Andrew (24)
Dave Enkosky (15)
Wayne (13)
Pete (12)
Mike (11)
Sir Phobos (11)
Andy (9)
justin (9)
Lauren (8)
Fitz (7)
I have thought long and hard (for a whole week!) about what to write in my first Man, I Love Films editorial. Being that I am argumentative by nature, I thought that the recent article in The Telegraph about remakes would make a good starting point. Matt Singer over at IFC took issue with the Telegraph article for suggesting that there are some films that simply should not have been remade. Among them were Les Diaboliques, The Wicker Man and, most paradoxically, Clash of the Titans (which, like Police Academy, is obviously so brilliant that it should never have been touched). It was that word – shouldn’t – that set things off. And well it should have. There should not be any shouldn’ts … should there?
Many great films are remakes: The Maltese Falcon, Gaslight, The Man Who Knew Too Much (1956), The Magnificent Seven, A Fistful of Dollars, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, True Grit, etc. to name a few that just came to mind. Although I suppose a few of those should really be classed as adaptations, but whatever. IFC didn’t make the distinction and neither will I. But the best remakes succeed not because they are remakes, but because they use the same story to different ends.
Take, for example, two fairly well thought of versions of the same film: The Fly (1958 and 1986 respectively). The first version is a seminal horror film, although somewhat schlocky in bits. It’s a competent entertainment with some great actors (Vincent Price! Herbert Marshall! That chick!) and a creepy script. It also takes as underlying themes the terrors of the Atomic Age, the scientific progress of mankind, some nifty 1950s psycho-sexuality, man as animal, etc. The Cronenberg film, made at the height of the AIDS crisis, expresses the terror of an insidious and unstoppable disease. It advances the body horror of the first as Jeff Goldblum’s scientist gradually transforms into a hideous man-fly, dropping skin and body parts left and right. The films could not be more different in appearance and project, despite the use of the same basic story/characters. They both fulfill their projects with intelligence.
Then there’s Psycho. Alfred Hitchcock’s 1960 thriller has often been cited as the first instance of the slasher film (I’m not going to dignify that one), but it remains one of more frightening films the Master produced. It killed off the top billed female star within half an hour (don’t be shocked) and manipulated the audience’s sensibilities about villains and heroes. Hitchcock cast Perkins and Leigh for their star personas as much for their acting abilities. The shower scene was shocking for 1960 for its brutality and implied nudity. It still keeps some people out of the shower. For some inexplicable reason, Gus Van Sant decided to remake it in 1998. Shot for shot. And the film-going world asked: WTF? What did this express? Was it frightening? Well, no, because it was the same thing we’d seen before, which apparently was what Van Sant wanted. Why, I have no idea. What of the actors? Would you trust Vince Vaughn? Would you be upset to see Anne Heche murdered in the shower? Van Sant’s film failed not because it was a remake, but because it was a remake without purpose. Van Sant had nothing new to say, but he felt impelled to say it. Loudly.
Which comes back to that original word that caused a fuss: shouldn’t. Did Van Sant even have a right to remake such an iconic film? Well, yeah, he did. Just as much as Cronenberg was justified in remaking The Fly. What he was not justified in was making such a poor copy. Basically, a good remake is not just a copy of a film; it possesses something that retells the story in a new and interesting way. The Wicker Man is barely a remake, but it still could have worked in theory. It’s not bad because the original is so good; it’s bad because Nic Cage punches multiple women in the face for no apparent reason. Jan De Bont’s remake of The Haunting is a poor film – the update of the story is ludicrous and the CGI embarassing. The fact that it’s semi-related to a much better, more nuanced film only makes it more offensive. If it wasn’t a remake, it would still be bad.
So, no, remakes make the world go ‘round. But when you come down to it, no film is worth a damn thing if it does not have something (entertainment value, artistic value, so-bad-it’s-good value) backing it up. There are no films that we shouldn’t remake. But there are some that certainly should never have been made in the first place.
*The IFC article totally set me off only because it called Tod Browning’s 1931 Dracula a remake of Murnau’s Nosferatu. It isn’t. Dracula is an adaptation of the stage play by Hamilton Deane and John Balderston, which Lugosi starred in in 1927. Nosferatu is Murnau’s truncated and readapted version of the book. Coppola’s Bram Stoker’s Dracula is based the book … sort of. So there. Thptt.
Twitter: T_Lawson
January 23, 2012 3:17 pm
Nice! The PSYCHO remake barely counts as a remake, what with its (almost) shot-for-shot/occasionally mirror-image construction. But then, I guess it goes to show – if you give van Sant a budget he’ll make an ill-advised cinematic experiment.
