Comments on: CINE-DEBATE: PLASTIC BAG vs. THE MAJESTIC PLASTIC BAG, A Blatant Rip-Off?

By: David

David — Wed, 23 Feb 2011 09:56:00 +0000

Come on, start from ourselves to get used to reduce the use of plastic bags and bring cloth bags for shopping.

By: Dtvluke

Dtvluke — Thu, 16 Dec 2010 01:27:00 +0000

I take it neither the originator (term used loosely and advisedly) nor the Ad Agency have seen American Beauty? Please – the original idea was the classic art video guy who shoots the mundane and elevates it by forcing you to engage with the everyday. I think it was in Ecclesiates – “There’s nothing new under the sun”. Except appropriation – which is Post Modern speak for stealing sh!t LOL!

Luke Caldwell
dpf, Sydney/LA

By: Lifter035

Lifter035 — Wed, 15 Dec 2010 17:13:00 +0000

Here;s the link of movie that was done by my friend in Croatia in 2007
Enjoy

http://www.dcenvironmentalfilmfest.org/films/show/331

By: alex

alex — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 23:30:00 +0000

incontrovertible thievery. shame on the copycat filmmaker and even greater shame on sundance for promoting this advertisement as a film.

By: Farzad

Farzad — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:31:00 +0000

I’ve been teaching TV & Cinema for 15 years at college level, and this event just disgusts me.
Try doing this with Disney … I mean, try creating a mouse and name it … say Milky Mouse … and see how it goes! Disney will sue you out of your noise and they should. It’s theft, copyright violation, and utterly unethical.
This is how you do NOT make a film and how you do NOT run a festival.
Sundance completely destroyed its reputation with this.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 21:08:00 +0000

Also, as others have hit upon, submitting this copycat short to Sundance is not about “a good cause”. The “good cause” was Heal the Bay. Submitting to Sundance is about advancing one’s career in film. The “filmmakers” are trying to advance their careers by deliberately copying another short which was made 6 months before this one. (Which is different than trying to say everything is a copy of something that was done 60 years ago). Not only were the scenes directly copied, even the use of a famous narration was copied. The only thing they couldn’t get, because they’re too lazy, was an original score.

If this really was about “saving the planet” as Heal the Bay is trying to say it is, you would think they would have asked to see if they could attach Plastic Bag with their cause.

Where there’s smoke….

By: Nick B

Nick B — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:54:00 +0000

This would be a major controversy, without a doubt, if “Plastic Bag” were a full-length feature and “The Majestic Plastic Bag” were a full-length mockumentary. It’s a blatant travesty, regardless. I don’t find “The Majestic Plastic Bag” funny at all, so it loses its value as a send-up or “mockumentary” to me. If there’s no entertainment value resulting from the ironic contrast between the knockoff and the original (as should be the case with a true send-up), then “Majestic” is just an underhanded, supercilious fraud of a film.

By contrast, and perhaps truly ironically, the fact that Sundance programmed “Majestic” underscores the value of the original film: the strength of concept of “Plastic Bag” shines through, even in the degraded form of a pale imitation.

By: Filmjerk

Filmjerk — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:10:00 +0000

Those filmes – mendes in particular had flying plastic bag. It was not a character with a life and a voice. This owes more to red ballon then to American Beauty.

By: nightwriter

nightwriter — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 20:08:00 +0000

It was bad enough when “the Majestic Plastic Bag” was released…a flat, heavy handed copy of Bahrani’s delightful short. But at least initially it appeared that its only purpose was as a fundraising vehicle. But “now for this pitiful imitation to be used to advance the Director’s career and heighten his profile? An entirely different conversation…That this should be shown at Sundance is a disgrace…

By: Alex_B

Alex_B — Tue, 14 Dec 2010 19:37:00 +0000

No one creates in a vacuum — all ideas build on others. So I don’t fault agencies or independents for not doing wholly original creative work, though it’s clear this is a case that does show a lot of, ahem, borrowing.

It is pretty silly of Sundance to program the second film, both because it’s already been so widely released, and because it’s the furthest thing from an independent work. To present it as such just makes a joke of the festival. And here I thought last years “revolution” branding of the festival was silly …