THE WATCHDOG BARKS
WE’RE DOING something that other American magazines probably wouldn’t do with this 175th issue of VIDEO WATCHDOG. We’re devoting our feature article space to a pricey German import that, we’re well aware, is outside the physical and monetary reach of many of our readers, regardless of where they may re- side. But we’ve chosen to go ahead with detailed coverage of Anolis Entertainment’s KOMMISSAR X box set because a) the film series itself is de- serving of our attention, and our attention may help to stimulate a domestic release; b) the team at Anolis lavished an extraordinary amount of love on the project, which should be encour- aged; c) we have a long and honored history of pounding the drum for the obscure but worthy, from Jess Franco to Andy Milligan, from Aleksandr Ptushko to Kiyoshi Kurosawa; and d) we believe our readers like to be informed—not only informed, but enticed by unfamiliar genuses of cinema that seem exotic and desirable. And the combined spy adventures of Jo Walker and and Captain Tom Rowland are certainly that. Extending our attention to Eurohorror cover- age in this issue is an exclusive article by Blu-ray disc producer Bret Wood (who authored our cov- erage of Orson Welles’ THE STRANGER and THE LADY FROM SHANGHAI way back in VW 23), who writes about his experience in producing Eurociné’s ZOMBIE LAKE for Redemption. Though scripted by Jess Franco and directed as a last-minute work- for-hire by Jean Rollin, ZOMBIE LAKE has been a mark for mockery since its earliest arrival on our shores as a big-box VHS release from Wizard Video, but I was intrigued to find myself less dismissive of this latest incarnation. Bret’s essay lends some insight into how attentive and creative interpreta- tion of film materials can sometimes result in a dramatically different viewing experience. Finally, an unhappy subject we have dis- cussed online must also be formally addressed in print. A few weeks prior to our previous issue’s mailing, while it was still at the printer, it came to our attention that the author of that issue’s feature article, Lianne Spiderbaby (aka Lianne MacDougall), was being accused of plagiarism.
Various online forums and discussion boards were able to trace portions of Lianne’s work for FANGORIA, FAMOUS MONSTERS OF FILMLAND and the website
Fear.net to bases in other printed and online work, and the chain of infection even- tually led to her article on Pedro Almodóvar’s THE SKIN I LIVE IN (VIDEO WATCHDOG 170), which was found to contain cribbings from writers Laura Mulvey and Shawn Levy.
Needless to say, had we known this, or that her most recent article “Emmanuelle et Emanuelle” (VW 174) was similarly compromised, neither would have been accepted for publication. What’s done is done, and all we can really do is apologize to our readers, and to Lianne’s uncredited sources, and offer the personal apology that she posted on her Twitter feed:
“I apologize for the plagiarism in my work. I am leaving journalism behind for awhile. I’m so very sorry to everyone esp [especially] those I’ve wronged.”
She posted this confession and apology in a prompt and timely fashion. However, by admit- ting her wrong-doing, by subsequently removing her appropriations from online display, and by suddenly withdrawing her online presence (website, Twitter, Facebook, etc.), Lianne was widely per- ceived as depriving those whom she had wronged the opportunity of a public shaming. It’s an uncomfortable question for some, pun- dits as well as victims, but who is really most dam- aged by acts of plagiarism, the plagiarist or the plagiarized? The publisher or the reader? The origi- nal writer, however annoyed they may rightly be, survives this abuse with their properties, copyright and good name intact; the plagiarist, on the other hand, once caught, loses their integrity, their hireability, and forfeits a reputation and friendships years in the building.
Of course this is an outrage to those who were ripped off, writers and publishers alike, but it is not their tragedy. The tragedy is Lianne’s, though shared—in an altogether different way—by those sometimes anonymous people who feel justified in tieing weights to the ankles of persons who, professionally speaking, have already hanged themselves.
Tim Lucas 3
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116