Film, life and everything in between

Thursday, July 20, 2006

(No) remakes galore!

Here we go again. Recently, we had the chance to see the hazy, muddy, all-puns-intended The Fog; soon we will be treated to the Yuletide slashings of Black Christmas, and then Rob Zombie's vision of Halloween. The question is, why is Hollywood constantly updating classics? Horror is what first comes to mind because of the recent genre remakes, but there were films from many other genres being turned upside down in the last few years, becoming films like You've Got Mail, The Mummy and Cruel Intentions.

Let me first say that I am both pro and against remakes. How so, you wonder? Well, I am adamantly against them if the original film is perfect as is, for example, in the case of Rosemary's Baby (1968). First and foremost -- do not go there. Do not mess with it. Leave it alone. I am warning you. The fact is that this film elevated a story from a well written, but still pulpishly casual, novel to a masterpiece of urban paranoia and ultimate representation of evil. No one can ever come close to Polanski's vision of the story, so flawlessly it depicted the characters and atmosphere Ira Levin had created in his novel, so ingrained it has subsequently become in pop culture. The film was such a well made, critically acclaimed and popular cinematic version of a literary work that even the idea of a remake would be a travesty. 'Nuff said.

The case of The Fog (2005) is another one. This time, unfortunately, Hollywood dared to thread on the original. John Carpenter is a director able to create scares with maximum ambience and minimum gore. His characters were human and believable, the scares were well timed and the ghosts were threatening. Rupert Wainwright, director of the remake, is a visually oriented filmmaker whose hectic style did not correspond to the story at all. Add to that a bad screenplay with unnecessary backstories and melodramatic exaggerations, as well as the lead actors' age being lowered to appease the MTV generation, and you have one bad movie on your hands. To top it all off, I was more bored than scared. Do not waste two hours of your life with this flick.

As for my pro-remake reasoning, I am always aesthetically fascinated by seeing another director's vision of a certain film. You've Got Mail (1998), for example, was a modern re-telling of The Shop Around the Corner (1940). It transferred a love story with a twist into our era and worked because it a) kept the essence of the story, b) had the indelible chemistry between Meg Ryan and Tom Hanks and c) offered innovative updates and additions such as e-mail. 

Contrary to Rosemary's Baby, The Shop was not a pop culture phenomenon; it did not have a notoriety attached to it that would rightfully prevent a remake. Sure, it had the rustic charm of a bygone era's subtleties, but I feel that this mood could have been translated with the right cast, screenplay and cinematography, which in turn I feel Ephron has achieved.

Some remakes have managed to impress me more than the originals. Yes, believe it or not, it is possible. I thought Gore Verbinski had managed to pull off The Ring's (2002) atmosphere of intrusive terror more effectively than Hideo Nakata with Ringu (1998). I appreciated the reserved chills of Nakata's vision, but felt that Verbinski's film was more effective with its darkness and gloomy urban settings.

One of the Ring's many clever aspects was the melancholy atmosphere of rainy Seattle. A sunny, happy place would not have done the trick for this mystery. The anticipation of the unexpected is another important part. From the very first moment, you have no idea what is about to take place; after the opening scene ends, you are aware that the sleepover has ended badly, but you are still not sure what happened. However, something feels off, something feels darkly wrong, and it is this sensation of ominous chaos that draws you into The Ring. I should also say that the tape in this film scared me more than the Ringu video, since I found the images on it much more surreal and bizarre; the very sound of it is enough to keep you up at night. For successfully adapting the elements of the original mystery to the Western atmosphere while retaining the horror and emotion of the story, Verbinski reaches a high spot on my list of extra-talented directors.

Another story altogether are films that offer new takes on the original material, with 'new takes' signifying new sets of cultural values and circumstances. Roger Kumble's Cruel Intentions (1999) is a fantastic example of this trend, translating Pierre Choderlos de Laclos's 18th century aristocratic decadence into contemporary New York City's nouveau riche society. Amy Heckerling's Clueless (1995), on the other hand, places the titular heroine from Jane Austen's novel Emma into mid-nineties Beverly Hills, creating a collection of phrases along the way that are now an essential part of last decade's pop glossary. These directors have proved to be creative in their approach to these narratives, adding a post-modern twinkle to the already vivacious stories.

My final thoughts on the subject are related to the necessity, or lack thereof, of remakes. I believe that film fans should make an effort to seek out original films whenever possible, particularly when scholars and critics consider a work to be part of the cinematic canon. As for remakes, sure, sometimes it is fascinating to see a new perspective on an old story, but sometimes a story is better off left alone. It all depends on the filmmaker's good judgment and style; mostly, however, it is up to his or her creative instinct to make the idea their own. It is creativity that brings good, bold works to the silver screen and that, my friends, is the sign of a true original.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home