| Author | Message | ||
     Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
I was thinking about remakes and specifically my extreme reaction to the news of a Videodrome remake. I had the same "Blasphemy!" sort of response when I heard they were remaking The Wicker Man, mainly because of the Lord Summerisle sex change and the transporting of the action to America, where they don't have ancient pagan civilisations. But some films are ripe for re-envisioning (My Bloody Valentine, Friday the 13th) and others become classics in their own right (The Fly, The Thing) when seen through another lens. I had never seen Gus Van Sant's remake of Psycho, though I'd always been intrigued. The "shot-by-shot" concept seemed like a film school experiment. I'd seen music videos and individual scenes from movies given the treatment, but I felt a kind of loyalty to the Hitchcock film, so I shunned the remake. Someone mentioned it in my Videodrome thread, so my curiosity was piqued again and I finally watched it last night. It did indeed seem like a film school experiment. Pleasantly disorienting to see the exact same camera tricks and tracking shots, the same dialogue, the same music, but with different actors and slightly different sets. And colours. Actually a lot of fun if you know the original well. Not independently a "good movie" and ultimately I don't think it works. But I did enjoy it. And I *really* enjoyed the "making of" clip, where someone made the comparison to stage plays and the myriad different interpretations you had of those stories and characters (no two Hamlets are ever alike). It made me wonder why film wasn't the same. Why do certain films seem positively sacred? I always get excited about seeing things in a new and different way (Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet being the best example), but of course these experiments aren't always successful. Why is Marilyn Manson's cover of "I Put a Spell on You" brilliant while Madonna's version of "American Pie" sucks? (YMMV.) I wonder what it would be like if movies were thought of like plays - open to a variety of interpretations. I guess people just can't resist changing things around, but why is that a good thing in song covers and a bad thing in film remakes? And how would I feel about a shot-by-shot remake of Videodrome with the story and script left intact? I'm not sure, but I'd probably be intrigued enough to see it. Sorry for the disjointed nature of this post. Just got a lot of unfocused questions rolling around in my head and wondered what you guys thought. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
One of the major issues with remakes of films is that they're like works of art. A stage play is by it's definition something brief and illusory, even the same troupe of actors will probably do it different every time. A film is more permanent. Imagine if someone with no artistic talent decided to re-do the Mona Lisa in a version which would be seen round the world and anyone below a certain age would think that that was the proper version because the hadn't seen the original... That's what it's like when you hear that Bay is remaking the Birds, or that ANYONE is having a go at Videodrome. When it's perfect why remake it? why not just re-release it? All that needs doing to the birds is to clean up the blue lines round the seagulls in the attack on the school. It's the only really weak bit of SFX in the whole film and the only thing that strikes a negative note. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.106 |
I actually like the otherworldly effect created by the matte paintings in The Birds. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
I suppose it depends on the artistic medium - plays are intended to be performed live on stage presumably more than once and therefore different interpretations are unavoidable. Also, plays tend to be identified as being the work of a single person which is then interpreted by others. A film is a far more collaborative effort which is then rendered permanently on a recording medium. Despite the fact that Videodrome is A David Cronenberg Film it's undeniable that Carol Spier, Mark Irwin, Ronald Sanders and Howard Shore all made a significant contribution to how those Cronenberg era movies look and feel. I actually don't have a problem with remakes, and as I think I mentioned elsewhere a Videodrome remake could be absolutely fascinating, worrying, disturbing, and offer a deliciously satirical, horrifying take on our modern society. It probably won't but there you go. Has anyone ever considered remaking books by the way? Coming soon - Dan Brown's rewrite of The Influence! James Patterson does Silence of the Lambs! Shaun Hutson's reimagining of Canon Alberic's Scrapbook! Guy N Smith's All New Night of the Crabs! Tanith Lee's Slugs! Philip Pullman's The Happy Hooker Goes to Hollywood! The possibilties are endless, unfortunately. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
The comparison I've often made to the van Sant Psycho is the case of the operas of Benjamin Britten and his War Requiem. We know he wrote them with various performers in mind (Peter Pears, obviously, but not only him.) Britten then conducted them with his chosen soloists. If those recordings aren't regarded as so definitive that nobody else should record the works, why should Hitchcock's Psycho be different? Actually, van Sant often changes the length of shots, and sometimes the order of the montage. The changes are crucial, but I'm afraid I think they keep demonstrating that Hitchcock's choices were right. | ||
