Is the music in “Lootera” teaser copied from “One Day”?

When we put out the post on Lootera’s first teaser, i wrote that “close your eyes and watch the teaser again – i think it’s the music.” Well, none of us had any clue that it will turn out to be KLPD.

Why?

Play both the tracks back to back and decide for yourself.

So? Who is the culprit? Who has done the background score? Or have they taken the rights? Can anyone please connect the dots?

Tip – Prosit

(PS – Something similar had happened when Udaan’s trailer came out. The text was plagiarised from the trailer of Where The Wild Things Are and we had mentioned in our post.)

Is “Murder 3″ plagiarised from “The Hidden Face”?

Check out both the trailers and spot the difference. I will start with the lead actor’s look. The spanish title is called La Cara Oculta.

Thanks to Milliblog who spotted it and posted on his site. Click here to read the Milliblog post. Don’t think anyone will be surprised even if the film turns out to be frame by frame copy. If that doesn’t happen with a Bhatt film, that would be shocking!

The film is directed by Vishesh Bhatt and produced by Vishesh Films along with Fox Star India. It stars Randeep Hooda, Sara Loren and Aditi Rao Hydari, and Mahesh Bhatt is credited as the writer.

UPDATE  – Have been informed by Anshul Mohan that the film is an official remake. Strange! They haven’t mentioned it anywhere.

Murder 3 – whose BLOOD, whose BODY?

OR

we are creating a new series in “How To Classify Movie Posters”

(source – ropeofsilicon. via @jahanbakshi)

Barfi! – homage, inspired or plagiarised?

Barfi! has released, going strong at the box office too, and the reactions have been quite good so far. Though the critics liked it but most of them were not very impressed. Click here for all the reviews and the average rating. And there have been some interesting reactions too – from a glorious one by Rangan to self-reflective piece by Jai Arjun Singh.

But the point of this post is to find out where we draw the line for homage, inspiration and plagiarism. It seems Anurag Basu lifted many scenes from various films. If it was some other filmmaker, it would have been easy to say that it was all homage. And more so because “Charlie Chaplin” can be counted as a a genre now. But Basu has quite a history – Murder, Saaya, Life In A Metro. Having said that, as i wrote in this post earlier, i would like to reiterate that i still like his direction and he has a visual flair.

To start the homage, inspired or plagiarised debate, first watch the following videos.

• Starting with this clip from Kikujiro. Seems like the art director/AD was told to even get a similar nail and place it in the same way.

Tip – Arun venugopal

Tanqeed has put a post with all the other scenes/videos which are currently being discussed. We are putting the same videos here too.

• Remember this funny sliding door scene from Barfi!

Now watch this clip from Chaplin’s The Adventurer.

Homage?

• The mother-daughter scene from “The Notebook” which almost every critic has mentioned.

• But it would be too far fetched to say that even the climax is copied because it’s quite a generic scene.

• Two sequences from Singing In the Rain – the nose one and the doll sequence. from 1:50 onward.

• Another scene from Chaplin’s City Lights.

But many have pointed out that there was a poster of Chaplin in one of the scenes. I guess that makes it a homage. Right?

• The ladder scene from Buster Keaton film was obvious. But there’s another bit. In the first 5 second.

• The bicycle chase scene in the narrow lanes and the act of tapping the windows reminds you of Jackie Chan. Does it?

• And Rajeev Masand has mentioned in his review that the kidnapping subplot seems to be inspired from Gone Baby Gone. Agree?

Anything else? Looking at all these scenes i am sure that there are more scenes from here and there for which we have not been able to trace the original. So is it all original till we find the source?

Also, anyone seen the Korean film Oasis? Enlighten us.

So where do you put Anurag Basu’s B! now – H, I or P?

Or should we go back to Godard – “Its not where you take things from, its where you take them to”?

UPDATE – 24th September, 2012

Finally, an interview of Anurag Basu where he opens up about the plagiarism charges. Anuradha Sengupta has interviewed Basu for her show, Beautiful People. And good on her part that she didn’t let him skip the questions (10:11 onwards – Life In A Metro and Barfi!).

And we sincerely thank her for giving credit to our blog (at 10:50).

She also talks to him about Barfi’s success, Kites’ failure, his filmmaking style, how it’s democratic or not, trigger point of the film and other such topics. Do watch.

UPDATE – Now, finally the source of clock scene too.

via Kuldeep Patel.

The Unbearable Dodoothness of Being

Sometimes it’s quite a difficult task to find the right word to describe a person. And when i can’t rely on cusstionary any more, i take the easy way out. Coin a new term. So we have dodos, then we have ch#@ths, and when someone is beyong all these, I have coined a new term for them – Dodooth (D+C). If you click here and read this column called Reflections, am sure you will agree with my idea of Dodoothness.

