Joseph Minion Plagiarized Joe Frank
Written by Edward ChampionPosted on May 27, 2008
Filed Under Film, Plagiarism, frank-joe, minion-joseph
After Hours is perhaps my favorite Scorsese film. I am also a big Joe Frank fan. So it was considerably astonishing to learn that screenwriter Joseph Minion appears to have pilfered a Frank monologue for the first 30 minutes of the film. The details are, in many cases, taken astonishingly verbatim. In a March 2000 interview, Frank was apparently “paid handsomely by producers of a Hollywood film (which he won’t name) that plagiarized his dialogue.” (via Fimoculous)
[ALSO: Minion also plagiarized "Before the Law" from Kafka's The Castle for this scene. Kafka, however, was not in the position to settle out of court.]
Comments
One Response to “Joseph Minion Plagiarized Joe Frank”
Leave a Reply
Books To Jump Up and Down Over
Beyond Heaving Bosoms by Sarah Wendell and Candy Tan. The famed writers behind Smart Bitches, Trashy Books have written a very funny and thoughtful volume about romances, both Old Skool and New Skool. Here is a book that any smug and humorless literary manboy beating his flabby passive chest over Banville or Bolano should probably read pronto, if only for the distant possibility that he might get over himself. While the Choose Your Own Adventure segment at the end caused me to have a very disturbing dream involving Shelley Long (don't ask), Sarah and Candy did have me rethinking many of my own misperceptions when I wasn't busy laughing. They're not afraid to take on the New York Times Bok Review or even the groupthink within certain sectors of the romance community.
Alice Fantastic by Maggie Estep. This wild and highly enjoyable narrative involves two sisters (presumably, the third one was still being rented out by Chekhov), a hippie ex-junkie mother who lives with seventeen dogs, a murder, gambling, and libidinous Hollywood actresses who live in Woodstock. But this is the wonderful Maggie Estep we're talking here. And what seems at first like a quirky yarn becomes something unexpectedly moving about connectivity. What I love about Estep's work is the way that she'll juxtapose an extremely astute observation (now that you mention it, why do cab drivers always have somebody to talk with on the phone past midnight?) with an often outrageous story development.
Generosity by Richard Powers. It doesn't come out until September 29th, but Richard Powers's latest will have anyone committed to books reconsidering their literary fervor. I foresee some animosity from the vanilla critics hostile to idea-driven novels, but book bloggers, YouTube chroniclers, and MFAs would do well to plunge into this chance-taking narrative, which introduces vital questions about what the reader's relationship is with media, scientific dissection, and "creative nonfiction." Are we rats fleeing to happy cities? Or can we find the humanism within the purported plague?
Pieces for the Left Hand by J. Robert Lennon. Lennon is one of the most underrated fiction writers working today. Much as On the Night Plain proved that Lennon had a lot more in the toolbox than heartfelt (and often very funny) suburban satire, this slim but fascinating volume juxtaposes 100 small-town anecdotes -- arranged by category -- in a manner that reads, at times, like Nicholson Baker's passions for minutiae and, at other times, Stewart O'Nan's concern for psychological detail. The result is fiction that makes us wonder about whether one person's subjective view of particulars can entirely be trusted. This book never found a publisher in 2005. But thankfully, Graywolf has released it in the United States, along with Lennon's latest novel, The Castle.
Wonderful World by Javier Calvo. This wonderfully raucous volume has been completely ignored by the Washington Post, the New York Times, and the Los Angeles Times. But it's probably one of the most delightful reading experiences I've had this year. Calvo cavalierly mashes up multiple genres and manages to mix up familial subtext with larger-than-life, almost cartoonish characters. (Indeed, one might argue that one mobster's penis is a character of its own in this sprawling novel.). This is not an easy thing to pull off, but Calvo makes it work. And it's helped immeasurably by Mara Faye Lethem's idiom-specific translation. (See longer post.)
The Means of Reproduction, Michelle Goldberg This thoughtful book tackles the complicated (and little discussed) subject of reproductive rights from numerous angles, which includes a number of unpleasant but necessary ones. The upshot is that there isn't a quick fix solution for declining birth rates and fundamentalist abuses. Just about every political faction has contributed to the friction. But you'll want to read this book anyway to refamiliarize yourself with the topic, but also to understand just what's occurred during the past several decades to get us where we are today. (See also podcast interview with Goldberg.)
Contact Ed by email.