| Simon Strantzas (Nomis) Username: Nomis Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 99.227.90.149 |
Dave Eggers's novel of "Where The Wild Things Are" is due soon. No, Zed; that's not a joke. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.106 |
Hitchcock's film conveys a sense of dread from the outset, whereas the remake . . . I'm afraid I don't even remember the shower scene. Enough said. | ||
| John Llewellyn Probert (John_l_probert) Username: John_l_probert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 213.253.174.81 |
Good point Hubert - neither do I! | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Good point about the permanence of film vs. the inherent variability of plays. And it's probably true that nothing should be sacred and untouchable. I certainly believe nothing is above satire, so why should serious remakes be different? I enjoyed the shower scene (and really the entire film) more from the perspective of how much fun it would have been to make it - copying the choreography and "reliving" it in front of the camera instead of from an audience seat. It reminded me of my Rocky Horror days, where we tried to mimic the actions onscreen as precisely as possible, while still throwing in little bits of business that were our own. (The bedroom scenes were always rather more obscene than in the film - ah, fun with silhouettes!  ) | ||
| Mark_lynch (Mark_lynch) Username: Mark_lynch Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 88.110.77.18 |
Hmm. Wouldn't it have been more interesting to go back to the book and remake PSYCHO from its original source than dick about with Hitch's shots? Went to see an open-air Globe Theatre travelling production of A MIDSUMMER NIGHT'S DREAM last night. Was in the enjoyably magnificient grounds of Leeds Castle, Kent and the outfits were classic 1920s flapper and boater-hat type wear. Add a few banjos and a saxaphone, Puck's ending sung and with the actress in the part vamping it up in stockings and suspenders, and you got a really enjoyable evening of it . . . | ||
| Niki Flynn (Niki) Username: Niki Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.32.69.29 |
Could be interesting to see modern movies remade as silent films with intertitles. I could definitely see Vertigo working it! | ||
| Steve Bacon (Stevebacon) Username: Stevebacon Registered: 09-2008 Posted From: 90.210.209.176 |
I also think much of a film's power comes in the context of when it was originally released. By trying to replicate that at a different time with a different cast and crew just means the effect is diluted. This is especially so with older films; as Hubert observed, the SFX add to the feeling of unease in The Birds. Much as I seem to be the only person in the world who liked Jackson's King Kong, I think of it as a totally different movie to the original. As I expect the forthcoming Clash of the Titans version will be, in comparison to the original. | ||
| Weber_gregston (Weber_gregston) Username: Weber_gregston Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 194.176.105.47 |
I also loved PJ's King Kong. I'm a great fan of that particular jackson and I can't wait for Lovely bones to be released. It seems like forever since that was announced. Does anyone know what's going on there? | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"I also think much of a film's power comes in the context of when it was originally released..." Books too. Think of Pierre Menard. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.226.153 |
The Buddhists who create elaborate works of art in sand, and destroy them seconds later, would probably chuckle amusedly at the entire notion of our vexation over remakes.... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.191.233 |
But that's hardly the same thing, Craig! Buddhist sand mandalas are used for rituals and by their very nature are temporary. They are thought of as transient ceremonial tools rather than works of art. The intention is very different from that of a filmmaker devoting months or years to creating an enduring work of art. On the other hand, a lot of traditional Asian art is imitative by nature, especially painting, where at least as much value is placed in the successful reproduction of a masterful work, or the perpetuation of an established style or motif, as it is in showing originality. Technique is generally admired more than anything else. Personally, I don't have a knee-jerk hatred toward all remakes (a few have been worthwhile). The problem I have with them is the general climate of laziness and lack of imagination they reflect. There are thousands of great stories crying out to be adapted, but because of greed and dearth of creativity, we see an endless stream of (mostly vastly inferior) bland, formulaic remakes. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.242.188 |
I can't believe a Buddhist, Huw, would put much stock into the whole issue of film remakes, is all.... It was just a perspective-putting I was attempting. And the reason good stories go wanting in Hollywood, is the same one as ever: Hollywood wants built-in audiences, they always have, so they go for the most popular, for pre-viewed, for pre-popular... it was ever so; so it shall ever be (even in Shakespeare's day, this was the norm).... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.199.62 |
