the issue of remakes
continuing with the previous idea about the status of hollywood, there is something that i want to address... remakes.
it seems this year, there was a significant number of remakes that have been released either in theatres or on some kind of home viewing format (dvd, psp discs, etc.). here's a partial list of the more recent ones with a few established ones thrown in for good measure:
cheaper by the dozen (o: walter lang, 1950; 2nd: shawn levy, 2003 and there's a sequel to it too)
fun with dick and jane (o: ted kotcheff, 1977; 2nd: dean parisot, 2005)
king kong (o: merian c. cooper and ernst b. schoedsack, 1933; 2nd: john guillermin, 1976; 3rd: peter jackson, 2005)
the manchurian candidate (o: john frankenheimer, 1962; 2nd: jonathan demme, 2004)
miracle on 34th street (o: george seaton, 1947; 2nd: chris columbus, 1994; plus there were two tv adaptations made in 1959 and 1973 as well)
the producers (o: mel brooks, 1968; 2nd: susan stroman, 2005 based on the broadway musical)
psycho (o: alfred hitchcock, 1960; 2nd: gus van sant, 1998)
ringu/the ring (jpn: hideo nakata, 1998; us: gore verbinski, 2002)
shichinin no samurai/the magnificent seven (jpn: akira kurosawa, 1954; us: john sturges, 1960)
yours, mine and ours (o: melville shavelson, 1968; 2nd: raja gosnell, 2005)
wings of desire/city of angels (ger: wim wenders, 1987; us: brad silberling, 1998)
[for the record, this post will not cover adaptations from literature or from television series... those will be different posts altogether =] ]
i think that studios think remaking a film is a sure thing, especially if the film is well received either at a particular time (pyscho and the producers for an example) or a particular place (shichinin no samurai and wings of desire). and to be fair, there can be an artistic or personal motivation to remake a film, more out of love for the original: john sturges, peter jackson and gus van sant.
no matter what the reason for doing it, remaking a film is a dangerous and volatile exercise in my opinion. why? because the potential to make a lot of mistakes/bad choices actually increases with a remake. when a director and his team make certain choices at different stages of a production, it was the best you can make at that time (even if it produces less-than-desirable results). in a remake, the film is automatically pitted against the original. so the film is already put under a lot of scrutiny by everybody, especially fans of the original.
the end result is usually just a bad carbon copy of the original, devoid of its life and vibrancy (think of gus van sant's remake where he recreated it shot-by-shot). for an example, in shichinin no samurai [and if you haven't figured it out by now, it's seven samurai], the first scene is a powerful scene because one man decides to do something different: namely to fight/defend the village rather than cave in to the robbers. to me, it's an assertion of life and the willingness to fight for it. the delivery is powerful and provides a contrast with the rest of the village's motion to "hope for mercy" from the robbers. in the magnificent seven, there's the same scene but the delivery is not as inspiring. the same ideas are presented and the same conclusion is reached (go and find warriors) but there isn't the emotional impact and power that the original had.
another one i have really strong opinions about is the remake of wings of desire (known by its german title as der himmel über berlin or its french title les ailes du désir). the original was artfully done and emotionally realized. marion's monologue about love and destiny is one of the most beautiful monologues on love i have heard. city of angels is... the scene that really turned me off on it (and i haven't seen it in its entirety nor do i want to) was seth's (nicolas cage and he's suppose to be damiel) taking with maggie (meg ryan, suppose to be marion) in the library and his assertion that ernest hemingway reflects heaven. my mother's response was that hemingway reflects more of the "other place" and after reading the sun also rises, i agree. but the other thing that irks me is that *he's talking in the fricking library.* in the original, the library is silent with the exception of people's thoughts. in fact, that's why angels love libraries (according to wim wenders' conception). now i'm not sure if at that scene in the remake seth (and what's with that name?) has become human but even so, there's something wrong. in fact, in the original, damiel hardly ever says a word to marion =].
not only a remake has the potential to be devoid of life, but also it has the potential to look really ridiculous. for an example, the manchurian candidate. the plot in the original makes a lot of sense: a company captured in korea, subjected to brainwashing techniques by the communists and creates a heroic soldier to start a potential political career (or at least influence several) for the sake of obtaining power. it makes sense because of the time of its production (the cold war was going on). in the remake, you have a skeleton of the story but the motives are strange: a corporate/political conspiracy (and they normally tire and annoying me =] ). the remake has a subliminal purpose of painting the current administration as a profiteering, corporate fatcat power base. if you want to make a story like that, that's fine. but don't call it the manchurian candidate (nor use several of the scenes from there).
now, there are a few exceptions. i would put the most recent production of king kong as an example of good remake. for starters, the technology has come a long way since the effects in 1933 [i'm not talking about the 1976 version here]. but more importantly, the technology is not just a spectacle (although it will still be seen as such). peter jackson has succeed where george lucas hasn't: ensuring that emotion or something that the audience can connect to is embedding in the image. the true star of king kong is the ape himself and you can see it in his face. you can see the film less as a spectacle (which ironically is how carl denham wanted king kong to be shown... i.e. "the eighth wonder of the world") and more as a character in his own right.
so the point is you have to be really careful about what you do in a remake. it can either enhance the original, supercede the original in a good and better way or just become forgettable (or at least on the internet, heavily scorned).
