|
The go to source for Creatives seeking Resources and Insights |
|
|
Play It Again and Again, Sam
By HENRY P. RALEIGH
ART TIMES April, 2005
IT
DOES SEEM to be an unquestioned given by Hollywood filmmakers that a film that
had once a proven record of success is surely bound to repeat that success if
made all over again — especially if up-dated with a generous bounty of
hi-tech effects not available to the original. Better yet, try to squeeze in
a Nicole Kidman or a Denzel Washington or a Jude Law and you've got a guarantee,
right? I mean how can you go wrong and look,
if you can't think of anything else give it a shot. So why doesn't it work as
expected? See what happened in 2004 to "The Manchurian Candidate",
"The Alamo", "Stepford Wives", "Alfie", "Around
the World in 80 Days" and "Walking Tall" — all remakes,
all big let-downs. Only "The Italian Job" and "Dawn of the Dead"
managed to hold their own. Now you might think filmmakers would learn something
from this. Weren't there enough past remake mistakes to advise caution when
rooting among old box-office hits? Try "Mr. Deeds", "Breathless",
"The Thing", "Village of the Damned" — need one go
on? Even turning "Nights of Cabiria" into a musical for "Sweet
Charity" couldn't help. Yet here we go into 2005 with "Assault on
Precinct 13", "War of the Worlds", "The Pink Panther",
"The Legend of Zorro", "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory",
"Fun With Dick and Jane", and "King Kong" — can you
believe it, the last remake of a remake and, are they serious, Steve Martin
replacing Peter Sellers as Inspector Clouseau? Alan Arkin had a better chance
back in 1968 with his "Inspector Clouseau". In an act of desperation,
no doubt, even the 60's sit-com "Bewitched" is being reworked for
film. You know, it's getting like the cable movie channels which own five or
six films and endlessly recycle them back and forth. Of course, Hollywood does
change the actors save maybe for Kidman and Matt Damon.
The
thing I figure, is that filmmakers think about remakes all wrong. It's pretty
plain to me that a film that was either a cult classic or was really good to
begin with is something to be left alone. Fool around with it and you unavoidably
invite comparison and the odds don't favor a remake to come out on top. Take
"War of the Worlds" for example. To my mind that film belongs forever
to the 50's It has the jingly noises that all scary films of the period had
plus those strangely bright primary colors that marked the technicolor process
back then — and it’s a cherished memory of my youth in the nicest
decade of the century. Do you want a grinning Tom Cruise, ten inches shorter
than Gene Barry, the hero of the genuine "War of the Worlds", destroying
all that? And how about "Alfie" — Michael Caine was a man of
the 60's through and through, a man that we of similar age could easily identify
with. Jude Law is a postmodern man, cute and cuddly and doesn't mind showing
his feminine side. A remake, after all, can disappoint not because it's a poor
film, which it probably is, but because no matter how you jigger it around it
remains the creature of another time and I say, leave it there.
Now, one way filmmakers who can't think of anything
else to do can beat the curse of remakes is to never remake a film more than
five years old or, and this is important advice that I offer absolutely
free: remake only clunkers, preferably unknown or long forgotten clunkers that had never gotten any
further than a matinee or two at some sleazy movie house in East Texas. Give
a whirl at what can be done with a 1971 film called "The Erotic Adventures
of Heidi" — a perfect vehicle for, maybe, Meg Ryan, as would certainly
be "Ilsa She-Wolf of the SS" and its sequel of topical interest, "Ilsa:
Harem Keeper of the Oil Sheiks". Clint Eastwood could surely produce a
winner from any of the 40's Lash LaRue films. Come to think of it his ""The
Unforgiven" was a lot like "Law of the Lash". And for that gaggle
of younger actresses like Kirsten Dunst, Reese Witherspoon and Natalie Portman
just stick them together in remakes of the 70's risque cheerleader films. I'd
suggest "Revenge of the Cheerleaders" followed by "Satan's Cheerleaders"
— and for that international touch, "Six Swedes on a Campus"
shouldn't be overlooked either.
Once Hollywood catches on to this I'll bet plenty of
those independent filmmakers will want to get into the challenging arty and
existential possibilities of remaking instructional shorts as "How to Benefit
from Tax Reform" or "Just What is a Computer, Anyway?" The beauty
is that these old losers had never earned any critical reviews that could be
held up to the remakes and with the possible exception of a few ancient film
geeks, no one will have ever seen them — or if they had, will never admit
it.
… And by the way, all of the above sold on 16mm.
and at a very reasonable price.
