 |
 |
| |
|
‹ ‹ ‹ past FEATURE articles |
:: FEATURE ::
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Remakes, Re-Imagings and Retirees:
Old Ideas with New Visions or Lack of Creativity?
by Kaare Kvenild
June 2007
It seems as of late that Hollywood is running out of
ideas. In the last few years there has been a flux of
old movies and old characters returning to the silver
screen. Some have been extraordinary while others
should never have been done at all. In general, I'm
usually against remakes, re-imagings can be great and
I get a little giddy when it comes to old characters
making a comeback. So let's take a look at each and
see what we come up with.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
REmakes
Remakes are usually of the devil; again that's just
my feeling. By "Kaare-definition," a remake is when
somebody decides they want to re-write a screenplay
(usually an updated version) in hopes of having a
filmmaker decide that they want to make the
re-written script into a movie. In essence, 9
times out of 10 they are just copying somebody else's
work. Let's look at a few examples. The first remake
I can distinctly remember is the 1998 remake of Alfred
Hitchcock's "Psycho." Now, director Gus Van Sant
called this a re-imaging, but a re-imaging, by
"Kaare-definition," is when somebody takes a story or
character and completely and completely
revamps and re-writes everything: origin, background, events
leading up to where the character is now, changing a
male character to a female, etc. What Van Sant did
was take the original Hitchcock masterpiece and remake
it shot for shot, line for line the same. Everything
was the same as the 1960 original; the original
screenplay was even the same one that Joseph Stefano
wrote for the 1960 version. Nothing about this film
was original. With that being said, I can't say it's
a bad movie because since everything is the same that
would, to me, mean that the original Hitchcock film is
bad also. So, this remake falls under the category of
unnecessary.
Are there other unnecessary remakes? There
absolutely are more unnecessary remakes! The list
looks like this: "Mr. Deeds," "The Fog," "Miracle on
34th St," "Stagecoach," "The Hills Have Eyes," and
"Sorry Wrong Number." Not all of these are classics;
they just get remade to cash in a craze. One such
craze was started with the release of the 2003 remake
of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre." This film was
originally released in 1974 and was a huge cult hit.
In my eyes, this is by no means a classic, but many
think it is. So for the sake of argument, I will
treat it as a classic. Michael Bay felt it was time
to update this film. How do you do that? You follow
the "Scream" format of putting hot, young stars in
skimpy clothing and let them get chased for two hours
by a psychopath. In this case, Jessica Biel (the
hottie in tight jeans) gets chased by Andrew
Bryniarski (psychopath, Leatherface). Basically this
is the same formula as the original. The one addition
is the expanded roles of Leaterface's family. Most
noticeably is that of his father, Sheriff Hoyt, played
by R. Lee Ermey. Now I love Ermey's crazy acting as
much as the next guy, but I would rather see him
torment Private Pyle in "Full Metal Jacket" then Biel
and her idiot friends in this slop. Like "Psycho,"
the original "Chainsaw Massacre" stands fine on its
own; there is really no need to remake movies like
this. And why is it that most of these remakes are
remakes of cheep horror movies? Ever since the
"Chainsaw Massacre" remake became a huge hit, we as
viewers have been inundated with numerous horror
remakes. What is the point?
Now, not all remakes are awful or pointless. Martin
Scorsese has had some of his greatest success with
remakes. In 2006, Scorsese released his remake of the
Hong Kong film, "Infernal Affairs." It was called
"The Departed," and in February of 2007 it was named
Best Picture by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts &
Sciences. Foreign films can fall under the idea of a
good remake, unless of course they are a classic by
the likes of Akira Kurosawa or Ingmar Bergman. But in
the case of "The Departed," Scorsese and screenwriter
William Monahan completely Americanized "Infernal
Affairs," leaving the plot in tact, but changing
everything else. Christopher Nolan also did this with
his remake of the Swedish film "Insomnia." In the
case of these two films, both the originals and the
remakes stand on their own as well made and
entertaining films.
In 1991 Scorsese had great financial success with his
remake of the 1962 classic "Cape Fear." In the
original, J. Lee Thompson directed Gregory Peck as
attorney Sam Bowden, whose testimony puts a rapist in
prison. The rapist is one Max Cody played by Robert
Mitchum. It is an amazing thriller that all these
years later it keeps you on the edge of your seat.
How do you top it or equal it? You hire Nick Nolte to
play Sam Bowden, and instead of making him testify
against the rapist, you make him be the rapist's
defense attorney (oh the tension!). To top it off,
you hire Robert De Niro to play rapist Max Cody!
"Cape Fear" is a testament to a good remake. You
shake up the original by changing bits and pieces here
and there, but you keep the essence of the original.
In the end, both stand out as great films. Other
films could learn from this. For example, if Gus Van
Sant had gone back to Robert Block's original novel of
"Psycho" and based the film on that, it
would have been a much more intriguing film.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
RE-imagings
I have already given you the "Kaare-definition" of a
re-imaging, but what do I think of re-imagings?