Nothing is original, this logic is as old as Adam & Eve. And that doesn’t that mean there is nothing called copyright and IP. Strange that we have so much news space in this country that all kind of garbage is dumped in the name of journalism. And even in this weird dodoothness,  it’s hard to believe that Ram Sampath managed to win a copyright case against Rakesh Roshan. Thank God, the Tutejas are not in the judiciary system of this country.

And here is @diaporesis‘ reply to Mr Tuteja’s Reflections.

Mr Tuteja, your article is entertaining. Can I sell it as mine?

Sometime yesterday, Bollywood Hungama, the trade-portal masquerading as review site, happened to accidentally publish a page from Joginder Tuteja’s personal diary. In it, Mr Tuteja, coming to terms with what is, presumably, a speech disorder, explains at length how he has difficulty pronouncing words such as चुग्येओग्जा(please leave eyjafjallajokull for greater gods) . Even though the piece appears to be a legitimate article meant for the general public’s consumption, do not be fooled. It is quite clear that the man is writing to himself.

Here’s an example of his pitiable rant to his Dear Diary:

“Ok, now think of a film called The Chaser, the literal English translation (I guess) for the Korean word on which you just gave up. Yeah, The Chaser; not Chase, Chastity or Chatur. It is plain and simple – The Chaser. Can’t think of any, right? Well, why don’t you try hard.”

As you can clearly see, our delusional diary-writer is addressing himself. He has never heard of The Chaser and conveniently presumes that the rest of the world is as ignorant as he is.

Without going into the details of why such rants (because the entire piece is, overall, a rant and not argument) make no sense, I pose a simple piece of logic before you: if nobody has heard of the movie (extending his logic), how did the comparisons arise in the first place?

At a slight tangent, my gripe with Mr Tuteja’s argumentation is the way in which he cannot produce reasonable arguments to even convince himself. Through most of the piece, Mr Tuteja’s words flail like a broken pieces of a raft on a stormy ocean, alternately despairing and alternately cursing the sea for being so watery. For example, in his piece he says that he’s still trying to locate a certain DVD therefore others couldn’t have seen that movie either. In the next few lines he mentions how piracy is rampant. Um, Mr Tuteja suffers from a joining-the-dots disability as well?

He does not stop at his pitiable laments about his inability to pronounce a certain word. He goes on to prove that he’s unable to employ the faculties of logic and reason as well.

I need not go about arguing against Mr Tuteja’s endorsement of plagiarism. But I do have three serious charges against him: 1) He seems to think it’s fine to copy works of art as long as it’s done entertainingly. I’d love to see his reply to the title of this piece as far this point is concerned. 2) He totally discounts the fact that original creations, however raw, are always more rewarding for the masses and the makers. Ask Anurag Kashyap or Dibakar Banerjee and their fans for evidence. 3) He claims that because he isn’t the thief, he’ll gladly visit a thief’s home and admire the valuable pieces or art etc he has stolen. I, for one, do not even want to provide further arguments about why this is such an asinine argument. Moreover, he goes on to say 99% of us think like him. Really, 99%? Where does he get such fantastic numbers from?

In his rather dreamy rant, he also claims that QT said Kaante was better than Reservoir Dogs. I will save my breath and point you to this piece that Mr Tuteja presumably refers to and challenge you to prove his claim correct.

Dear Mr Tuteja, your arguments are bullshit anyway. You get paid to write about movies that earn lots of money. Not movies per se. There’s a huge difference. Understand that. Appreciate the work of other knowledgeable, hard-working critics who, in India, undergo unfair trials by fire when they praise cinema that is meaningful, honest and well-made rather than crass entertainers that you promote. We can agree to disagree about what cinema should be. But at least, please, get your facts right. Especially when you’re addressing yourself, learn to be honest.

The last point I wish to make is about movies that deserve to be seen but perhaps aren’t seen because viewers assume that since the remakes were shitty, so were the originals. This is far from the truth. Take Oldboy as an example. Zinda was, at times, a frame by frame copy of the movie. But it was an exceedingly passable piece of cinema. Oldboy, on the other hand, is a rivetting and nerve-wracking film that shakes you by the guts and stuns you into shocked silence: an accepted masterpiece of modern Asian cinema. I don’t mind our filmmakers looking for “inspiration”; my problem is that they don’t accept that they looked for inspiration. And, Mr Tuteja, there’s a reason why “inspiration” and “plagiarism” are two different words. Let me point you to dictionary.com if you lack the usual Oxford at home.

As for you, dear reader, spare yourselves the pain of anger. Be kind to him. He knows not what he writes.

And Mr Tuteja, henceforth, please keep your diary private. We cannot be bothered by you being dishonest to even yourself.

- Shubhodeep Pal

(I really shouldn’t add a disclaimer to this piece, but here goes: My own views, my impressions, my right to express them. Not intended to slander etc etc.)

