One of Scorsese's early shorts was 'The Big Shave' in 1967 and this is almost identical, the only difference is the underlying theme. Scorsese dealt with the carnage of the Vietnam war, whereas this deals with emotional detachment.
Shame the filmmaker has zero originality.
And you're real original pointing out a possible rip-off?
Get real, the world repeats itself so many times.
All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again.
"All of this has happened before and all of this will happen again."
That's a facile, platitudinous response - plagiarism is what it is. I don't like to see people get credit for other peoples work. As far as I've seen no one else on the boards has pointed-out it's striking similarity to The Big Shave, if they had I would not. Have you seen The Big Shave?
I can see a resemblance, but not enough to call it as a rip off
and it's as you say; the underlying theme is different- the carriers for the short films are opposed, and are explored in a different way- The big shave looks at separation from oneself, I think it makes a point of leaving behind your morals and preconceptions of what you are capable of, shown through the vehicle of self harm as a punishment against ones actions, where the character's lack of pain/emotion reflects the lack of empathy they showed towards the pain of others
In contrast to this, cutting moments looks at detachment from life, from the global happening- suburban nightmares, homosexual children. Something extreme having to occur to break you out the cycle, to make you feel alive again, albeit expressed in a way which causes ironic death
which in itself I guess relates to the saying that you feel most alive just before death
so yes I can see similarities in the theme, and the execution, but why does it even matter
they're both valid and both explore similar/different themes, I guess i'm not opposed to 'plagiarism' because I very much enjoy comparing the work of 2 directors who've worked with the same themes
and if I was being critical of Scorsese's work here i'd say that without previous knowledge of what the subject matter is about it becomes difficult to link the action to that of the war, i'm sure in 1967 the connection would have been easier to make, and the date of the piece still does say 'vietnam' war, but even just an out of focus helmet, or a medal, a photograph or some relation to the war would have sold the concept a little better, so with this in mind I think Cutting moments is a better short as the scene is set within the time period of the short and it's easier to understand what is happening
[deleted]
"These two shorts are almost EXACTLY the same. The only difference is that this one is about this, and the other one is about something completely different." This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yeah, because the context is different. Cutting moments had an exposition outside of the mirror scene which, as the previous poster pointed out, set the scene up. There was no removing of fingernails, or taking the whole face of in a dramatic or abstracted (read fly-men and superheros) way like in both the films you cited. Most of the shock from the scene is because it takes a ridiculously common occurrence like looking in a mirror, a scene we all identify with, then twists it into a horror show - in one shot, the mirror reflecting both the action and the subject ; you're seeing the subjects dead eyes as he carves away at his own features.
The scene is identical, just because you change the context of it doesn't make it different enough for it not to be plagiarism, like taking an acapella and putting a dance beat on it changes the tone and context of the song, but it is still a blatant rip-off. What Scorsese did was a twist on what Michael Powel did with Peeping Tom where the murderer has a knife set into a mirror which he films. This adds to the horror of the scene as the victim can actually see the immanence of their own grisly death and their own horror of it is reflected back to them; it's a snow-balling realisation.
Cutting moments did not twist their mirror scene enough to make it their own or to even call it their own, a credit should have been cited.
My "facile and platitudinous" response was exactly on the money considering the post that prefaced it, I could have used 'lame' but then that wouldn't have really said much about the nature of the comment, just on the tone it evoked.
If you're going for personal attacks, though, then lines such as:
"This might be the dumbest thing I've ever heard." is retarded. Really? That's the dumbest thing you've ever heard, a coherent, precise comparison is the dumbest thing you've heard. You must be one of those over-exaggerating dicks who make posts like "the worst movie ever", "the worst actor ever" that's all too common on imdb. You should get out more, talk to more people, and perhaps grow-up a little a put things in perspective.
Oh ffs...
The only resemblance is that both involve mutilation in front of a mirror. Big whoop! The approach, themes, context, and structure are completely different. Hell not even the way the mutilation in front of the mirror transpires isn't even that similar. I mean, it is entirely possible the director was inspired by The Big Shave, like every other director out there is inspired or pays homage to other films in some form or another but to call it "blatant plagiarism" is so disingenuous it would be hilarious if you weren't intended to be taken seriously.
Really, if this is what you consider to be "blatant plagiarism" then every movie made past the 1890s is probably "blatant plagiarism" of some form or another to you. Also, every bit of recorded music released after Edison's "Mary Had a Little Lamb" is plagiarized and every piece of writing made after The Epic of Gilgamesh is plagiarism too. All automobiles are little more than unoriginal knock-offs of the Model T Ford too with different coats of paint. I could go on but I think you get the point (or not, if you're as intellectually dishonest/trollish as your posts make you out to be).
So, op, am I to understand that any cinematic work depicting self-mutilation in a bathroom is a ripoff of this one obscure short film, The Big Shave?
So, is every film about inbred rural folk a ripoff of Deliverance?
Is every film set in a mental institution a ripoff of One Flew Over a Cuckoo's Nest?
Is every film about doomed love a ripoff of Romeo and Juliet?
Nope, not buying it.
actually having watched the mirror scene and then the big shave they are very very similar especially the blood dripping on the chest shots and things like that, very similar
shareThe whole approach is different though. The Big Shave is almost comedic in its excess while Cutting Moments takes a more solemn approach. No one could be amused by an agonizing 10 minute self-mutilation sequence.
shareI'm pretty sure it's inspired by The Big Shave, which being directed by Scorsese isn't very 'obscure' (for a short film, anyway), but agree that this does something new and deeply disturbing with the idea. Art has been doing that for years, big deal. It's not a 'rip-off.'
If I have to tell you again, we're gonna take it outside and I'm gonna show you what it's like!
And 'The Big Shave' ripped off Kenneth Anger. Now go home and get your *beep* shinebox.
~.~
I WANT THE TRUTH! http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/
except it didn't. the resemblance between this and the big shave is much more obvious for there to be a plausible chance of plagiarism. you just invented some bs claim in order to discount the topic starter's valid points.
people who get butthurt over valid plagiarism accusations are just morons who are contributing to standards dropping even lower.
thanks should be given to people still paying enough attention to point these things out.
lol kenneth anger is a joke. lol scorpio rising. just stfu assetsonfire.