This thread is for the purpose of examining Homage in as many ways as posters feel the urge to do so. Here are a few of my initial OP time thoughts:
I have preferred the Om-idge pronunciation the way it appears in my Webster’s Collegiate. The Oh-mazh version strikes me as pretentious and snooty and for phoneys.
I have nothing at all against a legitimate homage to a famous person, a noteworthy person, a person I ought to know more about than I do, or to somebody whose life’s work (or a notable subset of it) has gone unrecognized, unrewarded or ridiculed.
But what I came here to get some feedback on is how in more than a few DVD extras, commentaries and supplementary features we get to hear how this set, or costume, or lens choice, or shot type, or way the actor sits in the chair is an Oh-mazh to Frederick Zeenstein’s fabulous direction of Marcy Dyes Her Turnip from 1929, or to the sadly overlooked Gavin Piecemeal’s way of lighting the shrubbery for the lawn party in Godzilla Eats The Roman Army spectacular of 1953.
I have blissfully forgotten the most egregious example by title of DVD or even the identities of the filmmakers involved, but it was a dreadful piece of schlock that was more a comedy of filmmaking errors and missteps, and the audacity of these clowns to drone on about the various Oh-mazhes they had conjured up to glue the scenes together, and to give some smidgen of plausibility to why the scene was ever shot to begin with, just dragged on to the way-past-funny point.
To close out the OP’s main points and leave room for other observations, let me admit that it takes reading good reviews by good critics for me to catch all the legitimate and noteworthy Om-idges a movie or show might contain, and I do admit that learning that additional detail or details helps me to understand better the significance of the item(s) being copied and how that copying (or paraphrasing or even parodying) is a wise choice in filmmaking. So I don’t object to the concept at all. It’s the poor execution of poorly selected things to emulate that I’m complaining about. And even worse is the need to comment on these things in DVD commentaries and extra features.
I selected Cafe Society because my main issue is with movies and TV and maybe other arts. If the thread progresses to a larger arena of discussion, so be it.
Since I am a Language Pedant, it bugs me a little when people say “oh-mazh” and spell the word “homage.” If you are going to use the French pronunciation, you oughta use the French spelling, sez me. “Hommage” is “oh-mazh.” “Homage” is “om-idge.”
I don’t find it usually has that effect on me but I live live in an area that’s about 40% French (I agree, too, that you should spell it hommage if that’s how you’re going to use it).
I agree with what you’re saying though. Within the context of the DVD extras you describe I think it often does seem pretentious. It seems common in the exrtas to hear people trying to impart greater importance to their performance by summoning a connection to something obscure and, presumably, great. It always seems to imply there is a depth to their performance and if you don’t understand it, well, clearly your not as shrewd in your evaluation as you think you are. After all, they were channeling the long lost spirit of whatever long-lost performance they dug up. We should examine the word gravitas sometime, I hate it when they trot out that one.
If I may ask, does the French word imply a much different interpretation from the English one? Said another way, is the reference to another’s work more prominent in the French usage? My dictionary doesn’t have an entry for the “hommage” spelling and I’d rather get your take on the issue than go Googling for other interpretations.
I dusted off my French dictionary which I haven’t had out in about 15 years. It does give the same definition but it’s not the first one listed. The first definition is “Acte de courtoisie, preuve de dévouement d’un homme à une femme” - an act of courtesy, proof of devotion from a man to a woman; this dictionary was printed in France in 1976, usage has probably changed since then.
It’s funny, I never realized until looking up the definition why it is spelled with two 'm’s, the definition refers specifically to an act of devotion from un homme à une femme.
