robotnic.co

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.

Winner of the Prix Un Certain Regard at Cannes 2009, Dogtooth is the second feature film from Greek filmmaker and theatre director Yorgos Lanthimos.

The film takes place in a rural utopia — that is, a home with a garden inhabited by a family of five: Mother, Eldest Daughter, Youngest Daughter, and Son, presided over by the film’s patriarch. In an ongoing attempt to preserve his children’s innocence, Father propagates a dangerous outside world in which kittens are rabid killers, “zombie” is the name for small yellow flowers, and no-one may leave the property (as it is only safe to do so by car) until they have lost their “dogtooth”.

Walking into this film without context is a beguiling experience. With a layers as deep and twisted as the roots of a robust and ancient oak, to understand this film one must do more than cut it open and count the rings. The complexity of the family’s relationships are fascinating, and systematically become warped, testing the audiences’ resolve as we seek to understand their roles.

The only outside influence comes from Christina, a woman hired by Father to methodically fulfil Son’s sexual impulses. Her own brand of meddling begins with a bribe for Eldest Daughter, and when Eldest begins to recite disturbing lines from popular films, Father finds the tapes given to her by Christina. For their behaviour, each receive a taste of his comeuppance. It seems, however, that the damage has already been done.

Dogtooth has the power to compel and bewilder in spades. Though the characters – particularly Younger Daughter – prove sympathetic, they live in a world so far removed from our own knowledge and perceptions that it feels possible to reach out but never to touch.

With only six characters, the performances in Dogtooth are excellent and key to its success. Mary Tsoni (Youngest) encapsulates the innocence that Father wishes to achieve, though the dark depths of Aggeliki Papoulia’s performance as Eldest has a trickle-down effect that shakes the foundations of the family. It’s a chilling and intriguing film that is well-structured and will stay with you for some time.

Dogtooth (Kynodontas) is currently on limited UK release. It screens at Glasgow Film Theatre 7th – 13th May and at Edinburgh Filmhouse from 9th May – 5th June.

[Image from Wikipedia.]