I get the thing about built-in audiences, but how would making adaptations of stories that haven't been 'done' before work against that? Surely bland remakes aren't all people want to see? This remake madness has only really taken hold in the past few years. I mean, there have always been remakes, but never on a scale like we're seeing today. I can't remember where I read them, but I remember reading interviews (or essays) with some well-known directors and writers saying that before the eighties, directors had more say in their work than the producers, so they tended to produce more daring (and therefore, generally more interesting) work. They blame people like Bruckheimer and Michael Bay for the dumbing down of American cinema in general. I've a feeling it may have been John Boorman, or someone with a similar name. David Morrell has said much the same thing, too. | ||
| Hubert (Hubert) Username: Hubert Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 78.22.227.106 |
I have a soft spot for the Godzilla remake. That feeling of "Oh dear, look at those insignificant ants, trying to destroy such a mighty and heavenly creature" was there alright. And I for one felt sorry when Godzilla died - I must have been the only one in the theatre not cheering. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 67.116.103.241 |
The best directors are not remake-ers. The best films are, arguably, not remakes. When it comes to horror, come on... the best horror films are themselves adaptations, I'd argue: THE HAUNTING, THE INNOCENTS, THE EXORCIST, THE SHINING, ROSEMARY'S BABY - all based on exisisting prose works. To complain about a remake of someone's first attempt to copy an existing work, is... silly. A new INNOCENTS wouldn't be a remake of the old, more than it would be just another adaptation of "The Turn of the Screw" - and probably do a lousy job, judging by just how much THE INNOCENTS got it right. Or, worked. If you were to compare it - which is not to be done, though one is compelled to. It would be like people comparing remakes of "Hamlet" to Olivier's HAMLET - incorrect, unless specifically stated, but they're remakes of the original play. THE MALTESE FALCON that we know, with Humphrey Bogart, is the third film that Hollywood made, based on that novel. It's not a remake of the other two... though, perhaps, some complained back then that it was?... or why Hollywood couldn't move on, and do something original?... thank god, there, it didn't.... | ||
| Huw (Huw) Username: Huw Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 218.168.189.117 |
Craig, the few you mentioned are based on novels, but there are plenty that aren't. And many of the remakes of films that are based on preexisting fiction are clearly remaking the film rather than the book. But, like I said, I'm not opposed to remakes per se - just the crap ones, and the climate of laziness they represent. I love the first three Bodysnatcher films, for example. But the most recent one is rubbish, and was made not, I suspect, out of any love for or interest in the original, but simply because everybody else is doing it. | ||
| Ramsey Campbell (Ramsey) Username: Ramsey Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 195.93.21.74 |
"When it comes to horror, come on... the best horror films are themselves adaptations, I'd argue: THE HAUNTING, THE INNOCENTS, THE EXORCIST, THE SHINING, ROSEMARY'S BABY..." Come on indeed. King Kong? Repulsion? Lost Highway? Cat People? The Mummy? I'm confining myself to only five, to reflect the list above. I suppose I should explain that in all cases I mean the originals. | ||
| Zed (Gary_mc) Username: Gary_mc Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 81.96.241.143 |
Personally, I don't have a knee-jerk hatred toward all remakes (a few have been worthwhile). The problem I have with them is the general climate of laziness and lack of imagination they reflect. There are thousands of great stories crying out to be adapted, but because of greed and dearth of creativity, we see an endless stream of (mostly vastly inferior) bland, formulaic remakes. This states my own viewpoint beautifully, Huw. Well said, sir. I've been watching Werner Herzog films for the last week or so and it's made me realise once again how dead creativity is in modern mainstream Hollywood. It's actually embarassing. | ||
| Craig (Craig) Username: Craig Registered: 03-2008 Posted From: 75.4.235.216 |
Oddly, Ramsey - just comparing those five films each, and just because they're the ones we chose - I notice a striking difference between the two lists: your five, viewed as wholes, are structurally different in feel (standing back, looked at fuzzily) than the former - the latter films are quite "film-ic" in feel - KING KONG and CAT PEOPLE and THE MUMMY have Hollywood-structure writ large over them, while LOST HIGHWAY and REPULSION reflect avante-garde/surreal/experimental structures in film. The five I've listed are more "novel-ic" in feel, or reflect (imho) novel-ic structures over film-ic structures. Again, I mean as a whole, not exclusively one or the other... and my bent towards "the best horror films" (quoting me) seem to reflect my preference for films that adapt novel-ic structures over film-ic structures. I do love the films you listed, but wouldn't have thought to include them on a list of the pinnacle of "best of"s... personal preference and subjectivity rule the day again, it appears.... |