Usually, I love re-imagings. Like I said previously,
if Mr. Van Sant and truly re-imaged "Psycho," it could
have been really good. Re-imagings usually are done
to reinvigorate a film franchise. In the last three
years there have been two amazing re-imagings that
have truly redefined their franchises. In 2006,
Martin Campbell re-imaged the James Bond franchise
when he made "Casino Royale." Campbell went back to
Ian Fleming's first James Bond novel, and gave Bond a
fresh start. Viewers got to see a Bond they were not
used to, a rookie 007 jumpstarting his career.
Daniel Craig was cast to give filmgoers a younger,
grittier Bond; and Craig did just that. We get to see
a sloppy Bond, a soft Bond, and we get to see how Bond
becomes the slick, hard-edged James Bond. "Casino
Royale" truly brought James Bond back to what Ian
Fleming originally wrote, a tough-as-nails,
cold-hearted spy. But if it was not for the success
of one film one year earlier, "Casino Royale" may not
have been what it is.
In 2005, Christopher Nolan brought life back to the
fading "Batman" franchise by bringing "Batman Begins"
to theaters. The success of films like "Spider-Man"
and "X-Men" for Marvel Films made DC Comics and its
parent company, Warner Brothers, realize they needed
something to compete. And what better way to compete
than to bring back your big guns. Batman is
undoubtedly one of the most popular comic book
characters in the world, and the most popular DC
character in the stables. So, Warner Brothers hired
comic book-to-film guru David Goyer to write a
story/screenplay with Nolan. What came of it was
"Batman Begins," a revision of the classic hero. What
Goyer and Nolan did was show viewers why and how Bruce
Wayne became Batman, something that neither Tim Burton
nor Joel Schumacher did in their films. The
Goyer/Nolan screenplay showed us Wayne's family
tragedy, his quest for justice, and his creation of
his Batman alter-ego.
Nolan hired top rate actors like Gary Oldman, Tom
Wilkinson, Morgan Freeman and Liam Neeson (all Oscar
nominated actors - only Freeman has won one). To top
it off, Warner Brothers and Nolan took fan advice and
cast Christian Bale as Bruce Wayne/Batman. This was
considered a risky move because Bale had, until that
point, only achieved independent ("American Psycho,"
"The Machinist") and cult ("Equilibrium") star status.
But it all worked! "Batman Begins" quickly became
one the best reviewed films of 2005, and made many
critics' year-end top 10 lists. It has everything
needed to make this revision work: great direction,
great writing, amazing cinematography (nominated for
an Academy Award in this category), and top of the
line acting. Bale in particular was heralded as the
absolute Wayne/Batman, making him at last the central
character and not the villains. This is what
re-imagings should look like.
Are there bad re-imagings? I'm sure there are, but
until recently it has been something that has not been
seen much. There is one coming out
that has extreme possibility of being bad, and that is
Rob Zombie's re-imaging of "Halloween." I deem this
one, since nobody has seen it yet, as unnecessary
instead of bad. John Carpenter's original is one of
the great horror films of all time, and one of my
personal favorites. It is a near perfect film for the
genre - relentless killer stalks helpless babysitters
on Halloween night - that's it! What Zombie is doing
is going back to Michael Myers' childhood to see what
drives him. Basically, as I see it, all Zombie is
doing is tying together plot points from the original
"Halloween" and "Halloween II." Is it necessary? From
my stand point it is not. But I'm going
to hang back on this one because after seeing the trailer I'm
curious when normally I'd be furious; up until this
point I was furious.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
REtirees
With retirees, on the other hand, I get a huge smile on my
face when I hear about a resurgence of a character
that you would expect to see in a retirement home and
not on the silver screen. Case in point: "Rocky
Balboa." Sylvester Stallone was 59 years old when he
started making this film. I remember seeing the
trailer the first time and telling friends that this
is either going to be amazing or the final nail the
coffin of Stallone's career. I was happy to tell
people that it was not that final nail. While it
wasn't amazing as far as being one of the year's best
films, it was amazing to me to be sitting there in a
theater where people are chanting "Rocky! Rocky!" like
it was 1976 all over again! And it was still a great
movie just to sit and enjoy the moment. Not to
mention that Stallone looked to be in great shape
(after his being detained in Australia we now know
why). "Rocky Balboa" was a big enough success that
Stallone is now bringing back another of his famous
characters (oh wait, he really only had two) in Rambo.
That's right, the film "John Rambo" is now filming
with a now 60 year old Stallone writing, directing and
starring in the film. I'm sorry, but I really am
excited to see this.
