What started this, you wonder.
What caused me to opine in the middle of the day about the proper role of the remake?
Simple–we’ve been talking a lot about remakes here lately, and this is all thanks to reader G.D. Smith who weighed in my post “Rob Zombie: Brilliant Maverick Visionary or Moron?”. And he gave me the opportunity of a lifetime to weigh in on what a remake SHOULD be.
I do believe there’s a proper role for the remake. And its role is simple.
Much in the same way a classic car can look dull and dingy after years of storage, sometimes, it needs a nice wash and a fresh coat of wax and to be taken out and driven a bit. There is the proper role of the remake.
Consider, for a moment, the Night of the Living Dead 1990 theatrical rerelease. For the most part, it was almost the same as the original. Sure, some details were changed; Barbara was no longer a catatonic wreck but rather a postmodern feminist badass type. Cooper was no longer a help but a serious hindrance. Some changes had been made, but for the most part, things were at least mostly in the same place.
The closer a remake comes to the original, the better. A remake should be the original film, just with a “fresh coat of wax”, the introduction of new, modern special effects and shooting techniques. I mean, seriously–who doesn’t like the thought of The Exorcist, as it was originally, but in full 5.1 surround and 1080p? Yeah, didn’t think so.
A remake needs to stay as true as it possibly can to the original. The original was a good movie in its own right, but a remake can be even better, if it takes the old movie in its entirety and makes ti better with new effects.
Popularity: 1% [?]
eoin ofaolain said
September 2 2009 @ 4:03 am
Have to disagree there with ya. Giving a film a dust with a mild change to make it more modern doesn’t really work. I mean what’s the point? What would that ever achieve? It may have the opportunity to introduce a new audience to the story but if you believed that then you believe that every single good film should be remade. Besides, capturing the essence of a classic is harder than you think, as its brilliance may be a complex combination of great cinematography, nuanced performances, amazing script emphasising the right themes. And any film that would try to recreate that would fail. Look at the remake of The Omen, and how it tried to be the original, and how boring it was and made you just want to watch the original.
No, I think if you’re going to remake something, then take the basic theme or plot and completely rewrite it, completely redo it so that it becomes a film in its own right, and not a futile attempt to recreate an original classic. Do an Inglourious Basterds, or a The Thing or a Body Snatchers which took the basic plot and completey redid it so that it represented something different (from cold war paranoia to US government conspiracies or fear of fatal viruses)
g d smith said
September 2 2009 @ 5:41 am
the 1990 Night of the Living Dead remake is great because it updates the subtext. Vietnam is replaced by Bosnia. The zombies are virtually harmless. By the end of the film the heroine realises she does not even need to run away from them, let alone destroy them. the rednecks act like they’re ethnic cleansing, whilst Tony Todd’s character is a paranoid religious fanatic causing more problems than he solves throughout the entire film. In this case a new gloss of paint worked. For me it did not work with TCM because the film retains enough of the original to be pointless and ditches so many of the underlying themes it’s insulting.
Then there are remakes in name only. Call Black Christmas 2007, or whenever it was, The Yuletide Slayer and it’s a fun slasher flick, but it is not Black Christmas.
In the case of Rob Zombie’s Halloweens. Well the fact is Zombie is an Autier, more Fulci or Russ Meyer (if he was into horror rather than big breasts) than Hitchcock. Complaining that his Halloweens are Rob Zombie films is just silly.
Paulsterine said
September 2 2009 @ 7:42 am
Eoin hi mate , would love to see more post from you on the site, i tried to contact you about more work but i think i have lost your email and way thx for posting on the site.
Steve Anderson said
September 2 2009 @ 10:09 am
Eoin–with all due respect, man, that’s insane. Why on earth would you take something that clearly works so well that it could even be considered as worthy to be introduced to new audiences and then drastically change it? All you’re doing then is trying to amke a new movie with old characters, and down that road lies things like Michael Bay’s bombastic Transformers nightmare and Rob Zombie’s Halloween miseryfest.
It’s just like G.D said up there–and see, man? I told you you were getting quoted for truth on that one–if you’re doing a remake, you do it just like restoring a classic car. Sure, maybe you change a few names. Vietnam becomes Bosnia, because it’s more relevant and it really doesn’t alter the basic plot. You change a filter here, a sparkplug there. But you leave the overall body of the film alone.
You don’t tear apart a ‘65 Corvette to make an SUV.