That one aside, I tend to see a difference between remakes that 1) happen because the director had something to say or a new way of approaching the original (THE FLY, THE THING, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS ’78) and 2) happen because some big-shot Hollywood executive sees a chance to make a quick buck by capitalizing on nostalgia and/or name recognition (THE WICKER MAN, CLASH OF THE TITANS, PLANET OF THE APES).
*Also, I agree that there is a distinction, however fine, between remakes and re-adaptations. Most things I’ve read don’t seem to see it that way, but when you’re dealing with a common source text I think it’s an important point to make.
Thanks for making a distinction between remake and adaptation. I also think there’s something to be said for adaptations that are influenced by prior adaptations (that’s a whole other ball of yarn, though…)
Welcome to MILF!
There’s definitely something to be said about the remake/re-adaptation issue. It gets awfully complicated, particularly with iconic films (like Psycho, which was originally a book after all). A good example are the number of Pride and Prejudice adaptations running around. The 1940 film with Olivier is great fun, but bears almost no resemblance to the novel, while the mini-series with Colin Firth is much closer to the book. I think a lot of it has to do with 1) how famous the original book (or play) is and 2) how iconic the initial film. Hence, The Maltese Falcon was adapted twice before the Bogie film, but that’s the one we remember.
Twitter: T_Lawson
January 23, 2012 5:35 pm
Agreed. See also: The Front Page/His Girl Friday. In addition, while it is possible to re-adapt a source text without it being, strictly speaking, a remake, it is also possible for a film to be remade with little or no regard for the source beyond what the original did with it.
The difference between a remake and a re-adaptation is almost never taken into account.
Still while I wouldn’t say that anything is so sacred as that I could never be the possibility of improvement, some films are so intrinsically of their time, their director, their actors, that it would be damn hard to be successful. Bringing Up Baby, for an example that just flashed up on my desktop. Not exactly saying it shouldn’t be remade, but what would be the point? Then again it might be an intriguing challenge.
Yeah, the point would be to make a film that fulfilled a totally different set of criteria from the original. Don’t know how anyone could accomplish that with something like ‘Bringing Up Baby’, but it might be interesting. Or it might make me cry.
Twitter: fandangogroover
January 25, 2012 5:57 am
I like the idea of remakes that “fulfilled a totally different set of criteria from the original” in theory but the more I think about it the less I agree. For example: You could say there was good reason to make Red Dragon both as part of an ongoing franchise and as a more faithful adaptation than Manhunter. However all this is negated by the end result as Red Dragon is rubbish and Manhunnter is a classic. You could also argue that remaking an old or foreign language movie will bring it to a wide audience, but then nine times out of ten the original is so much better. My view is that any movie is fair game under any circumstances. BUT, give credit to the original, don’t hide behind “it’s a new adaptation of the source material” and if you remake a classic or much loved film and do a bad job you deserve the inevitable backlash.
I agree with you in essence, but again it goes as a case by case by basis. And there is something to be said for returning to source material, especially if the original film in some way departed from it. For instance, there have been consistent rumors about “The Thin Man” starring Johnny Depp as Nick Charles. As a fan of the original, I’m a bit appalled. But the original departs in many ways from the novel, which is far darker, grittier, meaner than the frothy comedy with William Powell and Myrna Loy. So if the ‘remake’ were to return to the novel and attempt a more faithful adaptation, I’d be all for it. But we’ll have to wait and see.
Twitter: fandangogroover
January 25, 2012 10:20 am
Interesting, I hadn’t heard that. I haven’t seen the original but did read the book many years ago. Any word on who would play Nora?
Good article. I gave up on my knee-jerk disdain for remakes long ago. For me all that matters is does the new movie justify its existence? Is it good enough on its own merits?
Twitter: manilovefilms
January 30, 2012 2:31 pm
I’m with Dave. The water gets muddier all of the time, and as you’ve said, Lauren, these things must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
The public’s (or just rabid movie fans like us) shock and disdain for remakes has gotten out of hand. We lost the war, folks, and (almost) nothing is off limits, and certainly not Police Academy, for as much fun as those films might be. Get used to it and direct your ire towards decades-later prequels…those things always suck.
Ohh…Prometheus coming out soon, eh? Sweet!
I agreed with what you said. Remakes are not inherently bad, as long as the filmmaker is doing something slightly different. I was for the “Footloose” remake when I heard it was going to be a traditional musical, like the stage show. Once they dropped that side of it, I wondered what the point was. I saw some of the publicity stills, and I knew instantly which part of the movie each was from.
Wait… IFC called Tod Browning’s Dracula a remake of Nosferatu? That makes my brain hurt. On what basis could they even justify that statement? There were vampires, and… uh… I guess the German expressionist style. The end.