Andrew Sarris: Plagiarist, Or Just Resourceful?
We all know from experience that the Observer’s Andrew Sarris has literally been repeating himself for a while now, but at least we could draw some comfort from knowing that his contemporary revivals were originally his at one time. Not so with this week’s latest trangression, which has the legendary critic all but calling it in with quotes lifted (verbatim in some cases) from Film Forum’s program notes for its current Don Siegel series.
I do not know whether to attribute this to plagiarism or just old-fashioned laziness. In either case, I definitely doubt this is the way the auteurs do it:
FILM FORUM: THE GUN RUNNERS (1958) Fishing boat captain Audie Murphy (most decorated U.S. soldier in WWII) gets blackmailed by Eddie Albert into running arms to Cuban revolutionaries — then Albert double-crosses the rebels. Third adaptation of Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not.
SARRIS: Sharing the bill is The Gun Runners (1958), in which fishing-boat captain Audie Murphy (in real life, the most decorated soldier in World War II) gets blackmailed by Eddie Albert into running arms to the Cuban revolutionaries—before Albert double-crosses the rebels in this third adaptation of Hemingway’s To Have and Have Not.
FILM FORUM: THE DUEL AT SILVER CREEK (1952) Duel of the outrageous character names, as Audie Murphy’s “Silver Kid” hooks up with Stephen McNally’s Sheriff “Lightning” Tyrone to go toe to toe with “Ratface,” “Johnny Sombrero,” and Lee Marvin’s “Tinhorn” Burgess; while in back to back scenes, Faith Domergue strangles and seduces with equal aplomb.
CHINA VENTURE (1953) WWII, China coast, and Captain Edmond O’Brien leads a patrol, including Japanese-speaking Barry Sullivan and nurse Jocelyn Brando (Marlon’s sister), to bring in an ailing Japanese operative and find out his big secret. Shot on an incredible studio-created jungle, nearly washed away by torrential studio downpours.
SARRIS: The Duel at Silver Creek (1952): Audie Murphy’s “The Silver Kid” teams up with Stephen McNally’s “Lightening” Tyrone for showdowns with “Rat Face,” “Johnny Sombrero,” and Lee Marvin’s “Tinhorn” Burgess, while in back to back scenes, Faith Domergue strangles and seduces with equal aplomb. China Venture (1953): China coast where Captain Edmond O’Brien leads a patrol, including Japanese speaking Barry Sullivan and nurse Jocelyn Brando (Marlon’s sister so memorable in Fritz Lang’s 1953 The Big Heat 1953 [sic]), to bring in an ailing Japanese agent and find out his big secret. Shot in an incredible studio-created jungle nearly washed away by torrential studio downpours.
Find additional degrees of derivative fun following the jump.
FILM FORUM: RIOT IN CELL BLOCK 11 (1954) Attica precursor, as ringleader Neville Brand (off-screen, the fourth most-decorated soldier of WWII) plays the media and warden Emile Meyer (Sweet Smell of Success’ sadistic cop) while trying to keep the lid on a prison hostage takeover. Shot in 16 days at Folsom Prison, with actual cons as extras.
PRIVATE HELL 36 (1954) Two cops need money bad — Steve Cochran to romance cash-hungry singer Ida Lupino and Howard Duff for a new baby — then they stumble on stolen loot. With a near-continuous jazz score (played by the era’s West Coast all-stars) and an opening robbery sequence that’s pure Siegel.
SARRIS: In Riot in Cell Block 11 (1954), convict ringleader Neville Brand (in real life, the fourth most decorated soldier of World War II) manipulates the media and warden Emile Meyer (the sadistic cop in Sweet Smell of Success) while trying to keep the lid on a prison hostage crisis. The film, shot in 16 days at Folsom Prison with actual cons as extras (Johnny Cash would have approved), is one of the all-time classic prison movies. Sharing the bill is Private Hell 36 (1954), in which two cops with money troubles—Steve Cochran, ensnared by gold-digging singer Ida Lupino, and Howard Duff, in hock with a new baby—stumble on stolen money. The opening robbery scene is a Siegel standout.
FILM FORUM: COOGAN’S BLUFF (1968) “Eastwood gives New York 24 hours — to get out of town!” Cowboy Arizona cop Clint Eastwood, in the Big Apple to pick up captured fugitive Don Stroud, finds his Wild West methods making him a fish out of water, amid the disapproving glares of local Lieutenant Lee J. Cobb and social worker Susan Clark.
SARRIS: Coogan’s Bluff (1968): Cowboy-hatted and booted Clint Eastwood virtually rides into 60s New York City to pick up captured fugitive Don Stroud only to find his Wild West tactics angering local police lieutenant Lee J. Cobb and big-hearted social worker Susan Clark.