But G.D.–maybe it’s just been a while since my last go-round, but that’s one of my favorite movies so I have to mention. I don’t remember Tony Todd’s character being a “paranoid religious fanatic who causes more problems than he solves”. He led the charge to get gas, even if Tommy and Judy Rose graphically screwed it up. He started the venture to board up the house. And remember, it was HIM Cooper was shooting at from the stairwell. You want more problems than he solves? That’s all Cooper.
Steve Anderson said
September 2 2009 @ 10:13 am
Oh, and G.D.–RINO. Remake In Name Only. I’ve GOT to remember that one. You mind if I use it?
eoin ofaolain said
September 2 2009 @ 12:47 pm
Hey Steve,
My point is that making a remake is pointless if all you’re doing is dusting it off. Now I haven’t seen the Living Dead remake so I can’t comment, but my problem is that dusting a film off, as you say, is utterly pointless in itself. Dusting something off doesn’t make it worth watching. In fact, it makes it not worth watching at all. Why would you bother watch a film with updated references when you can watch the original? It’s only worth watching if there’s something new to add, and not minor, superficial teaks. How many people watched Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake of Psycho? Very few. Did you not watch The Omen and felt like switching it off to watch the original?
Now, what I meant by my post is that I believe it is possible to take a central theme of an original and make a remake, but a loose one at that. Loose in that it respects the themes but does something quite different eith plot or character. I don’t mean this in terms of Transformers and Halloween (neither of which I’ve seen so I’m making assumptions here), which are bad not because they changed the premise of originals, but because they only represented the superficial elements of the originals and are essentially idiotic themselves. But I’m thinking of films like The Magnificent Seven, a drastic reworking of Seven Samurai that worked, A Fistful of Dollars which reworked Yojimbo, The Thing, The Fly. Hell, I think a great remake of Face Off is possible as a moody noir-esque thriller!
Steve Anderson said
September 2 2009 @ 2:23 pm
Eoin–
You’ve said a lot there, so I’ll have to tackle it point by point. Stuff in the bars is yours.
——–
Now I haven’t seen the Living Dead remake so I can’t comment, but my problem is that dusting a film off, as you say, is utterly pointless in itself. Dusting something off doesn’t make it worth watching. In fact, it makes it not worth watching at all.
——–
Is there no room in your philosophy for sheer respect, Eoin? For bringing that great classic out of its vault and restoring it to its former glory and beyond? Of making it sparkle like a vampire in Forks at dawn?
A remake should show a movie as we saw it then to the audiences of today, with all the best techniques we can show. The greatest films aren’t great because they had the choicest effects; if that were true then Michael Bay would be hailed as a genius by everyone. The greatest films were great for their STORIES. When you do a remake, you should take that original story as originally as you can take it, and show it as though it were filmed today.
————
Why would you bother watch a film with updated references when you can watch the original? It’s only worth watching if there’s something new to add, and not minor, superficial teaks. How many people watched Gus Van Sant’s shot-for-shot remake of Psycho? Very few. Did you not watch The Omen and felt like switching it off to watch the original?
————
I preferred the Van Sant version of Psycho for just that reason. Why would you watch a film in its original form, with cracking audio, pops and hisses from the soundtrack, artifacts in the video? Would you have us all watch movies on VHS in order to “see the original”? Should we all own 35mm projectors?
That’s the biggest reason right there to do remakes–to correct the problems of age. To see the action clearly, to hear the sound without incident. To take a champion storyline and give it the best possible face forward. To shine the hubcaps and add that third coat of wax. To take that great engine and those classic lines and make them gleam like new once again.
Like I said, that’s the point of a remake, to take work that’s so enduring as to be viable today and make those minor tweaks to show the world what it would look like if it were done today, instead of twenty, thirty, forty years ago. THAT’S a proper remake.
————–
Now, what I meant by my post is that I believe it is possible to take a central theme of an original and make a remake, but a loose one at that. Loose in that it respects the themes but does something quite different eith plot or character. I don’t mean this in terms of Transformers and Halloween (neither of which I’ve seen so I’m making assumptions here), which are bad not because they changed the premise of originals, but because they only represented the superficial elements of the originals and are essentially idiotic themselves. But I’m thinking of films like The Magnificent Seven, a drastic reworking of Seven Samurai that worked, A Fistful of Dollars which reworked Yojimbo, The Thing, The Fly. Hell, I think a great remake of Face Off is possible as a moody noir-esque thriller!
—————-
This may be the biggest problem. You really should see what remakes aren’t to better understand my argument behind what remakes should be.