( PS – Shubhodeep blogs here. )

(PS1 – Dear Mr Tuteja, you don’t need a dvd to watch Miracle Worker. There is popular site called youtube.com. Little googling and youtubing doesn’t harm anyone. So click on the play button and enjoy.

(PS2 – This is not the first time that Mr Tuteja has made it to our blog. Click here to read about his other credential. As they say, honhaar birwaan ke hoth cheeknay paat.)

Nothing original about Murder2 posters!

And it’s not even surprising because Bhatt Factory is known for plagiarising much more than just the posters. But to start with, here are the two posters of Murder 2 and the original ones….Korean to European, Kim Ki-Duk to Lars Von Trier, that’s quite a range!

Click here to see the other posters of Murder 2. We are sure that the 3rd and 4th poster from the top are not original too. Just can’t locate the source.

Tip – Aniruddha Chatterjee

WTF : Rascals & The Hangover – Separated at birth?

Tip – Ssshhhh….

The poster of Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara is NOT original!

You don’t need too much talent to put three guys on the poster. You surely don’t need talent to decide who should be shirtless if it’s a competition between Hrithik Roshan, Farhan Akhtar and Abhay Deol. And may be, you need bit of talent to decide that their faces should not be entirely visible. Just cut at the right point. Have you seen the poster of Zoya Akhtar’s Zindagi Na Milegi Dobara? Do check out.

And strangely this poster looks quite similar to the poster of Lords Of Dogtown. And the similarity is more than just the three guys on the poster. Do check it out.

What do you think? Do comment.

Tip – Gobbledyspook

Is Dum Maaro Dum’s Thayn Thayn inspired by Give It To Me ?

If Pritam is here, can plagiarism be far behind. And the latest track added to his long list of inspired/plagiarised songs is Dum Maaro Dum is Thay Thayn. And the original is Give it to me by Timbaland featuring Nelly Furtado and Justin Timberlake.

Nt sure ? Click on the play button, play both the songs back to back and decide it for yourself.

And the story doesn’t end here. Even the Jiyein Kaun track sounds similar to Coldplay’s Fix you. Click here and here to listen to both the tracks and do let us know what you thik.

Dear Bhansali, wake up, smell the coffee, look outside and fire the fluffers. Because big is NOT always Biutiful!

As the opening credits of the film rolled, a plate appears on screen, of you dedicating the film to your father.  My mind quickly went back to another film, and easily this year’s best so far, Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu’s Biutiful. And strange as it may sound, the actor of the film is Javier Bardem. You may not have seen his film The Sea Inside, or may be its difficult to remember what all films you saw before you decided to make Guzaarish, but whoever told you that making the canvas BIGGER creates all the magic, needs to see the film Biutiful.

Workman 1: Hey, you can’t go down there!
Alfred Borden: I’m part of the bloody act you fool!

Black wasn’t The Miracle Worker, Saawariya wasn’t White Nights, and of course, Guzaarish isn’t The Sea Inside. I remember a friend telling me that after he interviewed you and left, you called him up and asked him to describe you as an “auteur” in the piece that he is going to write. Over the years, those who have access to you, or say those who are granted access to you, including a certain famous fluffer of Patna, and his tribe, they don’t spare the opportunity to put you into that “Auteur” category. But if possible, look outside, get out of your cocoon, take your film outside and ask any film lover, what do they think of it ? No, not the star lovers. Not the production designers. Not the cinematographers. Only those who love film.

Sarah: Alfred I can’t live like this!
Alfred Borden: Well, what do you want from me?
Sarah: I want… I want you to be honest with me. No tricks, no lies, no secrets.
[pause]
Sarah: Do you… do you love me?
Alfred Borden: Not today. No

Not sure if you will ever read this post, or even if you get to read, one of your fluffer will surely dismiss it as another smear campaign, by someone who belongs to blah and blah camp, one who has no sense of aesthetics. But if you are happy with all the love and respect of all your fluffers who surround you, who nod all their heads in every word that you utter, only because they are all there to gain something from you, then, sir, the artist in you is dead.

Cutter: Take a minute to consider your achievement. I once told you about a sailor who drowned.
Robert Angier: Yes, he said it was like going home.
Cutter: I lied. He said it was agony.

The same happened with another filmmaker. The man who came with his explosive brand of cinema. Bollywood hadn’t seen something like that before. We worshipped him. And then, came the fluffers. He said yes, they agreed. He said no, they agreed. He says anything, they agree. And those who agree, are those who matter to him. Earlier we used to think, he will deliver with his next one. Now, we don’t bother. We will never. Because Ramu is RIP. More than once. Long live the fluffers!