it seems this year, there was a significant number of remakes that have been released either in theatres or on some kind of home viewing format (dvd, psp discs, etc.). here's a partial list of the more recent ones with a few established ones thrown in for good measure:
cheaper by the dozen (o: walter lang, 1950; 2nd: shawn levy, 2003 and there's a sequel to it too)
fun with dick and jane (o: ted kotcheff, 1977; 2nd: dean parisot, 2005)
king kong (o: merian c. cooper and ernst b. schoedsack, 1933; 2nd: john guillermin, 1976; 3rd: peter jackson, 2005)
the manchurian candidate (o: john frankenheimer, 1962; 2nd: jonathan demme, 2004)
miracle on 34th street (o: george seaton, 1947; 2nd: chris columbus, 1994; plus there were two tv adaptations made in 1959 and 1973 as well)
the producers (o: mel brooks, 1968; 2nd: susan stroman, 2005 based on the broadway musical)
psycho (o: alfred hitchcock, 1960; 2nd: gus van sant, 1998)
ringu/the ring (jpn: hideo nakata, 1998; us: gore verbinski, 2002)
shichinin no samurai/the magnificent seven (jpn: akira kurosawa, 1954; us: john sturges, 1960)
yours, mine and ours (o: melville shavelson, 1968; 2nd: raja gosnell, 2005)
wings of desire/city of angels (ger: wim wenders, 1987; us: brad silberling, 1998)
[for the record, this post will not cover adaptations from literature or from television series... those will be different posts altogether =] ]
i think that studios think remaking a film is a sure thing, especially if the film is well received either at a particular time (pyscho and the producers for an example) or a particular place (shichinin no samurai and wings of desire). and to be fair, there can be an artistic or personal motivation to remake a film, more out of love for the original: john sturges, peter jackson and gus van sant.
no matter what the reason for doing it, remaking a film is a dangerous and volatile exercise in my opinion. why? because the potential to make a lot of mistakes/bad choices actually increases with a remake. when a director and his team make certain choices at different stages of a production, it was the best you can make at that time (even if it produces less-than-desirable results). in a remake, the film is automatically pitted against the original. so the film is already put under a lot of scrutiny by everybody, especially fans of the original.
the end result is usually just a bad carbon copy of the original, devoid of its life and vibrancy (think of gus van sant's remake where he recreated it shot-by-shot). for an example, in shichinin no samurai [and if you haven't figured it out by now, it's seven samurai], the first scene is a powerful scene because one man decides to do something different: namely to fight/defend the village rather than cave in to the robbers. to me, it's an assertion of life and the willingness to fight for it. the delivery is powerful and provides a contrast with the rest of the village's motion to "hope for mercy" from the robbers. in the magnificent seven, there's the same scene but the delivery is not as inspiring. the same ideas are presented and the same conclusion is reached (go and find warriors) but there isn't the emotional impact and power that the original had.
another one i have really strong opinions about is the remake of wings of desire (known by its german title as der himmel über berlin or its french title les ailes du désir). the original was artfully done and emotionally realized. marion's monologue about love and destiny is one of the most beautiful monologues on love i have heard. city of angels is... the scene that really turned me off on it (and i haven't seen it in its entirety nor do i want to) was seth's (nicolas cage and he's suppose to be damiel) taking with maggie (meg ryan, suppose to be marion) in the library and his assertion that ernest hemingway reflects heaven. my mother's response was that hemingway reflects more of the "other place" and after reading the sun also rises, i agree. but the other thing that irks me is that *he's talking in the fricking library.* in the original, the library is silent with the exception of people's thoughts. in fact, that's why angels love libraries (according to wim wenders' conception). now i'm not sure if at that scene in the remake seth (and what's with that name?) has become human but even so, there's something wrong. in fact, in the original, damiel hardly ever says a word to marion =].
not only a remake has the potential to be devoid of life, but also it has the potential to look really ridiculous. for an example, the manchurian candidate. the plot in the original makes a lot of sense: a company captured in korea, subjected to brainwashing techniques by the communists and creates a heroic soldier to start a potential political career (or at least influence several) for the sake of obtaining power. it makes sense because of the time of its production (the cold war was going on). in the remake, you have a skeleton of the story but the motives are strange: a corporate/political conspiracy (and they normally tire and annoying me =] ). the remake has a subliminal purpose of painting the current administration as a profiteering, corporate fatcat power base. if you want to make a story like that, that's fine. but don't call it the manchurian candidate (nor use several of the scenes from there).
now, there are a few exceptions. i would put the most recent production of king kong as an example of good remake. for starters, the technology has come a long way since the effects in 1933 [i'm not talking about the 1976 version here]. but more importantly, the technology is not just a spectacle (although it will still be seen as such). peter jackson has succeed where george lucas hasn't: ensuring that emotion or something that the audience can connect to is embedding in the image. the true star of king kong is the ape himself and you can see it in his face. you can see the film less as a spectacle (which ironically is how carl denham wanted king kong to be shown... i.e. "the eighth wonder of the world") and more as a character in his own right.
so the point is you have to be really careful about what you do in a remake. it can either enhance the original, supercede the original in a good and better way or just become forgettable (or at least on the internet, heavily scorned).
posted by djproject at 09:21
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home