Well, it seems no matter who you are and no matter how legitimate your achievements are, there's always someone lurking in the shadows ready to cut you down at your peak (otherwise known as 'Tall Poppy Syndrome'). For those of you who haven't been following the Sydney Morning Herald's muck-racking articles for the past few days, I'll give you a brief synopsis: Steve Baker, creator of the Tropfest winning short AN IMAGINARY LIFE has been unjustly accused of swiping his idea from a US cartoon series FOSTER'S HOME FOR IMAGINARY FRIENDS, a series that Baker did not know about until becoming a finalist well after completing the film (and one I myself had never heard of before now for that matter).

Now, to look at the facts, yes, some similarities are there - both characters are imaginary friends, and both are blue in colour - but would anyone be so stupid as to steal this idea so shamelessly, knowing full well the inevitable repercussions in an age where nothing goes undetected? A smart plagiarist (if I may use this oxymoron) would have at the very least changed the colour of the character. But Steve Baker is not stupid and he is certainly not a plagiarist; I have known Steve since 1994, and since then have gone on to study animation for several years with him. I have always been a great admirer of his work, and I can vouch 110% for Steve's commitment to artistic integrity, originality and innovation. As an artist myself, I am all too familiar with the legitimate coincidences that can and do often occur in creative industries ‹ I can think of three such devastating incidents that have happened to myself in recent years, leaving me no choice but to reluctantly abort projects on the grounds similarities were too strong. In one such case the similarities were so strong I found myself seething with accusation, wondering how on earth this author on the other side of the globe had stole my ideas? After thinking it through rationally and realising there was no conceivable way my story could¹ve leaked that far, I concluded I was a victim of mere coincidence. I've since come to except this as a normal part of what we do, and quite often I torture myself by doing a quick Google search on specific ideas, each time crossing my fingers and praying for no matches ‹ quite often it is devastating. But what it all boils down to is one word: COINCIDENCE; Professionally I've grown to hate this word, especially when coupled with a preceding adjective -- uncanny coincidence; bizarre coincidence; extreme coincidence; legitimate coincidence... And that's what this is all about -- Any similarities between Steve's work and anyone else's is a LEGITIMATE COINCIDENCE!

Furthermore, with all that said, if anyone cared to do a little research of their own they'd see these similarities are superficial and aren't as obvious as The Sydney Morning Herald's bungling journalists have made out. It needs to be pointed out that subtle visual and digital deception has been employed in their articles to help further incriminate Baker. Anyone familiar with Steve's film would have noticed immediately the slight, but deliberately Photoshopped stretching of his central character which was originally circular. And if one was to do a quick Google Image search on 'Bloo', they would see the SMH has done some deliberate cropping with the displayed image, cutting off much of this character¹s tall elongated body. To me, after seeing both characters in their purest form, to still say they are similar is like comparing a pea to a cucumber. And let us not forget the storyline/s, or the personalities of these characters, to which no direct comparisons can be made at all! If one was to actually sit down and dissect this madness, clearly the countless differences outweigh the similarities immeasurably. But what's more, the SMH has Christened Steve's nameless character "Andrew". Why is this I wonder? Perhaps it's because it's all been written in haste and the research behind it (if any) is a little cursory? OR, perhaps they adopted this name because it loosely rhymes with 'Bloo', thus, further strengthening their already weakening claims about similarities, and because this name is mentioned elsewhere in the film they can plead ignorant and say it was an honest mistake if made accountable? Hmm... I'm guessing it's the latter, but either way they should be utterly ashamed of deliberately deceiving us the public, and dragging Steve Baker's good name and reputation through the mud! I know, I know, this is the media and the nature of journalism, so why am I at all surprised by this -- If BAD YOGURT took top prize, I'm sure there'd be accusations of plagiarising Monty Python¹s 'Mr Creosote'.

The bottom line to all this is, Steve Baker has won top prize in Tropfest 2007, and he couldn't be more deserving. His film was first rate, and a panel of well-respected industry folk (including the illustrious Dr George Miller) judged his film accordingly and deemed it competent and unique enough to bestow this great honour. So who is anyone to argue.

Once again, Congratulations Baker!

Ben Redlich
23/2/07