[after showing a little boy how to do a coin trick]
Alfred Borden: Never show anyone. They’ll beg you and they’ll flatter you for the secret, but as soon as you give it up… you’ll be nothing to them.

And you know whats the worst part, your character wants to die. And I don’t feel anything. Because it seems synthetic, its seems just a wish, because you don’t dare to go close to him. To show us how ugly he is.  How ugly his life is. In the opening scene ,when Ethan is lying on the bed with just a bedcover on him, the camera goes far away from him, almost scared that he might appear ugly. Or is he really ugly ? He is still the Hrithik Roshan, looks well maintained, body all covered. Now see this picture.

Ackerman: We’ll have to dress it up a little. Disguise it. Give them enough reason to doubt it.

Difficult to stare ? Well, still can’t figure out ? Now, imagine if i tell you that he is one of the hottest hunks around, the heart throb of millions. Its hard to believe, right ? Thats what daring is all about. Shouting out from rooftop that my film doesn’t have an item number doesn’t make it any different or daring. If your memory is still failing you, here is another one to complete the picture…

Yes, its Javier Bardem, easily one of the best actors of our generation. In one of the sequence in The Sea Inside, the camera moves over his body, from toe to head, and nothing is Biutiful there, but unlike your film it doesn’t shy away to get close to him.

You stay far away, making the frames bigger with every film, lighting up million candles, illuminating your canvas from every angle and making it as soulless as possible. Do they have blood in their veins ? Are they just mannequins who can emote ? Since you rarely watch films by other directors, as you claim in every interview, let me introduce you to a small marathi film called Vihir. It also deals with death, almost in a meditative way. As a character tries to understand it, everything goes silent for about 15-20mins. No dialogues. Nothing big. No drapes. No candles. No coffins. Thats Biutiful.

Robert Angier: He lives his act.

Even the one by Innaritu. Biutiful. It also deals with love, loss and death. It moves in breathless and dingy spaces, not a single prop that makes you go wow at the talent of the production designer. But when the lead character is about to die, you want to hold his hand, want to make him believe that this will not happen, and you forget that its just cinema. Innaritu is also accused of  telling an intimate tale, being over indulgent, spending millions but when you stare at the screen in that dark room, nothing else matters. There is no shaft of light. Its still gut-wrenching, and yes, its not even dressed in any designer attire.

And the magic tricks ? On screen ? Well, ask the Harry Potter fans. Special effects make it look like nursery kids homework. Even if its a flying flame. The beauty is always in the story, the ones that lead to the tricks.

Alfred Borden : A real magician tries to invent something new, that other magicians are gonna scratch their heads over.

And is Guzaarish again set in timeless and spaceless zone ? The court is all smoky. Or is it magic realism ? News channels, discussions, campaigns, where are you heading SLB ? Does it feels like a scary thought, to go out in the sun and shoot ? And so even the court comes home soon. Yes, we have all read about your bad childhood days and how that has inspired the way you work.  Now you don’t want to see anything ugly, you want to control everything, you are the master of every frame, you will beautify the way you want it, the revenge of the childhood scars. But now that the claustrophobic triology is complete, can you please step out ? Perhaps inhale some fresh and ugly air. Remember the joy of aaj main upar, aasman neeche ? Wasn’t that Goa too ?

Sullen Warder: How did you get so famous then, eh?
Alfred Borden: Magic.

And those who have worked closely with you have a theory to offer. Since Khamoshi was all soul and it didn’t work at the box office, you decided to go for all possible decorations to make it bigger and better, and it worked! The obsession continued. To make it bigger than the previous one! The fluffers made sure that you went in that direction, with more vengeance.  Yes sir, that looks just WOW! They must have said with every move of yours. But since fluffing is a physical act, I wonder if they could trace the soul anywhere. And may be its high time to  report a Lost & Found case for that battered soul.

Nikola Tesla: You’re familiar with the phrase “man’s reach exceeds his grasp”? It’s a lie: man’s grasp exceeds his nerve.

Or, it will remain what it looks like, a big boring pretentious fuck. Much like what google seems to offer as i typed your name and selected the “Images” option. Its all just poses. Here, there, see i am thinking, see i am seriously thinking, see i am making a film! And  some more! Where are you, Mr Bhansali ? Still in the cocoon. May be you can’t control everything but the world is not so bad. Come out. We will applaud.

Or hail the fluffers! May be they only make your life worth living. We will move to the next epitaph.

FC

(P S – Please leave the tangible-meet-intangible words for Gulzarsaab. Because everything else sounds like nursery rhyme. Yeh coffee gadhi kaali hai is pure pedestrian, which is trying too hard to belong, and is not really getting any help from Kunal Ganjawala’s voice dipped in sugary syrup. Its making it more synthetic.)

---

.Robert Angier: Which hat is mine?
Nikola Tesla: They are all your hat, Mr. Angier