FILM FORUM: DIRTY HARRY (1971) “There’s only one question you should ask yourself… ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya, punk?” queries Clint Eastwood’s .44 Magnum-wielding Harry Callahan of a recumbent crook, after breaking up a bank robbery attempt in between munches of his hot dog luncheon — and then the nutso “Zodiac Killer” (Andy Robinson, a pacifist in real life) strikes again. Eastwood’s first incarnation (followed by four not-quite-as-good sequels by other directors) of one of the icons of the American cinema gives the Miranda doctrine a workout — in between racing crosstown on foot for a kidnapper’s phone calls and breaking up a harrowing school bus abduction. … “The movie’s moral position is fascist. No doubt about it.” – Roger Ebert.
SARRIS: Dirty Harry (1971): “You’ve got to ask yourself a question: ‘Do I feel Lucky?’ Well do ya, punk?” snarls Clint Eastwood’s .44 Magnum-wielding Harry Callahan of a recumbent crook, after breaking up a bank robbery attempt in between munches of his hot god [sic] luncheon. Callahan has more trouble with loony “Scorpio Killer” Andy Robinson, who winds up holding a busload of hostages because Callahan has ignored the Miranda Warning in his previous arrest of the Scorpio Killer, and has been handcuffed by a lily-livered Mayor (John Vernon) and a city administration that seems to be controlled by the American Civil Liberties Union. For his heavy-handedness, Callahan was termed a “Fascist” by some critics. Today he would be lionized for his War on Terror.
Mortifying. And sad. And I don’t just mean the Observer’s sloppy copy editing.
It’s always fun to watch Sarris quote himself quoting himself. But now it’s official: He’s brain-dead. Still, the folks at Lincoln Center will find some way to fit this into the auteur theory–and point out why it’s so much more incisive than that plebian originalist Pauline Kael ever was.
I’m surprised he even bothers writing capsule reviews, which I once did (with my own original copy). Has anyone checked the -literally- tons of original work Sarris composed on each of these titles? Without defending plagarism, if the reader of these capsules is so dumb as not to refer to Leonard Maltin’s MOVIES ON TV for an opinion, one might question what was the source for the FILM FORUM notes.
Sarris was charming and still riveting in the early ’90s when I was taking his courses, but he was out of it, too. I talked to him on the phone a few months ago and, you know, he’s just a really old man. The Observer should be a lot more careful to fact-check the copy of someone known to recycle and maybe even program-lift. But I don’t think either plagiarism or laziness are the right words for this guy. Editors of old people have this problem a lot, and they need to take extra care with the copy if they want the eminent voice of the person in their newspaper, which they usually do.
Excuse me but Mr. Sarris is not writing a film review nor giving his opinion of a movie. He is providing information about upcoming screenings. He is merely listing the movies to be shown at the Film Forum taking info from a press release. This is what all movie writers for publications do. It’s not plagarism to use materials from a press release. Press releases are written to be used, to get publicity. That’s why they send us photos to use with them. No one has time to re-write the obvious and get it into print, just to do a listing. This is much ado about nothing.
It’s interesting to note that this story has died down. I guess we are giving Mr. Sarris a pass because of the great work that he did in the past, and because he is “a really old man.” At the level of compassion, it does make sense to let this die.
However, I strongly disagree with Kathie’s view that this doesn’t really count as plagiarism. If these were simply blurbs in the “film summary” section, that might be one thing. But the eminent critic’s name was attached to these summaries.
The “film comment” summaries were concise and well written. Someone carefully crafted them, and Sarris took credit for their words. The summaries also included statements of opinion (e.g. “a Siegel standout” and “incredible studio-created jungle”) and incorporated a range of film trivia.
Kathie says “This is much ado about nothing,” but the fact is that Sarris used someone else’s voice, and passed it off as his own words. Why not just reprint the summaries? He could have prefaced the column with, “much of the following material is adapted from the film forum’s program.”
I realize that Kathie’s comments are grounded in compassion and respect for Sarris, and I share these feelings for the man.
This was clearly more a matter of sloppiness than intellectual dishonesty, but it’s important to acknowledge it for what it is: a serious mistake. I have found Sarris’ work to be inspiring and influential, and have appreciated his commitment to truth and authenticity. It seems to be a disservice to his legacy to pretend that this was completely OK.
My hope is that: (a) Sarris does not read this web log (because I’m sure he would be crushed), (b) that his editor pulls him aside and talks about the accidental transgression, and (c) that we can all move on.
I take issue with Kathie’s comment above. The writing that Sarris cribbed from is NOT from a press release, but, rather, Film Forum’s calendar — that is an important distinction. And, Film Forum considers their calendars “publications”: on each there is a “fine print” section which says “Film Forum, a publication of The Moving Image, Inc., is published 7 times a year.” And, it goes on to even give the issue information!: January 2006 Vol. 3, No. 2 © 2006