journalism business myself, I will admit that it can be difficult to separate your own ideas and opinions from those that you have read by more experienced reviewers. Being aware of that, I generally refrain from reading reviews of films that I plan to write about in the near future. It is my responsibility to keep from inadvertently quoting or using similar wording to those more accomplished writers.
What Tom has done, though, is unconscionable. It goes far beyond accidental quotation and displays a distinct lack of originality and integrity. Before the videos were made private, I watched Tom’s Boys Are Back review, and read Matthew’s article alongside it. The number of passages read verbatim (or with the odd synonym or riff thrown in) demonstrated an incredible brass neck; one that he continues to shine by refusing to make a public apology or admit to having poached the work of hard-working writers.
None of what I have to say should come as a surprise, of course, and I normally shy away from giving obvious opinions on well-covered topics such as this one. As a new film journalist, however, it is something upon which I felt I had to comment. I hope that none of those involved have their confidence knocked due to one stubborn kid who wanted to become well-known for producing great reviews without doing any of the legwork. The whole situation reminded me of a quote from David Bordwell’s recent blog:
Last year I moderated an Ebertfest panel consisting of a dozen or so critics. A student from the audience said he wanted to be a critic too. Instead of advising him to get into a more financially rewarding form of endeavor, like selling consumer electronics off the back of a truck, the panelists encouraged him. This form of altruism, in which you help people to become your competitor, is alarmingly common in the arts.
I have found this to be true. The film journalists who I have met in my short time are an incredibly altruistic bunch from whom, Matthew included, I have received kindness, advice, and encouragement. To see that trust violated is most disappointing. I sincerely hope that Tom’s story is seen as a cautionary tale, and that the plagiarised journalists received the apologies that they deserve.