What else has made a comeback? How about the Teenage
Mutant Ninja Turtles who by now should be
Thirty-Something Mutant Stock-broker Lawyer Dentist
Garbage Man or Daddy Turtles. TMNT was popular when I
was in 5th grade and 10 years old, I'm now 27. This
means that the Heroes in a Half-shell should be just
that; adults. But Leonardo, Michelangelo, Donatello
and Raphael are still teenagers and just made a huge
splash at the box office with the release of "TMNT," a
computer animated visit to the heroes that live in the
sewer. The exit polls said that the majority of those
in attendance were 20-something fathers taking their
sons to see the heroes they grew up with. How cool is
that? Only bummer here is that there is no Shredder,
but I suppose we can't have everything.
This summer we get the return of another action icon
in John McClane as Bruce Willis brings to theaters
"Live Free or Die Hard." This movie looks super cool!
Then we are finally going to get Harrison Ford
returning to Indian Jones! But I'm sure you're asking
why I get so excited about these movies and not
remakes. Some think that it is essentially the same
idea of bringing back old characters. In the case of
the retirees, there is no change. These are the same
characters they have always been only older (except
the Turtles, I don't think they age, much like The
Simpsons). Besides, I think these movies really hit
the fun mark. They are meant to be works of cinema.
I believe it is the idea that these old guys are
running around trying to do things they did twenty
years ago that makes these appealing. People want to
know how these actors and filmmakers are going to deal
with the fact that the characters are older; it makes
the film intriguing. The only one that was
unnecessary was "Basic Instinct 2" - haven't seen it
and won't see it.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
 |
|
Conclusion
By now, you may also be asking what the point of this
bit of writing was. Well, look back at the title.
Are these films new visions of old ideas or a lack of
creativity? When they are successful they are
definitely new visions. But it seems like every time
there is one successful new vision there are about
fifty copycats that are a total lack of
creativity. For example, there are already talks of
remaking this years Oscar winning Foreign Language
film, "The Lives of Others." Is this necessary? The
movie is not even a year old and some yahoo wants to
remake it. This, in my opinion, is a lack of creativity.
There is also the idea that sometimes people make one
remake too many. Harvey Weinstein wants to remake
"Seven Samurai," the classic Akira Kurosawa film. On
this point, I'm going to let my emotions get away with
me and say "what the crap are you thinking!" "Seven
Samurai" has already been remade once with stupendous
results. The outcome of that remake was "The
Magnificent Seven." John Sturges remade Kurosawa's
samurai epic as a western epic. Both films are
considered classics. But making another remake I
truly feel is a mistake. Take another example in the
movie "Yojimbo." This is another Kurosawa samurai
film that was remade by Sergio Leone as "A Fistful of
Dollars." Both films spawned sequels and became
classic stand-alone films that helped define their
genres. But in 1996 director Walter Hill and Bruce
Willis made "Last Man Standing," another remake of
Kurosawa’s classic. Hill's film had none of the
results of Kurosawa's or Leone's films. It was one
remake too many. This is what Weinstein's (idiot)
proposed remake is bound to be. Besides, this is the
reason I do not like remakes. There is this trend of
remaking classic films when they don't need to be
remade. What would the world do if somebody decided
they needed to remake "Citizen Kane"? The world would
scream "what a horrible idea!" How about "Gone with
the Wind," "Casablanca" "Star Wars" or "It's a
Wonderful Life?" These are bad ideas and would be
seen as such. So why was it OK to remake "Psycho,"
"Rear Window" and "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town"? These
were not good ideas!
I made a promise that I would refrain from getting
too heated over this so I better wrap this up quick
before I have a stroke. Re-imagings seem to work
because they usually involve a film series and not
just one film. They completely revamp a series by
saying "all the events that took place before this
movie either no longer exist or have not yet taken
place." In most cases, they are a complete restart.
With the Batman franchise, Nolan's film basically
exists in completely different reality of both
Burton's and Shumacher's films, and their films will not
be remade by Nolan. With Bond the future is unknown.
My hope is that if they truly intend on going back to
Fleming's novels that they be picky about which ones
they make. For example, please do not remake
"Goldfinger," it is a classic in every sense of the
word. But feel free to remake any of the films Roger
Moore starred in, especially "Moonraker" which was a
joke.
And retirees, I think I have already given a pretty
good example of why I like them. They are, for the
most part, just meant to be fun or meaningful. The
retirees are not going out there to win awards; they
are going out there to entertain or to wrap something
up right. Sylvester Stallone said "Rocky V" left a
bad taste in his mouth, so he made "Rocky Balboa" to
finish the series off right. "Indiana Jones 4" is
definitely going out there to entertain, as I'm sure
"Live Free or Die Hard" is also. That is why retirees
are in a different category; they are new ideas for
old ideas.
So what are my final thoughts? Keep bringing out the
senior citizens! If you are going to do a re-imaging,
first make sure it needs it. Second, make sure it is
a franchise and not one movie, this seems to work
better. And for Pete's sake, if you are going to make
a remake, remake a stupid movie like "Catwoman" and
not classic like "North by Northwest" or you will be
considered a moron (hopefully by more than just me).
|
|
|
 |