Or send materials to:
315 Flatbush Avenue, #231
Brooklyn, NY 11217
Or send materials to:
315 Flatbush Avenue, #231
Brooklyn, NY 11217
- The Super Bowl: Madison Avenue Misogyny
- The Bat Segundo Show: Christian Berger
- Paul Fischer: The Unpardonable Hack Who Charmed His Fellow Junketeers
- February 15th! Reader of a Lonely Heart!
- Knock Three Times
- New Review: Gail Godwin’s Unfinished Desires
- Macmillan: The New Amazonfail
- The Bat Segundo Show: Sue Grafton
- JD Salinger Dead
- The Mountain
Yes, I was really shocked myself when I heard that After Hours (also one of my all time favorite Scorsese ‘comedies’ (?) i kinda like ‘king of comedy’ a little better…but still) was partially plagiarized from Joe Frank (another one of my all time favorite artists!)…I was mainly surprised because I had never heard anything about it until relatively recently, perhaps the mid 2000s? Before that I never heard anything about it…
Now, what I’d like to know. Is there more plagiarism in After Hours, than just the 11 mins. from the piece title ‘Lies’ (i heard the original title of the ’script’ for After Hours was: “Lies” as well, which makes me really question a lot of this. I know if I were to plagiarize someone’s text, or pieces of it I would NOT want to draw attention to the fact by also titling it the same as well? Was he just really young and naive when he wrote this, he surely must not have expected this film to be made, or something? anyway…) the 11 mins. of that Joe Frank episode which I was able to hear and is reportedly what was stolen for the first 30 mins. of the film is pretty obviously plagiarized…however, my question is. Is there more? Did he take more than just that section? Because although those parts are without question ’stolen’ from Frank, what is to explain the rest of the film…which is actually VERY good…it isn’t as if (at least to me?) the film suddenly becomes horrible and ridiculous…it actually builds and becomes even more interesting…and there is also a lot to the script which doesn’t seem to come from Frank, as much as I love Joe Frank and think he should get credit for what was rightfully his, I don’t think the ‘baby should be thrown out with the bath water’ here? Sincerely, there is still the rest of the film…not that I can honestly say the rest of the film doesn’t also have significant portions of it which are plagiarized from Frank as well? I just don’t know? To me the whole movie almost seems like one giant adaptation of multiple Joe Frank ‘radio plays’? And I feel it is also cleverly wrapped together into a really fascinating and VERY new york (circa the mid-eighties!) existential morality tale…so, I just would like to know if there is more that is ‘lifted’ from Frank, or if it is JUST the 11 mins. which most certainly makes up the initial first 30 mins of After Hours, and yes even great swaths of the dialogue from Frank are lifted…but there is just also a lot of really clever and interesting pieces which aren’t from there? The whole interaction with Kiki, the messaging, the VERY odd, black, black humor to him believing she has some horrible burns on her body, his own back story about being a child placed in a ‘burn ward’ and then the discovery of her body (overdosed) when he looks at her naked body (almost a sense of necrophilia here) and finds no trace of ANY scars on her body at all…and in fact the place he thought he saw a burn was in fact merely a tattoo…and the sense of guilt he feels, that he treated her so harshly and was ‘turned off’ because she may have a burn scar; that then (in his guilt ridden mind anyway) lead him to believe she had killed herself because of how he treated her…none of that apparently comes from Joe Frank…and yet, I found that to be one of the most fascinating, interesting and just thoroughly ‘gets you under your skin’ part of the film…on the other hand, it is also very reminiscent of Joe Frank…so, are we talking about Joe Minion being highly inspired by Joe Frank and actually developing his own brand and form of story from that influence? Or is this just more pilfering…it’s also really odd to me that I cannot seem to find all that much information on this? One would think there would be a LOT more to found about it on the internet?
Also, I disagree with you stating that the scene with the ‘bouncer’ at the Berlin Club is ’stolen’ or plagiarized from Kafka, I think it was a very obvious ‘homage’ to Kafka…not a case of plagiarism…after all, they are using the ‘legend of the gate keeper’ story and cleverly integrating that into the story of him trying to get into a nightclub. To me that’s NOT plagiarism…that’s just a little ‘nod’ to Kafka, letting us know this is going to be an ‘absurd’ story…it would be like saying that any movie which references any Shakespeare or Dante is plagiarizing them? I just don’t think that’s the case here…i think because one hears of Minion’s plagiarism of Frank, suddenly people start looking for all sorts of other plagiarism…to me, that scene is NOT stolen…however, that’s not to say there aren’t other scenes which may be lifted from Frank? I think there probably is?
However, I’d like to know, either way?
Thanks~
Bunko~!