Just like G.D. said above about Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it failed because so much of the original was changed or lost. It wasn’t really a remake any more, it was a new movie with old characters. When you take someone else’s characters and put them in a new movie, you’re not remaking anything–you’re stealing characters. This should be regarded in the same vein as fan fiction, not handed massive budgets and accolades. It’d be one thing if this were done quietly as tributes to the original, but no. In Hollywood, apparently you can get handed fortunes to take other people’s work and make it yours.
Most everywhere else, that’s called plagiarism.
g d smith said
September 2 2009 @ 2:57 pm
More than Happy to let you use RINO.
Fistful of Dollars fits both the regloss and rethink school of remake. Some scenes are replicated almost shot for shot from Yojimbo. Dollars is more iconic and the soundtrack is one of the greatest ever. But Yojimbo for me is the better film. I like both.
But horror films are so driven by changes in FX and are so tied to a particular film culture that a good remake is valid. The film buff in me cringes at the thought of remakes, but given the choice I’ve watched Night of the Living Dead 1990 more than the original. An Exorcist remake would need a brave director, because stipped of its classic status this is a seriously nasty film and very very morbid.
eoin ofaolain said
September 2 2009 @ 3:37 pm
Ahh,
I see what you mean Steve. But now I’m the one that thinks you’re insane
. You see, I don’t see any point in remaking a film just to update the media used. You may have had an argument 20 years ago but in this day and age of DVD and Blu Ray remastering, remaking a film just to upgrade what it was shot on is pointless. Just watch the remastered DVDs of Citizen Kane, Eraserhead, Blade Runner, Lawrence of Arabia, and you’ll see and hear something without the skips, hairs, or crackles. If you want to re-introduce a film to a modern audience simply restore it and re-release it, not remake it.
And as I mentioned a while back, just reshooting the same script or keeping he same story doesn’t guarantee that the remake will work. You may prefer the Psycho remake (you’re the only one I’ve ever met!), but for me the reason I don’t like Gus Van Sant’s one is because of performance. Anthony Perkins is amazing as Norman Bates, he’s jittery, he’s unhinged but only very slightly so, as if he’s brimming underneath the surface. Vince Vaughn has none of this, there’s no intensity to his performance, and thus the film loses tension. Also, the only difference I remember about the two is that in one scene in the remake it’s obvious that Bates is masturbating as he watches the Marion character. In the original it’s not evident at all. I prefer the original choice for two reasons. Firstly, by not showing everything it makes the film more suggestive, and its that ambiguity that creates a more potent effective (e.g. it’s what you don’t see that frightens you the most). Secondly, on a psychological level it makes more sense that Bates doesn’t masturbate, that he is unable to deal with his sexuality on any level and internalises his frustration, making him unhinged. So all in all, a classic becomes a classic for many obvious but also many subtle reasons, and an attempt to recreate that can never be guaranteed.
You mention respecting a film- but how is a carbon copy respect? If the original film was so good as an act of expression than how can copying it complement? Such a copy could only be insulting to the visionary who created the original.
My idea of remake is, I suppose, reinterpretation more than remake. It’s cover version more than carbon copy. Think of how some music cover versions can use the original but make it into something completely different, like Jeff Buckley’s reworking of Leonard Cohen’s Hallelujah, Hendrix reworking Dylan’s All Along the Watchtower, etc. They become not a copy, but become something different and good WITHOUT insulting the original.
Okay, that’s enough for now. Maybe we should publish this?
Steve Anderson said
September 2 2009 @ 8:47 pm
Eoin–surely film school degrees have been won for less.
Though I should say that it IS respect to the original to produce a carbon copy using the most modern techniques. It should serve as proof that the original work is so enduring and so unquestionably brilliant that it deserves all the restoration efforts the modern era can generate. It should say “This is a movie of such brilliance that we cannot let it go unnoticed. This is what it would look like if we shot it today.”
G.D–thanks, brother. Doubtless there’ll be RINOs aplenty to come.
The Daily Wrap Up - Specs, reviews and prices. said
September 2 2009 @ 10:21 pm
[...] to begin renting movies? Panasonic presents new lenses: LUMIX G20 and LEICA DG The Proper Role of the Remake World of Warcraft faction transfers now underway Lexus shows off LF-Ch renders The Scooter Store [...]
iRuston Tech Blog » Blog Archive » The Daily Wrap Up said
September 3 2009 @ 7:55 am
[...] to begin renting movies? Panasonic presents new lenses: LUMIX G20 and LEICA DG The Proper Role of the Remake World of Warcraft faction transfers now underway Lexus shows off LF-Ch renders The Scooter Store [...]