It has been a common thing in movies as of recent years that many properties are getting remade, usually in a pattern of thirty years in between the original and the remake. Though that is a rather small estimation, the 80's have been a high source of material to be remade just in the past few years alone, although some also fit into the "reboot" category, taking the property and going a different direction. The remake can find an audience due to the nostalgia factor of having watched the originals at a younger age, thus probably can be used as an excuse for movie companies to make a quick buck despite being an inferior product. There is a rarer type of remake, where the same director of the original is behind the helm. This is a different animal to tackle due to the immediate involvement of the creator behind the the original. What reason would they have in doing so? There are two broad reasons I can think of so let's look at some examples of movies that fall under this criteria.
Two early examples of this occurring would be from the earlier productions of cinema, the creations of Alfred Hitchcock and Celil B. Demille, with their movies The Man Who Knew Too Much and The Ten Commandments. Since that everyone has probably heard of The Ten Commandments, it shall be the first starting point. The first time Demille put his biblical epic to the screen, it was in 1923 with an overall budget of almost $1.5 million, used two-strip Technicolor and had one of it's most lauded effects (the parting of the Red Sea) done using Jell-O. Although one of the bigger differences between the two was that in this version, the story of Moses only takes up about a third of the 136 minute running time, with the rest of the film focusing on a cautionary tale set in modern day about the ways different interpretations of the commandments can affect the way someone can live their life. A major oddity considering the gigantic sets built for the Moses story, including 35 foot tall statues and 110 foot gates requiring the assistance of 1600 workers,all for such a little but of screen time, and then only to be blown up later. Why Demille chose to remake this film is one that can be explained in a way that could only fit him: he wanted a bigger and better film than before. Anyone who has seen it can attest to the size and scope of the movie, a testament to the vision he wanted to bring to the screen. Improving on the original, while can be for different reasons, can be a reason that would be rather respected among peers. The Man Who Knew Too Much would also fit into this boat as Hitchcock himself had said "Let's say the first version is the work of a talented amateur and the second was made by a professional." My knowledge of the film is lacking so I will not go into further detail about it.
This philosophy of remakes does not necessarily have to mean that the original was either a big budget Hollywood film or either separated by a large number of years. Michael Mann in 1989 made a TV movie intended for a future series called LA Takedown, which follows a LA detective named Vincent Hanna as he chases Patrick McLaren, a professional robber. If that plot sounds awfully similar to the movie Heat, it should not be as much of a surprise as expected due to that also being directed by Mann. Both movies are only separated by six years while showing a large improvement from one to the other. The plot does not have that much of a difference aside from added subplots in the remake, most notably the whole matter involving Van Zant, which could be explained due to 70 pages were removed from the script for time constraints. LA Takedown, as being a made for TV movie, had a cast of relative unknowns or character actors who also appeared in Miami Vice as guest roles which could be one of the bigger detriments towards the original when compared to the big name cast of Heat, adding enough star power to make a better acted film all the more easier. While it could be kind of a redundant process as the six year gap in between the movies, it at least transcended some medium barriers to make it at least worthwhile.
Which comes to the next movie, the whole inspiration for the post: The Vanishing. Directed by George Sluizer and released in 1988, the original film (itself an adaptation of the novella The Golden Egg) focuses on a Dutch couple (later just one of them) named Rex and Saskia who are on holiday in France when during a stop at a petrol station, Saskia mysteriously vanishes. After this point, most of the movie focuses on the man behind her disappearance, Raymond, with some time spent with Rex as he grows obsessive wondering what happened. After Rex is interviewed, Raymond finally meets him and says he wants to satisfy his obsession. The final third of the film is spent with both of them on a trip while Raymond explains some of his motivations regarding why he kidnapped Saskia and leads to a rather abrupt but poignant ending that fits with the tone of the film. The movie itself was well received and was remade five years later to be more palatable to American audiences, which can be an easier way of saying butchered. It is hard to explain why the movie failed the way it did but there are easy reasons to where differences between the films show what went wrong. The more obvious flaw to the remake is the "happy" ending tacked on to the remake, only really making any sense due to the added amount of time spent on Jeff's (the Rex of the remake) new girlfriend, who in the original was not as involved in the plot, exiting the story shortly before the meeting of Rex and Raymond. The added time spent with Jeff and his girlfriend takes away from the remakes Raymond, Barney, who does not really seem as developed a character as he was in the original despite being played by Jeff Bridges. The casting also really suffers due to the lacking script, leading to a lot of wasted talent only exacerbated by having the original director involved. While remaking foreign movies to make them more attractive to American audiences is not really a new thing, the fact that it leads to the film being devoid of the original's emotion despite having the talent behind it is rather a sad thing to deal with.
The final film for discussion can fit into the Americanized remake yet also suffers from being too similar to the original to the point where it becomes rather unnecessary. The film is Michael Haneke's Funny Games which was originally a 1997 Austrian film later remade ten years later. The movie could at best be described as a experiment to mess with the expectations of the viewer, while also being a message on violence in media, making, in the words of the director, "a violent yet pointless film." The movie itself could be considered a home invasion film as two mysterious teens hold a family of three hostage. It often breaks the 4th wall as the leader of the two, Paul, often acknowledges the audience either by talking to them directly or just occasional winks. The other one, Peter, references the tropes and cliches of suspense and thriller type movies as well. This in turn, leads to both characters both following and defying the standard plot elements where even the ending is literally rewound in order to mess with the audience. The remake was done in America as was Haneke's original intention and while the intention is well, maybe due to the fact it is a shot-for-shot remake, it is even more of a pointless film than the original. It is hard to say how much of a difference really exists as I have not watched the remake but despite an English speaking cast and an American crew, there probably isn't enough of a difference for a remake to be necessary.
There are more movies that could be discussed here and maybe someday I will get into it (possibly much better than I am now) but this at least gives a basic idea of the reasoning why remakes happen especially when they involve the original team and director in an immediate matter. Whether or not it happens more in the coming years remains to be seen but remakes are an idea that not everyone will get behind yet will happen. Just hope that it ends up working out, or there is still the original at least.
No comments:
Post a Comment